Biblio

The recent attention towards research and development in cyber-physical energy systems has introduced the necessity of emerging multi-domain co-simulation tools. Different educational, research and industrial efforts have been set to tackle the co-simulation topic from several perspectives. The majority of previous works has addressed the standardization of models and interfaces for data exchange, automation of simulation, as well as improving performance and accuracy of co-simulation setups. Furthermore, the domains of interest so far have involved communication, control, markets and the environment in addition to physical energy systems. However, the current characteristics and state of co-simulation testbeds need to be re-evaluated for future research demands. These demands vary from new domains of interest, such as human and social behavior models, to new applications of co-simulation, such as holistic prognosis and system planning. This paper aims to formulate these research demands that can then be used as a road map and guideline for future development of co-simulation in cyber-physical energy systems.

Evaluating new technological developments for energy systems is becoming more and more complex. The overall application environment is a continuously growing and interconnected cyber-physical system so that analytical assessment is practically impossible to realize. Consequently, new solutions must be evaluated in simulation studies. Due to the interdisciplinarity of the simulation scenarios, various heterogeneous tools must be connected. This approach is known as co-simulation. During the last years, different approaches have been developed or adapted for applications in energy systems. In this paper, two co-simulation approaches are compared that follow generic, versatile concepts. The tool MOSAIK, which has been explicitly developed for the purpose of co-simulation in complex energy systems, is compared to the High Level Architecture (HLA), which possesses a domain-independent scope but is often employed in the energy domain. The comparison is twofold, considering the tools’ conceptual architectures as well as results from the simulation of representative test cases. It suggests that MOSAIK may be the better choice for entry-level, prototypical co-simulation while HLA is more suited for complex and extensive studies.