Article

A Unique Electrical Model for the Steady-State Analysis of a

Multi-Energy System
Danko Vidović 1,*, Elis Sutlović 2 and Matislav Majstrović 2

1 Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar, Savska Cesta 163, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2 Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Split,
Ruđera Boškovića 32, 21000 Split, Croatia; Elis.Sutlovic@fesb.hr (E.S.); matislav@fesb.hr (M.M.)
* Correspondence: dvidovic@eihp.hr

Abstract: In order to decarbonize the energy sector, the interdependencies between the power and
natural gas systems are going to be much stronger in the next period. Thus, it is necessary to have a
powerful simulation model that is able to efficiently and simultaneously solve all coupled energy
carriers in a single simulation environment in only one simulation step. As an answer to the de-
scribed computational challenges, a unique model for the steady-state analysis of a multi-energy
system (MES) using the electrical analogy approach is developed. Detailed electrical equivalent
models, developed using the network port theory and the load flow method formulation, of the
most important natural gas network elements, as well as of the linking facilities between the power
and natural gas systems, are given. The presented models were loaded up into a well-known soft-
ware for the power system simulation—NEPLAN. In the case studies, the accuracy of the presented
models is confirmed by the comparison of the simulation results with the results obtained by
SIMONE—a well-known software for natural gas network simulations. Moreover, the applicability
of the presented unique model is demonstrated by the MES security of a supply analysis.

Keywords: multi-energy system; power system; natural gas system; steady state analysis; electrical
Citation: Vidović, D.; Sutlović, E.; analogy; network port theory; load flow method
Majstrović, M. A Unique Electrical
Model for the Steady-State Analysis
of a Multi-Energy System.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753.
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185753
The main goal of actual energy policies is the decarbonization of the energy sector in
Academic Editor: Beñat Landeta the next medium to long term [1–3]. According to the joint Ten-Year Network Develop-
ment Plan 2020 (TYNDP 2020) of ENTSOG and ENTSO-E [4], to comply with the 1.5 °C
Received: 10 July 2021 targets of the Paris Agreement [2], carbon neutrality in the power sector must be achieved
Accepted: 9 September 2021 by 2040, while in the overall energy sector by 2050. Consequently, the sector coupling
Published: 13 September 2021 between power and natural gas is recognized as the key contributor to achieving the de-
carbonization targets [5]. Accordingly, renewable energy sources (RES), primarily wind
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- power plants (WPPs) and solar power plants (SPPs), will play an important role in the
tral with regard to jurisdictional
decarbonization of the power sector. Moreover, the decarbonization of the natural gas
claims in published maps and institu-
system will also have to play a significant role. For that purpose, a relatively new technol-
tional affiliations.
ogy called power-to-gas (P2G) is recognized as one of the most important solutions [4,6].
The role of P2G in the decarbonization process is two-fold. On the one side, P2G technol-
ogy will convert the surplus generation from intermittent RES into a so-called renewable
gas, and help the power sector with variable RES integration [7], while, on the other side,
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
P2G will help the gas sector to achieve the decarbonization targets [8,9]. Moreover, to
This article is an open access article
balance the power system, when additional power injection is needed, e.g., due to a lower
distributed under the terms and con- RES generation than predicted, the installation of new gas-fired power plants (GFPPs)
ditions of the Creative Commons At- will take part in the near future [4,10]. Moreover, the natural gas and power sectors are
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- also already linked through the electrically driven gas compressors. In any case, the inter-
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). dependency between these two energy infrastructures is going to be much stronger in the

Energies 2021, 14, 5753. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185753 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 5753 2 of 24

next period. Thus, the analyses of the coupled and strongly interdependent energy sys-
tems, as well as the operation and planning strategies, should be conducted on the inte-
grated, so-called multi-energy system (MES) model [11].
MES has become the subject of research in numerous papers in the last 10–15 years
[12–14]. From the beginning, interdependencies between the power and the natural gas
systems have been mostly studied [15,16], which has continued to this day [17–23]. In
[17,18], the influence of the gas network on solving the problems in the electric power
network caused by wind power plants was analyzed. Models for the security of a supply
analysis in integrated power and natural gas systems were developed in [19,20]. When we
speak about the time resolution of the analysis of multi-energy systems, it can refer to the
long-term planning of system development [21] or short-term management of the inte-
grated system [22,23]. The main issues of all cited papers, as well as other papers dealing
with the MES modeling, have been the complexity of modeling and slow computational
performance. The former is a result of the applied modeling approach where every energy
system is modeled separately and then linked through the consumption and constraints
equations [24–26]. The latter is a direct consequence of the former, since, in that case, a
high resource-consuming iterative inter-model calculation process must be used. For ex-
ample, to conduct the security of a supply analysis in the power and natural gas networks
coupled via GFPP [24], it is necessary to apply several calculation steps. In the first step,
the level of GFPP engagement is determined by performing load flow calculations in the
power network. After obtaining the GFPP generation, the associated gas consumption can
be calculated in the second step. The GFPP gas consumption represents the gas load in
the gas network, and the gas flow calculations in the gas network can be performed in the
third step. However, if the overloading or outage of either network element occurs, that
affects the GFPP operation, the described iterative inter-model calculations could be re-
peated several times before the calculation processes converge.
There are several software packages on the market that can be used to model and
simulate more than one network (e.g., electrical, natural gas, water, and district heating
networks). Unfortunately, this cannot be performed simultaneously in a single model, but
in separate partial models. In [27], this issue is resolved with external managing by Python
and the OPSIM module. However, both networks are still separated in their models, and
the iterative inter-model process should also be applied.
The separate modeling of the coupled energy carrier infrastructures was also subject
in [28–30]. In these papers, unlike the above-referenced papers, MES is analyzed simulta-
neously by using the Newton–Raphson approach, which has several significant limita-
tions. The main constraints are a necessity to have the initial value of the iteration close
enough to the solution, which can be an issue with the gas flow equations [29], and the
system of equations has to be regular [31]. If initial gas pressures at the ends of the pipe-
lines are close to each other, the Jacobi matrix becomes singular, and the results cannot be
obtained by the Newton–Raphson technique. Moreover, every energy system is again sep-
arately described by its own set of equations that are only simultaneously solved if all
Newton–Raphson pre-calculation conditions are satisfied. Consequently, every energy
carrier still needs to have its slack node.
In this paper, the electrical analogy approach is applied in MES modeling that is con-
sisted of the integrated power and natural gas systems. Hence, in addition to the elements
of the power grid, the natural gas network elements, as well as the coupling facilities, such
as P2G, GFPP, and electrically driven gas compressor stations, are in the unique MES
model represented by the equivalent electrical elements. In the electrical analogy ap-
proach, the volumetric gas flow rate and gas pressure are analogous to the electric current
and electric potential [32,33], respectively. Since, in this paper, the overall MES is modeled
as a single power network, there is no more need for the above described high resource-
consuming iterative inter-model calculations. Consequently, it is possible to simultane-
ously solve the coupled networks in only one step. Moreover, the applicability and sim-
plicity of MES modeling are also achieved since the developed network element models
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 3 of 24

can be easily used in the existing, robust, and well-known electrical software packages.
The developed MES model is solved using the extended Newton–Raphson technique that
is free of the above-described issues associated with the ordinary Newton–Raphson
method. It is worthwhile to mention that the electrical analogy approach allows the setting
of only one slack node for the entire MES model.
Finally, this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the developed electrical
equivalent models of the most important natural gas network elements, as well as the
electrical equivalent models of the linking facilities between the power and natural gas
systems, are described. Two case studies are conducted in Section 3 to verify and demon-
strate the applicability of the presented MES modeling approach, while conclusions are
given in Section 4.

2. The Equivalent Electrical Analogy Models

In order to simulate the natural gas network, it is only important to know gas pres-
sures, volumetric gas flows, and gas temperatures at the element suction (inlet) and dis-
charge (outlet) side (if applicable). In other words, it is not relevant what happens inside
the network element in detail, but what goes in/out of it. Hence, in this paper, the so-called
network port theory and the load flow method formulation, known in the power systems
analysis, were applied to define the electrical equivalent models of the gas network ele-
ments.
In the network port theory, the most used were the one- and two-port network mod-
els. The two-port network model, shown in Figure 1, has two-terminal pairs: input (port
1) and output (port 2), and it is represented by four external variables: input and output
phase voltages (Vel1f and Vel2f, respectively), as well as input and output currents (Iel1 and
Iel2, respectively) [34]. It should be noted that subscript el in this paper was used to distin-
guish electrical and natural gas variables. Furthermore, the two-port network can be
treated as a black box modeled by the relationships between the four external variables.
Similarly, the one-port network has only an input port (one-terminal pair) and two exter-
nal variables: Vel1f and Iel1 [35]. The currents flowing into the model were assumed to be
positive, and the voltages had positive reference polarities [36].

Figure 1. Two-port network model [36].

In this paper, we differentiated two types of variables: internal and external. The in-
ternal variables referred to the element ports themselves, and the mandatory ones were,
according to the load flow method [37], voltage magnitude Vel and angle Ael (in this case,
the line voltage took place, so the index f was omitted), as well as active Pel and reactive
Qel power. Additional variables may also be specified, such as the number of transformer
taps, while some of them, such as the current flow, were derived. The external variables
can refer to any other element in the model. Only the internal variables were mandatory.
It should be noted that, as it has a strong influence on the form of equations, the model’s
load flow equations together with their first partial derivatives by internal and external
variables (elements of the Jacobian matrix) had to be specified in the load flow calculation
process. Furthermore, it is common in the load flow formulation that the parameter values
used in the load flow equations are expressed in the p.u. system (marked in bold) with
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 4 of 24

the base power of 100 MVA. Moreover, these equations were expressed in an implicit form
where the right part (=0) was omitted.
Since the reactive power does not exist in natural gas networks, the active power was
equal to the apparent power, i.e., the power factor was equal to 1. Consequently, the three-
phase active power can be calculated as:

𝑃𝑒𝑙 = √3 ⋅ 𝑉𝑒𝑙 ∙ 𝐼𝑒𝑙 (1)

where Vel represents the line voltage.
It should be noted that in the p.u. system of the balanced power network, the phase
and line voltages were equal [38,39].
The volumetric gas flow Q can be calculated as [32]:
𝑧 ⋅ 𝑅𝑢 ⋅ 𝑇
𝑄= ⋅ 𝑚̇ (2)
𝑀𝑤 ⋅ 𝑝
where z, Ru, T, Mw, p, and 𝑚̇ are the compressibility factor, the universal gas constant, the
absolute gas temperature, the molecular weight of the natural gas composition, the gas
pressure, and the gas mass flow, respectively.
The compressibility factor z can be calculated using several well-known equations.
In this paper, Papay’s equation [40] was used:
𝑧 = 1 − 3.52 ⋅ 𝑝𝑟 ⋅ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−2.260 ⋅ 𝑇𝑟 ) + 0.274 ⋅ 𝑝𝑟2 ⋅ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−1.878 ⋅ 𝑇𝑟 ) (3)
where pr and Tr are the reduced gas pressure and temperature, respectively.
Since the reduced gas pressure pr was determined as a relation of the actual pressure
to the critical value, to make the power flow equations shorter and easier to read, (3) was
segmented into two constant parts. These parts were further, in the load flow equations,
multiplied by the gas pressures (port voltages). Thus, for the two-port network element,
the constant parts were:
𝑘11 = 3.52 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−2.26 ∙ 𝑇1 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ) (4)

2
𝑘21 = 0.274 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−1.878 ∙ 𝑇1 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ) (5)

𝑘12 = 3.52 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−2.26 ∙ 𝑇2 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ) (6)

2
𝑘22 = 0.274 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−1.878 ∙ 𝑇2 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ) (7)
where k11 and k21, as well as k12 and k22, are the first and the second constant parts of the
first and second port compressibility factor equation, respectively. kpr and kTr are constants
calculated as the sum of all relations of gas portions in the natural gas mixture to its critical
values (gas pressures and temperatures, respectively). T1 and T2 represent gas tempera-
tures at both element sides.
In the following subsections, the load flow equations of the most important natural
gas network elements, as well as P2G, and GFPP, are described.

2.1. Gas Compressor Station

The gas compressor station in this paper was modeled as the two-port network ele-
ment. A detailed electrical analogy model of the gas compressor station can be found in
[32].
In the load flow formulation, the gas compressor station was to be considered as the
PV type, i.e., the active power and the voltage had to be specified/known.
Moreover, as the reactive power does not exist in the natural gas networks, the reac-
tive power had to be set to zero.
The next set of equations depended on the compressor’s operation state, and they
were based on the gas mass flow conservation through the compressor as well as on the
gas pressures relation according to the compression ratio [32].
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 5 of 24

If the gas compressor was in operation, then the inlet gas mass flow minus the gas
driver consumption had to be equal to the outlet gas mass flow, i.e.:
𝑝2 ∙ 𝑄2 𝑝1 ∙ 𝑄1
= ∙ (1 − 𝑘0 /100) (8)
𝑧2 ∙ 𝑇2 𝑧1 ∙ 𝑇1
where k0 represents the gas mass flow consumption by the driver, expressed in % of the
inlet gas mass flow.
By applying the electrical analogy approach to (8) and the described segmentation
techniques to (3), and expressing the volumetric gas flow (i.e., electric current) using (1),
the gas mass flow through the compressor station in p.u., i.e., the power equation, can be
expressed as follows:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏12 ) ∙ 𝑇1 + 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ (1 − 𝑘12 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 + 𝑘22
(9)
∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏22 ) ∙ 𝑇2 ∙ (1 − 𝑘0 /100) = 0
where kVb1 and kVb2 are inlet and outlet base pressures (voltages) in bar that should be
applied to convert p.u. voltages into natural units as demanded by (3).
Moreover, the gas mass flow at the discharge side was flowing out of the two-port
network model, so the positive sign came in front of the Pel1 part in (9).
If the compressor driver was electric-powered, then k0 was equal to zero.
The discharge gas pressure, i.e., the voltage equation, depended on the compression
ratio applied. In this paper, three types of compression ratios could be set. The first one
was the user-specified fix compression ratio rc, so the compressor station inlet and outlet
gas pressures (voltages) related as:
𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 − 𝑟𝑐 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 = 0 (10)
The second compression ratio option was to set the outlet pressure to the nominal
value:
𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 − 1.0 = 0 (11)
The third compression ratio option was to copy the p.u. pressure from the inlet to the
outlet side:
𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 − 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 = 0 (12)
If the gas compressor was bypassed, then the inlet and outlet sides had the same gas
pressures, temperatures, and compressibility factors, while the driver consumption k0 was
equal to zero. The application of the former to (9) resulted in the inlet and outlet active
powers equality (with opposite signs since discharge flow was out of the two-port net-
work model):
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 + 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 = 0 (13)
and in gas pressure equality (p.u. pressures had to be converted to the natural units by
multiplying with their base values):
𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 − 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 = 0 (14)
A gas compressor was also bypassed if it was electric-powered and the electric volt-
age of the bus from which the gas compressor driver was supplied (external variable)
became an outage.

2.2. Compressor’s Electric Driver Consumption

If the gas compressor was electric-powered, then it was necessary to connect an ap-
propriate load to the supplying node in the power network. In this paper, the electric load
of the compressor driver was modeled as the one-port network element and as the PQ
type in the load flow formulation (active and reactive powers had to be specified/known).
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 6 of 24

The electric load of the compressor driver needed to track the compressor operation
state. Hence, the external variables needed to be defined as follows:
• Vel-ext1—compressor’s voltage at the suction side;
• Pel-ext1—compressor’s active power at the suction side;
• Pel-ext2—compressor’s active power at the discharge side.
In this paper, if the gas compressor was in operation, the reactive power was set to
the fixed value:
𝑸𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏 − 𝑘𝑞 = 0 (15)
where kq and kVAb are the reactive power constant settings by the user in kvar and base
power of 105 kVA, respectively.
Moreover, the driver’s active power consumption could be determined in two ways.
The first one was to calculate the active power consumption as a percentage of the gas
mass flow through the compressor. Accordingly, to determine the power consumption,
gas energy had to be converted into kWh using the gas heating value. In some countries,
a low heating value (LHV) is used, while in others, a high heating value (HHV) takes
place. So, in this paper, the heating value was defined as a constant that could be set by
the user. The volumetric gas flow at the compressor’s suction side could be determined
using the defined external variables Vel-ext1, Pel-ext1, and (1). Since the gas heating value was
given per standard gas volume, the calculated actual volumetric gas flow in A, i.e., in m3/s,
needed to be converted to the standard gas flow (gas flow at standard conditions: 15 °C
and 101.325 kPa, in Nm3/s) as follows:
𝑝1 𝑧𝑠𝑡 𝑇𝑠𝑡
𝑄𝑠𝑡 = 𝑄1 ∙ ∙ ∙ (16)
𝑝𝑠𝑡 𝑧1 𝑇1
where subscripts st and 1 denote standard conditions and the compressor’s station suction
side, respectively.
The suction gas pressure p1 was represented with Vel-ext1, and the compressibility fac-
tor z1 was calculated using the segmentation of (3), i.e., multiplying (4) and (5) with Vel-ext1.
Finally, the compressor driver power consumption Pel1 was defined as:
𝑷𝒆𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝟏 105 𝑧𝑠𝑡 𝑇𝑠𝑡
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 − ∙ ∙ 𝟐 2
∙ ∙ 𝐻𝑉 ∙ 3600
√3 𝑝𝑠𝑡 (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 ) 𝑇1 (17)
∙ 𝑘0 /100 = 0
It should be noted that the gas pressure p1 in (16) was in Pa, while in the load flow
equation the p.u. voltage multiplied by the base value gave pressure in bar. Because of
that, factor 105 exists in (17). Moreover, factor 3600 in (17) was a result of the conversion
of kWh/h into kWh/s.
The second possibility was to set the active power manually to the fixed value:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏 − 𝑘𝑝 = 0 (18)
where kp is the active power constant setting by the user in kW.
If the gas compressor station inlet and outlet active powers in the unique electrical
MES model (Pel-ext1 and Pel-ext2) were equal, then the compressor was bypassed, and, conse-
quently, the driver’s electric power consumption (Pel1 and Qel1) equaled zero.

2.3. Gas Pressure Reducing and Metering Station

The gas pressure reducing and metering station (GPRMS) in this paper was also
modeled (such as the gas compressor station) as the two-port network element and the
PV type in the load flow formulation. A detailed GPRMS electrical analogy model can be
found in [41].
As for the gas compressor, the GPRMS reactive power also had to be set to zero.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 7 of 24

Regarding the gas mass flow balance through the GPRMS, two possibilities exist:
GPRMS with or without gas preheating prior to entering the control valve [41]. In the first
case, when the preheating process took place, the gas mass flow in p.u., i.e., the power
equation, through GPRMS was similar as for the gas compressor, but without the gas
compressor driver’s consumption, i.e.:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏12 ) ∙ 𝑇1 + 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ (1 − 𝑘12 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 + 𝑘22
(19)
∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏22 ) ∙ 𝑇2 = 0
In the second case, when the gas was not preheated prior to entering the control
valve, the Joule–Thomson effect had to be taken into account. Accordingly, the discharge
gas temperature can be calculated as follows [41]:
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 − (𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 − 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 ) ∙ 0.08058 ∙ 𝐽𝑇 (20)
where JT is the Joule–Thomson coefficient in °F/ 100 psi.
In this paper, JT of 7 °F/ 100 psi, as suggested by the American Gas Association
(AGA), was used, but the user could set any value to the JT variable in the model.
Since the discharge gas temperature Equation (20) contains suction and discharge gas
pressures, the discharge compressibility factor equation had to be segmented into six con-
stant terms k1v2–k6v2:
𝑘1𝑣2 = 3.52 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−2.26 · 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ∙ 𝑇1 ) (21)

𝑘2𝑣2 = 0.182103 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ∙ 𝐽𝑇 (22)

2
𝑘3𝑣2 = 0.274 ∙ 𝑘𝑝𝑟 ∙ exp(−1.878 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ∙ 𝑇1 ) (23)

𝑘4𝑣2 = 0.151323 ∙ 𝑘 𝑇𝑟 ∙ 𝐽𝑇 (24)

𝑘5𝑣2 = 𝑇1 (25)

𝑘6𝑣2 = 0.08058 ∙ 𝐽𝑇 (26)

Applying (20)–(26) into (19), the gas mass balance through GPRMS without a pre-
heating process resulted in:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏12 ) ∙ 𝑇1 + 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ (1 − 𝑘1𝑣2 ∙ exp(𝑘2𝑣2 ∙ (𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏
∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 − 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 )) ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 + 𝑘3𝑣2 ∙ exp(𝑘4𝑣2 ∙ (𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1
(27)
− 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 )) ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏22 ) ∙ (𝑘5𝑣2 − 𝑘6𝑣2 ∙ (𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏1 − 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐
∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏2 )) = 0
In both cases, the discharge pressure was set to the nominal value, so (11) could be
applied as the voltage equation.
If the suction gas pressure was lower than the nominal discharge value, then the
GPRMS was bypassed, so (13) and (14) could be applied.

2.4. Gas Pipeline

The electrical analogy model of the gas pipeline in a steady state is given in [33], and
it is represented by a serial connection of electrical resistance and the constant electric
potential source. The former represents the resistance to the gas flow through the pipeline,
while the latter imports the effect of the pipeline inclination, i.e., potential energy into the
electrical analogy. If the pipeline is horizontal, the latter part of the model does not exist.
However, in [33], the standard volumetric gas flow is analog to the electric current,
while in this paper, the actual volumetric gas flow took place since it was directly propor-
tional to the gas velocity upon which the gas flow was constrained through the pipeline.
Thus, it was necessary to derive the resistance equation in terms of the actual gas flow and
p.u. values.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 8 of 24

The gas pressure drop along the pipeline can be calculated as [33]:
𝑝12 − 𝑝22 − 𝐸𝑝 = 𝑅𝑝 ∙ 𝑄𝑠𝑡 (28)
where Ep and Rp are the constant electrical potential source, i.e., potential energy due to
the pipeline inclination, and pipeline resistance, respectively.
The potential energy Ep can be determined as follows [33]:
2
𝑝𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝐸𝑝 = 0.06843 ∙ 𝐺 ∙ (𝐻2 − 𝐻1 ) ∙ (29)
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 ∙ 𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔
where H1 and H2 are heights of the pipe upstream and downstream side, respectively.
Subscript avg represents the average value between the upstream and downstream varia-
bles.
Moreover, in [33], several equations for the gas pipeline resistance in a fully turbulent
flow are given, according to the Darcy friction factor expression applied. In this paper, the
AGA fully turbulent gas pipeline resistance equation was used, as a tradeoff between the
accuracy of the calculation results and the simplicity of expression:
2
𝑝𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝐿 ∙ 𝐺 ∙ 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 ∙ 𝑧𝑎𝑣𝑔 ∙ 𝑄𝑠𝑡 𝜀 −2
𝑅𝑝 = ∙ [−2 ∙ log 10 ( )] (30)
176.85 ∙ 𝑇𝑠𝑡2 ∙ 𝜂𝑝2 ∙ (𝑝1 + 𝑝2 ) ∙ 𝐷5 3.7 ∙ 𝐷
where L, G, ηp, D, and ε are the pipeline length, gas specific gravity, pipeline efficiency
factor, pipeline diameter, and surface roughness, respectively.
The gas specific gravity G can be substituted with molecular weight Mw as follows
[33]:
𝑀𝑤 𝑀𝑤
𝐺= ≈ (31)
𝑀𝑤 𝑎𝑖𝑟 29
The pipeline efficiency factor ηp represents additional friction imposed by fittings
(e.g., valves, bends, tees, etc.), corrosion, dust deposition, etc. [33].
To convert the standard to actual volumetric gas flow (28), (30) and (16) should be
applied.
The gas pipeline in this paper was , such as the compressor station and GPRMS, mod-
eled as the two-port network element and the PV-type in the load flow formulation. The
reactive power of both pipeline sides also has to be set to zero.
After applying the segmentation to the compressibility factors using (4)–(7) and the
substitution of the current with active power and voltage using (1) in (30), and applying
(30) to (28), the pressure equation is as follows:
𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 − 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 − 𝐸𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 ∙ (𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 + 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 )2 /(2 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 − 𝑘12
∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘22 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 ) − 𝑹𝒑 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕 /6 ∙ (2 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏
+ 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 − 𝑘12 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘22 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 (32)
2 𝟐 2 2 |𝑷
∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 )/(1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 ) ∙ 𝒆𝒍𝟏 | ∙ 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏
∙ 105 = 0
where Rp const and Ep const represent constants calculated as follows:
2
𝐿 ∙ 𝑀𝑤 ∙ (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 ) ∙ 𝑧𝑠𝑡 1 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏
𝑹𝒑 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕 = ∙ ∙ ∙ 105 (33)
10257.46 ∙ η2𝑝 ∙ 𝐷5 ∙ 𝑇12 ε 2
𝑘𝑉𝑏 2
(−2 ∙ log10 ( ))
3.7 ∙ 𝐷

𝑀𝑤 ∙ (𝐻2 − 𝐻1 )
𝐸𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 = (34)
423.79 ∙ (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 )
Moreover, the absolute value of Pel1 in (32) was needed as the gas pipeline model had
to be reciprocal, i.e., upstream and downstream sides could be freely switched in the net-
work model. The same situation could also be observed when the gas flow changed its
direction through the pipeline.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 9 of 24

The gas mass flow had to be equal at both pipeline sides, i.e., the mass flow equality
must be satisfied. Hence, applying the segmentation of z and (1) into (2), the power equa-
tion is as follows:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ (1 − 𝑘12 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘22 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 ) ∙ 𝑇2 + 𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘21
(35)
∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 ) ∙ 𝑇1 = 0

2.5. Gas Load, Gas Input, Underground Gas Storage

In this paper, gas load, gas input, and underground gas storage were modeled as the
one-port network elements and the PQ type in the load flow formulation.
The below-derived load flow models were similar for all three gas network elements.
The difference was only in the sign of the desired volumetric gas flow that is usually de-
fined at standard conditions Qst and given in 1000∙Nm3/h. For the gas load, a positive value
was used, for the gas input a negative value was used, while for the underground gas
storage both signs were possible, depending on the operation state (positive for the gas
injection process and negative for the gas withdrawal process).
Having defined Qst, the gas mass flow 𝑚̇ in kg/s can be calculated as follows [32]:
𝑄𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑝𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑀𝑤
𝑚̇ = (36)
3600 ∙ 𝑧𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑅𝑢 ∙ 𝑇𝑠𝑡
As in all the natural gas network elements described above, the reactive power had
to be set to zero.
The power equation, derived combining (1) and (2), is as follows:
𝑚̇ ∙ 𝑅𝑢 ∙ 𝑇1 1
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 − √3 ∙ (1 − 𝑘11 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘21 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 ) ∙ ∙ =0 (37)
𝑀𝑤 100 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏

2.6. Power-to-Gas
The power-to-gas facility in this paper was also modeled as the two-port network
element and the PQ type in the load flow formulation. The first port was dedicated to the
power network side, while the second port was connected to the natural gas network side.
The input values were power consumption kp in MW, the overall process efficiency ηP2G
in %, as well as the temperature of the produced gas T2 in K.
Since the P2G facility consumed only active power and bearing in mind that reactive
power does not exist in natural gas networks, the reactive power of both ports had to be
set to zero.
In the power equation of the first port, the active power was set to the defined fixed
value:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏 − 𝑘𝑝 ∙ 1000 = 0 (38)
In the power equation of the second port, the active power was calculated using (1),
(3), (6), (7) and (16) as follows:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑝𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑇2 𝜂𝑃2𝐺
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟐 + √3 ∙ ∙ (1 − 𝑘12 ∙ 𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 + 𝑘22 ∙ 𝑽𝟐𝒆𝒍𝟐 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝑏 2 ) ∙ =0 (39)
3600 ∙ 𝐻𝑉 ∙ 𝑧𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝑇𝑠𝑡 107

2.7. Gas-Fired Power Plant

As power-to-gas, the gas-fired power plant (GFPP) was also modeled as the two-port
network element where the first node was connected to the power network, while the
second node was connected to the natural gas network.
The gas temperature T2 in K, the overall power plant efficiency ηGFPP in %, and the
power generation kp in MW represented the input values.
Furthermore, there were two possibilities in the GFPP operation regime. In the first
one, the voltage of the power bus at which the GFPP was connected could be regulated,
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 10 of 24

while in the second one, a fixed value of the reactive power generated kq in Mvar could
be set. In the load flow formulation, the former was represented as the PV type, while the
latter was represented as the PQ type.
Moreover, the GFPP model defined the minimum allowed gas pressure of the gas
node at which GFPP was connected. If the threshold setting was violated, the GFPP was
disconnected, so the active and reactive powers of both GFPP’s sides had to be set to zero.
If the GFPP regulated the voltage of the connecting bus to the desired value kv ex-
pressed in % of the nominal value, the voltage equation was applied:
𝑘𝑣
𝑽𝒆𝒍𝟏 − =0 (40)
100
Moreover, if the fix reactive power generation kq in Mvar was set, the reactive power
equation was executed:
𝑸𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏 + 𝑘𝑞 ∙ 1000 = 0 (41)
Since the reactive power does not exist in the natural gas network, it had to be set to
zero at the second port.
The active power equation of the first port was similar as for power-to-gas, but with
the opposite sign:
𝑷𝒆𝒍𝟏 ∙ 𝑘𝑉𝐴𝑏 + 𝑘𝑝 ∙ 1000 = 0 (42)
Finally, the active power equation of the second port was the same as (39), but the
variable ηGFPP instead of ηP2G should be used.

3. Case Studies
In this section, two case studies were conducted to verify the presented equivalent
electrical analogy models and applied modeling approach described in the previous sec-
tion.
The presented equivalent electrical analogy models were written in the C/C++ scripts
and compiled to the Dynamic Link Library (DLL) files, which could be further assigned
in the NEPLAN (a well-known software package for power network simulations) graph-
ical editor as the User-Defined Models (UDM) [42]. The C/C++ user’s code must contain
several routines and follow certain instructions that are described in the NEPLAN manual
[42].
In the first case study, an extensive gas network was modeled in the NEPLAN electric
module, using the presented equivalent electrical models of the gas network elements, as
well as in the well-known commercial software for the natural gas network analyses—
SIMONE. The verification of the results obtained by the NEPLAN was conducted by a
comparison with the results obtained by SIMONE.
After the verification of the accuracy of the applied methodology in the first case
study, in the second case study, an electrical power network was added to the same model
together with the main coupling facilities between the power and gas networks: the GFPP,
the P2G, and the electric-driven natural gas compressor station. The goal of the second
case study was to demonstrate the applicability of the presented modeling approach as
well as to emphasize the importance of having the unique MES simulation model.
The same gas mixture from Table 1 was used in all simulations within both case stud-
ies. Additionally, in all calculations, the gas heating value of 9.260625 kWh/Nm3 was used.
Reference conditions were 15 °C and 101.325 kPa.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 11 of 24

Table 1. Composition of the processed natural gas.

Molecular Weight
Molecular Weight of Gas Compo-
Gas Formula Mole Fraction
(g/mol) nent
(g/mol)
Methane CH4 95.2% 16.043 15.34
Ethane C2H6 2.29% 30.07 0.69
Propane C3H8 0.63% 44.096 0.28
i-butane C4H10 0.09% 58.124 0.05
Nitrogen N2 1.06% 28.014 0.30
Carbon-dioxide CO2 0.31% 44.01 0.14
Molecular weight of the gas mixture 16.79

3.1. Case Study 1

The gas network used to verify the applied approach represented an imaginary net-
work consisting of 35 nodes, 27 pipelines, 4 gas compressor stations (CS), 6 GPRMSs, 7 gas
exits/loads, 2 gas inputs, and 1 underground gas storage (UGS). It was designed to cover a
wide range of input data: gas inputs and loads, pipeline diameters, roughness, lengths, and
elevations. The model of the gas network, constructed in SIMONE, is shown in Figure 2.
Two valves VA1 and VA2 served to switch off the pipelines N2–N7 and N7–N8 out of op-
eration in situations when the gas flow velocities through them fell below the critical value.
In those situations, all downstream natural gas flows through the pipeline N2–N8.

Figure 2. Gas network model constructed in SIMONE.

Energies 2021, 14, 5753 12 of 24

Within case study one, six simulations were performed, as indicated in Table 2. The
same gas pipeline parameters, presented in Table 3, were used in all defined scenarios.
The pipeline efficiency was taken as 1, and the total length of the gas network was 681.5
km.

Table 2. Scenario definition in case study 1.

UGS CS1 CS2 Scenario

In operation In operation S1
Injection Bypass In operation S2
In operation Bypass S3
In operation In operation S4
Withdrawal Bypass In operation S5
In operation Bypass S6

Table 3. Gas pipeline parameters.

Diameter Roughness Length Node 1 Height Node 2 Height

Node 1 Node 2
(mm) (mm) (km) (m) (m)
N18 EXIT4 200 0.018 10 100 120
INPUT1 N1 600 0.012 10 0 10
N1 N2 600 0.012 2 10 10
N17 N18 200 0.018 5 4 100
N2 N8 600 0.012 70 10 10
N13 N14 150 0.012 30 80 80
N18 EXIT5 200 0.018 5 100 80
N14 EXIT3 150 0.012 5 80 150
N20 N19 200 0.03 50 25 50
N8 EXIT2 400 0.012 50 10 15
INPUT2 N20 200 0.012 4 0 25
N21 N22 400 0.012 20 70 100
EXIT2 N9 400 0.012 50 15 0
N9 N12 150 0.012 100 0 80
N23 EXIT7 350 0.012 10 100 100
N10 N11 400 0.012 10 0 0
N2 N7 350 0.015 15 10 −10
N7 N8 350 0.015 20 −10 10
N15 N19 400 0.018 4 30 50
N2 N3 500 0.012 80 10 20
N23 N24 250 0.03 20 100 65
N15 N16 200 0.012 4.5 30 4
N8 N15 400 0.012 10 10 30
N5 N6 350 0.015 25 100 100
N24 N25 250 0.01 20 65 0
N4 N5 350 0.024 32 20 100
N19 N21 400 0.012 20 50 70

The simulation parameters, shown in Table 4, differ for the UGS injection and the
withdrawal process. When the UGS is in the gas injection phase, the gas reduction station
GPRMS5 and the compressor station CS4 were in operation. Otherwise, when natural gas
was withdrawn from the UGS, the GPRMS6 and the CS3 were in operation. During the
withdrawing process, the second gas source (i.e., connection to another gas network) IN-
PUT2 changed the role and became a gas consumer. For all compressors, the driver’s gas
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 13 of 24

consumptions were neglected; therefore, in this case, they could be considered as electric-
driven compressors.

Table 4. Simulation parameters.

Element Parameter UGS Injection UGS Withdrawal Unit

CS1 Discharge pressure 75 75 bar
CS1 Discharge temperature 15 15 °C
CS2 Discharge pressure 75 75 bar
CS2 Discharge temperature 20 20 °C
CS3 Compression ratio Off 1.5 -
CS3 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
CS4 Discharge pressure 125 Off bar
CS4 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
EXIT1 Gas demand 200 200 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT2 Gas demand 35 35 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT3 Gas demand 3 3 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT4 Gas demand 20 20 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT5 Gas demand 15 15 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT6 Gas demand 77 77 1000 Nm3/h
EXIT7 Gas demand 155 155 1000 Nm3/h
GPRMS1 Discharge pressure 35 35 bar
GPRMS1 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
GPRMS2 Discharge pressure 35 35 bar
GPRMS2 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
GPRMS3 Discharge pressure 35 35 bar
GPRMS3 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
GPRMS4 Discharge pressure 30 30 bar
GPRMS4 Discharge temperature 18 18 °C
GPRMS5 Discharge pressure 30 Off bar
GPRMS5 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
GPRMS6 Suction pressure Off 125 bar
GPRMS6 Discharge temperature 10 10 °C
INPUT1 Pressure set 75 75 Bar
INPUT1 Gas temperature 10 10 °C
INPUT2 Gas supply 35 −15 1000 Nm3/h
INPUT2 Gas temperature 10 10 °C
UGS Gas demand 80 −150 1000 Nm3/h

The main goal was to determine node gas pressures and branch volumetric gas flows.
The deviations between the obtained results were calculated as:
NEPLAN − SIMONE
Deviation = ⋅ 100% (43)
SIMONE
where NEPLAN and SIMONE denote results obtained by models developed in NEPLAN
and SIMONE, respectively.
The results of the node gas pressures and branch volumetric gas flows are shown in
Tables 5 and 6, respectively. It should be noted that for each node, Kirchhoff’s current law
had to be satisfied. This meant that the sum of all volumetric gas flows going into a node
had to be equal to the sum of all volumetric gas flows going out of the same node. Since
the gas temperature was taken as a constant along the pipeline and the pipe cross-section
remained unchanged, according to (2) the volumetric gas flow at the pipe exit was greater
than at the pipe inlet side, as a result of the gas pressure drop. For this reason, both the
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 14 of 24

pipe inlet and the outlet volumetric gas flows were compared to the SIMONE results. If
some node only had two connected branches, then the volumetric gas flows of both
branches at the sides connected to that node were the same. In that case, only one value
was presented in Table 6. However, if some node had three or more connected branches,
then Table 6 contains the volumetric gas flows of all connected branches. In those situa-
tions, the name of the second node of the corresponding branch was specified in paren-
theses in order to provide information about the volumetric gas flow branch affiliation.

Table 5. Results of simulation in case study 1—gas pressures (bar).

Node S1-N S1-S S2-N S2-S S3-N S3-S S4-N S4-S S5-N S5-S S6-N S6-S
EXIT1 35.000 35.000 28.126 27.200 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 31.300 30.556 35.000 35.000
EXIT2 66.286 65.602 66.236 65.604 66.218 65.629 75.728 75.697 75.699 75.698 75.678 75.714
EXIT3 34.259 34.125 34.259 34.125 34.259 34.125 34.259 34.125 34.259 34.125 34.259 34.125
EXIT4 30.044 29.795 30.044 29.795 30.044 29.795 30.044 29.795 30.044 29.795 30.044 29.795
EXIT5 31.544 31.386 31.544 31.386 31.544 31.386 31.544 31.386 31.544 31.386 31.544 31.386
EXIT6 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 19.630 20.213 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 23.542 24.539
EXIT7 72.652 72.564 72.652 72.564 48.660 47.934 72.652 72.564 72.652 72.564 50.264 49.747
INPUT1 75.000 74.995 75.000 74.995 75.000 74.995 75.000 74.996 75.000 74.996 75.000 74.996
INPUT2 79.935 79.818 79.895 79.820 79.808 79.867 64.693 64.140 64.658 64.142 64.519 64.200
N1 73.173 73.095 73.137 73.097 73.157 73.101 74.145 74.098 74.120 74.099 74.134 74.102
N10 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 53.764 53.868 53.746 53.868 53.733 53.878
N11 29.163 29.053 29.163 29.053 29.163 29.053 55.271 55.445 55.253 55.446 55.241 55.455
N12 63.256 62.108 63.204 62.110 63.185 62.136 79.478 79.484 79.451 79.485 79.432 79.500
N13 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000
N14 34.524 34.410 34.524 34.410 34.524 34.410 34.524 34.410 34.524 34.410 34.524 34.410
N15 67.042 66.579 66.994 66.581 66.912 66.629 68.701 68.369 68.669 68.370 68.569 68.414
N16 66.118 65.589 66.069 65.591 65.985 65.641 67.811 67.418 67.778 67.419 67.676 67.464
N17 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000 35.000
N18 32.026 31.914 32.026 31.914 32.026 31.914 32.026 31.914 32.026 31.914 32.026 31.914
N19 66.041 65.538 65.991 65.540 65.885 65.598 67.220 66.841 67.187 66.842 67.055 66.897
N2 72.814 72.721 72.770 72.723 72.794 72.729 73.985 73.930 73.956 73.931 73.971 73.934
N20 78.992 78.833 78.951 78.834 78.864 78.882 64.740 64.209 64.706 64.211 64.568 64.268
N21 59.797 58.963 59.742 58.965 59.478 59.087 61.108 60.427 61.071 60.429 60.779 60.539
N22 52.696 51.417 52.633 51.420 52.163 51.625 54.193 53.114 54.151 53.115 53.652 53.299
N23 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 52.163 51.623 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 53.652 53.297
N24 67.012 66.875 67.012 66.875 38.193 38.234 67.012 66.875 67.012 66.875 40.247 40.549
N25 59.969 59.454 59.969 59.454 19.630 20.214 59.969 59.454 59.969 59.454 23.542 24.540
N3 67.669 67.259 67.317 67.274 67.648 67.267 68.937 68.578 68.606 68.590 68.922 68.583
N4 75.000 75.000 67.317 67.272 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 68.606 68.587 75.000 75.000
N5 58.981 58.715 48.612 48.521 58.981 58.715 58.981 58.715 50.423 50.376 58.981 58.715
N6 44.199 43.392 28.126 27.201 44.199 43.390 44.199 43.392 31.300 30.557 44.199 43.390
N7 71.692 71.528 71.647 71.530 71.653 71.543 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N8 69.945 69.615 69.899 69.617 69.881 69.640 72.792 72.608 72.762 72.609 72.741 72.626
N9 64.485 63.540 64.434 63.543 64.414 63.568 80.645 80.801 80.618 80.802 80.599 80.817
UGS 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000 125.000
N—NEPLAN; S—SIMONE.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 15 of 24

Table 6. Results of simulation in case study 1—volumetric gas flows (m3/s).

Node S1-N S1-S S2-N S2-S S3-N S3-S S4-N S4-S S5-N S5-S S6-N S6-S
EXIT1 1.448 1.448 1.832 1.898 1.448 1.448 1.448 1.448 1.633 1.658 1.448 1.448
EXIT2 0.296 0.306 0.297 0.306 0.297 0.305 0.451 0.449 0.452 0.449 0.452 0.449
EXIT3 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022
EXIT4 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.172
EXIT5 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.122
EXIT6 0.682 0.682 0.682 0.682 1.067 1.029 0.682 0.682 0.682 0.682 0.881 0.844
EXIT7 0.499 0.500 0.499 0.500 0.782 0.795 0.499 0.500 0.499 0.500 0.754 0.763
INPUT1 1.707 1.716 1.725 1.715 1.715 1.713 1.148 1.154 1.166 1.153 1.157 1.151
INPUT2 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.055 0.056 0.055 0.056 0.055 0.056
N1 1.756 1.767 1.775 1.766 1.764 1.763 1.164 1.170 1.182 1.169 1.172 1.167
N10 0.684 0.697 0.684 0.697 0.684 0.697 0.677 0.676 0.678 0.676 0.678 0.676
N11 0.705 0.722 0.705 0.722 0.705 0.722 0.657 0.655 0.657 0.655 0.657 0.654
N12 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
N13 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022
N14 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022
N15 (N16) 0.123 0.124 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.120 0.121 0.120 0.121 0.120 0.121
N15 (N19) 0.694 0.703 0.695 0.703 0.705 0.699 0.847 0.855 0.847 0.855 0.858 0.851
N15 (N8) 0.818 0.828 0.818 0.828 0.829 0.823 0.967 0.975 0.967 0.975 0.978 0.971
N16 0.125 0.126 0.125 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.122 0.123 0.122 0.123 0.122 0.122
N17 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253
N18 (EXIT4) 0.159 0.160 0.159 0.160 0.159 0.160 0.159 0.160 0.159 0.160 0.159 0.160
N18 (EXIT5) 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120
N18 (N17) 0.279 0.280 0.279 0.280 0.279 0.280 0.279 0.280 0.279 0.280 0.279 0.280
N19 (N15) 0.706 0.716 0.707 0.716 0.717 0.712 0.868 0.877 0.869 0.877 0.880 0.873
N19 (N20) 0.125 0.127 0.126 0.127 0.126 0.126 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
N19 (N21) 0.832 0.842 0.832 0.842 0.843 0.838 0.815 0.824 0.816 0.824 0.827 0.820
N2 (N1) 1.766 1.777 1.785 1.776 1.774 1.774 1.166 1.173 1.185 1.172 1.175 1.170
N2 (N3) 0.642 0.644 0.661 0.643 0.642 0.644 0.630 0.632 0.649 0.631 0.631 0.632
N2 (N7) 0.290 0.292 0.291 0.292 0.293 0.291 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N2 (N8) 0.833 0.842 0.834 0.842 0.839 0.839 0.536 0.541 0.536 0.541 0.544 0.538
N20 0.102 0.103 0.102 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.055 0.056 0.055 0.056 0.055 0.055
N21 0.930 0.949 0.931 0.949 0.946 0.943 0.908 0.923 0.908 0.923 0.924 0.917
N22 1.071 1.106 1.073 1.106 1.096 1.096 1.039 1.066 1.039 1.066 1.062 1.058
N23 (EXIT7) 0.509 0.509 0.509 0.509 0.724 0.758 0.509 0.492 0.509 0.492 0.702 0.707
N23 (N24) 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.372 0.377 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.360 0.364
N24 0.272 0.272 0.272 0.272 0.524 0.506 0.272 0.272 0.272 0.272 0.495 0.475
N25 0.308 0.311 0.308 0.311 1.067 1.001 0.308 0.311 0.308 0.311 0.881 0.816
N3 0.698 0.703 0.721 0.702 0.698 0.703 0.683 0.688 0.706 0.687 0.683 0.688
N4 0.639 0.639 0.721 0.715 0.639 0.639 0.639 0.639 0.706 0.699 0.639 0.639
N5 0.814 0.818 1.010 1.012 0.814 0.819 0.814 0.818 0.970 0.954 0.814 0.819
N6 1.122 1.145 1.832 1.898 1.122 1.145 1.122 1.145 1.633 1.626 1.122 1.145
N7 0.296 0.297 0.296 0.297 0.298 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N8 (EXIT2) 0.397 0.404 0.397 0.404 0.397 0.404 0.360 0.359 0.360 0.359 0.360 0.358
N8 (N15) 0.779 0.787 0.780 0.787 0.789 0.783 0.906 0.911 0.906 0.911 0.915 0.908
N8 (N2) 0.872 0.884 0.873 0.884 0.879 0.882 0.546 0.552 0.546 0.552 0.555 0.549
N8 (N7) 0.304 0.307 0.304 0.307 0.307 0.306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N9 (EXIT2) 0.306 0.317 0.306 0.317 0.306 0.317 0.420 0.417 0.420 0.417 0.420 0.417
N9 (N12) 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
UGS 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.261
N—NEPLAN; S—SIMONE.

Due to different equations used for the calculation of the gas pressure drop along the
gas pipeline in SIMONE and the proposed equivalent electrical model in NEPLAN, it was
evident that deviations between the obtained results would exist. The node gas pressure
deviations, as well as the branch volumetric gas flow deviations, were calculated and pre-
sented in Figure 3. In normal situations (scenarios S1 and S4), the absolute node gas pres-
sure deviations were up to 2.49% (standard deviation 0.56%), while the absolute branch
volumetric gas flow deviations were up to 3.50% (standard deviation 0.82%). Larger de-
viations were recorded in the N-1 situations when CS1 or CS2 were out of operation, i.e.,
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 16 of 24

bypassed. However, the standard deviations were slightly higher and were still very ac-
ceptable (0.81% and 1.18% for the node gas pressure and branch volumetric gas flow de-
viations, respectively). Hence, it can be concluded that the developed equivalent electrical
models could efficiently simulate natural gas network steady-state load flows.

EXIT1 N1
UGS4% EXIT2 N6 N78% N3 N4
N9 EXIT3 N5 N18 (EXIT4)
N8 3% EXIT4 UGS N18 (EXIT5)
N25 6% N23 (EXIT7)
N7 2% EXIT5
N24 4% N8 (EXIT2)
N6 1% EXIT6 N22 N9 (EXIT2)
0% N21 2% N15 (N16)
N5 EXIT7
-1% N20 0% N15 (N19)
N4 -2% INPUT1 N17 N18 (N17)
-2%
-3%
N3 INPUT2 N16 -4% N19 (N15)
-4%
N14 N19 (N20)
N25 -5% N1
-6%
EXIT7 N19 (N21)
N24 N10 EXIT6 N23 (N24)
EXIT5 N15 (N8)
N23 N11
EXIT4 N8 (N15)
N22 N12 EXIT3 N9 (N12)
EXIT2 N2 (N1)
N21 N13
EXIT1 N2 (N3)
N20 N14 INPUT2 N2 (N7)
N2 N15 INPUT1 N2 (N8)
N8 (N7) N13 N10 N8 (N2)
N19 N18 N17 N16 N12 N11

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) Node gas pressure deviations; (b) branch volumetric gas flow deviations.

3.2. Case Study 2

In this case study, the electrical network, together with the coupling facilities, was
added, so a unique electrical model of the MES, as shown in Figure 4, was constructed.
The power network consisted of 14 nodes, 13 loads, 12 lines, 2 GFPPs, 1 WPP, and 2 trans-
formers that couples 2 voltage levels of 110 kV and 20 kV. The coupling facilities between
the gas and the power network were two GFPPs, the P2G and the electric driven gas com-
pressor CS2, marked with bold lines in Figure 4. It should be noted that the GFPP1el and
the GFPP2el were numerically equal to the GFPP1 and the GFPP2, respectively, and
should have been used only when any of the networks were going to be analyzed sepa-
rately, such as in case study one. In those situations, GFPP1 and GFPP2 should be discon-
nected. The frequency of the power system was taken as 50 Hz.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 17 of 24

Figure 4. A unique electrical MES model developed in NEPLAN.

The parameters of electric lines and loads were given in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
The total length of the power network was 285 km, and all lines were overhead types.

Table 7. Electric line parameters.

Suscep- Conductiv- Rated Cur-

Resistance Reactance Length
Node 1 Node 2 tance ity rent
(Ω) (Ω) (km)
(μS) (μS) (A)
B1 B2 0.164 0.338 3.456 0 450 50
B1 B3 0.164 0.338 3.456 0 450 50
B3 B6 0.164 0.338 3.456 0 450 50
B4 B5 0.164 0.338 3.456 0 450 50
B5 B3 0.164 0.338 3.456 0 450 50
B8 B7 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B8 B9 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B9 B10 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B9 B11 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B12 B11 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B12 B14 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
B13 B12 0.3 0.41 2.011 0 290 5
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 18 of 24

Table 8. Electric loads.

Name Active Power (MW) Reactive Power (Mvar)

L2 20 2
L3 10 2
L4 16 3
L5 15 2
L6 60 5
L7 1.5 0.2
L8 3 1
L9 6 1
L10 12 2.5
L11 3 1
L12 6 2
L13 15 3
L14 3.5 1

Each of the two identical 110/20 kV transformers, with parameters presented in Table 9,
on the primary side had an on-load tap changer with a total of 21 steps of 1.5% of nominal
voltage. The secondary voltage was regulated to 103% of the nominal voltage. Moreover,
one of the advantages of a unique electrical MES model was the opportunity to have only
one slack node for both networks. For this reason, the third (imaginary) transformer,
called TR-slack, was added into the unique model to couple busbars INPUT1 and B1 hav-
ing the network feeders (slack nodes) connected. Parameters for the TR-slack are also
given in Table 9, and it had the same on-load tap changer as TRF1 and TRF2.

Table 9. Transformer parameters.

Rated
Vector Rated Primary Rated Second- Short-Circuit Copper Open-Circuit Iron Core
Name Power
Group Voltage (kV) ary Voltage (kV) Voltage (%) Losses (%) Current (%) Losses (kW)
(MW)
TRF1 YNd5 40 110 20 17.59 0.25 0.51 20.2
TRF2 YNd5 40 110 20 17.59 0.25 0.51 20.2
TR-slack YNd5 80 110 75 17.59 0 0 0

The WPP park consists of 25 units of 5 MW, so the total generation was set to 125
MW and 0 Mvar.
The GFPP1 has an efficiency of 60%, and the operating point of active power was set
to 10 MW, while the reactive power controlled the voltage of node B7 to 1.03 p.u.. The
minimum allowed gas pressure was set to 85% of the nominal gas pressure at node EXIT1.
The GFPP2 also has an efficiency of 60%, and the minimum allowed gas pressure was
85% of nominal gas pressure at node EXIT6. The operating point was set to 70 MW and 2
Mvar.
Dissimilar to case study one, in case study two, the compressor driver consumption
was set to 1.3% of the inlet gas mass flow to all compressors. For compressor CS2, which
was the only electric-driven compressor, in this case, the driver consumption of 1.3% of
the inlet gas mass flow was recalculated to the electric side via the above-described gas
heating value at reference conditions. Pipe efficiency was not changed in this case, i.e., it
was left as 100% (no additional gas pressure loss along the gas pipeline was introduced).
Within case study two, three scenarios (S7, S8, and S9) were simulated as described
below. All simulations were performed for both UGS operation states: the injection and
the withdrawal process.
The goal of scenario S7 was to identify the influence of the operation state of GFPP1,
GFPP2, and P2G on the natural gas network node pressures and volumetric gas flows.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 19 of 24

The performed simulations showed that the same results were obtained for both the UGS
operation processes, and they can be summarized as follows:
• When GFPP1 and GFPP2 were in operation, the most influenced gas nodes were N6
and N25, respectively, (gas pressures were decreased for 0.01 p.u. and 0.088 p.u., re-
spectively). At the same time, the volumetric gas flows at nodes EXIT1 and EXIT6
were increased by 1.1% and 16.4%, respectively, both compared with situations when
GFPP1 and GFPP2 were out of operation. The decreased gas pressures of N6 and N25
were still higher than the nominal gas pressures of nodes EXIT1 and EXIT6; therefore,
the influences of GFPP1 and GFPP2 on the gas network could be neglected.
• When the P2G was in operation, the most influenced gas node was N12 (gas pressure
was decreased by 0.014 p.u.). Interestingly, the volumetric gas flow produced by P2G
(0.026 m3/s) was a little higher than the volumetric gas flow at node N14 demanded
by EXIT3 (0.022 m3/s). This meant that the losses in the natural gas network could be
reduced since natural gas did not need to flow anymore from node N9 to node N14
(130 km). Its flow reached velocities below the minimum allowed (less than 1.5 m/s).
Thus, it can be concluded that P2G had a positive influence on the gas network.
In scenario S8, the influences of the CS1 operation state on the security of the power
network supply were analyzed. In a normal operation, the CS1 regulates the output pres-
sure to the nominal value. In the UGS injection process, when the CS1 was bypassed, the
gas pressure of node N6 fell to 29.3 bar, as shown in Figure 5. Since the nominal pressure
of node EXIT1 was 35 bar, GPRMS1 was bypassed, so gas pressures at nodes N6 and
EXIT1 were equal. The gas pressure of 29.3 bar at node EXIT1 was lower than the mini-
mum gas pressure required by GFPP1; thus, GFPP1 fell out of operation. This was re-
flected in the power network in such a way that lines B12-B13 and B9-B10 were overloaded
(112.5% and 135.9%, respectively). The overloading of overhead lines in contingency sit-
uations is usually allowed up to 120%, so the overloading of line B12-B13 was not critical.
The overloading of line B9-B10 was outside the upper limit; therefore, the load curtailment
was expected in the 20 kV power network. This situation could be overcome if the UGS
was in the withdrawal process. In that case, the gas pressure at node EXIT1 would be 0.89
p.u. and GPRMS1 would not fall out of operation.
In scenario S9, the influences of the CS2 operation state on the security of the power
network supply, as well as the influences of a contingency in the power network on the
CS2 driver power supply, were analyzed. The latter represents the influence of the power
network on the security of the natural gas network supply. In a normal operation, CS2
regulates the output pressure to the nominal value. If CS2 was bypassed, the gas pressure
at node N23 would become equal to the gas pressure at node N22, as shown in Figure 6.
Consequently, in both UGS operation processes, the gas pressure at node EXIT6 would
fall below the minimum required by GFPP2. Thus, GFPP2 would fall out of operation,
which would cause voltage drops at B5, B6, B12, and B14 below the minimum allowed of
0.9 p.u., as well as the overloading of lines B1-B3, B3-B6, B9-B11, and B9-B10. Only the
latter had an overload above the allowed 120%. Consequently, load curtailment in the
power network could be expected to overcome this issue.
The same situation, as described in scenario S9, could occur if line B1-B2 fell out of
operation. As a result, the CS2 driver would stay without a power supply, so the CS2
would have to be bypassed. Thus, the operation problems in the power network could be
reflected in the natural gas network and returned to the power network, worsening the
situation in the power network. Without the implementation of an integrated approach to
modeling multi-energy systems, the problem mentioned above would not be observed.
The proposed unique electrical model of a multi-energy system that uses the electrical
analogy approach easily copes with this problem.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 20 of 24

Figure 5. Analyze the influences of the CS1 operation state on the security of the power network supply UGS injection
process.

Figure 6. Analyze the influences of the CS2 operation state on the security of the power network supply UGS injection
process.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 21 of 24

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the steady-state electrical equivalent models of the most important gas
network elements (gas compressor station, gas pressure reducing and metering station,
pipeline, gas load, gas source, and underground gas storage), as well as the steady-state
electrical equivalent models of the linking facilities between the power and natural gas
systems (gas-fired power plant and power-to-gas facility) were given. The equivalent
models were developed using the network port theory and the load flow method formu-
lation, known in the power systems analysis. In that way, the overall multi-energy system
could be simultaneously solved as one electrical network and in one simulation step, i.e.,
without high resource-consuming iterative inter-model calculations associated with the
separate network modeling approach. Moreover, the use of the extended Newton–
Raphson method exceeded the calculation prerequisites associated with the ordinary
Newton–Raphson method.
Two case studies were conducted. The developed models of network elements were
used for modeling MES in the electrical software package—NEPLAN. In the first case
study, the high accuracy of the presented models was confirmed by comparing the simu-
lation results of one gas network modeled in the electrical analogy with the results ob-
tained by SIMONE (a well-known software package for natural gas network simulations).
The applicability of the presented approach was demonstrated in the second case study,
where the electrical network was added to the gas network model together with the link-
ing facilities. Finally, the case studies showed that the presented approach could be easily
applied to the security of supply analyses (scenarios S8 and S9), as well as to determine
the interdependencies between the coupled network infrastructures (scenario S7). More-
over, by conducting analyses on a multi-energy system, it was possible to detect some
system vulnerabilities that could not be observed if the networks were modeled sepa-
rately. For example, scenario S8 showed that operation problems in the electrical power
network caused by outages in the natural gas network could be avoided if the operating
regime of the underground gas storage was changed. Additionally, scenario S9 showed
that the outages in the power network could affect the natural gas network, causing prob-
lems there, and, consequently, go back and worsen the situation in the power network.
The application of the presented methodology was limited to steady-state networks.
Thus, to be able to use the model on an hourly basis, it is necessary to take into account
natural gas stored in the gas pipelines, so-called linepack. The development of such a
quasi-stationary model of a multi-energy system is the direction of our future research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.V.; methodology, D.V.; software, D.V.; validation,

D.V.; formal analysis, E.S. and M.M.; investigation, D.V.; resources, D.V.; data curation, D.V.; writ-
ing—original draft preparation, D.V.; writing—review and editing, D.V.; visualization, D.V.; super-
vision, E.S. and M.M.; project administration, D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 22 of 24

Abbreviations
Variables Subscripts
Ael voltage angle (rad) 1 first port, inlet/suction side
D pipeline diameter (m) 2 second port, outlet/discharge side
E gas potential energy (Pa) avg average
G gas specific gravity (dimensionless) const the constant part of the equation
H pipeline height (m) GFPP gas-fired power plant
HV heating value (kWh/Nm3) P2G power-to-gas
Iel electric current (A) p pipeline
JT Joule–Thomson coefficient (°F/100 psi) r reduced
gas mass flow consumption by the compressor’s
k0 st standard conditions
driver (%)
k11, k12, k21, constant parts of the segmented compressibility
Greek Symbols
k22, k1v2-k6v2 factor equation
kp active power setting (W) η efficiency factor (%)
constant related to reduced gas pressures in the
kpr ε surface roughness (mm)
compressibility factor segmented expression
kq reactive power setting (var) Acronyms
constant related to reduced gas temperatures in
kTr AGA American Gas Association
the compressibility factor segmented expression
kv bus voltage setting (%) CS Compressor Station
kVAb base power (kVA) DLL Dynamic Link Library
European Network of Transmission System Oper-
kVb base pressure (bar) ENTSO-E
ators for Electricity
European Network of Transmission System Oper-
L pipeline length (m) ENTSOG
ators for Gas
𝑚̇ mass flow rate (kg/s) GFPP Gas-Fired Power Plant
Mw molecular weight (g/mol) GPRMS Gas Pressure Reducing and Metering Station
p absolute gas pressure (Pa) HHV High Heating Value
Pel active power (W) LHV Low Heating Value
Q volumetric flow rate (m3/s) MES Multi-Energy System
Qel reactive power (var) P2G Power-to-Gas
rc compression ratio (dimensionless) PV, PQ Types in the load flow formulation
R resistance (Ω) RES Renewable Energy Sources
universal gas constant (8.314462618
Ru SPP Solar Power Plants
m3⋅Pa⋅K−1⋅mol−1)
T absolute gas temperature (K) TR Transformer
Vel electric voltage (V) TYNDP Ten-Year Network Development Plan
z gas compressibility factor (dimensionless) UDM User-Defined Models
UGS Underground Gas Storage
WPP Wind Power Plant

References
1. European Commission. A Clean Planet for All a European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and
Climate Neutral Economy; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2018.
2. United Nations. Paris Agreement; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
3. European Commission. European Green Deal; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2019.
4. ENTSOG and ENTSO-E. Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2020; ENTSOG and ENTSO-E: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
5. European Commission. An EU Strategy for Energy System Integration; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2020.
6. European Commission. A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2020.
7. Mazza, A.; Bompard, E.; Chicco, G. Applications of Power to Gas Technologies in Emerging Electrical Systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 794–806, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.072.
8. Lewandowska-Bernat, A.; Desideri, U. Opportunities of Power-to-Gas Technology in Different Energy Systems Architectures.
Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 57–67, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.001.
9. He, L.; Lu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Geng, L.; Zhao, H.; Li, X. Low-Carbon Economic Dispatch for Electricity and Natural Gas Systems
Considering Carbon Capture Systems and Power-to-Gas. Appl. Energy 2018, 224, 357–370, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.119.
10. Enerdata EnerOutlook. 2019. Available online: https://eneroutlook.enerdata.net/ (accessed on 13 October 2019).
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 23 of 24

11. Mancarella, P. MES (Multi-Energy Systems): An Overview of Concepts and Evaluation Models. Energy 2014, 65, 1–17,
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.041.
12. Guelpa, E.; Bischi, A.; Verda, V.; Chertkov, M.; Lund, H. Towards Future Infrastructures for Sustainable Multi-Energy Systems:
A Review. Energy 2019, 184, 2–21.
13. Kleinschmidt, V.; Hamacher, T.; Perić, V.; Hesamzadeh, M.R. Unlocking Flexibility in Multi-Energy Systems: A Literature Re-
view. In Proceedings of the 2020 17th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Stockholm, Sweden,
16–18 September 2020; ISBN 9781728169194.
14. Son, Y.-G.; Oh, B.-C.; Acquah, M.A.; Fan, R.; Kim, D.-M.; Kim, S.-Y. Multi Energy System with an Associated Energy Hub: A
Review. IEEE Access 2021, 1, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3108142.
15. Li, T.; Eremia, M.; Shahidehpour, M. Interdependency of Natural Gas Network and Power System Security. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 2008, 23, 1817–1824, doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2008.2004739.
16. Urbina, M.; Li, Z. Modeling and Analyzing the Impact of Interdependency between Natural Gas and Electricity Infrastructures.
In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting—Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in
the 21st Century, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 20–24 July 2008; pp. 1–6.
17. Devlin, J.; Li, K.; Higgins, P.; Foley, A. The Importance of Gas Infrastructure in Power Systems with High Wind Power Pene-
trations. Appl. Energy 2016, 167, 294–304, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.150.
18. Qiao, Z.; Guo, Q.; Sun, H.; Pan, Z.; Liu, Y.; Xiong, W. An Interval Gas Flow Analysis in Natural Gas and Electricity Coupled
Networks Considering the Uncertainty of Wind Power. Appl. Energy 2017, 201, 343–353, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.020.
19. Devlin, J.; Li, K.; Higgins, P.; Foley, A. A Multi Vector Energy Analysis for Interconnected Power and Gas Systems. Appl. Energy
2017, 192, 315–328, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.040.
20. Correa-Posada, C.M.; Sánchez-Martín, P.; Lumbreras, S. Security-Constrained Model for Integrated Power and Natural-Gas
System. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2017, 5, 326–336, doi:10.1007/s40565-017-0287-y.
21. Zeng, Q.; Zhang, B.; Fang, J.; Chen, Z. A Bi-Level Programming for Multistage Co-Expansion Planning of the Integrated Gas
and Electricity System. Appl. Energy 2017, 200, 192–203, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.022.
22. Qadrdan, M.; Ameli, H.; Strbac, G.; Jenkins, N. Efficacy of Options to Address Balancing Challenges: Integrated Gas and Elec-
tricity Perspectives. Appl. Energy 2017, 190, 181–190, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.119.
23. Cui, H.; Li, F.; Hu, Q.; Bai, L.; Fang, X. Day-Ahead Coordinated Operation of Utility-Scale Electricity and Natural Gas Networks
Considering Demand Response Based Virtual Power Plants. Appl. Energy 2016, 176, 183–195, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.007.
24. Erdener, B.C.; Pambour, K.A.; Lavin, R.B.; Dengiz, B. An Integrated Simulation Model for Analysing Electricity and Gas Sys-
tems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 61, 410–420, doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.03.052.
25. Pambour, K.; Cakir Erdener, B.; Bolado-Lavin, R.; Dijkema, G. Development of a Simulation Framework for Analyzing Security
of Supply in Integrated Gas and Electric Power Systems. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 47, doi:10.3390/app7010047.
26. Pambour, K.A.; Cakir Erdener, B.; Bolado-Lavin, R.; Dijkema, G.P.J. SAInt—A Novel Quasi-Dynamic Model for Assessing Se-
curity of Supply in Coupled Gas and Electricity Transmission Networks. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 829–857, doi:10.1016/j.apen-
ergy.2017.05.142.
27. Drauz, S.R.; Spalthoff, C.; Würtenberg, M.; Kneikse, T.M.; Braun, M. A Modular Approach for Co-Simulations of Integrated
Multi-Energy Systems: Coupling Multi-Energy Grids in Existing Environments of Grid Planning & Operation Tools. In 2018
Workshop on Modeling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES), 2018; pp. 1–6,
doi:10.1109/MSCPES.2018.8405395.
28. Liu, X.; Mancarella, P. Modelling, Assessment and Sankey Diagrams of Integrated Electricity-Heat-Gas Networks in Multi-
Vector District Energy Systems. Appl. Energy 2016, 167, 336–352, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.089.
29. Shabanpour-Haghighi, A.; Seifi, A.R. An Integrated Steady-State Operation Assessment of Electrical, Natural Gas, and District
Heating Networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 3636–3647, doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2486819.
30. Zeng, Q.; Fang, J.; Li, J.; Chen, Z. Steady-State Analysis of the Integrated Natural Gas and Electric Power System with Bi-Direc-
tional Energy Conversion. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1483–1492, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.060.
31. Awange, J.L.; Paláncz, B. Geospatial Algebraic Computations. Springer International Publishing, 2016; ISBN 9783319254630.
32. Vidović, D.; Sutlović, E.; Majstrović, M. Steady State Analysis and Modeling of the Gas Compressor Station Using the Electrical
Analogy. Energy 2019, 166, 307–317, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.081.
33. Taherinejad, M.; Hosseinalipour, S.M.; Madoliat, R. Steady Flow Analysis and Modeling of the Gas Distribution Network Using
the Electrical Analogy. IJE Trans. B 2014, 27, 1269–1276.
34. Two-Port Networks. Available online: http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e84/lectures/ch2/node4.html (accessed on 7 May 2020).
35. Network Theory—Two-Port Networks. Available online: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/network_theory/network_the-
ory_twoport_networks.htm (accessed on 7 May 2020).
36. Bakshi, U.A.; Bakshi, A.V. Electrical Network Analysis and Synthesis, 1st ed.; Technical Publications: Maharashtra, India, 2008;
ISBN 9788184314618.
37. Powell, L. Power System Load Flow Analysis; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 0071447792.
38. Bretas, A.S.; Bretas, N.G.; Braunstein, S.H.; Rossoni, A.; Trevizan, R.D. Multiple Gross Errors Detection, Identification and Cor-
rection in Three-Phase Distribution Systems WLS State Estimation: A per-Phase Measurement Error Approach. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 2017, 151, 174–185, doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2017.05.021.
Energies 2021, 14, 5753 24 of 24

39. Rodríguez Paz, M.C.; Ferraz, R.G.; Bretas, A.S.; Leborgne, R.C. System Unbalance and Fault Impedance Effect on Faulted Dis-
tribution Networks. Comput. Math. Appl. 2010, 60, 1105–1114 doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.067.
40. Liwacom Informationstechnik GmbH; SIMONE Research Group. Equations and Methods. In SIMONE Software User Manual;
Liwacom: Essen, Germany, 2016.
41. Vidović, D.; Sutlović, E.; Majstrović, M. The Electrical Analogy Model of the Gas Pressure Reducing and Metering Station.
Energy 2020, 198, 117342, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.117342.
42. NEPLAN AG. User Defined Models for Load Flow Calculations. In NEPLAN Software User Manual; NEPLAN AG: Küsnacht,
Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–9.