DOCUMEN

Submittals / Drawings Drawing / Document

Sr. No. number / Ground
Mounted
A Electrical Basic Design and Calculation

1 Execution PV Syst Report SPL-TWG-PS11-A-101

2 Shading Analysis in Sketch up

2.1 Sketch up Layout in PDF format
SPL-TWG-PS11-A-102
2.2 Twiga Plant Overview - Video
2.3 Twiga plant Sketch Up file
3 Sizing calculation for DC cables SPL-TWG-PS11-A-104
4 Sizing calculation for AC cables SPL-TWG-PS11-A-105
5 Earthing System Design Calculation SPL-TWG-PS11-A-106
5.1 Lightning Arrester Coverage Area SPL-TWG-PS11-A-106A
6 Auxiliary Transformer Sizing Calculation SPL-TWG-PS11-A-107
7 Switchgears Ratings and Design SPL-TWG-PS11-A-108
B Schematic
1 DC System SLD SPL-TWG-PS11-B-201

2 AC System SLD SPL-TWG-PS11-B-202

3 SCADA Details
3.1 SCADA System Architecture SPL-TWG-PS11-B-204
3.2 Zero Feed In TPCPLC
4 Typical string configuration SPL-TWG-PS11-B-205
5 SCADA Schematic SPL-TWG-PS11-B-206
C Layouts
1 Overall Solar PV Plant layout. SPL-TWG-PS11-C-301
2 Equipment Layout SPL-TWG-PS11-C-302
3 Stringing and Cable DC & AC cable Routing layout SPL-TWG-PS11-C-303

4 Plant Earthing Layout SPL-TWG-PS11-C-306

5 Transmission Line Routing Layout SPL-TWG-PS11-C-308

6 Module cleaning system (MCS) layout & Designs SPL-TWG-PS11-C-309

7 Plant Illumination Layout SPL-TWG-PS11-C-310

D Cable Schedule
1 DC & AC cable schedule. SPL-TWG-PS11-D-401
2 Auxiliary power and control cable schedule . SPL-TWG-PS11-D-402

3 Communication cable schedule SPL-TWG-PS11-D-403

E Component Review Engineering

1 Solar Modules SPL-TWG-PS11-E-501
2 String Inverters SPL-TWG-PS11-E-502
3 PV Connectors SPL-TWG-PS11-E-503

4 DC String Cables SPL-TWG-PS11-E-504

5 Weather Stations / Pyranometer / Sensors SPL-TWG-PS11-E-505

6 LV AC Cables. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-506
7 33 KV AC Cables. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-507
8 800V Switchgear panel SPL-TWG-PS11-E-508
9.1 3.3kv Switchgear panel SPL-TWG-PS11-E-509A
9.2 33kv Switchgear panel SPL-TWG-PS11-E-509B

10 800 V / 33 KV Transformers. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-510

11 MV/HV Cable Sealing/ jointing kit. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-511

12 Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) System with battery bank. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-512
13 Communication Cables. SPL-TWG-PS11-E-513
14 SCADA System components specs/datasheets SPL-TWG-PS11-E-514

15 33 KV / 3.3 KV Transformers SPL-TWG-PS11-E-515

16 Transmission Line Conductors SPL-TWG-PS11-E-516

17 Project Overall BOM & Equipment List with Makes & Details SPL-TWG-PS11-E-517
F Civil Part (Review Engineering)
Site survey/Investigation
1 Topography survey review report.
1.1 Topography survey review report.
SPL-TWG-PS11-F-601
1.2 Topography Layout without Contrours
1.3 Topography Layout withContrours
2 Geotech & soil investigation review report.
2.1 Geotech & soil investigation report- PV Room & Tx
2.2 Main Report - Client Side - Part 1 SPL-TWG-PS11-F-602
2.3 Main Report - Client Side - Part 2
2.4 Geotechnical Study Survey Report
3 Fencing Drawings

3.1 Fence Boundary Drawing

3.2 Fence Pile Drawing

SPL-TWG-PS11-F-603
3.3 Fence Gate & Pile Design- Staad Analysis

3.4 Fence Main Gate GA

3.5 Fence Geo Coordinates File . XLSX

4 Hydrological Survey SPL-TWG-PS11-F-604

G Module Mounting Structure (MMS)

1 General arrangement drawing of MMS SPL-TWG-PS11-G-701

2 Design basis report of MMS. STAAD SPL-TWG-PS11-G-702

3 Foundation calculation report of MMS. SPL-TWG-PS11-G-703

4 Design Staad Soft copy SPL-TWG-PS11-G-704
5 Material Test Reports SPL-TWG-PS11-G-705
5.1 Salt Spary test Report SPL-TWG-PS11-G-705A
5.2 NSS, CYCLIC Corrosion Test Report SPL-TWG-PS11-G-705B
5.3 Chemical, Tensile & Zinc Coting Test SPL-TWG-PS11-G-705C
H Other Civil Works
 1 Foundation Drawing of String Inverters

1.1 Inverter Stand Design Report SPL-TWG-PS11-H-801

1.2 Inverter Stand GA Drawing

2 Civil Rooms for 800V & 33KV & 3.3 KV switchgears SPL-TWG-PS11-H-802

2.2.1 8 x 10 M Client Side MV Room - Architectural Drawing

SPL-TWG-PS11-H-802C
 SPL-TWG-PS11-H-802C

2.2.2 8 x 10 M Client Side MV Room - Structural Drawing

2.2.3 5 x 14 M Plant Side MV Room - Architectural Drawing

SPL-TWG-PS11-H-802B

2.2.4 5 x 14 M Plant Side MV Room - Structural Drawing

2.2.5 Civil Room - Architectural Drawing

SPL-TWG-PS11-H-802A
2.2.6 Civil Room - Structural Drawing
3 800 V / 33 KV IDT Transformer Foundations SPL-TWG-PS11-H-803
4 33 KV / 3.3 KV PowerTransformer Foundations SPL-TWG-PS11-H-804

5 33KV Transmission line Pole Foundations SPL-TWG-PS11-H-805

I Infrastructure System

1 Internal Murram Roads layout and Design SPL-TWG-PS11-I-901

2 Drain System and Design SPL-TWG-PS11-I-902

3 Water tank capacity, layout and details. SPL-TWG-PS11-I-903

4 CCTV schematic SPL-TWG-PS11-I-904

5 Fire Fighting & Alarms Details SPL-TWG-PS11-I-905

6 Security Guard Rooms / Other Facility InfraStructure SPL-TWG-PS11-I-906

 DOCUMENT LIST_DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW FOR 15MWp SOLAR POW

STATUS DATE OF UPLOAD SPENOMATIC REMARKS

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/30/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/30/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

Cleared Details of typical accessories on the

UPLOADED 2/1/2025
Pole will be shared before 7th of Feb 2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025
 The auxiliary power loads are currently
being finalized and will be confirmed by
February 15th. Several loads, such as CCTV,
fire alarm and detection equipment, air
conditioners, and others, are still being
determined.

The communication scheme is being

finalized in terms of design, monitoring, and
interface schematics. It will be shared by
February 28th.

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025
The finalization of makes and vendors is
currently underway. I will share the details
by February 15th
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
The finalization of makes and vendors is
currently underway. I will share the details
by February 15th
The order has been placed, and the designs
UPLOADED 2/1/2025 and drawings are expected by February
UPLOADED 2/1/2025 10th. The same will be shared by February
15th
GTP Uploaded. The order has been placed,
and the designs and drawings are expected
UPLOADED 1/28/2025
by February 10th. They will be shared by
February 15th.
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
GTP Uploaded. The order has been placed,
and the designs and drawings are expected
UPLOADED 1/28/2025
by February 10th. They will be shared by
February 15th.

The vendor finalization is currently in

progress. Design readiness is expected, and
the details will be shared by February 28th

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025

UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 2/1/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025
UPLOADED 1/28/2025

UPLOADED 1/28/2025

finalization is currently in progress. The

panel size is crucial for designing the LV
Room. Design readiness is expected, and
GTP's has been uploaded. orders have been
placed on vendor! We are expecting Final
GA & Design by Feb 15th
The vendor finalization is currently in
progress. Design readiness is expected, and
the details will be shared by February 28th

UPLOAD 1/28/2025

UPLOAD 1/28/2025
UPLOAD 1/28/2025

The vendor finalization is currently in

progress. Design readiness is expected, and
the details will be shared by February 15th

UPLOAD 2/1/2025

UPLOAD 1/28/2025
N REVIEW FOR 15MWp SOLAR POWER PLANT
PRE-APPROVED
(Yes/No/Pending)

Pending

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Pending

Pending

Yes
Pending

Pending

Yes
Yes
Yes

Pending

Yes
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending

Pending

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Pending

Pending

Yes

Pending

Pending
Pending

Pending

Yes

Pending

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pending

Pending
Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending
 Yes

Pending

Pending

Pending
MWp SOLAR POWER PLANT

STUDIO SANTI REMARKS

The Pvsyst is lacking the SLD (we are going back instead of forward), 2.the instantiation of the transformer sizes is differen
design criteria you used i.e 6.6MVA and not multiple kVA as redefined in the new Pvsyst report (page 5,6&7). The 3D scen
not exactly worked on as suggested in the last meeting (Page 8). Though the last figures in the distribution curve are appro
the same the perfomance ration is not as in the contract (page 2).

Conclusion : Clarification is needed on the alignment of PVsyst report submitted and the one attached to the contract, as w
comment addressed.

No comment

No comment
No comment
Did not share the Soil Resistivity report as agreed in the last meeting
Conclusion : The report has to be shared for further clarification
No comment
No comment

There is still inconsistency in the number of strings connected to inverter 18 which is 22 and the number shown in the sum
which is 23 (Go to Page 1)
No comment

No comment

No comment
No comment

No comment
No comment
No comment
Incoherence in number of earth pits in the legend of the layout from the second page to the last
Conclusion : Approve await for clarification on the number of earth pits
The layout is okay but as agreed in the last meeting, the layout is not detailed enough to describe a sample pole with the o
dressing requirements
Conclusion : The comments addressed has to be clarified for final layout approval

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

Clarify on the type of bulb used and the height pole to be used in order to warranty lighting perfomance

No comment
 Waiting for documents to be uploaded

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

No comment
No comment
No comment

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

No comment
Waiting for documents to be uploaded
Waiting for documents to be uploaded
Waiting for documents to be uploaded
Waiting for documents to be uploaded

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

Waiting for documents to be uploaded

No comment

The PV plant perimeters in ​F1.1 and F1.2 do not coincide. F1.2 is useless and similar to F1.3 that has contour lines.

Conclusion : in the next stages, after the handover, a full and total alignment is expected.

It is recommended to verify the soil mechanical properties once all the soil movements foreseen in the project have been

Conclusion : in the next stages, after the handover, a final verification is espected.
The wind calculus is made using a speed of 170 km/h (approximately 47 m/s), this value is the speed established in the pro
contract. In our opinion the report is not clear on how the regulations have been used to determine the reference wind sp
Aisc standards the wind speed is calculated on a 3 seconds gust, in EN 1991 the reference wind speed is calculated on a 10
gust, while in the British Standard (BS) the wind speed is calculated on 1 hour gusts. Furthermore, the report indicates tha
Standards the reference gusts are 10 minutes. However, given that the structures (Ve) design speed used is greater than th
value required by the contract, the calculation conditions are acceptable for us. However, the entire report should be corr
only the BS and the correct gusts (one hour). In any case, the calculation speed (Ve) must remain the one indicated in the r
48.44 m/s). Please, pay attention to the correct measurement units symbols.
For the FENCE MAIN GATE it is recommended to use materials with an adequate durability for highly corrosive enironmen
life for this materials must be 25 years

Conclusion : The requested structural performance is verified, even if the calculation method is still not clear (jumping from
standard to another standard). Clarification needed on FENCE MAIN GATE materials.

The hydraulic report indicates the verification of the side ditches, but the main drain and feeder drains hydraulic calculatio
missing

Conclusion : the hydraulic calculation of the main drain and feeder drains is expected

No Comment
The wind calculus is made using a speed of 170 km/h (approximately 47 m/s), this value is the speed established in the pro
contract. In our opinion the report is not clear on how the regulations have been used to determine the reference wind sp
Aisc standards the wind speed is calculated on a 3 seconds gust, in EN 1991 the reference wind speed is calculated on a 10
gust, while in the British Standard (BS) the wind speed is calculated on 1 hour gusts. Furthermore, the report indicates tha
Standards the reference gusts are 10 minutes. However, given that the structures (Ve) design speed used is greater than th
value required by the contract, the calculation conditions are acceptable for us. However, the entire report should be corr
only the BS and the correct gusts (one hour). In any case, the calculation speed (Ve) must remain the one indicated in the r
48.44 m/s). Please, pay attention to the correct measurement units symbols.

Conclusion : The requested structural performance is verified, even if the calculation method is still not clear (jumping from
standard to another standard).

No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
1) The table indicates a reference to page 3 but the essay has only one page; 2) In the calculation model there are two edg
(el. n 7 "brace for canopy"), but these beams are missing in the carpentry drawing; 3) The wind calculus is made using a sp
km/h (approximately 47 m/s), this value is the speed established in the procurement contract. In our opinion the report is
on how the regulations have been used to determine the reference wind speed: in the Aisc standards the wind speed is ca
a 3 seconds gust, in EN 1991 the reference wind speed is calculated on a 10 minutes gust, while in the British Standard (BS
speed is calculated on 1 hour gusts. Furthermore, the report indicates that for British Standards the reference gusts are 10
However, given that the structures (Ve) design speed used is greater than the 47 m/s value required by the contract, the c
conditions are acceptable for us. However, the entire report should be corrected using only the BS and the correct gusts (o
In any case, the calculation speed (Ve) must remain the one indicated in the report (i.e. 48.44 m/s). Please, pay attention t
correct measurement units symbols. 4) check that the structure is resistant to 47.2 m/s wind speed as declared; 5) The bea
strength verification cannot be directly applied to bolted connections made with slotted holes; 6) At page 23 it is reported
insertion depth was verified using pullout tests, but the results of the pullouts are not shown in the report; 7) Pay attention
mechanical characteristics used in the calculations: firstly because they are not homogeneous throughout the site, second
the geotechnical parameters can change after the ground leveling operations,; 8) Pay attention to the measurement units:
cases kph is reported, probably meaning kilometers per hour (the correct indication is km/h). In one case, however, mph is
and it is not clear whether it means miles per hour or meters per hour, given that the wind speed is indicated in meters pe
(m/s) in other pages of the report;

Conclusion : The requested structural performance is verified, even if the calculation method is still not clear. Several
recommendations to be followed for the preparation of the final version of the report

1) Pay attention to the scale of representation: the elevations are drawn in different scales and a scale is not indicated in a
The table which indicates the capacity in litres, the number of people and the "washing interval" refers probably (it is not s
the drawing) to a septic tank (soak pit), but in the plan there is no toilet, washbasin or anything similar, so we don't unders
it is connected to this hypothetical soak pit and where the "soak pit" is located in the plan: Is there another building for the
yes, this building is not represented in the plan. If this is only an error and the soak pit is not foreseen in this building it is im
observe that an office for four persons needs a toilet and a soak pit. 3) A section of this building is missing; 4) The sidewalk
drawn on the elevation or on a detail: it is not clear how it is made;
STRUCTURAL:
1) The height of the curb near the ground level does not coincide with the measurement shown in the architectural drawin
drawing). In the architectural drawing it is indicated as 50 cm tall, in the construction detail it is indicated as a generic 0.5 (
measurement unit) but graphically drawn as if it is approximately 30 cm (deduced from the drawing, because measuremen
are not indicated); 2) Pay attention to the heights: in the construction detail it seems that the curb (therefore the floor) is a
of 0.75 (probably metres, not specified) from the ground level, in the architectural detail it is indicated that the curb ends
The plinth has no steel reinforcement on the upper side, that's important to prevent earthquake damages 4) In the constru
detail the masonry has 23 cm thickness, while in the architectural drawing (H2.2.1) the masonry has 20 cm thickness; 5) It
necessary to standardize the details because dimensions and measurements indicated in some drawings are not indicated
or are completely different; 6) The details of the plinth protection seem to conflict; 7) It is necessary to indicate with a lette
method) the location of the details on the elevations and in the plan; 7) There is no legend indicating the backgrounds; 8) T
measurement of the cable trench shown in this drawing is 1.63m, while in the architectural one it’s 1m.; 9) The plan is not
of the architectural drawing: it is not clear where the office partition is. Furthermore, the cable trench grate is positioned u
outside, while in the architectural drawing it ends near the office partition; 10) The measurement unit on the lintel is missi
Staad (structural) analysis of this building is missing.

Conclusion: Clarification is needed

1) The height of the curb near the ground level does not coincide with the measurement shown in the architectural drawin
drawing). In the architectural drawing it is indicated as 50 cm tall, in the construction detail it is indicated as a generic 0.5 (
measurement unit) but graphically drawn as if it is approximately 30 cm (deduced from the drawing, because measuremen
are not indicated); 2) Pay attention to the heights: in the construction detail it seems that the curb (therefore the floor) is a
of 0.75 (probably metres, not specified) from the ground level, in the architectural detail it is indicated that the curb ends
The plinth has no steel reinforcement on the upper side, that's important to prevent earthquake damages 4) In the constru
detail the masonry has 23 cm thickness, while in the architectural drawing (H2.2.1) the masonry has 20 cm thickness; 5) It
necessary to standardize the details because dimensions and measurements indicated in some drawings are not indicated
or are completely different; 6) The details of the plinth protection seem to conflict; 7) It is necessary to indicate with a lette
method) the location of the details on the elevations and in the plan; 7) There is no legend indicating the backgrounds; 8) T
measurement of the cable trench shown in this drawing is 1.63m, while in the architectural one it’s 1m.; 9) The plan is not
of the architectural drawing: it is not clear where the office partition is. Furthermore, the cable trench grate is positioned u
outside, while in the architectural drawing it ends near the office partition; 10) The measurement unit on the lintel is missi
Staad (structural) analysis of this building is missing.

Conclusion: Clarification is needed

In general, some observations made for 2.2.2 are valid for 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, namely: Different scale between the various ele
difficult to understand construction details, lack of reinforcements in the upper part of the plinth, measurement unit on th
missing, a section of the building is missing. Specific observations for 2.2.3: 1) Which function has the beam in the kitchen
why is the break beam off-axis? 3) Why the roof has an unidirectional structure? 4) The detail of the lintel indicates an ope
2000 (presumably millimetres), but the plan indicates an opening of 3 meters; 5) The lintel has different heights, it is neces
uniformate it. 6) In the section are reported only 2 pipes, while in the plant there are four of them.

Conclusion : Clarifications are needed

Waiting for document to be uploaded

Waiting for document to be uploaded

Waiting for document to be uploaded

It is necessary to indicate where the water from the entire PV plant drains

Conclusion: Clarifications are needed

1) the northest road seems to slope in the internal side of the PV plant, not outside; 2) Please, indicate the connection poin
height on the drains profiles graphics, it is necessary to understand if the drains are designed and will be realized with a pr
3) the road section has a single slope and a single drainage ditch, a double slope and two drainage ditches are recommend
legend is missing, it is difficult to comprehend the drawings with similar colours and without a legend; 5) It is difficult to co
how the secondary drains are connected to the main drain; 6) typical section of the main drain is missing;

Conclusion : Clarifications are needed

It is recommended to provide steel mesh on the lower side of water tanks;

Conclusion: the document is compliant, please follow the recommendation

Waiting for document to be uploaded

1) Please, specificate in a better way, where and wich system will be installed and in which building. For example, in I.5.SPL
PS11_I-905 there is a fire detection & alarm scheme but the building name is not traceable in other drawings like 2.2.1 and
Please specificate wich Standard you followed. Please specify how the connection with the existing Fire Alarm of the client
realized and where.

Conclusion: Clarifications are needed

It is not clear how this infrastructure will be realized. No any details about the cleaning system.

Conclusion: Clarifications are needed

SPENOMATIC ANSWERS