A local jurisdiction is starting to require that we document non-truss
rafter dimensions, span and attachment points. This seems to be a fad
that other jurisdictions have required at times, and other times not.
When the existing structure was deemed insufficient, we've either paid a
structural engineer to do some calcs and recommend more attachment
points, or sistered the rafters to match the spacing given in the 20 psf
table in the UBC.
Would the dead load from the PV modules ever be more than that from
adding a second layer of comp roofing, which does not require a
structural analysis? Would the live point loads from the PV system ever
be greater than the point load of a person walking on the roof? If the
answers are "no" and "no", then it seems that a roof that supports a
person walking on it would not be adversely affected by the installation
of a non-ballasted residential PV system.
I looking for help with the following:
1. Has there been an occasion when a residential PV system
(non-ballasted), that was installed per the manufacturer's
instructions, detached from a roof or caused damage to the structure
of the roof?
2. Is there a good explanation for why structural review for
residential PV systems is necessary?
3. Are there studies or resources that I can present to building
officials to explain why structural review for residential PV
systems is not necessary?
Thanks for your help.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
