210 likes | 493 Views
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)
E N D
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) • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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
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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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
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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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