Comparison of Power Hardware-in-the-Loop Approaches for the Testing of Smart Grid Controls

Falko Ebe, Basem Idlbi, David E. Stakic, Shuo Chen, Christoph Kondzialka, Matthias Casel, Gerd Heilscher, Christian Seitl, Roland Bründlinger and Thomas I. Strasser
Additional contact information
Falko Ebe: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Basem Idlbi: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
David E. Stakic: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Shuo Chen: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Christoph Kondzialka: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Matthias Casel: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Gerd Heilscher: Smart Grids Research Group, Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89075 Ulm, Germany
Christian Seitl: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Electric Energy Systems—Center for Energy, 1210 Vienna, Austria
Roland Bründlinger: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Electric Energy Systems—Center for Energy, 1210 Vienna, Austria
Thomas I. Strasser: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Electric Energy Systems—Center for Energy, 1210 Vienna, Austria

Energies, 2018, vol. 11, issue 12, 1-29

Abstract: The fundamental changes in the energy sector, due to the rise of renewable energy resources and the possibilities of the digitalisation process, result in the demand for new methodologies for testing Smart Grid concepts and control strategies. Using the Power Hardware-in-the-Loop (PHIL) methodology is one of the key elements for such evaluations. PHIL and other in-the-loop concepts cannot be considered as plug’n’play and, for a wider adoption, the obstacles have to be reduced. This paper presents the comparison of two different setups for the evaluation of components and systems focused on undisturbed operational conditions. The first setup is a conventional PHIL setup and the second is a simplified setup based on a quasi-dynamic PHIL (QDPHIL) approach which involves fast and continuously steady state load flow calculations. A case study which analyses a simple superimposed voltage control algorithm gives an example for the actual usage of the quasi-dynamic setup. Furthermore, this article also provides a comparison and discussion of the achieved results with the two setups and it concludes with an outlook about further research.

Keywords: Hardware-in-the-Loop; Software-in-the-Loop; Power-Hardware-in-the-Loop; Quasi-Dynamic Power-Hardware-in-the-Loop; smart grids; real-time simulation; validation and testing; decentralised energy system; smart grids control strategies (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3381/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3381/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3381-:d:187370

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().