T OOLS FOR MODELLING AND SIMULATING THE S MART G RID

Ricardo M. Czekster
Newcastle University, School of Computing
[email protected]
arXiv:2011.07968v3 [cs.PF] 19 Nov 2020

A BSTRACT
The Smart Grid (SG) is a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) considered a critical infrastructure divided into
cyber (software) and physical (hardware) counterparts that complement each other. It is responsible
for timely power provision wrapped by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for
handling bi-directional energy flows in electric power grids. Enacting control and performance over
the massive infrastructure of the SG requires convenient analysis methods. Modelling and simulation
(M&S) is a performance evaluation technique used to study virtually any system by testing designs
and artificially creating ‘what-if’ scenarios for system reasoning and advanced analysis. M&S avoids
stressing the actual physical infrastructure and systems in production by addressing the problem in a
purely computational perspective. Present work compiles a non-exhaustive list of tools for M&S of
interest when tackling SG capabilities. Our contribution is to delineate available options for modellers
when considering power systems in combination with ICT. We also show the auxiliary tools and
details of most relevant solutions pointing out major features and combinations over the years.

Keywords Modelling & Simulation · Co-simulation · Cyber-Physical Systems · Smart Grid · Tools

1 Introduction
Modelling and simulation (M&S) is a key technique for assessing the performance of virtually any system. The Smart
Grid (SG) is a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and also a critical infrastructure amenable for M&S. The SG encompasses
a large infrastructure through extensive use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Gungor et al.
(2012) [36] surveyed the SG in terms of ICT requirements, explaining its major features and concerns for modelling
assets and new service capabilities for increased remote control. Alongside Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, they pose a large complex system requiring multiple
analysis angles [61]. M&S provides means to artificially create models that map real-world settings where analysts
address ‘what-if’ questions and quantitative analysis over multiple scenarios.
Simulation was revamped in past years to accommodate the embedding of power systems with telecommunication,
giving rise to coupled simulations, or co-simulations for short. This technique is used to combine two or more simulation
engines into one global simulation as stipulated by Gomes et al. (2018) [83]. The authors have surveyed the literature
and discussed major principles behind this technique. Co-simulation is used in the SG [17, 31, 26, 28, 97] to synchronise
a continuous time Electric Power Simulator (EPS) with a discrete time telecommunication network simulator. Co-
simulation is a multifaceted mechanism for investigating hybrid systems from distinct application domains, besides
only power or telecommunications. For instance, it may integrate multi-purpose simulation engines, according to the
problem under consideration.
Mets et al. (2014) [54] explained the need for co-simulation in power grids whereas Vogt et al. (2018) [92] discussed
available tools and the main mechanism behind hybrid engines whilst tackling the so called ‘synchronisation problem’.
Specific to energy management, Azeroual et al. (2020) [107] investigated primarily wind turbines in microgrids
discussing major tools for modelling multi-agent systems. Energy assets are spread out over large geographical domains
operating as Distributed Energy Resources (DER). These can be based on Renewable Energy Resources (RER) such as
solar roof-top Photo-Voltaic (PV) or Wind Turbines Power Converter Systems (WTPCS), or storage mechanisms in
batteries statically installed in buildings, or mobile ones present in Electric Vehicles (EV).
As massive numbers of DER are scattered over the infrastructure, telecommunication becomes a problem when relying
on energy assets to regulate frequency as well as other so called ancillary services provision [70]. One disconcerting
problem is when malicious cyber incursions attempt to delay packets traversing the network, corrupt data, or prevent
them from reaching their destinations as discussed in a wealth of work throughout the years [75, 73, 102, 96].
The contribution of this work is to point out relevant M&S tools for EPS, telecommunications, co-simulation engines,
and modelling mechanisms for use in the SG. We highlight the most used ones over the years, discussing their major
features and internal details, listing the auxiliary tools and libraries on their design.
The work is divided as follows. Section 2 describes modelling and simulation tools for use in the Smart Grid. In
Section 3 we present a discussion on tools and models, highlighting advantages and shortcomings. Section 4 ends our
work with our final considerations.

2 Simulation tools

We describe next proprietary (Section 2.1) and open source or free co-simulation tools (remaining sections). Our focus
is directed on modelling power and telecommunication systems. The chosen order to present results are by ascending
publication year, i.e., since it was first proposed to the research community.

2.1 Proprietary

Private companies and enterprises implemented substantial power based simulation solutions over the years. A tool is
considered proprietary if it used at least one proprietary solution in the mix with other open-source and free libraries or
implementations. These close solutions have obfuscated their tool’s internal schema and details.

• Electric power simulators: Examples are Siemens’ Power System Simulator (PSS)1 and PowerWorld2 .
Another significant tool is the DiGISILENT PowerFactory3 for simulating power systems [52].
• Telecommunication networks simulators: A tool called OPNET Modeler4 was used to help users define
and work with different topologies and technologies.
• Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) approaches:
– 1995: A solution worth mentioning is the Real-Time Digital Simulator (RTDS) [2], a proprietary solution
implementing a real-time simulation library for EPS and HIL modelling.
– 2005: OPAL-RT is a real-time EPS with HIL capabilities [8]5 . It was coupled with the telecommunication
network simulator provided by OPNET [58].
• Co-simulation:
– 2006: In terms of co-simulation, we highlight Electric Power and cOmmunication synCHronizing
Simulator (EPOCHS) [12]. It uses ns-2, Power Systems Computer Aided Design (PSCAD) [6] and for
transient simulation, EMTDC (electromagnetic) and the PSLF (electromechanical). EPOCHS offers a
version with reduced features for free/testing.
– 2012: Global Event-driven CO-simulation framework (GECO) [38] uses General Electric’s Positive
Sequence Load Flow (PSLF), Optimal Power Flow (OPF), and ns-2 to tackle SG co-simulation. GECO is
not free because it employs proprietary tools in its solution.
– 2013: The INtegrated co-Simulation of Power and ICT systems for Real-time Evaluation (INSPIRE) [41]
uses other proprietary software such as OPNET Modeler and DIgSILENT PowerFactory. On the same
direction, the Testbed for Analyzing Security of SCADA Control Systems (TASSCS) [32] uses OPNET
and PowerWorld for cybersecurity in SCADA.
– 2014: Another tool is the Secure Operation of Sustainable Power Systems Simulation Platform (SOSPO-
SP) [55]. It assesses security and stability of EPS employing proprietary tools and libraries such as PSS
and RTDS for modelling SCADA and Phasor Management Units (PMU). Sun et al. (2014) [56] combined
OpenDSS and OPNET for studying the reliability of control strategies in the SG composed by a high
number of DER.
1
PSS®power system simulation and modeling software. Link: https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/
energy-automation-and-smart-grid/pss-software.html.
2
Link: PowerWorld » The visual approach to electric power systemshttps://www.powerworld.com/.
3
Link: https://www.digsilent.de/en/powerfactory.html.
4
OPNET. Link: https://support.riverbed.com/content/support/software/opnet-model/modeler.html.
5
Power System Simulation Software. Link: https://www.opal-rt.com/power-systems-overview/.

2
 – 2017: The European ERIgrid project [74] implemented a tool that used the Functional Mock-up Interface
(FMI)/Functional Mock-up Units (FMU) and devised a holistic approach combining PowerFactory,
Mosaik, OpenModelica, MATLAB/Simulink, and ns-3 altogether. Saxena et al. (2017) [78] devised a
cyber-security tool for framing risk assessments in the SG for better situational awareness. It combined
PowerWorld, MATLAB, GridSim, Matlabcontrol, JADE, and ns-3 into its framework.
• Virtual testbeds:
– 2009: The Virtual Power System Testbed (VPST) [16] focused on network security analysis in SCADA.
The main idea behind VPST is to provide modellers with a virtual framework for experimenting with
equipment reactions in extreme (e.g. under attack) situations in large-scale power and telecommunication
networks. For power it used PowerWorld whereas for telecommunications it employed Rinse [10], a
real-time virtual network to model the cyber part of the electrical grid.
– 2011: VPNET [29] uses the Virtual Test Bed (VTB) with OPNET, and presented a case study using a
converter model and communication issues, whereas the Multi-Agent and Communication Simulator
(MAC-sim) [45] used Java Agent DEvelopment (JADE) platform [4] and OPNET Modeler.

Obvious advantages of proprietary software are usually the contractual support and constant maintenance, frequent
updates and patches for defects correction, as well as fast and timely execution. The tools are usually shipped to
customers with a plethora of examples and modelling possibilities, and well as a comprehensive documentation.
The tools are carefully validated, so they offer higher accreditation, however, since it is a closed solution, model
interoperability over other software suites is limited. As another disadvantage, we mention that sometimes costs are
prohibitive, as the licensing model often entails buying a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution, even though the
customers will only use a fraction of the software.
Next we describe open-source and free solutions available for modellers, dividing the analysis into EPS, telecommuni-
cation, general purpose, co-simulators, Transactive Energy Systems (TES), MATLAB, and other tools, as follows.

2.2 Electric Power Simulators

• 2007: The Internet-technology Based Power System Simulator (InterPSS) [13, 46, 79] is written in Java used for
on-line real-time EPS. It supports cascading failure analysis, forecasting and CIM6 model processing.
• 2008: GridLAB-D [14, 50] is an agent based EPS for energy distribution networks implemented at the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the US. It is written in C++, except for some scripting and MATLAB
interfaces, which contributes to its performance capabilities. It is a scalable solution and well documented as modellers
have access to several examples and IEEE Test Feeders to use as basis for more complex analysis.
• 2010: MATPOWER7 has wide acceptance among industry, enterprises, and academia [23]. It offers MATLAB
scripts for steady-state analysis of Power Flow (PF), Continuation Power Flow (CPF), extensible Optimal Power Flow
(OPF), Unit Commitment (UC), and stochastic, secure multi-interval OPF/UC.
- PYPOWER8 is a Python solution derived from MATPOWER whereas oct2pypower9 serves as a Python bridge to
MATPOWER.
• 2012: The Open Distribution System Simulator (OpenDSS)10 is also a relevant EPS tool [39]. It supports modelling
DER for grid modernisation and integration.
• 2016: Krishnamurthy (2016) [63] developed the Power System Simulation Toolbox (psst)11 to use in conjunction with
AMES (see Section 2.6). It offered a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for modelling and it was implemented in Python.
• 2018: pandapower12 is also written in Python, promising higher level of modelling automation [89]. It is shipped
with a comprehensive set of examples and a detailed documentation so modellers may create and adapt models to their
concerns.
6
The Common Information Model (CIM) consists of European and international standards.
7
MATPOWER - Free, open-source tools for elec. power syst. simul. and optimization. Link: https://matpower.org/.
8
PYPOWER - PyPI. Link: https://pypi.org/project/PYPOWER/.
9
Link: https://github.com/rwl/oct2pypower.
10
OpenD. Link: https://www.epri.com/pages/sa/opendss. According to the website, the tool has been used since 1997.
11
Link: https://github.com/ames-market/psst.
12
pandapower. Link: http://www.pandapower.org/.

3
The Scalable Electric Power System Simulator (SEPSS) [86] employed MATLAB in a modular fashion to ease analysis.
It was designed for multi-layered modeling of complex system where it allowed analysts to design multi-temporal cyber
signals such as disturbances, market signals, and control set points.

2.3 Telecommunication networks simulators

• 2010: The Network Simulator ns-3 [20] has high acceptance in both industry and academia. The latest version has
multiple telecommunication modelling capabilities for diverse sets of protocols and packet transmission technologies
(wired, wireless, or other medium). Despite being introduced in 2010, with its constant updates and improvements it is
still a major player.
- Another tool worth mentioning is the Objective Modular Network Testbed in C++ (OMNET++) that together with the
INET Framework [22] adds consistent telecommunication modelling when modelling complex networks13 .
- The Network Security Simulator (Nessi) [21] is a network simulator built for security concerns. It offers plug-ins for
profile-based automated attack generation, traffic analysis and support for detection algorithms. The main difference
between other network simulators is to offer a detection Application Programming Interface (API) for integrating and
evaluating Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS).

2.4 General purpose co-simulators

General Purpose (GP) co-simulators are implementations that could virtually model any real-world problem considering
the restrictions imposed by the modelling abstractions.
• 2016: The Integrated Tool Chain for Model-based Design of CPS (INTO-CPS) [64] was integrated into the co-
simulator offered by Maestro [104] using Modelio Multi-Model, OpenModelica, SysmML, and 20-sim. It employs the
FMI/FMU standard [24] as the middleware for communicating across the toolchain.
• 2018: Multi-agent Environment for Complex SYstems CO-simulation (MECSYCO) [80], written in Java (a C++
version is mentioned to be under development), is a GP simulator for hybrid systems modelling. The tool uses the
formal Discrete eVent system Specification (DEVS) for communicating among simulators [1, 3].

2.5 Power/telecommunications co-simulation engines

• 2011: Mosaik14 is a co-simulation framework that promises to incorporate flexibility for the creation of large-scale
scenarios for EPS [34]. It has bindings to PYPOWER and a demonstration scenario for modellers to learn how to use
the tool.
- The SCADAsim [33] framework is built on top of OMNeT++ and using MATLAB/Simulink models adapted from
SimPowerSystems15 .
- The co-simulation proposed by Liberatore et al. (2011) [30, 37] used Modelica for the electric grid and ns-2 for
modelling the telecommunications.
- Grunewald et al. (2011) improved Nessi (Section 2.3) and developed Nessi2 [27], adding improvements over previous
versions. The latter was extended to work with InterPSS [25], where the authors applied it in cybersecurity.
• 2012: The Smart-Grid Common Open Research Emulator (SCORE) [40] offered an emulation environment for EPS,
with the possibility of integrating power and telecommunication systems. It provided mechanisms for energy model
programming interfaces such as shiftable and non-shiftable loads, and renewable energy resources (PV and WTPCS).
• 2014: The Framework for Network Co-Simulation (FNCS) [51, 72] combines GridLAB-D with ns-3 for co-simulating
power distribution and telecommunication. It synchronises simulation engines acting as a firmware to coordinate time
passage and interaction.
- GridSpice [48] is a cloud-based solution for power transmission and generation that allowed analysts to scale
designs as the platform executed in a pay-as-you-go model. It used GridLAB-D with MATPOWER in a graphical
interface equipped with a geographical editor, project explorer, and wizard for importing objects from other tools. The
MATPOWER dealed with the transmission and economic dispatch problem whereas GridLAB-D was used for power
distribution in a master/worker schema (a supervisor catering several simultaneous tasks).
13
Link for OMNeT++: https://omnetpp.org, and for INET: https://inet.omnetpp.org/.
14
mosaik - A flexible Smart Grid co-simulation platform. Link: https://mosaik.offis.de/.
15
The tool is available at https://github.com/caxqueiroz/scadasim, however, it has not being updated since 2011.

4
- Awad et al. (2014) [49] proposed SGsim, a co-simulation framework using OMNeT++ and OpenDSS.
• 2015: Bytschkow et al. (2015) combined GridLAB-D, CIM, and AKKA (Java-based co-simulation engine) to model
a SCADA system [59].
- Hansen et al. (2015) developed Bus.py [60], a GridLAB-D communication interface for EPS. It was used to simulated
the communication between a set of customers in a distribution network and an aggregator. Bus.py also enabled the
co-simulation of Energy Management Systems (EMS) and the simulation of Integrated Transmission and Distribution
(ITD) systems.
• 2016: Zambrano proposed GridTeractions [68], a framework for teaching and testing grid designs using a hardware-
software architecture with miniprocessor terminals (Raspberry PI 2). The solution used OpenDSS through a graphical
auxiliary front-end called OpenDSS-G16 in a co-simulation with LabVIEW [39].
- Hannon et al. (2016) [62] developed the Distribution System Solver Network (DSSnet) using Mininet’s SDN emulation
for telecommunications and OpenDSS for EPS. The authors presented the details behind the architecture and a case
study on load shifting.
• 2017: FNCS is currently being replaced by a multi-federated approach called the Hierarchical Engine for Large-scale
Infrastructure Co-Simulation (HELICS) [76] by the same research group.
- Python for Power System Analysis (PyPSA) [69, 84] is used for power flow and electric power system steady-state
analysis. The authors compared their solution with existing (and similar) approaches in terms of grid and economical
analysis as well as comparing PyPSA with MATPOWER for several examples.
• 2018: The Cyber physical co-simulation platform for Distributed Energy Resources in smart grids (CyDER) [81, 99,
94] is a modular co-simulation framework for addressing DER in the SG. It is under development by a consortium of
academic and industrial partners lead by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US). CyDER is based on the
FMI standard and GridDyn with some Python integration (PyFMI) for PV and EV modelling, building simulators and
PMU. The technical report does not mention how the telecommunication among DER operates, however, the platform
is still under development. We mention the effort to integrate buildings with co-simulation through FMU as described
by Nouidui et al. (2018) [88].
- Hantao and Fangxing (2018) [82, 108] implemented Andes17 , a Python-based co-simulation that worked with
MAPOWER and PSAT combined with Mininet18 , a Software Defined Networks (SDN) communication networks
simulator. It employed PyPMU for M&S of networks of PMU/PDC in large scale settings. Andes opened different
input models such as PSS/E raw format, MATPOWER, and Dome.
- Krishnamoorthy and Dubey [87] presented a co-simulation framework combining MATPOWER with OpenDSS
for modelling the impact of DER over ITD systems. The authors validated the approach against DIGiSILENT
PowerFactory [90].
• 2019: The Zero OBvious Node Link co-simulator (ZerOBNL) [101]19 was implemented in Python and used
pandapower in a so called partitioned approach, breaking down elements into more manageable parts in larger co-
simulations. They employed ZeroMQ [43] for communicating among elements, a fast socket library for distributed
applications and Docker for faster virtualised executions. This framework is part of a larger research project called
IntegrCiTy20 , offering a large set of examples and auxiliary tools for EPS.
- Pallonetto et al. (2019) [100] took a different direction and developed a framework called SimApi for benchmarking
building control algorithms. It employs the Building Controls Virtual Test Bed (BCVTB), a software environment that
integrates different simulation engines into a global co-simulation21 . It is cloud-based (i.e. it runs online) and allows for
co-simulation of EMS and Building Energy Systems (BES). There is no comment on the software used for EPS used
for executing the platform (it is encapsulated within the system).
- Steinbrink et al. (2019) [103] used Mosaik to devise a testing platform for experimenting in Cyber-Physical En-
ergy Systems (CPES). It allowed modellers to conduct planning, quantify uncertainty and assist domain experts in
collaboration efforts.
16
A graphical view of OpenDSS. Link:https://sourceforge.net/projects/dssimpc/.
17
Link: https://github.com/cuihantao/andes.
18
Mininet: An Instant Virtual Network on your Laptop (or other PC). Link: http://mininet.org/.
19
Link: https://github.com/IntegrCiTy/zerobnl.
20
Link: https://github.com/IntegrCiTy.
21
Here is a list of software that are linked to BCVTB: EnergyPlus, Modelica and Dymola (simulation environment), FMU/FMI
1.0 and 2.0, MATLAB/Simulink, Radiance ray-tracing software for lighting analysis, ESP-r for building energy modeling, TRNSYS
(system simulation program), and the BACnet stack. Link: https://simulationresearch.lbl.gov/bcvtb.

5
- Kennouche et al. (2019) developed the Asynchronous Smart Grid Simulation (ASGriDS)22 [95], a framework that
combined pandapower with GNU/Linux based emulators and tools to model asynchronous communication between
elements. It can be deployed with different telecommunication models, i.e., emulated, simulated, or real, where
modellers could for example model network impairments with GNU/Linux-based traffic and shaping tool (tc) [7] and
the netem module [9] (for network emulation).
• 2020: The SCEPTRE toolchain [110] is a virtualised (on-line) option for modelling DER and investigate communica-
tion latencies across technologies.
- The Open Platform for Energy Networks (OPEN) [112] uses pandapower internally and presents two examples for
modellers, one consisting of an EV set up, and another mimicking an EMS.
- The SmartGrid Cosimulation Platform [113] uses ns-3 combined with OpenDSS and Mosaik. It presented two case
studies, one for voltage regulation and another for setting up the power grid with telecommunications.

2.6 Transactive Energy Systems

Modelling the market within TES is a crucial element in the SG [53] as if offers customers the ability to trade power in
the grid as prosumers (both consumers and producers) [36, 85]. Many authors have considered modelling of TES and
its operational details throughout the years, under economical, engineering, and computing scopes.
• 2009: Researchers addressed modelling power systems shortcomings by implementing an open-source software
solution known as Agent-based Modeling of Electricity Systems (AMES) Wholesale Power Market Test Bed [18]. It
consists of a framework for non-power specialists unfamiliar with the intricacies of EPS, bringing together economy
related aspects into the modelling. AMES allows working with strategic trading behaviour for addressing engineering
and economical problems in the grid.
• 2016: Palmintier et al. (2016) [65] proposed the Integrated Grid Modeling System (IGMS). It focused on the
automated generation of large-scale scenarios in wholesale market simulations in Transmission-Distribution interactions.
IGMS used the Flexible Energy Scheduling Tool for Integration of Variable Generation (FESTIV) [35] for representing
bulk markets, MATPOWER, and GridLAB-D. The case studies attest the scalability of the system by allowing hundreds
of transmission nodes and over a million distribution nodes, where the authors showed examples of varying size IEEE
Test Feeders.
• 2018: The Transactive Energy Simulation Platform (TESP)23 [85] aggregated GridLAB-D, ns-3 (using FNCS and
HELICS) and it also provided means to work with buildings modelled in EnergyPlus [5]. EnergyPlus is a comprehensive
building simulator addressing thermodynamics with wide acceptance and accreditation across stakeholders. In TESP,
all those auxiliary tools work as libraries that are executed and linked together for executing the platform. It has an
extensive list of examples and IEEE Test Feeders to extend, enjoying all the features already available in GridLAB-D as
mentioned earlier.
• 2019: The ITD-TES Platform [98] addressed modelling the wholesale energy market in the transmission level having
one or more distribution systems attached to it as DER (or grid edge resources). It was used to evaluate designs of
transactive energy in ITD systems and it employed FNCS as the co-simulator engine.
- The ETX [105] framework worked with energy trading and management implementing communication with
sockets.io. It used trained neural networks for power-flow calculations, aiming at coordinated and repeatable
investigations of market, operations, and regulations actions24 .

2.7 MATLAB

MATLAB (MATrix LABoratory) was developed by MathWorks, and Simulink is its visual interface. As mentioned
in Section 2.2, MATPOWER is an EPS with large adoption in the research community. Next, we will mention other
relevant MATLAB-based supporting tools for both simulation and co-simulation.
• 2008: Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT)25 is a MATLAB toolbox for power system analysis and simulation [15].
• 2010: MatDyn26 is a MATPOWER inspired dynamic analysis free MATLAB script for EPS [19].
22
Link: https://github.com/taqen/asgrids/tree/appeec19.
23
For more information on the framework and documentation, visit https://github.com/pnnl/tesp/.
24
Unfortunately, the paper did not explain the internals of the software behind ETX’s operation
25
Power System Analysis Toolbox. Link: http://faraday1.ucd.ie/psat.html.
26
MatDyn - Electa. Link: https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/teaching/matdyn/.

6
• 2013: Milano presented Dome [44], based on PSAT (which employed MATLAB), and discussed the suitability of
using Python in complex power analysis and studied its performance in a IEEE 14-bus Test Feeder.
• 2014: GridMat [47] offered a visual interface within MATLAB to model GridLAB-D elements for power and control
algorithms using Simulink.
• 2015: Amarasekara et al. (2015) used MATLAB/Simulink (module SimPowerSystems) and ns-3 [57] in a co-
simulation. The authors developed a custom mediator (an agent) to coordinate events between Simulink and ns-3
exchange model. They presented a case study consisting of a small scale microgrid where they studied energy scheduling
and the effects of packet losses in communication.
• 2016: MATLAB/Simulink and ns-3 was also chosen by Pan et al. (2016) [66], where the authors presented an
example of a load reconfiguration. The authors compared results against the GECO framework, discussing how their
solution stands out and the reasoning behind modelling choices.
• 2017: The integrative Power and Cyber Systems (iPaCS) [77] testbed used MATTRANS for power system modelling,
a MATLAB/Simulink transient stability program combined with ns-3 (based on MATPOWER)27 . It studied the latency
between Phasor Management Units (PMU) attached to Phasor Data Concentrators (PDC) and generated datasets
for deeper analysis. The authors commented the testbed’s suitability for investigating i) latency and bandwidth; ii)
congestion between PMU and PDC systems, and; iii) impact of cyber attacks on EPS.
• 2018: Vélez-Rivera et al. (2018) [91] proposed Gorilla, an open interface for co-simulation that is agnostic of EPS or
telecommunications network simulation tool. The authors offered a set of simple operations to use such as read/write,
call, and subscribe/call-back, for diverting simulation control. They created two examples, one for voltage regulation,
and another for controlling a home microgrid, calling MATLAB/Simulink commands, however, there was no mention
on modelling telecommunications.

2.8 Related tools

There is a number of auxiliary tools to complement other toolsets/toolkits, as explained next.

• Visual editors for modelling power systems: The Open Modelling Framework (OMF)28 provides a graphical
interface to define huge and complex networks (not bounded by power systems). The tool is on-line and require
registering, helping modellers devise trade-off analysis (for instance, amounts of PV and WT to meet some power
demand), or scaled up GridLAB-D models, to mention a few.
- Webgme-gridlabd29 offers a visual front-end for creating GridLAB-D models. The tool employs Node.js and it works
on an Internet browser. It is possible to download the tool and install into a local server.
• Other tools worth mentioning: DSATools30 is a proprietary tool for a wide range of electric-related assessments.
PYPOWER (no longer maintained) is a power simulator written in Python and used in other tools31 .
We also mention the cyber-DEfense Technology Experimental Research (Deter) [11], an on-line platform for conducting
cybersecurity experiments32 .

2.9 Co-simulation frameworks for domain specific applications

Researchers have created bespoke co-simulation frameworks to address domain specific applications such as cyber-
security. The sheer size of CPS realities mandates its consideration and attack impact analysis in both power and
telecommunication networks.
• 2016: The Attack Simulation Toolset for SG Infrastructures (ASTORIA) [67] framework modelled SCADA sub-
systems, most notably Master Terminal Units (MTU) and Remote Terminal Units (RTU). It was developed for Mosaik
using PYPOWER and ns-3 focusing on cybersecurity. ASTORIA used Attack Profiles to model adversaries and
presented two case studies, one emulating a malicious software infection attack, and another in a Denial-of-Service
(DoS) study.
27
MATTRANS - A MATLAB/Simulink Power System Transient Stability Simulation Package. Link: https://github.com/
gelliravi/MatTrans.
28
Link: https://omf.coop/.
29
Link: https://github.com/finger563/webgme-gridlabd.
30
Link: https://www.dsatools.com/.
31
Link: https://pypi.org/project/PYPOWER/.
32
Link: https://deter-project.org/.

7
• 2020: Cybersecurity concerns in the SG was also addressed in GridAttackSim [111], which used FNCS to model
cyber-attacks. It offered a visual tool for modelling systems using Python graphical bindings. As malicious incursions,
the authors modelled a channel jamming and a False Data Injection attack (FDI) involving dynamic pricing (energy
market). The tool extended examples provided by FNCS and GridLAB-D where the novelty was to present a GUI for
modellers.

3 Discussion

Since the inception of the SG, researchers addressed M&S as a means to reason about operational decisions and test
new designs or better configurations. That is one the reasons as to why the literature on power, telecommunications,
and couple tools have witnessed a steep increase over past years.
Figure 1 details the tools discussed here in chronological order. We stress that there are more tools for co-simulating
CPS, as this offers a non-comprehensive list. The set of tools highlighted in bold face are tools that have sustained

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

InterPSS PSAT AMES MATPOWER OpenDSS FNCS psst pandapower SCEPTRE

GridLAB-D SCORE IGMS Gorilla OPEN
MatDyn GridSpice
INTO-CPS TESP SG CoSim
ns-3 SGsim MECSYCO GridAttackSim
GridTeractions
OMNeT++/INET GridMat
DSSnet CyDER
Nessi/Nessi2 Pan et al. ASTORIA Andes
EPS
Telecomm. sim. Mosaik Dome Bus.py iPaCS ZerOBNL
Co-simulation SCADAsim Bytschkow et al. HELICS ASGrIDS
Liberatore et al. Amarasekara et al. PyPSA ITD-TES
TES
ETX
GP co-simulation SimApi
MATLAB/Simulink
Domain specific Krishnamoorthy
and Dubey

Figure 1: Non-comprehensive list of open-source/free tools and frameworks for co-simulating CPS.

a high maturity degree over the years, with wide adoption in industry an academia. The figure points out the sheer
number of implementations modellers could choose to tackle CPS research.
Table 1 shows the frameworks and tools detailed here and their auxiliary tools. One notices the recurrent use of
MATLAB/Simulink, GridLAB-D, and ns-3 across several solutions.
We now focus our attention on the set of tools that are mature and stable, employed by researchers throughout the years
for a wealth of models and propositions. Amidst the plethora of frameworks and tools listed here some are highlighted
over the years such as GridLAB-D, OpenDSS, pandapower, Mosaik, FNCS/HELICS, SCEPTRE, GridSpice, ZerOBNL,
IGMS, TESP, MATPOWER, PyPSA, PYPOWER, BCVTB, EnergyPlus, OMNeT++/INET, and ns-3. Because there
are many features to consider in CPS infrastructures (market, transmission, distribution, transmission-distribution,
telecommunications with multiple protocols/technologies, PMU/PDC, SCADA), it is difficult to compare solutions.
We now focus our attention on the set of tools that are mature and stable, employed by researchers throughout the
years for a wealth of models and propositions. Table 2 shows a list of stable tools (EPS, co-simulation, and TES) for
modelling the SG. The table shows the size of each tool, in Mega Bytes (MB), where the method used was to download
the latest .zip file directly from the download site or GitHub link.
The tools presented in the table use BSD or Apache2 licensing. The sizes are quite reasonable apart from TESP (151
MB), requiring around 25 MB (pandapower, OpenDSS) or 75 MB (GridLAB-D, OPEN). Co-simulation requires large
system modelling and timely execution. That is the main reason as to why high-performance languages are preferred
such as C/C++ in GNU/Linux. We point out that Python could also be used as a scripting language to fire executions
and parse output, generating graphs for analysis. Python has many advantages such as an extensive API and easy
interface mechanisms to connect among solutions. However, even with substantial code modification, depending on the
model, Python falls short on performance.

8
 Table 1: Frameworks and auxiliary tools.

interface (tool agnostic)

BCVTB (EnergyPlus)

Modelio Multi-Model
MATLAB/Simulink
FNCS/HELICS
20-sim, SysML

OpenModelica
MATPOWER

MATTRANS

oct2pypower

OpenDSS-G
GridLAB-D

pandapower
EnergyPlus

OMNeT++
LabVIEW

OpenDSS
Tk (GUI)

Modelica
tc, netem

GridDyn
FESTIV

Mininet

Mosaik

ns-2

ns-3
Andes X X
EPS

MATPOWER X
PYPOWER* X X
ASGriDS X X
Bus.py X
Bytschkow[59] X
CyDER X
DSSnet X X
Co-simulation frameworks

FNCS/HELICS X X
Gorilla X X
GridSpice X X
GridTeractions X X
IGMS X X X
Krishnamoorthy[87] X X
Liberatore[30] X X
OPEN X
SCADAsim X X
SGsim X X
SG Cosim X X X
SimApi X
ZerOBNL X
Amarasekara[57] X X
Dome X
MATLAB

GridMat X
iPaCS X X
MatDyn X
Pan[66] X X
AMES X
Hansen[71] X X X
TES

ITD-TES X X X
TESP X X X X
G

Maestro/INTO-CPS X X X
ASTORIA X X
D

GridAttackSim X X
Legend: G: General Purpose; D: Domain Specific. *PYPOWER is based on MATPOWER.

A testbed mimics an infrastructure so researchers may conduct experiments without worrying about causing damages
to the real systems in production. Besides Deter, mentioned earlier, there is a considerable amount of work towards
SCADA in terms of testbeds [42, 32].
As general comments, power simulators are sensitive when changing energy parameters as the steady-state computation
may start yielding skewed results. That certainly hinders analysis as incremental changes in models may not reflect
reality, specially when the modeller is unfamiliar with the electrical engineering domain.
On a TES note, there is an increased interest in looking at ITD systems as they may impact dynamic pricing or related
mechanisms in place. GridSpice offered a solution that “blurred the boundaries between generation, transmission,
distribution, and markets” as stated by the authors. This is an interesting concept as more abstractions across layers are
needed for effective modelling of other SG behaviours.
Considered individually, the simulation engines are quite strong, however, problems start when they are integrated
altogether. For instance, GridLAB-D, pandapower, EnergyPlus, ns-3, MATPOWER, or OpenDSS are stable and mature
tools. When modellers and developers offer integration features, then we have observed that the novel solution does not
share the same amount of stability and endurance. There is also a lack of cross-platform validation to ensure that the
simulations are yielding out appropriate results for deeper inspections.

4 Conclusion

As general remarks, there is research to conduct on increasing frameworks and models reproducibility. To reach this
objective one must create and share model repositories, datasets, logging data, or measurements. Modellers choose

9
 Table 2: Selected tools for modelling the Smart Grid.

Platform
Size MB
Type Tool / Major Version Toolchain/auxiliary tools
License
Framework Language 11/2020 Supporting frameworks

GridLAB-D 74 BSD C/C++ Linux 4.1.0 Python, MATLAB

EPS

pandapower 27 BSD Python Mult. 2.4.0 PYPOWER, pandas

OpenDSS 27 BSD Pascal Mult. 9.0.0 OpenDSS-G (GUI)
TES Co-Sim

FNCS 0.7 BSD C/C++ Linux 2.3.2 GridLAB-D, ns-3

OPEN 75 Apache2 Python Mult. – pandapower, several dep.
ZerOBNL 1.1 Apache2 Python Mult. 1.1 zeroMQ, Docker
GridLAB-D, FNCS/HELICS,
TESP 151 BSD C++ Linux 0.9.4
ns-3, EnergyPlus, PYPOWER

the framework they are most familiar with, however, in terms of models, there is a lack of published artefacts so other
researchers may extend, adapt, or augment existing functionalities.
Lack of cross-platform validation for frameworks is another disconcerting problem in this field. There is a lot of models
and frameworks but seldom validation efforts are presented for consistent scrutiny. Sometimes the tool is available for
download, however, the models and datasets are missing, or even in some cases configuration details (or options) are
omitted, preventing proper execution.
Future research efforts will study models from different application domains to investigate primitives and parameters
for tackling most impactful SG’s challenges. One direction is consider the use of Markovian approaches to model the
SG and DER such as Arnaboldi et al. (2020) [106] who modelled Load Changing Attacks over different mixes of
power generation units. Another is to use domain specific testbeds for addressing design shortcomings of SG as well as
training stakeholders [93]. The idea is to offer capabilities to detect and respond to abnormal situations in the SG as
discussed by Henze et al. (2020) with a case study in cybersecurity [109].

Acronyms

BES Building Energy Systems

CIM Common Information Model
COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf
CPES Cyber-Physical Energy Systems
CPF Continuation Power Flow
CPS Cyber-Physical System
DER Distributed Energy Resources
DEVS Discrete eVent system Specification
DoS Denial-of-Service
EMS Energy Management Systems
EPS Electric Power Simulator
EV Electric Vehicles
FDI False Data Injection
FMI Functional Mock-up Interface
FMU Functional Mock-up Units
HIL Hardware-in-the-Loop
ICS Industrial Control Systems
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IDS Intrusion Detection Systems
ITD Integrated Transmission and Distribution
JADE Java Agent DEvelopment
MATLAB MATrix LABoratory
MTU Master Terminal Units
M&S Modelling and Simulation
OMF Open Modelling Framework
OPF Optimal Power Flow

10
 PDC Phasor Data Concentrators
PF Power Flow
PMU Phasor Management Units
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PSLF Positive Sequence Load Flow
PV Photo-Voltaic
RER Renewable Energy Resources
RTU Remote Terminal Units
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDN Software Defined Networks
SG Smart Grid
UC Unit Commitment
WTPCS Wind Turbines Power Converter Systems

Acronyms for tools

AMES Agent-based Modeling of Electricity Systems

ASGriDS Asynchronous Smart Grid Simulation
ASTORIA Attack Simulation Toolset for Smart Grid Infrastructures
BCVTB Building Controls Virtual Test Bed
CyDER Cyber physical co-simulation platform for Distributed Energy Resources
Deter cyber-DEfense Technology Experimental Research
DSSnet Distribution System Solver Network
EPOCHS Electric Power and cOmmunication synCHronizing Simulator
FESTIV Flexible Energy Scheduling Tool for Integration of Variable Generation
FNCS Framework for Network Co-Simulation
GECO Global Event-driven CO-simulation framework
HELICS Hierarchical Engine for Large-scale Infrastructure Co-Simulation
IGMS Integrated Grid Modeling System
INSPIRE INtegrated co-Simulation of Power and ICT systems for Real-time Evaluation
InterPSS Internet-technology Based Power System Simulator
INTO-CPS Integrated Tool Chain for Model-based Design of CPS
iPaCS integrative Power and Cyber Systems
JADE Java Agent DEvelopment
MATTRANS MATLAB/Simulink Power System Transient Stability Simulation
MECSYCO Multi-agent Environment for Complex SYstems CO-simulation
Nessi Network Security Simulator
ns-3 Network Simulator version 3
OMF Open Modelling Framework
OMNeT++ Objective Modular Network Testbed in C++
OpenDSS Open Distribution System Simulator
OPEN Open Platform for Energy Networks
PSAT Power System Analysis Toolbox
PSCAD Power Systems Computer Aided Design
PSS Power System Simulator
psst Power System Simulation Toolbox
PyPSA Python for Power System Analysis
RTDS Real-Time Digital Simulator
SCORE Smart-Grid Common Open Research Emulator
SEPSS Scalable Electric Power System Simulator
SG-Cosim SmartGrid Cosimulation
SOSPO-SP Secure Operation of Sustainable Power Systems Simulation Platform
TASSCS Testbed for Analyzing Security of SCADA Control Systems
TES Transactive Energy Systems
TESP Transactive Energy Simulation Platform
VPST Virtual Power System Testbed
ZerOBNL Zero OBvious Node Link co-simulator

11
References
[1] Bernard P Zeigler. “DEVS representation of dynamical systems: Event-based intelligent control”. In: Proc. of
the IEEE 77.1 (1989), pp. 72–80.
[2] R Kuffel, J Giesbrecht, T Maguire, RP Wierckx, and P McLaren. “RTDS-a fully digital power system simulator
operating in real time”. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Energy Mgmt. and Power Delivery. Vol. 2. IEEE. 1995,
pp. 498–503.
[3] Kim Tag Gon, Bernard P Zeigler, and Herbert Praehofer. “Theory of modeling and simulation: integrating
discrete event and continuous complex dynamic systems”. In: (2000).
[4] Fabio Bellifemine, Agostino Poggi, and Giovanni Rimassa. “JADE: a FIPA2000 compliant agent development
environment”. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Autonomous agents. 2001, pp. 216–217.
[5] Drury B Crawley, Linda K Lawrie, Frederick C Winkelmann, Walter F Buhl, Y Joe Huang, Curtis O Pedersen,
Richard K Strand, Richard J Liesen, Daniel E Fisher, Michael J Witte, et al. “EnergyPlus: creating a new-
generation building energy simulation program”. In: Energy and buildings 33.4 (2001), pp. 319–331.
[6] Olimpo Anaya-Lara and E Acha. “Modeling and analysis of custom power systems by PSCAD/EMTDC”. In:
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 17.1 (2002), pp. 266–272.
[7] Bert Hubert, Thomas Graf, Greg Maxwell, Remco van Mook, Martijn van Oosterhout, P Schroeder, Jasper
Spaans, and Pedro Larroy. “Linux advanced routing & traffic control”. In: Ottawa Linux Symp. Vol. 213. 2002.
[8] Christian Dufour, Simon Abourida, and Jean Belanger. “Hardware-in-the-loop simulation of power drives with
RT-LAB”. In: Int. Conf. on Power Electronics and Drives Systems. Vol. 2. IEEE. 2005, pp. 1646–1651.
[9] Stephen Hemminger. “Network emulation with NetEm”. In: Linux and Open Source Conf. 2005, pp. 18–23.
[10] Michael Liljenstam, Jason Liu, David Nicol, Yougu Yuan, Guanhua Yan, and Chris Grier. “Rinse: The real-time
immersive network simulation environment for network security exercises”. In: Workshop on Principles of
Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS’05). IEEE. 2005, pp. 119–128.
[11] Terry Benzel, Robert Braden, Dongho Kim, Cliford Neuman, Anthony Joseph, Keith Sklower, Ron Ostrenga,
and Stephen Schwab. “Experience with deter: a testbed for security research”. In: 2nd Int. Conf. on Testbeds
and Research Infrast. for the Devel. of Networks and Communities, TRIDENTCOM’06. IEEE. 2006, 10–pp.
[12] Kenneth Hopkinson, Xiaoru Wang, Renan Giovanini, James Thorp, Kenneth Birman, and Denis Coury.
“EPOCHS: a platform for agent-based electric power and communication simulation built from commercial
off-the-shelf components”. In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21.2 (2006), pp. 548–558.
[13] Michael Zhou and Shizhao Zhou. “Internet, open-source and power system simulation”. In: Power Engineering
Society Gen. Meet. IEEE. 2007, pp. 1–5.
[14] David P Chassin, Kevin Schneider, and Clint Gerkensmeyer. “GridLAB-D: An open-source power systems
modeling and simulation environment”. In: PES Transm. and Distr. Conf. and Exposition. IEEE. 2008, pp. 1–5.
[15] Federico Milano, Luigi Vanfretti, and Juan Carlos Morataya. “An open source power system virtual laboratory:
The PSAT case and experience”. In: IEEE Trans. Educ. 51.1 (2008), pp. 17–23.
[16] David C Bergman, Dong (Kevin) Jin, David M Nicol, and Tim Yardley. “The Virtual Power System Testbed
and Inter-Testbed Integration”. In: CSET. 2009.
[17] Hassan Farhangi. “The path of the smart grid”. In: IEEE Power and Energy Magazine 8.1 (2009), pp. 18–28.
[18] Hongyan Li and Leigh Tesfatsion. “Development of open source software for power market research: The
AMES test bed”. In: Journal of Energy Markets 2.2 (2009), p. 111.
[19] Stijn Cole and Ronnie Belmans. “Matdyn, a new matlab-based toolbox for power system dynamic simulation”.
In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26.3 (2010), pp. 1129–1136.
[20] George F Riley and Thomas R Henderson. “The ns-3 network simulator”. In: Modeling and tools for network
simulation. Springer, 2010, pp. 15–34.
[21] Stephan Schmidt, Rainer Bye, Joël Chinnow, Karsten Bsufka, Ahmet Camtepe, and Sahin Albayrak.
“Application-level simulation for network security”. In: Simulation 86.5-6 (2010), pp. 311–330.
[22] Andras Varga. “OMNeT++”. In: Modeling and tools for network simulation. Springer, 2010, pp. 35–59.
[23] Ray Daniel Zimmerman, Carlos Edmundo Murillo-Sánchez, and Robert John Thomas. “MATPOWER: Steady-
state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education”. In: IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 26.1 (2010), pp. 12–19.
[24] Torsten Blochwitz, Martin Otter, Martin Arnold, Constanze Bausch, Christoph Clauss, Hilding Elmqvist,
Andreas Junghanns, Jakob Mauss, Manuel Monteiro, Thomas Neidhold, et al. “The functional mockup interface
for tool independent exchange of simulation models”. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Modelica Conf. Linköping
University Press. 2011, pp. 105–114.

12
[25] Joel Chinnow, Karsten Bsufka, Aubrey-Derrick Schmidt, Rainer Bye, Ahmet Camtepe, and Sahin Albayrak.
“A simulation framework for smart meter security evaluation”. In: Int. Conf. on Smart Measurements of Future
Grids (SMFG) Proceedings. IEEE. 2011, pp. 1–9.
[26] Xi Fang, Satyajayant Misra, Guoliang Xue, and Dejun Yang. “Smart grid—The new and improved power grid:
A survey”. In: IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 14.4 (2011), pp. 944–980.
[27] Dennis Grunewald, Marco Lützenberger, Joël Chinnow, Rainer Bye, Karsten Bsufka, and Sahin Albayrak.
“Agent-based network security simulation”. In: The 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent
Systems-Volume 3. Citeseer. 2011, pp. 1325–1326.
[28] Vehbi C Gungor, Dilan Sahin, Taskin Kocak, Salih Ergut, Concettina Buccella, Carlo Cecati, and Gerhard P
Hancke. “Smart grid technologies: Communication technologies and standards”. In: IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform.
7.4 (2011), pp. 529–539.
[29] W Li, A Monti, Mt Luo, and Roger A Dougal. “VPNET: A co-simulation framework for analyzing communica-
tion channel effects on power systems”. In: Electric Ship Tech. Symp. IEEE. 2011, pp. 143–149.
[30] Vincenzo Liberatore and Ahmad Al-Hammouri. “Smart grid communication and co-simulation”. In: EnergyTech.
IEEE. 2011, pp. 1–5.
[31] Hua Lin, Santhoshkumar Sambamoorthy, Sandeep Shukla, James Thorp, and Lamine Mili. “Power system and
communication network co-simulation for smart grid applications”. In: ISGT 2011. IEEE. 2011, pp. 1–6.
[32] Malaz Mallouhi, Youssif Al-Nashif, Don Cox, Tejaswini Chadaga, and Salim Hariri. “A testbed for analyzing
security of SCADA control systems (TASSCS)”. In: ISGT 2011. IEEE. 2011, pp. 1–7.
[33] Carlos Queiroz, Abdun Mahmood, and Zahir Tari. “SCADASim—A framework for building SCADA simula-
tions”. In: IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2.4 (2011), pp. 589–597.
[34] Steffen Schütte, Stefan Scherfke, and Martin Tröschel. “Mosaik: A framework for modular simulation of active
components in Smart Grids”. In: 1st Int. Workshop on Smart Grid Modeling and Simulation (SGMS). IEEE.
2011, pp. 55–60.
[35] Erik Ela and Mark O’Malley. “Studying the variability and uncertainty impacts of variable generation at
multiple timescales”. In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27.3 (2012), pp. 1324–1333.
[36] V Cagri Gungor, Dilan Sahin, Taskin Kocak, Salih Ergut, Concettina Buccella, Carlo Cecati, and Gerhard P
Hancke. “A survey on smart grid potential applications and communication requirements”. In: IEEE Trans.
Industr. Inform. 9.1 (2012), pp. 28–42.
[37] Ahmad T Al-Hammouri. “A comprehensive co-simulation platform for cyber-physical systems”. In: Computer
Communications 36.1 (2012), pp. 8–19.
[38] Hua Lin, Santhosh S Veda, Sandeep S Shukla, Lamine Mili, and James Thorp. “GECO: Global event-driven
co-simulation framework for interconnected power system and communication network”. In: IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid 3.3 (2012), pp. 1444–1456.
[39] D Montenegro, M Hernandez, and GA Ramos. “Real time OpenDSS framework for distribution systems
simulation and analysis”. In: 6th PES Transmission and Distribution: Latin America Conference and Exposition
(T&D-LA). IEEE. 2012, pp. 1–5.
[40] Song Tan, Wen-Zhan Song, Qifen Dong, and Lang Tong. “Score: Smart-grid common open research emulator”.
In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm). IEEE. 2012, pp. 282–287.
[41] Hanno Georg, Sven Christian Müller, Nils Dorsch, Christian Rehtanz, and Christian Wietfeld. “INSPIRE:
Integrated co-simulation of power and ICT systems for real-time evaluation”. In: Int. Conf. on Smart Grid
Communications (SmartGridComm). IEEE. 2013, pp. 576–581.
[42] Adam Hahn, Aditya Ashok, Siddharth Sridhar, and Manimaran Govindarasu. “Cyber-physical security testbeds:
Architecture, application, and evaluation for smart grid”. In: IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4.2 (2013), pp. 847–855.
[43] Pieter Hintjens. ZeroMQ: messaging for many applications. " O’Reilly Media, Inc.", 2013.
[44] Federico Milano. “A Python-based software tool for power system analysis”. In: Power & Energy Society Gen.
Meet. IEEE. 2013, pp. 1–5.
[45] Fidelis Perkonigg, Djordje Brujic, and Mike Ristic. “MAC-Sim: A multi-agent and communication network
simulation platform for smart grid applications based on established technologies”. In: Int. Conf. on Smart Grid
Communications (SmartGridComm). IEEE. 2013, pp. 570–575.
[46] Mike Zhou. “Distributed parallel power system simulation”. In: High performance computing in power and
energy systems. Springer, 2013, pp. 71–100.
[47] Mohammad Abdullah Al Faruque and Fereidoun Ahourai. “GridMat: Matlab toolbox for GridLAB-D to analyze
grid impact and validate residential microgrid level energy management algorithms”. In: ISGT 2014. IEEE.
2014, pp. 1–5.

13
[48] Kyle Anderson, Jimmy Du, Amit Narayan, and Abbas El Gamal. “GridSpice: A distributed simulation platform
for the smart grid”. In: IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 10.4 (2014), pp. 2354–2363.
[49] Abdalkarim Awad, Peter Bazan, and Reinhard German. “SGsim: A simulation framework for smart grid
applications”. In: Int. Energy Conf. (ENERGYCON). IEEE. 2014, pp. 730–736.
[50] David P Chassin, Jason C Fuller, and Ned Djilali. “GridLAB-D: An agent-based simulation framework for
smart grids”. In: Journal of Applied Mathematics 2014 (2014).
[51] Selim Ciraci, Jeff Daily, Jason Fuller, Andrew Fisher, Laurentiu Marinovici, and Khushbu Agarwal. “FNCS: a
framework for power system and communication networks co-simulation”. In: Proc. of the Symp. on Theory of
Modeling & Simulation-DEVS integrative. Society for Computer Simulation International. 2014, p. 36.
[52] Francisco M Gonzalez-Longatt and José Luis Rueda. PowerFactory applications for power system analysis.
Springer, 2014.
[53] Christopher Greer, David A Wollman, Dean E Prochaska, Paul A Boynton, Jeffrey A Mazer, Cuong T Nguyen,
Gerald J FitzPatrick, Thomas L Nelson, Galen H Koepke, Allen R Hefner Jr, et al. NIST framework and
roadmap for smart grid interoperability standards, release 3.0. Tech. rep. 2014.
[54] Kevin Mets, Juan Aparicio Ojea, and Chris Develder. “Combining power and communication network simulation
for cost-effective smart grid analysis”. In: IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 16.3 (2014), pp. 1771–1796.
[55] Hugo Morais, Pieter Vancraeyveld, Allan Henning Birger Pedersen, Morten Lind, Hjörtur Jóhannsson, and
Jacob Østergaard. “SOSPO-SP: Secure operation of sustainable power systems simulation platform for real-time
system state evaluation and control”. In: IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 10.4 (2014), pp. 2318–2329.
[56] Xinwei Sun, Ying Chen, Jiatai Liu, and Shaowei Huang. “A co-simulation platform for smart grid considering
interaction between information and power systems”. In: ISGT 2014. IEEE. 2014, pp. 1–6.
[57] Bhagya Amarasekara, Chathurika Ranaweera, Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas, and Rob Evans. “Co-simulation
platform for smart grid applications”. In: Innovative Smart Grid Tech.-Asia (ISGT ASIA). IEEE. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[58] D Bian, M Kuzlu, M Pipattanasomporn, S Rahman, and Yiming Wu. “Real-time co-simulation platform using
OPAL-RT and OPNET for analyzing smart grid performance”. In: Power & Energy Society Gen. Meet. IEEE.
2015, pp. 1–5.
[59] Denis Bytschkow, Martin Zellner, and Markus Duchon. “Combining SCADA, CIM, GridLab-D and AKKA for
smart grid co-simulation”. In: Power & Energy Society Innovative SG Tech. Conf. (ISGT). IEEE. 2015, pp. 1–5.
[60] Timothy M Hansen, Bryan Palmintier, Siddharth Suryanarayanan, Anthony A Maciejewski, and Howard Jay
Siegel. “Bus.py: A GridLAB-D communication interface for Smart distribution Grid simulations”. In: Power &
Energy Society Gen. Meet. IEEE. 2015, pp. 1–5.
[61] Keith Stouffer, Joe Falco, and Karen Scarfone. “Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security – Rev. 2”. In:
NIST Special Publication 800.82 (2015).
[62] Christopher Hannon, Jiaqi Yan, and Dong Jin. “DSSnet: A smart grid modeling platform combining electrical
power distribution system simulation and software defined networking emulation”. In: Proc. of the 2016 ACM
SIGSIM conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation. 2016, pp. 131–142.
[63] Dheepak Krishnamurthy. “psst: An open-source power system simulation toolbox in python”. In: North
American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[64] Peter Gorm Larsen, John Fitzgerald, Jim Woodcock, Peter Fritzson, Jörg Brauer, Christian Kleijn, Thierry
Lecomte, Markus Pfeil, Ole Green, Stylianos Basagiannis, et al. “Integrated tool chain for model-based design
of Cyber-Physical Systems: The INTO-CPS project”. In: 2016 2nd International Workshop on Modelling,
Analysis, and Control of Complex CPS (CPS Data). IEEE. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[65] Bryan Palmintier, Elaine Hale, Timothy M Hansen, Wesley Jones, David Biagioni, Harry Sorensen, Hongyu Wu,
and Bri-Mathias Hodge. “IGMS: An integrated ISO-to-appliance scale grid modeling system”. In: IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 8.3 (2016), pp. 1525–1534.
[66] Zhizhang Pan, Qimin Xu, Cailian Chen, and Xinping Guan. “NS3-MATLAB co-simulator for cyber-physical
systems in smart grid”. In: 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC). IEEE. 2016, pp. 9831–9836.
[67] Alexandre Gustavo Wermann, Marcelo Cardoso Bortolozzo, Eduardo Germano da Silva, Alberto Schaeffer-
Filho, Luciano Paschoal Gaspary, and Marinho Barcellos. “ASTORIA: A framework for attack simulation and
evaluation in smart grids”. In: NOMS 2016-2016 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium.
IEEE. 2016, pp. 273–280.
[68] Cristian Zambrano, Cesar Trujillo, David Celeita, Miguel Hernandez, and Gustavo Ramos. “GridTeractions:
Simulation platform to interact with distribution systems”. In: Power and Energy Society Gen. Meet. (PESGM).
IEEE. 2016, pp. 1–5.
[69] Tom Brown, Jonas Hörsch, and David Schlachtberger. “PyPSA: Python for power system analysis”. In: arXiv
preprint arXiv:1707.09913 (2017).

14
[70] DM Greenwood, Khim Yan Lim, C Patsios, PF Lyons, Yun Seng Lim, and PC Taylor. “Frequency response
services designed for energy storage”. In: Applied Energy 203 (2017), pp. 115–127.
[71] Jacob Hansen, Thomas Edgar, Jeff Daily, and Di Wu. “Evaluating transactive controls of integrated transmission
and distribution systems using the framework for network co-simulation”. In: American Control Conference
(ACC). IEEE. 2017, pp. 4010–4017.
[72] Renke Huang, Rui Fan, Jeff Daily, Andrew Fisher, and Jason Fuller. “Open-source framework for power
system transmission and distribution dynamics co-simulation”. In: IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 11.12 (2017),
pp. 3152–3162.
[73] Abdulmalik Humayed, Jingqiang Lin, Fengjun Li, and Bo Luo. “Cyber-physical systems security – A survey”.
In: Internet of Things Journal 4.6 (2017), pp. 1802–1831.
[74] Arjen A van der Meer, Peter Palensky, Kai Heussen, DE Morales Bondy, Oliver Gehrke, C Steinbrinki, M
Blanki, Sebastian Lehnhoff, Edmund Widl, Cyndi Moyo, et al. “Cyber-physical energy systems modeling, test
specification, and co-simulation based testing”. In: Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical
Energy Systems (MSCPES). IEEE. 2017, pp. 1–9.
[75] Vidhyashree Nagaraju, Lance Fiondella, and Thierry Wandji. “A survey of fault and attack tree modeling and
analysis for cyber risk management”. In: Int. Symp. on Tech. for Homeland Security (HST). IEEE. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[76] Bryan Palmintier, Dheepak Krishnamurthy, Philip Top, Steve Smith, Jeff Daily, and Jason Fuller. “Design of
the HELICS high-performance transmission-distribution-communication-market co-simulation framework”. In:
Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES). IEEE. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[77] Gelli Ravikumar, Gelli Ramya, S Misra, S Brahma, and SA Khaparde. “iPaCS: An integrative power and cyber
systems co-simulation framework for smart grid”. In: Power & Energy Society Gen. Meet. IEEE. 2017, pp. 1–5.
[78] Neetesh Saxena, Victor Chukwuka, Leilei Xiong, and Santiago Grijalva. “CPSA: a cyber-physical security
assessment tool for situational awareness in smart grid”. In: Proc. of the 2017 Workshop on Cyber-Physical
Systems Security and PrivaCy. 2017, pp. 69–79.
[79] Mike Zhou and Qiuhua Huang. “InterPSS: A new generation power system simulation engine”. In: arXiv
preprint arXiv:1711.10875 (2017).
[80] Benjamin Camus, Thomas Paris, Julien Vaubourg, Yannick Presse, Christine Bourjot, Laurent Ciarletta, and
Vincent Chevrier. “Co-simulation of cyber-physical systems using a DEVS wrapping strategy in the MECSYCO
middleware”. In: Simulation 94.12 (2018), pp. 1099–1127.
[81] Jonathan Coignard, Thierry Nouidui, Christoph Gehbauer, Michael Wetter, Jhi-Young Joo, Philip Top, Rafael
Rivera Soto, Brian Kelley, and Emma Stewart. “CyDER - a co-simulation platform for grid analysis and planning
for high penetration of distributed energy resources”. In: Power & Energy Society Gen. Meet. (PESGM). IEEE.
2018, pp. 1–5.
[82] Hantao Cui and Fangxing Li. “ANDES: A Python-based cyber-physical power system simulation tool”. In:
North American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[83] Cláudio Gomes, Casper Thule, David Broman, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Hans Vangheluwe. “Co-simulation: a
survey”. In: ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51.3 (2018), p. 49.
[84] Jonas Hörsch, Fabian Hofmann, David Schlachtberger, and Tom Brown. “PyPSA-Eur: An open optimisation
model of the European transmission system”. In: Energy Strategy Reviews 22 (2018), pp. 207–215.
[85] Qiuhua Huang, Thomas E McDermott, Yingying Tang, Atefe Makhmalbaf, Donald J Hammerstrom, Andrew
R Fisher, Laurentiu Dan Marinovici, and Trevor Hardy. “Simulation-based valuation of transactive energy
systems”. In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 34.5 (2018), pp. 4138–4147.
[86] Marija D Ilić, Rupamathi Jaddivada, and Xia Miao. “Scalable electric power system simulator”. In: PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe). IEEE. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[87] Gayathri Krishnamoorthy and Anamika Dubey. “A framework to analyze interactions between transmission
and distribution systems”. In: Power & Energy Society Gen. Meet. (PESGM). IEEE. 2018, pp. 1–5.
[88] T Nouidui and Michael Wetter. “SimulatorToFMU: A Python Utility to Support Building Simulation Tool
Interoperability”. In: Proc. of the 2018 Building Perf. Analysis Conf. and SimBuild, Chicago, IL. 2018.
[89] Leon Thurner, Alexander Scheidler, Florian Schäfer, Jan-Hendrik Menke, Julian Dollichon, Friederike Meier,
Steffen Meinecke, and Martin Braun. “pandapower - an open-source python tool for convenient modeling,
analysis, and optimization of electric power systems”. In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 33.6 (2018), pp. 6510–6521.
[90] Yaswanth Nag Velaga, Aoxia Chen, PK Sen, Gayathri Krishnamoorthy, and Anamika Dubey. “Transmission-
distribution co-simulation: Model validation with standalone simulation”. In: North American Power Symposium
(NAPS). IEEE. 2018, pp. 1–6.

15
 [91] Carlos J Vélez-Rivera, Fabio Andrade, Emmanuel Arzuaga-Cruz, and Agustín Irizarry-Rivera. “Gorilla: An
Open Interface for Smart Agents and Real-Time Power Microgrid System Simulations”. In: Inventions 3.3
(2018), p. 58.
[92] Mike Vogt, Frank Marten, and Martin Braun. “A survey and statistical analysis of smart grid co-simulations”.
In: Applied Energy 222 (2018), pp. 67–78.
[93] Aditya Ashok, Siddharth Sridhar, Tamara Becejac, Theora Rice, Matt Engels, Scott Harpool, Mark Rice, and
Thomas Edgar. “A multi-level fidelity microgrid testbed model for cybersecurity experimentation”. In: 12th
{USENIX} Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test ({CSET} 19). 2019.
[94] Christoph Gehbauer. CyDER: A Cyber Physical Co-simulation Platform for Distributed Energy Resources in
Smartgrids. Tech. rep. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.(LBNL), US, 2019.
[95] Takai-Eddine Kennouche, Florent Cadoux, Nicolas Gast, and Benoît Vinot. “ASGriDS: Asynchronous Smart-
Grids Distributed Simulator”. In: PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC).
IEEE. 2019, pp. 1–5.
[96] Pardeep Kumar, Yun Lin, Guangdong Bai, Andrew Paverd, Jin Song Dong, and Andrew Martin. “Smart grid
metering networks: A survey on security, privacy and open research issues”. In: IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts.
21.3 (2019), pp. 2886–2927.
[97] Tan Duy Le, Adnan Anwar, Razvan Beuran, and Seng W Loke. “Smart Grid Co-Simulation Tools: Review and
Cybersecurity Case Study”. In: 7th Int. Conf. on Smart Grid (icSmartGrid). IEEE. 2019, pp. 39–45.
[98] Hieu Trung Nguyen, Swathi Battula, Rohit Reddy Takkala, Zhaoyu Wang, and Leigh Tesfatsion. “An integrated
transmission and distribution test system for evaluation of transactive energy designs”. In: Applied Energy
240.November 2018 (2019), pp. 666–679. ISSN: 03062619.
[99] Thierry S Nouidui, Jonathan Coignard, Christoph Gehbauer, Michael Wetter, Jhi-Young Joo, and Evangelos
Vrettos. “CyDER - an FMI-based co-simulation platform for distributed energy resources”. In: J. Build. Perform.
Simul. 12.5 (2019), pp. 566–579.
[100] Fabiano Pallonetto, Eleni Mangina, Federico Milano, and Donal P Finn. “SimApi, a smartgrid co-simulation
software platform for benchmarking building control algorithms”. In: SoftwareX 9 (2019), pp. 271–281.
[101] Pablo Puerto, Edmund Widl, and Jessen Page. “ZerOBNL: A framework for distributed and reproducible
co-simulation”. In: 7th Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of CPES (MSCPES). IEEE. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[102] Panagiotis I Radoglou-Grammatikis and Panagiotis G Sarigiannidis. “Securing the smart grid: A comprehensive
compilation of intrusion detection and prevention systems”. In: IEEE Access 7 (2019), pp. 46595–46620.
[103] Cornelius Steinbrink, Marita Blank-Babazadeh, André El-Ama, Stefanie Holly, Bengt Lüers, Marvin Nebel-
Wenner, Rebeca P Ramírez Acosta, Thomas Raub, Jan Sören Schwarz, Sanja Stark, et al. “CPES Testing with
mosaik: Co-Simulation Planning, Execution and Analysis”. In: Applied Sciences 9.5 (2019), p. 923.
[104] Casper Thule, Kenneth Lausdahl, Cláudio Gomes, Gerd Meisl, and Peter Gorm Larsen. “Maestro: The INTO-
CPS co-simulation framework”. In: Simulat. Model. Pract. 92 (2019), pp. 45–61.
[105] Shida Zhang, Daniel May, Peter Atrazhev, Mustafa Gul, Andrew Leach, Tim Weis, and Petr Musilek. “ETX: A
Flexible Simulation Framework for Design of Transactive Energy Systems”. In: CCECE. IEEE. 2019, pp. 1–4.
[106] Luca Arnaboldi, Ricardo M Czekster, Charles Morisset, and Roberto Metere. “Modelling Load-Changing
Attacks in Cyber-Physical Systems”. In: Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 353.C (2020), pp. 39–60.
[107] Mohamed Azeroual, Tijani Lamhamdi, Hassan El Moussaoui, and Hassane El Markhi. “Simulation tools for
a smart grid and energy management for microgrid with wind power using multi-agent system”. In: Wind
Engineering 44.6 (2020), pp. 661–672.
[108] Hantao Cui, Fangxing Li, and Kevin Tomsovic. “Hybrid Symbolic-Numeric Framework for Power System
Modeling and Analysis”. In: IEEE Trans. Power Syst. (2020).
[109] Martin Henze, Lennart Bader, Julian Filter, Olav Lamberts, Simon Ofner, and Dennis van der Velde. “Poster:
Cybersecurity Research and Training for Power Distribution Grids–A Blueprint”. In: ACM CCS. 2020.
[110] Jay Johnson, Ifeoma Onunkwo, Patricia Cordeiro, Brian J Wright, Nicholas Jacobs, and Christine Lai. “As-
sessing DER network cybersecurity defences in a power-communication co-simulation environment”. In: IET
Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications 5.3 (2020), pp. 274–282.
[111] Tan Duy Le, Adnan Anwar, Seng W Loke, Razvan Beuran, and Yasuo Tan. “GridAttackSim: A Cyber Attack
Simulation Framework for Smart Grids”. In: Electronics 9.8 (2020), p. 1218.
[112] Thomas Morstyn, Katherine A Collett, Avinash Vijay, Matthew Deakin, Scot Wheeler, Sivapriya M Bhagavathy,
Filiberto Fele, and Malcolm D McCulloch. “OPEN: An open-source platform for developing smart local energy
system applications”. In: Applied Energy 275 (2020), p. 115397.
[113] Evandro de Souza, Omid Ardakanian, and Ioanis Nikolaidis. “A Co-simulation Platform for Evaluating Cyber
Security and Control Applications in the Smart Grid”. In: Int. Conf. on Comm. (ICC). IEEE. 2020, pp. 1–7.

16