The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 207643
Communications Requirements for Smart Grids and Active Demand
communication
Andrew Paice, ABB
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOPACTIVE DEMAND: THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
2
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Outline
Goals & Methodology– Survey on Future requirements of Smart Grids– Architecture Design Methodology
Survey Results– Key requirements– Service Oriented Architecture / Web Services
Draft Architecture– Actor interactions– Service & Connectivity– Traffic Matrix
3
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Goals
In the project, the Communications workpackage has the goal of providing– A guideline to designing a communications architecture that
will enable active demand– A guide to testing that the implemented communications
system is sufficient to operate a smart grid with active demand– Tested prototypes and a design for the field tests
The aim of the first communication activity was to:“Identify, describe and specify the main requirements on the communication infrastructure – data transmission architecture, and data service requirements – in order to enable active demand”
4
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Methodology
Survey– Partners and members of the GUS will be surveyed regarding:
• Status of the current communications system• Expected developments• Specific Smart Grids requirements
Use Case Analysis– Based on the Use Cases of Deliverable D1.1, the interactions
between actors are analyzed down to the individual links to determine the communications requirements
5
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Survey on future Smart Grids Communications
19 entities answered the survey:– ABB, Alcatel-Lucent, Consentec, Current Technologies
International (CTI), Elektrizitätswerke des Kantons Zürich (EKZ), ENEL Distribuzione, ENEL Produzione, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Ericsson, Iberdrola, Instituto Tecnológico de la Energía (ITE), KEMA, Landis+Gyr, LABEIN Tecnalia, Vattenfall, Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (VITO), VTT and ZIV
They provided details regarding:– Interoperability, PHY Media, Scalability, Regulatory Issues,
Standardisation, Performance: business / technical, Robustness/availability, Plug & Play, Management, Upgrades, Security, CAPEX & OPEX
6
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Key Results / Communications Requirements
– Flexibility with respect to physical media
• Last mile likely to be PLC, wireless, or re-routed via Public TeleCom
– Full interoperability for all network elements
• To be guaranteed by XML based messaging & CIM standards
– Secure remote access to all elements of the network
– Implementation to be compatible with TCP/IP and Web Services
• Technical & business performance requirements
– Communication performance should be independent of grid state
– At Aggregator & E-Box level the network should be self-configuring
– Network management: Visualization & remote configuration
7
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Communications ArchitectureBasis: Service Oriented Architecture
8
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Communications ArchitectureBasis: Service Oriented Architecture & Web Services
9
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Architecture Design Methodology
Based on the requirements & use cases from D1.1
– Step 0: Identify the Logical Communication Entities
– Step 1: Identify the Logical Architecture
• Analyze the interactions to determine the required Services
• Determine cardinality, addressing & partitioning
– Step 2: Map Logical to Physical Architecture
• Consider Geographical Span & Technologies
• Consider Performance Issues
• Determine the resulting network
– Step 3: Determine completeness
• Otherwise iterate Steps 1 & 2
10
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 10
Abstract Communications Architecture
[1...
20]
[1...600]
[1...5]
[5...100][10...500]
[100...5000]
[1...20]
[1...20]
Aggregator 1
Aggregator n
DSO 1
DSO n
TSO 1
TSO nRetailer 1
Retailer n
Trader n
Trader 1
DG 1
DG n
BRP 1
BRP n
Producer 1
Producer n
MARKET
E-Box 1
E-Box n
E-Box 1
E-Box n
[10...100000][10...100000]
11
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Service and Connectivity
Starting from the service description in (D1.1) and some initial general assumptions
concerning the network, draft a generic architecture describing the logical end to end
connection needed for the implementation of each specific service.
12
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 12
Traffic Matrix
TSOack Message Payload Short Description
From To (n:m)
TSO DSO (1:6)
Note:
Payload (Application Layer)
Data Lenght (bit) Note
Parameter 256 XML Message Description
TimeStamp 64 Standard Reference
Sender ID 32 Example:
Total 352
Traffic (60;60)(Frequency Periodicity in second; Max Round Trip Time including channel and Telecommunication Interfaces in seconds)
Priority L Low; High
13
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 13
Performance: business
14
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 14
Performance: technical
15
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
ADDRESS Scenario & Traffic Matrix Sample
Using WEB Services will have big
impact on the traffic matrix while
assuring the highest level of
interoperability
SRP Request Message Payload Short Description
From To (n:m) Market Participant Market (1000:1)
Note: Request - from different buyers - for a SRP Product
Data Lenght (bit) Note Parameter 256 Description TimeStamp 64 Standard Reference Sender ID 32 Description Service ID 32 Description Service requested/supplied
16 Status
Service negotiation gate closure
64 Time Reference
Minimum volume 64 Power reference Requested/supplied power or power curve shape
256 Description
Price structure 256 Description Macro Load Areas or Load Areas involved
256 Description
Other conditions 256 Description
Payload (Application Layer)
Total …
Traffic (Before Market gate closure;60)
(Frequency Periodicity in second; Max Round Trip Time including channel and Telecommunication Interfaces in seconds)
Priority L Low; High
100000-1000000E-boxes1Market1000-10000Market Participants1-20Aggregators1-600DSOs1-5TSO
Scenario
100000-1000000E-boxes1Market1000-10000Market Participants1-20Aggregators1-600DSOs1-5TSO
Scenario
TSO
Market
Market Participant
DSO
Aggregator
AD Product Request
AD Product results
E-Box
AD Product Partecipation Info
AD Product Activation Info
Real Time / Time constraining Data Exchange
Non Real Time Data Exchange
Macro Load Areas
Coordination Info
AD Products
Validation Info
Load Areas Sensitivity Matrix (day ahead) Load Profiles
AD Products
Validation Info
AD Product Offer
64 kb/s
32Mb/s
8Mb/s
32Mb/s
4Mb/s
6Mb/s
64kb
/s 64kb
/s
256 kb/s
2 Mb/s
2Mb
/s 64kb
/s
AD Product results
16
Paris, June 9th 2010
ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
Conclusions & next steps
The requirements on the ADDRESS communications infrastructure have been identified by:– A survey on the needs of the communications infrastructure– An initial analysis of the use cases
A service oriented architecture based on web services and standardized XML messages forms the basis for ADDRESS communications
The Traffic matrix has been introduced as a tool for estimating & representing the overall performance requirements for a specific scenario
Next steps:– Communications media will be identified– Specific solutions will be developed– The requirements and architecture will be refined– Communications architectures for the field tests will be developed
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 207643
THANK YOU