Cyber-Physical Energy Systems Modeling,
Test Specification, and Co-Simulation Based Testing
A. A. van der Meer∗ , P. Palensky∗ , K. Heussen† , D. E. Morales Bondy† , O. Gehrke† , C. Steinbrink‡ ,
M. Blank‡ , S. Lehnhoff‡ , E. Widl§ , C. Moyo§ , T. I. Strasser§ , V. H. Nguyen¶ , N. Akroudk , M. H. Syed∗∗ ,
x
A. Emhemed∗∗ , S. Rohjans†† , R. Brandl‡‡ A. M. Khavari

arXiv:1705.00583v1 [cs.SY] 1 May 2017

∗ Delft

University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, a.a.vandermeer@tudelft.nl
† Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
‡ OFFIS e.V., Oldenburg, Germany
§ AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria
¶ University Grenoble Alpes, G2Elab, Grenoble, France
k Ormazabal Corporate Technology, Bilbao, Spain
∗∗ University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
†† HAW Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany
‡‡ Fraunhofer Institute of Wind Energy and Energy System Technology, Kassel, Germany
x
European Distributed Energy Resources Laboratories (DERlab) e.V., Kassel, Germany

Abstract—The gradual deployment of intelligent and coordinated devices in the electrical power system needs careful
investigation of the interactions between the various domains
involved. Especially due to the coupling between ICT and power
systems a holistic approach for testing and validating is required.
Taking existing (quasi-) standardised smart grid system and test
specification methods as a starting point, we are developing a
holistic testing and validation approach that allows a very flexible
way of assessing the system level aspects by various types of
experiments (including virtual, real, and mixed lab settings).
This paper describes the formal holistic test case specification
method and applies it to a particular co-simulation experimental
setup. The various building blocks of such a simulation (i.e.,
FMI, mosaik, domain-specific simulation federates) are covered in
more detail. The presented method addresses most modeling and
specification challenges in cyber-physical energy systems and is
extensible for future additions such as uncertainty quantification.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The decarbonisation of the European power generation
requires a high penetration of distributed, Renewable Energy Sources (RES). Their intermittent behaviour and limited
storage capabilities present new challenges to power system
operators in maintaining the security of supply and the power
quality [1]. However, advanced Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), automation approaches, and corresponding algorithms provide new possibilities and intelligent
solutions for operating power grids in a more optimized
way [2], [3]. As a consequence of these developments the
traditional power system is transformed into a Cyber-Physical
Energy System (CPES), a smart grid [4]. Previous and ongoing
research activities have mainly focused on validating certain
aspects of smart grids, but until now there is no integrated
approach for analysing and evaluating complex configurations
in a cyber-physical systems manner available [5].
In the process of designing and developing a specific solution, validating and testing the correctness is an essential stage.

CPES like smart grids are a combination of different technologies across heterogeneous domains (power, ICT/automation,
markets, customer behaviour, etc.), which have mutual interactions and inter-dependencies. Before deploying algorithms and
solutions, field tests are needed to evaluate the integration on a
system level, addressing all relevant domains. Up-to-now such
a cyber-physical approach for designing, analysing, and validating smart grid systems is missing. The existing laboratorybased testing approaches often focus on a certain sub-system
(or business sector) and its components. The integration of
components—including analysis and evaluation—is not yet
addressed sufficiently in a holistic manner.
Simulation-based experiments are one of the alternative testing approaches that can cover multiple domains [6]. However,
the development of smart grid solutions and technologies has
increased the need for a more integrated simulation approach
covering all targeted areas [7], [8]. A general framework for
smart grid validation and roll-out is necessary. One of the main
barriers to this has been the lack of design approaches and
corresponding software tools that are capable of simulating
power and ICT systems holistically [5].
The lack of such system validation for smart grids is
especially addressed by the European ERIGrid project [9].
By providing a Pan-European research infrastructure ERIGrid
supports the technology development as well as the roll-out of
smart grid solutions and concepts. It tackles a holistic, CPESbased approach by integrating European research centres
and institutions with outstanding research infrastructures and
jointly develops common methods, concepts, and procedures.
The aim of this paper is to discuss advanced modeling
approaches, a formal specification of corresponding validation
scenarios, and co-simulation based testing methods for CPES
that are being developed in ERIGrid.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II

gives an overview of the proposed methodology for a holistic
test description, while Section III discusses the co-simulation
of CPES. Necessary software and component interfaces which
are being used in the ERIGrid co-simulation environment are
introduced in Section IV. A proof-of-concept example of both
the test specification and the co-simulation based experiments
is described in Section V. Finally, a discussion and an outlook
on planned future research is provided in Section VI.
II. M ETHODOLOGY FOR H OLISTIC T EST D ESCRIPTION
Smart grid components and functions are embedded in a
distributed and complex infrastructure. The formulation and
specification of test requirements is therefore both a technical
and conceptual challenge. On the one hand, the technical
aspect of carrying out integrated experiments by means of
real-time, hardware-in-the-loop or co-simulation technologies
has received significant attention in recent years [8], [10].
On the other hand, significant conceptual development and
consolidation has been achieved in the ICT aspects of smart
grids through standardization and harmonization of use case
descriptions, system architecture, and interoperability test
specification [11], [12], [13], [14]. These technical and conceptual developments have been largely pursued in independent
tracks. A wide gap remains in formulating test specifications
that facilitate the holistic evaluation of the integrated cyberphysical system. The initial step towards carrying out holistic
tests of CPES is to harmonize the concepts and testing methods
used by Research Infrastructures (RIs). Further steps then
entail the harmonization of the test evaluation methodology,
the harmonization of RI internal and external interfaces, as as
well as interchangeable configuration descriptions. This will
be of particular importance for managing the high complexity
of experiments conducted across multiple RIs.
In order to frame this approach we propose the following
definition of holistic testing: “The process and methodology
for evaluation of a concrete function, system or component
within its relevant operational context with reference to a
given test objective.” A challenge is therefore to formalize the
complete cyber-physical system context and test criteria in a
common framework. A first outline of the holistic testing approach was presented in [15], where a focus was placed on the
concept of holistic testing and a corresponding methodology.
The challenge of addressing multiple RIs with a single test
case, as outlined in [15], is within the scope of the presented
approach, but details will be omitted for brevity.

Fig. 1. The main steps in the ERIGrid methodology for holistic testing.

tructure1 , so the question “what infrastructure is available to
carry out the test?” is addressed to define the available RIs’
capabilities in step 2 . Finally, by answering “how should the
available infrastructure be configured to carry out the specified
test in a concrete experiment” in step 4 , the experiment
specification is completed.
In order to formulate the holistic test case, three inputs are
required:
•

•
•

Based on the previous inputs, the test case describes the
following concepts:
•

•

•

A. Incremental Test Description
Based on these concepts, we have formulated a procedure
for holistic test specification, which defines steps for formulating a concrete and holistic test description (cf. Fig. 1, steps
1 - 4 ). In this process, we separate the questions “what needs
to be tested?” and “why does it need testing?”, which are
answered in step 1 , from the question “how should it be
tested?”, which is answered in step 3 . The above questions
can be answered independent of the respective testing infras-

A Generic System Configuration, which is a description
of the overall system configuration (and assumptions)
within which we seek to test an object (or subsystem).
A set of Use Cases that describe the sequence of actions/functions that are expected of the tested object.
The Test Objective, which is the purpose for carrying out
the tests, stating the overall evaluation objective.

•

A System under Test (SuT) that identifies the system
boundaries of an abstract test system entailing all relevant
interactions requiring investigation.
The Object(s) under Investigation (OuI) identifying the
systems, subsystems, or components within the SuT to
which the test criteria will be applied.
The Domain(s) under Investigation (DuI), which identifies the relevant physical or cyber-domains (and subdomains) which are of interest for the test parameters
and connectivity.
With respect to the use cases, Function(s) under Test
(FuT) and Function(s) under Investigation (FuI), which
describe the relevant operations relevant to the SuT (in
the FuT) and the ones that are being investigated with
respect to the OuI (in the FuI).

1 The terms lab, research infrastructure (RI), test infrastructure, as well
specific co-simulation environments are used interchangeably here.

TABLE I
T YPES OF S YSTEM C ONFIGURATIONS
Name / Purpose
Function-System
Alignment
Test Case context
model
Test System
Experiment Setup
RI description
RI information model

Context
Use Case

Generic/Specific
GSC

SCType
UC-GSC

Test Case (step 1 )

GSC

TC-GSC

Test Specification
(step 3 )
Experiment Specification (step 4 )
RI database (step
2)
RI profiling

(S)SC

TS-SC

(S)SC

E-SC

(S)SC

RI-SC

GSC

RI-GSC

The Purpose of Investigation (PoI), which details the test
objective and sub-objectives by qualifying each objective
as either validation, verification, or characterization.
• Test Criteria, which state the metrics that need to be
evaluated for each of the objectives formulated in the
PoI.
With these concepts, we are able to define a test specification,
which consists of:
• A test system configuration which defines how the OuI
is going to be embedded in the SuT.
• The input/output parameters of the system which will be
varied, observed, and evaluated.
• The test design, which defines the manner in which the
test will be carried out.
Finally, given a test specification, we can map the testing
requirements with the capabilities of one or more RI(s) in
order to carry out the experiment. This mapping (step 4 in
Fig. 1) leads to a concrete experiment specification, which
identifies the laboratory components and devices that reflect
the required functions, domains and connections specified in
the previous steps in order to execute the test.
The experiment specification is the last step of the description phase before an experiment can be conducted (step 5 in
Fig. 1). After the experiment, a pre-assessment of the results is
required (step 6 ) to decide whether the test specification will
have to be adapted for a re-run of the experiment in a modified
setting, or if the results are suitable for a final evaluation of
the experiment (test evaluation, step 7 ).
The process outlined above is equally applicable to tests
involving multiple RIs. Examples of multi-RI testing include
the mapping of identical test specifications to different RIs or
the synchronous execution of one large experiment spanning
multiple communicating RIs. However, each of these cases
introduces specific additional requirements such as ensuring
the comparability of results obtained on dissimilar laboratory
hardware, or the need to specify the real-time interaction at
the inter-RI level. These needs are being addressed by the
ERIGrid project but are beyond the scope of this paper.
•

B. System Configurations (SC)
The specification of system configurations is central to the
test description, similar to other related specification work

Explanation
As SGAM domains & zones: reference designation for functions,
independent of test case.
Establishes type conventions for test case: relevant SC component
types, domains, etc., and categorically identifies the SuT.
A concrete instance of TC-GSC to address a specific OuI and specific
set of test criteria.
The configuration and interconnection of RI components, representing
the SuT, and including OuI.
Configuration and components of an RI, including potential multiplicity and connectivity of RI components.
RI profiling information model, here specific to CPES laboratories.

(e.g., smart grid use cases with reference to the Smart Grid
Architecture Model (SGAM), information modeling for power
system ICT via the Common Information Model (CIM), or
other applications of the Unified Modeling Language (UML)
or the Systems Modeling Language (SysML)). To integrate
the SC description methods used in smart grid disciplines
(e.g., electrical, ICT, or thermal systems), ERIGrid adopted
and generalized the basic system description concepts that are
employed in the power systems CI). To avoid overly complex
specification details, the following upper ontology model has
been identified: Systems are composed of Components and are
themselves components. Components have Terminals, which
may have a directionality and are associated with one Domain.
Domains can be structured hierarchically. Two or more terminals associated with the same domain can be connected using
a Connection Point. All of the above are System Configuration
Objects, and a set of them composes a System Configuration
Container, which has a system configuration type (SCType)
attribute. Constraints can be associated with any type of
system configuration object. Table I lists the six relevant types
of system configurations.
A domain-independent graphical realization of an SC description (TS-SC) is found in Fig. 3, where a test system is
specified. Using another graphical convention, Fig. 5, defines
a co-simulation Experiment SC (E-SC). When formulating the
E-SC based on TS-SC, interactions among SuT elements are
fully represented, whereas non-SuT components (non-grayed
background in Fig. 3), are represented by simple equivalents.
While the SC abstraction is useful, the number of SC
variants listed in Table I may be confusing. Two main aspects
of distinction should be noted: Firstly, there are RI-oriented
system configurations (RI-GSC, RI-SC,E-SC) and real-world
oriented system configurations (UC-GSC, TC-GSC, TS-SC).
The former describe the RI capabilities and concrete RI objects
that are eventually present in an experiment. This may include
a physical grid or amplifier in a lab, but also simulation
facilities. The latter types of SC aim to represent aspects of
the real-world. Secondly, there are generic and specific system
configurations. The generic SCs (UC-GSC, TC-GSC,RI-GSC)
define types or classes of objects, whereas the specific SCs
(TS-SC, RI-SC, E-SC) define concrete instances of SC elements.

III. C O - SIMULATION OF CPES USING M OSAIK AND FMI
The software co-simulation in ERIGrid is realized by employing the framework mosaik as a co-simulation master and
interfacing all simulators via the Functional Mock-up Interface
(FMI) standard. In the following, the components of this cosimulation platform are briefly introduced. Subsequently, the
coupling between mosaik and FMI is elucidated, as well as
the utilization of the platform in the project.
A. Framework and Interfaces
1) Mosaik: Mosaik is a co-simulation framework that
is designed for easy integration of simulators and flexible
creation of co-simulation scenarios. These design goals are
achieved via two Application Programming Interfaces (API).
The Component-API allows integration of simulators via description of the accessible data and a set of interface functions.
The API has been ported to different programming languages
to provide a broad user support. The Scenario-API provides a
set of functions to establish data flow connections between
simulators and execute the co-simulation. The execution is
managed by a discretely timed scheduling algorithm. Two
versions of mosaik have been developed so far. Mosaik 1
[16] incorporates a domain specific language for the two API
types with the goal of automatic consistency checking of cosimulation scenarios. It ultimately proved to be too inflexible
for practical work. Mosaik 2 (e.g. [17], [18]) is an enhanced,
streamlined version of the software that is purely based on
Python and provides more concise and flexible APIs.
2) Functional Mock-up Interface: FMI [19] is a standard
for the interfacing of simulators and simulation models that is
supported by various modeling and co-simulation tools. It is
comparable with the mosaik Component-API in the sense that
it provides a (XML-based) data model and a set of interface
functions. However, FMI is more complex and powerful than
its mosaik counterpart. The reason for this lies in the fact
that the Component-API is specifically geared to the mosaik
scheduling algorithm while FMI has been designed for interaction with a variety of master algorithms. The design of the
master is not part of the FMI standard so that the complexity
of FMI is the price of its flexibility. A simulator that employs
the FMI standard is capsuled in a Functional Mock-up Unit
(FMU). There are two types of FMI so that FMUs may possess
different structures. FMI for Co-Simulation (FMI-CS) assumes
that the FMU includes a solver and thus may independently
simulate when called. FMI for Model Exchange (FMI-ME),
on the other hand, expects the master algorithm to solve the
simulation model provided by the FMU.
To facilitate the handling of FMUs, the FMI++ toolbox
has been developed [20]. It provides a more high-level set
of interface functions that is still usable by a variety of
master algorithms. Furthermore, it includes a number of utility
methods, e.g., for rollback and interpolation, as well as a set
of readily usable integrators to solve FMI-ME systems.

B. Coupling between mosaik and FMI
Mosaik is used as the co-simulation framework in ERIGrid
due its good usability while providing robust scheduling at
the same time. For the simulator interfacing, however, FMI
is employed due to its wide acceptance and usefulness for
potential future exchange of schedulers. Therefore, a mapping
between the Component-API and FMI has to be established
to grant mosaik access to simulators encapsulated in FMUs.
Such a mapping has already been conducted successfully by
[21] via the use of the FMI++ toolbox. However, their approach employs mosaik 1 and an outdated version of FMI++.
Furthermore, only FMI-ME is supported whereas ERIGrid
will utilize both types of FMI. As a consequence, coupling is
suggested that employ the more streamlined interface functions
of mosaik 2 and the new FMI++ version. Separate interfaces
are established for FMI-ME and FMI-CS. Each of them is kept
as generic as possible so that integration of several FMUs of
the same type requires only an adjustment of parameter sets.
As shown in [21], a mapping has to be established between
the mosaik API functions and the FMI++ functions. ERIGrid
employs a mapping similar to the one presented in that work,
although using updated function references. Similarly, the
XML-based description of model variables has to be mapped
onto the mosaik model description. FMI includes a complex
variable description with data fields like “variability” and
“causality”, many of which do not possess a counterpart
in mosaik. Parameter-type variables are also parameters in
mosaik. Variables with the causality “input” or “output” are
summarized as “attributes”. Nevertheless, the exact causalities
as well as the data types (real, integer, etc.) have to be stored
within the FMI-mosaik interface in order to select the correct
getter and setter functions provided by FMI++.
As mentioned before, FMI-ME expects the master algorithm
to solve the simulation model. This notion generally conflicts
with the co-simulation concept, e.g., mosaik does not include
any solvers. This problem is circumvented by employing
the integrators provided by FMI++ within the FMI-mosaik
interface. Thus, whenever mosaik calls for the FMU to execute
a step, the interface solves the model for this time step. The
desired integrator type can be set, along with other technical
details like the time step size, as a “simulator parameter”. FMIME is, in summary, supported via a form of “co-simulation
via capsuling” as illustrated in Fig. 2.
C. Application in ERIGrid
Mosaik fullfills two roles in ERIGrid. On the one hand, it
acts as an environment for exemplary co-simulation test cases,
serving its usual purpose. This setup utilizes the coupling
between mosaik and FMI-CS to allow integration of complex
tools like P OWER FACTORY. On the other hand, mosaik is also
used as a testbed for a library of newly developed smart grid
component models. These models are supplied following the
FMI-ME standard to enable versatile future use.
The developed models should be capable of being integrated into a variety of different simulation environments like
MATLAB or O PEN M ODELICA. Therefore, FMI-ME is the

FMI for Co-Simulation
Interface
mosaik

FMU
Model

FMI++
Solver

FMI for Model Exchange
Interface
mosaik

FMI++
Solver

FMU
Model

Fig. 2. Interfacing of mosaik for the different FMI types.

preferred standard since it provides more freedom in the model
usage. Due to the interface presented above, mosaik is still
able to integrate these FMUs and serve as an environment
for integration testing. For testing, an FMU is integrated and
presented with pre-defined input data from a generic data
source component. The output may be stored in a database
component and analyzed for unexpected behavior. As a matter
of fact, mosaik’s flexible Scenario-API allows a convenient
way to automatically test sensitivities towards different parameter values, temporal resolutions, integrator types, and so forth.
Mosaik’s capabilities for such a type of black box analysis
have already been demonstrated in [18].
IV. S OFTWARE AND C OMPONENT I NTERFACES
APPLIED IN ERIG RID
Challenges in transferring R&D results into real-world
applications often arise already in the design phase, due
to incompatible simulation-based approaches adopted by researchers and industry that prevent a consolidated solution
for validation. Hence, one goal of the ERIGrid project is the
demonstration of the feasibility of FMI-based co-simulation
and model exchange for validating Smart Grid applications,
in order to promote tool and model interoperability and stress
the importance of this topic in the FMI community. To this
end, the proof-of-concept studies performed in ERIGrid need
to be representative and demonstrate the added value of such
an approach. In the following, the rationale behind the choice
of tools and models in this context is explained.
A. Simulation domains
Modeling and simulation of smart grid scenarios comprise
aspects from various technical domains, with a broad variety
of available simulation tools for each of these domains. For
the purpose of ERIGrid, three particular domains have been
identified:
1) Power systems: The technical infrastructure for the distribution of electricity is obviously the core element for
smart grid applications. For ERIGrid, P OWER FACTORY2
will be primarily used to simulate power systems.

2) Communication: Virtually any smart grid application
relies in one way or the other on information exchange.
The discrete-event network simulator NS -33 has been
selected as main tool for ERIGrid to simulate dedicated
and general-purpose ICT systems.
3) Automation and control: The potential complexity of
controllers used in smart grid applications necessitates
dedicated tools for their implementation. For ERIGrid,
MATLAB/S IMULINK4 will be primarily used to provide the needed controller functionality for simulations.
Furthermore, a dedicated library of models will be developed using O PEN M ODELICA and MATLAB/S IMULINK,
which will complement and expand the functionality provided
by the domain-specific tools. The selection of the tools and
models was driven by several factors, such as previous experience of partners, availability of FMI-compliant interfaces or
details regarding licenses.
B. Tool compatibility
Each of the selected tools represents the state-of-the-art
in their respective domain. As such, this selection provides
a representative case that can serve as a relevant proof-ofconcept for smart grid co-simulation. However, the selected
tools implement very contrasting modeling and simulation
paradigms and to prove the capability and point out the shortcomings of FMI-compliant interfaces to successfully handle
this heterogeneous combination is a key issue.
Power system modeling: Tools for this domain rely on continuous time-based modeling paradigms, typically representing individual components by (sets of) differential algebraic
equations. They enable the simulation of the evolution of the
system state either with the help of models that depend explicitly on time (RMS and EMT simulation) or by computing
a series of subsequent power flow calculations (quasi-static
simulation). Even though P OWER FACTORY does not offer the
functionality to export models in a way that is compliant with
FMI-ME, it provides an API that allows to interact with it [22].
The functionality of this API has been successfully mapped
to the that specified for FMI-CS5 .
Communication network modeling: Simulators for this domain use abstractions of the deployed hardware and software
that allows the representation of communication processes as
a sequential processing and transmission of (virtual) messages
and signals. Hence, communication network simulators commonly implement discrete event-based simulation paradigms,
where each event marks a significant step of message processing or transmission. The network simulator NS -3 has already
been successfully used for co-simulation, see for instance [23],
but no FMI-compliant interface is available so far. Based on
previous theoretical work dealing with the capability of FMI
to handle discrete event semantics [24], [25], an interface
according to the FMI-CS specification is being developed in
ERIGrid for NS -3.
3 See

https://www.nsnam.org/
http://www.mathworks.com
5 See http://powerfactory-fmu.sourceforge.net
4 See

2 See

http://www.digsilent.com/

Automation and control: For implementing control algorithms MATLAB/S IMULINK has been chosen, due to its
versatility as well as its popularity and widespread use for this
purpose. The capability of FMI to encapsulate the functionality
of discrete event-driven controller models has been already
discussed in [26]. S IMULINK implements a continuous timedriven paradigm and allows to translate models into FMUs
for ME (discussed next in Section IV-C). MATLAB on the
other hand is a multi-purpose computational environment,
which adheres to no specific modeling paradigm and provides
by itself no notion of time. However, it is possible to put
MATLAB’s full functionality at the disposal of the user via
an approach that is compatible with FMI-CS6 .
C. Model library
The model library developed for ERIGrid aims to facilitate
and accelerate the integration and validation of smart grid
solutions by extending the functionality of available tools with
specific models. To this end, the models will be compliant
to the FMI-ME specification, in order to ensure a toolindependent implementation that improves reusability. However, even though FMI-ME is a well accepted specification,
basically no present-day proprietary power systems simulation tool has incorporated the FMI-ME standard so far. By
demonstrating its use and potential benefits within ERIGrid,
it is hoped that the adoption of FMI-ME within the power
industry is further propelled.
In the following, examples of models being developed for
each of the considered simulation domains and their potential
use to the wider community are presented. All the models will
be developed either in M ATLAB /S IMULINK or O PEN M ODEL ICA , which allow to export models as FMUs for ME.
Power system components: A number of models specific
to power systems are currencly under development for FMIME, including a reduced-order distribution dynamic equivalent
model, FlexHouse thermal model, PV and battery models,
and aggregated wind turbine dynamic model. This set of
tool-independent models can potentially be used for different
simulation studies and proof of concepts.
For example, the reduced-order dynamic equivalent model
represents an actual 115 kVA smart grid laboratory at the
University of Strathclyde. Although simulation tools such
as P OWER FACTORY provide many component models, this
reduced-order equivalent model will allow for the dynamics of
a real smart grid laboratory to be incorporated in simulation
studies. This enables large-scale system studies to be undertaken with the least amount of computational requirements.
Communication network modeling: The difficulty of incorporating the effects of communication within a power system
simulation tool (due to its discrete event-based nature) often
leads to simplistic fixed-time delay models being utilized.
However, within ERIGrid, a representative communications
model that can be easily utilized within a power system
simulation is under development. It will rely on various communication network parameters as inputs and will calculate
6 See

http://matlab-fmu.sourceforge.net

delays based on stochastic equations taking into consideration a set of defined uncertainties [27]. By employing the
IEC 61850 GOOSE protocol, the model will delay a signal
based on a value chosen by means of a Gaussian distribution.
This will enable power system studies to incorporate a simple
yet more realistic, representative delay.
Automation and control: A large number of smart grid
applications increasingly depend upon reliable measurements
being obtained from within the network. Recently, network
critical applications, such as protection, are dependent upon
utilizing accurate measurements from a large number of Phasor Measurement Units (PMU). Within ERIGrid, both P-Class
and M-Class PMU models compliant with IEEE C37.118.1a
are being developed as in [28]. These models can be utilized
by the wider community for development of novel applications
that rely on data from PMUs.
V. H OLISTIC T ESTING : P ROOF - OF -C ONCEPT BY
C O - SIMULATION
A. Modelling and Simulation needs
Generally speaking, software experiments can be subdivided
into monolithic software experiments (one domain, one tool),
multi-domain tools (multiple domains, one tool), hybrid models (multiple tools, one domain), and heterogeneous modeling
(i.e., multiple domains and tools). The latter is predominantly
realized with co-simulation and will be the main focus of
the proof-of-concept of the above proposed holistic test case
formalization [8], [10].
The application of the mosaik framework and the FMI opens
up a massive spectrum of co-simulation possibilities, but gives
also rise to development and implementation challenges. It has
been decided to define three exemplary test cases that at least
contain one co-simulation experiment, each of which treats
one specific development need:
1) interfacing software tools with physical controllers
2) signal-based synchronization
3) cyclic dependencies between simulation federates
Software/hardware interfacing will be studied using an onload tap changer and its control. Both can be implemented as
hardware or emulated while synchronizing in wall clock time.
Signal-based synchronization is addressed by an on-load tap
changer that is regulated by a distributed voltage controller,
the ICT aspects of which play a prominent part in the overall
behaviour of the SuT.
In the forthcoming we will focus on the so-called cyclic
dependency issue that arises within mosaik. Coupling continuous simulators necessitates synchronization of interface
variables during all stages of execution. By default, however,
mosaik only allows the specification of one-way dependencies
between simulation federates and defining cyclic dependencies
is non-trivial. To test this particular feature, a rather simple
simulation setup that still allows studying the problem would
be optimal. For the sake of realism we use a power system
model, being simulated in tool 1, and an aggregated wind
power plant model, which is simulated in tool 2. This test

collection
grid

WTG
teminal

WTG gridside
converter

OuI
ωR

It

power electronics

vector controller

Teset

DC-link

electric machine
connection

control/ICT
environment

wind
turbine
wind

electric
domains:

SuT

Vpcc

Vdc

1) Use Case and Function under Test: The Use Case
treated here is the capability of a Wind Power Plant (WPP)
to stay connected during a three phase short circuit inside the
transmission system. This capability is referred to as Fault
Ride-Through (FRT) and is often laid down in grid codes,
which require conformance at the coupling point (i.e., the
legal boundary between the power park module owner and
the transmission system operator)[29]. Hence, all individual
wind turbines need to jointly fulfill this common requirement.
Aside from FRT the WPP needs to comply to a myriad of
other regulations. Essential for FRT because of the mutual
interaction are reactive power and voltage control. Thus, the
FuT are 1) FRT capability and 2) reactive power control. The
PoI is to validate the compliance of the WPP as a whole to the
voltage against time profile during voltage sags and against a
voltage-reactive power curve for normal operating conditions.
2) System Configuration and SuT: The test system SC (see
Table I for the terminology) and the SuT of this test case
are shown in Fig. 3. It consists of the transmission system,
the collection grid of the WPP, the individual Wind Turbine
Generator (WTG) and its controls. The connections between
the components and subsystems reside in a domain, in this
case electric, control, or environment.
The SuT is the part of the system configuration comprising
the FuT. Although the actual implementations of FRT compliance are done inside the individual wind turbine controllers,
FRT verification is required at the coupling point. Hence the
boundary of the SuT is between the transmission system and
the WPP collection grid. By means of vector control the
protection circuits in the DC-link dynamically separate the
electromechanic part of the WTG from the grid interface. This
allows us to not take the wind turbine itself (i.e., aerodynamic
conversion, drive train, electromechanic conversion, stator-side
controls, pitching, etc.) into consideration. This also bounds
the DuI to the electric and control/ICT domains.
As for verification of voltage and reactive power control
the interactions are foreseen to mainly occur in the collector
grid. A supervisory WPP controller usually sets reference
values for either voltage, reactive power, or power factor, and
the individual WTGs need to track these set points locally.
Interaction with FRT is foreseen in case additional reactive
current injection is engaged during faults. The SuT for this
FuT hence comprises the WPP collection grid, the grid-side
converter, and its vector controls.
3) Test Criteria and FuI: The set of system configuration,
use cases, and functions under test cater for the evaluation of
two specific test criteria, namely
1) The validation of the ability of the WPP to maintain
synchronism with the external system during voltage
dips, as defined in a voltage against time curve;

PCC

fault ride-through controller

FRT state

B. Test Case (step 1 in Fig. 1)

IEEE 9-bus
transmission
system

Vc

bed potentially allows the inclusion of controls and phenomena with diverse time constants (e.g., supervisory frequency
control, voltage control, fault-ride through) and of different
nature (i.e., discrete versus continuous).

Vdc

environment

Ich

Fig. 3. Test system configuration (TS-SC) of the example holistic test case.

2) The validation of the conformance of the WPP to track
a reactive power against voltage curve by means of a
centralised voltage control mechanism.
To test the former, both functions under test are significant
as reactive power control during faults may boost the voltage
magnitude, alleviating the FRT duty of the WPP as a whole.
Hence, the FuI are the same as the FuT for the first test
criterion. For the second, the FRT mechanism is superfluous to
consider as the criterion is merely valid for normal operating
conditions. Thus, the FuI is the centralised voltage control of
the WPP.
C. Test Specification (step 3 in Fig. 1)
For the sake of brevity, we limit the test specification to the
FRT compliance and assume a similar procedure for evaluating
the test criterion concerning the reactive power at the coupling
point. The FuI here is the set of actions the FRT controller
has to take to fulfill the test criterion. Hence, the OuI is
the FRT controller. At this stage we need to further quantify
the test criterion, and need to define a more specific system
configuration.
1) Specific Test Criterion and Test System Configuration:
The test criterion is refined according to Fig. 4. It shows the
time versus positive-sequence voltage profile that the WPP
needs to be able to endure. In case the point of common
coupling (PCC) voltage enters the grey area (i.e., U PCC < Uret ,
B ) the WPP is allowed to disconnect from the grid. In
zone A , the FRT controller must engage internal component
protection and while is shall prevent entering zone B . The
protection and additional control measures that need to be
taken are implemented as a finite state machine, hence a discrete controller [30]. The corresponding test system comprises
the IEEE 9-bus transmission system, the SuT and the WTG.
The SuT and its internal connections are indicated in Fig. 3
by the gray area. The IEEE 9-bus benchmark system (i.e.,

mosaik

Interface
FMI-CS
FMU
acvsystem
powerfactory
Fig. 4.

Fault ride through voltage profile.

[31]), has been adapted to 50 Hz and to contain more realistic
dynamic behaviour of loads. This TS-SC represents the WPP
aggregatedly by a single permanent-magnet, direct drive WTG.
Detailed single-line representations of the collection grid and
transmission grid have been omitted for brevity.
2) Overall design of the test: The test criterion to verify
consists of two parts, a deep-dip part between t0 and tclear
and a recovery part between tclear and trec3 . The deep-dip part
is commonly caused by severe voltage dips that are quickly
isolated by protection. The recovery part serves two situations:
1) the voltage amplitude dynamics after fault clearance at or
before tclear , 2) the voltage response after a shallow voltage
dip cleared after tclear and does not violate U PCC < Uclear .
These situations can be replicated by causing a voltage dip
at the PCC by means of a self-extinguishing 3-phase-to-ground
fault in the external grid. The testing procedure is as follows:
1) Determine operating point;
2) Set short circuit location to x in the IEEE 9-bus system,
x
corresponding dip depth; Uret
3) Initiate short circuit at t0 = 0.1s;
4) Clear fault at tclear = y;
5) Assess test criteria; and
6) Vary x and y and repeat above sequence 2-5 times.
The experiment is considered successful if the WPP maintains
synchronism under the circumstances defined above.
D. Experiment Specification (step 3 in Fig. 1)
The test criterion can be evaluated by several experiments.
As field testing or pure hardware testing is unfeasible in this
case—it will be challenging to convince DSOs and WPP
owners to release their system as a testbed—the emphasis
will be on pure software and (C)HIL experiments. Example
experiment realizations include:
•
•

•
•

Monolithic simulation using MATLAB/Simulink (Simscape Power Systems Toolbox)
CHIL in which the grid is simulated by a real time
simulator and one of the wind turbine controllers is
implemented into a PLC and is connected via I/O
Co-simulation between PowerFactory and OpenModelica
Co-simulation between PowerFactory and mosaik using
both FMI for CS and ME

Fig. 5.

Interf.
FMI-ME
Solver
FMU
FRTv
Controller

Interf. Interf.
FMI-ME FMI-ME
Solver Solver
FMU
Vector
Control

FMU
WTG

Experimental implementation of TC1 in terms of mosaik and FMI.

The latter will now be explained in more detail as it combines
all the previously introduced building blocks (i.e., FMI++,
mosaik, simulation tools). Fig. 5 shows the distribution of
the system configuration across P OWER FACTORY and FMUs
for ME. The ac grid part of the test system is simulated
in P OWER FACTORY and comprises the IEEE 9-bus system,
the collection grid, and the ac grid interface of the WTG.
The latter is modelled by a variable quasi-stationary current
source. The set point values of this current source typically
come from the master simulator, which is done through the
FMI-CS interface. This wrapper connects to mosaik, which
on its turn orchestrates the overall simulation procedure. The
wind turbine, its controls, and the FRT controller are tested
and implemented in S IMULINK and subsequently exported as
FMUs for ME. The FMI++ wrapper accounts for the solution
routine needed for these FMUs.
This experimental setup combines all the merits that come
along with mosaik and FMI++: it allows design and validation
of models in a multi-domain simulation environment, couple it
to a master simulator by FMI-ME, and a flexible mock-up with
a commercial, domain-specific simulation tool by FMI-CS.
VI. E VALUATION , D ISCUSSION , AND O UTLOOK
This paper discussed a formal approach for holistic test
description, which is an invaluable tool for evaluation of the
integrated cyber-physical systems. This approach aims to harmonize the concepts and testing methods used by laboratories
and research infrastructures to analyze CPES, which are a
combination of different technologies across heterogeneous
domains (power, ICT/ automation, markets, etc.). In this paper
we provided co-simulation by the open-source mosaik framework using the FMI standard as one particular experimental
implementation of the holistic test description approach. The
extension of mosaik with FMI for co-simulation and model
exchange offers a versatile tool chain that allows multi-domain
co-simulation, testing, and validation, for components and
systems alike.
As a proof of concept of holistic CPES assessment by cosimulation, this paper discussed the fault ride-through of a
wind power plant that is grid connected at sub-transmission
level. This test case highlights the benefits of the formal
specification method. On use case level it clearly distinguishes

the interacting functions under test, on test specification level
the behaviour and modeling assumptions can be projected
on the test criteria, and the experimental specification allows
a very flexible way of assessing the separate sub-systems
on diverse experiment platforms. Next steps include the test
evaluation criteria, test refinement, and optimally mapping the
research infrastructure to the experiment specification. Future
work will include the application of uncertainty quantification
(UQ) methods to the test specification and evaluation process,
including UQ annotations in the model library, which will
enable UQ of the associated co-simulation experiments [32].
The tools and models chosen and implemented in ERIGrid
provide a representative example of FMI-compliant stateof-the-art concepts for modeling and simulation of CPES.
This will pave the way for improving interoperability and
repeatability for simulation-based evaluation and validation
approaches, notably by demonstrating the feasibility and illustrating the advantages and shortcomings of using FMIcompliant tools and models.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported the European Community’s Horizon
2020 Program (H2020/2014-2020) under project “ERIGrid”
(Grant Agreement No. 654113).
R EFERENCES
[1] European Commission, “Energy roadmap 2050,” Smart Grid Task Force,
Brussels, Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the
committee of the regions, 2011.
[2] P. Palensky and F. Kupzog, “Smart grids,” Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, vol. 38, pp. 201–226, 2013.
[3] T. Strasser, F. Andrén, J. Kathan, C. Cecati et al., “A review of
architectures and concepts for intelligence in future electric energy
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 4,
pp. 2424–2438, 2015.
[4] H. Farhangi, “The path of the smart grid,” IEEE Power and Energy
Magazine, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2010.
[5] T. Strasser, F. Pröstl Andrén, G. Lauss, et al., “Towards holistic power
distribution system validation and testing—an overview and discussion
of different possibilities,” e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik,
vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 71–77, 2017.
[6] R. Podmore and M. Robinson, “The role of simulators for smart grid
development,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 205–
212, Sept. 2010.
[7] K. Mets, J. A. Ojea, and C. Develder, “Combining power and communication network simulation for cost-effective smart grid analysis,” IEEE
Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1771–1796, 2014.
[8] P. Palensky, A. A. van der Meer, C. D. López, A. Jozeph, and K. Pan,
“Co-simulation of intelligent power systems - fundamentals, software
architecture, numerics, and coupling,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 11, no. 1, Mar. 2017.
[9] “European Research Infrastructure supporting Smart Grid Systems
Technology Development, Validation and Roll Out (ERIGrid),” https:
//www.erigrid.eu, accessed: 2017-02-19.
[10] P. Palensky, A. A. van der Meer, C. D. López, A. Jozeph, and K. Pan,
“Applied co-simulation of intelligent power systems: implementation,
usage, examples,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 11, no. 2,
Jun. 2017.
[11] R. Santodomingo, M. Uslar, A. Goring, M. Gottschalk, L. Nordstrom,
A. Saleem, and M. Chenine, “SGAM-based methodology to analyse
smart grid solutions in discern european research project,” in 2014 IEEE
International Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), 2014, pp. 751–758.

[12] K. Heussen, M. Uslar, and C. Tornelli, “A use case methodology to
handle conflicting controller requirements for future power systems,” in
2015 International Symposium on Smart Electric Distribution Systems
and Technologies (EDST), 2015, pp. 582–587.
[13] CEN-CENELEC-ETSI, Smart Grid Coordination Group, “Smart Grid
Reference Architecture (SGAM), v 3.0,” 2012.
[14] ——, “SG-CG Report on Interoperability,” 2014.
[15] M. Blank, S. Lehnhoff, K. Heussen, D. E. M. Bondy, C. Moyo, and
T. Strasser, “Towards a foundation for holistic power system validation
and testing,” in 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on Emerging
Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2016, pp. 1–4.
[16] S. Schütte, “Simulation Model Composition for the Large-Scale
Analysis of Smart Grid Control Mechanisms,” PhD, Carl von
Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 2013. [Online]. Available: http:
//oops.uni-oldenburg.de/1768/
[17] M. Büscher, A. Claassen, M. Kube, S. Lehnhoff, K. Piech, S. Rohjans,
S. Scherfke, C. Steinbrink, and J. Velasquez, “Integrated Smart Grid
Simulations for Generic Automation Architectures with RT-LAB and
mosaik,” in IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridCom), 2014.
[18] S. Lehnhoff, O. Nannen, S. Rohjans, F. Schlogl, S. Dalhues, L. Robitzky,
U. Häger, and C. Rehtanz, “Exchangeability of power flow simulators in
smart grid co-simulations with mosaik,” in 2015 Workshop on Modeling
and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES), 2015.
[19] MODELISAR Consortium, “Functional Mock-up Interface for Model
Exchange and Co-Simulation,” Tech. Rep., 2014.
[20] E. Widl, W. Müller, A. Elsheikh, M. Hörtenhuber, and P. Palensky,
“The FMI++ library: A high-level utility package for FMI for model
exchange,” in 2013 Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of CyberPhysical Energy Systems (MSCPES), May 2013.
[21] S. Rohjans, E. Widl, W. Müller, S. Schütte, and S. Lehnhoff, “Gekoppelte simulation komplexer energiesysteme mittels mosaik und FMI,”
at – Automatisierungstechnik, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 325–336, 2014.
[22] M. Stifter, R. Schwalbe, F. Andrén, and T. Strasser, “Steady-state cosimulation with PowerFactory,” in 2013 Workshop on Modeling and
Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES), May 2013.
[23] S. Ciraci, J. Daily, J. Fuller, A. Fisher, L. Marinovici, and K. Agarwal,
“FNCS: A framework for power system and communication networks
co-simulation,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Theory of Modeling
& Simulation - DEVS Integrative, ser. DEVS ’14. San Diego, CA, USA:
Society for Computer Simulation International, 2014, pp. 36:1–36:8.
[24] D. Broman, C. Brooks, L. Greenberg, E. A. Lee, M. Masin, S. Tripakis,
and M. Wetter, “Determinate composition of FMUs for co-simulation,”
in 13th International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT),
September 2013.
[25] S. Tripakis and D. Broman, “Bridging the semantic gap between heterogeneous modeling formalisms and FMI,” EECS Department, University
of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2014-30, Apr 2014.
[26] E. Widl, F. Judex, K. Eder, and P. Palensky, “Fmi-based co-simulation
of hybrid closed-loop control system models,” in 2015 International
Conference on Complex Systems Engineering (ICCSE), Nov 2015.
[27] P. Dambrauskas, M. H. Syed, S. M. Blair, J. M. Irvine, I. F. Abdulhadi,
D. E. M. Bondy, and G. M. Burt, “Impact of realistic communications
for fast-acting demand side management,” in proc. CIRED Workshop
2017, Glasgow, UK, Jun., ”12–15”, 2017.
[28] A. J. Roscoe, I. F. Abdulhadi, and G. M. Burt, “P and m class phasor
measurement unit algorithms using adaptive cascaded filters,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1447–1459, Jul.
2013.
[29] European Commission, “Commission regulation (EU) 2016/631,” 2016,
last accessed: Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
eli/reg/2016/631/oj
[30] A. A. van der Meer, M. Ndreko, M. Gibescu, and M. A. M. M.
van der Meijden, “The effect of FRT behavior of VSC-HVDC connected offshore wind power plants on AC/DC system dynamics,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 878–887, Apr. 2016.
[31] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability.
Wiley-IEEE Press, 2003.
[32] C. Steinbrink, S. Lehnhoff, and T. Klingenberg, “Ensemble-Based Uncertainty Quantification for Smart Grid Co-Simulation,” in Measurement,
Modelling and Evaluation of Dependable Computer and Communication
Systems, 2016.

