Cim gid interoperability testing
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

CIM/GID Interoperability Testing PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 144 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CIM/GID Interoperability Testing. Presented by Lars-Ola Österlund At CIM Users group 2008-06-10 in Västerås. The CIM And GID Is. The Common Information Model (CIM) for the Utility industry A standard from IEC TC57 Described in UML (Unified Modeling Language)

Download Presentation

CIM/GID Interoperability Testing

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Cim gid interoperability testing

CIM/GID Interoperability Testing

  • Presented by Lars-Ola Österlund

  • At CIM Users group 2008-06-10 in Västerås


The cim and gid is

The CIM And GID Is...

  • The Common Information Model (CIM) for the Utility industry

  • A standard from IEC TC57

  • Described in UML (Unified Modeling Language)

  • Documented in several specifications

    • IEC61970-301 Core information model

    • IEC61970-452 Transmission network model exchange

    • IEC61970-501 RDF Schema version of the UML

    • IEC61970-552-4 CIMXML data exchange format

    • IEC61968-11 extended information model

    • and several more ...

  • Generic Interface Definition (GID) APIs described in

    • IEC61970 400 documents.


Evolution of the cim

Evolution Of The CIM

  • Originated as an EPRI project 1994

  • EPRI report TR-106324 June 1996

  • IEC TC57/WG13 created September 1996

  • UML used to describe the data model in 1998

  • IEC TC57/WG14 added DMS extensions in 2003

  • CIM Market extensions (CME) created 2004

  • IEC TC57/WG16 ETSO and CME harmonization late 2004

  • CIM for planning sponsored by EPRI started in 2006

  • Several utilities use CIM to support systems integration, e.g. ERCOT

  • CIM continue to evolve...


Correctness of the cim

Correctness Of The CIM

  • Several versions of the CIM has been released since 1996 when CIM was first released

    • Does the CIM work?

  • New versions emerges because

    • New functionality supported

    • Errors corrected

  • Interoperability testing a way to demonstrate and verify correctness


Cim interoperability tests

CIM Interoperability Tests

  • Was introduced to

    • Verify correctness of

      • IEC CIM standards

      • Vendor implementations

    • Demonstrate interoperability

  • First test year 2000

    • Goal to verify the CIM works

  • Since then annual tests

    • To verify changes and corrections

  • Each test documented in a report from EPRI


Cim releases

CIM Releases


Interoperability tests 1

Interoperability tests, 1

  • IOP1 18 Dec 2000 1th test in Orlando

    • ABB, ALSTOM (and Langdale), Siemens, PsyCor, CIM-Logic, SISCO

  • IOP2 29 April 2001 2nd test in Las Vegas

    • ABB, ALSTOM, Siemens, CIM-Logic, SISCO

  • IOP3 26 Sept 2001 3rd test in Monterey

    • ABB, ALSTOM, Siemens, PsyCor, SISCO

  • IOP4 14 July 2002 4th test in San Francisco

    • ABB, PTI(PsyCor), Langdale, GE Harris

  • 2 August 2002 Beijing

    • NEPDCC, CEPRI, NARI, Tsinghua, Luneng, Dongfang

  • IOP5 18 Nov 2003 5th test in San Francisco

    • Alstom, Shaw PTI, SISCO, SNC Lavalin


Interoperability tests 2

Interoperability tests, 2

  • IOP6 19 Sept 2004 6th test at CAISO in Folsom

    • Areva, EDF, Incremental Systems, PTI, Siemens, SISCO

  • IOP7 26 Sept 2005 7th test at CAISO in Folsom

    • Areva, EDF, ABB, PTI, Siemens, SISCO, Xtensible Solutions

  • IOP8 30 March 2006 8th test in San Francisco

    • Areva, EDF, PTI, SNC Lavalin, ABB (remote)

  • IOP9 1 Oct 2006 9th test in Washington DC

    • ABB, EDF, GE, Siemens-PTI, SISCO

  • IOP10 17 Sept 2007 10th test in San Francisco

    • ABB, Areva, GE, Siemens, Siemens-PTI, SNC


Standards being tested

Standards Being Tested

  • Currently

    • Core data model

      • IEC 61970-301

    • RDF Schema version of the UML

      • IEC 61970-501

    • Transmission network model exchange profile

      • IEC 61970-452

    • CIMXML data exchange format

      • IEC 61970-552-4

    • GID specifications

      • IEC 61970-402 to 407

  • Plans to extend tests also to other specifications


Test overview

Test Overview

  • CIM

  • 61970-301

  • 61960-452

  • 61970-552-4

  • CIM

  • 61970-501

Schema

CIMXML

model

file

Validation

Tool

Sending

System

Receiving

System

GID connections

-61970-402

-61970-403 (DAF++)

-61970-404 (DAIS/OPC DA)

-61970-405 (DAIS/OPC A&E)

-61970-407 (HDAIS/OPC-HDA)


Test networks

Test Networks

  • A number of participants provides test networks

    • ABB40Bus

    • Areva60bus

    • Wapa262 (GE)

    • Siemens100Bus

    • EDF networks

  • The test networks are typically small as functionality is the focus


Abb40bus network overview

ABB40Bus Network Overview


Sample cimxml model file

Sample CIMXML Model File

  • <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:cim="http://iec.ch/TC57/2007/CIM-schema-cim12#">

    • ...

    • <cim:Substation rdf:ID="_7582201">

      • <cim:IdentifiedObject.localName>MONR</cim:IdentifiedObject.localName>

      • <cim:IdentifiedObject.name>MONROE</cim:IdentifiedObject.name>

      • <cim:Substation.Region rdf:resource="#_83129201"/>

    • </cim:Substation>

    • ...

    • <cim:VoltageLevel rdf:ID="_7583201“>

      • <cim:IdentifiedObject.localName>220kV</cim:IdentifiedObject.localName>

      • <cim:IdentifiedObject.name>MONR220SUBNET</cim:IdentifiedObject.name>

      • <cim:VoltageLevel.MemberOf_Substation rdf:resource="#_7582201"/>

      • <cim:VoltageLevel.BaseVoltage rdf:resource="#_220000302"/>

    • </cim:VoltageLevel>

    • ...

  • </rdf:RDF>


Tested functionality

Tested Functionality

  • Current

    • Full import of an original model

    • Full re-export of imported model

    • Full import of a re-exported model

    • Run Load Flow on imported model

  • Starting up

    • Preparation of an increment in Data Engineering/Modeler

    • Incremental model export

    • Incremental model import

  • Planned

    • Use CIMXML configuration in GID/ICCP subscriptions

    • Run State Estimation


How the tests are conducted

How The Tests Are Conducted

  • Bi-weekly preparation phone conferences

    • Test procedure prepared

  • When standard frozen (typically June)

    • Validation tools updated

    • Participants updates software

      • Test networks compliant with the standards created

  • Participants gather at a test location

    • Tests conducted according to test procedure

    • Witnesses (typically from utilities) follow the tests

    • Results are recorded

  • Test report issued by EPRI

    • Copies of reports can be obtained from EPRI


Sample issues on standards

Sample Issues On Standards

  • Ambiguities in the Core CIM (61970-301)

    • Line containment

    • Load model

    • Voltage control

  • Different interpretations of the core CIM

    • Measurements and state

  • Lacking support of functionality

    • Equivalent modeling

    • Model boundary definition

  • Profile issues (61970-452)

    • Convention for association role usage

    • Object identification and uniqueness

    • Name lengths


Sample issues on implementations

Sample Issues On Implementations

  • Differences in export vs. import file

    • Number of objects

      • More objects

      • Less objects

    • Parameter values

    • Object identifiers and names

  • Differences in Load Flow solution


Result evaluation

Result Evaluation

  • Despite small networks used in tests it is still difficult to compare results, i.e.

    • Why does the number of objects differ in an export vs. an import?

      • Does a difference matter?

    • Is a re-exported object the same as an imported?

      • How to prove sameness?

    • Why are Load Flow solutions different?


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Interoperability testing has

    • Demonstrated CIM/GID standards works

    • Improved the quality of the CIM/GID standards

    • Demonstrated implementation interoperability

    • Promoted the use of CIM/GID

    • Been a success

  • Interoperability testing needed as long as CIM/GID standards evolve


  • Login