skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A COMPARISON OF PHASOR COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS

Abstract

In this paper, we compare three approaches used for continuous transfer of real-time synchrophasor data: IEEE C37.118.2-2011, IEC TR 61850 90 5 and a new protocol being developed under the Department of Energy (DOE) project DOE-OE-859 called the Streaming Telemetry Transport Protocol (STTP). STTP is currently being advanced as a potential third standard protocol via the IEEE Power Engineering Society STTP P10 Work Group (P2664). Each of these three synchrophasor protocols is described in detail in this paper along with the basis for their operating characteristics using Internet Protocol (IP) transport. The dominant protocol for the exchange of synchrophasor data is IEEE C37.118, both in the U.S. and internationally. The most recent IEEE C37.118 standard is broken into two parts where IEEE C37.118.1-2011 (Part 1) defines the normative synchrophasor measurement requirements and IEEE C37.118.2-2011 (Part 2) defines the protocol’s data transmission format. Both the IEC TR 61850 90 5 and the emergent STTP specifications only address synchrophasor data transmission; therefore, this paper focuses on comparing the data transmission protocol elements of these standards. The primary dimensions of comparison of these three protocols explored in this paper are: structure, efficiency, susceptibility to data loss, scalability, security, and other operability functionality. Additionally,more » though not specifically relevant to synchrophasor data telemetry, the three protocols are evaluated with respect to flexibility for transporting non-synchrophasor precise-time data streams.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1]
  1. Grid Protection Alliance
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1504742
Report Number(s):
PNNL-28499
DOE Contract Number:  
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
streaming telemetry, Synchrophasor data, STTP, NASPI, IEC 61850, IEEE c37.118, NASPInet, grid, electric grid, communication standards, transmission protocol

Citation Formats

Carroll, J. Ritchie, and Robertson, F. Russell. A COMPARISON OF PHASOR COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS. United States: N. p., 2019. Web. doi:10.2172/1504742.
Carroll, J. Ritchie, & Robertson, F. Russell. A COMPARISON OF PHASOR COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS. United States. doi:10.2172/1504742.
Carroll, J. Ritchie, and Robertson, F. Russell. Fri . "A COMPARISON OF PHASOR COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS". United States. doi:10.2172/1504742. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1504742.
@article{osti_1504742,
title = {A COMPARISON OF PHASOR COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS},
author = {Carroll, J. Ritchie and Robertson, F. Russell},
abstractNote = {In this paper, we compare three approaches used for continuous transfer of real-time synchrophasor data: IEEE C37.118.2-2011, IEC TR 61850 90 5 and a new protocol being developed under the Department of Energy (DOE) project DOE-OE-859 called the Streaming Telemetry Transport Protocol (STTP). STTP is currently being advanced as a potential third standard protocol via the IEEE Power Engineering Society STTP P10 Work Group (P2664). Each of these three synchrophasor protocols is described in detail in this paper along with the basis for their operating characteristics using Internet Protocol (IP) transport. The dominant protocol for the exchange of synchrophasor data is IEEE C37.118, both in the U.S. and internationally. The most recent IEEE C37.118 standard is broken into two parts where IEEE C37.118.1-2011 (Part 1) defines the normative synchrophasor measurement requirements and IEEE C37.118.2-2011 (Part 2) defines the protocol’s data transmission format. Both the IEC TR 61850 90 5 and the emergent STTP specifications only address synchrophasor data transmission; therefore, this paper focuses on comparing the data transmission protocol elements of these standards. The primary dimensions of comparison of these three protocols explored in this paper are: structure, efficiency, susceptibility to data loss, scalability, security, and other operability functionality. Additionally, though not specifically relevant to synchrophasor data telemetry, the three protocols are evaluated with respect to flexibility for transporting non-synchrophasor precise-time data streams.},
doi = {10.2172/1504742},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2019},
month = {3}
}