Using IEC 61850 Process Bus To Meet NERC PRC-
005-2 Condition Based Maintenance Requirements
Rich Hunt
GE Digital Energy
Apex, NC, USA
richard.hunt@ge.com
Abstract—Process bus uses distributed merging units to sample
analog measurements such as currents and voltages. The use of
redundant merging units allows relays to continuously monitor
the performance of the merging units by comparing the values
from each. This continuous monitoring meets NERC PRC-005-2
Condition Based Maintenance requirements, and eliminates the
need for routine testing of protective relay analog circuits.
Index Terms—Power system protection, automatic testing,
system testing
I. INTRODUCTION
Testing of protective relays started as a necessary
requirement to ensure reliable performance of the protection
system. Electromechanical relays require routine testing to
assure the physical condition of aging mechanical components
or mechanical component failure does not compromise
protection performance, or prevent the electrical system from
operating as intended. Testing also verifies that the settings as
intended are correctly applied on these relays.
Microprocessor relays still require routine testing to ensure
reliable performance. Microprocessor relays offer the
advantage of self-testing: the digital parts of the relay (the
electronics, software, board voltages, etc.) are continuously
self-tested, and failure or change can be indicated and
alarmed. However, microprocessor relays still have analog
electronic and electromechanical components where operation
can change over time and must be tested. These include the
analog measurement channels, contact outputs, and input
contacts.
Since protective relays are critical components to system
reliability, NERC (the North America Electric Reliability
Corporation) requires that relays ability to perform must be
proven at regular intervals. NERC Reliability Standard PRC-
005-2 “Protection System Maintenance” [2] defines the
maintenance requirements and intervals for protection
systems. NERC recognizes that regular (or continuous) self-
monitoring of microprocessor protective relays is possible,
allowing for Condition Based Monitoring (CBM).Table 1-1
details the specific requirements to achieve CBM as follows:
 Internal self-diagnosis and alarming.
978-1-4799-8722-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Tom Ernst
GE Digital Energy
WI, USA
 Voltage and/or current waveform sampling three
or more times per power cycle, and conversion of
samples to numeric values for measurement
calculations by microprocessor electronics.
 Alarming for power supply failure.
 AC measurements are continuously verified by
comparison to an independent ac measurement
source, with alarming for excessive error.
 Some or all binary or status inputs and control
outputs are monitored by a process that
continuously demonstrates ability to perform as
designed, with alarming for failure.
 Alarming for change of settings.
If all of these criteria are met then the only time based
maintenance requirement (TBM) is to verify only the
unmonitored relay inputs and outputs that are essential to
proper functioning of the Protection System at least every 12
years. An obvious goal for utilities is to move relays, as much
as practical, to CBM as opposed TBM. However, this is not
easy to achieve with traditional microprocessor relays.
Process bus places all the electromechanical components
likely to fail into separate merging units (MUs), remote I/O
modules (RIOs), and process interface units (PIUs). Therefore,
under PRC-005-2 protective relays and MUs/RIOs/PIUs can
have different testing requirements. Most importantly, relays
and MUs/RIOs/PIUs can be tested independently from each
other. Also, the ability of a relay to subscribe to multiple
analog data streams from multiple MUs permits the relay to
continuously monitor analog measurement channels, meeting
the criteria for CBM and eliminating the need to do TBM on
the analog channels.
This paper describes possible testing strategies that take
advantage of the continuous monitoring of the digital
components and analog channels, to meet the criteria for CBM
testing strategy.
546 ProRelay 2015
 II. RELAY TESTING
Protective relay testing can be broken down into 4 basic
types: acceptance testing, commissioning testing, maintenance
testing, and troubleshooting.
Acceptance testing is benchmark testing of a device by a
utility before it is accepted for use on the system. The intent is
to understand how the device operates, and how the device
can be applied for a typical protection application of the
utility.
Commissioning testing is verifying a new installation
and/or new configuration of a protection system is correct for
the specific site and application. This is basically verifying the
new (or upgraded) system was designed and installed
correctly. Commissioning testing will also be performed on
significant changes to an in-service protection system, such as
firmware changes or major protection function settings
changes. From a PRC-005-2 point of view, commission
testing establishes “time 0” to start the TBM clock on the
subject protection system component.
Maintenance testing is routine testing of in-service
equipment intended to detect device failures, degradation of
performance, loss of calibration, or hidden failures. The goal
is verifying that a specific protection system is still
functioning as commissioned. PRC-005-2 defines the interval
requirements, by component type, for TBM and the
requirements for CBM.
Troubleshooting testing is testing done to verify the root
cause of undesirable protection system operations. The testing
is intended to prove if the relay is working correctly, as well as
proving out the measurement and control circuits between the
relay and primary equipment. If properly documented,
troubleshooting testing might meet the PRC-005-2
requirements for TBM on the subject protection system
components.
This paper focuses primarily on maintenance testing, and
how to use process bus to reduce the effort required for
maintenance testing. Other types of testing will be discussed
as appropriate.
A. Why test
At the most basic, all protection system testing focuses on
answering 3 basic questions:
 Is the protection system installed correctly?
 Do devices have correct configurations for the
specific installation or application?
 Are the devices, components, and subsystems
working correctly?
Commissioning testing is intended to prove all 3 items
from this list. Maintenance testing is intended to prove the
third item (is everything working correctly?), and to an extent,
the second item (are devices configured correctly?). Devices
age, and not all failures, even in microprocessor relays, are
self-detecting and self-alarming. Maintenance testing is
performed with the goal of finding these hidden failures of the
protection system. PRC-005-2 defines maximum maintenance
547
Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
testing intervals for protection system components and
requires each North American owner to develop a
maintenance plan to assure compliance.
Note that testing only proves out the relay system at the
moment of test, not when fault events (or non-fault events)
occur. A hidden failure on a protection system, by definition,
is a failure that only results in an undesirable operation when a
system disturbance occurs. The goal of maintenance testing is
to find these hidden failures that are waiting to cause
problems. TBM testing of electronic devices is not optimal
since the device can fail at any time without warning.
Continuous or periodic automatic monitoring reduces the risk
of an undesirable operation by reducing the time between the
failure and the detection of the failure. Maintenance testing, or
any testing, cannot guarantee that a protection system won’t
fail.
III. TRADITIONAL MAINTENANCE TESTING
Traditional maintenance testing of a protection system is
designed around a TBM or “test and maintain” strategy of
operations. This strategy was historically required by
electromechanical relays due to the settings drift and
mechanical degradation that occurs. Microprocessor relay
testing, to date, typically uses a TBM test and maintain
strategy to detect failures in the unmonitored I/O circuits.
Maintenance testing uses a well understood process to test
a specific device so as to limit the risk of undesirable
operation due to the test. This process generally involves first
isolating the relay from the system by using test switches to
block output contacts, short CT secondaries, open VT
secondary circuits, and isolate contact inputs. The actual
testing is performed by injecting secondary currents and
voltages into the relay inputs (normally through test switches),
and finally reading the relay outputs to verify the operation of
the relay is as intended. There are many permutations as to
this process, and to what detail tests are actually performed.
They may be nothing more than a simple trip check to full
verification of protection element characteristics, but
maintenance tests all have the same goal of proving the device
is working correctly at the instant of the test, and for the
specific test conditions applied. The relay, or a component of
the relay, can fail within minutes of the test, and then go
undetected until the next maintenance test, or until a fault
occurs to expose this hidden failure.
This process may require primary equipment outages, and
will require interruption of signals between relays. In addition,
the protection system must be designed for testing, and the
physical interruption of signals to and from the relay under
test. Look at the typical protection scheme of Figure 1, with
Set A and Set B protection for reliability. Both relays look at
the same currents, breaker status, and breaker control
information independently, and both require testing. To test
Relay A, test switches are used to block output contacts, short
CTs, and block signals to Relay B, other relays, and
teleprotection equipment. Test switches are also used as the
injection point for test currents and voltages, and the
measurement point for relay outputs. This test infrastructure
must be designed and installed, and testing requires the
specialized tool of a relay test set, the knowledge to use this
tool, and the time and effort required to test.
Figure 1. Traditional relay maintenance testing
The question to ask is: what does maintenance testing of a
microprocessor relay really test? The microprocessor part of
the relay (where the actual application and protection elements
reside) is already continuously self-monitored, and is either
working correctly, or will be in an alarm state. What is being
tested are the relay I/O channels: the AC measurement
channels, contact input channels, and output contact channels,
in addition to some settings verification. The relay I/O may
not be continuously self-monitored or monitored at all, so the
only way to find degradation of performance or a hidden
failure is to test the channels directly. So traditional testing
requires the use of a relay test set to inject currents and
voltages, force protection elements to operate, to energize
output contacts to prove that they all work together, when the
actual goal is to only prove that the I/O channels are still
operating correctly.
The takeaway from this is that relay TBM testing is a
laborious process that only proves the system is operating at
the time of the test. There is no indication until the next test, or
the next power system event, if any changes or hidden failures
have occurred. The only information known is that the system
worked correctly at the time of the last maintenance test. In
the modern power system, the desire is to have a better
understanding of the real-time state of equipment, and to
spend less effort to know or to be confident a protective relay
will operate correctly when needed.
IV. PROCESS BUS
Process bus is nothing more than distributed I/O for
protective relaying, and one possible ramification from
applying process bus is simplifying testing. The term “process
bus” is in common use when talking about applications of IEC
61850. However, this term is not defined in the Standard
itself, but is more a term of usage. This paper defines “process
bus” as the exchange of sampled values, equipment status, and
equipment controls between primary system equipment (the
process level) and bay level devices (such as protective
relays). Specifically, in terms of the Standard, this means
process bus uses Interface 4 (instantaneous current and voltage
samples) and Interface 5 (device status and control) of IEC
61850-5.[1] For this paper, process bus means the sending of
digital values over these interfaces, and all associated process
bus equipment.
548
Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Process bus, in this definition, therefore moves all the
analog portions of a protective relay into separate I/O devices
located at primary equipment in the switchyard. Relays
therefore become fully self-monitored digital devices. Relays,
and the I/O devices, communicate via IEC 61850 message
formats over an Ethernet-based communications network. The
concept is illustrated in Figure 2.
The I/O devices in the switchyard are defined as merging
units (MUs), remote I/O modules (RIOs), and process
interface units (PIUs).
Figure 2. Process bus
A. Merging units
The piece of process bus equipment most commonly
discussed is the merging unit, a device that simply connects to
instrument transformers, and publishes a stream of sampled
values to be used by other devices. Functionally, then, the
merging unit is simply the front end of a microprocessor relay
analogue-to-digital circuit, without the magnitude estimation.
In this paper, a merging unit is a device that only publishes
sampled values.
B. Remote I/O modules
A Remote I/O module, or RIO, is a device that is simply
contact I/O for process bus systems. The RIO is intended to
be the status and control interface for primary system
equipment such as circuit breakers, transformers, and
isolators. RIOs may support only GOOSE publish and
subscribe communications, or they may also support MMS
client and server communications.
C. Process Interface Units
A process interface unit (PIU) is a device that combines a
merging unit and a RIO into one piece of hardware. The PIU
can publish sampled values and GOOSE, and subscribe to
GOOSE. From an installation standpoint, a PIU can make
more sense in many applications than separate MUs and RIOs.
For example, a PIU is a very good process bus I/O device for a
dead tank circuit breaker with bushing CTs.
D. Advantages to process bus from both PIUs and select the data from the appropriate PIU
The use of process bus has many distinct advantages over to use as the basis for relay algorithm calculations. The
conventional protection systems. Among these are the ability simplified logic of Figure 4 illustrates the measurement output
to quickly and more reliably design and install protective relay of an individual relay measurement channel.
systems, the ability to support rapid upgrade and replacement,
and the flexibility to support any type of protection system.
One of the most important of these is the ability to split a relay
into an application complex, installation simple relay platform,
and the application simple, installation complex MUs, RIOs,
and PIUs at the primary equipment. The most likely to fail
components (other than the power supply and fiber optic
communications ports) are moved out of the relay. This will
effectively extend the service life of the relay, so the central
protection application doesn’t have to be replaced or changed
on failing hardware components. The likely to fail
components are moved into the application simple MUs,
RIOs, and PIUs. By connectorizing the field wiring to these
modules, field replacement upon failure or degradation is
achieved simply by replacing the units.
A further advantage is the modular nature of a process-bus
based protection system. The protective relay now consists of
three independent sub-modules with overlapping zones of
connection. These are the relay module, the MU/RIO/PIU Figure 4. Relay measurement channel output logic
module, and the communications network. Due to the
overlapping nature of these modules, if each one of these In this logic, if the PIU A is available, meaning it is
modules works correctly, the whole system works correctly. operating, operating correctly with no self-test errors,
communicating, and configured for use in the relay, the relay
E. Multiple, redundant data streams will use the datastream from PIU A. If PIU A becomes
A final advantage, and one that is especially useful for unavailable, either through intentionally removing the PIU
CBM of protective relay systems, is the ability to freely assign from service, or through loss of communications or self-test
I/O devices to relays through the communications network. errors, the relay will use the datastream from PIU B as the
This allows one relay to connect to multiple merging units, for input for the measurement channel. If neither PIU is available,
example, and allows the relay to connect to redundant merging the data is set to a value of 0.
units. Therefore, a relay can have redundant measurements of The example of Figure 5 shows the results of this logic.
currents and voltages. Revisiting the protection example of The samples being recorded and transmitted from both PIU A
Figure 1, Figure 3 shows Set A and Set B relays now have Set and PIU B are not discrepant, meaning the CT secondary
A and Set B process interface units. The redundant PIUs circuits of both CTs, the analog measurement channels in both
measure redundant currents, and each relay connects to both PIUs, and the time synchronization of both PIUs are identical.
PIUs for redundant sampled value datastreams. The relay in this case uses the datastream from PIU A, and
uses that data as the measurement channel for the circuit
breaker current. Therefore the relay has an analog
Relay A measurement channel that is natively redundant, so the relay
operates as normal even with the loss of one merging unit or
PIU.
Fiber optic
52
cable

Relay B
PIU A

PIU B
Figure 3. Redundant merging units Figure 5. Redundant data, correct measurements

A well designed relay will be able to accept datastreams The example of Figure 6 shows the performance of the
from both PIU A and PIU B, and use them redundantly. One same measurement channel when a discrepancy between the
individual measurement channel in the relay will use the data measurements of 2 available PIUs is detected. During normal

549

Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
operation, the data from PIU A and PIU B are available and
not discrepant. At some point in time, the measurement chain
associated with PIU B, either the CT, CT secondary circuit, or
the analog measurement circuit in the PIU, suffers from some
kind of error. The relay analog measurement channel
immediately asserts a discrepant data alarm. The normal
action is to block protection in this case, but the key factor is
that the relay alarms the instant the failure occurs, and can
take action to prevent undesirable relay operation.
Figure 6. Redundant datastreams, discrepant data
An understanding of what “discrepant” data means is
necessary. Two measurements are considered discrepant when
they are not identical. In practical power system applications,
measurements from 2 different CTs and 2 different merging
units or PIUs will never be exactly identical. The discrepancy
check algorithm needs to have a ± deadband for comparison,
where small differences in value are allowed without declaring
them discrepant. As the magnitude of the measured quantity
increases, this deadband must be larger (or wider) to account
for more error. With CT measurements, the discrepancy check
must permit correct operation even when CTs saturate, and the
error gets large. This discrepancy check is normally performed
by comparing individual samples between the datastreams,
and not phasor quantities.
V. MAINTENANCE TESTING OF PROCESS BUS COMPONENTS
Process bus splits a microprocessor relay into 3 separate
subsystems: the microprocessor-based application controller,
the communications network, and the distributed I/O devices
of the merging unit, remote I/O module, and the process
interface unit. These 3 subsystems or zones overlap each
other: the application controller zone overlaps with the
communications zone, and the communications zone overlaps
with the I/O devices. This raises an important understanding
for testing purposes: if each of the 3 subsystems is tested or
monitored to be operating correctly, and the communications
path (through addressing and configuration) between the
controller and the I/O devices is correct, then the system is
correct. Therefore, each subsystem can be tested or monitored
independently from each other, using the appropriate testing
technique and tools, and potentially even on a different
schedule.
A. Microprocessor-based relay application controller
The microprocessor-based relay application controller is
the actual relay, where all the protection functions, control
logic, metering, recording, and communications take place.
The digital part of this device is continuously self-monitored
by software watchdogs and hardware monitoring. A problem
found in the digital portion raises an alarm and closes the relay
550
Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
health contact to raise a physical alarm. As long as no alarms
are present, the actual protection algorithms, logic functions,
and metering will be correct, and will have testable,
reproducible results. As identified in PRC-005-2 Table 1-1
there is no need for TBM testing of the digital relay itself. This
device can simply run to failure.
The other portions of this relay application controller are
the power supply and communications modules. The power
supply module will operate in a run to failure mode, and the
relay health contact will alarm when the power supply fails.
The communications module is continuously self-tested: loss
of communications either for SCADA, peer-to-peer relay
communications, or process bus communications, raises an
alarm for immediate investigation. Both the power supply and
communications modules meet the requirements as monitored
systems in PRC-005-2 and require no TBM testing.
Testing of the microprocessor portion may still require
some TBM testing. NERC PRC-005-2 requires routine
verification that the relay settings are as specified unless a
setting change causes an alarm. The alarm circuitry will also
require testing to assure that it is functional.
This microprocessor portion however does have a role in
process bus maintenance testing, that of continuous
monitoring of analog measurements, and as a monitoring and
control point for contact I/O during maintenance testing.
B. Communications network
The communications network transports sampled value
messages and GOOSE messages from MUs, RIOs, and PIUs
to relays, and GOOSE messages from relays back to MUs,
RIOs, and PIUs. The communications network is continuously
monitored: messages are published to the network and
received by subscribing devices, or they are not. Subscribing
devices will alarm if messages from publishing devices are not
received. The network devices (switches, gateways, clocks,
etc.) are micro-processor based devices themselves and
include self-monitoring and alarming. The communications
network meets the requirements as a monitored system in
PRC-005-2 and requires no TBM testing.
C. I/O devices
The I/O devices of process bus, the merging units, remote
I/O modules, and process interface units, do require testing to
identify any possible degradation of performance, loss of
calibration, or failure to operate or indicate correctly. These
devices include analog and electro-mechanical components
that age or fail, and have limited to no self-monitoring
capabilities. In short, the concept is to look for and identify
any possible hidden failures with these devices. The obvious
way to test these devices is to inject current and voltage into
MUs and PIUs to prove the analog measurement circuits,
force output contacts to prove that the contacts successfully
make and break, and to assert contact inputs to prove that
status signals are recognized. Further consideration needs to
be given to the notion that the MU/RIO/PIU devices are
associated with the primary field equipment (breaker,
transformer, VT, etc.) and often serve multiple relay
application controllers. Under PRC-005-2, any TBM testing
program for these devices would have to be scheduled during
the primary equipment outage rather than during the relay tests, to prove that the mechanical parts of output contacts and
outage. contact inputs work correctly. For a circuit breaker, the best
method is to use the associated relay to trip and close the
D. Continuous monitoring versus testing circuit breaker, and to verify the contact inputs associated with
CBM testing, where monitored devices run to failure, breaker status assert correctly. Other inputs associated with
alarm upon failure, and the system is designed to survive this gas pressure alarms, etc. will be asserted during breaker
failure in the short term is a more attractive method of maintenance activities, and therefore verified. Conversely, it is
maintaining the protection systems. The goal is to replace also possible simply to energize output contacts, and assert
testing with monitoring. Process bus, to a great extent, permits contact inputs, and simply verify the results. These tests can
this change in direction to monitoring. Properly implemented, only be performed when the associated primary equipment
as described in 4.5, every relay analog channel, using will be going through routine maintenance, or any time when
redundant merging units or PIUs, continuously monitors the there is a primary or plant outage, and testing can be done with
analog measurement channels, and will alarm when one of the low risk. Relay testing can be coordinated with scheduled
channels is discrepant, or when one of the channels becomes outages as opposed to requiring outages. Also, this testing is
unavailable due to self-test error or communications channel essentially tools free, and does not require a relay test set. So
loss. This is continuous, self-test monitoring of the analog for a remote I/O module, this is the explicit test strategy.
measurement channels through normal operations, and
through fault events. This provides for a “run to failure” mode
of operation, which can meet the CBM requirements of PRC-
005-2 with no TBM testing required of the analog channels.
Note that this continuous monitoring and run-to-failure
mode is only for the analog measurement channels of MUs
and PIUs. The communications network is also continuously
monitored, by the simple act of receiving subscribed messages
as expected. Output contacts and contact inputs, however,
must still be verified correct in some manner. The TBM
aspects of this verification can be minimized by designing the
I/O logic such that statuses are periodically exercised and
alarmed for improper response. This includes schemes such as
breaker trip coil monitoring logic that compares the continuity
through the trip coil with the breaker status input and
communication channel check-back logic running inside the
relay that verifies the functionality of the transmit and receive
I/O.

VI. PROCESS TESTING STRATEGY: DON’T TEST

The ability to continuously monitor analog measurements
in a process bus system leads to a powerful maintenance
testing strategy: don’t test the relays or the process bus I/O
units, but simply verify them. The possibility exists, for the
majority of the relay system, to operate in a “monitor and
replace” mode of operations. The basic test strategy for each
of the process bus components is outlined in Figure 7.
Parts of this strategy are obvious: since relays are self-
testing devices, the only routine testing required is to verify
that the relay settings in the relay match those of the
documentation records and this can be eliminated from the
TBM schedule if the relay alarms for a setting change. Figure 7. Process bus test strategy
Merging units, which are analog measurement only devices,
use the test strategy described in 5.4: redundant merging units, A process interface unit is an MU and RIO combined
continuously monitored, in a run-to-failure operation without together in one device, so the test strategy uses the MU test
testing. The communications network is continuously strategy for the analog measurement channels, and the RIO
monitored, and is also simply a run-to-failure operation test strategy for the contact I/O channels. Therefore, TBM
without testing. Therefore, process bus natively puts these testing is reduced to verifying the unmonitored contact I/O in
components into a CBM “monitor and replace” mode of RIOs and PIUs during primary equipment maintenance
operations. activities.
Contact I/O, however, requires verification. The
recommended strategy is to do simple control tests or trip

551

Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
A. Strategy 2: replace I/O units with lab tested units
A different strategy that is possible with process bus is to
not do testing at all, even verification testing of I/O. This
strategy is to simply replace in-service MUs, RIOs, and PIUs
in the field with lab-tested units. Remember that the
overlapping nature of the process bus subsystems allows any
individual subsystem to be changes without requiring testing
the whole system. As long as each part works, and
communicates correctly, the whole system works. Testing is
done in a production environment, and the I/O units can be
replaced on a regular schedule. However, this strategy may
require configuration changes either in the associated relays or
in the I/O devices that utilities may be uncomfortable with
performing without testing, so there may be little value. End
devices such as breaker trip coils and auxiliary relays will still
have to be TBM tested to meet the requirements of PRC-005-
2.
B. Commissioning testing
This paper is focused on maintenance testing of relays:
routine testing to ensure there are no hidden failures in the
protection system. This is one of the strengths of process bus,
because maintenance testing is reduced to verifying
unmonitored contact I/O. However, process bus has two
powerful advantages for commissioning testing. The first
advantage is that the individual subsystems of process bus: the
relays, the communications network, and the I/O devices, can
be installed and commissioned independently and separately
from each other. PIUs can be installed and commissioned,
relay panels can be commissioned and installed, and the
communications network can be installed and commissioned,
as separate and parallel activities. Since these systems overlap,
if each system is operating correctly, then the whole system is
also operating correctly. The second advantage is that the
entire system can be designed, configured, and tested in a
factory acceptance before shipping to site for installation. So
the strategy is commission the system during a factory
acceptance test, ship the system to site, install the subsystems
in parallel, and perform a maintenance test to verify the
functionality of the I/O.
C. Other comments
Troubleshooting testing is also greatly improved with
process bus. When troubleshooting a process bus installation,
the first goal is to identify which subsystem is not correct, then
to simply replace the failed pieces. For example, when an
analog channel raises a discrepancy alarm, a quick review of
the raw data from each PIU will indicate which one has an
552
Authorized licensed use limited to: Prairie View A M University. Downloaded on July 01,2022 at 18:13:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
error in the measurement chain. Substituting a new PIU for the
not correct one will indicate if this error is a failure in the PIU
error or in the CT / VT circuit error.
An obvious next step is to go to a complete monitor and
replace system. This requires the development of methods to
self-monitor output contacts and contact inputs. The authors
do not believe output contact test circuits using auxiliary
relays as a breaker simulator is an appropriate method, as this
simply introduces new failure modes and would not meet the
CBM requirements of PRC-005-2 for breaker trip coil circuits.
The long term vision should be to adopt the contact
monitoring technology used by equipment in the process
automation world.
While process bus allows the majority of the elements of a
protection system to operate in a “monitor and replace” run-to-
failure mode, regulatory bodies may still require routine
testing to prove there are no hidden failures. In this instance,
the strategy should be, if possible, to document the results of
the continuously monitored system as evidence of the CBM
program.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Adopting process bus as the standard for protective relay
systems has many advantages. One of the largest advantages is
the reduction in testing effort required, especially for TBM
testing. For analog measurements, when using redundant
merging units or process interface units, process bus
eliminates the need for routine testing, and operates in a run-
to-failure mode of operation. For contact I/O, testing is
simplified down to verifying the correct operation of the
unmonitored I/O, without the need for relay test sets, while
regular primary equipment maintenance is being performed.
Moving from TBM to CBM testing of relay systems changes
the effort required from a “days” activity using special tools
and test sets, to an “hour” activity using standard hand tools.
Process bus therefore is the first step in moving from a “test
and maintain” mode of operations (TBM), to a more cost
effective “monitor and replace, run-to-failure” mode of
operation (CBM).
REFERENCES
[1] IEC International Standard "Communication networks and systems in
substations - Part 5: Communications requirements for functions and
device models", IEC Reference number IEC/TR 61850-5:2003(E), IEC,
Geneva, Switzerland
[2] NERC Standard PRC-005-2 “Protection System Maintenance”, North
American Electric Reliability Corporation, Washington, DC, USA