1 / 41

Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011

Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011. Date: 09 May 2011. Abstract: 1 – SGIP NIST PAP2 2 - EPRI FAN. SGIP. NIST PAP#2 History. Abstract:

antonie
Download Presentation

Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011 Date: 09 May 2011 Abstract: 1 – SGIP NIST PAP2 2 - EPRI FAN Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. SGIP Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. NIST PAP#2 History Abstract: This work area investigates the strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and constraints of existing and emerging standards-based physical media for wireless communications. The approach is to work with the appropriate standard development organizations (SDOs) to determine the characteristics of each technology for Smart Grid application areas and types. Results are used to assess the appropriateness of wireless communications technologies for meeting Smart Grid applications. http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. PAP2 Links • PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5) • Contents of this topicUseful Hot LinksAbstract: • Status of PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5) • Task Details: • Description: • Objectives: • Why: • Where: • Who: • 2011 Upcoming Meetings • May 10 - Teleconference 2:30pm ET • May 24, June 7, June 21, July 5, July 19, Aug 2, Aug 16, Aug 30 - Teleconference 2:00pm ET • July 12-14, 2011 - SGIP Summer Meeting, Montreal Canada Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. Subscription to NIST PAP#2 • To see the complete NIST Priority Action Plan list go here: • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans#Individual_PAP_Lists • To subscribe to PAP#2 mailing list go here: • http://www.smartgridlistserv.org/cgi/wa.exe?SUBED1=SGIP-PAP02WG&A=1 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. OpenSG • SharePoint Documents • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Draft 0.5 July 28, 2010 August 4, 2010 Call for Input to Section 6 September 15, 2010 End of draft 0.5 review period SGIP face-to-face, St Louis Tentative PAP 2 meeting September 16, 2010 NIST Timeline (Anticipated) August , 2009 Project initiation September 30, 2010 Release of draft 0.6 October 29, 2010 End of draft 0.6 review period November 4, 2010 OpenSG + PAP2 meeting, Fort Lauderdale Extended edit period December 3, 2010 Release of Version 1 January 15, 2011 Continuation of project to extend findings Release of Version 2 ? June/July 2011 ? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. PAP#2 Version 1 • Guideline for Assessing Wireless Standards for Smart Grid Applications • Version 1.0 released Jan 13, 2011 • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Objective3/NIST_PAP2_Guidelines_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standards_for_Smart_Grid_Applications_1.0.pdf Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. Priority Action Plan for Wireless communications (PAP#2) Activity Summary Calls every two weeks – details on NIST Twiki Version 1 paper approved by SGIP board Procedures approved Current primary task is to qualify a propagation model that can be used for metering applications This task will extend to at least thru May 10th Next proposed task will be to re-work Section 4 - on the Matrix material Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. 14 voters, 12 yes, 0 no, 0 abs, 2 dnv PAP#2 Procedures approved http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. Next PAP 2 meetings Next face-to-face meeting SGIP meeting July 12-14, Montreal Canada Logistics available here: http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCalendar PAP 2 conference call schedule Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. 2011 NIST PAP2 Meeting History http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. NIST PAP#2 Current Work Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. Terrain & Clutter Propagation loss models Characterization of deployment categories Rural (<1/person or household/sq mi …… Very Dense >10,000 people or households/sq mi Primary PAP2 Work Items for past several weeks Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. NIST PAP#2 Agenda for May 10, 2011 • Review & Approve Today’s Agenda • Approve Prior Meeting Minutes • Operating Procedures Ballot Results • Current Tasks • Framework Proposal to Move Forward (Cunningham) • Updates to Section 4 Matrix (Kraemer) • Meeting announcements • New business Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. Update on Propagation Models May 10, 2011 Prepared by Doug GrayConsultant to WiMAX Forum

  17. Update on Erceg-SUI model • 802.11ah work • Closed form expression for atmospheric absorption Outline

  18. Goal: Extend model to cover broader frequency range • Original: 1800 to 2700 MHz based on measurements at 1900/2000 MHz • Objective is to cover 1000 MHz to 4000 MHz • Approach: Devise or modify a term to achieve a better fit to diffraction/foliage frequency dependence • Need up to 5 dB per octave for hilly terrain and foliage at low BS antenna heights • Current formulation provides 1.8 dB per octave (2000 MHz as basis) Modified Erceg–SUI Model

  19. Original formulation: • L = -27.56 +20LOG(d0) + 20LOG(f)+10(a-bhb+c/hb)LOG(d/ d0) + 6 LOG(f/2000)- XLOG(hr /2); f in MHz, d0 in m, hb is BS antenna height, hr is SS antenna height For Type A: a = 4.6, b = 0.0075, c = 12.6 , X = 10.8 For Type B: a = 4.0, b = 0.0065, c = 17.1 , X = 10.8 For Type C: a = 3.6, b = 0.0050, c = 20 , X = 20 • Proposed modification: • L = -27.56 +20LOG(d0) + 20LOG(f)+10(a-bhb+c/hb)LOG(d/ d0) + 6 (1+ ak/hb)LOG(f/2000)- XLOG(hr/2); k = 4 Proposed Modification to Erceg–SUI Model • Type A Terrain: Hilly & moderate to heavy tree density • Type B Terrain:Hilly & light tree density or Flat & moderate to heavy tree density • Type C Terrain: Flat & light tree density

  20. Excess Loss Frequency Dependence Original Erceg-SUI • BS at 10 m, SS at 2 m • Excess loss for 2.4 km path length • Foliage depth: 50 meters • Obstruction height: 2 meters • Diffraction Model: ~3 dB/octave • Foliage Model: 2.9 to 3.5 dB/octave Modified Erceg-SUI k=4

  21. Adry air = [0.00719 + 6.09/(f 2 +0.227) +4.81/((f-57)2 +1.5)] f 2/1000 dB/km • Awater = [0.050 + 0.0021 ρ + 3.6/((f-22.2)2 + 8.5) + 10.6/((f-183.3)2 +9.0) + 8.9/((f-325.4)2 +26.3)] f 2ρ 10-4 dB/km • Where f is in GHz and ρ = water vapor density in g/m3 • Plotted for ρ = 31.8 g/m3 (100% humidity at 30oC Atmospheric Absorption Source: ITU-R Rec. 676-1 (1990-1992)

  22. Models vs. Smart Grid Requirements

  23. Modified Erceg-SUI Model is a good path loss model for suburban and most rural environments of interest covering 1000 to 4000 MHz with low to high BS antenna heights • Model can also be applied to urban environments with BS antenna height at or above average rooftop heights • Confirmed by comparing to Hata and COST231 models • 802.11ah work may provide a good model for <1000 MHz • Need solution for lower BS antenna heights (7-10 m) in rural with varied terrain and foliage characteristics • May still have to treat “extreme” situations on a case by case basis • Use PtP models with link-specific GIS data – analyze each end-point – plus losses for below grade, enclosed meters, etc • Use free space loss and add excess loss for “average” foliage, terrain, or bldg clutter for general purpose wide area coverage • Updated spread-sheet of propagation models • No major changes: some corrections & added place-holder for 11ah work Going Forward

  24. Extended Work Plan Proposal Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Section 4 - Deliverables Paper & Matrix • Identify and fully define all necessary terminology (mesh, etc.) • Come up with sane metric definitions for Section 4 • Come up with guidelines for filling out the wireless technologies matrix to make sure entries are comparable across technologies • This includes a selection of high priority, fully described “operating points” representing deployment scenarios • Come up with dates for submissions for column entries for the matrix and appoint coordinators for each technology represented in the matrix • Submit results to the PAP2 reflector and announce a comment period • Directly solicit SDO participation and schedule SDO calls to discuss submissions and comments on all of the above • Discuss & adjust the deliverables content using OpenSG as the venue and a proxy for the utility industry Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. References • Previous major submission package to NIST • Doc 1396 • https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1396-03-0000-smart-grid-summary-input-to-pap-2-report-nov-2010.ppt • And therein: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1133-01-0000-nist-pap-2-report-r5-consolidated-change-suggestions.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1133-01-0000-nist-pap-2-report-r5-consolidated-change-suggestions.ppt https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1209-00-0000-comment-set-1-on-pap-2-report-r6.doc https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1210-01-0000-comment-set-2-on-pap-2-report-r6.ppt https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1396-03-0000-smart-grid-summary-input-to-pap-2-report-nov-2010.ppt Previous submissions to NIST PAP#2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. During the May 10th call I would like to begin discussion on revisions to Section 4 – Wireless Technology of the NIST_PAP2_Guidelines_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standards_for_Smart_Grid_Applications_1.0.pdf . Introduction: Prior to the release of Guideline version 1,  the IEEE 802 Smart Grid ad hoc generated a set of change recommendations for report Section 4 – Wireless Technology and an associated data collection matrix structure. The intent was to improve the technical accuracy of the Section 4 text and thereby to make it more useful to the Smart Grid community when considering or comparing wireless technology deployment options. The complete set of suggestions can be found at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/11-10-1396-03-0000-smart-grid-summary-input-to-pap-2-report-nov-2010.ppt and embedded in the document was a revised  matrix under the name “V6-r1”. The proposed changes were not integrated into Guideline version 1 but it was agreed that they should be further considered as part of the process to produce Guideline version 2. I submit this material with the understanding it serves as a starting point for Section 4 revisions that will be more fully reviewed, rewritten and approved by the PAP2 membership before inclusion in Guideline version 2. It should also be noted that some data collected from SDOs will need to be re-collected when using the revised descriptions and definitions in Section 4. Revision of Section 4 in PAP2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. In order to analyze an operational scenario we would need to have additional information on the number of nodes and their physical relationship. For example, in the ESI meter example below, how many nodes are there, where are they and what is the characteristic terrain class within which they are located? Framework Questions & Comments Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. Can it be assumed that all analysis would be based upon single technology deployment. Was there an expectation that a mixed technology deployment be analyzed? Framework Questions & Comments - 2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. The analysis of the suitability of a deployment requires a calculation of a link budget. Link budget calculations require using radio performance numbers that are not defined by technology standards documents but are vendor specific. Hence, there may be some differences between individual suppliers’ radio performance numbers. We propose that each technology use a single representative set of radio performance numbers. The chosen set of parameters needs to be specified and approved by PAP2. Additionally, the parameter values would be proposed by each SDO and approved by PAP2. E.g. Receive Antenna pattern and gain profile Transmit Antenna pattern and gain profile Receiver sensitivity Transmit power Framework Questions & Comments - 3 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. The analysis of deployment performance is presumed to be based upon a point to point relationship between a transmitter receiver pair. No analysis of repeaters or mesh links would be performed. Framework Questions & Comments - 4 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. The analysis of deployment performance could be based upon only the relationship between a transmitter receiver pair with messages being transferred from one radio MAC to another. Alternatively there could be a more comprehensive definition of end to end. Framework Questions & Comments – 5a PHY PHY MAC MAC Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. The analysis of deployment performance could be based upon only the relationship between a transmitter receiver pair with messages being transferred from one radio MAC to another. Alternatively there could be a more comprehensive definition of end to end. How complete are the model end points? Framework Questions & Comments – 5b PHY PHY MAC MAC Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Which of the following should the performance analysis take into account? Framework Questions & Comments – 5c MAC queues Buffer overflows Packet loss/retry UDP/http- ACK/retry Reliable vs best effort Packet size/fragmentation latency PHY PHY MAC MAC Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. The initial “Framework Basics” document states: Minimum output: quantity of wireless std/tech/spectrum network gear required by endpoint density category, incremental gear type/count for RF propagation factors & engineering work-arounds for subscribers, and no endpoint coverage conditions There is no data traffic volume specified. It is presumed that some portion of the OpenSG requirements would be selected to quantify the representative data traffic to be used for analysis. Please identify the traffic flow. Minimum Input - 6 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. The initial “Framework Basics” document states: Minimum output: quantity of wireless std/tech/spectrum network gear required by endpoint density category, incremental gear type/count for RF propagation factors & engineering work-arounds for subscribers, and no endpoint coverage conditions E.g How many nodes covered Packet reliability for reachable nodes Data throughput for reachable nodes Minimum Output - 7 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. How does the “Framework Basics” document relate to Guideline version 1? Where and How do the deliverables called for fit into the context of Wireless Guidelines version 2? Relevance - 8 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. As discussed in the Smart Grid Tuesday afternoon session of the 802.11 interim meeting in Palm Springs, this is a link to the description of the COST231  Walfisch Ikegami propagation model which is applicable to sub-GHz frequencies, is friendly to outdoor Metering applications, suitable in preference to urban and suburban environments but I believe extensible to the rural environment. • http://www.cse.hcmut.edu.vn/~ltquan/Documents_Softwares/CDMA/Walfisch-Ikegami.htm Propagation Model Updates Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. Ron Porat mentioned M.2135 http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2135/en Propagation Model Updates Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  41. EPRI Update Tim Godfrey11-11-0802-00-0000 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related