Smart grid co-simulation with MOSAIK and HLA: a comparison study

Abstract

Evaluating new technological developments for energy systems is becoming more and more complex. The overall application environment is a continuously growing and interconnected cyber-physical system so that analytical assessment is practically impossible to realize. Consequently, new solutions must be evaluated in simulation studies. Due to the interdisciplinarity of the simulation scenarios, various heterogeneous tools must be connected. This approach is known as co-simulation. During the last years, different approaches have been developed or adapted for applications in energy systems. In this paper, two co-simulation approaches are compared that follow generic, versatile concepts. The tool mosaik, which has been explicitly developed for the purpose of co-simulation in complex energy systems, is compared to the High Level Architecture (HLA), which possesses a domain-independent scope but is often employed in the energy domain. The comparison is twofold, considering the tools’ conceptual architectures as well as results from the simulation of representative test cases. It suggests that mosaik may be the better choice for entry-level, prototypical co-simulation while HLA is more suited for complex and extensive studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Schlögl F, Rohjans S, Lehnhoff S, Velasquez J, Steinbrink C, Palensky P (2015) International symposium on smart electric distribution systems and technologies (EDST). IEEE, pp 516–521

  2. 2.

    Lin H, Sambamoorthy S, Shukla S, Thorp J, Mili L (2011) IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies (ISGT). IEEE

  3. 3.

    Godfrey T, Mullen S, Griffith DW, Golmie N, Dugan RC, Rodine C (2010) First IEEE international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm)

  4. 4.

    Georg H, Müller SC, Dorsch N, Rehtanz C, Wietfeld C (2013) IEEE international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm). IEEE, pp 576–581

  5. 5.

    Mets K, Verschueren T, Develder C, Vandoorn TL, Vandevelde L (2011) IEEE 16th international workshop on computer aided modeling and design of communication links and networks (CAMAD). IEEE, pp 61–65

  6. 6.

    Ptolemaeus C (ed) (2014) System design, modeling, and simulation using Ptolemy II. Ptolemy.org

  7. 7.

    Wetter M (2011) Co-simulation of building energy and control systems with the Building Controls Virtual Test Bed. J Build Perform Simul 4(3):185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dahmann JS, Fujimoto RM, Weatherly RM (1997) Proceedings of the 29th conference on Winter simulation. IEEE Computer Society, pp 142–149

  9. 9.

    Neema H, Sztipanovits J, Burns M, Griffor E (2016) Workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy systems (MSCPES). IEEE

  10. 10.

    Schütte S, Scherfke S, Tröschel M (2011) IEEE first international workshop on smart grid modeling and simulation (SGMS). IEEE, pp 55–60

  11. 11.

    Rohjans S, Lehnhoff S, Schütte S, Scherfke S, Hussain S (2013) 4th IEEE/PES innovative smart grid technologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE). IEEE

  12. 12.

    Palensky P, Van Der Meer AA, López CD, Joseph A, Pan K (2017) Cosimulation of intelligent power systems: fundamentals, software architecture, numerics, and coupling. IEEE Ind Electron Mag 11(1):34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Blochwitz T, Otter M, Arnold M, Bausch C, Clauß C, Elmqvist H, Junghanns A, Mauss J, Monteiro M, Neidhold T, Neumerkel D, Olsson H, Peetz JV, Wolf S (2009) 8th international modelica conference, pp 173–184

  14. 14.

    Widl E, Müller W, Elsheikh A, Hörtenhuber M, Palensky P (2013) Workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy systems (MSCPES)

  15. 15.

    Schütte S (2013) Simulation model composition for the large-scale analysis of smart grid control mechanisms. Ph.D. Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg

  16. 16.

    Rohjans S, Widl E, Müller W, Schütte S, Lehnhoff S (2014) Gekoppelte simulation komplexer energiesysteme mittels mosaik und FMI. At-Automatisierungstechnik 62(5):325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    van der Meer AA, Palensky P, Heussen K, Morales Bondy DE, Gehrke O, Steinbrink C, Blank M, Lehnhoff S, Widl E, Moyo C, Strasser TI, Nguyen VH, Akroud N, Syed MH, Emhemed A, Rohjans S, Brandl R, Rohjans AM (2017) Workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy systems, Pittsburgh, PA

  18. 18.

    Dahmann JS, Fujimoto RM, Weatherly RM (1998) Winter simulation conference. Proceedings (Cat. No. 98CH36274), Washington, DC, vol 1, pp 797–804. doi:10.1109/WSC.1998.745066

  19. 19.

    IEEE standard for modeling and simulation (M & S) high level architecture (HLA)—object model template (OMT) specification (2000). IEEE Std 1516.2-2000

  20. 20.

    IEEE standard for modeling and simulation (M & S) high level architecture (HLA)—object model template (OMT) specification

  21. 21.

    Noulard E, Rousselot JY, Siron P (2009) Spring simulation interoperability workshop (2009)

  22. 22.

    Sonnenschein M, Appelrath HJ, Lehnhoff S, Mayer C, Uslar M, Nieße A, Tröschel A, Hofmann L, Kurrat M, Mertens A (2012) VDE-Kongress 2012 - Intelligente Energieversorgung der Zukunft

  23. 23.

    Brito AV, Negreiros AV (2013) III Brazilian symposium on computing systems engineering

  24. 24.

    Palmintier B, Krishnamurthy D, Top P, Smith S (2017) Workshop on modeling and simulation of cyber-physical energy systems, Pittsburgh, PA

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the European Communitys Horizon 2020 Program (H2020/2014-2020) under project “ERIGrid” (Grant Agreement No. 654113).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Steinbrink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steinbrink, C., van der Meer, A.A., Cvetkovic, M. et al. Smart grid co-simulation with MOSAIK and HLA: a comparison study. Comput Sci Res Dev 33, 135–143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-017-0379-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Co-simulation
  • mosaik
  • HLA
  • Cyber-physical energy systems