115kV/ 34.

5kV Solar Power Plant

& Substation Design Project
FINAL REPORT

sdmay21-37
sdmay21-37@iastate.edu
https://sdmay21-37.sd.ece.iastate.edu

Client: Black & Veatch

Client Mentors: Patrick Kester, Adam Schroeder
Faculty Advisor: Venkataramana Ajjarapu

Christof Barrier
Logan Hinkle
Keve Hughes
Brian Lemke
Cortland Polfliet
Nolan Rogers
Eric Schultz

Revised: April 25th, 2021 / Final

 Executive Summary
Development Standards & Practices Used
This is primarily a design-focused project, so we will be adhering to IEEE standards
for reporting and documentation, as well as design layouts. We will also adhere to
standard practice when designing with Revu Bluebeam. Additionally, we will need to
consider any limitations or requirements associated with construction in specific
states, specifically New Mexico. We will also need to specifically follow the substation
grounding guidelines of IEEE 80 [12]. We will follow the overcurrent/fault protection
rules outlined by the NEC. When dealing with relaying, we will utilize proper ANSI
device number nomenclature. We will also strictly adhere to the design standards of
Black & Veatch to avoid confusion.

Summary of Requirements
● Design 60 MW Solar Field (Fall 2020)
○ Component Selection
○ Select Location
○ Design Layout of Field
○ Voltage Drop Calculations
○ Economic Analysis
● Design Substation to Harness Output from Solar Field (Spring 2021)
○ One-Line Diagram (Protection and Relaying)
○ Bus Plan Diagram and Calculations
○ Trench Fill Tool
○ Grounding Diagram and Calculations
○ Conduit Sizing and Diagram
○ DC Battery Sizing
○ AC Load Calculations

Applicable Courses from Iowa State University Curriculum

● EE 201: Electric Circuits
● EE 230: Electronic Circuits and Systems
● EE 303: Energy Systems and Power Electronics
● EE 455: Energy Distribution Systems
● EE 456: Power System Analysis I
● EE 457: Power System Analysis II
New Skills/Knowledge acquired that was not taught in courses
● Revu Bluebeam design
● One-line diagrams
● Solar farm layout
● Substation layout
● Functionality of solar farm and substation
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Acknowledgement 1
1.2 Problem and Project Statement 1
1.3 Operational Environment 2
1.4 Requirements 2
1.5 Intended Users and Uses 3
1.6 Assumptions and Limitations 3
1.7 Expected End Product and Deliverables 4
2 Project Plan 5
2.1 Task Decomposition 5
2.2 Risks And Risk Management/Mitigation 5
2.3 Project Proposed Milestones, Metrics, and Evaluation Criteria 6
2.4 Project Timeline/Schedule 7
2.5 Project Tracking Procedures 9
2.6 Personnel Effort Requirements 10
2.7 Other Resource Requirements 10
2.8 Financial Requirements 10
3 Design 11
3.1 Previous Work And Literature 11
3.2 Design Thinking 13
3.3 Proposed Design 13
3.3.1 Solar Plant Design 14
3.3.2 Substation Design 18
3.3.2.1 One-Line Diagram 19
3.3.2.2 Bus Plan Diagram 19
3.3.2.3 Grounding Calculation and Diagram 19
3.3.2.4 Bus Calculation 21
3.3.2.5 DC Battery Sizing Calculation 24
3.3.2.6 AC Load Calculation 26
3.3.2.7 Trench Fill Tool 27
 3.3.2.8 Conduit Plan Diagram 28
3.4 Technology Considerations 29
3.5 Design Analysis 30
3.6 Development Process 30
3.7 Design Plan 30
4 Testing 31
4.1 Unit Testing 31
4.2 Interface Testing 32
4.3 Acceptance Testing 32
4.4 Results 32
5 Implementation 32
6 Closing Material 33
6.1 Conclusion 33
6.2 References 34
6.3 Appendices 36

Figures
1. Proposed Project Schedule
2. Gantt Chart for Fall
3. Gantt Chart for Spring
4. Fall Semester Economic Evaluation
5. Spring Semester Economic Evaluation
6. Sample Solar Array Layout
7. Sample Ring Bus Layout [9]
8. Array Parameter Tool
9. Full-Array and Half-Array Layouts
10. Multiple Array Layout
11. Full-Array Voltage Drop Calculations
12. Half-Array Voltage Drop Calculations
13. First Half of Grounding Calculations
14. Second Half of Grounding Calculations
15. Given Values for Bus Calculation
16. Bus Calculation (Ampacity)
17. Bus Calculation (Forces)
18. Bus Calculation (Span)
19. AC Load Calculation
20. Battery Charger Sizing
21. Trench Fill Tool Inputs
22. Trench Fill Tool Calculations
23. Conduit PVC Sizing
24. Plant Design Flowchart
25. NEC Table 8: Conductor Properties [10]
26. NEC AWG Chart [11]
27. IEEE Phase Spacing [16]
28. AFL Rigid Bus Conductor Properties [22]
29. ASCR Flexible Bus Conductor Properties [23]
30. Battery Charger Sizing [17]
31. Trenwa Trench Information [19]
32. Old Castle Trench Information [20]
33. PVC Piping Sizing Chart [21]
1 Introduction
1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge Black & Veatch as they guided us as we worked through this project.
Additionally, we would also like to thank our faculty advisor Dr. Ajjarapu, our TA Rachel Shannon, and
our professors Dr. Daniels and Dr. Tyagi.

1.2 PROBLEM AND PROJECT STATEMENT

This project sets out to develop a solar farm to increase the use of renewable energy at Black & Veatch.
Additionally, a power substation must be created which will allow for the harnessing and distribution of
the solar farm’s energy. This project is very important because regulations pushing renewable energy on
power companies are rapidly increasing and so Black & Veatch must begin to take the necessary steps
towards avoiding penalties from these regulations. It is our hope that with projects like this one, we can
help to get one step closer to solving the climate change crises. On the other side of this project, we can
find importance through the students who are trying to learn about solar energy and power distribution.
Through this project, our team of students gained real world experience of what it would be like to work
for a power company using methods outlined in Black & Veatch’s internal documents.

The final goal of this project is to design a 60MW Solar Power Plant with an accompanying 115/34.5kV
substation. This project was split into two semesters with the first semester being focused toward the
creation of the solar plant design and the second semester being focused toward the creation of the
substation design. To accomplish this, our team of students collaborated with the mentors completing
the following deliverables:

Semester 1

● Equipment Selection
● Solar Array Sizing and Design
● Solar Field Layout
● Voltage-Drop Calculations
● Economic Analysis

Semester 2

● One-Line Diagrams (Relaying and Protection Modeling)

● Bus Plan Diagram and Sizing Calculations
● Grounding Diagram and Analysis
● DC Battery Sizing
● Cable Trench Fill Tool
● Cable and Cable Trench Sizing
● Conduit Plan Diagram and Sizing
● AC Load Calculation
● Updated Economic Analysis

-1-
In order to stay on track with all of these deliverables, we were required to develop a detailed engineer
man-hour budget and schedule for this project; this was a conclusive way to plan the overall project
while allowing us to create consistent meeting times within our team and with our mentors. Through
the meetings with the mentors via Microsoft Teams, we shared our work with the Black & Veatch
engineers. During these weekly meetings, they assessed the work that we completed and offered ideas
about how we could further optimize the realism and accuracy of our design.

General Problem Statement

We were tasked with designing a 60 MW solar farm with an accompanying substation to add clean,
renewable energy to the American power grid. This project is a “from scratch” design, and while we used
the resources provided to us, the overall design of the final project is of our own creation. The purpose
of this project was to create a design that Black & Veatch could possibly use as a template for their own
projects. This project is intended to increase their use of renewable energy which in turn will help them
to meet new regulation guidelines. These regulations directly impact the complex and important issue of
climate change.

General Solution Approach

We designed a 60 MW solar farm and substation by selecting appropriate parts and land, and then
decided the most cost-effective way to combine and set up the farm. This consisted of appropriately
sizing different arrangements solar panels, combiner boxes, and inverters. We accomplished this by
using Excel spreadsheets to see how changing parameters in one area affected other areas. This also
allowed us to see expected output values of the plant. Once we had the design of the solar plant
completed, we then moved on to the design of our substation. This consisted of detailed adherence to
IEEE, NEC, and ANSI regulations while following the general direction provided to us by our mentors.
For the substation design, we continued to use Excel for calculations. Additionally, we utilized Revu
Bluebeam to virtually build and continuously assess our designs to produce a cohesive final product.

1.3 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

This solar farm will operate outside in typically hot, sunny weather but also must be able to withstand
temperatures below freezing. It must be resistant to common weather conditions of the area, such as
thunderstorms or snow. The substation will operate in the same environment as the solar farm as it will
only be 50 feet from the solar field.

1.4 REQUIREMENTS
Functional

● Must be able to operate in environmental conditions as described in section 1.3.

● Power rating at the solar farm of 60 MW
● Adhere to IEEE, NEC, ANSI standards
● Maintain reliability throughout the lifespan of the project
● Minimize voltage drop across solar plant
● Safely ground the entirety of the substation
● Keep the trench cabling capacity under 40%
● Establish overcurrent protection system
● Calculate overall DC and AC loads

-2-
Environmental

● Parcel of land must be flat and continuous (i.e. no hills, creeks, ravines)
● High amount of average sunshine per year
● High irradiance on the land
● Substation should be able to safely provide power to nearby communities
● Efficient use of land

Economic

● Our solar plant must be able to produce enough power per year to recover initial investment
and operational costs over 10 years.

1.5 INTENDED USERS AND USES

This substation will service the surrounding areas as a support to current infrastructure. This may
include spikes in commercial or residential power usage during the daytime.

1.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Assumptions

● The sun will shine a consistent number of hours per year

● A consistent amount of energy will be generated and sold each year
● Power lost to inefficiencies in equipment/transmission will be constant
● Maintenance will remain within reasonable tolerances
● Price per kWh will remain as calculated or better (adjusting with inflation)
● The equipment will perform like new for majority of life cycle

Limitations

● The plant cannot operate at maximum power rating, as power is lost in wires, equipment, and to
indirect sunlight.
● The solar farm must be relatively close to customers as to minimize losses during transmission
from the substation to the users.
● Land must be flat and continuous (no creeks/ravines/steep hills).

Engineering / Project Limitations

● No physical testing was possible

● Time to complete project was cut short due to shorter semester
● Background knowledge of this project was limited due to limited experience of the students
● Our economic evaluation was based on estimations for the cost of components

-3-
1.7 EXPECTED END PRODUCT AND DELIVERABLES
There are deliverables for this project that were required from both the mentors with Black & Veatch
alongside the mentors/professors from Iowa State. The deliverables that were required for our mentors
from Iowa State include:

● Discussion posts covering various topics from the lectures.

● Bi-weekly project reports
● Lighting talks
● Design documents
● Bluebeam Drawings
● Team website
● Final report
● Final presentation

The weekly discussion posts allowed us to learn different processes that our mentors from Iowa State
think will help throughout the process of this project. The bi-weekly reports helped our own group
along with the mentors to keep track of where we are in the project. This involved us stating current
problems and solutions that we are dealing with and current parts of the project that we were finishing
and starting. The lightning talks were effective in forcing us to practice talking about our project and
giving verbal updates for our ISU mentors. This final report is the last deliverable for our ISU mentors
which will serve as an all-in-one project description. The team website is a cohesive way of bringing
everything together so that the deliverables can be accessed easily from one place. The final presentation
is our team's time to present the hard work and dedication that we put into this project.

With the information given by Black & Veatch, we concluded that we were expected to report the
following deliverables:

● Equipment sizing calculations

● Solar layout drawing
● Solar panel string sizing design
● Electrical layout drawings (substation equipment)
● Grounding analysis and ground-grid developed with IEEE-80 [13]
● Bus calculations for substation
● Possibility of additional calculations (DC battery bank, Lightning protection, etc.)
● Creation of solar/substation design-optimizing tool

The equipment sizing calculations are excel documents that Black & Veatch outlined for us. These
outlines include built-in formulas that were either given to us or were completed throughout the
duration of the first semester of this project as our group put everything together. The 2D model of the
solar field that we created in excel provides a visual overview of our farm. The rest of the calculations
were completed in the second semester of the project and include DC battery, grounding, bus sizing,
and AC load calculations. These calculations were used to determine equipment parameters and limits
of our substation design.

All these deliverables helped us to maintain a steady workflow, resulting in a well-documented and
complete project by the end of this course. At the end of the project, our clients received a completed
(2D) virtual model of the solar farm along with the power substation. This included all deliverables
listed above as well as a presentation of the overall progress we made throughout this project.

-4-
2 Project Plan
2.1 TASK DECOMPOSITION
Semester 1 Parts Acquisition

● Select Solar Panels based on price, company, and power rating

● Select Combiner Boxes based on price, number of inputs, Amperage rating, and company
● Select Inverter skids based on capacity, inputs, cost, and company

Semester 1 Design

● Design high-level model to better visualize final design

● Design farm layout within land requirements and accessibility
● Design component connections based on part ratings, cost, and power efficiency

Semester 1 Analysis

● Economic efficiency analysis

● Voltage-drop calculations

Semester 2 Design

● Design one-line diagram of substation

● Design bus plan of substation layout
● Grounding grid layout and calculations
● Create the Trench Fill Tool
● Conduit plan and sizing

Semester 2 Analysis

● Use the Trench Fill Tool to estimate conduit plan

● Bus size calculations
● DC battery calculations
● Assess overcurrent/fault protections
● AC load calculations
● Update economic analysis

2.2 RISKS AND RISK MANAGEMENT/MITIGATION

We will not be physically constructing a prototype for our project, so the risks will relate only to
performance targets. We have assumed an ideal plot of land that is perfectly flat at the standard
elevation of New Mexico and has enough room for the entire layout of the solar plant and substation.
One possible risk is that the minimum temperature of the solar plant’s location will affect the solar
string voltage. To compensate for this, we set the minimum temperature to -40 degrees Celsius. This
ensures a risk factor of zero because New Mexico simply does not get that cold at any point in the year.
We have designed the system so that the combiner boxes and inverters will all be of adequate strength
to handle all their inputs, even with maximum solar output. The solar plant can also store excess power
to keep up production on days with less-than-optimal amounts of sunlight. This means that projected
average solar output will not be a risk. The risks presented by the design of our substation were far

-5-
greater than of our solar plant. There is always a risk of injury associated with improper grounding of a
substation. To counter this, we designed many possible grounding grid layouts and chose the design
with rated step and touch voltages well below the tolerable step and touch voltage amounts. The only
possible risk associated with the grounding is that the tolerable voltages were calculated with a body
weight of 50kg or 110lbs. This means that the voltages could be less than tolerable if touched by someone
weighing less than 110lbs. Another possible risk is ground or arc faults. We handled this issue by adding
relays to our substation. These constantly monitor the system for ground or arc faults and shut off
power in the necessary areas if a fault occurs. This almost completely ensures that someone will not be
injured by a sudden fault, as the maximum amount of time they could be exposed to a fault is 5
milliseconds. As for the possibility of sudden overcurrent, there are breakers spaced at appropriate
intervals along our substation to immediately cut off contact with the circuit if overcurrent is detected.
The main risk that we encountered as a team was the possibility of falling behind schedule. This ended
up not being a problem. We ended the first semester about one week ahead of schedule and we ended
the second semester further than any group to previously attempt this senior design project (according
to our mentors). We ensured that we did not fall behind by having a weekly meeting with our mentors
and at least two weekly meetings with just our team to work on our assigned tasks.

2.3 PROJECT PROPOSED MILESTONES, METRICS, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Solar Plant Design Substation Design

- Component Selection - Substation Layout

- Array Parameter - Trench Fill Tool
- Plant Design/Layout - Grounding Calculations
- Voltage Drop Calculation - Bus Calculations
- Economic Analysis - DC Battery Calculations
- Overcurrent/Fault Protection
- AC Load Calculations

These milestones were evaluated by percentage complete, as well as by how they affected the projected
efficiency of the solar plant and substation system. Whereas the first semester milestones were
sequential, most of the second semester milestones were concurrent with at least one other milestone.
For example, the substation design was constantly being updated based on whatever set of calculations
we had done that week. Overall, setting and constantly evaluating milestones helped us form a
conclusive view of our project progression.

-6-
2.4 PROJECT TIMELINE/SCHEDULE

Figure 1 - Proposed Project Schedule

The figure above (Figure 1) outlines the project schedule that we followed. The creation of the Trench Fill Tool was postponed until after the fall
semester had ended, as we felt it would be more relevant to our work with the substation. We began working with this tool over winter break and
into the spring semester. The figures below (figure 2 and figure 3) show the Gantt charts that we created, which more accurately depicts our
progress and timeline of accomplishments over the course of the fall and spring semesters.
Figure 2 - Gantt Chart for Fall

-8-
 Figure 3 - Gantt Chart for Spring

2.5 PROJECT TRACKING PROCEDURES

Our group used Microsoft Teams and Google Drive to communicate and collaborate on all project
materials. We met with our mentors every week via Microsoft Teams. In these meetings we
presented our weekly progress reports along with any questions from the previous week's
workload, and if any issues arose throughout the week we communicated with our mentors via
email. We tracked progress by adhering to strict deadlines for the various tasks necessary to
complete the project. Additionally, we held team meetings without our mentors at least once per
week to discuss progress on tasks and to determine if additional resources needed to be reallocated
to the completion of a specific task.
2.6 PERSONNEL EFFORT REQUIREMENTS
All tasks have been completed by dividing work amongst team members via our weekly group
meetings. The mentors gave the team tasks from the senior design schedule, which were divided
amongst the team members during our team meetings.

2.7 OTHER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

We required access to solar field modeling tools, namely the Array Design Parameter Tool we used
to model our initial solar field design. These tools were largely provided by our mentors. We also
needed access to software for designing things in the spring semester. We discussed using Revit or
AutoCAD but decided on using Revu Bluebeam because some of us have had experience using that
software and we could get it for free as students. We also used Microsoft Excel for our trench fill,
grounding, bus size, and battery calculations. For battery sizing, we utilized the online EnerSys BSP
battery sizing program.

2.8 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

Given that our project is simply designing the solar field and substation there were no actual
financial requirements. The software used for design was free to use because we were ISU students.
If our project was to completely build the solar plant and substation, the cost would be many
millions of dollars. Our Array Parameter Tool had a section for calculating the total cost of our
required parts based on an estimated per-unit component cost. Our mentors suggested that we
evaluate the 10-year cash flow of the solar plant with and without axis tracking technology. They
also said that we were not going to use axis tracking technology because there were many
additional factors that come with axis tracking that would complicate our calculations. The first
semester economic evaluation is shown below.

Figure 4 - Fall Semester Economic Evaluation

Due to the changes made to our project in the spring semester, we figured it would be inaccurate to
use the evaluation from the fall semester. We talked with our mentors about price estimates for

- 10 -
construction, equipment, and operation/maintenance costs of our substation. We also elected to
only evaluate the solar plant without axis-tracking, as that is the design our mentors
recommended. Shown below is our economic evaluation to include both our solar plant and our
substation.

Figure 5 - Spring Semester Economic Evaluation

3 Design
3.1 PREVIOUS WORK AND LITERATURE
The design of solar farms and substations has well established practices and methodologies to
maximize efficiency. Our mentors at Black & Veatch guided our design process to follow these
standard practices. The general layout of a solar array is strings of solar panels connected in
parallel, forming racks, which are then linked into combiner boxes. The combiner box outputs are
then fed into inverters, which contain the transformer shown in the schematic below. Efficiency
has been a constant problem in solar power, as power is lost in equipment, transmission, and due
to uncontrollable variables, such as temperature. Some of the advantageous design choices involve
strategic placement of combiner boxes and skids to minimize the amount of cable used in the farm.
The graphic below shows a sample layout of a traditional solar array.

- 11 -
 Figure 6 - Sample Solar Array Layout

As for our second semester substation design, Black & Veatch provided us with a toolbox of
common substation components for use in our Revu Bluebeam designs. One of our first tasks was
to determine what type of bus configuration to use. There are several common configurations and
we researched different options in order to find what would work best for our substation. We
primarily made use of information on the EEP website as well as recommendations from our
industry mentors who have designed similar substations in the past [9]. We chose to use a ring bus
layout because of its simplicity, flexibility, and expandability. Additionally, we consulted IEEE [12]
documentation to guide our design and calculation process. This documentation gave equations,
sample example calculations, and explanations which we consulted for many of our calculations.
pictured below is an example ring bus layout which we modified for use in our substation.

Figure 7 - Sample Ring Bus Layout [9]

- 12 -
3.2 DESIGN THINKING
Much of our design process has been driven by the guidance of our client, Black & Veatch. They
provided us with the specifications to meet during different design steps, as well as with advice
about common design principles for solar farms and substations.

Some of the important decisions we made about the design of our solar farm were the wattage of
the solar panels, the location we would build the solar farm, and the location of the combiner boxes
and inverters with respect to the solar panels. We elected to use the 410W solar panels instead of
the 340W option to minimize the number of panels needed. As for the location of combiner boxes
and inverters, we elected to use a centralized design to minimize overall voltage drop across the
circuit. We compared two locations, one in Iowa and one in New Mexico. The property in New
Mexico would be significantly better than the property in Iowa. The property in New Mexico has
over 100 more sunny days, higher average irradiance each month, much more acreage that can be
used to expand the solar farm, and is considerably cheaper than the property in Iowa. The land in
New Mexico costs about $750 an acre, and gets approximately 310 sunny days per year.

As for the substation, we utilized the EEP website shown to us by our mentors to narrow down our
bus configuration to a ring bus [9] This type of bus provides an optimal amount of safety for
maintenance and overcurrent protection, and it is also highly flexible in terms of design. One part
of the substation design that was largely left to our discretion was the arrangement of the
grounding grid and distribution of grounding rods. We determined that the grid should be divided
into smaller squares with grounding rods at the intersections (also sometimes at the middle of the
squares) to make efficient use of the given space. We’ll talk in greater depth about the design
decisions we made for grounding later in this report, as this was a massive portion of our work in
the second semester.

3.3 PROPOSED DESIGN

This project consisted of two separate but related designing processes, divided between the fall and
spring semesters. In the fall, our goal was to design a solar farm that produces 60 MW of power.
After completing this design, we focused our efforts on designing a substation that can take the
power generated from that solar farm and safely prepare it for high-voltage transmission.

- 13 -
3.3.1 Solar Plant Design
We have designed the layout of the panels, combiner boxes, and inverter skids, as well as the components and layout of the substation. The basic
idea behind our thinking was to maximize our efficiency on wiring and solar power collection. We made use of the array parameter tool with
component choices to guide the layout we created. Below we can see the parameters used in our array parameter tool:
String Size Electrical Rack Size Combiner Box Capacity Array Design Array Size
Min. Temp. (location) -40° C Module Width (hor.) 3.36 ft String ISC 10.55 A Racks per Row 6 Tilt 35°
Module Length (vert.) 6.64 ft Rows per Array 34 Adjusted Length 10.88 ft

VOC 49.5 V NEC Multiplier 1.25 Racks Removed 2

Reference Temp. (STC) 25° C Modules per String 25 Nominal ISC 13.19 A Row Spacing 15 ft

Strings per Rack 2 Racks per Array 202 Access Road 35 ft

Temp. Coeff. of VOC -0.26%/°C Irr. Multiplier 1.25 Modules per Array 10100

Temp. Delta -65° C Modules per Rack 50 Max ISC 16.48 A Array Width 504 ft

Temp. Correction 1.17 Module Capacity 410 W Array Length 885 ft

Corrected VOC 57.865 V Rack Width (hor.) 84 ft Allowed Current 400 A DC Capacity 4141 kW Array Area 446,040 ft2

Rack Length (vert.) 13.28 ft Strings per CB 24.265 10.24 acres

String Voltage 1500 V (Round Down) 24 Inverter Capacity 3200 kW

String Size 25.9222 Racks per CB 12 Plant Width 2,520 ft

(Round Down) 25 ILR (must be < 1.3) 1.29406 Plant Length 2,685 ft

Actual String Voltage 1446.6 V CB per Array 16.833 Plant Area 6,766,200 ft2

(Round Up) 17 155.33 acres

Figure 8 - Array Parameter Tool

Using this parameter tool, we determined that there would be 25 solar panels in each string,
resulting in 50 solar panels per rack. For the layout of the racks, we settled on 6 racks per row, with
34 rows per array. In each array, there will be 2 racks removed to provide space for the inverter
skid, and there will be a 35 ft wide access road running through the middle for maintenance. Based
on these calculations, each full array will produce 4.141 MW of power. Since our target power for
the entire solar field is 60 MW, we needed approximately 14 full arrays and 1 half-array, resulting in
a total system output of 60.024 MW. The layout of a full array as well as the half-array is shown
below.

Figure 9 - Full-Array and Half-Array Layouts

Each blue/orange rectangle represents a single rack. The large box in the middle of the array
represents the inverter skid, while the smaller dark blue squares represent combiner boxes. Each
full array contains 10,100 solar panels, 17 combiner boxes, and one inverter skid.

The full combined layout of the ~14.5 arrays will have a total length of 2,684.59 ft and a total width
of 2,520 ft, resulting in a total area of 6,765,168.3 ft, approximately 155.3 acres. The proposed full-
sized layout is shown below.
 Figure 10 - Multiple Array Layout

Having well-defined information on how to design a solar farm and substation has been very
helpful for us. It allows us to focus more on getting this piece of infrastructure built in a timely
manner - something important in a renewable energy industry that is continuously innovating and
creating more efficient products. However, one downside to having such rigid constraints is
removal of creativity in a way - we cannot go out and create something completely original the way
an artist might. Efficiency and conformity are rewarded in an industry like this; the most effective
plant designs are ones that amalgamate all the best parts of other plans.

We also had to calculate the size of the wires connecting our solar plant. There were many factors
to consider, such as outdoor conditions, maximum current flow, and temperature. Using NEC
tables (shown in Chapter 6 of this document) we were able to accurately size the wires to minimize
voltage drop of the wires to less than 3%, which was our target value. The tables below show a
filled-out version of the voltage drop calculation document given to us by Black & Veatch for the 14
full arrays and the 1 half array.

- 16 -
12 Rack Combiner Box:
Strings ISC for String String String Conductor String Voltage Drop IMP for Jumper Jumper Jumper Jumper Voltage Drop
DCB
per Rack String Length wire size Resistance Resistance of String Jumper Length wire size Resistance resistance of Jumper
DCB#-## per rack Amp feet AWG Ohm/kft Ohm Volts Amp feet AWG Ohm/kft Ohm Volts
DCB1-01 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-02 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-03 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-04 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-05 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-06 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-07 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-08 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-09 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-10 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-11 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-12 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
10 Rack Combiner Box:
DCB9-01 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 0.78 0.279 9.490
DCB9-02 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 0.78 0.152 5.181
DCB9-03 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 0.78 0.025 0.872
DCB9-04 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 0.78 0.152 5.181
DCB9-05 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 0.78 0.279 9.490
DCB9-06 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 0.78 0.279 9.490
DCB9-07 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 0.78 0.152 5.181
DCB9-08 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 0.78 0.025 0.872
DCB9-09 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 0.78 0.152 5.181
DCB9-10 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 0.78 0.279 9.490

No. of IMP for Voltage Voltage

Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Voltage drop VMP for Voltage drop
DCB Rack DCB drop for drop for
length wire size resistance resistance for feeder circuit for circuit
Inputs circuit feeder circuit
DCB#-## # Amp feet kcmil Ohm/kft Ohm Volt per cent Volt Volt per cent
DCB1 12 395.616 410 600 0.0214 0.01693 6.942 0.71% 44.972 1500 3.00%
DCB2 12 395.616 367 600 0.0214 0.01558 6.214 0.64% 44.729 1500 2.98%
DCB3 12 395.616 324 600 0.0214 0.01345 5.486 0.56% 44.486 1500 2.97%
DCB4 12 395.616 281 600 0.0214 0.01161 4.758 0.49% 44.243 1500 2.95%
DCB5 12 395.616 238 600 0.0214 0.00987 4.030 0.41% 44.001 1500 2.93%
DCB6 12 395.616 195 600 0.0214 0.00803 3.302 0.34% 43.758 1500 2.92%
DCB7 12 395.616 152 600 0.0214 0.00629 2.574 0.26% 43.515 1500 2.90%
DCB8 12 395.616 109 600 0.0214 0.00455 1.846 0.19% 43.273 1500 2.88%
DCB9 10 395.616 38 600 0.0214 0.00155 0.643 0.07% 42.872 1500 2.86%
DCB10 12 395.616 75 600 0.0214 0.00310 1.270 0.13% 43.081 1500 2.87%
DCB11 12 395.616 118 600 0.0214 0.00494 1.998 0.21% 43.323 1500 2.89%
DCB12 12 395.616 161 600 0.0214 0.00668 2.726 0.28% 43.566 1500 2.90%
DCB13 12 395.616 204 600 0.0214 0.00842 3.454 0.36% 43.809 1500 2.92%
DCB14 12 395.616 247 600 0.0214 0.01026 4.182 0.43% 44.052 1500 2.94%
DCB15 12 395.616 290 600 0.0214 0.01200 4.910 0.51% 44.294 1500 2.95%
DCB16 12 395.616 333 600 0.0214 0.01384 5.638 0.58% 44.537 1500 2.97%
DCB17 12 395.616 376 600 0.0214 0.01557 6.367 0.65% 44.780 1500 2.99%
Average of worst-case
2.93%
DCB voltage drop:
Temperature correction
for resistance:
αcu 0.00323 /°C
αal 0.00330 /°C
Ta 60 °C
Ta' 70 °C
KRcu -0.032
K Ral -0.033

Figure 11 - Full-Array Voltage Drop Calculations

- 17 -
12 Rack Combiner Box:
Strings ISC for String String String Conductor String Voltage Drop IMP for Jumper Jumper Jumper Jumper Voltage Drop
DCB
per Rack String Length wire size Resistance Resistance of String Jumper Length Wire Size Resistance Resistance of Jumper
DCB#-## per rack Amp feet AWG Ohm/kft Ohm Volts Amp feet AWG Ohm/kft Ohm Volts
DCB1-01 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-02 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-03 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-04 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-05 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-06 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-07 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
DCB1-08 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-09 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-10 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 8 0.778 0.025 0.872
DCB1-11 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 8 0.778 0.152 5.181
DCB1-12 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 8 0.778 0.279 9.490
10 Rack Combiner Box:
DCB5-01 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126
DCB5-02 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB5-03 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 1.240 0.041 1.390
DCB5-04 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB5-05 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126
DCB5-06 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126
DCB5-07 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB5-08 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 1.240 0.041 1.390
DCB5-09 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB5-10 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126
6 Rack Combiner Box:
DCB9-01 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126
DCB9-02 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB9-03 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 1.240 0.041 1.390
DCB9-04 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 17 10 1.240 0.041 1.390
DCB9-05 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 101 10 1.240 0.242 8.258
DCB9-06 2 16.484 84 12 1.98 0.322 5.483 32.968 185 10 1.240 0.444 15.126

No. of IMP for Voltage Voltage

Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Voltage drop VMP for Voltage drop
DCB Rack DCB drop for drop for
length wire size resistance resistance for feeder circuit for circuit
Inputs circuit feeder circuit
DCB#-## # Amp feet kcmil Ohm/kft Ohm Volt per cent Volt Volt per cent
DCB1 12 395.616 238 600 0.0214 0.00987 4.030 0.41% 44.001 1500 2.93%
DCB2 12 395.616 195 600 0.0214 0.00803 3.302 0.34% 43.758 1500 2.92%
DCB3 12 395.616 152 600 0.0214 0.00629 2.574 0.26% 43.515 1500 2.90%
DCB4 12 395.616 109 600 0.0214 0.00455 1.846 0.19% 43.273 1500 2.88%
DCB5 10 395.616 38 600 0.0214 0.00155 0.643 0.07% 42.872 1500 2.86%
DCB6 12 395.616 75 600 0.0214 0.00310 1.270 0.13% 43.081 1500 2.87%
DCB7 12 395.616 118 600 0.0214 0.00494 1.998 0.21% 43.323 1500 2.89%
DCB8 12 395.616 161 600 0.0214 0.00668 2.726 0.28% 43.566 1500 2.90%
DCB9 6 395.616 204 600 0.0214 0.00842 3.454 0.36% 43.809 1500 2.92%
Average of worst-case
2.90%
DCB voltage drop:
Temperature correction
for resistance:
αcu 0.00323 /°C
αal 0.00330 /°C
Ta 60 °C
Ta' 70 °C
KRcu -0.032
K Ral -0.033

Figure 12 - Half-Array Voltage Drop Calculations

3.3.2 Substation Design

The power generated by the solar field is carried along three main feeder lines at a voltage of 34.5
kV each. These feeders serve as inputs to our substation with a total combined load of 1739.83 A.
The power then travels through a bus network before reaching a step-up transformer which
increases the voltage from 34.5kV to 115kV for long-distance transmission. In terms of bus
arrangement, we contemplated between a ring configuration and a breaker-and-a-half
configuration. While the breaker-and-a-half configuration would offer more protection and
reliability, we elected to go with the ring configuration as it requires less components and
streamlines our design process while maintaining sufficient protection. This configuration prevents
the entire system from failing due to a fault or overcurrent by isolating the affected components for
maintenance while rerouting the power through the other side of the ring.

- 18 -
3.3.2.1 One-Line Diagram
The first step in designing this substation was the creation of our one-line diagram, which
establishes the configuration of our ring bus network while modeling fault and overcurrent
protection via primary and secondary relaying. The ring bus network that we designed consists of
four 34.5 kV breakers and one 115kV breaker, with each breaker being monitored by two primary
and two secondary current transformers for use in relay protection. The 115/34.5kV transformer is
monitored via four primary and four secondary current transformers, however the four current
transformers on the high-voltage (115kV) side of the transformers are unused, and therefore
shorted. Regarding relaying, we utilized SEL-411L and SEL-311L relays for the primary and secondary
differential protection of each breaker as well as for long-distance fault protection. Additionally, we
used SEL-487E relays for the differential protection of the 115/34.5kV transformer and SEL-451
relays for transformer overcurrent protection. The one-line diagram is shown in Appendix II,
consisting of two drawings which include the layout of our zones of protection as well as our
relaying model.

3.3.2.2 Bus Plan Diagram

After completing the one-line diagram, our next task was to design a three-phase bus plan diagram
that accurately portrays the scale and location of each component of the substation as well as the
spacing between various elements. To accomplish this, we first needed to determine minimum
spacing and clearances for all metal components and cables according to ANSI C37-32 standards
[15]. Once proper sizing and spacing was established for each component and structure, we
proceeded with the design of the bus plan. This included the addition of a protective fence that
extends 15 feet beyond any substation equipment as well as a control structure and accompanying
cable trench to house our underground wiring and control systems. The design of this diagram was
quite intensive and was often updated throughout the semester as we received more information
regarding other calculations, serving as the foundation for the remaining diagrams detailed in
3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.8. The bus plan diagram is shown in Appendix II.

3.3.2.3 Grounding Calculation and Diagram

The design of the grounding system in a substation is an important aspect that protects personnel
and equipment during a fault condition. Grounding systems typically include a “mesh” of bare
copper conductor that is placed in the soil beneath the substation equipment. All equipment is
then connected to this mesh, which allows for any phase-to-ground faults to travel through the
ground conductors and the soil back to its source. It is important that the fault current has multiple
paths back to its source in order to protect any nearby personnel from dangerous voltages that exist
in the soil and on the equipment within the substation. Our task was to design a grounding grid for
our proposed substation area that meets requirements set by IEEE-80 while considering several
given parameters, shown below. This calculation process involved calculating a tolerable step and
touch voltage which served as a maximum limit that we could not exceed. These calculations are
shown in the figure below.

- 19 -
Variable Description Value Units Soil Measurements Uniform Soil Resistivity
IG max grid current 32 kA probe soil
IGrms rms grid current 22.627 kA spacing resistivity n is the number of samples
tc fault duration 1s (ft) (Ω-m)
ts shock duration 0.5 s 1 120 ρa = 56.2857 Ω-m
hs surface layer thickness 0.15 m 2 85
ps surface layer resistivity 3000 Ω-m 3 65 Minimum Conductor Size
Cs surface layer derating factor 0.8 6 48
w body weight 50 kg 10 32
T ambient temp 40 °C 20 24
h conductor depth 0.15 m 30 20 min size = 158.353 kcmil (3/0 AWG - not typically used)
use size= 211.6 kcmil (4/0 AWG - smallest typically used)
Variable Description Value Units Use Value Units
D spacing b/w conductors 12 ft 3.657 m d= 0.011684 m
Lc total length of grid conductor 2340 ft 713.197 m
Lp peripheral length of grid 456 ft 138.982 m Tolerable Voltages
Lx max length of grid in x 132 ft 40.232 m
Ly max length of grid in y 96 ft 29.259 m at 50 kg
Dm max distance b/w two points 163.218 ft 49.746 m
A total area enclosed by grid 12672 ft^2 1177.152 m^2 Estep = 2526.351 V
Lr length of indv. ground rod 20 ft 6.096 m
nr number of ground rods 278 278
LR total length of ground rods 5560 ft 1694.605 m at 50 kg
Cs surface layer derating factor 0.8 0.8
Etouch = 754.6244 V
Variable Description Value Units
C material conductivity 100 %
αr at 20 °C 0.00393 1/°C
Ko at 0 °C 234 0 °C
Tm fusing temp 1083 °C
ρr resistivity at 20 °C 1.72 µΩ-cm
TCAP thermal capacity 3.42 J/(cm^3-°C)

Figure 13 - First Half of Grounding Calculations

After calculating our maximum tolerances, we then experimented with various conductor spacings
and grounding rod configurations in an attempt to optimize our specific substation step and touch
voltages to below those tolerances. After a number of attempts, we ultimately elected to implement
a conductor spacing of 12 ft using 4/0 AWG conductors. Our final design included 278 grounding
rods that are 20 feet in length, which we understand is a very inconceivable number of grounding
rods. After discussing with our mentors at Black & Veatch, we concluded that the reasons for the
incredibly large number of grounding rods included the fact that we did not have access to the
intensive grounding programs that are readily available and widely used in the field. In our case, we
simply followed an IEEE guide that leaves many considerations out of the equation. Another
possible reason for the large number of grounding rods is that our soil was input as relatively poor.
Our calculations possibly could have been made simpler if we had considered a soil with less
uniform soil resistivity.

This was by far the most challenging and confusing aspect of our design process, as it became
incredibly tedious to optimize spacing in addition to the amount of ground rods required. Part of
the reason for this was that we found inconsistencies with one of the equations given to us. The
IEEE grounding guide mandated that a certain geometrical factor “nd” should be equivalent to 1 for
square or rectangular substations. Previous teams who attempted this project had completely
overlooked this, instead electing to use a very small fraction rather than 1 for n d. This perfectly
explains why their grounding calculations seemed so optimal with the inclusion of far fewer
grounding rods than our team. The image below shows the second half of our finalized grounding
calculations.

- 20 -
Maximum Step Voltage

na = 10.2632
nb = 1.0063
nc = 1
nd = 1
n= 10.3281

Ks = 1.2314 Ki = 2.1726 Ls = 1975.312 m

Es = 2439.3988 V

Maximum Mesh (Touch) Voltage

Kh = 1.0724

Km = 0.692

Lm = 3593.168 m

Em = 753.5130 V

Figure 14 - Second Half of Grounding Calculations

3.3.2.4 Bus Calculation

The purpose of high voltage buses in substations is to interconnect the various pieces of equipment
to form the desired bus configuration, which in our case was a ring bus configuration. The buses
may either provide controlled paths for current to flow between the connected equipment or may
maintain the equipment at the same potential. To operate successfully over an extended period, a
substation bus must be designed to meet a diverse variety of criteria. The basic task of a substation
bus designer is to select the bus conductor, components, and arrangement to meet each of the
criteria at the least possible expense to the owner. For the purposes of this project, our group
calculated only a few of the necessary calculations needed to complete a full bus calculation. Black

- 21 -
& Veatch provided us with a large list of variables relating to the material properties of the
conductors or insulators, some of which we converted to different units for ease of use. The image
below shows these given values.

Variable Description Value Units

ΔT temp diff b/w ambient and conductor surface 50 Deg. Celsius
T2,Tc conductor temp 90 Deg. Celsius
Ɛ emissivity for new aluminium 0.2
Ɛ emissivity for weathered aluminum 0.5
Ta ambient temp 40 Deg. Celsius
Ɛ’ solar absorption 0.5
E modulus of elasticity for aluminum 6.89E+10 N/m^2
Fg gravitational force 3.37E+01 N/m^2
σ allowable stress of material accounting for welds 120 MPa 120000000 Pa
Wc specific weight of aluminum 26500 N/m^3
Wi ice weight 8820 N/m^3
Ri equivalent uniform radial ice thickness 0.00635 mPa
C constant, for metric units 0.613
V extreme wind velocity 40 m/s
Cf force coefficient for rigid tubular bus 1
Gf gust response factor 0.85
I importance factor 1.15
Isc short-circuit current 15 kA 15000 A
Γ constant based on type of fault and conductor location 0.866
Kf mounting structure flexibility factor 1
Df half cycle decrement factor 0.927
η allowable deflection as a fraction of span length 0.0067
D rigid outside diameter 3.5 in 0.088900178 m
t rigid wall thickness 0.216 in 0.005486411 m
D flex diameter 1.258 in 0.031953264 m
C' conductivitiy at 20 Deg. Celsius in % of IACS 55
Hc Altitude of sun for latitude of 30°N at noon time 83 deg
Zc Azimuth of sun for latitude of 30°N at noon time 180 deg
Zl Azimuth of conductor line for a north– south orientation 0 deg
Qs for latitude of 30°N at noon, Hc = 83 and Zc=180. 1032.6 W/m
F skin effect coefficient 1
K Heat multiplying factor based on elevation of 336 m, interpolated
1.036
between 0 m and 1500 m from Table C.4.
C' Flex 61
Kz Height and exposure factor 0.57

Figure 15 – Given Values for Bus Calculation

Our substation consists of rigid buses that form the skeleton of our bus configuration along with
flexible buses that connect each major piece of equipment to the rigid bus. Although we have two
voltage classes, 115kV and 34.5kV, we will be using the same size rigid and flexible bus for both
classes. We conducted the following calculations with an assumed 15kA fault current, representing
the worst-case scenario for the substation. Based on our feeder load current of 1739.83 A, we
established our rigid bus to be a 3-inch nominal 6061-T6 schedule 40 pipe, and our flexible bus to
be 1113-45/7 Bluejay ACSR. Our first task in this calculation was to verify that our feeder load

- 22 -
current would not exceed the maximum allowable current capacity of our selected bus conductors,
adhering to the guidelines of IEEE 605. This calculation is shown in the figure below.

Ampacity

Rigid Ac = 0.001437725 m^2 (calculated using equation above)

R= 2.73475E-05 Ohms/m
A= 0.279288145 m^2
qc = 130.9282697 W/m
qr = 24.59190168 W/m
θ= 97 degrees
qs = 47.19708972 W/m
I= 1990.221419 A

Flexible Ac = 0.000563965 m^2 (converted from 1113 kcmil)

R= 6.42506E-05 Ohms/m
A= 0.100384139 m^2
qc = 70.85997365 W/m
qr = 8.839032091 W/m
θ= 97 degrees
qs = 16.96398253 W/m
I= 988.135368 A

Figure 16 - Bus Calculation (Ampacity)

According to these calculations, the maximum allowable current of our rigid conductor is 1990.22
A. In our configuration, two flexible buses branch from the rigid conductor to each major
component, resulting in a combined maximum ampacity of 2 x 988.135 A = 1976.27 A. This confirms
that both of our selected bus conductors can handle the load of 1739.83 A coming into our
substation.

Our next step was to calculate the forces acting upon our rigid bus, specifically the weight of the
conductor, Fc, the wind load, Fw, the force of a short circuit, Fsc_corrected, and the total gravitational
force, FG. This calculation is shown below (Figure 16).

Forces

Rigid Fc = 38.100 N/m

Fw = 48.582 N/m
Fsc.corr. = 292.984 N/m
Fg = 38.100 N/m
Ft1 = 343.684 N/m

Figure 17 - Bus Calculation (Forces)

- 23 -
The final step of this bus calculation was to determine the maximum distance that our rigid bus can
span without requiring additional bus supports. We performed this calculation twice, first based on
the deflection limit and second based on fiber stress, and chose the fewer of the two to be our
maximum span.

Span

Rigid J= 1.25585E-06 m^4

Lv = 10.53310807 m
Ls = 8.883573211 m (this would be what we choose)

Figure 18 - Bus Calculation (Span)

3.3.2.5 DC Battery Sizing Calculation

Battery Sizing
Number of Cells = Maximum Battery Voltage
Recharge Volts/Cell
= 140 Volts
2.33 Volts/Cell
= 60.09 Cells (60 cells are required)

End of Discharge Voltage = Minimum Battery Voltage

Number of Cells
= 105 Volts
60 Cells
= 1.75 Volts/Cell

Determination of Loads for Duty Cycle

Continuous Loads

SEL-411L 5 @ 0.28 A = 1.4 A

SEL-311L 5 @ 0.2 A = 1A
SEL-487E 2 @ 0.28 A = 0.56 A
SEL-451 2 @ 0.28 A = 0.56 A
Battery Monitoring Equipment = 0.024 A
DC Ammeter = 0.048 A
DC Voltmeter = 0.048 A
SACO Annunciator (L8) 6 @ 0.12 A = 0.72 A
Edwards Bell = 0.012 A
Indicating LEDs 8 @ 0.017 A = 0.136 A
= 4.508 A

- 24 -
 Continuous Load = 4.508 amps (use 5.0 amps for continuous loads to be conservative)

Momentary Loads

34.5 kV Breakers: Tripping Current = 3.3 A Closing Current = 2.6 A

115 kV Breakers: Tripping Current = 6.6 A Closing Current = 3.6 A

Determination of Duty Cycle

A) 115 kV bus fault: 1 - 115 kV breaker would trip; if that breaker failed, 2 - 34.5 kV breakers would
also trip.

1 - 115 kV breaker with a trip coil current inrush of 6.6 A. 1 x 6.6 A = 6.6 A

2 - 34.5 kV breakers with a trip coil current inrush of 3.3 A each. 2 x 3.3 A = 6.6 A

Total current inrush = 13.2 A

B) 115/34.5 kV transformer fault: 1 - 115 kV breaker would trip, and 2 - 34.5 kV breakers would
trip; if either 34.5 kV breaker failed, 1 additional 34.5 kV breaker would also trip.

1 - 115 kV breaker with a trip coil current inrush of 6.6 A. 1 x 6.6 A = 6.6 A

3 - 34.5 kV breakers with a trip coil current inrush of 3.3 A each. 3 x 3.3 A = 9.9 A

Total current inrush = 16.5 A

Situation (B) provides the worst-case dc load for a fault condition with 16.5 amps.

@ Time T = 0 min,

Trip the 115 kV breaker with a trip coil current inrush of 6.6 A, and 3 - 34.5 kV breakers with a
trip coil current inrush of 3.3 A each. Include continuous load current.

Trip Load 6.6 A + 3(3.3 A) = 16.5 A

Continuous Load = 5.0 A

Total Load = 21.5 A

@ T = 1 min,

Continuous load for 239 minutes.

Continuous Load = 5.0 A

Total Load = 5.0 A

@ T = 240 min,

- 25 -
 Close the 115 kV breaker with a close coil current inrush of 3.6 A, then the 3 - 34.5 kV breakers
one at a time with a close coil current inrush of 2.6 A each. Include continuous load current.

Close Load 3.6 A + 3(2.6 A) = 11.4 A

Continuous Load = 5.0 A

Total Load = 16.4 A

Based on the data gathered from this calculation, we generated a sizing report using the IEEE-485
method via EnerSys. According to that report, we would need one string of (20) CA-03M rated at 50
AH with a margin of 11%.

3.3.2.6 AC Load Calculation

The goal of the AC load calculations was to determine the AC current draw on our system. This
involved adding up the individual AC loads of all substation components, which were calculated by
dividingInternal
thesubstation
ratedACwattage
load by the rated voltage and multiplying by the number of specific
components. The image below shows our method of calculating these loads.

Assum ptions
1. 180VA load per Outlet assumed as w orst case
2. The w orst case scenario w ill be as follow s:
a) Time of day: Day (no lights on).
b) Temperature: 90 deg F (all Transformer fans on).
c) Battery: Deep discharge (charger on full).
3. Worst case tripping conditions shall be as follow s:
a) 115/34.5 kV transformer fault
- (1) 115 kV breaker w ill trip
- (2) 34.5 kV breakers w ill trip
ⁱ - Ratings estimated.
Calculations
The continuous 120/240VAC single phase loads are as follow s:

Quantity Load/Unit(W) Am ps (ea) Voltage(V) Total(W) Am ps Total

All Transformer Fans 1 24,000 100.00 240 24,000 100.00
Transformer Sump Pump 1 2,000 8.33 240 2,000 8.33
Control House LIghting 20 36 0.30 120 720 6.00
Breaker Recepticle and Lights 5 210 1.75 120 1,050 8.75
Yard Lights (Daytime) 0 55 0.46 120 0 0.00
AC Panel - Control Building

HVAC System 1 10,000 41.67 240 10,000 41.67

Fire Detection Equipment 1 150 1.25 120 150 1.25
Exhaust Fan 1 132 1.10 120 132 1.10
Pow er Outlets (One for each piece of equipment) 6 180 1.50 120 1,080 9.00
AC Battery Charger 1 3,360 14.00 240 3,360 14.00
0 0 0.00 120 0 0.00
0 0 0.00 120 0 0.00
0 0 0.00 120 0 0.00
Worst Case Tripping:
High Side Breaker Motor 1 720 3.00 240 720 3.00
Low Side Breaker Motor 2 720 3.00 240 1,440 6.00
Total Worse Case AC Panel Load 43,212 199.10

Total Worst Case Load (+10 %) 47,533 219.01

Sizing Recom m endations:

Station Service - 50kVA
MTS, Safety Sw itch - 225A

Figure 19 - AC Load
recommend Calculation
XXXA Station Service Equipment
1. Breaker tripping load is temporary
2. 10% w orst case scenario is added to the final value
Based on the total worst-case load of 47663 W, we decided to size our station service at 50 kVA. We
sized the safety switch based on the total current load of the system, sizing up from 219.01 to 225 A.

- 26 -
We also had to size the battery charger for our substation battery. We ended up with a value of 8.25
but rounded up to the minimum size supplied which is 25. The image below shows how we sized
that battery charger for our substation.

Battery Charger Sizing

AHR (Ah) 21
K 1.15
L 7.5 (from DC battery calc, continuous load)
T (h) 32
A 8.25

A 25 (round up to be conservative)

Figure 20 – Battery Charger Sizing

3.3.2.7 Trench Fill Tool

At the start of the semester, our mentors challenged us to create a trench fill tool that helps size
substation cable trenches. The cable trench and corresponding conduit route auxiliary power and
control cables from the control house out to main pieces of equipment like the transformer and
circuit breakers. The central focus of the calculation was to minimize the trench size while still
meeting the standard fill capacity of 40% as outlined by IEEE standard 525-2007 [18]. This tool
helped us design our substation and will be utilized in the future by B&V. Our calculation used
standard cable and sizes for substation equipment. The total cross-sectional area of cable running
through our trench came out to 119 in2 and adhering to the 40% fill constraint corresponds to a
minimum cable trench area of 297 in2. Of course, cable trenches from Trenwa/Old Castle come in
standard sizes so we need to select the next closest size up, 300 in2 for Trenwa trench.

- 27 -
Component Number of Component Area (in²) Total Area (in²)
Components
Transfomers 1 15.64 15.64
Breakers 5 16.42 82.12
Lighting 8 2.62 20.99
Component Total 118.76

Minimum
Allowable Trench
Area 296.89
Trenwa Trench Area 300
Oldcastle Trench Area 430

Figure 21 – Trench Fill Tool Inputs

Cable # of Cable Gauge Area

Equipment AWG
Quantity Conductors Size area (in²) (in²)
Transformer
AC Power 4 4 9 0.317 1.268 3/C#8W/#10GND
1 4 6 0.407 0.407 3/C#6W/#8GND
AC Test 1 4 9 0.317 0.317 3/C#8W/#10GND
DC Power 1 1 2/C#1 7.069 7.069 2/C#1
1 4 9 0.656 0.656 T-401
Control 2 9 14 0.656 1.312 T-401
2 4 9 0.656 1.312 T-401
6 4 14 0.105 0.63 4/C#14
Fiber Optic 1 12 MMF 0.049 0.049 12 COUNT MM
CT 3 4 9 0.656 1.968 T-401
Sump Pump 1 4 9 0.656 0.656 T-401
Transfomer Total 15.64
Breakers
Control 5 9 9 1.202 6.01 T-901
2 4 9 0.656 1.312 T-401
4 9 14 0.656 2.624 T-914
6 4 14 0.38 2.28 T-414
AC Power 2 4 9 0.407 0.814 3/C#6W/#8GND
PT 2 4 14 0.38 0.76 T-414
CT 4 4 9 0.656 2.624 T-401
Breaker Total 16.42
Lighting
4 4 9 0.656 2.624 T-401

Figure 22 – Trench Fill Tool Calculations

3.3.2.8 Conduit Plan Diagram

Using the trench fill tool that we created, our final task was to properly size and model the PVC
pipe conduits which house the cables that connect various pieces of equipment into the cable

- 28 -
trench, and subsequently to the control structure. Typically, in practice, a maximum of 5-inch
nominal PVC pipe is used for conduit planning, which we adhered to in our substation design.
Utilizing the same 40% fill constraint as before, we calculated the cross-sectional area of the cables
for each piece major piece of equipment and distributed them amongst different sizes of PVC pipes
accordingly while considering our constraints. The diagram of this conduit plan is shown in
Appendix II.

Component Conduit Area Needed (per 40% PVC Pipe Nominal PVC
piece of equipment) Area Pipe Size (inches)

Transformer 15.64 19.8157 8.0

Circuit Breaker 16.42 19.8157 8.0
Lighting 2.624 2.9072 3.0

Figure 23 – Conduit PVC Sizing

3.4 TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS

Solar panel technology is evolving, and as a result, large amounts of equipment with vastly different
specifications is available. Higher wattage solar panels produce more energy in less space but are
more expensive and require equipment that can handle the larger load. Copper cables are more
efficient than aluminum cables, however they are significantly more expensive at the gauge
required to transfer utility scale power. Sun tracking technology increases efficiency of the solar
panels and generates more power but involves more maintenance and higher installation costs. The
trade-off in equipment is usually power/efficiency for cost. After careful research, economic
evaluation, and discussion with our mentors, we concluded that using axis-tracking technology was
unneeded. The benefit of producing more power is outweighed by the added installation and
maintenance costs and because we already are producing enough power due to the sheer number
of solar panels. As for the specific tilt angle of our panels, multiple sources claimed that an angle
between 30 and 40 degrees is optimal for an area like New Mexico. Given that we did not adjust the
angle of our panels throughout the year, it makes more sense to go with the angle that provides the
best year-round results. Winter has a lower sunshine output, so optimizing our tilt angle to
maximize power in winter is the way to go. This gives us an angle of 35 degrees, which will
compensate for the lower sunlight levels in the New Mexico winter. This careful design is the only
way to minimize the impact of the tradeoffs.

The technological considerations for the substation mostly revolve around protections and
monitoring systems. Most of the other components are a set standard and we did not have many
options to choose from in that regard. The DC system in the substation was designed based on
constraints given to us by Black & Veatch to meet their desired specifications. The battery which
gives power to relaying and tripping devices needed to be sized in accordance with a “worst-case”
fault scenario in which three circuit breakers trip. Another technological consideration that we
encountered during the substation design was proper relay placement. There are multiple ways to
set up relays depending on which bus type you choose, so we talked with our mentors about the
optimal relay arrangement for our specific design. We ended up having to add a few grounded
current transformers after the 34.5/115kV transformer to allow for more rigorous relaying setup. The
relay and protection devices in our design came from SEL due to their high quality and
dependability [14]. Detailed data pulled from cutsheets on the SEL website helped us complete the

- 29 -
DC battery sizing for the substation. Substation design is a well-established industry practice and
there are many less technological considerations to deal with compared to designing a solar farm.

3.5 DESIGN ANALYSIS

Our solar array design works well. We completed all necessary documents on time and successfully
met the technical requirements outlined for us by Black & Veatch. The 410 W panels generate the
60 MW required using the least amount of space, while not overloading the equipment and
keeping the costs as low as we can. Our design iterations have involved tweaking the number of
panels in the arrays as well as trying out different types of cable in our design to minimize voltage
drop.

The final substation design also turned out wonderfully. Completion and review of all design tools
along with comparisons to the projects of past groups demonstrated that we successfully met
guiding requirements established at the beginning of the semester. The ring bus layout connected
the solar plant and substation perfectly and the 12x12 foot grounding grid matched up evenly with
the overall dimensions of the substation. All equipment is well protected from harmful
overcurrents and fault events thanks to our rigorous protection network of circuit breakers and
relays.

3.6 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

We have adopted a Waterfall development process for this project. This method makes sense for us
as our requirements have been laid out specifically for us by Black & Veatch and following with a
high-level design to detailed design is the most straightforward way to getting to a final product.

3.7 DESIGN PLAN

Our design did take into consideration intended users and use cases from section 1.5, however, they
were not as important as other technical aspects of our design. For example, we researched
potential locations and completed an economic evaluation of the project; factors which are usually
very important considerations for a project like this. However, our solar plant will not actually be
constructed so these considerations just gave us a better conceptual understanding of our design
and did not significantly affect its technical aspects. The vast majority of our design plan focused on
meeting the technical requirements for the solar plant and substation such as component choice,
physical layout, and generating capacity because they were most pertinent to the overall design.
These requirements were laid out by our Black & Veatch mentors who pushed us to design our
solar plant to meet the constraints as closely as we could.
The figure below shows a high-level overview of how Black & Veatch and our intended users
informed our design requirements. Our design process was centered around meeting these
requirements. Component selection includes the panels, inverters, combiner boxes, and cables for
the solar plant. Substation components include current transformers, disconnect switches, circuit
breakers, relay and protection equipment, DC batteries, and the power transformer. The solar array
layout encompasses string/rack sizes, array size and layout, panel tilt, and row spacing. Substation
layout includes bus breaker scheme, trench routing, grounding grid, and control enclosure
placement.

- 30 -
 Figure 24 - Plant Design Flowchart

4 Testing
Within our project, individual unit testing is not directly related to the desired outcome. The type
of testing we did is based more on iterative calculations that met predetermined constraints such as
in the array parameter tool and the voltage drop calculation for the solar array portion of the
project. Similarly, the grounding calculation, bus load calculation, and battery sizing test were all
iterative calculation tests that guided our design for the substation. Furthermore, we did cost
analysis on the project to see what our return on investment would be. Again, because we are not
physically building this project, no real-world tests were conducted. Despite this, we gained an
understanding of what kind of challenges arise when designing and building a utility scale solar
farm and step-up substation in industry practice.

One of the challenges we encountered while testing the array parameter tool was confusion of the
terminology used because it is proprietary to Black & Veatch. We were able to clear this up by
asking our mentors questions and researching other plant designs. When we moved into the
second semester, we also had challenges with testing the grounding grid. We discovered errors in
some parameter assumptions which were given to us by our industry mentors. We raised these
concerns to our mentors, and they agreed that previous groups had failed to recognize these errors.
One way industry clients avoid this type of error is by using a dedicated program to complete the
grounding calculation. Due to financial constraints, we did not have access to this type of software.

4.1 UNIT TESTING

Under the category of unit testing, we worked on the solar farm and substation design as separate
entities. Within the solar farm design, we have a few different topics that we spent multiple weeks
testing and refining (array parameter tool, voltage drop calculator, and economic analysis). A very
similar process carried us through the second semester where we focused on the substation design
and analysis. Documents and calculations we tested include the grounding grid, trench fill tool, DC

- 31 -
battery calculation, and bus load calculation. For the purposes of our project, each of these were
treated as individual units and were continually tested and improved as they are not physical
designs but rather conceptual units.

4.2 INTERFACE TESTING

Interface testing was not utilized in our first semester while we were designing the solar panel array
field, but it did come into play while we designed the corresponding substation. When selecting
which substation bus configuration to use, we had to consider the size and layout of our solar array
to ensure the substation protection scheme was appropriately set up. Synthesizing our solar farm
with the substation ensures the designs fit together seamlessly to squeeze the most power possible
out of the panels. This consideration led us to select a ring bus which is simple, effective, and easily
expandable in case the solar field is expanded in the future.

4.3 ACCEPTANCE TESTING

To show that we met the design requirements, we presented our findings, testing, and designs with
our peer mentors in our weekly meetings. There, we received feedback and criticisms to ensure
that we were moving in the right direction. Over the course of the week, we would tweak and
optimize our designs to better match the expectations of our mentors.

4.4 RESULTS
In our iterative testing of the array parameter tool, we encountered two main obstacles. First, we
needed to get familiar with all the terminology and background information and second, we
needed an understanding of how the array parameter tool worked. We were successful in this
endeavor and were able to design a 60MW solar farm consisting of modules split into 14.5 arrays of
panels. This requires 1 inverter per array, for a total of 18 inverters, and 247 combiner boxes.
The next aspect of our project, the substation, also had some obstacles. The first was understanding
how to use Bluebeam software in order to build our diagrams. The second was designing tools to
help us determine the sizing of certain components of the substation. We utilized Excel to do this
and were successful in creating a substation design within the constraints provided to us. This is a
ring bus configuration with 4 low-side breakers and 1 high-side breaker, a 34.5kV/115kV 20MVA
step-up transformer. We also created a grounding grid consisting of a 12ft x 12ft conductor mesh
which reduces ground potentials caused by high voltage equipment. The relay control houses a 60
cell DC battery capable of delivering 24 A to breakers and protection equipment under the worst-
case fault scenario.
Our cost analysis shows that we will turn a ten-year profit of about $17.4 million. Government
subsidies and bonuses for solar applications may mean it is possible that the solar plant could make
even more of a profit. This is very promising as the life of these solar panels is 25 years, meaning
there will be 15 more years of high profitability. The voltage-drop calculations helped us determine
how to efficiently wire our solar farm to minimize losses across wires, which means there will be
less wear and tear on the system and help ensure the 25-year lifespan.

5 Implementation
We will not be directly involved with the implementation of this project. Our two semesters
involved two separate, yet intertwined, design projects, and as such, we will not have time to see a
fully built solar farm or substation of our design. Any and all implementation will be handled by
Black & Veatch.

- 32 -
6 Closing Material
6.1 CONCLUSION
In the first semester we completed selection and sizing of solar farm components, and analyzed
voltage drop and layout options. We have also done cost analysis for return on investment over the
course of 10 years and it looks promising. In the second semester we amended the economic
analysis to include substation equipment, construction, and operation costs. Although the added
cost of the substation reduces overall profits of the project, it will still generate a positive return on
investment after 10 years. Design of the substation included one-line diagrams for bus
configuration, grounding, and overall substation design including breakers, lighting, and a
transformer. These design specifications were all selected based on calculations for safe and
efficient operation of the solar farm. We believe this farm is a solid investment for anyone wanting
to provide more renewable energy to the US power grid.

- 33 -
6.2 REFERENCES

[1] C. R. Landau, Optimum Tilt of Solar Panels, 18-Mar-2017. [Online]. Available:

https://solarpaneltilt.com/

[2] J. Marsh, “Best Solar Panel Angle by Zip Code in 2020: EnergySage,” Solar
News, 15-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://news.energysage.com/whats-the-best-angle-for-my-solar-panels/

[3] J. Sandhu, “Best solar panel angle: How do you find it - and does it matter?”
Solar Reviews, 22-Oct-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/best-solar-panel-angle

[4] “NeON 2: NeON: Products: Solar: Business,” LG Global Business Solutions,

2019-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.lg.com/global/business/neon-2

[5] “Wire Gauge and Current Limits Including Skin Depth and Strength,”
PowerStream , 18-Oct-2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm

[6] “LG410N2W-V5 Cut Sheet,” LG Solar, 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.lg.com/us/business/download/resources/CT00002151/LG410N2W-
V5_AUS_FinalVer_083019[20200306_084005].pdf

[7] “Disconnect Combiners,” SolarBOS Disconnect Combiners. [Online]. Available:

https://d3g1qce46u5dao.cloudfront.net/data_sheet/solarbos_disconnect_combiners__1_.pd
f

[8] “Solar inverter PVS980-CS-US Compact Skid for US Market,” FIMER, 2020.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.fimer.com/sites/default/files/FIMER_PVS980-CS_US-
CompaktskidforUSmarket_US_Rev_A.PDF

[9] “6 common bus configurations in substations up to 345 kV,” Electrical Engineering Portal,
2019. [Online]. Available:
https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/bus-configurations-substations-345-kv

[10] “NEC Table 8 Conductor Properties,” [Online]. Available:

http://necaibewelectricians.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Table_8-Conductor-
Propertie
s-.pdf.

[11] “Conductor Ampacity Based on the 2011 National Electrical Code,” manualzz.com. [Online].
Available:
https://manualzz.com/doc/11130693/nec-tables.

[12] “IEEE guide for safety in AC substation grounding - IEEE Std 80-2000.”
[Online]. Available: http://www.dee.ufrj.br/~acsl/grad/equipamentos/IEEE-std80.pdf.

[13] “POWERING THE FUTURE,” EnerSys BSP. BatterySizingProgram. [Online]. Available:

https://bsp.enersys.com/bsp/index.do.

- 34 -
[14] “SEL Home,” selinc [Online]. Available:
https://selinc.com/.

[15] "American National Standard for High Voltage Switches, Bus Supports, and Accessories
Schedules of Preferred Ratings, Construction Guidelines, and Specifications," in IEEE Std
C37.32-2002 , vol., no., pp.1-42 doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2003.7116714. [Online], Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7116714

[16] "IEEE Guide for Bus Design in Air Insulated Substations," in IEEE Std 605-2008 (Revision of
IEEE Std 605-1998 / Incorporates IEEE Std 605a-2010) , vol., no., pp.1-247, 14 May 2010, doi:
10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.658180 [Online], Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6581801

[17] “AT30 Battery Charger,” mdspower.com. [Online]. Available:

https://www.mdspower.com/img/product/description/HindlePower/AT30-Battery-
Charger-Specs.pdf.

[18] “ IEEE 525-2007,” ewh.ieee.org. [Online]. Available:

https://ewh.ieee.org/cmte/substations/scd0/wgd2/IEEE 525 - standard/IEEE 525-
2007_accepted.pdf.

[19] “One Piece Multi-Duty Trench,” Trenwa. [Online]. Available:

https://www.trenwa.com/trench-products/one-piece-mp-trench/.

[20] “Trench,” Oldcastle Infrastructure. [Online]. Available:

https://oldcastleinfrastructure.com/product/trench/.

[21] “PVC Piping Dimension Chart for Sch 40 & Sch 80,” Commercial Industrial Supply Product
Specs, Industry Knowledge & More. [Online]. Available:
https://www.commercial-industrial-supply.com/resource-center/pvc-pipe-and-fittings-
dimensions/.

[22] “AFL-Substation-Bus-Conductors,” aflglobal. [Online]. Available:

https://www.aflglobal.com/productionFiles/resources/catalogs/AFL-Substation-Bus-
Conductors.aspx.

[23] “Aluminum Conductor. Steel Reinforced . Bare.,” ACSR. [Online]. Available:

https://assets.southwire.com/ImConvServlet/imconv/6e40b948ad8bbb2c69490138659678c
bf373c912/origin?assetDescr=ACSR-Dec-2020.

- 35 -
6.3 APPENDICES

Appendix I: Pertinent Tables

Figure 25 - NEC Table 8: Conductor Properties [10]

- 36 -
Figure 26 - NEC AWG Chart [11]

- 37 -
Figure 27 - IEEE ANSI Phase Spacing [16]
 Figure 28 – AFL Rigid Bus Conductor Properties [22]

Figure 29 – ACSR Flexible Bus Conductor Properties [23]

- 39 -
 Figure 30 – Battery Charger Sizing [17]

Trench Trench
Trench Depth Width Cross-Sectional Available
Type (in) (in) Area (in^2) Area (in^2)
12x10 12 10 120 48
12x20 12 20 240 96
12x24 12 24 288 115.2
12x30 12 30 360 144
12x40 12 40 480 192
12x48 12 48 576 230.4
15x10 15 10 150 60
15x20 15 20 300 120
15x24 15 24 360 144
15x30 15 30 450 180
15x40 15 40 600 240
15x48 15 48 720 288
24x10 24 10 240 96
24x20 24 20 480 192
24x24 24 24 576 230.4
24x30 24 30 720 288
24x40 24 40 960 384
24x48 24 48 1152 460.8

Figure 31 – Trenwa Trench Information [19]

 Trench
Trench Depth Trench Cross-Sectional Available
Type (in) Width (in) Area (in^2) Area (in^2)
2110 14 21 294 117.6
2636 34 27 918 367.2
440 40 40 1600 640
4048 48 40 1920 768
4510 10 43 430 172
5648 49 45 2205 882
5672 72 45 3240 1296
4860 62 49 3038 1215.2
558 20 52 1040 416
5076 90 63 5670 2268
6070 86 75 6450 2580
8056 66 97 6402 2560.8
1050 60 122 7320 2928

Figure 32 – Old Castle Trench Information [20]

Nominal OD ID 40% fill

Pipe Size (inches) (inches) area
1/8" 0.405 0.249 0.0195
1/4" 0.54 0.344 0.0372
3/8" 0.675 0.473 0.0703
1/2" 0.84 0.602 0.1139
3/4" 1.05 0.804 0.2031
1" 1.315 1.029 0.3326
1-1/4" 1.66 1.36 0.5811
1-1/2" 1.9 1.59 0.7942
2" 2.375 2.047 1.3164
2-1/2" 2.875 2.445 1.8781
3" 3.5 3.042 2.9072
3-1/2" 4 3.521 3.8948
4" 4.5 3.998 5.0215
5" 5.563 5.016 7.9043
6" 6.625 6.031 11.4269
8" 8.625 7.942 19.8157
10" 10.75 9.976 31.2653
12" 12.75 11.889 44.4059
14" 14 13.073 53.6909
16" 16 14.94 70.1215
18" 18 16.809 88.7633
20" 20 18.743 110.3642
24" 24 22.544 159.6658

Figure 33 – PVC Piping Sizing Chart [21]

Appendix II: Bluebeam Diagrams

- 41 -
 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

H H

34.5kV FEEDER
ARRAYS 1-5

G G

F F

34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6

1200 A 1200 A
BKR L1 BKR L3

E E
34.5/115kV
XFMR T1
115kV SF6
BKR H1
34.5kV FEEDER 115kV TAKEOFF TO
ARRAYS 6-10 115 kV REMOTE END SUBSTATION
1200 A

12/16/20 MVA
115 kV/34.5 kV
3 PHASE

D D

34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6

1200 A 1200 A
BKR L2 BKR L4

C C

B B

34.5kV FEEDER
ARRAYS 11-15

PANEL # BUS ##
PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS APPROVALS

3 Eric Schultz 2 Eric Schultz 1 Eric Schultz OTHER DATE ENGINEERING

4/25/21 4/6/21 3/15/21 PROJECT MADE BY DATE TITLE

ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
DATE DATE DATE

Eric Schultz 2/25/21

MANAGER
Created a separate version of the diagram to Began to include relays on the 34.5kV side Turned layout sideways to match plan view
model zones of protection RELAY
A Reduced space between each component after Added space between each component to prepare
LAYOUT BY DATE
A
Removed various labels to reduce clutter

Added 2 CTs to each side of XFMR T1 (4 total)

consulting B&V

Changed colors of certain elements for clarity

for relaying

Renamed/labeled numerous components

EP&PM
CHECKED BY DATE ZONES OF PROTECTION
and shorted the 4 unused CTs on 115kV side
Removed unnecessary disconnect switch by ACT
PROJECT DESIGN/ELECT DATE

Changed color of entire document to black and transformer

increased the size of the diagram
RFW/WO RFW/WO RFW/WO
MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY
PROJECT DESIGN/ACT DATE
LOCATION NAME
SDMay21-37 SUBSTATION SERVICE CENTER SCALE

ES 4/25 ES 4/6 ES 3/15 FOR SOLAR POWER PLANT NONE

OTHERS
APPROVED FOR ISSUE DATE DRAWING NUMBER REQUEST FOR WORK/WO PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST
CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .
 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

H H

34.5kV FEEDER
ARRAYS 1-5

G G

DISC SW DISC SW
1L1 1L3
(1200 A) (1200 A)

1200/5 A 1200/5 A
1200/5 A 1200/5 A

F 1200/5 A 1200/5 A F
1200/5 A 1200/5 A

34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6

1200 A 1200 A
BKR L1 BKR L3

1200/5 A 1200/5 A 87P/T1-H1 SEL-487E

1200/5 A 1200/5 A
87S/L1-L3
SEL-311L
51P/T1-H1
SEL-451

1200/5 A 1200/5 A 87S/T1-H1

1200/5 A 1200/5 A SEL-487E
87P/L1-L3
E SEL-411L E
51S/T1-H1
SEL-451
DISC SW DISC SW
2L1 2L3 34.5/115kV
(1200 A) (1200 A) XFMR T1
DISC SW DISC SW 115kV SF6 DISC SW
T1 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 1H1 1200/5 A 1200/5 A 2H1
87P/L1-L2 2000/5 A 2000/5 A SHORTED SHORTED SHORTED SHORTED 1200/5 A 1200/5 A BKR H1
SEL-411L (1200 A) (1200 A) (1200 A)
34.5kV FEEDER 115kV TAKEOFF TO
ARRAYS 6-10 115 kV REMOTE END SUBSTATION
87S/L1-L2 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 1200 A 1200/5 A 1200/5 A
SEL-311L 2000/5 A 2000/5 A 1200/5 A 1200/5 A

DISC SW DISC SW
12/16/20 MVA
1L2 1L4
115 kV/34.5 kV
21S/L1
(1200 A) (1200 A) SEL-311L
3 PHASE

87P/L2-L4 87S/B1 SEL-311L 21P/L1

SEL-411L SEL-411L
1200/5 A 1200/5 A
1200/5 A 1200/5 A
D 87P/B1 SEL-411L
D

87S/L2-L4 SEL-311L
1200/5 A 1200/5 A
1200/5 A 1200/5 A

34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6

1200 A 1200 A
BKR L2 BKR L4

1200/5 A 1200/5 A
1200/5 A 1200/5 A

C C

1200/5 A 1200/5 A
1200/5 A 1200/5 A

DISC SW DISC SW
2L2 2L4
(1200 A) (1200 A)

B B

34.5kV FEEDER
ARRAYS 11-15

PANEL # BUS ##
PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS APPROVALS

3 Eric Schultz 2 Eric Schultz 1 Eric Schultz OTHER DATE ENGINEERING

DATE 4/22/21 DATE 4/6/21 DATE 3/15/21 PROJECT MADE BY DATE TITLE

Eric Schultz 2/25/21

ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
MANAGER
Finalized relaying based on B&V recommendations Began to include relays on the 34.5kV side Turned layout sideways to match plan view
RELAY
A Included labels for relays, both ANSI and SEL Reduced space between each component after Added space between each component to prepare
LAYOUT BY DATE
A
Added 2 CTs to each side of XFMR T1 (4 total)
and shorted the 4 unused CTs on 115kV side,
consulting B&V

Changed colors of certain elements for clarity

for relaying

Renamed/labeled numerous components

EP&PM
CHECKED BY DATE RELAY MODEL
updated CT ratings
Removed unnecessary disconnect switch by ACT
PROJECT DESIGN/ELECT DATE

Changed color of entire document to black and transformer

increased the size of the diagram
RFW/WO RFW/WO RFW/WO
MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY
PROJECT DESIGN/ACT DATE
LOCATION NAME
SDMay21-37 SUBSTATION SERVICE CENTER SCALE

ES 4/22 ES 4/6 ES 3/15 FOR SOLAR POWER PLANT NONE

OTHERS
APPROVED FOR ISSUE DATE DRAWING NUMBER REQUEST FOR WORK/WO PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST
CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .
 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

99'-5 1/8"

6'-9 1/2" 18'-1" 8'-8" 11'-2 5/8" 16'-11 5/8" 14'-1 5/8" 14'-1" 9'-5 1/2"
LEGEND:
H CHAINLINK H
FENCE
34.5kV FEEDER
CABLE
ARRAYS 1-5 TRENCH

G 15'-0" G

34.5kV UNDERGROUND LINE

TERMINATION STRUCTURE
ARRAYS 1-5
A B C SECURITY GATE

6'-10 3/8"

F F
7'-11"

DISC SW DISC SW
1L1 1L3

4'-8 3/8"
34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6
BKR L1 BKR L3
34.5/115kV DISC SW DISC SW
4'-9 1/8" XFMR T1 1H1 2H1
115kV A
DISC SW 1'-8" DISC SW
SF6 BKR 115kV OVERHEAD
2L1 2L3 LINE TAKEOFF
H1 STRUCTURE
DISC SW
E T1 E
7'-10 7/8" 15'-0" A 8'-0"

12/16/20 MVA
115/34.5kV
3 PHASE
34.5kV FEEDER B B TO 115kV REMOTE
64'-2 1/4" ARRAYS 6-10 10'-0"
END SUBSTATION 95'-4 7/8"
34.5kV UNDERGROUND LINE
TERMINATION STRUCTURE C
ARRAYS 6-10
7'-10 5/8" 15'-0"

DISC SW DISC SW C
1L2 1L4

4'-8 3/8"
34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6
D BKR L2 BKR L4 D

4'-9 3/8"
DISC SW DISC SW
2L2 2L4
25'-0"

7'-9 3/4" 4'-0"

3'-0"
6'-10"

C 34.5kV UNDERGROUND LINE

TERMINATION STRUCTURE
A B C 4'-0" CONTROL ENCLOSURE C
25'-0"
ARRAYS 11-15 (25' x 25')

3'-0"
15'-0"

3'-0"

B B

34.5kV FEEDER
ARRAYS 11-15

130'-8 1/8"
PANEL # BUS ##
PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS APPROVALS

3 Eric Schultz 2 Eric Schultz 1 Eric Schultz OTHER DATE ENGINEERING

DATE 4/22/21 DATE 3/16/21 DATE 3/9/21 PROJECT MADE BY DATE TITLE

Updated trench sizing and color, removed Turned layout sideways for better viewing Re-dimensioned and properly spaced entire
MANAGER
Eric Schultz 2/25/21
A
conduits, save for conduit plan

Updated font and added security gate

Changed spacing of fence (10 -> 15 ft)
substation, included numerous measurements

Added takeoff structures, fence, cable

RELAY
LAYOUT BY DATE
BUS PLAN DIAGRAM A
Changed color of cables to black, added new trench, and control enclosure EP&PM
CHECKED BY DATE
Changed color of entire document to black, measurements, condensed text and measurements
added additional measurements Renamed/labeled numerous components
Updated termination structure descriptions PROJECT DESIGN/ELECT DATE

Increased size of diagram Removed unnecessary disconnect switch by

ACT

RFW/WO Re-routed trench and added conduits

RFW/WO transformer RFW/WO
MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY
PROJECT DESIGN/ACT DATE
LOCATION NAME
SDMay21-37 SUBSTATION SERVICE CENTER SCALE

ES 4/22 ES 3/16 ES 3/9 FOR SOLAR POWER PLANT NONE

OTHERS
APPROVED FOR ISSUE DATE DRAWING NUMBER REQUEST FOR WORK/WO PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST
CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .
 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

H 132'-0" H

LEGEND:
CHAINLINK
3'-0" FENCE
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
3'-0" 3'-0" GROUNDING
CONDUCTOR

x x X GROUNDING
ROD (20 ft)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
G G

x x x x x x 12'-0" x 12'-0" x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

F F

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x
E E

96'-0" x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
D D

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

C
x x x x x x x x x x C

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

B
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x B

3'-0"

PANEL # BUS ##
PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS APPROVALS

3 Eric Schultz 2 Eric Schultz 1 Eric Schultz OTHER DATE ENGINEERING

DATE 4/25/21 DATE 4/22/21 DATE 4/19/2021 PROJECT MADE BY DATE TITLE

Eric Schultz 3/19/21

MANAGER
Finalized conductor spacing of 12 ft Decreased conductor spacing from 15 to 12 ft, Decreased conductor spacing from 20 to 15 ft

A Reduced ground rod length from 50 to 20 ft

still experimenting with various spacings

Increased ground rod length from 10 to 50 ft

Reduced opacity of substation to allow for
better viewing of the grounding grid
RELAY
LAYOUT BY DATE
GROUNDING DIAGRAM A
Added many more grounding rods and adjusted EP&PM
CHECKED BY DATE

their position Changed location of many grounding rods Included symbols for grounding rods and
placed them appropriately
Increased the size of the diagram Changed color of entire document to black ACT
PROJECT DESIGN/ELECT DATE

Included various measurements

RFW/WO RFW/WO RFW/WO
MADE BY DATE RELAY MADE BY DATE RELAY MADE BY DATE RELAY
PROJECT DESIGN/ACT DATE
LOCATION NAME
SDMay21-37 SUBSTATION SERVICE CENTER SCALE
ACT ACT ACT
1" = 10'
ES 4/25 ES 4/22 ES 4/19 FOR SOLAR POWER PLANT NONE
OTHERS
APPROVED FOR ISSUE DATE DRAWING NUMBER REQUEST FOR WORK/WO PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST
CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .
 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

H H

LEGEND:
CHAINLINK
FENCE
CABLE
5 INCH PVC PIPE: TRENCH
CONTROL CABLES
G G
5 (9) CONDUCTOR #9
4 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
A B C 5 INCH PVC PIPE:
QUANTITY OF CABLES
CONTROL CABLES
2 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS IN CABLE
4 (9) CONDUCTOR #14 TYPE OF CABLE (SIZE)

4 INCH PVC PIPE:

AC POWER CABLES
2 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
PT CABLES
F 2 (4) CONDUCTOR #14 F
CT CABLES
1'-8"
4 (4) CONDUCTOR #9

34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6

BKR L1 BKR L3
34.5/115kV
XFMR T1
115kV SF6 A
BKR H1

115/34.5kV
MVA RATING
3 PHASE
E E
B B

C
5 INCH PVC PIPE:
48'-10 3/4" 5'-6 1/4" CONTROL CABLES
34.5kV SF6 34.5kV SF6 5 INCH PVC PIPE:
5 (9) CONDUCTOR #9
BKR L2 BKR L4 AC POWER CABLES
4 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
5 INCH PVC PIPE:
D D
1 INCH PVC PIPE: 1 (4) CONDUCTOR #14
FIBER OPTIC CABLE AC TEST CABLE CONTROL CABLES
1 (12) STRAND MMF 1 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 2 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 25'-0"
CONTROL CABLES 4 (9) CONDUCTOR #14
2 (9) CONDUCTOR #14
4'-0"
5 INCH PVC PIPE: 2 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
4 INCH PVC PIPE:
DC POWER CABLES 6 (4) CONDUCTOR #14
1 (2/C) #1 AWG CT CABLES AC POWER CABLES
1 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 3 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 2 (4) CONDUCTOR #9
SUMP PUMP CABLE PT CABLES
1 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 2 (4) CONDUCTOR #14
CT CABLES
C
A B C 4'-0"
4 (4) CONDUCTOR #9 CONTROL ENCLOSURE C
25'-0"
(25' x 25')
1'-8"

72'-5/8"

B B

PANEL # BUS ##
PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS PROJ DESIGN PROJ MANAGER OTHERS APPROVALS

3 2 Eric Schultz 1 Eric Schultz OTHER DATE ENGINEERING

DATE DATE 4/25/21 DATE 4/22/21 PROJECT MADE BY DATE TITLE

Eric Schultz 4/19/21

MANAGER
Removed various labels to reduce clutter Updated conduits to be single lines
A Altered color of key to highlight conductor key Included size of PVC pipe for each conduit
RELAY
LAYOUT BY DATE
CONDUIT PLAN DIAGRAM A
Increased size of diagram Included list of conductors per conduit EP&PM
CHECKED BY DATE

Included various measurements Edited legend to include key for

understanding list of condutors ACT
PROJECT DESIGN/ELECT DATE

RFW/WO RFW/WO RFW/WO

MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY MADE BY DATE ACT RELAY
PROJECT DESIGN/ACT DATE
LOCATION NAME
SDMay21-37 SUBSTATION SERVICE CENTER SCALE

ES 4/25 ES 3/15 FOR SOLAR POWER PLANT NONE

OTHERS
APPROVED FOR ISSUE DATE DRAWING NUMBER REQUEST FOR WORK/WO PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST
CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE CH'K BY DATE EP&PM APVD FOR ISSUE

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .