Design of electrical distribution system for

CASA AURORA Subdivision at Camarin, Caloocan City

Jerome A. Pascual

Christine Irene B. Condez

Michael Joshua B. Villanueva

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Quezon City

2015
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 The Project

The project is entitled “Design of Electrical Distribution System for Casa Aurora
Subdivision at Camarin, Caloocan City”. The subdivision is under the land developer
Grand Monaco Estate Developers Inc. which also serve as the client for the project.

Casa Aurora Subdivision offers a 38sqm and 39sqm mid-cost 1.5 million to 2.4
million pesos two-colored bungalow style houses located just minutes away from
several malls, and famous parks of the small booming region of Fairview Quezon City.

The subdivision consists a total of 264 units of saleable lots and different
amenities. These features a clubhouse, basketball court, and picnic area.

The proposed project is to provide electricity supply from the Meralco Distribution
system intended for supplying power for road lighting system and General lighting for
each individual residential house and clubhouse, basketball court, and picnic area.

Figure 1.1 Proposed Residential unit for Casa Aurora Subdivision

1
1.2 Project Objectives

The General objective is to provide a design to supply electricity to the Casa

Aurora Subdivision, as well as cost-effective roadway lighting with designs that comply
with the provision of the latest approved edition of the Philippine electrical code (PEC).

 To provide an appropriate computation of transformer capacity intended for of

Casa Aurora Subdivision.
 To provide a computation for an effective illumination level of road lighting and
pole spacing.
 To provide a detailed computation of voltage drop for secondary distribution lines
as a basis for determining the size of service conductors.
 To provide a detailed drawing of road lighting post.
 To provide a fault calculation from the utility company.

2
1.3 The Client

Figure 1.2 Client’s Logo

Grand Monaco Estate Developers, Inc. began in 1987 as a construction

company working on sub-contracts from larger and older companies in the industry. It
quickly gained a reputation for solid and dependable performance and, in time,
achieved a Triple A status as a full-pledged contractor.

The company is a 2010 Global Achiever Awardee on Real Estate Housing

Development (Asia’s Housing Czar) from the Asia-Pacific Awards Council (World Trade
Center, October 7, 2010).

In 2003, GMEDI ventured into real estate and housing developments. It started
with pocket-sized mostly within the cities of Pasay, Quezon, Pasig and nearby towns
and cities of Rizal province. Since then, GMEDI has grown into a multimillion-peso real
estate company that has produced and sold more than a thousand houses in the upper
low-cost and middle income categories.

The company has established strong ties with the banking institutions which
provides us the funding support and in turn assists our homebuyers in their housing
loans.
GMEDI also has in-house financing programs that offer convenient and
affordable modes of payment.

3
1.4 Project Scope and Limitations

The design project is limited to:

 The design of efficient Street-lighting system in accordance with electrical

code and standards.
 The computation of transformer capacity suitable for 264 household units and
amenities.
 The load calculation of each household by area method.
 The voltage drop calculation for secondary distribution lines.
 The computation of conductors span to determine the voltage drop.
 The computation for the size of secondary distribution lines of subdivision.
The design project does not include:

 The design of the mechanical system.

 The design of the sanitary and water system.
 The electrical system design of each dwelling unit.

1.5 Project Development

The completion of this project undergoes various stages. The Design

Project started with the collaboration of our team with the client. After that the team will
gather necessary information relevant to the project through series of meetings and site
visit. We then determine the needs of the project that will be necessary for its
completion in order to meet the client’s expectations and requirements. Next, we will
determine all the design inputs. Then the design strategies and trade-offs will be
established by the designers in accordance with technical and realistic constraints.
Then the design will undergo series of consultations and revisions in order to finalize
and choose the best alternative final design project among the trade-offs. Lastly, final
papers will be presented for documentation.
4
1.5.1 Project Development Flow

ST
AR
T
Identify industry
Collaboration

Determine the
Client’s Needs
and
Requirements

Gather data and

information
related to the
Project

Determine the
necessary
Design Inputs

Establish design
Strategies and
trade-offs

Design
consultations
and advice

Further Reviews
and Revisions

Final
Documentation

EN
D

Figure 1.3 Project Development Flow

5
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT

2.1 Description of Structure

The Casa Aurora Subdivision comprises of multi-residential units with amenities

including open spaces, a clubhouse, a picnic area, and a basketball court. The Casa
Aurora subdivision is a 5-hectare land with a total of 264 units and lot areas
corresponding to the areas per block described. The lot area for each house ranges
from 80-236 square meters. The project consist of twenty two block area and 18 streets.

Table 2.1 Lot Area per unit in every block of the Subdivision

Block no. Lot no. Lot Area (sqm) Floor Area (sqm)
1 1-8 75 38
1 9 80 39
1 10 - 11 80 38
1 12 80 39
1 13 129 38
2 1 109.55 38
2 2-8 112 38
2 9 158.29 38
2 10 130 38
3 1 133 38
3 2 122.31 38
3 3 96 38
3 4 95 39
3 5 123.22 38
3 6 86.2 38
3 7 - 10 80 38
4 1 - 10 80 38
4 11 85 38

6
Block # Lot # Lot Area (sqm) Floor Area (sqm)
4 12 80.3 38
4 13 80 38
4 14 85.54 38
5 1-6 80 38
5 7 83 39
5 8 115 38
5 9 - 14 80 38
6 1 118 39
6 2-7 80 38
6 8 108 39
6 9 104.36 39
6 10 - 15 80 38
6 16 120.83 39
7 1 - 12 80 39
7 13 96 39
7 14 89 39
7 15 - 24 80 38
7 25 92 39
8 1-9 80 39
9 1 99 38
9 2-8 80 38
9 9 97.7 38
10 1 85.7 39
10 2-5 80 38
10 6 80 39
10 7 94 39
10 8 - 10 88 38
10 11 138 38

7
Block # Lot # Lot Area (sqm) Floor Area (sqm)
10 12 93 38
10 13 85 38
10 14 88 38
10 15 86 38
10 16 83 38
10 17 127 38
11 1 89 39
11 2-9 80 38
11 10 126 38
11 11 108 39
11 12 - 18 96 38
11 19 153 38
12 1 89 39
12 2-7 80 38
12 8 123 38
12 9 89 39
12 10 - 15 80 38
12 16 88 38
13 1 93 39
13 2-7 80 38
13 8 137.41 39
13 9 100 38
13 10 88.86 38
13 11 80.94 38
13 12 83 38
13 13 82 39
13 14 114.31 39
13 15 116 38

8
Block # Lot # Lot Area (sqm) Floor Area (sqm)
13 16 154.72 38
13 17 90.7 38
13 18 188 38
14 1 128 38
14 2-4 80 38
14 5 103.5 38
15 1 101.58 38
15 2-3 80 38
15 4 81.57 38
15 5 81.67 38
15 6 83 38
15 7 97.47 38
15 8 90 38
15 9 80.43 38
15 10 80.1 38
15 11 80.29 38
15 12 89.24 38
16 1 89 39
16 2-5 80 38
16 6 89 39
17 1 79.19 39
17 2 80 38
17 3 119 38
17 4 122 38
17 5 122 38
17 6 97 38
18 1 80 39
18 2 113.5 38

9
Block # Lot # Lot Area (sqm) Floor Area (sqm)
18 3 157 38
18 4 132 38
18 5-7 80 38
19 1 115.55 39
19 2 80 38
19 3 80 39
19 4 88.85 39
19 5 80 38
19 6 80 39
20 1 98 39
20 2–8 80 38
20 9 145 39
20 10 - 13 80 38
20 14 80 39
21 1 122 38
21 2 90 38
21 3 106.6 38
21 4 125.4 38
21 5 140 38
21 6 148.44 38
21 7 154.86 38
21 8 160.56 39
22 1 129 38
22 2 - 10 80 38
22 11 236 38

10
2.2 Composition of structure

This shows all the composition of structure of the design project. The site
development plan, the location map, architectural designs for each unit, and the
proposed model houses for the subdivision.

Figure 2.1 Location map of Casa Aurora Subdivision

Figure 2.1 shows the location map of the Casa Aurora located at Camarin,
Caloocan City.

11
 Figure 2.2 Site Development Plan - Casa Aurora Subdivision

Figure 2.2 shows the detailed site development plan of Casa Aurora Subdivision
in Caloocan City. Amenities such as the Clubhouse is located at the middle of the
subdivision around block 4, block 6, block 13, and block 16. While the basketball court
and the picnic area can be found at the other side of the creek in front of block 15.

12
Figure 2.3 Architectural Design for each unit (Inner)

13
Figure 2.4 Architectural Design for each unit (Corner)

14
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design constraint

The designers have provided numerous design constraints essential to the trade-offs for the design of the
electrical distribution system. These constraints are thoroughly evaluated per criterion which is then
converted into metrics to quantify the evaluation to conclude the trade-off. The following design constraints
used are economic cost, operational issues, reliability, availability for maintenance, maintainability and
capability for recovery.

3.1.1 Design constraints relevant for the evaluation of Trade-offs

The following constraints served as the general considerations for the evaluation of trade-offs. They are
used to quantify and evaluate the design options to further examine between each option. Under every
constraint was different criteria used to make the evaluation of trade-offs more conclusive. These criteria
were converted into metrics as certain basis for evaluation of design options.

3.1.1.1 Economic

The consideration of economic usually dictates how complex the system will be. The designers presented
several design options for the project. For the transformer to be used, various quantity and sizes are
offered in each of the options. The transformer that will be used in the design will depend on the most
economical option. The designers calculated the proper sizing of the transformer on every street of the
subdivision, applying engineering principles and standards. The material costs are also included in the
calculations.

3.1.1.2 Operational Issues

The consideration of operations on the distribution system pertains on how complicated a system scheme
is. The operation begins to be more complex as the number and diversity of the components of system
arrangement increases. This affects certain operations especially when it comes to maintenance and future
works. A more complicated system takes more hours to maintain and fix when a problem occurs.

15
3.1.1.3 Reliability

For the subdivision to avoid sudden interruptions in the electrical distribution system, the consideration of
reliability for the design constraints is vital. The fulfilment of an acceptable reliability saves the cost for
possible maintenance.

3.1.1.4 Availability for Maintenance

A good system design allows future maintenance to be possible even under continuous working conditions.
Separation and isolation of some parts or certain areas are needed to minimize shutdown radius and
casualties for maintenance and future works.

3.1.1.5 Maintainability

It deals with duration of maintenance outages or how long it takes to achieve the maintenance actions.
Maintenance (all actions necessary for retaining an item in, or restoring an item to, a specified, good
condition) is performed by personnel having specified skill levels, using prescribed procedures and
resources, at each prescribed level of maintenance. The key figure for maintainability is often the mean
time to repair (MTTR). Qualitatively it refers to the ease with which hardware or software is restored to a
functioning state. Quantitatively it has probabilities and is measured based on the total down time for
maintenance.

3.1.1.6 Capability for Recovery

It is the property that enables a system to continue operating properly in the event of the failure of some of
its components. If its operating quality decreases at all, the decrease is proportional to the severity of the
failure, as compared to a naively designed system in which even a small failure can cause total breakdown.

3.1.1.7 Voltage drop

Describes how the supplied energy of a voltage source is reduced as electric current moves through the
passive elements of an electrical circuit. Voltage drops across conductors are undesired; supplied energy is
lost or dissipates with increasing distance. Voltage drops across loads and across other active circuit
elements are desired; supplied energy performs useful work.

16
3.1.1.8 Operating Performance

It determines the design with least losses in terms of cable power loss. Cable loss, which is directly
proportional to the voltage drop, can also be expressed in terms of power to have a broader measurement
of the losses caused by cables of different sizes.

3.1.1.9 Constructability

Constructability constraint was used to review the extent of construction processes before the project took
construction phase. Effective and timely integration of construction knowledge into the conceptual planning,
design, construction, and field operations of a project could achieve the overall project objectives in the
best possible time and accuracy at the most cost-effective levels. Having a work delayed or behind
schedule can hinder the overall project, especially when one group must wait for another to finish a certain
type of work before beginning the next pace of activity. The more constructible an electrical system is, the
more economical it will be.

3.1.2 Design constraints relevant for the design of electrical systems

In order to establish reliable and efficient design of electrical system, the design must conform to applicable
local and international codes and standards and able to adapt with recently developed technologies and
techniques. This requires sufficient level of safety on design for system and components of electrical
system.

3.1.2.1 Safety

Electrical distribution system must be guaranteed to be safe under all operating conditions, including the
start-up and during intervening shutdown periods. To ensure maximum safety, standards and codes must
be followed strictly. The considerations needed to be satisfied for the safety of the electrical distribution
system design are stated below:

a. Load Considerations

Calculation of the total connected load was done to determine suitable size for transformers. The formula
and standards used for calculation are in accordance with Article 2.20 PEC 2009 Part 1 and Article 220 of
NEC 2014

17
b. Lightning Protection System

The system should be able to withstand lightning. Suitable lightning protection level and system must be
installed on the subdivision. Risk assessment and necessary calculation must be done in accordance with
Article 2.90 of PEC 2009 Part 1 and Article 285 of NEC 2014

c. Wire Ampacities

Proper sizing of wires was done in accordance with Article 2.15 and 2.20 of PEC 2009 Part 1 and Article
215 and 220 of NEC 2014

d. Over Current Protection

When an overloading or fault condition occurs, the protection devices must function properly. It must
separate the faulted area to avoid damage to the other parts of the electrical distribution system. Protective
devices must be sized according to peak load conditions and ampere interrupting capacity during fault.
Proper sizing was done in accordance with Article 2.40 of PEC 2009 Part 1 and Article 240 of NEC 2014

3.1.3 Method used for the evaluation of Trade-offs

The method used for evaluation of trade-off 1 was based from the evaluation tool used by PCIC
subcommittee of the Industry Applications Society of the IEEE that evaluates multiple criteria using Rating
and Ranking Method. This method was based from the book of Garber and Hoel, Traffic and Highway
Engineering 2009, that uses numerical scores to compare relative worth of parameters in cases where
criteria cannot be transformed into monetary amounts. It compares relevant factors for proper selection of
distribution scheme and then converts it to metrics for basis of evaluation.
The basic equation for Rating and Ranking is as follows:
𝑛 Equation 3-
𝑆𝑖 = ∑ 𝐾𝑗 𝑉𝑖𝑗 1: Traffic and
Highway
𝑗=1
Engineering
Where, 2009 by
Garber and
Si = Total value score of design option i Hoel
Kj = Weight placed on design criteria j
Vij = Relative value of design criteria j for design option i

18
The relative weight, Kj for each design criteria is subjected to the judgment on the part of the group making
the evaluation and will vary among individual interests. One approach of this method is to allocate
percentage weights scale, and another is to rank each design option in order of importance and then use a
formula of proportionality to obtain relative weights. The weighing factor is computed as:
𝑊𝑗
𝐾𝑗 = Equation 3-
Equation 3-2
∑𝑛
𝑗=1 𝑤𝑗 2: Traffic and
Highway
Where, Engineering
Kj = weighing factor of design criteria j 2009 by
Wj = relative weight of design criteria j Garber and
Hoel

3.2 Trade-off Assessment for Secondary System with Different Distribution Circuit Layout and
Transformer Load Center

Proper circuiting of distribution layout is essential for an effectively designed subdivision. Presenting three
different design approaches, the designers incorporated several design standards to effectively design the
system with accordance to standards and multiple constraints. The three options were calculated and
designed with accordance to standard practices and computations in all parts of the system. The design
options or alternatives proposed in this chapter have all gone through several calculations to evaluate
viability and feasibility on the design project. Calculations were made in every option to determine each and
individual cables sizes, transformer capacity, total cable resistance with respect to cable length, voltage
drop across secondary lines, and pole span. These design options are compliant with the standards and
latest provisions of PEC and NEC.
Different design criterions were used to determine each design option’s weaknesses and strengths to
further verify and evaluate each. Three design considerations are as follows:

Design Option 1: Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits

This design approach presents 2 distributing circuits with transformer capacities of 75 and 100 KVA. It only
comprises of 2 single phase pole-mounted distributing transformers but utilizes larger cables than the other
design options because of higher capacity and longer voltage regulation along its cables.

19
Design Option 2: Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits
This design approach was used by adding another distribution transformer to the circuit to lessen the
voltage drop across the previously mentioned design option. By using 3 distribution transformers, we can
minimize the capacity of the transformer and its secondary cables, thus assuming to minimize the overall
amount for capital.

Design Option 3: Secondary Distribution System using 4 Distributing Circuits

Further addition of a distribution transformer leads us to this design option. As previously stated, by adding
another circuit, we can minimize the capacity of transformers and sizes of cables by means of adding
another transformer. The designers will then verify and conclude by means of exposing each design option
to various design constraints to further visualize or evaluate which is more feasible and better approach
than the other.

3.2.1 Design Constraints used for the Evaluation of Trade-off for Secondary System with Different
Distribution Circuit Layout and Transformer Load Center

Cost / Economics
A cost estimate is essential to determine the amount of necessary capital and to help decide if the project is
economically feasible. Evaluation on capital cost was done through estimation of the construction,
equipment, and materials necessary to produce the work needed. Values obtained were then tabulated and
calculated for a quantified differentiation of each design option. Evaluation values were based from the
book of Mark Tyler, National Electrical Estimator 2014 Edition.

KVA Span
In the previous chapter, figure 2-4 and 2-5 categorizes the architectural design into inner and corner lots of
the subdivision. Similarly the table 2.1 divides the floor area into two categories 38m2 and 39m2. Thus
having a total of 4 categories, (A) inner unit with 38m2 floor area, (B) corner unit with 38m2 floor area, (C)
inner unit with 39m2 floor area, and (D) corner unit with 39m2 floor area. This categorization can be
observed in section 3.3.2.1

20
The formula below is to determine the maximum count of pole from the distribution transformer to avoid
exceeding drop of voltage to the end line (end pole). The formula below is in accordance with PEC 2009,
Part 2 – Design Calculation for pole-mounted transformer:

(𝑲𝑽𝑨 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅) × (𝑺𝒑𝒂𝒏) Equation 3-

𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝑺𝒑𝒂𝒏 = 3: PEC 2009,
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑲𝑽𝑨
Part 2 –
Where: Design
Calculation
KVA Rated = Transformer Size (KVA) for pole-
mounted
Span = Pole to pole distance (m) transformer
Total KVA = Total System Size (KVA)

Voltage Drop
Methods used for the evaluation of Voltage Drop
An effective design utilizes a center loading mechanism to balance out the line lengths on each sides of the
transformer pole. This way, voltage drop on both sides will be minimized and maintained throughout the
system. According to NEC 210.19(A) maximum voltage drop must be less than 5% for feeder circuits to
provide sufficient system voltage and operation.
Equations below used for obtaining feeder resistance, voltage drop, and percent voltage drop respectively,
are based from Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers 16th Edition by Fink and Beaty.
𝜌𝑙 Equation
𝑅= 3-4:
𝐴
Standard
𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 = 𝑅𝐼 Handbook
for
Equation
Electrical
𝑉𝑁𝐿 − 𝑉𝐹𝐿 𝑉𝐷𝑅𝑂𝑃
%𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 = 𝑥100 = 𝑥100 3-5:
Engineers
𝑉𝑁𝐿 𝑉𝑁𝐿 Standard
16th
Handbook
Edition by
Where:
for
Fink and
R = resistance of conductor in ohms Equation
Electrical
Beaty
3-6:
Engineers
ρ = resistivity constant 28.26𝑥10−6 Ω − 𝑚𝑚 (Aluminum) Standard
16th
L = length in millimeters Handbook
Edition by
for
Fink and
Vdrop = Voltage drop (V) Electrical
Beaty
A = cross sectional area of conductor in 𝑚𝑚2 Engineers
16th
I = current in secondary (A) Edition by
Fink and
Beaty 21
Since the resistance from Equation 3-4 applies only for 20˚C of temperature, a change in temperature with
respect to resistance is required from 20˚C to 90˚C to enable the cable resistance compensate for the
change in temperature. According to Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 16th Edition by H.Wayne
Beaty, Donald G. Fink, the change in temperature in a given conductor can be determined using the
equation below.
Equation
𝑅1 𝑡𝑜 + 𝑇1 3-7:
=
𝑅2 𝑡𝑜 + 𝑇2 Standard
Handbook
Where: for
𝑅1 = Initial resistance (ohm) Electrical
Engineers,
𝑅2 = Final resistance (ohm) 16th
𝑡0 = Inferred absolute temperature (for Aluminum = 236˚C) Edition by
Fink and
𝑇1 = Initial temperature (˚C) Beaty
𝑇2 = Final temperature (˚C)

Operating Performance Evaluation

Operating performance by evaluation on secondary cable power losses was used to determine the least
amount of power losses on installed cables. The calculation was based on estimated total resistance of the
cable and the full load current of the distribution transformer connected to it.

Constructability Evaluation
Computation for constructability in terms of man-hours work was based on the materials (cables and
transformers) to be installed on poles. The rate of craft hours for installation of materials were based on
National Estimator 2014 Edition, by Mark Tyler.

3.3 Evaluation of Trade-off Assessment for Secondary System with Different Distribution Circuit
Layout and Transformer Load Center

22
3.3.1 Design Option 1: Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits

Figure 3-1: Distribution Layout of Design Option 1 (Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits)

23
Evaluation of Design Option 1 (Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits)

3.3.1.1 Cost Evaluation

Calculation was based on the book of Mark Tyler, National Electrical Estimator 2014 Edition. Results were
then tabulated for ease of document and interpretation.

Table 3-1: Cost estimate for Design Option 1

QTY Unit Material* Subtotal
6AWG (Turkey) Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
(ACSR) Primary Cable
0.2 km PHP 41,050.00 PHP 8,210.00
100 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted Transformer
1 Ea PHP 245,500.00 PHP 245,500.00
75 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted Transformer
1 Ea PHP 215,000.00 PHP 215,000.00
Fuse Cutout (pole mounted)
2 Ea PHP 8,050.00 PHP 16,100.00
Lightning Arrester
2 Ea PHP 30,000.00 PHP 60,000.00
500 MCM (PARAKEET)
0.76 km PHP 462,000.00 PHP 351,120.00
300 MCM (OSTRICH)
0.58 km PHP 352,500.00 PHP 204,450.00
Total PHP 1,100,380.00
* Values obtained from National Estimator 2014 Edition

3.3.1.2 Operating Performance Evaluation

The computation on power loss was based on the maximum continuous current on the secondary side of
the transformer and equivalent total cable resistance.

Table 3-2: Total power loss matrix for Design Option 1

24
 DESIGN OPTION 1: Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits
equivalent power loss
transformer size Amperes (A) cable and length (m)
resistance (Ω) (watts)
T1 100000 416.67 556.5 760 0.05642 9795.87
T2 75000 312.50 300 580 0.06103 5959.96
Total power loss (watts) 15755.83
3.3.1.3 Voltage Drop Evaluation
KVA Span of Design Option 1 (Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits)

Transformer T1

Figure 3-2: KVA span of design option 1 - Transformer T1 (distributing circuit no. 1)

25
Transformer T2

Figure 3-3: KVA span of design option 1 - Transformer T2 (distributing circuit no. 2)

Table 3-3: KVA Span Summary of Design Option 1 (Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits)
Distributing Circuit No. Transformer Rating Reference Pole Load Center
1 - 18
1 T1 - 100 KVA 1Ø DT 6
41 - 51
2 T2 - 75 KVA 1Ø DT 19 - 40 29

26
 Table 3-4: Voltage drop calculation matrix for Design Option 1
(Secondary Distribution System using 2 Distributing Circuits)
Load center VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATION FOR DESIGN OPTION 1

% Voltage Drop
Cross sectional

Voltage Drop
Distance (m)

area (mm ²)
Transformer

Transformer
Pole to pole
Resistance

Resistivity
Amperes
Capacity

constant

20ᵒc

90ᵒc
1 54 4.75E-03 6.05E-03 2.52 1.05%
14 242 2.15E-02 2.74E-02 11.40 4.75%
15 134 1.19E-02 1.51E-02 6.31 2.63%
T1
6 18 114 100000 416.67 318.9 2.83E-05 1.01E-02 1.29E-02 5.37 2.24%
100KVA
41 93 8.20E-03 1.04E-02 4.35 1.81%
43 242 2.14E-02 2.73E-02 11.37 4.74%
48 193 1.71E-02 2.18E-02 9.08 3.78%
23 149 2.37E-02 3.02E-02 9.44 3.93%
25 103 1.65E-02 2.10E-02 6.57 2.74%
T2 26 65 1.04E-02 1.32E-02 4.13 1.72%
29 75000 312.50 176.9 2.83E-05
75KVA 36 144 2.31E-02 2.94E-02 9.17 3.82%
37 158 2.53E-02 3.22E-02 10.05 4.19%
41 118 1.88E-02 2.39E-02 7.48 3.12%

3.3.1.4 Constructability
Calculation was based on the book of Mark Tyler, National Electrical Estimator 2014 Edition. Results were
then tabulated for ease of document and interpretation.
Table 3-5: Total Man-hours work for design option 1
CRAFT
MATERIAL QTY UNIT SUBTOTAL
HOURS
CABLES
6 AWG TURKEY ACSR 200 9 m 1800
500MCM PARAKEET 760 22 m 16720
300MCM OSTRICH 580 19 m 11020
TRANSFORMER
100 KVA 1 6.16 ea 6.16
75 KVA 1 6.16 ea 6.16
Total man-hours 29552.32

27
3.3.2 Design Option 2: Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits

Figure 3-4: Distribution Layout of Design Option 2 (Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits)

28
Evaluation of Design Option 2 (Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits)

3.3.2.1 Cost Evaluation

Calculation was based on the book of Mark Tyler, National Electrical Estimator 2014 Edition. Results were
then tabulated for ease of document and interpretation.
Table 3-6: Cost estimate for Design Option 2
QTY Unit Material* Subtotal
6AWG (Turkey) Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
(ACSR) Primary Cable
0.3 km PHP 41,050.00 PHP 12,315.00
37.5 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted Transformer
1 Ea PHP 121,000.00 PHP 121,000.00
50 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted
1 Ea PHP 145,000.00 PHP 145,000.00
75 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted
1 Ea PHP 215,000.00 PHP 215,000.00
Fuse Cutout (pole mounted)
3 Ea PHP 8,050.00 PHP 24,150.00
Lightning Arrester
3 Ea PHP 30,000.00 PHP 90,000.00
1/0 AWG (RAVEN)
0.3 km PHP 42,000.00 PHP 12,600.00
300 MCM (OSTRICH)
0.5 km PHP 352,500.00 PHP 176,250.00
3/0 AWG (PENGUIN)
0.43 km PHP 60,500.00 PHP 26,015.00
Total PHP 701,330.00
* Values obtained from National Estimator 2014 Edition

3.3.2.2 Operating Performance Evaluation

Table 3-7: Total power loss matrix for Design Option 2

DESIGN OPTION 2: Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits

equivalent
transformer size Amperes (A) cable and length (m) power loss (watts)
resistance (Ω)
T1 37500 156.25 1/0 300 0.17291 4221.44
T2 75000 312.50 300 500 0.10172 9933.26
T3 50000 208.33 3/0 430 0.15582 6763.06
Total power loss (watts) 20917.76

29
3.3.2.3 Voltage Drop Evaluation
KVA Span of Design Option 2 (Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits)
Transformer T1

Figure 3-5: KVA span of design option 2 - Transformer T1 (distributing circuit no. 1)
Transformer T2

Figure 3-6: KVA span of design option 2 - Transformer T2 (distributing circuit no. 2)

30
Transformer T3

Figure 3-7: KVA span of design option 2 - Transformer T3 (distributing circuit no. 3)

Table 3-8: KVA Span Summary of Design Option 2

Distributing Circuit No. Transformer Rating Reference Pole Load Center

1-2
1 T2 - 75 KVA 1Ø DT 9
6 - 25
2 T3 - 50 KVA 1Ø DT 26 - 42 40
3-5
3 T1 - 37.5 KVA 1Ø DT 49
43 - 51

31
 Table 3-9: Voltage drop calculation matrix for Design Option 2
(Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits)
Load center VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATION FOR DESIGN OPTION 2

% Voltage Drop
Cross sectional

Voltage Drop
Distance (m)

area (mm ²)
Resistance
Transformer

Transformer
Pole to pole

Resistivity
Amperes
Capacity

constant

20ᵒc

90ᵒc
3 100 4.53E-02 5.77E-02 9.01 3.75%
T1 43 125 5.66E-02 7.21E-02 11.27 4.69%
49 37500 156 62.44 2.83E-05
37.5KVA 48 76 3.46E-02 4.40E-02 6.88 2.87%
51 25 1.14E-02 1.46E-02 2.28 0.95%
1 132 2.11E-02 2.69E-02 8.40 3.50%
14 164 2.62E-02 3.33E-02 10.42 4.34%
T2
9 18 77 75000 313 176.9 2.83E-05 1.23E-02 1.57E-02 4.91 2.05%
75KVA
23 156 2.48E-02 3.16E-02 9.89 4.12%
25 172 2.75E-02 3.50E-02 10.95 4.56%
26 158 4.51E-02 5.74E-02 11.96 4.98%
28 110 3.14E-02 4.00E-02 8.33 3.47%
T3
40 32 89 50000 208 99.31 2.83E-05 2.52E-02 3.21E-02 6.69 2.79%
50KVA
34 159 4.53E-02 5.75E-02 11.98 4.99%
42 49 1.40E-02 1.78E-02 3.72 1.55%

3.3.2.4 Constructability Evaluation

Table 3-10: Total Man-hours work for design option 2

CRAFT
MATERIAL QTY UNIT SUBTOTAL
HOURS
CABLES
6 AWG TURKEY ACSR 300 9 m 2700
1/0 AWG RAVEN 300 13 m 3900
300MCM OSTRICH 500 19 m 9500
3/0 AWG PENGUIN 430 15 m 6450
TRANSFORMER
37.5KVA 1 4.14 ea 4.14
50KVA 1 4.14 ea 4.14
75KVA 1 6.16 ea 6.16
Total man-hours 22564.44

32
3.3.3 Design Option 3: Secondary Distribution System using 3 Distributing Circuits

Figure 3-8: Distribution Layout Design Option 3 (Secondary Distribution System using 4 Distributing Circuits)

33
Evaluation of Design Option 2 (Secondary Distribution System using 4 Distributing Circuits)

3.3.3.1 Cost Evaluation

Table 3-11: Cost estimate for Design Option 3

QTY Unit Material Subtotal
6AWG (Turkey) Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
(ACSR) Primary Cable
0.36 km PHP 41,050.00 PHP 14,778.00
50 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted Transformer
3 Ea PHP 145,000.00 PHP 435,000.00
25 KVA Transformer 1Ø Pole Mounted Transformer
1 Ea PHP 95,000.00 PHP 95,000.00
Fuse Cutout (pole mounted)
4 Ea PHP 8,050.00 PHP 32,200.00
Lightning Arrester
4 Ea PHP 30,000.00 PHP 120,000.00
3/0 AWG (PIGEON)
1.132 km PHP 60,500.00 PHP 68,486.00
3 AWG (SWALLOW)
0.16 km PHP 73,000.00 PHP 11,680.00
Total PHP 777,144.00
* Values obtained from National Estimator 2014 Edition

3.3.3.2 Operating Performance Evaluation

Table 3-12: Total power loss matrix for Design Option 3

DESIGN OPTION 3: 3-50 KVA + 1-75 KVA 20kV/240V, 1ø pole-mounted transformer

equivalent power loss
transformer size Amperes (A) cable and length (m)
resistance (Ω) (watts)
T1
T2 50000 208.33 3/0 1132 0.41021 17804.12
T4
T3 25000 104.17 3 160 0.18491 2006.37
Total power loss (watts) 19810.49

34
3.3.3.3 Voltage Drop Evaluation
KVA Span of Design Option 3 (Secondary Distribution System using 4 Distributing Circuits)
Transformer T1

Figure 3-9: KVA span of design option 3 - Transformer T1 (distributing circuit no. 1)

35
Transformer T2

Figure 3-10: KVA span of design option 3 - Transformer T2 (distributing circuit no. 2)

Transformer T3

Figure 3-11: KVA span of design option 3 - Transformer T3 (distributing circuit no. 3)
36
Transformer T4

Figure 3-12: KVA span of design option 3 - Transformer T4 (distributing circuit no. 4)

Table 3-13: KVA Span Summary of Design Option 3

Distributing Circuit No. Transformer Rating Reference Pole Load Center
1-5
1 T1 - 50 KVA 1Ø DT 50
43 - 51
6 - 16
2 T2 - 50 KVA 1Ø DT 9
20 - 23
3 T3 - 25 KVA 1Ø DT 36 - 42 39
17 - 19
T3 - 50 KVA 1Ø DT
4 24 - 36 31

37
 Table 3-14: Voltage drop calculation matrix for Design Option 3
(Secondary Distribution System using 4 Distributing Circuits)
Load center VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATION FOR DESIGN OPTION 3

% Voltage Drop
Cross sectional

Voltage Drop
Resistance

Distance (m)

area (mm ²)
Transformer

Transformer
Pole to pole

Resistivity
Amperes
Capacity

constant

20ᵒc

90ᵒc
1 142 4.04E-02 5.14E-02 10.71 4.46%
T1 43 141 4.01E-02 5.11E-02 10.64 4.43%
50 50000 208 99.31 2.83E-05
50KVA 48 92 2.62E-02 3.34E-02 6.96 2.90%
51 25 7.20E-03 9.16E-03 1.91 0.80%
6 78 2.23E-02 2.84E-02 5.93 2.47%
T2
9 14 155 50000 208 99.31 2.83E-05 4.42E-02 5.63E-02 11.72 4.88%
50KVA
23 155 4.42E-02 5.63E-02 11.74 4.89%
T3 36 85 7.71E-02 9.82E-02 10.23 4.26%
39 25000 104 31.14 2.83E-05
25KVA 42 75 6.78E-02 8.63E-02 8.99 3.75%
17 110 3.14E-02 4.00E-02 8.33 3.47%
25 137 3.89E-02 4.96E-02 10.33 4.30%
T4
31 26 98 50000 208 99.31 2.83E-05 2.80E-02 3.56E-02 7.42 3.09%
50KVA
30 32 9.11E-03 1.16E-02 2.42 1.01%
36 111 3.16E-02 4.02E-02 8.37 3.49%

3.3.3.4 Constructability Evaluation

Table 3-15: Total Man-hours work for design option 3

CRAFT
MATERIAL QTY UNIT SUBTOTAL
HOURS
CABLES
6 AWG TURKEY ACSR 360 9 m 3240
3 AWG SWALLOW 160 11 m 1760
3/0 AWG PENGUIN 1132 15 m 16980
TRANSFORMER
50 KVA 3 4.14 ea 12.42
25 KVA 1 4.14 ea 4.14
Total man-hours 21996.56

38
3.3.4 Computation of Final Ranking for Trade-off Assessment for Secondary System with Different
Distribution Circuit Layout and Transformer Load Center
The computation was based on Traffic and Highway Engineering 2009 by Garber and Hoel in accordance
with IEEE evaluation tool used by PCIC subcommittee of the Industry Applications Society that evaluates
multiple criteria using Rating and Ranking Method. Multiple criteria were evaluated to determine the better
transformer size selection to be used in the subdivision. Table 3-16 contains necessary data for the
computation of relative weights and point score of each design criteria. Table 3-17 shows priority ranking
(on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest rank) and relative weight (on a scale of 1 to 5, but with 5
being the highest) for the design criteria. In summary, Table 3-18 shows the point score of the two design
options.

Table 3-16: Data Summary for Rating of Design Criteria

Design Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Secondary Secondary Secondary
Design Criteria
Distribution System Distribution System Distribution System
using 2 Distributing using 3 Distributing using 4 Distributing
Circuits Circuits Circuits
Economic (cost PHP) PHP 1,100,380.00 PHP 701,330.00 PHP 777,144.00
Voltage Drop (%Vdrop ) 4.75% 4.99% 4.89%
Constructability (man-hours) 29552.32 22564.44 21996.56
Operating Performance (power
15755.83 20917.76 19810.49
loss)

Table 3-17: Ranking and Weights for each Design Criteria

Priority Relative Weighing Factor
Design Criteria
Ranking Weight (x100)
Economic 1 5 45.45
Voltage Drop 3 3 27.27
Constructability 5 1 9.09
Operating Performance 4 2 18.18
11 100

39
 Table 3-18: Point Score of Trade-off Assessment for Secondary System with Different Distribution Circuit
Layout and Transformer Load Center
Design Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Secondary Secondary Secondary
Design Criteria
Distribution System Distribution System Distribution System
using 2 Distributing using 3 Distributing using 4 Distributing
Circuits Circuits Circuits
Economic (%) 28.97 45.45 41.02
Voltage Drop (%) 27.27 25.96 26.49
Constructability (%) 6.77 8.86 9.09
Operating Performance (%) 18.18 13.69 14.46
Total 81.19 93.96 91.06

Point scores for each design criteria were computed by awarding the maximum score to the design option
with the most desirable value, and a proportionate amount to the other options. The total score indicated
the winning option for the design project in this trade-off assessment. Option 2 with three transformers,
despite the longer man-hour evaluation and lowest operating performance, it is still more economical and
feasible compared to the other options. The winning option, Secondary distribution system using 3
distributing circuits, will be used for the evaluation of the next trade-off assessment. The next trade-off
assessment design will be based on this winning option to evaluate which is better and much suited to this
design.

40
3.4 Trade-Off Assessment for Electrical Service Distribution Scheme

The proper selection of a distribution system arrangement is an essential part for the design of the
subdivision. In order to select an appropriate design scheme, the designers made several quantitative
comparisons between three design options. These options were then subjected to different design
criterions to satisfy and evaluate the appropriateness of the option for the design scheme.

Design Option 1: Electrical System Design using Expanded Radial System

According to Bill Brown, P.E., Square D engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements, a single
primary service supplying a number of distribution transformers supplies load through radial secondary
system. The operation and expansion are quite simple. The use of quality components and appropriate
ratings make it more reliable. This type of system has only one source, the loss of its primary supply will cut
off the service.

Figure 3-13: Expanded Radial System

(Bill Brown, P.E., Square D Engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements)

41
Design Option 2: Electrical System Design using Primary Loop System

According to Bill Brown, Square D engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements, the advantages
of this arrangement over previously-mentioned arrangement is that a failure of one feeder cable will not
cause one part of the facility to experience a loss of service and that one feeder cable can be maintained
without causing a loss of service. A second important feature of loop system is that a section of cable may
be isolated from the loop for repair or maintenance while the other part of the system is still functioning.

Figure 3-14: Primary Loop System

(Bill Brown, P.E., Square D Engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements)

42
Design Option 3: Electrical System Design using Secondary Selective System
According to Bill Brown, Square D engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements, the system
arrangement of figure 3-5 has the advantage of allowing one transformer to fail without causing a loss of
service to one part of the plant. This is a characteristic none of the previously-mentioned system
arrangements exhibit. The system can run with the secondary bus tie breaker normally-open or normally-
closed.

Figure 3-15: Secondary Selective System

(Bill Brown, P.E., Square D Engineering Services, Section 5: System Arrangements)

43
3.4.1 Method and Design Constraints used for the Evaluation of Trade-Off for Electrical Service
Distribution Scheme

Table 3-19: Definition of factors

Factors Criteria to be used Metrics
Cost How economical is the system? Quantified estimate for each system
How easy is it to operate the A relative ranking for complexity of
Operational issues
system? operation
Reliability How reliable is the system? Quantified statistical study
Matrix showing how much of the
Must any part of the system be
Availability for Maintenance process must be shut down for
shut down for maintenance?
maintenance work
Maintainability How long the repair works will be? Quantified statistical study
A relative ranking of switching
How easily and quickly can the
Capability for recovery flexibility when recovering from
system recover from a problem?
problems

Cost / Economics
In this section, a cost estimate is required for determination of necessary funding and to help decide if the
project is economically feasible. The purpose of cost evaluation is to present the method used by the
designer for making a capital cost estimate for a typical distribution substation and determine the
installation cost needed. Evaluation on capital cost was done through estimation of the price of cables of
each type in the distribution scheme. Values were then tabulated and calculated for a quantified
differentiation of each design option. Significant factor were considered and analysed. Evaluation values
were based from the book of Mark Tyler, National Electrical Estimator 2014 Edition.

Operational Issues
Operational issues were evaluated based on the ease of operation and simplicity of the distribution system.
Each design option was weighed on a basis of simplicity. A more simple distribution will garner a higher
rank than a complex system scheme.

44
Reliability

Method Used for Reliability Evaluation

Traditional solution of reliability block diagrams and fault trees involves the determination of the so-
called minimal cut sets. Cut sets are the unique combinations of component failures that can cause system
failure. For evaluating reliability, minimal cut-set method is used which is based on the criterion of continuity
of service.
The formula used in calculating the failure rate and reliability of the system that is used with
minimal cut-set method were done in accordance with John Propst, IEEE Paper No. PCIC 94-3 Calculating
Electrical Risk and Reliability 1994. The computation for cut-set failure rate is as follows:
Equation 3-
Reliability of the system: 8: IEEE
Paper No.
Rs = 𝑒 −𝜆𝑠(𝑡) PCIC 94-3
Probability of failure during one year: Calculating
Equation 3-
Electrical
Ps = (1 – Rs) 9: IEEE
Risk and
Reliability of a series system: Paper No.
Reliability
PCIC 94-3
Rsys = R1+R2+R3 1994 by John
Calculating
Equation
Propst 3-
Reliability of parallel system Electrical
10: IEEE
Risk and
Rsys = 1 − ( 1 − Rs) n Paper No.
Reliability
PCIC 94-3
Where: 1994 by John
Calculating
Equation
Propst 3-
𝜆𝑠 = Failure rate Electrical
11: IEEE
Risk and
t = Time in year Paper No.
Reliability
PCIC 94-3
n = Number of parallel components 1994 by John
Calculating
Propst
Electrical
Risk and
Reliability
Availability for Maintenance 1994 by John
Propst the continuity of
The evaluation of availability is the degree of versatility of the design scheme to maintain
power during partial shutdowns for maintenance or construction in the system. In the case of the design
project, the different schemes were evaluated based on availability of the power supply must be shut down
during maintenance or expansion.

45
Maintainability

Method Used for Maintainability Evaluation

The formulas used in calculating the Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) of the system that was used to
determine how long a system can be repaired properly were in accordance with Department of the Army,
Survey results of reliability and availability information for power distribution, power generation, heating
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) components for commercial, industrial, and utility installations,
2006.
Mean Time To Repair (MTTR):
1 Equation
MTTR = MTBF [( ) - 1] 3-12: DOA
𝐴𝑠
Survey
Where, results of
As = Availability of system reliability
and
MTTR = Mean time to replace
availability
MTBF = Mean time before failure information
2006

Similarly, According to Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) Predictions (2014) of United States National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the MTTR prediction technique is a fast, simple, accurate
and effective approach for providing a design baseline for repair times.
Equation
1
MTTRsystem = ∑𝑛 𝜆𝑖 𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑖 3-13:
𝜆 𝑖=1 MTTR
Predictions
Where λi = Failure rate of the ith item to be repaired 2014 by
United
States
National
Capability for Recovery
Aeronautic
Capability for recovery refers to the ability of the distribution system to easily and quickly recover from any
s and
Space system when
problem such as fault. The evaluation was based on the adaptability degree of the distribution
Administrat
a fault happened in buses or transformers.
ion (NASA)

46
3.5 Evaluation of Trade-Offs for Electrical Service Distribution Scheme

3.5.1 Design Option 1: Electrical System Design using Expanded Radial System

Figure 3-16: Proposed Expanded Radial Distribution System using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution
Transformers

The expanded radial distribution system is a simple yet effective design for residential areas such as
subdivisions. The main focus of this type of design is its simple operations and economical cost advantage
over the other following designs later introduced in this chapter. The transformers on this design each have
their own set of loads and capacity, and are independent from each other meaning that when a transformer
failure occurs, the supply under is cut until fixed while the other transformers will still continue to function
and supply to other parts of the system. In the event of a power failure, short circuit, or downed power line,
there would be an interruption on the entire line which must be fixed before power can be restored.
The primary feeder on the expanded radial distribution scheme branches out and separates to serve all the
distribution transformers in the system. The reliability of service continuity of the expanded radial
distribution scheme is low.

47
3.5.1.1 Cost Evaluation

Table 3-20: Cost estimation for Expanded Radial Distribution Using 3 Pole Mounted Distribution
Transformers
QTY CRAFT-HOURS* MATERIAL* INSTALLATION* SUBTOTAL
# 6 AWG Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR)
Per
km 9 PHP 41,050.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 49,368.50
Unit
0.3 km 2.70 PHP 12,315.00 PHP 2,495.55 PHP 14,810.55
# 1/0 AWG THHN
Per
km 13 PHP 42,000.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 50,318.50
Unit
0.3 km 3.90 PHP 12,600.00 PHP 2,495.55 PHP 15,095.55
# 300 MCM THHN
Per
km 19 PHP 352,500.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 360,818.50
Unit
0.5 km 9.50 PHP 176,250.00 PHP 4,159.25 PHP 180,409.25
# 3/0 AWG THHN
Per
km 15 PHP 60,500.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 68,818.50
Unit
0.43 km 6.45 PHP 26,015.00 PHP 3,576.96 PHP 29,591.96
TOTAL PHP 239,907.31
* Values obtained from National Estimator

3.5.1.2 Reliability Evaluation

Data given in the table 3-21 below were based from IEEE Std 493-1997 Recommended Practice for the
Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, Chapter 3: Summary of equipment reliability.
Table 3-21: Failure rate data of components in the distribution system
Component Given Failure Rate λ
ACSR Primary Cable 0.001320
Primary Bus Main 0.004100
Lightning Arrester 0.001320
Fused Cut out 0.000310
Transformer 0.005220
ACSR Secondary Cable 0.001850
After obtaining of the essential data, calculations were then performed using equation 3-8 to obtain
reliability of each system component in the distribution system. Obtained data were then tabulated below.

Table 3-22: Reliability data of components in the distribution system

48
 Component Calculated Reliability*
ACSR Primary Cable 0.961174
Primary Bus Main 0.884264
Lightning Arrester 0.961174
Fused Cut out 0.993720
Transformer 0.855046
ACSR Secondary Cable 0.946012
*component reliability in 30 years period

Calculations were then performed using equations 3-10 and 3-11 to obtain the overall system reliability for
different time span. Results were tabulated for ease of comprehension and documentation.

Table 3-23: Reliability Results for Expanded Radial System using 3 Distribution Transformers
Overall System Reliability for Expanded Radial
1 year 96.67%
10 years 71.28%
20 years 50.80%
30 years 36.21%

49
3.5.1.3 Maintainability Evaluation
Table 3-24: MTTR for Expanded Radial Distribution System using 3 Distribution Transformers
*MTTR *Failures MTTR x λ
Component QTY
(hours) per Year (λ) (hrs/yr)
Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
0.33 2.54 0.00411 0.003445002
(ACSR) Primary
Cable
Lightning Arrester 3 4 0.00132 0.01584
20kV/240V 1Ø Pole
3 5 0.00111 0.01665
mounted Transformer

Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
0.81 1.82 0.04717 0.069538014
(ACSR) Secondary
Cable
Total 0.05371 0.105473016
MTTRsystem (hours) 1.96375
* Values based DOA Survey results of reliability and availability information 2006.

3.5.2 Design Option 2: Electrical System Design using Primary Loop System

Figure 3-17: Proposed Primary Loop Distribution System using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution Transformers

50
A primary loop system offers improved reliability and service continuity in comparison to a radial system,
with only short interruptions for switching. In typical loop systems, power is supplied continuously from two
sources at the ends of the loop. Such a system, if properly designed and operated, can quickly recover
from fault with no continuous loss of power to utilization equipment. In the event of power failures due to the
fault on the line, the utility has only to find the fault and switch to restore service to the system. The fault
itself can then be repaired with a minimum of interruptions to the system
The sizing for the transformer of the primary loop distribution scheme is the same as the expanded radial
distribution scheme, as for the loops are on the primary feeder. A total of 65 house units connected to
transformer 1 with fifty 37.5 KVA capacity, transformer 2 with 75 KVA capacity with a total of 119 connected
house units, and transformer 3 with 50 KVA capacity with a total of 80 connected house units.
The size of the feeder conductor is kept the same throughout the loop. It is selected to carry its normal load
plus the load of the other half of the loop. This arrangement provides parallel paths throughout the primary
feeder and the loop is operated with normally open disconnect switches. A primary fault causes the feeder
breaker to be open. The breaker will be open until the fault is isolated. A separate feeder breaker on each
of the loop is preferred, despite the cost involve.

3.5.2.1 Cost Evaluation

Table 3-25: Cost estimation for Primary Loop Distribution using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution Transformers
QTY CRAFT-HOURS* MATERIAL* INSTALLATION* SUBTOTAL
# 6 AWG Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR)
Per
km 9 PHP 41,050.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 49,368.50
Unit
0.6 km 5.40 PHP 24,630.00 PHP 4,991.10 PHP 29,621.10
# 1/0 AWG THHN
Per
km 13 PHP 42,000.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 50,318.50
Unit
0.3 km 3.90 PHP 12,600.00 PHP 2,495.55 PHP 15,095.55
# 300 MCM THHN
Per
km 19 PHP 352,500.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 360,818.50
Unit
0.5 km 9.50 PHP 176,250.00 PHP 4,159.25 PHP 180,409.25
# 3/0 AWG THHN
Per
km 15 PHP 60,500.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 68,818.50
Unit
0.43 km 6.45 PHP 26,015.00 PHP 3,576.96 PHP 29,591.96
TOTAL PHP 254,717.86

51
3.5.2.2 Reliability Evaluation
Using the data in table 3-22, Calculations were then performed using equations 3-10 and 3-11 to obtain the
overall system reliability for different time span. Results were tabulated for ease of comprehension and
documentation.

Table 3-26: Reliability Results for Primary Loop System using 3 Distribution Transformers
Overall System Reliability for Primary Loop
1 year 98.82%

10 years 88.81%

20 years 78.88%

30 years 70.05%

3.5.2.3 Maintainability Evaluation

Table 3-27: MTTR for Primary Loop Distribution System using 3 Distribution Transformers
*MTTR *Failures per MTTR x λ
Component QTY
(hours) Year (λ) (hrs/yr)
Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
0.55 2.54 0.00411 0.005742
(ACSR) Primary
Cable
Disconnect Switch 7 1 0.00174 0.01218
Lightning Arrester 3 4 0.00132 0.01584
20kV/240V 1Ø Pole
3 5 0.00111 0.01665
mounted Transformer
Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
0.81 1.82 0.04717 0.069538014
(ACSR) Secondary
Cable
Total 0.05545 0.119949684
MTTRsystem (hours) 2.16320
* Values based DOA Survey results of reliability and availability information 2006.

52
3.5.3 Design Option 3: Electrical System Design using Secondary Selective System

Figure 3-18: Proposed Secondary Selective Distribution System using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution
Transformer

The secondary selective distribution system is very similar to expanded radial system but with tie-breakers
on the secondary side of the transformer. This way the continuity of service is guaranteed at the event of
transformer failures. Proper sizing of transformers and cables are needed to ensure safety and continuity of
service in the event of fault, and also proper coordination of protective devices is required to make an
effective secondary selective scheme. The system is usually operated with all the secondary tie-breakers to
be normally open. Though this type of scheme has its disadvantages also as the fault current increases
when there are multiple transformers that are paralleled but overall, a reliable system. The sizing for the
transformer is different from expanded radial distribution and primary loop distribution as the transformers
are needed to supply the loads on the occurrence of one or two transformers failure. By calculation, a 167
KVA transformer is enough to supply the totality of the loads in the subdivision, the main problem here is
the voltage drop across the line if two transformers are to fail at the same time. If this occurs, one
transformer should still be enough to properly supply a nominal voltage, thus increasing the size of cable to
compensate for the voltage drop on the longest lines and farthest poles on the system.

53
3.5.3.1 Cost Evaluation

Table 3-28: Cost estimation for Secondary Selective Distribution using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution
Transformers
QTY CRAFT-HOURS* MATERIAL* INSTALLATION* SUBTOTAL
# 6 AWG Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR)
Per
km 9 PHP 41,050.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 49,368.50
Unit
0.3 km 2.70 PHP 12,315.00 PHP 2,495.55 PHP 14,810.55
4 sets of # 477 MCM THHN
Per
km 13 PHP 452,500.00 PHP 8,318.50 PHP 460,818.50
Unit
2 km 26.00 PHP 905,000.00 PHP 16,637.00 PHP 921,637.00
TOTAL PHP 936,447.55
* Values obtained from National Estimator

3.5.3.2 Reliability Evaluation

Using the data in table 3-22, Calculations were then performed using equations 3-10 and 3-11 to obtain the
overall system reliability for different time span. Results were tabulated for ease of documentation.

Table 3-29: Reliability Results for Secondary Selective System using 3 Distribution Transformers
Overall System Reliability for Secondary Selective
1 year 99.37%

10 years 93.83%

20 years 88.05%

30 years 82.62%

54
3.5.3.3 Maintainability Evaluation

Table 3-30: MTTR for Primary Loop Distribution System using 3 Distribution Transformers
*MTTR *Failures MTTR x λ
Component QTY
(hours) per Year (λ) (hrs/yr)
Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
0.33 2.54 0.00411 0.003445
(ACSR) Primary
Cable
Lightning Arrester 3 4 0.00132 0.01584
20kV/240V 1Ø Pole
3 5 0.00111 0.01665
mounted Transformer

Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforce
1 1.82 0.04717 0.0858494
(ACSR) Secondary
Cable
Total 0.05371 0.121784402
MTTRsystem (hours) 2.26744
* Values based DOA Survey results of reliability and availability information 2006.

3.5.4 Computation of Final Ranking for Trade-off Assessment for Electrical Service Distribution
Scheme
Table 3-31: Calculations Data Summary for Rating of Design Criteria
Design Options
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Electrical System Electrical System Electrical System
Design Criteria
Design using Design using Design using
Expanded Radial Primary Loop Secondary Selective
System System System
Economic (cost PHP) PHP 239,907.31 PHP 254,717.86 PHP 936,447.55
Reliability (%reliability) 96.67 98.82 99.37
Maintainability (hours) 1.96375 2.1632 2.26744

55
3.5.4.1 Final Ranking for Trade-off Assessment for Electrical Service Distribution Scheme

Table 3-32: Ranking, weights, and values for Electrical Service Distribution Scheme using 3 Pole-mounted Distribution Transformers
Design Option 1 Design Option 3

Weight
Measure of

Value*
Design option 2

Value*

Value*
Design Criteria Expanded Radial Secondary
effectiveness Primary Loop
System Selective
Overall cost
Cost/Economy 50.00% PHP 239,907.31 5 PHP 254,717.86 4 PHP 936,447.55 1
(PHP)
Operational Switching and Slightly complex complex
15.00% Simple operation 5 4 2
Issues complexity operation operation
System reliability
Reliability 15.00% 96.67% 3 98.82% 4 99.37% 5
in a year
Parts of system Primary Complete system
1 No shut down 5 No shut down 5
that must be Equipments shut down
5.00%
shut down for Complete system Partial system
maintenance Transformers 1 3 No shut down 5
shut down shut down
Unscheduled
Maintainability 5.00% 1.96375 5 2.16320 4 2.26744 3
maintenance
Recovery from Transfer to Transfer to other
None 1 5 5
Capability for bus faults second source transformer
10.00%
recovery Recovery from Transfer to other
None 1 None 1 5
transformer faults transformer
Final Ranking 4.1 3.9 2.45
* Relative weight on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest.

56
The second trade-off assessment was designed using the winning design option on the previous trade-off
assessment. This winning option, 3 pole-mounted distribution circuits, was then used to determine and
evaluate the second trade-off assessment. A new set of design constraints was also used to examine the
strengths and weaknesses of the proposed design options. These design options were then put to test and
several calculations to evaluate how they function in tune with the previous winning design option.
Design option 1, though being the cheapest with almost 400% difference from the third option, gained the
lowest relative weights on almost all other design criterions. Design option 2 on the other hand lies in
between both other options. It is relatively close to the cost of design option 1, close to the reliability of
design option 3, and in the middle of the other design criteria. The third option on the other hand possesses
several major advantages on recovery, availability, and reliability. Though being the most expensive among
the three design options. Based on the importance on the constraints, the expanded radial system with its
cheaper cost, simplicity, and maintainability makes it the best distribution scheme among the three, based
on the overall ranking.

57
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN ANALYSIS
4.1 Methodology
Design

Trade- Trade-
Off 1: Off 2:

1- 1-75 3-50
Radi Prim Seco
37.5 kVA, kVA,

Constr
Constr
Cost/Econom
Voltage
Operational
Power Reliability

Construct Availability

Economic Maintainablit

Capability for

Design of

Desi Desi Desi

gn gn gn
of of of

Overall

Design

Figure 4-1 Design Methodology

58
This figure shows that the design project has undergone various phases of design formation. This is to
ensure that the design formation succeeds in every stage.

This design project started with the design inputs, this are the relevant information such as architectural
layout, client’s requirements, and applicable codes and standards were acquired to be used as guide for
the formation of the design project. In the design of the main distribution system, different schemes like the
radial system, primary loop, and the secondary selective system were evaluated with the given realistic
constraints such as reliability, maintainability, operational issues, capability for recovery, and economic.
These procedures were necessary in order to determine the best scheme for the project. At this stage, fault
calculation was necessary in order to determine the correct size of ampere trip and ampere interrupting
capacity or the KAIC rating of overcurrent protection devices. Over current devices should be 110 to 125
percent of the transformers full load rating of its current. The design of lightning and grounding system were
also considered for the protection of the transformer side during lightning strikes and power surges in the
secondary distribution system. For the secondary distribution system, voltage drop were also calculated in
order to determine the appropriate size of feeder wires, service entrance, etc.

For the design of the transformer size selection, the designer’s choose different sizes and quantity of
transformers. This design options were evaluated with the given constraints like reliability, economic and
sustainability. Zoning of transformers was done during this stage in order to determine the load center for
every transformer to make sure that the voltage drop in every distribution lines to be minimal obtaining a 3
to 5 percent voltage drop in order to ensure efficiency of its operation. The designers also determine the
appropriate pole spacing in order to maximize the utilization of the capacity of each transformer inside the
subdivision. Lastly, the total owning cost was also computed for the life-span of the transformer.

For the design on the secondary service distribution scheme, the designers chose two types of distribution
scheme which is the Radial system and the Secondary-banked system. The two design options was
evaluated with the consideration of constraints including reliability, constructability, operational issues,
capability for recovery and economic. The constraints that are mentioned are ranked in order to decide the
best scheme for the project.

59
4.2 Design of Electrical Layouts

4.2.1 Single Line Diagram

The figure below shows the design for the incoming 19.92 kV line to ground, single phase, 60 Hz main
distribution system. The Expanded radial system is a single primary service supplying a number of
distribution transformers that supplies load through radial secondary system. The operation and expansion
are quite simple. The use of quality components and appropriate ratings make it more reliable. The
designers with accordance to NEC table 310.15(B)(17) and 250.66, utilized 1-#3/0 ACSR cable as for
primary feeder, 2-#1/0 THHN + 1-#6 ACSR for 37.5KVA 1Ø Distribution Transformer(DT), 2-#300 MCM
THHN + 1-#1/0 ACSR for 75KVA 1Ø DT, and 2-#3/0 MCM THHN + 1-#4 ACSR for 50KVA 1Ø DT for the
secondary feeder line.

Figure 4-1: Single Line Diagram

60
4.2.2 Design of Street Lighting

In the design of the lighting system, it is very important to consider how the lighting distribution will affect
the visual comfort of the pedestrian and vehicle users. In order to provide proper lighting distribution in a
specific area, the designers based the lighting design on specific levels of luminance required on different
areas. The number of fixture and type of luminaire placed in each area are done in the most economical
way, in the same time, achieving their required level of luminance. The designers utilized a 70 Watt HPS
Odyssey luminaire from GE. It emits enough luminance to sufficiently light the roadway of the residential
community. The designers also took into consideration IESNA standard lighting values before choosing this
luminaire to ensure proper application and illumination.

Figure 4-2: GE Odyssey VT HPS 70W

(GE lighting web catalogue)

61
The standard luminance used was based from Table 6.5.1: Minimum Values for Roadway Lighting
Parameters of Department of Energy Roadway Lighting Guidelines 2008. The residential community fall in
the category of Minor road classification, resulting to have a minimum of 0.5 cd/m² Luminance.

Figure 4-3: IESNA Recommended Street and Roadway Luminaires

The lighting system was designed through the aid of Dialux, a software program in accordance with IESNA
standards capable of calculating essential data. The number of fixture and type of luminaire placed in the
roadway are done in the most economical way, in the same time, achieving their required level of
luminance.

4.2.2.1 Street Light Pole Design

Figure 4-4 below shows the designer’s street lighting pole design for Casa Aurora Subdivision, this design
is in accordance with Department of Energy (DOE) Philippines, Roadway Lighting Guidelines 2008. The
table 6.5.2: Specification Guide for Roadway Lighting below was obtained from the Roadway lighting
guideline 2008; this shows the standard specification guide for roadway lighting.

62
 Figure 4-4: Street Light Round Steel Pole Design

4.2.2.2 Street Light Distribution Layout

The street light distribution layout was designed based from the suggested minimum distance of Dialux
software. After several changes to comply with the standard luminance levels of Dialux, we arrived with the
pole distance of 15meters. The designers then determined the circuitry for the light poles. The poles were
then divided to each transformer distribution circuit and routed and placed in proper locations.

63
Figure 4-5: Street Light Distribution Layout

64
Figure 4-6: Electrical Distribution Layout

65
4.2.3 Electrical Distribution Layout

Figure 4-2 shows the electrical power distribution intended for Casa Aurora Subdivision. This shows three
distributing circuits (circuit 1 with 37.5KVA transformer and 2-#1/0 THHN + 1-#6 ACSR cables, circuit 2 with
75KVA transformer and 2-#300 MCM THHN + 1-#1/0 ACSR cables, and circuit 3 with 50KVA transformer
and 2-#3/0 MCM THHN + 1-#4 ACSR cables) each corresponding to an independent circuit for each
distribution transformer. Each load center is also indicated to put emphasis where transformer is located
and where voltage drop is balanced.

4.2.4 Design of Distribution Transformer Capacity

In order to calculate for the proper size of the transformer, the designers used the formula for the ideal load
per lot with the application of the demand factor and in accordance with the PEC, 2009 Table 2.20.4.5
Optional Calculations – Demand factors for three or more multifamily dwelling units. It was also indicated to
apply a spare factor of at least 10 percent of the load and diversity factor of 1.3 between transformers.

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑥 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑥 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑥 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 Equa

𝐾𝑉𝐴 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑟 = tion
𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
4-1
Table 4-1: Summary of Transformer Capacity Calculation

Transformer Capacity Calculation

Transformer 1 Transformer 2 Transformer 3
TYPICAL LOAD TYPICAL LOAD TYPICAL LOAD
2920 2920 2920
NO. OF UNITS NO. OF UNITS NO. OF UNITS
65 119 80
DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND
23 23 23
DIVERSITY DIVERSITY DIVERSITY
1.3 1.3 1.3
TOTAL (VA) TOTAL (VA) TOTAL (VA)
36938 67625 45462
USE 37.5KVA USE 75KVA USE 50KVA
TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER

66
Table 4-1 shows the summary of loads per lot which has a typical value of 2920 VA. The number of houses
was divided into different quantity to be supplied by 3 transformers which obtained three different capacities
which has a total of 264 residential units. The total obtained value is essential for determining and
estimating the rating of transformers to be used.

4.2.5 Design of Service Entrance

230V, single-phase, 3-wire overhead service from utility shall be provided for the residential building. This
will terminate on a private pole where the electric meter and service equipment shall be installed. Figure
below shows the installation guide of service entrance.

Figure 4-7: Service Entrance Details

67
4.2.6 Power Distribution System

Service entrance conductor from service equipment shall be installed and routed to terminate to a panel
board to be installed in appropriate location inside the residential building. Voltage drop shall be calculated
for feeders and shall comply with the minimum requirement 3% voltage regulation for branch circuits in
accordance with PEC. Adequate number of branch circuits or lighting and appliances shall be provided to
accommodate the total load demand.

Figure 4-8: Panel Board Details

68
4.2.7 Design of Lighting and Power layout for Residential Units

Switch controlled lighting outlets shall be provided for all areas require by PEC. Figure 4-5 shows the load
schedule specified by the client as their typical design for all residential units of Casa Aurora. Figure 4-6
shows lighting and power layouts for different types of residential unit.

Figure 4-9: Load Schedule Typical for All residential Units

Lighting and Power Layout Drawing Design Index

Figure 4-10: Inner Units Electrical System Layout

(A) 32m² Inner Unit

(B) 38m² Inner Unit

Figure 4-11: Corner Units Electrical System Layout

(A) 33m² Corner Unit

(B) 39m² Corner Unit

69
(A) 32m² Inner unit (B) 38m² Inner unit

Figure 4-10: Electrical layout for Inner Units

70
(A) 33m Corner unit (B) 39m Corner unit

Figure 4-11: Electrical layout for Corner Units

71
4.3 Design of Feeder Conductors, Protections, and Grounding

4.3.1 Conductors and Grounding

Feeder conductor sizing were based on PEC 2009 Part 1, Volume 1, p. 91, Article 2.15.1.2(a)(1): Minimum
Rating and Size For Feeders Not More than 600 Volts wherein the minimum feeder-circuit conductor size,
before the application of any adjustment or correction factors, shall have an allowable ampacity not less
than the non-continuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.

The wire used for the residential units were based from table for allowable ampacities for insulated
conductors of not more than three in raceway found in PEC 2009 Part 1, Volume 1, p.350, Table 3.10.1.16:
Allowable Ampacities of Insulated Conductors Rated 0 through 2000 Volts, 60°C Through 90°C, Not More
than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in Raceway, Cable, or Earth (Directly Buried), Based on Ambient
Temperature of 30°C.

Table 3.10.1.17: Allowable Ampacities of Single-Insulated Conductor Rated 0 to 2000 Volts in Free Ait,
Based on Ambient Temperature of 30ᵒC, found in PEC 2009 Part 1 Volume 1 p. 351, is also used to
calculate for the secondary feeder cable of the transformer.

The table for the size of conductor for equipment grounding is also used to determine the proper grounding
conductor for the secondary system of the transformer. It is found on PEC 2009 Part 1, Volume 1, p.241,
Table 2.50.6.13(a): Minimum Size Equipment Grounding Conductors for Grounding Raceway and
Equipment

The table used for the size of grounding electrode conductor was based on PEC 2009 Part 1 Volume 1
p.223 table 2.50.3.17: Grounding Electrode Conductor for Alternating-Current System.

4.3.2 Overcurrent Protection

It is important to protect the electrical system from overloading through the overcurrent protective device.
The rating of overcurrent protective device must always be less than the ampacity of feeder conductor that
it protects. In the case of this design project, all overcurrent protective devices are circuit breakers.

The sizing of overcurrent protective device is in accordance with PEC 2009 Part 1, Volume 1, p. 93, Article
2.15.1.3: Overcurrent Protection wherein the rating of overcurrent protective device shall not be less than
the non-continuous load plus 300 percent of the continuous load.

72
4.3.3 Pole-Mounted Earthing Equipment
According to Network Earthing Design, EDS 06-0016, Pole-mounted equipment is generally considered
‘out of reach’ if located 4.3-meter or more above ground level. We must always remember to earth the
following equipment’s: transformers, cable terminations and surge arresters.
It is necessary to earth pole-mounted for the following reasons:
(a) To pass the fault current during an earth fault back to the system neutral and therefore operate the
source protection.
(b) To limit the touch/step potential risk to staff operating switchgear;
(c) To prevent dangerous potentials appearing on the customers LV neutral/earth.
(d) To discharge any lightning surges to earth.
The additional neutral earth electrodes are illustrated in Figure ___ and shall be installed as follows:
 In the pot-end at the end of each main. Alternatively, connecting the supply neutral conductor to
that of another main with a separate path back to the substation will serve the same purpose.
 In the pot-end at the end of any branch or service supplying more than four customers.
 In the pot-end at the end of any branch or service supplying more than one customer and longer
than 40m.
 In the pot-end at the end of any branch or service supplying street furniture with a PME earth
terminal.
 At additional locations on overhead line systems to ensure the distance between electrodes are not
more than six spans.

73
 Reference: EDS 06-0016: LV Network Earthing Design

4.3.4 Earthing Requirement

The resistance of the supply neutral conductor to the general mass of earth shall not at any point
exceed 20Ω. To achieve this value the earth electrode resistance values given in Table 4-2 shall be used.

Table 4-2: Standard grounding resistance

Electrode Resistance Value

Main LV Earth 20Ω

Additional PME Earth 100Ω

Reference: EDS 06-0016: LV Network Earthing Design

74
 75 Kva pole mounted transformer earthing, located at pole 9

Additional earthing every six poles on overhead line, located at pole 23

75
Additional earthing every six poles on overhead line, located at pole 25

50 Kva pole mounted transformer earthing, located at pole 40

76
Additional earthing every six poles on overhead line, located at pole 34

37.5 Kva pole mounted transformer earthing, located at pole 49

77
4.3.5 KVA Span Analysis

The formula below is to determine the maximum count of pole from the distribution transformer to avoid
exceeding drop of voltage to the end line (end pole). The formula below is in accordance with PEC 2009,
Part 2 – Design Calculation for pole-mounted transformer:

(𝑲𝑽𝑨 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅) × (𝑺𝒑𝒂𝒏) Equation 4-

𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝑺𝒑𝒂𝒏 = 2: PEC 2009,
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑲𝑽𝑨
Part 2 –
Where:
Design
KVA Rated = Transformer Size (KVA) Calculation
Span = Pole to pole distance (m) for pole-
Total KVA = Total System Size (KVA) mounted
transformer

4.3.5.1 Span Analysis for Distributing Circuit no. 1

(37.5𝐾𝑉𝐴) × (30𝑚)
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 =
162.5𝐾𝑉𝐴
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 6.9 ≌ 7 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠

Therefore, the farthest pole from the distributing pole load center should not exceed 7 pole counts to avoid
exceeding of voltage drop and regulation along the lines

Figure 4-12: KVA span for distributing circuit no. 1

78
4.3.5.2 Span Analysis for Distributing Circuit no. 2
(75𝐾𝑉𝐴) × (30𝑚)
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 =
162.5𝐾𝑉𝐴
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 13.85 ≌ 14 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠

Therefore, the farthest pole from the distributing pole load center should not exceed 14 pole counts to avoid
exceeding of voltage drop and regulation along the lines.

Figure 4-13: KVA span of distributing circuit no. 2

4.3.5.3 Span Analysis for Distributing Circuit no. 3

(50𝐾𝑉𝐴) × (30𝑚)
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 =
162.5𝐾𝑉𝐴
𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 9.23 ≌ 9 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠

Therefore, the farthest pole from the distributing pole load center should not exceed 9 pole counts to avoid
exceeding of voltage drop and regulation along the lines.

79
 Figure 4-14: KVA span of distributing circuit no. 3

4.3.6 Voltage Regulation

An effective design utilizes a center loading mechanism to balance out the line lengths on each sides of the
transformer pole. This way, voltage drop on both sides will be minimized and maintained throughout the
system. According to NEC 210.19(A) maximum voltage drop must be less than 5% for feeder circuits to
provide sufficient system voltage and operation. Calculation results were tabulated in table 4-1 for ease of
document.
Equations below used for obtaining feeder resistance, voltage drop, and percent voltage drop respectively,
are based from Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers 16th Edition by Fink and Beaty.
Equation
4-3:
𝜌𝑙 Standard
𝑅= Handbook
𝐴
for
Equation
Electrical
4-4:
Engineers
Standard
16th
Handbook
Edition by
80
for
Fink and
Electrical
Beaty
Engineers
 𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 = 𝑅𝐼

Equation
𝑉𝑁𝐿 − 𝑉𝐹𝐿 𝑉𝐷𝑅𝑂𝑃 4-5:
%𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 = 𝑥100 = 𝑥100 Standard
𝑉𝑁𝐿 𝑉𝑁𝐿
Handbook
Where: for
R = resistance of conductor in ohms Electrical
Engineers
ρ = resistivity constant 28.26𝑥10−6 Ω − 𝑚𝑚 (Aluminum) 16th
L = length in millimeters Edition by
Fink and
Vdrop = Voltage drop (V) Beaty
A = cross sectional area of conductor in 𝑚𝑚2
I = current in secondary (A)

Table 4-3: Calculation Summary of Voltage Regulation

Load center VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATION FOR DESIGN OPTION 2

Cross sectional

Voltage Drop
Distance (m)

area (mm ²)

Resistance
Transformer

Transformer
Pole to pole

Regulation
Resistivity
Amperes
Capacity

constant

Voltage
20ᵒc

3 100 4.53E-02 90ᵒc

5.77E-02 9.01 3.75%
T1 43 125 5.66E-02 7.21E-02 11.27 4.69%
49 37500 156 62.44 2.83E-05
37.5KVA 48 76 3.46E-02 4.40E-02 6.88 2.87%
51 25 1.14E-02 1.46E-02 2.28 0.95%
1 132 2.11E-02 2.69E-02 8.40 3.50%
14 164 2.62E-02 3.33E-02 10.42 4.34%
T2
9 18 77 75000 313 176.9 2.83E-05 1.23E-02 1.57E-02 4.91 2.05%
75KVA
23 156 2.48E-02 3.16E-02 9.89 4.12%
25 172 2.75E-02 3.50E-02 10.95 4.56%
26 158 4.51E-02 5.74E-02 11.96 4.98%
28 110 3.14E-02 4.00E-02 8.33 3.47%
T3
40 32 89 50000 208 99.31 2.83E-05 2.52E-02 3.21E-02 6.69 2.79%
50KVA
34 159 4.53E-02 5.75E-02 11.98 4.99%
42 49 1.40E-02 1.78E-02 3.72 1.55%

81
4.4 Electrical System Protection
Proper sizing of the protective device should be done to protect the system and its equipment from
unwanted damage caused by short circuit or fault, without damaging itself. The maximum current capacity
was based on the fault current that will occur on the system.

Single Line
Diagram

Fault on
the Utility

Sequence
Impedance
Calculation

Fault
Analysis

Paladin Manual
Software Calculation
Simulation

Result
compariso
n

Perc
enta
ge
Diffe
renc
e
<1%

KAIC
RATING
SELECTION
Figure 4-15: Electrical system KAIC rating selection flowchart

82
4.4.1 Short Circuit Analysis (Fault Analysis)
Short circuit analysis or fault analysis is required to determine the maximum fault current that may occur on
the system. This is done in order to select the correct size of overcurrent protective device used in the
system. In getting the fault analysis, we used two different methods (1) using computer software: EDSA
Paladin Design Base Calculation and (2) manual calculation.

Figure 4-16: Fault Analysis Single Line Diagram

Figure 4-16 shows the single line diagram from the utility substation to transmission line. The distribution
scheme is an expanded radial system. Upon entering the subdivision premises, the lines then divide into
three different circuits leading to different distribution transformers. Fault analysis were then performed on
the entry point, High Tension (HT) side of transformers 1, 2, and 3.

83
4.4.1.1 Fault Analysis using Manual Calculation

In order to compute for the fault current in each point, the designers used 10MVA as the MVA base and
19.92KVA as the KV base. Using this formula, Single line to ground fault can be manually computed. Since
this is a single phase circuit, we will only be having one type short circuit current at each point of the circuit.

𝑽𝒕𝒉
𝑰=
𝒁𝒔
Where:
I = Short Circuit Current
𝒁𝒔 = Equivalent single phase impedance
= Z1 + Z2 + Z0
Vth =1

After several calculations, results were then tabulated in table 4-4 for ease of document.

Table 4-4: Summary Results of Fault Analysis using Manual Calculation

Pre-Flt
R(pu) X(pu) Fault Current
Fault Point Voltage
(Ω) (Ω) (Amps)
(V)

Entry Point

High Tension

T1

High Tension 19920

T2

High Tension

T3

84
4.4.1.2 Paladin Design Base Simulation Data and Result

Paladin Design Base is a power systems design and simulation platform whose design models can be re-
deployed in live mode, to ensure that, once constructed, the facility operates precisely as it was designed to
function. Using Paladin software, the ideal operating design specifications for every component within the
design-as well as all system-level model behavior-are calibrated in real-time with actual readings from live
operations.

Cable line data and Results

The succeeding figures were data used for the Paladin Design Simulation Analysis.

Figure 4-17: Utility Data

85
Figure 4-18: Main Line Entry Point Data

Figure 4-19: Line 1 Data

86
Figure 4-20: Line 2 data

Figure 4-21: Line 3 data

87
HTT1, HTT2, and HTT3 are the high tension side of the transformers where the Protective Devices will be
placed. And UTILITY is the entry or tapping point before entering the subdivision premises. This is also
calculated to measure the correct size of the protective device in the entry point of the circuit.

Paladin Design Base

1-Phase Short Circuit v5.00.00

Project No.: Page : 2

Project Name: Date : 03/02/16
Title : Time : 05:51:37PM
Drawing No.: Company :
Revision No.: Engineer :
JobFile Name:Single Line Diagram Check by :
Scenario : 1: CheckDate:
Base kVA : 10000.0 Cyc/Sec : 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Bus Results: at 0.5 Cycle
--------------------------

Thevenin Imped.
Pre-Flt ----------------- X/R DC-Comp AC-Comp Asym
Bus Name V R(pu) X(pu) Ratio A A A
------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
HTT1 19919 0.1204 0.4450 3.6970 658 1089 1273
HTT2 19919 0.1204 0.4450 3.6970 658 1089 1273
HTT3 19919 0.1204 0.4450 3.6967 658 1089 1272
UTILITY 19919 0.1203 0.4449 3.6985 659 1089 1273
Figure 4-22: Summary Results of Fault Analysis using Paladin Simulation Software

Result comparison is essential to determine if the manual calculation and the simulation tally with each
other and evaluate the correctness of both calculations. It is best to keep the error below 1% for proper
verification of results. The table below shows the percentage error of results of both evaluations

Table 4-5: Fault Current Percentage Error Results Comparison

Utility Entry Transformer Transformer Transformer
Results
Point T1 T2 T3
Manual
Simulation 1089 1089 1089 1089
% Error

88
4.5 Protective Device Coordination Study
Electrical systems commonly use fuses to protect electrical equipment such as conductors, transformers,
and other components. If a failure occurs within the equipment, usually a short circuit results. It would be
desirable that this short circuit would affect only the portion of the system where the failure occurs. In a
properly coordinated system, the protective devices are selected and adjusted to minimize the impact of
equipment failures within the system. The protective device coordination study analyzes the characteristic
curves of the fuses.

The Paladin Designbase software calculates the maximum and minimum interrupting duty of a protective
device in a system when a short circuit occurs. The software also gives the characteristic curves of the
fuses that are selected on the software.

Figure 4-23: Fuse Cut-out

In electrical distribution, a fuse cut out is a combination and a switch, used in primary overhead feeder lines
and taps to protect distribution transformers from current surges and overloads, An overcurrent caused by
a fault in the transformer or customer circuit will cause the fuse to melt, disconnecting the transformer from
the line. It can also be opened manually by utility linemen standing on the ground and using a long
insulating stick called a “hot stick”.

Figure below shows the characteristic curve of the fuse to fuse coordination for the system with the
selected fuse which is S&C Positrol 3A for the transformer side and 5A for the main line side.

89
Figure 4-24: Time Coordination Curve for Transformer 1

90
Figure 4-25: Time Coordination Curve for Transformer 2

91
Figure 4-26: Time Coordination Curve for Transformer 3

92