1. Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - January 2010
doc.: IEEE /0091r3
January 2010
Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - January 2010
Date:
Authors:
Name
Company
Address
Phone
5488 Marvell Lane,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054
+1 (321)
Bruce Kraemer
Marvell
marvell
.com
Abstract: Information on Smart Grid of interest to WG11 – January 2010
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

2. Agenda High Level Questions National SmartGrid Perspective
January 2010
Agenda
High Level Questions
National SmartGrid Perspective
EPRI View
What has previously transpired?
NIST PAP#2
What is happening over the next two months
Longer term goals, events, project plans.
Observations/Assumptions/Conclusions/Discussion
Steps needs to take to fit into the Smart Grid plan
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3. High Level Questions What is happening in Smart Grid arena?
January 2010
High Level Questions
What is happening in Smart Grid arena?
Is properly positioning its existing and pending standards and amendments for acceptance in SG?
Participation in key Smart Grid activities
Are there any identifiable additions or changes that should be considered to make more useful in SG domains?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

4. Observation/Assumption/Conclusion #1
January 2010
Observation/Assumption/Conclusion #1
Dozens of organizations are involved but our focus is primarily on:
NIST SGIP
IEEE P2030
Discussion:
Other 802 groups such as , , , 802.1, 802.3
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5. January 2010
Observation #2
There is a substantial amount of material already created by NIST and other long term SmartGrid participants that describe Application Domains and Use Cases.
There is no need for to duplicate this work.
There is a need to make these data flow models more complete/quantitative .
Task 1 of NIST PAP#2 intends to supply this information.
Discussion:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6. January 2010
AMI Use Case
Report to NIST on Smart Grid Interoperability Roadmap
Source: Report to NIST on Smart Grid Interoperability Roadmap
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7. NIST Roadmap Description of a Domain
January 2010
NIST Roadmap Description of a Domain
Source: Report to NIST on Smart Grid Interoperability Roadmap
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

8. Other examples of Requirements
January 2010
Other examples of Requirements
Example #1 - description of need for Home Area Network
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

9. Observation #3 The NIST PAP#2 Tasks deserve considerable attention
January 2010
Observation #3
The NIST PAP#2 Tasks deserve considerable attention
Discussion:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. NIST PAP Overview (1) January 2010
Priority Action Plans (PAPs) Described
PAPs arise from the analysis of the applicability of Standards to the Use Cases of the Smart Grid. PAPs include identified experts in relative SDOs, known as the PAP Working Group Management Team.
Specifically, a PAP addresses either:
A gap where a standard or standard extension is needed:
The need for meter image-download requirements is an example of a non-existing standard needed to fill an identified gap.
An overlap where two complementary standards address some information that is in common but different for the same scope of an Application:
An example of this is metering information where CIM, 61850, ANSI C12.19, SEP 1&2 all have non-equivalent methods of representing revenue meter readings.
PAPs should only be created when the SGIP determines there is a need for interoperability coordination on some urgent issue. The PAPs themselves are executed within the scope of the SDOs and Users Groups that sign up for tasks that implement the plans. The duty of the SGIP is to facilitate this process, ensure that all PAP materials are publicly available in real time on the TWiki (that is, not entirely within the domain of the SDOs which prevents all but membership access), and provides guidance when the participants in the PAP are at odds or unsure of its goals.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

11. January 2010
NIST PAP Overview (2)
It will often be the case that the SDOs that are executing the PAP tasks (as part of the PAP Working Group Execution Team) diverge from the original intent of the PAP. This is due to their natural, and correct, orientation towards their own specific goals and needs. The PAPs arise from the broader stakeholder involvement in the Smart Grid problem space and such has identified goals that come from this broader scope. In these cases, the parties are brought together under the auspices of the SGIP and an attempt to resolve the differences is pursued. The possibility could arise where this is not sufficient to move the PAP forward. In this case the PAP WG or the SGIP can:
Revise the PAP to accommodate the concerns of the implementers, or,
Can redistribute the tasks of the PAP to organizations more in line with the needs of the scope of the PAP.
Rescind the PAP judging that it is no longer in the interest of the SGIP to pursue.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

12. NIST PAP2 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5)
January 2010
NIST PAP2 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5)
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.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

13. NIST PAP#2 Description:
January 2010
NIST PAP#2
Description:
Review existing documentation and ongoing work to assess the capabilities and weaknesses of wireless technologies operating in both licensed and unlicensed bands and to develop guidelines on their use for different Smart Grid application requirements.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

14. January 2010
NIST PAP#2
Objectives:
Identify requirements for use of wireless technologies for the Smart Grid.
Identify guidelines for effectively, safely, and securely employing wireless technologies for the Smart Grid.
Identify approaches to define the strengths and weaknesses of candidate wireless technologies to assist Smart Grid design decisions.
Analyze co-channel interference issues and develop coexistence guidelines for operation in unlicensed bands.
Identify key issues to be addressed in wireless assessments and development for the Smart Grid.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

15. January 2010
NIST PAP#2
Why:
Wireless technologies are one of many types of media that could meet many Smart Grid requirements by enabling access where other media are too costly or otherwise not workable.
However, different types of wireless technologies also have different availability, time-sensitivity, and security characteristics that may constrain what applications they are suitable for.
Therefore, different wireless technologies must be used with knowledge of their varying capabilities and weaknesses in all plausible conditions of operation. This work provides objective information on the appropriateness of use.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

16. January 2010
NIST PAP#2
Where:
Wireless can be used in field environments across the Smart Grid including generation plants, transmission systems, substations, distribution systems, and customer premises communications.
The choice of wireless or non-wireless, as well as type of wireless must be made with knowledge of the appropriate use of the technology.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

17. NIST PAP#2 – Next Meeting
January 2010
NIST PAP#2 – Next Meeting
PAP 2 session at OpenSG Users Group, San Fransisco, February 4, 2010:
A face-to-face meeting will take place on February 4th, 2010, starting at 8am until 3:00pm. This meeting is collocated with the OpenSG User Group meetings in San Fransisco during the week of February 1, Information about registration and the hotel venue can be found at:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

18. January 2010
NIST PAP#2 Tasks
Task 1: Segment the smart grid and wireless environments into a minimal set of categories for which individual wireless requirements can be identified.
Task 2: Develop Terminology and definitions.
Task 3: Compile & communicate use cases and develop requirements for all smart grid domains in terms that all parties can understand
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

19. January 2010
NIST PAP#2 Tasks
Task 4: Compile and communicate a list of capabilities, performance metrics, etc. in a way that all parties can understand. - Not quantifying any standard, just defining the set of metrics.
Task 5: Create an inventory of wireless standards and their associated characteristics (defined in previous task) for the environments identified in task 1.
Task 6:Perform the mapping and conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the criteria and metrics developed in task 4.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

20. NIST PAP#2 -Network Information
January 2010
NIST PAP#2 -Network Information
Both IP and wireless communications priority action plans include as a first task the development of network requirements for Smart Grid applications.
Identifying these requirements is key in order to develop guidelines for the use of IP and wireless communications in the context of the Smart Grid.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

21. NIST PAP#2 Functional Requirements
January 2010
NIST PAP#2 Functional Requirements
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

22. NIST PAP#2 – Task 5 Guidance
January 2010
NIST PAP#2 – Task 5 Guidance
Task 5 calls for the collection of an inventory of wireless technologies, based on the parameters and metrics developed in Task 4, to be filled by each SDO.
The purpose of the row entries in the wireless capability matrix NIST_PAP2-_Wireless_Characteristics-IEEE802-v_02.xls developed in Task 4 is to allow high level assessment of the suitability of particular wireless standard based technologies for use in various applications and domains of the Smart Grid.
Since many of the parameters in the matrix have dependencies on each other, e.g. data throughput, range and mobility, the matrix should be filled out by providing a consistent set of parameter values, rather then best case values for each parameter.
By a “consistent set” we mean that one picks some “operating point” for the technology and provides parameter values (for those that depend on operating point) that are consistent. For example, maximum data rate will not be delivered at maximum range. A column entry is expected to provide values for the error rate, range, throughput, mobility and other interrelated parameters consistent with the chosen operating point. It would be appropriate to complete more than one column for an individual technology to display the results for more than one operating point.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

23. January 2010
NIST PAP#2 – Task 5 so far
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

24. January 2010
Observation #4
The Matrix rows were adequate for collecting information from SDOs.
Discussion:
The rows do/do not require further modification.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

25. Observation #5 The operating points used were chosen by the SDOs.
January 2010
Observation #5
The operating points used were chosen by the SDOs.
This was adequate for collecting first response information.
Discussion:
The operating point should be “standardized” to allow useful comparisons.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

26. January 2010
Observation #6
Within WG11, reporting on Smart Grid activities in an ad hoc forum once time block per session is adequate.
Discussion:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

27. Plans for Thursday One more session Thursday am1
January
doc.: IEEE /0091r3
January 2010
Plans for Thursday
One more session Thursday am1
Topics to be addressed:
1. Review the operating options /selections needed for Task 5. Process or completion.
Process for moving on thru Task 6
2. OpenSG/PAP2 activity planning
Mhz ISM reband for (Halasz presentation)
4. Coordination mechanism with 15.4g?
5. Link to Emergency Services?
6. Plan for March…. Plan for ad hoc:
Avoid overlap with 15.4g – coordinate with 15.4g
Suggestion: Tuesday pm1 and Thursday am1
Cybersecurity
EC SG
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

28. NIST PAP#2 – Next Meeting
January 2010
NIST PAP#2 – Next Meeting
PAP 2 session at OpenSG Users Group, San Fransisco, February 4, 2010:
A face-to-face meeting will take place on February 4th, 2010, starting at 8am until 3:00pm. This meeting is collocated with the OpenSG User Group meetings in San Fransisco during the week of February 1, Information about registration and the hotel venue can be found at:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

29. Planning for OpenSG venue
January 2010
Planning for OpenSG venue
PAP#2 face to face meeting February 4 at SFO Hilton
How much data traffic flow characterization information will be available?
Will there be any matrix row changes?
How do we establish a common set of “operating points”?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

30. January 2010
Operating Point
How should operating points be described to ensure common understanding.
How to choose “operating points” with some degree of commonality across a diverse set of radio technologies and operating scenarios to allow comparison without requiring full channel models and simulations?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

31. Operating Point – Discussion starter
January 2010
Operating Point – Discussion starter
Maximize link margin, maximize range, accept low date rate
BPSK, 1 Mbps, single antenna
Medium range, moderate data rate
Clause 20, 64QAM,single stream, single antenna, OFDM, 40 MHz channel, 120 Mbps
Short range, maximum data rate
Clause 20, four stream, four antenna OFDM, 40 MHz channel, 600 Mbps
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

32. Operating Point Group Discussion
January 2010
Operating Point Group Discussion
Harmonize operating point based upon:
Operating environment
1.Inside a house
Primary: Range, data rate, latency, noise environment
Secondary (QoS): Reliability, availability (need to include additional layers) (bit, packet)
2. Sub-station & generating plant
Range, data rate, latency, noise environment
3. Collection – back haul - long range
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

33. Operating Point Group Discussion
January 2010
Operating Point Group Discussion
Regarding request that operating point include Availability and Reliability, how to measure these parameters?
Group conclusion: reuse terms from matrix
E.g., Link availability is measured as failure rate per 1000 sessions
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

34. Consideration of NIST Link budget Method
January 2010
Consideration of NIST Link budget Method
GENERAL PURPOSE LINK BUDGET CALCULATOR
For arbitrary wireless communication radio links, this calculator explains the terms in the link budget and gives the user the opportunity to enter or change the parameters.  Macros invoked by clicking on buttons guide the user through the various options for selecting and entering the parameters.  For definiteness, the calculator uses the Hata outdoor propagation loss model. The calculator was developed as an Excel spreadsheet application by Leonard Miller.   It uses a new method for calculating the link margin needed to achieve a desired reliability when there is both lognormal shadowing and Rayleigh fading.
SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD FILE
Excel spreadsheet: download request form Version 1.24, added reminder to recalculate noise power when rate is changed 1/17/06 (Complete revision history listed on page 1 of spreadsheet)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

35. LinkCalc: NIST Link Budget Calculator
January 2010
LinkCalc: NIST Link Budget Calculator
The performance of a digital radio system, in terms of its bit error rate (BER) or probability of bit error (Pe), is related to the bit energy-to-noise density ratio (Eb/No) at the receiver, where "noise" may include interference in addition to the thermal noise generated in the receiver. Theoretical analysis of system performance is based on postulating a value for the signal-to-noise power ratio (SNR) at the receiver, which can be converted to received Eb/No.
When assessing the actual system performance in a particular application, it is necessary to calculate the actual received SNR.
This calculation requires a "link budget," which simply is a careful accounting of the various terms in the following equation for received SNR expressed in dB units:
SNR(dB) = Received signal power(dBm) - receiver noise power(dBm)
where, as illustrated in the diagram, the link gains include antenna gains and the link losses can be grouped into three cate-
gories: transmission losses (Lt), propagation loss (Lp), and reception losses (Lr).
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

36. LinkCalc: NIST Link Budget Calculator
January 2010
LinkCalc: NIST Link Budget Calculator
Options
FOR A POSITIVE SURPLUS, you can
- decrease the transmitter power
- use less directive antennas or a cheaper receiver
- use lower antennas or a longer link distance
FOR A NEGATIVE SURPLUS, you can
- increase the transmitter power
- use more directive antennas or a better receiver
- use higher antennas or a shorter link distance
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

37. Teleconference suggestion
January 2010
Teleconference suggestion
There is 1 work weeks between this IEEE session and the OpenSG/PAP#2 meeting.
IEEE 802 has an opportunity to further develop the matrix rows, explanations and operating points to enhance their utility in moving into task 6.
When further details on the data flow characterisitics become available, there will be a need to map technology against application domain.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

38. Establish Smart Grid ad hoc
January
doc.: IEEE /0091r3
January 2010
Establish Smart Grid ad hoc
Provide a forum for on-going /timely review of Smart Grid topics
Encourage participation from other 802 groups
1. Assist in the development & completion of PAP#2
2. Refine the 900 MHz project proposal
3. Coordination with 15.4g
Indentify other projects that would serve Smart Grid requirements
Other topics?
Leadership?
Conference calls? Wednesdays at 2pm Eastern starting on Feb 10 (no call on Feb 24)
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

39. Information sources NIST twiki
January 2010
Information sources
NIST twiki
NIST Link Budget Calculator
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell