CIM/GID Interoperability Testing

1
CIM/GID Interoperability Testing

• Presented by Lars-Ola Österlund
• At CIM Users group 2008-06-10 in Västerås

2
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.

3
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...

4
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

5
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

6
CIM Releases
CIM Profile Date
cim05 - December 1996
cim06 - April 1997
cim07 - April 1998
cimu07 - April 1998
cimu08 - August 1999
cimu09a_001215 CPSM 2000-12-06 December 2000
cim10_010825c CPSM 2001-04-02 April 2001
cim10_011015 CPSM 1.5 September 2001
cim10_011015 CPSM 1.6 July 2002
cim10_030501 CPSM 1.7 November 2003
cim10_030501 CPSM 1.8 July 2004
cim10v002 CPSM 1.9 September 2005
cim10v003 CPSM 2.0 March 2006
cim11 (cim10v004) IEC 61970-452 Rev3 October 2006
cim12v03 IEC 61970-452 Rev4 Q1 2008
7
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

8
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

9
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

10
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 AE) -61970-407 (HDAIS/OPC-HDA)
11
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

12
ABB40Bus Network Overview
13
Sample CIMXML Model File

• ltrdfRDF xmlnsrdf"http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-r
  df-syntax-ns" xmlnscim"http//iec.ch/TC57/2007/
  CIM-schema-cim12"gt
• ...
• ltcimSubstation rdfID"_7582201"gt
• ltcimIdentifiedObject.localNamegtMONRlt/cimIdentifi
  edObject.localNamegt
• ltcimIdentifiedObject.namegtMONROElt/cimIdentifiedO
  bject.namegt
• ltcimSubstation.Region rdfresource"_83129201"/gt
  
• lt/cimSubstationgt
• ...
• ltcimVoltageLevel rdfID"_7583201gt
• ltcimIdentifiedObject.localNamegt220kVlt/cimIdentif
  iedObject.localNamegt
• ltcimIdentifiedObject.namegtMONR220SUBNETlt/cimIden
  tifiedObject.namegt
• ltcimVoltageLevel.MemberOf_Substation
  rdfresource"_7582201"/gt
• ltcimVoltageLevel.BaseVoltage rdfresource"_2200
  00302"/gt
• lt/cimVoltageLevelgt
• ...
• lt/rdfRDFgt

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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?

19
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