A Review of Process Bus Ethernet

Network Topologies

by Henri Grasset

Executive summary
Historically, substation protection and con-
trol has employed direct point-to-point
connections between intelligent electronic
devices. The process bus approach utiliz-
ing digital IEC 61850 GOOSE messaging
offers many advantages, but the standards
limited the number of available topologies.
IEC 61869 now expands the number of
available solutions. This paper details the
opportunities and limitations of various
substation process bus topologies within
the IEC standards.
 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 2

Historically, the approach to substation protection and control has relied largely on
Introduction direct point-to-point connections between the primary plant interfaces — current
transformers (CTs), voltage transformers (VTs), breakers, isolators, and other digital
I/Os — and the secondary-system protection or control intelligent electronic
devices (IEDs). This approach makes it difficult to upgrade or replace the second-
ary system without first securing the substation against a primary circuit feeder
outage.

The process bus approach, however, is able to isolate such primary interfaces from
the secondary protection or control IEDs by interposing new primary equipment:
low-power instrument transformers (LPITs) — formerly referred to as “non-
conventional instrument transformers” (NCITs) — or stand-alone merging units
(SAMUs) that avoid these concerns about a primary system outage. The merging
unit contained in the LPIT and the SAMU sends measurements in digital format,
called sampled values (SV), instead of analogue 1/5A or 100V signals. The SAMU
device can, also send digital information such as the position of breakers and
isolators and receive digital information such as close, open, or trip commands. The
most common digital standard is the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) standard 61850’s Generic Object Oriented Substation Event (GOOSE)
messaging.

The IEC process bus standards have been modified over the past few years to
accommodate a greater number of topology options:

• Configurable current and voltage measurements per “dataset”

• Faster Ethernet speed
• “Fixed” sampling rate
• More datasets per Ethernet frame

The first version of the IEC 61850-9-2 Process Bus standard was considered too
general, so the IEC 61850-9-2 LE (Light Edition) guideline was issued in 2006 to
better define the communication interoperability between different process bus
solution suppliers such as fixed dataset or sampling frequencies.

The new IEC 61869 standards for Instruments Transformers and SAMUs has
expanded (with some limits) the number of hardware and software solutions
available.

This paper details the opportunities and limitations of various substation process
bus topologies within the IEC standards.

When we compare conventional copper wiring with the process bus approach (see
What’s new Figure 1), one thing is obvious and two other ones are not.
with IEC 61869
What is obvious is the difference in the number of connections between the primary
equipment and the IED: many copper wires versus one link (either copper or fiber)
plus additional equipment (LPIT or SAMU).

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 3

Bay Bay

IED Fiber optic IED

Figure 1 Copper wires

Example of conventional
copper wiring (left) and
process bus wiring
(right)
SAMU

A single link implies that, depending on the protection and control strategy, redun-
dant communication may be needed with standardized protocols such as IEC
62439 Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and/or High Availability Seamless
Redundancy Protocol (HSR).

(See Schneider Electric’s white paper Optimizing Protection and Control Schemes
Based on GOOSE Messages.)

What is not obvious are:

• The need for a very accurate clock source. Time is unique and common
in the analogue world, but not in the digital world. Sampled values must
be synchronized to a common time. The best way is via the same Ether-
net link as specified by IEC61850-9-3 1 to avoid the additional wiring of a
1 Pulse Per Second (PPS) signal.
• The need to receive the measurement values with a harmonized degree
“The new IEC 61869 of accuracy (regardless the SAMU brand). It is easy to measure steady
standards enable a greater state currents and voltages accurately, but the behavior on fault incep-
number of solutions.” tion or CT saturation must be within a known pattern as described in the
IEC 61869 series.

The IEC 61850-9-2 LE guideline limited the number of solutions because:

• The dataset for current and voltage measurements was restricted to 4 currents
and 4 voltages:
o [IA, IB, IC, IN, UA, UB, UC, UN] regardless of whether they are
measured or not
o Time tagged at the source (by the merging unit) via 1PPS
• The Ethernet speed was fixed at 100Mbit/s (no 10MBit/s or 1GBit/s)
• The sampling rate was fixed at 80 samples per cycle (for protection), thus
4000 samples/s at 50Hz and 4800 samples/s at 60Hz
• One dataset of information (measurement) per Ethernet frame (for protection)

The new IEC 61869 standards enable a greater number of topologies because:

1
Refers to IEC 61588/IEEE1588 Precision Time Protocol

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 4

• The dataset is no longer limited to 4 currents and 4 voltages but allows 24

current and voltage measurements.
o Examples:
 [UA1, UB1, UC1] for single 3 phase VT LPVT or SAMU
 [IA1, IB1, IC1] for single 3 phase CT LPCT or SAMU
 [IA1, IB1, IC1, IA2, IB2, IC2] for dual 3 phase CT SAMU
with no neutral
o Time tagged at the source (by the merging unit) via IEC
61588/IEEE1588
• The Ethernet speed is not fixed at 100Mbit/s, thus 1GBit/s (and higher) is
allowed
• The sampling rate is fixed at 4800 samples per second (for protection) what-
ever the power frequency is (50 or 60Hz and also 16 2/3Hz)
• Two datasets of information (measurements) per Ethernet frame (for protec-
tion)

Practical implications of IEC 61869

The 4800Hz sampling rate — i.e., 1 sample created every 208.33µs but only sent
every 416.66µs — transmits 2400 times per second. This simplifies the Ethernet
traffic when “protection” and measurement” frames share the same link.

The IEC 61869 average frame size is around 1500 bits (15µs long for 100Mbit/s),
transmitted 2400 times per second i.e. using a 3.6 Mbit/s bandwidth.

Dataset transmission

Figure 2
Transfer

Dataset 1
Representation on a 1

time window scale of 3 Dataset 2

samples (measure- Dataset 3

ments from different
MU).

0
24

48

72

96
0

120

144

168

192

216

240

264

288

312

336

360

384

408

432

Time in us

Each sample is sent every 417µs, and the length of each sample is 15µs.

The 100MBit/s Ethernet network, even fully used, cannot transport more than 27
datasets (417/15µs).

In order to save some bandwidth for the GOOSE messages when avalanches occur
and as the common use of the Ethernet bandwidth is around 50%, the maximum
number of datasets to be transported on the same network is around 14.

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 5

Moreover, if we use the Precision Time Protocol (PTP), as each hop can add a 50ns
inaccuracy on top of the 200ns “standard” inaccuracy of the GPS receiver, the
maximum number of hops is 16 (total). Equally, the 1GBit/s Ethernet network, even
fully used, cannot transport more than 290 datasets, for the same reasons the
maximum number of datasets to be transported on the same network is around 150.

For the moment, the 100Mbit/s technology is much cheaper than the 1Gbit/s
technology thus:

The following topologies show physical networks but can also be thought as virtual
Various networks. Both are possible.
100Mbit/s
topologies Solution #1: One process bus per bay
When there is one IED (or a set of IEDs) dedicated to the bay, the simplest solution
would be to have one process bus per bay (set of CTs, VTs, breaker, and isolators).
See Figure 3.

HMI

Station Bus

Bay 1 Bay N

Process bus 1 IED Process bus N IED

Etc...

Figure 3
One SAMU is connected to
one IED (or a set of IEDs)
per bay
SAMU SAMU

The information flowing through the bay process buses are:

• IEC 61869 measurands (currents and/or voltages)

• IEC 61850-8-1 GOOSE messages
o For positions, trips & open/close orders

This is fine for simple feeder protection. The number of bays is “unlimited,” but the
protection becomes unavailable if the SAMU or the fiber or the relay fails. To
mitigate that risk, a redundancy or overall backup scheme is recommended

Then as the IED(s) of bay x do not have access to the sampled values of bay y ,

• How can we integrate synchrocheck, busbar voltage selection or mutual cur-

rent functionalities based on sampled values?
• How can we protect a busbar?

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 6

As the IED(s) of bay x can have access to the GOOSE messages of bay y via the
station bus:

• What are the delays to process breaker failure protection based on GOOSE
via the station bus?
• What are the delays to “intertrip” other bays with GOOSE via the station bus?
• What is the overall impact of GOOSE protection on the station bus?

Solution #2: Common process bus for all bays

Substation with fewer than 16 bays
When there is one IED (or a set of IEDs) dedicated to the bay, the next solution is to
have one common process bus for all bays, either only the SAMU being installed in
each bay with all the IEDs in a dedicated panel or cubicle (see Figure 4) or both
the SAMU and the associated IED installed in each bay (see Figure 5).

HMI

Station Bus

Bay 1 Bay 14

IED of
Bay 1

Figure 4
Only the SAMU installed Etc...
in each bay and all the
IEDs in a dedicated
panel or cubicle SAMU SAMU
IED of
(example with HSR) Bay 14

Etc...

Process bus

Figure 5
The SAMU and the
associated IED installed
in each bay
(example with HSR)

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 7

All the SAMUs (16 maximum, as explained previously) and the IEDs are connected
together. Note that for the above examples, the limitation is 8 bays due to the HSR
constraint.

The Ethernet bandwidth is heavily used, whatever the topology.

Here, HSR ring topology is the cost-optimized solution, but the drawback are the
more limited number of bays and when a bay is undergoing a test. In that case, and
when the bay is securely isolated by opening the communication link, the commu-
nication redundancy disappears but the remaining scheme still works.

It is fine for substations with less than 16 bays (8 bays with HSR).

Substation with more than 16 bays

Protecting a substation with more than 16 bays requires a different Ethernet network
topology.

If the need is to share only GOOSE messages, the station bus could be used. But if
the need is also to share busbar voltages and some currents for mutual coupling or
other applications — all transferred via sampled values — the station bus cannot be
use because of the bandwidth needed.

It is therefore clear that an “interbay process bus” is compulsory, whether it is a

virtual or a physical one.

As long as centralized protection (such as busbar protection) is not to be per-

formed with this technology then the solution is as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6
The SAMU and the
associated IED installed
in each bay

In that case, the information flowing through the interbay process bus is:

• Up to 16 IEC 61869 busbar voltages (more than enough)

o For synchrocheck and busbar voltage selection functions
• Up to 16 IEC 61869 measurand messages (sufficient for a lot of substations)
o For mutual current functions or other measurement-based applica-
tions

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 8

• IEC 61850-8-1 GOOSE messages

o For positions, trips & “INTER” trips and open/close orders

This is fine and suitable for “unlimited-bay” substations.

Two very important advantages of these segregated networks are:

• It is easy to disconnect a bay by removing the interbay link (for example, if

needed for foolproof testing)
• If a SAMU goes wrong and floods the process bus, only one bay will be lost
and not the entire substation

To utilize a mix of bay process buses and interbay process bus with centralized
protection, for small substations with less than 16 bays per busbar, the solution is:

Figure 7
The busbar protection
IED can be directly
connected to the
interbay process bus

Due to the 100Mbit/s speed, the busbar function is limited to 16 bays per busbar.

The IEC 61869 Process Bus standard allows the use of 1Gbit/s Ethernet network.
Then the best solution would be to use a 1Gbit/s interbay process bus to allow the
connection to more than 150 feeders as long as PRP redundancy is used.

What is the impact of a loss of time synchronization?

The 1PPS technology defined in the IEC61850-9-2 Ed.1 standard may not meet the
required reliability, as it needs additional hardware and therefore increases the
likelihood of losing protection or function as soon as the additional link is broken.

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 9

The IEC 61850-9-3 standard allows using a PTP profile (meeting

IEEE1588/IEC61588 standards) for time synchronization. This is done via Ethernet,
so no additional hardware is required. Much higher reliability can be easily provid-
ed by making the master clock redundant (with 2 clocks) and ensuring Ethernet
communication redundancy according to IEC 62439 HSR or PRP.

It is also important to understand that this time synchronization does not need to be
according to universal time (GPS) for the inner substation protections to work
properly. Only a common and shared time is required.

The two different situations can cause a lost PTP connection:

1. Loss of GPS signal

This leads to the loss of synchronization with other substations. As the
master clock keeps sending a common time to all the protection devices,
the only affected protection could be the line differential. But because
the need for an external and accurate time synchronization is needed on-
ly at start-up or when recovering from a communication failure, most of
these protection devices would continue to work properly without the
GPS signal.

2. Loss of the PTP signal in a bay or equipment

First it is important to keep in mind that the master clock is redundant
and that the PTP signal is transported through a redundant network. To
lose PTP connection, both clocks and/or both networks would have to be
out of service — which is very unlikely, as any of these failures triggers
an alarm.

Even then, the only affected protection would be something needing in-
formation from different measurement points; a simple overcurrent or
undervoltage protection will not be affected.
• Distance protection with no mutual or synchrocheck algo-
rithms or directional protection
A protection that uses voltages and currents shall receive them
from a single SAMU connected to all needed measurements
whenever possible. This is already allowed by IEC 61850-9-2 LE.
• Distance protection with mutual or synchrocheck algorithms
Mutual is used to enhance the fault location accuracy and
synchrocheck to close the breaker, but not for protection. In or-
der to minimize this risk, the two SAMUs shall share one common
direct link (for example a fiber in HSR).
• Transformer differential protection
A protection that uses multiple currents could receive them from
a single SAMU connected to all needed measurements whenever
possible. This is now allowed by IEC 61869. The feasibility of this
approach depends on the number of windings and the availabil-
ity of suitable SAMUs.
• Generator differential protection
The same considerations apply as for transformer protection. We
can expect commercially suitable SAMUs with two sets of cur-
rents in a near future.
• Busbar differential protection
The same considerations apply as for transformer and generator
protection, but because of the high number of measurements, we
cannot expect suitable SAMUs to gather all of them.

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 10

Thus, the only two sensitive protections are multi-winding transformers and busbar
protections.

The process bus approach isolates such primary-system interfaces from the
Conclusion secondary protection or control IEDs through new intermediary equipment: low-
power instrument transformers (LPITs) and stand-alone merging units (SAMUs) that
make it easier to upgrade or replace the secondary system without first securing
the substation against a primary circuit feeder outage. These units transmit digital
information using the IEC standard 61850’s Sampled Values and optionally Generic
Object Oriented Substation Event (GOOSE) messaging.

However, the IEC 61850-9-2 LE guideline limited the number of solutions. In

response, IEC 61869 for instrument transformers was issued to accommodate a
wider variety of solutions. The technical issues resolved concern time synchroniza-
tion (addressed now with PTP per IEEE 1588/IEC 61588), communication redun-
dancy (now addressed now by IEC 62439 PRP or HSR standards), and the harmo-
nized degree of accuracy and behavior of the sampled values (to be solved soon
by the forthcoming IEC 61869 full series)

The process bus is made of Ethernet networks, either single or redundant, through
which the following frames flow:

• IEC61850-8-1 GOOSEs,
• IEC 61850-9-2 Sampled Values (following IEC 61869 behavior)
• PTP IEEE 1588/IEC 61588 time synchronization.

The optimized process bus comprises n (the number of bays) bay process buses,
and one interbay process bus. These Ethernet networks can be either virtual or
physical networks. The availability of a physically segregated network is higher than
a common network supporting VLANs. The operational complexity and the mainte-
nance requirements are also smaller.

Except for busbar protection with more than 16 feeders per busbar, the 100Mbits/s
process bus fits most of the applications. The optimum solution would be to get
100Mbit/s bay process buses” and a 1Gbit/s interbay process bus to link all the

998-2095-02-04-16AR0 © 2015 Schneider Electric. All rights reserved.

feeders of a substation. Time synchronization is not an issue for most of the appli-
cations.

About the author

Henri Grasset is is an Automation Intelligent Device Expert at Schneider Energy Division. He
holds an engineering degree from the Ecole Centrale de Nantes in France. He has worked in
the Protection and Control domain since 1999.

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies

 Schneider Electric White Paper Rev 0 11

References:
Appendix
• 1 Pulse Per Second (1 PPS)
• GOOSE (Generic Object Oriented Substation Event)
• HSR (High Availability Seamless Redundancy Protocol)
• IED (Intelligent Electronic Device)
• LPIT (Low Power Instrument Transformer)
• PRP (Parallel Redundancy Protocol)
• PTP (Precision Time Protocol)
• SAMU (Stand Alone Merging Unit)
• SV (Sampled Value)
• VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network)

Standards:
• IEC 61588-2009 (IEC standard for precision clock synchronization protocol for
networked measurement and control systems)
• IEC 61850-8-1 (Specific communication service mapping (SCSM) – mappings
to MMS (ISO 9506-1 and ISO 9506-2) and to ISO/IEC 8802-3)
• IEC 61850-9-2-2011 (Specific communication service mapping (SCSM) –
sampled values over ISO/IEC 8802-3)
• IEC 61850-90-4 TR (Technical report on network engineering guidelines for
substations)
• IEC 62439-3 (Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and High-availability Seam-
less Redundancy (HSR))
• IEC 61869 (Set of standards for instrument transformers)

A Review of Process Bus Ethernet Network Topologies