A Family of CIM EMS Exchange Standards based on CIM

Report
WG13 61970
A Family of CIM Standards based on CIM/XML (61970-552)
- Static Network Model Exchange (61970-452)
- Dynamic Model Exchange
- Unbalanced Models
- Short Circuit
- Solved State Exchange (61970-456)
- Schematic Layout Exchange (61970-453)
-…
Jay Britton
Alstom Grid
[email protected]
The Basic Model Exchange Business Problem
•
The members of an interconnection share a mutual necessity to
achieve:
 Accurate assessment of grid reliability.
 Appropriate, timely response to insecure conditions.
•
A pre-requisite to the above are:
 Accurate, up-to-date network models.
 Consistent network models (at each responsible site).
•
In an interconnection, this requires:
 Exchange of models.
 Exchange of solved analytical results.
•
2008 NERC Real-Time Best Practices Report:
–
–
•
“Although defining the elements represented in internal network models is relatively
straightforward, the task force finds that defining the elements to be represented in external
models is much more complex.”
“Issue #5: External Modeling and Data Exchange Practices Should be Improved by Explicit
Reference to the Definition of the Wide-Area-View Boundary. A consistent, uniform set of
modeling and data exchange practices, procedures, and standards are needed to support
creation and maintenance of accurate external models…”
These requirements apply in operations and planning contexts.
There is high-level consensus about the right approach.
• Basic Modeling:
– Each TSO is the authority for data about its own territory.
• Each TSO exports its internal model to its neighbors and/or
regional authority, and keeps it up to date.
– Regional authorities assemble internal regional models from
member TSO internal models.
– All parties assemble external models from the internal
models of other sites.
• These requirements apply to both operations and
planning.
– Operations focus is on as-built and near future changes.
– Exchange of solutions between operations and planning is a
key objective.
– When operations and planning share the same modeling:
•
•
Operations defines the current state.
Planning defines the future plans.
Contributing Use Cases
• Exchange of network models.
– EMS A and B are neighbors in an interconnection and therefore each needs
to represent the other as part of its external model.
– Requires exchange of internal models.
– Scope is limited to network data and measurement placements.
– Exchange of schematics with models is desirable.
• Common Modeling Source between planning and operations.
– One modeling application for the enterprise.
– An EMS requires a model that covers any point in time.
– Other targets require data for a specific “case”.
• Exchange of solved cases. Several variations…
–
–
–
–
Real-time exchange among different applications.
Real-time cases to study or planning.
Exchange of study or planning cases between different tools.
Import of study cases to EMS.
• ENTSO-E
– DACF cases are generated for the next day by each TSO representing the
expected state of their internal network.
– Planning cases are generated from contributions from each TSO.
A Generic Model Exchange Business Process
(ENTSO-E, ERCOT, WECC, …)
Preview – We are working toward defining model partitioning into non-overlapping
XML submodels that satisfy all of the use cases.
Partition by Object Instance using Model Authority Sets
State
Variables
Partition by CIM Schema Elements
Solution
Topology
Measurements
Measurements
Meas
Meas
Regional EMS
Static Model
Display
Layout
Measurements
Meas
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Global Model Objects
Display
Layout
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Common
Objects
Display
Layout
Equip
Model
The initial CIM model exchange (61970-452) standard focused
only on transfer of complete models:
CIM Exchange (full, partial, incremental update)
CIM import / export
CIM import / export
System B Import
Model
System A Import
Model
Proprietary / Homegrown
Extract/Merge Tools
System A Local
Vendor Model
A Internal Model
A’s model of B
System A EMS
A
Proprietary / Homegrown
Extract/Merge Tools
System B Local
Vendor Model
B’s Model of A
B Internal Model
System B EMS
B
A More Desirable Process
Site A makes a change:
1.
A changes its
ModelAuthoritySet
using its CIM
modeller.
2.
A imports the
change into its EMS.
3.
A exports the
change to B.
4.
5.
6.
B receives the
change (full or
incremental),
updating A’s
ModelAuthoritySet
within its CIM
modeller.
B renames any new
elements and
repeats any
reduction of A’s
ModelAuthoritySet.
B imports the new
model into its EMS.
CIM/XML
Model Exchange
Interface
CIM Modeler
Full
System A Source
Interconnection
Model
boundary
CIM Modeler
Full
System A Import
Interconnection
Model
boundary
System B Import
System B Source
My B Region
My A Region
(reduced & renamed)
(reduced & renamed)
a
b
CIM Translator A
CIM Translator B
EMS A
Proprietary Model Format
EMS B
Proprietary Model Format
EMS at Site A
EMS at Site B
Each object is in one and
only one set.
–
–
•
Regional Sets:
–
–
•
–
External associations from
regional sets.
External associations with other
boundary sets.
A-B boundary
MAS
A regional set may be
referentially validated
independent of other
regional sets.
–
•
No associations with other
regional sets.
External associations to
boundary sets only.
Boundary Sets:
–
•
Simple labeling technique for
assigning responsibility.
Associations connect some
objects that are in different
sets.
• Currently directional from
n to 1 (“foreign key”
convention) – under
discussion.
Model Authority Set
A
Modeling processes can
proceed independently in each
region.
Goal:
–
–
Maximize independence.
Design boundary sets to
achieve:
• Minimum data
• Infrequent change
Model Authority Set
B
B-C boundary
MAS
•
A-C boundary
MAS
Merge/Extract with Model Authority Sets
Model Authority Set
C
Typical North American Operations Boundary
C Region Substation
Tie Line Metering Point
A Region Transmission Line
m
Model Authority Set
A
Model Authority Set C
BB
GEO=’C’
GEO=’A’
A-C
Boundary
Set
LN
T
LS
T
CN
T
CN
ST
T
T
T
CB
CB
CB
T
T
T
Typical ENTSO-E Operations Boundary
A Region Substation
C Region Substation
Tie Line Mid-point
Tie Line
BB
m
Model Authority Set
A
A-C
Boundary
Set
GEO=’A’
Model Authority Set C
BB
GEO=’C’
T
T
ST
ST=’X’
CN
T
T
T
CB
CB
CB
T
T
ST
ST=’Y’
CN
LN=’X-Y’
CN
T
CN
T
LS
T
T
LS
T
CN
T
T
T
CB
CB
CB
T
T
T
The Naming Problem
TO 1
Assembly of full primary model
TO 1
Internal Model
Creation of derived target models
TO 1
External Model
TO 2
Name translation point
Primary registration point
TO 2
Internal Model
TO 2
External Model
Interconnection
Object Registry
PRIMARY
Interconnection
Model
TO n
TO n
Internal Model
TO n
External Model
Regional
Authority
Interconnection
Model
Bus-Branch vs Node-Breaker Modeling
Bus-Branch vs Node-Breaker Modeling
Bus-Branch vs Node-Breaker Modeling
61970 Profile Modularity
Common
Objects
Equipment
Model
Topology
State
Variables
C1
E1
T1
S1
S2
T1.1
S3
S4
S5
Dependency
Relationships
are Expressed
in Headers
T1.2
S6
S7
E1.1
S8
T1.3
S9
S10
S11
S12
State Variables
SvVoltage
SvPowerFlow
SvShuntCompensatorSections
SvTapStep
TSO Topology
TopologicalNode
TopologicalIsland
Combining
profiles into a
complete
solution
description.
Terminal (about)
TSO Equipment Model
GeographicalRegion
SubGeographicalRegion
EnergyConsumer
PhaseTapChanger
Substation
PowerTransformer
VoltageLevel
RatioTapChanger
ReactiveCapabilityCurve
ControlArea
ControlAreaGeneratingUnit
TieFlow
ShuntCompensator
Switch
Terminal
MutualCoupling
ACLineSegment
CurveData
SeriesCompensator
TransformerWinding
UCTE Common Objects
CurrentLimit
VoltageLimit
RegulatingControl
SynchronousMachine
LoadResponseCharacteristic
OperationalLimitSet
BaseVoltage
FossilFuel
GeneratingUnit
NuclearGeneratingUnit
HydroGeneratingUnit
ThermalGeneratingUnit
WindGeneratingUnit
HydroPump
OperationalLimitType
Partitioning into Files by TSO
Complete View of Partitioning Into Files
Partition by CIM Schema Elements
Partition by Object Instance using Model Authority Sets
Regional
Solved Case
Regional
Solved Case
Regional
Solved Case
State
Variables
State
Variables
State
Variables
Xnode
Xnode
Topology
Topology
Topology
Equipment
Model
Equipment
Model
Equipment
Model
Global
MA
Common
Objects
ENTSO-E Interconnection Solution
Partition by CIM Schema Elements
Partition by Object Instance using Model Authority Sets
State
Variables
Global Solution
Regional Model
Regional Model
Xnode
Regional Model
Xnode
Topology
Topology
Topology
Equipment
Model
Equipment
Model
Equipment
Model
Global
MA
Common
Objects
Partitioning of EMS Static Model
Partition by CIM Schema Elements
Partition by Object Instance using Model Authority Sets
Regional EMS
Static Model
Display
Layout
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Global Model Objects
Display
Layout
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Common
Objects
Display
Layout
Equip
Model
Partitioning of EMS Solved Cases
Partition by Object Instance using Model Authority Sets
State
Variables
Partition by CIM Schema Elements
Solution
Topology
Measurements
Measurements
Meas
Meas
Regional EMS
Static Model
Display
Layout
Measurements
Meas
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Global Model Objects
Display
Layout
Regional EMS
Static Model
Bndry
Equip
Model
Common
Objects
Display
Layout
Equip
Model
61970-453 Display Layout Exchange
•
Purpose:
– To exchange schematic display layouts accompanying model or solution exchanges.
– Corresponds to the part of display maintenance work that normally goes with
model maintenance.
•
Defines graphic objects used in the sender’s displays:
–
–
–
–
•
Usually linked to a model object, but can also be background.
One or more location coordinates. (Optional glue points.)
Graphic style reference.
Does not define Interpretation of graphic style references.
Usage
– Sender describes diagram.
•
•
Senders disclose the way their system uses graphic styles.
Object placements describe sender’s diagram as is.
– Receiver must decide how to render the diagram in its system.
•
•
•
Create interpretation of sender’s styles.
Receivers are not expected to duplicate functionality.
Receivers may break apart complex styles or combine simpler styles.
– Receiver provides the graphic style interpretation models for their display
management software.
•
Result:
– Layouts and names of things should be familiar.
– Exact replication graphically is likely only when sender and receiver applications are
the same.
– Exact replication functionally is likely only when sender and receiver applications
are the same.
Display Layout UML Proposal
ENTSO-E Case – Display Layout Exchange

similar documents