integrate co-simulation into phasor dynamics applications by superwhiskers · Pull Request #638 · ORNL/GridKit

superwhiskers · 2026-11-02T22:51:33Z

Description

integrates the co-simulation interface into the phasor dynamics applications

closes #469
closes #547

Proposed changes

add client/server modes to DynamicSimulation and ContingencyAnalysis
introduce simulation runners to coordinate events, interface solves, and
monitor output
remove standalone co-simulation examples
add a partitioned ieee39 example
document co-simulation configuration and execution

Checklist

All tests pass.
Code compiles cleanly with flags -Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion -Wextra.
The new code follows GridKit™ style guidelines.
There are unit tests for the new code.
The new code is documented.
The feature branch is rebased with respect to the target branch.
The CHANGELOG.md has been updated to reflect the changes. If this is a minor PR that is part of a larger fix already included in the file, state so.

read-the-docs-community · 2026-11-02T23:02:34Z

Documentation build overview

📚 GridKit | 🛠️ Build #35624037 | 📁 Comparing 9b4f0df against latest (9963c0d)

🔍 Preview build

100 files changed · + 46 added · ± 54 modified

+ Added

± Modified

lukelowry

Initial thoughts. I like the extraction of the application code

lukelowry · 2026-11-03T01:35:27Z

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+{


I would prefer this data go under examples/, for now, or atleast a subfolder of cases/PhasorDynamics/IEEE39/, since this seems specific to one possible co-simulation scenario

I agree. A README describing the example (and how the two split files relate to the full system) would also be helpful.

- add client/server modes to `DynamicSimulation` and `ContingencyAnalysis` - introduce simulation runners to coordinate events, interface solves, and monitor output - remove standalone co-simulation examples - add a partitioned ieee39 example - document co-simulation configuration and execution

lukelowry · 2026-11-03T23:05:07Z

I suppose it depends how this is intended to be consumed in other ORNL projects, but an alternative design could treat all DynamicSimulation instances as clients, and then we could have a non-participating observer acting as the server. Thoughts?

pelesh · 2026-11-04T17:10:31Z

I suppose it depends how this is intended to be consumed in other ORNL projects, but an alternative design could treat all DynamicSimulation instances as clients, and then we could have a non-participating observer acting as the server. Thoughts?

My understanding is that simulation instances are servers, delivering computation result per request of the cosim platform.

@hambrickjc, please chime in.

pelesh

Great start!

A couple of requests to organize the code better:

In applications/PhasorDynamics directory create separate subdirectories for dynamic simulations, continegency analysis, cosimulations, and application utilities (code shared between all apps).
Have once class per file only.
Put utilities specific to an app in that app's directory.
Remove changes to Logger class as those appear to be only formatting changes. The "TODO" item there should be placed in an issue, not in the code.

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T16:57:17Z

+if(GRIDKIT_ENABLE_ZMQ)
+  target_link_libraries(DynamicSimulation PRIVATE GridKit::co_sim GridKit::solvers_steady)
+  target_link_libraries(ContingencyAnalysis PRIVATE GridKit::co_sim GridKit::solvers_steady)
+endif()


Can we have a separate cosimulation application here? Conceptually, I don't think DynamicSimulation and ContingencyAnalysis themselves should link GridKit::co_sim and GridKit::solvers_steady.

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T17:00:16Z

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+#pragma once


Please add a header for the new files, with your name as the author and a short description of what the file does.

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T17:03:03Z

+{
+  namespace PhasorDynamics
+  {
+    inline CoSim::RunResult runCoupledClientStudies(


Some documentation for these functions would be helpful: what they do and how one will later use them.

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T17:12:09Z

+    using NextCoupledStudy     = std::function<std::optional<StudyData>()>;
+    using CompleteCoupledStudy = std::function<void(Testing::TestStatus)>;


These alias names for std::function<> are not intuitive to me. I wouldn't be able to infer the type when NextCoupledStudy and CompleteCoupledStudy are later used. Some documentation would also help.

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T17:23:09Z

+```sh
+sh /path/to/build/examples/PhasorDynamics/CoSimulation/run_cosim.sh \
+    --case ieee39
+```


Can we register in CMake to run these examples?

nkoukpaizan · 2026-11-04T17:26:13Z

+    }
+
+    /// Parse command line options to a simulation application.
+    inline SimulationOptions parseSimulationOptions(


Are we supporting an input file as well, or only command line arguments? I prefer input files.

Simulation options should be specified in the *solver.json file. Command line options should override input file options.

hambrickjc · 2026-11-04T17:43:15Z

I suppose it depends how this is intended to be consumed in other ORNL projects, but an alternative design could treat all DynamicSimulation instances as clients, and then we could have a non-participating observer acting as the server. Thoughts?

My understanding is that simulation instances are servers, delivering computation result per request of the cosim platform.

@hambrickjc, please chime in.

I don't know that there's much of an established convention. For simple simulations, you might see more traditional client/server architectures. For more complex co-simulations, you might see a coordinator that manages everything and then the simulations instances are pub/sub. I would recommend staying as agnostic to the communication architecture as you can.

superwhiskers added this to the DataBroker Co-Sim milestone Nov 2, 2026

superwhiskers requested review from abdourahmanbarry, lukelowry, nkoukpaizan and pelesh November 2, 2026 22:51

superwhiskers self-assigned this Nov 2, 2026

superwhiskers added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request labels Nov 2, 2026

superwhiskers added this pull request to stack #637 November 2, 2026 22:51

superwhiskers added the testing label Nov 2, 2026

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from 9d1b684 to 9c1127f Compare November 2, 2026 22:55

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from 9c1127f to 8b4b442 Compare November 3, 2026 01:04

lukelowry reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from 8b4b442 to 71aaf18 Compare November 3, 2026 03:04

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from fb9d963 to f234f7d Compare November 3, 2026 03:12

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from f234f7d to a90b153 Compare November 3, 2026 19:43

superwhiskers force-pushed the sw/co-simulation-03 branch from a90b153 to 9b4f0df Compare November 3, 2026 20:00

nkoukpaizan requested a review from Steven-Roberts November 4, 2026 16:44

pelesh requested changes Nov 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

nkoukpaizan reviewed Nov 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

		using NextCoupledStudy = std::function<std::optional<StudyData>()>;
		using CompleteCoupledStudy = std::function<void(Testing::TestStatus)>;

Conversation

superwhiskers commented Nov 2, 2026

Description

Proposed changes

Checklist

Uh oh!

read-the-docs-community Bot commented Nov 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Documentation build overview

Uh oh!

lukelowry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lukelowry commented Nov 3, 2026

Uh oh!

pelesh commented Nov 4, 2026

Uh oh!

pelesh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hambrickjc commented Nov 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

read-the-docs-community Bot commented Nov 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading