← BACK / INDEX
UTD EPICS · PROJECT LEAD Vera Aqua Vera Vita · Piura, Peru SOLAR · BATTERY · LIFEPO4 Spring 2025

A 20‑ft container that pulls drinking water
out of the air, off the grid, in Piura.

Project lead on a 6‑engineer team designing a portable, container‑mounted solar power plant that feeds Genesis Systems' atmospheric water generator. Our deliverable was a fully detailed electrical & mechanical design — 17 bifacial panels, six LiFePO4 batteries, two paralleled MPPT inverters — packed inside a single shipping container that ships, sets up, and runs anywhere there's sun.

PV array
10.37 kW
Battery bank
15 kWh × 6
Form factor
20‑ft ISO
Daily yield
~124 kWh
01

The brief

§ Stakeholder ask
// Partner: Vera Aqua Vera Vita

Vera Aqua Vera Vita is a nonprofit founded in 2017 that deploys clean‑water infrastructure in Piura, Peru. Their engineer brought us a specific problem: they had committed to deploying a Genesis WC‑100 atmospheric water generator in communities with intermittent or absent grid power. The water cube itself was sorted — what they needed was a solar power plant that could ship next to it and operate it autonomously.

// Hard constraints

Container‑portable. Locally sourceable in Peru (panels, batteries, inverters, fasteners — all of it). Survives Piura's worst‑case 93 °F / 52% RH ambient with batteries inside. Built to NFPA 855 battery‑safety guidance. Budget ceiling $1,000 for the prototype phase.

What we were asked to deliver

  • Updated CAD model of the container — exterior PV layout + interior component plan
  • Circuit schematic and full wiring diagram (KiCad)
  • Battery, inverter, and combiner‑box sizing calculations
  • 20‑ft vs 40‑ft container trade study
  • Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC)
02

My role

§ Project lead
// Scope

I led the 6‑person team end‑to‑end this semester — task assignment, weekly progress reviews, partner communication, and mentor coordination with Daniel Cowan (professional engineer) on the thermal and ventilation work. Personally I owned the circuit schematic, the battery and inverter sizing, and the component sourcing pass through Peruvian distributors.

Led

Electrical architecture

System one‑line, battery + inverter sizing, fuse/breaker selection, KiCad schematic with a custom symbol library carried over from the prior semester.

Owned

Component sourcing in‑country

Identified locally available SKUs through ENF Solar's Peru directory, Panel Solar Peru, and AutoSolar — every line item on the BOM has a Peruvian purchase link.

Coordinated

CAD + thermal + safety

Held the seam between the mech team (SolidWorks layout, panel mounting), the electrical team (wiring, grounding), and the safety analysis (NFPA 855, fire suppression).

03

The pivot · 40‑ft → 20‑ft

§ Why we shrank the container
// Prior semester baseline

The Fall 2024 design centered on a 40‑ft shipping container. Plenty of roof for panels, comfortable interior, no packing problems. The issue was everything that container had to do after it was built — shipping cost to Peru, road access into Piura's communities, and the lift equipment needed at the deploy site. None of it scaled cleanly.

So this semester opened with a full design re‑baseline at 20 ft. Half the roof area, half the floor, same battery bank, same water cube. Most of our work was figuring out what fits.

Dimension20‑ft (chosen)40‑ft (baseline)
LogisticsShips on standard truck · road‑legal in PiuraSpecialty transport · limited inland access
Roof PV area~13.5 m² · 5 panels top + sides~28 m² · easy headroom
Interior volume~33 m³ · tight, must elevate batteries~67 m³ · spacious
Unit cost (in‑country)~½ of the 40‑ftMaterially higher
Total panel count17 panels · roof + sides + rear22+ panels on roof only
ReplicabilityEasier to deploy multiple units to multiple villagesOne‑at‑a‑time
// Why we held the panel count

Shrinking the roof would have cost us PV — except the 20‑ft container has the same side wall area at the right angle to host panels too. The constraint pushed us into a more interesting arrangement: 5 panels on the roof, 5 on each long side, 2 on the rear wall, for 17 total. Each side panel mounts on unistrut hinges and folds flat against the container for transport.

04

Exterior · PV layout

§ 17 × 610 W bifacial
FIG-01 · Panel layout, container exterior · DEPLOYED state
5 clamshell roof flaps + 5+5 lean-to side arrays + 2 tilted rear panels = 17 modules.
VIEW 0 · AXONOMETRIC · DEPLOYED CONFIGURATION 3/4 RENDER · ROOF FLAPS UP · SIDE ARRAY LEAN‑TO · REAR PANELS TILTED L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 R1 R2 1 2 3 4 LEGEND 1 5× ROOF FLAPS 2 5×L + 5×R SIDE 3 2× REAR (R1/R2) 4 20‑FT ISO BODY DETAIL VIEWS → VIEW A · END SECTION DEPLOY GEOMETRY · LEAN‑TO PROFILE ~60° 45° 2.44 M FOOTPRINT ~5.6 M DEPLOYED A1 · 5 ROOF FLAPS (CLAMSHELL HINGE, BACK‑EDGE) A2 · L‑SIDE ARRAY (5 PANELS, LEAN‑TO) A3 · R‑SIDE ARRAY (5 PANELS, LEAN‑TO) A4 · UNISTRUT HINGE + 4‑WHEEL TROLLEY FOOT VIEW B · SIDE ELEVATION L‑SIDE ARRAY DEPLOYED · 5 MODULES F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 ROOF FLAPS · 5× L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 6.06 M · CONTAINER LENGTH B1 · ROOF FLAPS HINGED AT BACK EDGE, OPEN ~45° B2 · SIDE ARRAY HINGED ALONG TOP RAIL, ~60° OUT B3 · OUTBOARD FOOT RIDES IN A U‑CHANNEL RAIL
VIEW C · REAR ELEVATION DOOR END · 2 TILTED PANELS R1 R2
Panel Totals · Deployed Configuration
Roof flaps
5
L-side array
5
R-side array
5
Rear
2
Σ = 17 × 610 W bifacial · 10.37 kW nameplate
Each module hinged on unistrut · folds flat for transport
// Panel + mount

The panels are 610 W monocrystalline bifacial modules (N‑type, 22.6% efficiency) from a local Peruvian distributor. Bifacial absorbs reflected light off the container roof and ground, which matters on the wall‑mounted panels in particular.

Mounting is built around unistrut channel and unistrut hinges — the most accessible structural hardware in Peru, and rated for the load. Each side panel sits on a 3‑member kinematic mechanism: one hinge fixed to the container, a second hinge mid‑channel, and a 4‑wheel trolley sliding inside a U‑channel rail. Deployed, the panel angles out into direct sun; stowed, it folds flat against the container wall.

Bonus: shading + passive ventilation

Tilting the side panels out has a second effect the thermal simulation flagged as significant — the deployed panels shade the container walls, dropping interior heat load, and the gap behind them creates natural exhaust paths for hot air to escape.

05

Power chain

§ DC bus 48 V
[SRC]
PV array
17 × 610 W
10.37 kW peak
DC ~500 V
[01]
Combiner boxes
4‑in‑1 + 2‑in‑1
550 V DC · SPDs
STRINGS
[02]
Inverters (×2, parallel)
48 V · 6 kW each
built‑in 120 A MPPT
48 V DC
[03]
Battery bank
6 × LiFePO₄
48 V · 500 Ah · BMS
AC OUT
[OUT]
WC‑100 water cube
Atmospheric H₂O
+ aux fan / sensors
// Sizing calc

Battery bank from daily energy

Parray = 17 × 610 W = 10,370 W Eday = Parray × 12 hr = 124,440 Wh Cbank = Eday ÷ (Vbus × DoD × η) = 124,440 ÷ (48 × 0.95 × 0.95) 2,872.6 Ah // at 500 Ah per LiFePO₄ → 2872.6 / 500 ≈ 6 batteries

Inverter selection

10,360 W / 48 V = ~216 A charge controller current. We picked two 48 V, 6 kW inverters with built‑in 120 A MPPT charge controllers and ran them in parallel — together they handle the array's full output with margin, and each takes two parallel strings to keep series‑string current losses low. String inverters (rather than microinverters) won out on maintenance cost: they live inside the container, not bolted to the back of a panel out in the desert.

Why LiFePO4

  • Highest cycle life among accessible chemistries
  • Lower fire risk than Li‑ion (matters when the bank sits inside a sealed container)
  • Built‑in BMS — over/under voltage, temp window, cell balancing
  • IP21 enclosure — survives Piura humidity without extra weatherproofing
  • CAN / RS‑485 comms for SCADA & remote monitoring
06

Interior · Concept A vs B

§ Battery placement
// CAD review

With the 20‑ft container we had two viable interior layouts and we went back and forth on them for weeks. Both have the WC‑100 anchoring one end, the two inverters and combiner boxes on the back wall, and six batteries in between. The argument was whether the batteries lay down in a single elevated bed, or stand up split across the side walls.

● Selected · Concept A

Batteries laid down, elevated catwalk over the top

VERDICT — best interior access, moisture protection, install-friendly
  • Catwalk gives the install/maintenance crew an actual surface to stand on
  • Strut trusses absorb load — batteries don't see foot traffic weight
  • Elevated off the floor → batteries survive incidental water intrusion
  • All six batteries on one side of the long axis — minor weight imbalance
Battery Inverter WC‑100
○ Alternative · Concept B

Batteries standing up, split 3/3 along both long walls

VERDICT — better weight distribution, but no working room
  • Mass split evenly L/R — easier on the container floor and on transport balance
  • No catwalk — almost no walking space between the standing batteries
  • Water cube nearly touches the back wall — service clearance gone
  • Manufacturer hadn't confirmed vertical orientation was rated
Battery Inverter WC‑100
// Decision rationale

Concept A won because the lifecycle math favored it — this thing is going to be opened and serviced by a non‑specialist crew in Piura for years. A catwalk and clear sight lines on every component beat a slightly better weight distribution that no installer will ever feel. Future iteration: explore splitting the laid‑down banks 3/3 across both side walls to recover Concept B's symmetry without losing the catwalk.

07

Thermal & safety

§ Piura 93 °F / 52% RH
// Trace 3D simulation

We modeled the container against Piura's worst‑case ambient — 93 °F at 52% relative humidity — with Daniel Cowan, a professional engineer who walked us through Trace. Internal heat sources were ~900 W of electrical loss off the inverters and batteries, and the WC‑100 itself moves about 4,200 CFM of air through its intake.

Component operating window

ComponentMinMax
PV panel−40 °C85 °C
LiFePO₄ battery0 °C55 °C
Inverter / MPPT−10 °C55 °C
Combiner box−25 °C55 °C
Circuit breaker−5 °C40 °C

The circuit breaker's 40 °C ceiling drives the cooling spec — everything else has headroom, that single part doesn't.

Heat gain · uninsulated
~18,000 BTU/h
Worst‑case Piura ambient
Heat gain · 2" polyurethane
~5,500 BTU/h
−69% with insulation + panel shading
// Ventilation spec

Final cooling recommendation

  • 2" polyurethane insulation — 4" was only marginally better and not worth the cost
  • 500 CFM spark‑resistant exhaust fan, triggered on (≥100 °F internal) OR (H₂ concentration above threshold)
  • Two 16"×16" gasketed dampers — one low intake, one high exhaust
  • Ducted airflow in/out of the WC‑100 — uses the cube's own air movement to do work
  • Panel shading prioritized in the exterior design (see §04)

Battery safety stack

  • NFPA 855 guidance — Li‑ion banks don't require active exhaust under normal operation, but H2 detection & explosion control are evaluated as a precaution
  • Fire‑rated, ventilated battery compartment — investigating NOVEC 1230 vs FM‑200 vs CO2 for the suppression agent
  • Door interlock — opening the compartment kills charge/discharge with a warning indicator
  • Built‑in BMS handles voltage / temperature limits; an external humidity sensor wires to a relay that cuts charging on excess RH
// SCADA hook

BMS exposes CAN and RS‑485. Plan is to land both on a Remote Terminal Unit feeding an HMI in‑country — operators in Piura get live state of charge, temperature, humidity, and a kill‑switch over LTE without anyone opening the container.

08

Bill of materials

§ Locally sourced · Peru
RolePartQtySpec / note
PV moduleTensite 610 W N‑type bifacial17Monocrystalline · 22.6% η · AutoSolar Peru
BatteryFelicity Solar FLA485006LiFePO₄ · 48 V · 500 Ah · 25 kWh · BMS, fuses, IP21 · Panel Solar Peru
InverterGosPower 48 V · 6 kW2Built‑in 120 A MPPT · 500 V PV · IP54 · parallel pair
CombinerDC combiner 4‑in‑11Up to 550 V DC · integrated SPD & grounding busbar
CombinerDC combiner 2‑in‑11Up to 550 V DC · for the smaller string set
Breaker (AC)Chint 2P 50 A 6 kA1Thermomagnetic · AC out to WC‑100
Breaker (DC)125 A DC2Battery‑side fault isolation
MountUnistrut channel + hinges + 4‑wheel trolley3‑member kinematic mechanism, deploy/stow each panel
WiringMC4 + copper busbar + conduitSeries strings via MC4 · busbar for parallel · color‑coded wire
09

Result & status

§ End of Spring 2025
PV nameplate
10.37 kW
17 × 610 W bifacial
Battery bank
~150 kWh
6 × 25 kWh LiFePO₄
Container
20 ft
−50% footprint vs F'24 baseline
Budget used
$242 / $1,000
Fall '24 expenditure · design phase only
// Deliverables shipped
  • SolidWorks CAD model — exterior PV layout (with deploy/stow mechanism) + interior component plan (Concept A)
  • KiCad circuit schematic and full wiring diagram with gauge labels and grounding paths
  • 20‑ft vs 40‑ft trade study with cost / logistics / area comparison
  • Component BOM with model numbers, datasheet links, and live Peruvian purchase links
  • Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) for materials + labor
  • Thermal load report and ventilation spec, signed off with mentor engineer
// Next semester · Fall 2025

Lock the ventilation hardware to specific Peruvian SKUs. Finalize the battery fire‑hazard mitigation — moving toward a smart enclosure with door interlock, warning indicator, and active suppression. Roll the wiring diagram into the interior CAD model so cable trays are planned in 3D, not in 2D and hoped‑for. Vendor outreach for build quotes.

10

Toolchain

§ Stack
11

Takeaways

§ What I learned
// Leading vs designing

Running this team taught me that the hardest part of leading a multidisciplinary project isn't the engineering — it's keeping the seams aligned. The mech team's CAD and the electrical team's wiring diagram each looked correct in isolation; the bug was always in the interface between them. Future me would start with the seam — fold the wiring routes into the CAD interior model from week one rather than reconciling at the end.

The 40 → 20‑ft pivot was the right call, and it was painful. Most of the prior semester's CAD didn't survive intact. But shrinking the form factor forced creativity we wouldn't have found at 40‑ft — the hinged side panels, the catwalk, the natural shading underneath each tilted module. Constraints make the design more interesting, every time.

And on the systems side: the single most leveraged decision was specifying inverters with built‑in MPPT charge controllers. The previous baseline ran them as separate components. Folding them in cut the high‑current DC component count substantially, simplified the wiring diagram, and shrank the BOM. The right part removes itself from the BOM.

More work →