Peer-to-Peer FLISR Control for Modular Distribution Automation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing fault location, isolation, and service restoration (FLISR) schemes in power distribution systems require centralized logic and communication with a central controller, which can be inefficient and prone to failure.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a decentralized, peer-to-peer messaging system using automation controllers with electronic processors and peer messaging interfaces to enable fault location, isolation, and service restoration without the need for a central controller, utilizing GOOSE messages for communication between interrupters and automation controllers.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Device complexity
If centralized logic is used for FLISR schemes, then coordination and control are simplified, but system reliability decreases and communication requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the centralized control function into distributed peer-to-peer communication among multiple automation controllers. Each controller operates autonomously using local information and peer messages, eliminating the single point of failure represented by a central controller. This segmentation improves reliability while maintaining coordination through decentralized decision-making.
Solution Approach 2:
Each automation controller serves itself by making autonomous decisions based on local sensor data and peer-to-peer messages. Controllers independently determine fault conditions, isolation actions, and restoration sequences without requiring central controller instructions. This self-service capability enhances system reliability and reduces communication overhead.
2Reliability
If centralized control is used, then system coordination is achieved, but communication overhead and response time increase
Solution Approach 1:
Automation controllers pre-establish peer-to-peer communication channels and exchange capability information before faults occur. During fault events, controllers already have the communication infrastructure in place, enabling immediate coordination without waiting for central controller setup or configuration. This preliminary action reduces response time while maintaining coordination.
Solution Approach 2:
The system implements continuous peer-to-peer feedback messaging where controllers share real-time status information, fault detections, and action outcomes. This distributed feedback mechanism enables coordinated decision-making without central controller involvement, reducing communication overhead and response time compared to centralized feedback loops.
3Reliability
If decentralized peer-to-peer messaging is implemented, then system resilience and autonomy improve, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
Each automation controller is designed as a universal unit capable of performing multiple functions: local monitoring, peer-to-peer communication, fault detection, isolation decision-making, and restoration coordination. This multi-functionality reduces the need for specialized components and simplifies the overall system architecture while maintaining decentralized resilience.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the operational parameters of controllers from centralized command-following to autonomous decision-making based on local conditions and peer messages. By adjusting control parameters and decision thresholds, controllers can operate independently while maintaining system-wide coordination, reducing complexity compared to implementing full centralized control logic in each device.
Data Source
AI summary
In one example, an automation controller includes an electronic processor, a memory, a first peer messaging interface configured to connect to a fist peer device, a second peer messaging interface configured to connect to a second peer device, and an input/output interface. The electronic processor is configured to receive, via the input/output interface, an interrupter status signal, and to transmit, via the first or second peer messaging interface, a message to a peer device based on the interrupter status signal. The electronic processor is also configured to receive a message from the peer device indicating a status of a peer interrupter, and to update an interrupter status variable in memory based on the status of the peer interrupter and the interrupter status signal. The electronic controller is also configured to transmit a signal to open or close an interrupter based on the updated interrupter status variable.