CODE-Wind Design Solar Panels

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
WIND DESIGN FOR SOLAR ARRAYS
by
SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee
Report SEAOC PV2-2017

July 2017
Board of Directors, 2016-2017
Officers
Chris Kamp, President Bradley Lowe, Treasurer
Janah Risha, President Elect Kelly Cobeen, Past President
Michael Braund, Secretary Don Schinske, Executive Director
Directors
Dick Dreyer Robert Lyons
Jeff Ellis Kate Stillwell
Darron Huntingdale Ryan Turner
Michelle Kam-Biron Taryn Williams
Krista Looza
Disclaimer
Documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) are published as part of our association’s
educational program. While the information presented in the document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its Board,
committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this document make any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed herein. The material presented in this document should not be used or relied upon for any specific
application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals.
Users of information from this document assume all liability arising from such use.
Structural Engineers Association of California

© 2017 SEAOC
All rights reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the
Structural Engineers Association of California.

921 11th Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 447-1198
Fax: (916) 444-1501
Email: info@seaoc.org
http://www.seaoc.org
Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Report SEAOC PV2-2017 Page ii
Wind Design for Solar Arrays

This report was written by the SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee, a subcommittee of the SEAOC Wind Committee.
SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee

Voting Members
Andreas Karlsson, SunPower Ken Luttrell, CYS Structural Engineering
Gwenyth Searer, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Mason Walters, Forell/Elsesser Engineers
James Adams, Solar-Roof-Check.com Nader Namdar, Namdar Structural, Earthquake Eng.
James S. Lai, Retired structural engineer Norm Scheel, Norman Scheel Structural Engineer
Joe Cain, Solar Energy Industries Association Rob Ward, SunLink
Joe Maffei (Chair), Maffei Structural Engineering Ron LaPlante, Division of the State Architect
Karl Telleen (Vice Chair), Maffei Structural Engineering
Associate Members
Adam Saidel, DPW Solar Lakshmana Doddipatla, FM Global
Ajay Friesen, SunPower Logan Boutilier, DNV GL
Amir Massoumi, Tesla Mark Gies, Centroplan
Annika Chase, QuickMount PV Matt Danning, Everest Solar Systems
Anurang Jain, Thornton Tomasetti Matt Gilliss, Engineered Power Solutions
Bryan Cusick, SunPower Mika Jovanovic, PanelClaw
Colin Blaney, Buehler & Buehler Murray Morrison, Institute for Business & Home Safety
David Banks, CPP Wind Engineering Consultants Osama Younan, City of Los Angeles
Dick Davis, FM Global Paul Zacher, PZSE Structural Engineers
Don Scott, PCS Structural Solutions Pete Fischer, Division of the State Architect
Emily Guglielmo, Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers Philip Patnude, Tesla
Eric Thomas, City of Portland Philip Yin, City of Long Beach
Gregory Kopp, University of Western Ontario Rick Hanson, RHCE
Hernando Montoya, TJC and Associates, Inc. Rob D'Anastasio, Ecolibrium Solar
Hossein Mostafaei, FM Global Sage Lopez, Sunrun Inc.
Jeni Hall, Energy Trust of Oregon Samuel Truthseeker, Truthseeker Consulting
Jennifer Carey, Unirac Scott Mulligan, Buehler & Buehler
Jeremy Rogelstad, Tesla Stephen Kerr, Josephson-Werdowatz & Associates
Joel Schafer, Blue Oak Energy, LLC Steve Bauer, Unirac
John Wolfe, Mar Structural Design Thomas Lundin, Structural Systems Solutions
Jonathan Lam, LA County Building and Safety Division Thorsten Kray, I.F.I. Institut für Industrieaerodynamik GmbH
Justin Rupley, ZFA Structural Engineers Veronica Crothers, Maffei Structural Engineering
Karen Roberts, Division of the State Architect Wolfgang Fritz, Schletter
Kristin Norman, LA County Building and Safety Div. Yarrow Fewless, CPP Wind Engineering Consultants
SEAOC Wind Committee
Anurag Jain, Thornton Tomasetti Ken Luttrell (Co-Chair), CYS Structural Engineering
Gwenyth Searer, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc. Norm Scheel, Norman Scheel Structural Engineer
James Adams, Solar-roof-check.com Ron LaPlante, Division of the State Architect
James S. Lai (Chair), Retired structural engineer Stephen Kerr, Josephson-Werdowatz & Associates, Inc.
Joe Maffei, Maffei Structural Engineering
Alternates
Emily Guglielmo, Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers Karl Telleen, Maffei Structural Engineering
Nader Namdar, Namdar Structural, Earthquake Eng. Manny Sinha, Parsons

Report SEAOC PV2-2017 Page iii
Preface and Acknowledgements

This report was developed by the Structural Engineers where the ASCE 7-16 requirements may be incomplete or
Association of California’s (SEAOC) Solar Photovoltaic unconservative.
Systems Committee (PV committee), a subcommittee of the
For brevity, much of the background discussion in PV2-2012
SEAOC Wind Committee. The PV committee was formed in
on the nature of wind loads on low-profile roof-mounted
September 2011 with the principal goal of addressing the lack
systems was not included in the ASCE 7 commentary. We
of specific requirements in applying structural building code
have kept and refined that discussion here.
provisions to solar photovoltaic systems.
The example problems on designing solar arrays for wind
The committee directed its initial efforts on low-profile
loads have been significantly revised from PV2-2012, with
photovoltaic installations on low-slope roofs and produced
sections designed to illustrate specific aspects of the methods.
Report PV1-2012 on seismic-structural design, and Report
PV2-2012 on wind design. Joe Maffei directed the David Banks of CPP Wind Engineering Consultants is the
development of the PV1 report, and Ron LaPlante directed the principal author of this update, with substantial assistance
development of the PV2 report. from Karl Telleen of Maffei Structural Engineering. These
two authors did a fabulous job, both in technical quality and in
One objective of the 2012 reports was to develop provisions
keeping the project moving forward. I am deeply grateful to
for the next ASCE 7 standard, and this was achieved in ASCE
them both, and equally grateful to the broad participation in
7-16. As part of the ASCE 7 development and adoption
our efforts from numerous engineers in consulting and in the
process, the provisions proposed in SEAOC PV2-2012 were in
solar industry. The long list of committee members at the
some cases refined and/or simplified.
beginning of this document is a testament to the active
This report, PV2-2017, supersedes PV2-2012 by referencing involvement and wide-ranging support that have made this
the provisions in ASCE 7-16, including knowledge from effort possible and worthwhile.
research since 2012, and making recommendations beyond
While numerous committee members have contributed to this
those in ASCE 7-16. As an aid to the user, some of the
report, I would also like to express special thanks to Jennifer
relevant ASCE 7-16 wind-load provisions for solar are
Carey of Unirac for her efforts in coordinating and developing
excerpted in this report. Engineers should use ASCE 7 itself
the example problems, to Gwenyth Searer of WJE for her
for the definitive requirements and for the many related
careful review, and to David’s fellow wind gurus, Greg Kopp
requirements that are not included here (such as risk categories
of University of Western Ontario, Thorsten Kray of I.F.I.
or load combinations). This report should not be considered a
Institut für Industrieaerodynamik GmbH, and Yarrow Fewless
substitute for directly using the ASCE 7 standard.
of CPP for their help in understanding the physics and
Substantial new information is included in this report that is improving the methods. We would like to express our
not in PV2-2012 or ASCE 7-16, such as updated terminology, appreciation to the SEAOC Wind Committee, chaired by
a general requirement for effective wind area determination, James Lai, and to the SEAOC Board of Directors who oversee
and a number of additional requirements for wind load and support the work of the PV Committee.
determination and for wind-tunnel studies. We have added
Sincerely,
provisions to clarify or provide extensions to the ASCE 7-16
requirements. In most cases, the added provisions are Joe Maffei
“optional refinements” that typically result in smaller wind Chair of SEAOC Photovoltaic Systems Committee
loads compared to ASCE 7-16 and can potentially be used as July 2017
part of an approved alternate method of design via Section
104.11 of the International Building Code. In a few cases,
added provisions are “recommended additional requirements”

Report SEAOC PV2-2017 Page iv
Contents
Requirements and Commentary
1. Scope...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Thickness of solar panels ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Terminology........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Effective wind area ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
4. Tilted panels on flat or low-slope roofs ................................................................................................................................................. 2
4.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
4.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included in ASCE 7-16) .......................................................................................... 5
4.3. Optional refinements (not included in ASCE 7-16) ....................................................................................................................... 5
5. Flush-mounted arrays on flat or sloped roofs....................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included in ASCE 7-16) ........................................................................................ 13
5.3. Optional refinements (not included in ASCE 7-16) ..................................................................................................................... 14
6. Design of the roof ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
7. Wind tunnel procedure ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
8. Wind dynamic effects on ground-mounted solar arrays ...................................................................................................................... 19
8.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures ................................................................................................................................................................. 19
9. References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Example Problems
A. Roof wind zones ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
B. Normalized wind area (An) ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
C. Nominal net pressure coefficient ((GCrn)nom) ................................................................................................................................. 23
D. Parapet factor (γP) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24
E. Chord factor (γC)............................................................................................................................................................................. 24
F. Edge factor (γE) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
G. Effective wind area (A) and design wind pressure (p) .................................................................................................................... 25
H. Design of an unattached (ballast-only) array to resist uplift ........................................................................................................... 27
I. Design of an unattached (ballast-only) array to resist sliding......................................................................................................... 29
J. Parallel-to-roof (flush-mounted) modules ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Report SEAOC PV2-2017 Page v
Requirements and Commentary

designs under the ASCE 7-10 standard. The recommendations for
Legend flush-mounted solar installations, in Section 5, can only be used with
ASCE 7-16 component and cladding wind pressures.
ASCE 7-16 excerpts
This document does not address tilted panels (including reverse-tilt
SEAOC recommendations panels) on roofs with slope greater than 7 degrees. See Section 5.2.1.
SEAOC commentary 1.1. Thickness of solar panels

Wind loads calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-16
1. Scope Sections 29.4.3 and 29.4.4 are applicable to solar panels
having thickness of 4 inches (101 mm) or less.
This report addresses wind loads for low-profile photovoltaic
arrays with tilted panels on flat or low-slope roofs of buildings Commentary: While ASCE 7-16 does not specify a maximum
(Section 4). It also addresses parallel-to-roof (flush-mounted) thickness of panel for which these provisions are applicable, we
arrays on roofs of any slope (Section 5). recommend the limit stated above based dimensions of commonly-
used modules and what has been tested in wind tunnel experiments
Roofs supporting solar arrays shall be designed according to upon which these provisions are based.
Section 6. Wind tunnel procedures shall meet the requirements
of Section 7. Ground-mounted solar arrays shall be designed 2. Terminology
according to Section 8.
This report uses the following terms, symbols, and notation
Commentary: Design wind loads for solar photovoltaic arrays on the defined in ASCE 7-16:
roof types described above are covered by the 2016 version of ASCE
7 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and ASCE 7-16:
Other Structures. The ASCE 7-16 provisions for wind loads on tilted
26.2 DEFINITIONS
panels on flat roofs, wind loads on the roof itself, and wind tunnel
testing of rooftop solar arrays are based on the 2012 version of EFFECTIVE WIND AREA, A: The area used to determine the
SEAOC PV2, with some modifications. external pressure coefficient, (GCp), and (GCrn). For component and
cladding elements, the effective wind area in Figs. 30.3-1 through
This 2017 version of PV2 is intended to extend and clarify the ASCE
30.3-7, 30.4-1, 30.5-1, and 30.7-1 through 30.7-3 is the span length
7-16 provisions. This PV2 report includes the relevant excerpts from
multiplied by an effective width that need not be less than one-third
ASCE 7-16 along with SEAOC’s recommended modifications or
the span length. For rooftop solar arrays, the effective wind area in
additions and commentary explaining the SEAOC recommendations.
Figure 29.4-7 is equal to the tributary area for the structural element
SEAOC PV2-2012 indicated that cladding loads for the roof itself being considered, except that the width of the effective wind area
could be used for flush-mounted solar panels. ASCE 7-16 introduces need not be less than one-third its length. For cladding fasteners, the
a new procedure for adapting roof-cladding loads to apply to flush- effective wind area shall not be greater than the area that is tributary
mounted solar panels, which is an advancement of what was to an individual fastener.
recommended in PV2-2012. In applying this new procedure, this
26.3 SYMBOLS
current PV2 report provides guidance on how to distinguish a flush-
mounted system from a tilted low-profile system. A = effective wind area, in ft2 (m2)
This report includes SEAOC recommended additional steps, which An = normalized wind area for rooftop solar panels in Figure 29.4-7.
are optional but provide more accurate wind loads. Some of these
optional steps are aspects of PV2-2012 that were omitted from ASCE d1 = for rooftop solar arrays, horizontal distance orthogonal to the
7-16 for simplicity. panel edge to an adjacent panel or the building edge, ignoring
any rooftop equipment in Figure 29.4-7, in ft (m).
This report also includes a number of important requirements for
wind tunnel testing of solar arrays, which are based on the d2 = for rooftop solar arrays, horizontal distance from the edge of one
committee’s experience conducting and peer-reviewing such testing, panel to the nearest edge in the next row of panels in Fig. 29.4-7,
and which are additional to ASCE 7-16 requirements. in ft (m).
The report includes a recommendation for consideration of dynamic (GCrn) = net pressure coefficient for rooftop solar panels, in Eqs.
effects for wind design of ground-mounted solar arrays. (29.4-5) and (29.4-6).
This report refers to the ASCE 7-16 standard. Some of the (GCrn)nom = nominal net pressure coefficient for rooftop solar panels
recommendations in this report could be used, as applicable, with determined from Fig. 29.4-7.

Report SEAOC PV2-2017 Page 1
h = mean roof height of a building or height of other structure, except Commentary: To use the design wind pressure recommendations in
that eave height shall be used for roof angle θ less than or equal this report or in ASCE 7, the structural engineer must determine the
to 10°, in ft (m) appropriate effective wind area for relevant structural members,
actions (uplift, sliding, etc.), and load cases. Due to the dynamic
h1 = height of a solar panel above the roof at the lower edge of the
nature of wind, pressures generated by wind are dependent on the
panel, in ft (m).
area over which they act, with larger pressures affecting smaller
h2 = height of a solar panel above the roof at the upper edge of the areas, and smaller pressures affecting larger areas. Thus each
panel, in ft (m). component or fastener has an effective wind area over which wind
can act and which should be considered in the design of that
hpt = mean parapet height above the adjacent roof surface for use with component or fastener.
Eq. (29.4-6), in ft (m).
In systems with nonlinear behavior, such as ballasted solar arrays
Lb = normalized building length, for use with Figure 29.4-7, in ft (m). subjected to uplift, effective wind area may depend on the vertical
Lp = panel chord length for use with rooftop solar panels in Fig. 29.4- deflection that the array is allowed to undergo. Smaller deflection
7, in ft (m). limits typically require consideration of smaller effective wind areas.
WL = width of a building on its longest side in Fig. 29.4-7, in ft (m). The calculation examples at the end of this report demonstrate the
correct application of effective wind area for the case of a ballasted
WS = width of a building on its shortest side in Fig. 29.4-7, in ft (m). solar array.
γc = panel chord factor for use with rooftop solar panels in Eq. The SEAOC PV Committee is planning to develop further guidance
(29.4-6). regarding determining effective wind area.
γE = array edge factor for use with rooftop solar panels in Fig. 29.4-7
and Eqs. (29.4-6) and (29.4-7). 4. Tilted panels on flat or low-slope roofs
γp = parapet height factor for use with rooftop solar panels in Eq. 4.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures
(29.4-6)
For arrays of tilted panels on flat or low-slope roofs, design
θ = angle of plane of roof from horizontal, in degrees. wind pressure shall be determined in accordance with
ω = Angle that the solar panel makes with the roof surface in Fig. ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3, which is referenced by the
29.4-7, in degrees. components and cladding Section 30.13:
This report uses the following additional terms: ASCE 7-16:
Solar module, panel, array: In this report the term solar 30.13 ROOFTOP SOLAR PANELS FOR BUILDINGS OF ALL
module refers to an individual solid unit of a solar panel. HEIGHTS WITH FLAT ROOFS OR GABLE OR HIP ROOFS
WITH SLOPES LESS THAN 7°
Solar panel refers to a single plane, typically consisting of
several solar modules fastened together. The term solar array The design wind pressure for rooftop solar modules and panels shall
refers to a collection of solar panels. In some instances, ASCE be determined in accordance with Section 29.4.3 for rooftop solar
7-16 uses the term “solar collector,” which can be considered arrays that conform to the geometric requirements specified in
interchangeable with the term “solar panel.” Section 29.4.3.
Commentary: The terms used in this report – module, panel, and

array – are defined to be consistent with common industry ASCE 7-16:
terminology, and generally consistent with definitions in the National
Electrical Code. This report applies to solar panels that are planar 29.4.3 Rooftop Solar Panels for Buildings of All Heights With
(flat) and modules that are non-porous. The modules can be Flat Roofs or Gable or Hip Roofs with Slopes Less Than 7o.
photovoltaic or solar thermal modules as long as they meet the As illustrated in Fig. 29.4-7, the design wind pressure for rooftop
dimensional limitations herein. solar panels apply to those located on enclosed or partially enclosed
buildings of all heights with flat roofs, or with gable or hip roof
3. Effective wind area slopes with θ ≤ 7o, with panels conforming to:
The Effective wind area for all relevant structural members Lp ≤ 6.7 ft (2.04 m),
and actions shall be established by the Engineer of Record for ω ≤ 35o
h1 ≤ 2 ft (0.61 m),
the solar panel support system, based on principles of
h2 ≤ 4 ft (1.22 m),
mechanics and, if appropriate, suitable testing.

with a minimum gap of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) provided between all (GCrn)nom = nominal net pressure coefficient for rooftop solar panels
panels, and the spacing of gaps between panels not exceeding 6.7 ft as determined from Fig. 29.4-7.
(2.04 m). In addition, the minimum horizontal clear distance between
the panels and the edge of the roof shall be the larger of 2(h2 – hpt) When ω ≤ 2°, h2 ≤ 0.83 ft (0.25 m), and a minimum gap of 0.25 in.
and 4 ft (1.22 m) for the design pressures in this section to apply. The (6.4 mm) is provided between all panels, and the spacing of gaps
design wind pressure for rooftop solar panels shall be determined by between panels does not exceed 6.7 ft (2.04 m), the procedure of
Eq. (29.4-5) and (29.4-6): Section 29.4.4 shall be permitted.
p = qh (GCrn) (lb/ft2) (29.4-5)

p = qh (GCrn) (N/m2) (29.4-5.si) ASCE 7-16:
where NOTES FOR FIGURE 29.4-7

(GCrn) = (γp) (γc) (γE) (GCrn)nom (29.4-6) 1. (GCrn) acts towards (+) and away from (–) the top surface of the
γp = min (1.2, 0.9 + hpt / h); panels.
γc = max (0.6 + 0.06 Lp , 0.8); and 2. Linear interpolation is allowed for ω between 5° and 15°.
3.
γE = 1.5 for uplift loads on panels that are exposed and within a
distance 1.5Lp from the end of a row at an exposed edge of the 1000
array; γE = 1.0 elsewhere for uplift loads and for all downward 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = � � 𝐴𝐴.
[𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 ,15𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 [4.6𝑚𝑚])]2
loads, as illustrated in Fig. 29.4-7. A panel is defined as
exposed if d1 to the roof edge > 0.5h and one of the following where A is the effective wind area of the structural element of the
applies: solar panel being considered, and
1. d1 to the adjacent array > max (4h2, 4 ft (1.2m) or Lb is the minimum of 0.4 (h WL)0.5 or h or Ws in ft (m).
2. d2 to the next adjacent panel > max (4h2, 4 ft (1.2m).

29.4-7 Panels

Figure 1: Building roof plan demonstrating application of roof zones to non-rectangular roofs and Roof Wind Zone 1’.
Commentary: The following are steps for using ASCE 7-16 Figure 4.3. Optional refinements (not included in ASCE 7-16)
29.4-7.
The following refinements (Items 4.3.1 through 4.3.5) may be
Step 1: Confirm applicability of the figure to the building and the applied together or individually, as a supplement to the
solar installation. provisions of Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Step 2: Determine roof zones.
Step 3: Determine effective wind area and normalized wind area Commentary: These optional procedures will provide more accurate
for each element being evaluated. results, typically resulting smaller design wind loads compared to
Step 4: Compute (GCrn)nom from applicable chart, using linear ASCE 7-16.
interpolation for values of ω between 5o and 15o.
Step 5: Apply chord length adjustment factor, γc. 4.3.1. Roof Zone 1’ (far from roof edges)
Step 6: Apply the Edge Factor, γE, if necessary. Design wind pressure in the deep-interior region defined as
Step 7: Apply parapet height factor, γpE. Zone 1’ in Figure 1 can be calculated using the pressure
Step 8: Calculate GCrn. coefficients from Figure 2. Linear interpolation is permitted
Step 9: Calculate pressure, p, using Equation 29.4-5. for panel tilts between 5° and 15°.
4.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included Commentary: For buildings that are sufficiently wide (Ws > 10h),
in ASCE 7-16) there is a region (Zone 1’) located sufficiently far from the roof
corners that it is not significantly affected by roof corner vortices or
The following requirements are recommended in addition to roof edge flow separation. As a result, the roof wind pressures do not
the provisions of Section 4.1. vary with building size in this region.
4.2.1. Minimum design wind pressure A version of Figure 1 appears in the ASCE 7-16 commentary (Figure
Design wind pressure in all roof zones calculated in C29.4-1) to clarify how the provisions for roof wind zones can be
accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 shall not be taken applied to non-rectangular buildings, but the ASCE 7-16 provisions
less than the design wind pressure calculated using the do not include Zone 1’. (In developing ASCE7-16, deep-interior
Zone 0 from PV2-2012 was omitted from section 29.4.3 for
pressure coefficients in Figure 2. Linear interpolation is
simplicity. A deep interior Zone 1’ was introduced to the flat roof
permitted for panel tilts between 5° and 15°. cladding loads section, however, so we have used that convention in
Commentary: For some building dimensions, elements with large re-introducing a deep-interior zone here.)
values of effective wind area, A, may have pressure coefficients from
Figure 2 that are greater than those from ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7.
For example, for h = 15 feet and A > 62 sf (5.8 m²), Figure 2 results
in greater pressure coefficients than the Zone 1 coefficients. In these
cases, it would be unconservative to use the Zone 1 coefficients.
Therefore, although ASCE 7-16 does not require use of Figure 2, use
of the figure to determine a minimum design pressure is strongly
recommended.

4.3.3. Array edge factor applies to only one array edge at a

time
The array edge factor γE = 1.5 need only be applied to one
array edge at a time.
Commentary: The increase in wind pressure at array edges occurs
only on the windward side of an array. If the analysis of wind loads
considers separately the different directions of wind, taking the worst
load pattern for each direction, the edge factor need not be applied to
more than one edge of the array within a given load pattern. All
directions of wind must be considered.
4.3.4. Alternate calculation of array edge factor

Figure 2: Zone 1’ nominal net pressure coefficients, and In lieu of using the edge factor γE as either 1.0 or 1.5 as
minimum coefficients for all zones. provided for by ASCE 7-16, γE may be determined according
to Figure 4, using the distance to the furthest neighboring
4.3.2. Independent corners panel, divided by the maximum height of the panel above the
For buildings with projecting wings, the normalized building roof. As indicated in ASCE 7-16, γE is permitted to be taken as
length Lb used to calculate normalized wind area An for panels 1.0 where the distance from the panel’s windward edge to the
in Zone 3, is permitted to be calculated for each building windward edge of the roof is less than 0.5h, where h is the
corner, using WL taken as the longest building width extending mean roof height.
from that corner. For panels in Zone 2, Lb is permitted to be
taken as the larger of the Lb values from the two adjoining Commentary: Panels around the perimeter of an array are subject to
building corners. greater wind pressure when the spacing d2 between rows of panels (or
the distance d1 from the panel’s windward edge to the edge of the
Figure 3 shows an example of this approach. next array) is large with respect to the height h2 of the upper edge of
the panels above the roof. Whereas the ASCE 7-16 provisions specify
γE as a step function of either 1.0 or 1.5, Figure 4 recognizes that the
array edge effect increases gradually as a function of this ratio of
clear spacing to height.
Low-profile panels near a roof edge will not experience wind flow
approaching from that roof edge. This is because the roof edge causes
flow separation, which reverses the flow direction in the region near
the roof edge (Figure 5). As a result, panels that are within a distance
of 0.5h from the edge of the roof do not need to consider an increase
in wind pressure at the edge of the array nearest the roof edge when
considering wind coming from that direction. However, if other
edges of the array are exposed, panels on those edges must consider
an increase in wind pressure when considering wind coming from
those respective directions.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
γE
Figure 3: Building roof plan demonstrating determination of 1.1

normalized building length Lb for one roof edge 1
zone of a building with projecting wings. In this 0 2 4 6 8 10
example, Lb for Zone 3b is greater than that for d2/h2 (or d1/h2 if d1 is distance to next array)
Zone 3a because WLb is greater than WLa. Lb for the Figure 4: Array edge factor γE as a function of spacing
edge (Zone 2) between Zone 3a and 3b is equal to between rows of panels in an array (d2) or distance
Lb for Zone 3b. Similar calculations are to be used from the panel’s windward edge to the next
to determine Lb for Zone 2 and Zone 3 at each of adjacent array (d1), whichever is greater, divided
the other roof edges and corners. by the height h2 of the upper edge of the panel
above the roof.

4.3.5. Gaps between modules

For tilted panels on flat roofs in which a clear horizontal
distance (d2) of at least 0.5h2 exists between each row of
panels, it is not necessary to also provide 0.25 inch (6.4 mm)
gaps between modules along the length of the row.
Commentary: For the provisions of ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 to
apply (i.e., tilted panels on flat roofs), ASCE 7-16 requires “a
minimum gap of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) between all [modules] and…
Figure 5: Flow separation and reattachment. (Diagram courtesy of
spacing of gaps between [modules] not exceeding 6.7 ft (2.04 m).”
CPP)
This requirement is intended to encourage providing gaps of
sufficient size such that pressure equalization can occur between the This zone of swirling air is called a separated flow region. If the
top and bottom surfaces of the panels. (Pressure equalization refers to building is wide enough, the wind above the building eventually
the ability of fluctuations in wind pressure to flow around the panels, descends and meets the roof at the reattachment point. Although this
so that the pressures on the top and bottom surfaces of the panels point shifts around during a high wind event, on a building much
partially equalize or counteract, leading to lower net wind loads.) For wider than it is tall, it is commonly located at a distance of
arrays of tilted panels, however, the space between rows is much approximately one to two times the building height inboard from the
larger than this 0.25 inch (6.4 mm) minimum; in this case, the windward roof edge (23), depending on the nature and intensity of
pressure on the underside of the panels is typically dictated by the the turbulence in the approach flow. Beyond the reattachment point,
spacing between rows, so additional 0.25 inch (6.4mm) gaps along the wind flows approximately parallel to the roof.
the length of each row are inconsequential and unnecessary.
Conversely, for flush-mounted arrays, it is important to provide gaps Winds approaching the building obliquely, toward one of the corners,
between modules, as described in Section 5. behave somewhat differently. Oblique or cornering winds generate
conical vortices above the roof. These vortices originate at the corner
Commentary: Background on provisions for of the roof and radiate toward the middle of the roof (see Figure 6
and Figure 7). The core of the vortex contains significant negative
tilted panels on flat roofs (suction) pressure, which is responsible for the peak uplift on the roof
itself (5). This suction directly beneath the vortices can produce
Why roof wind zones are different for low-profile tilted solar
uplift pressure on roof-mounted solar modules as well, but for solar
panels compared to roof components and cladding loads
modules, wind loads are typically greater just inboard of the core of
In ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7, the roof has been split up into three the vortex, near where the vortex reattaches to the roof.
distinct zones: interior zone, edge zone, and corner zone. The corner
Where the vortex reattaches to the roof, downward pressure occurs.
zones are located within a distance of two times the building height
Between the core and the reattachment, there is a rapid transition
from the building corners, where the air flow is characterized by the
from high suction to downward pressure. The vortex position and
most severe effects of the corner vortices. This is different from the
intensity vary rapidly, in part due to different scales of turbulence in
roof wind zones for components and cladding in ASCE 7-16.
the approach flow. These extreme fluctuations inhibit pressure
This section describes wind flow characteristics to explain how wind equalization in this region, so net uplift forces on solar modules are
loads on solar photovoltaic panels are affected by different greater.
phenomena than the roof members themselves, and why it is not
appropriate to use the ASCE 7 components and cladding roof loads to
estimate loads on tilted solar panels.
As wind flow approaches the side of a building, the structure forces
the wind to flow up and over the top, as illustrated in Figure 5. The
air does not, however, flow smoothly over the roof. Instead, it breaks
away at the leading edge of the roof causing a shear layer (i.e. a zone
where velocity changes rapidly over a short distance) and leaving a
zone of swirling air beneath it.
Figure 6: Plan view of the corner of a building model in a wind

tunnel test. Smoke swirls show the cores of vortices
extending from the corner of the roof. (Photo courtesy of
CPP)
The cornering vortices reattach to the roof with higher wind speeds
between the two vortices than the approach flow (10). The swirling

flow also significantly increases the vertical component of the wind.

Depending on the orientation of the panels relative to the vortex, this
can produce uplift or downforce.
Figure 7: Corner vortices on a roof top. (Figure courtesy of CPP)

Figure 8: Wind zones for components and cladding on a flat roof per
The phenomena described in the preceding paragraphs result in much ASCE 7-10. The edge and corner zones have been made
higher wind loads on solar panels in the corner zones than those in wider in ASCE 7-16, per Figure 9.
the middle of the roof (15), and they also explain why the roof zones
are wider for roof-mounted solar arrays than for the roof itself. Wind
uplift on the roof itself is most severe under the vortex core, while
uplift on the solar array is highest between the core and the
reattachment (8). The precise location of peak uplift varies with the
tilt of the panels, the parapet height, and the nature of any wind
deflector devices installed as part of the array, as discussed below.
Figure 8 shows a diagram of the wind zones for the roof of a typical
low-rise building based on ASCE 7-10. These zones are now known
to be too narrow, and are revised in ASCE 7-16, as shown in Figure
9.
Figure 9: Wind zones for a flat roof for components and cladding,
per ASCE 7-16.
For tilted solar panels mounted on top of the roof, the zones can be
twice as wide as the building is high (a ≈ 2h), as depicted in Figure
10.
The roof is vulnerable to the difference between the pressure within
the building and that above the roof. As discussed above, higher wind
loads in the edge regions can be caused by high suction forces in the
core of the vortices being transferred to the roof surface. Solar panels
mounted on the roof, conversely, are vulnerable not only to the
suction in the vortex cores (particularly lower tilt panels) and (as

detailed above) to the pressure gradient, but also to the speed and Why wind loads on roof-mounted arrays are different from
direction of the wind approaching the panel. Higher tilt panels are arrays on the ground
particularly vulnerable to the vertical component of the swirling air in
the area of reattachment and near the corner vortices (23). Therefore, Due to the sensitivity of tilted roof-mounted panels to the swirling
the edge zones for solar panels are wider (7) (22). wind flows near the building edges, the aerodynamic forces on roof-
mounted arrays are very different from those on the ground.
In addition, the surface of the roof experiences significant suction
forces due to “bubble separation”, a type of flow separation that Wind tests performed without placing panels in realistic separated
occurs when the wind approaches normal to a wall and curls over the roof flows will not provide accurate wind loads, and should not be
roof edge, as depicted in Figure 5. Small, tightly curled separation used for roof-mounted solar installations.
bubbles tend to produce more suction than those with reattachment Balancing breadth of applicability versus conservatism in
points further from the roof edge. prescriptive wind load provisions
The development of a wind loading figure for roof-mounted solar
photovoltaic arrays that corresponds to the prescriptive method in
ASCE 7 is challenging due to the complexities of the wind flow
characteristics on a roof and the numerous possible array layouts,
configurations, and geometry. The goal was to make a simple, easy-
to-use figure that is reasonably accurate for most low-profile solar
photovoltaic installations. Care was taken to not have an all-
encompassing range of application; otherwise the values in the figure
could become overly conservative for lower profile systems. With
this caveat in mind and considering the range of wind tunnel data
available, it was determined that the maximum height above the roof
surface (h2) for the solar panels should be limited to 4 feet (1.2 m)
and the panel chord length (Lp) should be limited to 6 feet 8 inches
(2.04 m). Wind tunnel data show that increasing the overall height
above the roof or panel chord length increases the wind loads, so the
wind load values from the figure will be unconservative for systems
with higher profiles or larger chord lengths. Likewise, the height of
the gap between the panels and the roof surface (h1) should not
exceed 2 feet (0.6 m), otherwise the wind flow under the panels can
cause uplift greater than that anticipated in the figure. For roof-
Figure 10: Wind zones for a flat roof for solar photovoltaic array mounted solar photovoltaic installations that do not fall within the
wind loading, per ASCE 7-16. parameters of the wind loading figure, wind tunnel testing in
accordance with Section 7 is recommended to determine design
Bubble separation affects arrays of tilted solar panels differently than pressure coefficients.
roof components and cladding. For example, for a south-facing
system of solar panels subjected to wind from the north, uplift loads A reduction factor, γc, is included in the figure to reduce the wind
under the bubble separation along the north edge of the building are loads for shorter chord lengths. The reduction factor scales down
comparable to Zone 1’ loads because the direction of swirling wind at linearly from a factor of 1 to 0.8 for chords 6 feet 8 inches (2 m) long
the bottom of the bubble pushes downward on the panels, offsetting to 3 feet 4 inches (1 m), respectively. Testing indicates that this
the suction forces. Conversely, under the south edge separation reduction is more pronounced at the higher tilt angles (15 ≤ ω ≤ 35
bubble, uplift loads on this kind of PV system can be quite high. degrees), but it is estimated conservatively and applied uniformly to
all tilts for simplicity.
We might therefore expect that the edge zones for roof-mounted PV
would not be the same for all roof edges. The reason that Zone 2 is The behavior and physics of the wind flow contained herein can also
the same on all sides of the building in Figure 10 is for simplicity; be applied to flat- and low-slope-roofed buildings of any height. The
otherwise the procedure would need to take the orientation of the normalized wind area will account for increased wind loads of larger
panels relative to the roof into account, and zones might be different buildings as described in the subsequent commentary section
for uplift and downforce. However, roof wind zone maps from wind “Nominal net pressure coefficient.”
tunnel testing that account for panel orientation may feature
Why wind loads are different in each roof wind zone
asymmetric zones and may be different from the zones specified in
ASCE 7-16. As noted previously, there are four distinct regions or zones on the
roof where the wind flow characteristics and resulting wind loading
on solar panels are different. They are the deep interior (1’), interior
(1), edge (2), and corner (3) zones. Only the deep interior zone is
sufficiently far from the roof corners to avoid the effects of the corner
vortices.

In the northern hemisphere, most solar arrays are oriented such that
the panels are facing the south, which leaves the north edge of the
panel elevated and exposed to northern winds. For illustrative
purposes, this discussion assumes such an array.
Wind tunnel test data have shown that the cornering winds from the
northeast and northwest create the most severe uplift on the array
along the east and west building edges in these respective corners due
to the effects of the cornering vortices on the northern edges of the
panels. The accelerated flow between the two vortices will also
cause uplift. The companion vortex that forms along the north edge in
either case may cause mild uplift, but is primarily a source of
downward force away from the edges of the array. This is another
reason for the use of simple symmetric zones in this report: these
zones are intended for use with both uplift and downforce
calculations.
The size of the corner zones is proportional to the size and strength of Figure 11: Uplift net pressures on south-facing array for winds from
the vortices formed at the roof corners, which in turn are proportional the northeast. Grid lines on roof are one building height
to the length and height of the walls over which the vortex is forming. apart. (Diagram courtesy of CPP)
The dimension of the corner zones is set at two times the building
height from each corner. This will be slightly conservative for Some clarifications have been made where building setbacks occur
corners where Lb (the characteristic building length) is less than the and where corner zones should occur. Interior reentrant corners do
height of the building, where the parapet is very low or absent, or not require corner zonations since cornering vortices only form at
when the panel tilt (ω) is under 10°. It is not uncommon, however, outward or protruding corners. Similarly, irregularly shaped
for peak uplift wind forces to be observed at a distance of more than buildings with outward corners with angles greater than 90° tend to
one building height from the roof corner. result in weakened vortices. As the corner angle becomes more
obtuse, it begins to resemble more of an edge condition and less of a
The vortices form a nearly constant angle with the building edge, corner condition. The roof zoning diagram in Figure 1 indicates that
though the angle changes with wind direction. The highest uplift corner zones can be designed as edge zones where the building
typically occurs for cornering winds between 30° and 60° from corner angle is greater than or equal to 135°.
normal to the roof edge, when the vortex core forms an angle of
about 15° with the roof edge. The point of reattachment will be about Wind flow near roof edges
twice as far from the edge as the vortex core, or 30°, so the region Another important aspect of the flow separation at the roof edge is
with the highest wind loads tends to fall on a line roughly radiating at the shear layer. Above the shear layer at the leading edge of a roof,
an angle of 20° to 30° from the roof corner, as shown in the wind very high wind accelerations occur. Solar panels need to be kept
tunnel results in Figure 11. This pattern suggests that zone width below this shear layer; otherwise, the wind loads will significantly
should increase with distance from the roof corner; however, the increase above those indicated in the figure. The shear layer curves
zones in Figure 1 are delineated parallel to the roof edges for and flutters above the roof edge, and it is not unusual for the shear
simplicity. layer angle to drop below 30°, or a 2:1 horizontal to vertical toward
Similarly, the edge zones are continued around the perimeter of the the building. As such, solar panels should never be placed closer
building, rather than just at the corners. For south-facing panels, this than two times the panel height (h2) from the roof edge. Where
zonation will be quite conservative along the north edge of the parapets occur, the shear layer is elevated, and panels can be placed
building. However, because the method does not stipulate or limit closer to the roof edge. There is also an absolute minimum set back
panel orientation, symmetrical zonation around the perimeter is of 4 feet (1.2 m), which is due to a lack of test data. These minimum
necessary. For west-facing panels, the north edge uplift loads would setbacks are typically less than the setback requirements to allow fire
be quite high. Elevated loads may also occur under the bubble fighter roof access.
separation along the south edge of the roof, where winds from the Parapet effects
south create air movement from the north along the roof surface in
the recirculation under the flow separation. These loads are safely Low parapets have been shown to increase conical vortex wind loads
enveloped by Zone 2. on the roof itself in some situations. This effect is more pronounced
for tilted roof-mounted panels, particularly on wider buildings, where
significant increases in wind loads due to parapets have been
observed, even for relatively tall parapets (9).
Considerable additional information about parapets has been gathered
since PV2-2012 was published, and the parapet factor (γp) now
increases gradually with parapet height. Because much of the data
used to create Figure 29.4-7 was taken from studies performed with

low parapets, the parapet factor decreases load on roofs with no 10 square feet (1 m²). When using normalized wind area, the GCp
parapet. values cannot be capped since the factor of 10 is not an absolute area;
it is a factor. Taller buildings will use the normalized wind area
The parapet factor levels off at 1.2 for parapets greater than 30% of values in the 1 to 10 range for much of the components and cladding
the height of the roof. The data actually shows the loads reaching a loads. Therefore (GCrn)nom values are instead capped at normalized
maximum and then dropping as the parapet continuous to get taller. wind areas of less than 1, though there is no reason to believe that the
At this height, the parapet begins to resemble a wall around the roof loads would stop increasing for An less than 1.
perimeter, forming a well in which the roof surface sits, keeping the
vortices high enough above the roof that their influence is The wind tunnel data available include panel tilt angles up to 30°, and
diminished. The drop off happens at lower parapet heights on smaller since the change in wind loads on the steeper panel tilt angles is
roofs. For simplicity, no scaling with respect to building width is small, a maximum extrapolation to 35° is not irrational.
provided. The drop off is not expected for buildings that do not have
parapets around the full perimeter. The wind tunnel data indicate that the (GCrn)nom values are not
linearly related to the panel tilt angle over the full tilt angle range.
Panels placed very close to the parapets can experience some The data indicate that there is a relatively small change in (GCrn)nom
sheltering from the parapet, though this will depend on the relative values for the lower tilt panels in the 1- to 5-degree range. Then
height of the parapet and the panel. there is a rapid increase in (GCrn)nom values from 5 to 15°. There is
again a relatively small change in (GCrn)nom values for higher tilt
The impact of parapets should be considered when interpreting wind panels in the 15- to 30-degree range, because, for the higher tilt
tunnel test data. Tests on a small roof with a high parapet will be angles, upstream panels create turbulence, which increases the wind
unconservative for general application. loads on all downstream panels (17). Thus, the figure was created
Nominal net pressure coefficient, (GCrn)nom with two (GCrn)nom curves to address this phenomenon; a (GCrn)nom
curve for low tilt panels in the 0- to 5-degree range and another for
The nominal net pressure coefficient (GCrn)nom curves were generated high tilt panels in the 15- to 35-degree range. For panel tilt angles in
based on wind tunnel test data within the range of parameters allowed the 5- to 15-degree range, interpolation is required.
by ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7. These curves envelope the available
data fairly closely, and are considered a reasonably accurate The (GCrn)nom curves are shown for each of the distinct roof zones
prediction of wind load on tilted solar panels on flat roofs. previously noted. Based on the wind tunnel data, the values for
Zones 2 and 3 are approximately 1.3 and 1.5 times higher than Zone
The subscript “n” indicates a net pressure coefficient across the 1 wind loads, respectively. At small and very large effective wind
panels. The coefficients shown in the design curves of the figure are areas, these factors vary, as illustrated in the (GCrn)nom curves. The
denoted (GCrn)nom since these values are nominal values that (GCrn)nom data has been typically rounded to the nearest tenth to
generally are applicable to sheltered panels and need to be adjusted allow easier extraction of the data from the curves.
for array edge conditions, parapet height, and solar panel length.
The (GCrn)nom values are for both positive and negative values. Wind
One important difference in this figure from those typically provided tunnel test data from solar panels show positive and negative
for roof cladding is that the effective wind area on the horizontal axis pressures that are similar, which is very different than typical roof
has been changed to normalized wind area. The wind tunnel test data design wind loads.
clearly show that larger buildings have larger (GCrn)nom values than
smaller buildings. Array edge factor and shielding within an array
This effect is not currently addressed in ASCE 7 requirements for Solar panels are typically installed in large arrays with closely spaced
components and cladding, although it would be equally valid for rows. When the wind traveling above the roof surface approaches
loads on the roof itself. The use of normalized wind area has several the array, the wind generally travels up and over the array. As the
advantages. Building size is not arbitrarily capped at some height like wind accelerates over the first panel at the array edge, it causes a
60 ft (18 m). It is also less conservative, since using a single value for large wind load on this edge panel. As the wind continues across the
all building sizes means applying the load from the largest building in array, it tries to reattach to the roof, but if the panels are in closely
the permitted size range to all smaller buildings. spaced rows, the wind cannot fully recover and it rolls over the top of
the remaining downwind panels in a turbulent manner, effectively
The normalized wind area is approximately equal to the effective shielding the inner panels. Wind tunnel tests have shown that
wind area (in square feet) for ~32 ft (10-m) high buildings. For closely spaced shielded panels experience wind loads as small as 50
shorter buildings, the normalized wind area will be larger than the percent of the loads experienced by edge panels.
effective wind area, thereby sliding to the right on the ASCE 7-16
Figure 29.4-7 (GCrn)nom curves and reducing the (GCrn)nom values or In the development of ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7, the (GCrn)nom
wind load. Taller buildings have the opposite effect. A lower limit curves were chosen for sheltered panel areas since this represents the
on the height of the building used in computing the normalized wind typical condition in large arrays. To account for the higher loading at
area has been set at 15 feet (4.6 m); otherwise, the calculated wind the perimeter edge panel areas, an array edge increase factor must be
loads become lower than the data support. applied. As noted earlier, most solar arrays in the northern
hemisphere are oriented such that the panels are facing south, which
The ASCE 7 components and cladding GCp curves all reach a leaves the north edge of the panel elevated and exposed to winds
maximum value and remain constant at effective wind areas less than from the north. As such, the edge effects on the northern edge row

are higher than that on the southern edge row and east and west sides Design strength
of the array. The same multiplier has been applied to all array sides
for simplicity, however. This value is a best fit to all the data, and Wind design of a PV panel support system includes determining with
should not be considered universally conservative. Edge multipliers sufficient certainty that design wind loads are not greater than the
in excess of 2.0 have been measured, for example where corner system’s capacity to resist those loads.
vortices scour the roof surface upwind of the exposed array edge, so Attached systems use the strength of attachments to the roof to resist
care should be taken if applying edge factors from this report to uplift and sliding/drag forces on the PV panels. Ballasted systems use
interior uplift pressures that do not use ASCE 7-16 roof zones. the weight of the modules, racking system, and ballast blocks to resist
Corner vortex edge effects can extend a distance of more than 6h such forces. In both cases, a complete load path must be designed
from the roof corner. from the panels, through the racking system, to attachments and/or
In order to take full advantage of the shielding effect between panel ballast. Load factors specified in the load combinations of the
rows, the space between rows needs to be less than twice the panel International Building Code should be applied to wind loads and
height above the roof (h2). As the space between rows increases, gravity loads to evaluate the adequacy of the system’s resistance.
shielding decreases, and wind loads on the panels increase. The The governing design limit state may be associated with reaching the
same phenomenon occurs where there are open spaces on the roof design strength of array components, attachments, or the weight of
between adjacent arrays. As the open space between panels ballast (with load factors for minimum dead load and maximum wind
approaches approximately 8 times the panel height, sheltering from uplift load combinations), or it may be associated with a deflection
upwind rows becomes negligible. limit, for example if large deflections would result in increased wind
As noted in a previous section, the shear layer of wind coming up and loads.
over the edge of a building requires some distance to reattach to the For sliding resistance, the coefficient of friction between the system
building roof surface. If the roof is covered with PV panels, the and the roof should be suitably determined (e.g., by ASTM G115
reattached flow will travel across the top of the panels. If the roof is testing as specified in SEAOC PV1), and the friction force must take
bare at the reattachment, the flow will travel along the roof surface, into account effects of uplift on ballast.
creating significant edge effect loading when it first hits a solar array
perimeter. The corner vortices also remain above the roof surface for Wind loads on PV modules
some distance before scouring along the roof and creating a This report focuses on wind loads for mounting systems, and does not
significant edge effect. This means that the array edge facing the attempt to address micro-scale effects within modules, nor electrical
building edges or corners will not have an edge effect if it is close or thermal performance thereof. We caution that it is not clear that
enough to the building edge or corner. It also means that testing with the design wind loads from this report are sufficient to predict
the roof entirely covered with panels will not capture the array edge performance of individual PV modules under wind loads. For
effect. example, we are not aware of any research that defines a relationship
The location of the reattachment varies with the size and aspect ratio between the wind loads calculated in this report (for structural design
of the roof, the location on the roof, and the wind direction. It can of the racking system) and the loads used in static loading tests such
also vary in time, as wind flow patterns above the roof are never as UL1703, “Standard for Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and
steady. The data indicate that the edge effects are minimal within Panels” (for evaluating performance of modules). One concern that
0.5h of the building edges. has been raised is that the effects of cyclic and spatially variable wind
loads are not captured by these static tests.
Rooftop equipment, such as HVAC units, penthouses, and other roof
objects can provide some sheltering benefits to solar arrays located Nearby structures
directly downwind of the object; however, due to varied wind flow It is assumed in these procedures that no significantly taller structures
directions, the regions around edges of the units can also have are located near the roof in question. A taller nearby building can
accelerated wind flow. Due to the uncertainty in the wind direction significantly change the wind flow patterns on the roof, and such
and impact these objects have on the solar arrays, it is indicated in situations need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, typically by a
ASCE 7-16 to ignore these objects and design the surrounding panels scale model wind tunnel study. As with rooftop obstructions, an
as edge panels with the edge increase factor calculated as if the unproven rule of thumb would be if an adjacent structure is closer
objects do not exist. This results in the panels adjacent to rooftop than one characteristic length (i.e., the adjacent structure’s height or
objects being designed for higher wind loads to account for width, whichever is least), it is likely to cause accelerated flow.
accelerated wind flow around the objects.
Billowing of roof membrane
Ignoring very large obstructions like penthouses will tend to be
unconservative, as flow acceleration around the base on the Mechanically attached roofing membranes can billow (locally deflect
penthouse can be significant. The size of a rooftop obstruction can be upward) between points of securement to the roof structure. The
characterized by its height or width, whichever is smaller. We spacing between rows of roofing fasteners typically varies between
recommend using Zone 3 values within one characteristic length of 1.5 ft (0.5 m) and 11.5 ft (3.5 m) on center. Larger spacing between
the obstruction. This recommendation is an estimate, and is not based fasteners presumably results in greater potential for billowing.
on testing.
Wind-tunnel tests to establish the design wind pressures for solar
arrays were conducted using scaled models of buildings with rigid

simulated roof surfaces. As such, the conditions in these tests did not 1. d1 to the adjacent array > 4 ft (1.22m) or
simulate the potential effects of billowing of the roof membrane. 2. d2 to the next adjacent panel > 4 ft (1.22m);
SEAOC is not aware of published research to evaluate the extent to γa = solar panel pressure equalization factor, defined in Fig. 29.4-8.
which billowing of the roof membrane affects the performance of
roof-mounted solar arrays, if at all, so roof billowing cannot be 1
Equalization Factor, γa
immediately dismissed as a potential cause of damage. Roof
Solar Array Pressure

billowing has been observed in research and practice for membranes 0.8
in the absence of solar arrays, and the pressures that cause roof
billowing are in a range that exceeds the average weight of some 0.6
ballasted solar arrays. Billowing of the roof membrane from internal
pressure, external pressure, or a combination of the two could cause
0.4
the orientation or position of solar panels to change, affecting their 0.2
aerodynamics and potentially resulting in increased uplift or drag
forces acting on the panels. 0
Based on experience, we anticipate that proper wind design of the 1 10 100 1000
array itself, according to the provisions herein, is of primary Effective Wind Area, ft²
importance for preventing damage to the array. However, roof
billowing may contribute to risk, particularly for arrays or portions Figure 29.4-8 Solar Panel Pressure Equalization Factor, γa, for
thereof that have very little ballast or few attachments. Enclosed and Partially Enclosed Buildings of All Heights.
Commentary: The method of ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 is only as
5. Flush-mounted arrays on flat or sloped accurate as the external pressure coefficients (GCp) used in equation
roofs 29.4-7. The components and cladding roof zones and pressure
coefficients for flat roofs changed considerably from ASCE 7-10 to
5.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures ASCE 7-16. Use of ASCE 7-16 cladding values and roof zoning is
required for appropriate use of Section 29.4.4.
For arrays of flush-mounted panels on flat roofs or roofs of
any slope, design wind pressure shall be determined in Wind loads on roof-mounted solar arrays that are close to and parallel
accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4. to the roof surface tend to be lower than the loads on a bare roof due
to pressure equalization (14),(17), except at the perimeter of the
ASCE 7-16: array. The solar array pressure equalization factor, γa, accounts for
this reduction, based on data from wind tunnel testing (18). For
29.4.4 Rooftop Solar Panels Parallel to the Roof Surface on
pressure equalization to occur, the panels cannot be too large, there
Buildings of All Heights and Roof Slopes.
needs to be a minimum gap between adjacent panels, and the height
The design wind pressures for rooftop solar panels located on above the roof surface cannot be too large. The requirements of
enclosed or partially enclosed buildings of all heights, with panels ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 are based on panel sizes not exceeding 6.7
parallel to the roof surface, with a tolerance of 2o and with a ft (2.04 m), panel height above the roof surface not exceeding 10
maximum height above the roof surface, h2, not exceeding 10 inches inches (0.25 m), and a gap of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) or greater around
(0.25m) shall be determined in accordance with this section. A the edges of each panel. Larger gaps and lower panel heights above
minimum gap of 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) shall be provided between all the roof surface could further decrease the wind loads, as described in
panels, with the spacing of gaps between panels not exceeding 6.7 ft Section 5.3.5.
(2.04 m). In addition, the array shall be located at least 2h2 from the
roof edge, a gable ridge, or a hip ridge. The design wind pressure for 5.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included
rooftop solar collectors shall be determined by Eq. 29.4-7: in ASCE 7-16)
p = qh (GCp)(γE)(γa) (lb/ft2) (N/m2) (29.4-7) The following requirements are recommended in addition to
the provisions of Section 5.1.
where
(GCp) = external pressure coefficient for C&C of roofs with
5.2.1. Tolerance for panel tilt
respective roof zoning, determined from Figs. 30.3-2A-I Solar arrays designed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section
through 30.3-7, or 30.5-1; 29.4.4 (flush-mounted arrays), shall be parallel to the roof
surface such that the height of each panel edge above the roof
γE = array edge factor = 1.5 for uplift loads on panels that are exposed
is no more than one inch greater than the height of each
and within a distance 1.5(Lp) from the end of a row at an
exposed edge of the array; γE = 1.0 elsewhere for uplift loads
adjacent panel edge: h2 - h1 ≤ 1”.
and for all downward loads, as illustrated in Figure 29.4-7. A Commentary: Flush mounted solar panels experience wind loads in
panel is defined as exposed if d1 to the roof edge > 0.5h and a manner similar to air-permeable cladding. As such, they generally
one of the following applies:

interact with wind flow above the roof in a manner similar to the roof 5.3.1. Array edge factor applies to only one array edge at a
itself without solar panels. time
The 2° tolerance (between the slope of the roof and the slope of the The provisions of Section 4.3.3 also apply to flush-mounted
panels) permitted in ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 will not guarantee arrays.
that the wind flow is largely unaffected by the panels, particularly if
the rows of panels are widely spaced, or if the high edge of the panels 5.3.2. Array edge factor
juts appreciably above the adjacent panel. The additional limitation of The provisions of Section 4.3.4 also apply to flush-mounted
1” maximum difference between adjacent panel edges, as arrays.
recommended here, is intended to address this concern.
5.3.3. Width of array perimeter strip for applying array
While the gaps between panels are not critical for wind loads on tilted
panels, they are an important part of local pressure equalization for edge factor
flush mounted systems, so that the minimum gap size specified in For flush-mounted panels, γE may be taken as 1.5 for the
ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 (0.25 inches, 6.4 mm) and maximum portion of exposed panels that is within a distance 2h2 from
spacing between gaps (6.7 ft, 2.04 m) is essential. the edge of the array.
5.2.2. Definition of h1 and h2 Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 (flush-mounted arrays)
Heights h1 and h2, as defined in ASCE 7-16, are measured defines the width of the array perimeter strip for applying the array
from the roof surface to the top surface of the panel. edge factor γE in the same way that it is defined in Section 29.4.3
(tilted panels on flat roofs): 1.5 times the panel chord length, Lp.
Commentary: ASCE 7-16 defines h1 and h2 as the height of a solar However, for flush-mounted arrays, the height h2 of the top of panels
panel above the roof at the upper edge (h1) and lower edge (h2) of the above the roof surface is more influential than the panel chord length.
panel. In the ASCE 7-16 definition, “upper” and “lower” refer to the (Also Lp is not well-defined for the continuous surface created by
high end and low end of tilted panels. For flush-mounted arrays, flush-mounted panels.)
panels are parallel to the roof, so h1 and h2 are equal (within a
tolerance per Section 5.2.1). Thus, for flush-mounted arrays, we recommend defining the array
perimeter strip in terms of the height h2 of the top of panels above the
The ASCE 7-16 definition is not adequately clear that h1 and h2 are roof surface. For flush-mounted systems, elevated pressures at array
measured to the top surface of the panel (not, for example, to the edges are largely the result of flow separation from the roof and
bottom of the module frame). This clarification becomes important reattachment on the top of the panels, which occurs over a distance
for determining the pressure equalization factor per ASCE 7-16 roughly 2h2 from the edge of the array.
Section 29.4.4 as well as in the optional refinement described below
in Section 5.3.5. 5.3.4. Open buildings
The design wind pressures for rooftop solar panels located on
5.2.3. Definition of exposed panels for array edge factor open buildings and satisfying the requirements of ASCE 7-16
Panels shall be considered exposed if the distance to the next Section 29.4.4 shall be determined in accordance with
adjacent array is greater than 2h2. ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4.
Commentary: The edge factor provisions for flush-mounted panels Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 is restricted to enclosed or
in ASCE 7-16 were copied from those for tilted panels on flat roofs, partially enclosed buildings. This restriction is not necessary; the
which in turn were based on provisions in SEAOC PV2-2012. Some procedure is accurate for and may be applied to solar panels parallel
of the simplifications introduced in ASCE 7-16 for tilted panels are to any roof surface.
not appropriate for flat panels. For flat panels close to the roof, edge
factors will apply for distances less than the 4 ft limit specified in 5.3.5. Pressure equalization factor for arrays with greater
ASCE 7-16. porosity
5.3. Optional refinements (not included in ASCE 7-16) The solar panel pressure equalization factor, γa, is permitted to
be determined from Figure 12. Interpolation between the solid
The following refinements (items 5.3.1 through 5.3.5) may be line and the dashed line is permitted.
applied together or individually, as a supplement to the
provisions of Sections 5.1 and 5.2. Commentary: Figure 12 is the same as ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-8
except that the dashed line is added in Figure 12 to provide greater
Commentary: These optional refinements will provide more reduction in design pressure for arrays that have sufficiently wide
accurate results, typically resulting in smaller wind loads compared to gaps between panels and sufficiently low height above the roof such
ASCE 7-16. that greater pressure equalization can occur compared to the case
with minimum gaps and maximum height above the roof permitted in
ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4.

Test data shows that a larger gap between panels will reduce the net 6. Design of the roof
wind loads, as does reducing the height of the panels above the roof
surface (26). Per ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 (tilted solar panels on flat
As can be seen from Figure 12, to achieve the lowest wind pressures
roofs) and Section 29.4.4 (flush-mounted arrays on flat or
racking hardware for flush-mounted solar arrays should be designed sloped roofs):
to produce a gap between modules of at least 0.75 inches (19 mm) ASCE 7-16:
and a maximum height of panels above the roof of 5 inches (127
mm). The roof shall be designed for both of the following:
For gaps between 0.25 and 0.75 inches (6.4 and 19 mm), and for h2 1. The case where solar collectors are present. Wind loads acting
between 5 and 10 inches (127 and 254 mm), interpolation between on solar collectors in accordance with this section shall be
the solid line and the dashed line can be computed using the equation applied simultaneously with roof wind loads specified in other
below. For example, for gap of 0.5 inches (13 mm) and h2 equal to sections acting on areas of the roof not covered by the plan
7.5 inches (191 mm), γa = 0.7 for effective wind area less than 10 ft2 projection of solar collectors. For this case, roof wind loads
(0.93 m2). specified in other sections need not be applied on areas of the
roof covered by the plan projection of solar collectors.
For effective wind area less than 10 ft2 (0.93 m2),
2. Cases where the solar arrays have been removed.
γa = 0.8 – 0.2(1/2)[(gap – 0.25in)/0.5in + (10in – h2)/5in]
Commentary: These two sections of ASCE 7-16, applying to two
γa = 0.8 – 0.2(1/2)[(gap – 6.4mm)/13mm + (254mm – h2)/127mm] types of solar arrays, indicate how wind loads on rooftop solar arrays
The value for gap used in the above equation must be between 0.25 are to be considered along with the roof components and cladding
and 0.75 inches (6.4 and 19 mm). For values of gap greater than 0.75 wind loads. (The language is the same in the two ASCE sections.)
inches, use 0.75 inches (19 mm) in the calculation. For values of gap Wind tunnel studies have shown that the wind loads on rooftop solar
less than 0.25 inches (6.4 mm), the provisions of ASCE 7-16 Section arrays need not be applied simultaneously with the roof components
29.4.4 do not apply. and cladding wind loads covering the same area. Where a portion of
The value for h2 used in the above equation must be between 5 and the roof is covered by a solar array and the remainder is not covered,
10 inches (127 and 254 mm). For h2 less than 5 inches, use 5 inches then the roof is to be designed with the solar array wind load on the
(127 mm) in the calculation. For h2 greater than 10 inches (254 mm), covered portion with simultaneous application of roof components
the provisions of ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 do not apply. and cladding load on the uncovered portion.
For effective wind area greater than 100 ft2 (9.3 m2), γa = 0.4. In a separate load case, roof structures are also to be checked for the
applicable components and cladding wind loads assuming that the
For effective wind area between 10 and 100 ft2 (0.93 and 9.3 m2), use photovoltaic panels are not present, to address the possibility that the
straight line interpolation on the log plot in Figure 12 between the solar arrays are removed or are never installed. For installations of
values calculated above. solar panels on existing buildings, this separate load case to check the
capacity of the existing roof structure to resist the roof components
and cladding wind loads applied over the entire roof area (i.e.,
assuming that the solar panels are not present) is not required.
7. Wind tunnel procedure

7.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures
Design of rooftop solar arrays using the wind tunnel procedure
shall be in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6.
ASCE 7-16:
31.6 ROOF-MOUNTED SOLAR COLLECTORS FOR ROOF
SLOPES LESS THAN 7 DEGREES
31.6.1 Wind Tunnel Test Requirements
Figure 12: Solar Panel Pressure Equalization Factor, γa, with
proposed alternative to ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-8 to Wind loads on roof-mounted solar collectors with roof slope less than
permit smaller design pressures for conditions with 7 degrees are permitted to be determined by wind tunnel tests as
larger gaps between modules and smaller height generic loads applicable to a range of buildings, by determining load
coefficients for use in the analysis equations of the Directional
above the roof. Procedure in Chapters 27 and 29 for MWFRS and in Part 5 of
Chapter 30 for C&C. Alternatively, the generic loads are permitted to

be specified with an analysis method defined in the wind tunnel test • The peer reviewer shall be independent from the wind tunnel
report. It is not required to include specific nearby buildings in the laboratory that performed the tests and report and shall bear no
testing when results are to be used for multiple sites. conflict of interest.
Wind tunnel tests shall satisfy ASCE 49, shall meet requirements • The peer reviewer shall have technical expertise in the
specific to roof-mounted solar collectors, and shall meet the application of wind tunnel studies on buildings similar to that
additional requirements specific to roof-mounted solar collectors being reviewed.
including the following variables. These requirements include
accurately scaled models of solar collectors including collector tilt • The peer reviewer shall have experience in performing or
angle, row-to-row spacing, aisles or gaps between collector rows, evaluating boundary layer wind tunnel studies and shall be
height above the roof, setback from roof edge, alignment of collector familiar with the technical issues and regulations governing the
rows compared to the main axes of the building, deflector/shroud wind tunnel procedure in ASCE 49 as it is applied to systems
shapes, and the geometry of the collector support structure. The tests similar to solar photovoltaic arrays that use generalized wind
shall include at least eight rows of collectors, where more than eight tunnel data for design.
rows are applicable, mounted on the roof of representative generic The peer reviewer shall review the wind tunnel report, including but
buildings. The models of generic buildings shall be large enough in not limited to data collection methods, data analysis, boundary layer
plan area to capture the wind flow environment over different roof modeling, collector and building modeling, resulting wind loads and
zones. The test matrix shall include the range of building plan their relationship to effective wind area, conversion of data into GCrn
dimensions, eave height, parapet height, roof slope, and open or values, and conditions of applicability of results to different building
enclosed buildings. types, collector geometry, and other relevant issues identified by the
Data analysis shall consider wind loads from all wind directions. reviewer.
Generic load coefficients shall be calculated to be consistent with The peer reviewer shall submit a written report to the Authority
coefficients in Chapters 27, 29, and 30 or shall be defined to apply to Having Jurisdiction and the client. The report shall include, at a
an analysis procedure specified in the test report. minimum, statements regarding the following: scope of peer review
The test report shall include data collection methods, data analysis, with limitations defined; the status of the wind tunnel study at time of
boundary layer modeling, collector and building modeling, measured review; conformance of the wind tunnel study with the requirements
wind loads and their relationship to effective wind area, conversion of ASCE 49 and Section 31.6.1; conclusions of the reviewer
of data into generic coefficients, and conditions of applicability of identifying areas that need further review, investigation, and/or
results to different buildings types and collector geometry. Wind clarification; recommendations; and whether, in the reviewer’s
tunnel results shall not be extrapolated to geometric configurations opinion, the wind loads derived from the wind tunnel study are in
that were not anticipated by the wind tunnel study. Interpolation conformance with ASCE 7-16 for the intended use(s).
between two or more tests shall be permitted. The limitations of the
Commentary: The wind tunnel provisions in ASCE 7-16 Section
wind tunnel study, such as the range of array collector and building
31.4 prescribe the test conditions for developing wind loads for a
geometry parameters that were tested, shall be clearly reported.
specific building located at a specific site. Typically this is done by
31.6.1.1 Limitations on Wind Loads for Rooftop Solar Collectors modeling the surrounding buildings and topography and their effects
on a specific building. When applying the wind tunnel procedure for
For photovoltaic solar collector systems that meet the limitations and solar panel installations, a different approach is necessary. For solar
geometry requirements of Figure 29.4-7, the minimum design wind panel installations, it is typically desired to model a generic building
load based on a wind tunnel study shall not be less than 65% of the with the solar array on the roof of a scaled building, then generate
values resulting from Figure 29.4-7, subject to the conditions of GCrn pressure coefficients that are applicable to any site, a wide
Section 31.6.1.2. The minimum design wind force based on a wind range of building sizes, and a varied array layout. The approach
tunnel study for roof-mounted solar panel systems need not comply needs to be similar to that used to develop the GCp figures in ASCE 7
with the minimum net pressure of 16 psf (0.77 kN/m2) per Section by modeling generic buildings with various features to capture a wide
30.2.2. range of effects. References (14) and (16) provide guidance
31.6.1.2 Peer Review Requirements for Wind Tunnel Studies of regarding how to apply the wind tunnel procedure to obtain
Roof-Mounted Solar Collectors generalized wind design parameters for solar arrays.
Wind load values lower than the minimums indicated in Section Typically, studies performed with full-scale solar panels on the floor
31.6.1.1 shall be permitted when an independent peer review of the of the wind tunnel (as has often been done by aerospace or
wind tunnel test is performed in accordance with this section. The automotive wind tunnels) will not satisfy the requirements of this
independent peer review is an objective, technical review by section. Such studies are of limited value because of the complexities
knowledgeable reviewer(s) experienced in performing wind tunnel described in prior sections.
studies on buildings and similar systems, in properly simulated There have been significant improvements in the test methods and
atmospheric boundary layers. The minimum qualifications for the understanding of wind loads on low profile roof-mounted systems
peer reviewer shall be the following: since the publication of the previous edition of this report
(SEAOC PV2-2012). Wind tunnel testing reports issued prior to 2012

are unlikely to adequately consider the scaling of wind loads with Commentary: The effect of building size can be accounted for by
building size, for example. We recommend that these reports be defining (GCrn)nom values that scale with building size, or by defining
reviewed and reissued by the originator before reusing the reports for the maximum building dimensions to which the test results are
new projects. Given the current pace of changes in this field, it is applicable.
recommended that wind tunnel testing reports be reviewed by the
originator every 3 or 4 years from the date of the report to assess the 2. The effect of building parapets on wind pressure
appropriateness and accuracy of the report for continued use. coefficients.
7.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 contains a parapet factor,
in ASCE 7-16) γp.
7.2.1. Flush-mounted solar arrays on roofs of any slope 3. The potential for greater wind pressure acting on the
Wind loads determined by wind tunnel tests on flush-mounted edges of arrays.
solar arrays on roofs of any slope shall satisfy the
Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Sections 29.4.3 and 29.4.4 contain an
requirements of ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6 and this Section 7.2.
array edge factor γE.
Exceptions:
4. The effect of building size on the size of roof wind
1. The minimum design wind load in ASCE 7-16 zones.
Section 31.6.1.1 shall be based on ASCE 7-16
Section 29.4.4, not Figure 29.4-7. Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Sections 29.4.3 and 29.4.4 define roof
wind zones as a function of building height.
Commentary: While the provisions of ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6
were written with flat and low-slope roofs in mind, they are also 5. Peak value statistics consistent with the consensus of
applicable to wind tunnel testing of flush-mounted solar arrays on research recommendations.
sloped roofs.
Commentary: ASCE 7-16 does not include specific requirements for
Consistent with the provisions of ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4, pressure the statistical details associated with the peak pressure coefficients.
coefficients for flush-mounted solar arrays are permitted to be While there is some expectation, based on conventional building
determined using methods similar to those used to develop pressure studies, that the peak values should be based on a 60-minute duration,
coefficients for Components and Cladding in ASCE 7-16. wind tunnel practice for solar arrays has been based on shorter
durations because the large model scales that are typically used lead
7.2.2. Minimum number of rows to a turbulence length scale mismatch (11)(24). ASCE 49-12,
Fewer than eight rows of solar panels may be used in the equation (2-5) specifies that the ratio of integral length scale to
testing if it is demonstrated that the array interior loads are not characteristic length of a structure at model scale and at full scale
a function of the number of rows for the applicable array size. shall be met within a factor of 3. This has not typically been met in
wind tunnel studies for roof-mounted arrays, and it is not known if
Commentary: The use of eight or more rows of solar panels in using conventional methods with a factor of 3 mismatch in turbulence
testing, while recommended, need not be strictly met if a fewer length scale is appropriate for solar structures.
number of rows can rationally justified. Particular care should be
In most wind tunnel studies, common practice is to measure pressure
taken for tilts above 5°, where the effects of array-generated coefficients referenced to a mean wind speed. Pressure coefficients
turbulence on the interior of the array are most pronounced (15) (17). can also be measured with a direct reference to the fluctuating or gust
7.2.3. Effects to account for in determining design wind wind speeds, which has the effect of reducing many of the duration
effects (6)(24). Such approaches are acceptable if sufficient
pressure justification is provided that the results are equivalent to the
Wind loads on tilted solar panels on flat or low-slope roofs, consensus of research recommendations.
determined using wind tunnel testing in accordance with
One indication that the peak pressure coefficient calculation method
ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6, shall account for all of the following is suitable is to verify that the peak GCrn values (i.e., referenced to 3-
in the determination of design wind pressure: second gust speeds at the mean roof height) are not less than the
mean coefficients (referenced to the mean speed at the mean roof
Commentary: The effects listed below have been shown to be
significant in determining design wind pressures for solar arrays. If height), as required by quasi-steady theory for such small structures.
the effects listed below are not explicitly captured in the wind tunnel SEAOC recommends that the upcoming editions of ASCE 7 and/or
test program, procedures from ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 and 29.4.4, ASCE 49 provide more specific guidance on this issue. In the
where applicable, can be adapted to account for these items. absence of such provisions, alternative rational procedures for
analysis of peak pressure coefficients may be justified by testing or
1. The effect of building size on wind pressure peer reviewed literature.
coefficients.

7.2.4. Minimum loads from wind tunnel testing wind load coefficients, particularly for single modules, even when
If wind load values used are lower than the minimums normalized by An.
indicated in ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6.1.1, the wind tunnel The relationship between An and GCrn should also be examined as the
laboratory that performed the tests shall provide for peer number of modules in the effective wind area is increased.
review an explanation for the reduced loads. Buildings with shorter aspect ratios will also reduce the parapet factor
Commentary: ASCE 7-16 Section 31.6.1.2 permits design wind by forming a well on the roof and keeping the corner vortices high
loads from wind tunnel testing to be taken less than 65% of the above the panels. Also, if the roof is not wide enough, the entire test
prescriptive values from ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7 if a peer review of roof will consist of Zone 2 and/or Zone 3, so wind loads in Zone 1
the wind tunnel report is performed (item 1 above). SEAOC cannot be measured.
recommends the additional requirement of an explanation for the A wider building is also needed to capture edge effects. Arrays need
reduced loads. to be offset one roof height or more from the roof corner to capture
Figure 29.4-7 represents an envelope of wind loads measured in wind the full effect of flow reattachment on array edge factors. The array
tunnel tests of solar arrays without deflectors or shrouds. Solar panel should be kept close enough to one of the building edges, however, to
systems that have aerodynamic devices or more efficient profiles remain under the vortex along that edge, as this is where the edge
(such as east-west systems) can have wind tunnel-based loads less effect is most severe. Edge factors typically vary for each side of an
than the 65% lower bound, and the presence of such devices is an array. For systems with no wind deflectors, the highest values
example of a credible reason for a reduction in wind load generally occur on the high (north) edge, but the other edges can be
coefficients. more severe if a north-side deflector is present, so edge factors should
be assessed for all sides.
7.2.5. Building shape and size These requirements mean that, for example, the results of wind tunnel
The building size and aspect ratio (i.e., building side length testing performed on small roofs completely filled with solar panels
versus roof height) modeled in wind tunnel tests shall be need to be adjusted for building size and edge factors in order to
representative of the range of buildings for which the test address applications on larger buildings and roofs with discrete
results are used for design. arrays.
Pressure coefficients shall be adjusted for building size 7.2.6. Wind tunnel testing report
through the effective wind area normalization procedure The wind tunnel test report provided for peer review shall
provided in ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 or through an include all of the following, except for items that are
alternative rational procedure justified by the testing or by demonstrated to be not applicable:
recognized literature.
1. A description of the simulated atmospheric boundary
Commentary: Wind loads on solar panels in Roof Zones 1, 2 and 3 layer (ABL) including mean velocity and
must be determined through testing on the roof of a building that longitudinal turbulence intensity profiles, and a
generates conical vortices at its corners. To capture the full effect of spectrum of longitudinal turbulence, with a
the corner vortices, it is necessary that the aspect ratio of the building
comparison to approved atmospheric models in due
(Ws/h) be 4.0 or more. Little additional vortex strength is expected for
aspect ratios greater than 6.0. Conversely, the effects of bubble
consideration of the model scale used in the testing.
separation can be more severe for buildings with smaller aspect Commentary: Wind tunnel testing of rooftop solar arrays is typically
ratios, particularly in high turbulence. Therefore testing on a range of performed with 1:25 to 1:50 scale building models. At these scales,
building sizes and configurations is recommended if the test results the turbulence length scale cannot be correctly simulated in most
are intended to be applicable to a range of buildings. wind tunnels, and modification to typical wind tunnel test and
Wind loads in Zone 3 are significantly higher for buildings with an analysis procedures may be necessary (6) (20) (24).
aspect ratio (Ws/h) of 6.0 than at the same height with an aspect ratio
of 2.0 (7). Similarly, wind loads will increase with building height if
2. A description of the test methods that includes (where
the width is kept constant (15). As a result, wind pressure coefficients applicable):
measured on a particular building size will be too low for larger • wind tunnel dimensions, cross section, position of test
buildings, and so must either be scaled with building size as section and turntable;
described in ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3, or must not be used for • vertical profiles of velocity and turbulence in the wind
buildings larger than that represented by the test building. tunnel, and along-wind spectrum at roof height. Also
Testing on multiple building sizes can demonstrate the manner in provide information concerning components such as
which the loads scale with An, and can be expected to generate wind flow straighteners, turbulence screens, turbulence
pressure versus normalized area relationships comparable to those in generators, barrier wall, floor roughness and other
Figure 29.4-7. If testing is done on only one building size, a larger devices relevant to the generation of the atmospheric
building is required, as tests on smaller buildings can underestimate boundary layer;

• drawings of the array model with dimensions; 8.1. ASCE 7-16 procedures
• building model dimensions;
Commentary: ASCE 7-16 includes the following statements that, in
• overview of test configurations and test photographs; some cases, have been interpreted by engineers to apply to the
• consideration of blockage effects; determination of wind loads on ground-mounted solar arrays:
• consideration of Reynolds number effects;
ASCE 7-16:
• reference static pressure;
• for pressure tests, the number and locations of pressure 26.2 DEFINITIONS
taps and consideration of frequency response of tubing BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE, RIGID: A building or other
• instrumentation specifications; structure whose fundamental frequency is greater than or equal to 1
• sampling rate and filters; Hz.
• wind directions tested; and 26.11.1 Gust-Effect Factor: The gust-effect factor for a rigid
• length and number of time series measured in the wind building or other structure is permitted to be taken as 0.85.
tunnel and conversion to full scale in due consideration
of the model and velocity scales. Commentary: The Commentary to ASCE 7-16 describes limitations
for cases where prescriptive design wind loads do not apply:
3. Details of the method of data analysis, including: ASCE 7-16:
• calculation of peak pressure or force coefficients;
• conversion of these peak values into GCrn values; and C26.1.2 General
• the load cases considered (e.g lift, sliding). Limitations. The provisions given under Section 26.1.2 apply to the
majority of site locations and buildings and other structures, but, for
4. Limitations to the applicability of the results, including but some projects, these provisions may be inadequate. Examples of site
not limited to building size, building shape, and array locations and buildings and other structures (or portions thereof) that
geometry. may require other approved standards, special studies using
applicable recognized literature pertaining to wind effects, or using
Commentary: The report content required in this section is needed the wind tunnel procedure of Chapter 31, include:
to facilitate an appropriate peer review.
1. Site locations that have channeling effects or wakes from upwind
In documenting the data analysis as required in item 3, providing obstructions…
sample calculations can be helpful.
2. Buildings with unusual or irregular geometric shape…
Not all of the information listed will be available in all cases; for
3. Buildings or other structures with response characteristics that
example, peak coefficients are not available from failure tests. In
result in substantial vortex-induced and/or torsional dynamic effects,
such cases, comparable details concerning the interpretation of the
or dynamic effects resulting from aeroelastic instabilities such as
results are to be provided in the report, and/or it is to be demonstrated
flutter or galloping …
that the listed item is not applicable.
4. Bridges, cranes, electrical transmission lines, guyed masts,
7.2.7. Effective wind area highway signs and lighting structures, telecommunications towers,
If the wind tunnel test report includes assumptions about and flagpoles.
effective wind area, such assumptions shall be validated by the When undertaking detailed studies of the dynamic response to wind
Engineer of Record for the solar panel support system, per the forces, the fundamental frequencies of the building or other structure
requirements of Section 3. in each direction under consideration should be established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting
8. Wind dynamic effects on ground-mounted elements in a properly substantiated analysis, and not utilizing
approximate equations based on height.
solar arrays
8.2. Recommended additional requirements (not included
Commentary: This report is not intended to address all aspects of in ASCE 7-16)
wind design for ground-mounted solar arrays. In general, such arrays
are designed using applicable provisions of ASCE 7-16, such as the Wind design of ground-mounted solar arrays or other facilities
provisions for open buildings. However, the following addresses one with large horizontal extent and numerous repetitive structures
aspect – vortex shedding and dynamic resonant effects – that is not shall include consideration of vortex shedding and consequent
fully addressed in ASCE 7-16 and merits additional consideration for
dynamic resonant effects, if applicable, in the determination of
the design of ground-mounted solar arrays of large horizontal extent.
design wind loads. The ASCE 7-16 definition of “rigid
structure” based on the frequency of 1 Hz shall not be taken to
apply to such arrays. The prescriptive calculations of the gust

effect factor specified in ASCE 7-16 shall not be taken to

account for dynamic resonant effects for such arrays.
Commentary: The ASCE 7-16 definition of “rigid structure” based
on the frequency of 1 Hz is not necessarily appropriate for large solar
arrays because the repetitive geometry of the array can cause vortex
shedding at frequencies greater than 1 Hz. ASCE 7-16 Commentary
(excerpted above) identifies vortex shedding as an issue in Limitation
#3, but the details of this limitation focus on tall buildings or similar
structures.
To clarify that vortex shedding can also be significant for ground-
mounted solar arrays, we recommend modifying ASCE 7-16 Com-
mentary Section C26.1.2 as follows:
1) Modify the text of Limitation #3 as follows:
Buildings or other structures with response characteristics that result
in substantial vortex-induced and/or torsional dynamic effects, or
dynamic effects resulting from aeroelastic instabilities such as flutter
or galloping. Such dynamic effects are difficult to anticipate, being
dependent on many factors but. For tall buildings or similar
structures, dynamic effects should be considered when any one or
more of the following apply…
2) Add the following Limitation #5:
Ground-mounted solar arrays or other facilities with large horizontal
extent and numerous repetitive structures. Such structures can be
subject to vortex shedding and consequent dynamic resonance
effects. The high-frequency turbulent energy is generated by vortices
shed from the repetitive upwind structures, rather than coming from
gust energy inherent in the wind as is the case for isolated structures.
The resulting buffeting can introduce dynamic resonance effects
which are most pronounced when the reduced natural frequency of
the structures St is between 0.05 and 0.20, where
St = n1L/U,
where U is the hourly mean wind speed at the mean height of the
panels, L is the vertical projected height and/or width, and n1 is the
natural frequency. (27).

9. References (16) Kopp, G., Banks, D. “Use of the Wind Tunnel Test Method for
Obtaining Design Wind Loads on Roof-Mounted Solar Arrays”,
(1) American Society of Civil Engineers, “Minimum design loads Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012
for buildings and other structures.” ASCE7-05, 2006.
(17) Kopp, G.A., 2013, Wind loads on low profile, tilted, solar arrays
(2) American Society of Civil Engineers, “Minimum design loads placed on large, flat, low-rise building roofs, Journal of
for buildings and other structures.” ASCE7-10, 2010. Structural Engineering, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000821.
(3) American Society of Civil Engineers, “Minimum design loads
and associated criteria for buildings and other structures.” (18) Kray, T. Peak net pressure coefficients on roof-parallel
ASCE 7-16, 2017. photovoltaic arrays mounted on a low-rise, 10° gable roof,
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wind
(4) American Society of Civil Engineers, “Wind Tunnel Testing for
Engineering, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2015.
Buildings and Other Structures.” ASCE 49-12, 2012.
(19) Maffei, J., Telleen, K., Ward, R., Kopp, G.A., and Schellenberg,
(5) Banks, D., Meroney, R.M. A model of roof-top surface
A. “Wind design practice and recommendations for solar arrays
pressures produced by conical vortices: Model development,
on low-slope roofs.” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.
Wind and Structures, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001.
140, Issue 2, February 2014
(6) Banks, D, “Measuring Peak Wind Loads on Solar Power
(20) Mooneghi, M.A., Irwin, P., Chowdhury, A.G., “Partial
Assemblies”, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference
Turbulence Simulation Method for Small Structures”,
on Wind Engineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2011.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wind
(7) Banks, D. “The role of corner vortices in dictating peak wind Engineering, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2015.
loads on tilted flat solar panels mounted on large, flat roofs.”
(21) National Fire Protection Association, 2011 National Electrical
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, vol
Code, NFPA 70, 2011
123, 192-201, 2013.
(22) O’Brien, C., Banks, D. “Wind Load Analysis for Commercial
(8) Banks, D., “Wind loads on tilted flat panels on commercial
Roof-Mounted Arrays”, SolarPro Magazine, 2012
roofs: The effects of corner vortices”, Advances in Hurricane
Engineering, ed. C.P. Jones and L.G. Griffiths, ASCE, October (23) Pratt and Kopp, 2013, Velocity measurements around low-
2012. profile, tilted, solar arrays mounted on large flat-roofs, for wall
normal wind directions, Journal of Wind Engineering and
(9) Browne, M, Gibbons, M., Gamble, S, Galsworthy, J., Wind
Industrial Aerodynamics, vol 123, 226-238, 2013.
loading on tilted roof-top solar arrays: The parapet effect,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. (24) Richards, P., Hoxey, R.P., Connell, B.D., Lander, D.P., “Wind-
123, 202-213, 2013. tunnel modelling of the Silsoe Cube,” Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95(9-11), pp. 1384-
(10) Cochran, L., Peterka, J. Derickson, R, Roof Surface Wind Speed
1399. 2007.
Distributions in Low-rise Buildings, Architectural Science
Review, Vol 42, 1999. (25) Richards, P.C., Mooneghi, M.A., Chowdhury, A.G.,
“Combining Directionally Narrow Band Wind Loading Data in
(11) Dyrbye, C., Hansen, S., Wind Loads on Structures, Wiley &
order to Match Wide Band Full-Scale Situations”, Proceedings
Sons, Chichester, England, 1997.
of the 14th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Porto
(12) International Code Council Evaluation Service AC 428 Alegre, Brazil, 2015.
“Acceptance Criteria for Modular Framing Systems Used to
(26) Stenabaugh, S.E., Iida, Y., Kopp, G.A. & Karava, P, Wind loads
Support Photovoltaic (PV) Modules.” ICC-ES AC 428, 2011
on photovoltaic arrays mounted on sloped roofs of low-rise
(13) International Code Council, International Building Code, IBC, buildings, parallel to the roof surface, Journal of Wind
2012. Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. vol 139, 16-26, 2015.
(14) Kopp, G., Maffei, J., Tilley, C. “Rooftop Solar Arrays and Wind (27) Strobel, K., Banks, D., Effects of Vortex Shedding in Arrays of
Loading: A Primer on Using Wind Tunnel Testing as a Basis for Long Inclined Flat Plates and Ramifications for Ground-
Code Compliant Design per ASCE 7”, Boundary Layer Wind Mounted Photovoltaic Array, Proceedings of the 12th Americas
Tunnel Laboratory, The University of Western Ontario, Faculty Conference on Wind Engineering 2013 (12ACWE): Seattle, June
of Engineering, 2011 2013.
(15) Kopp, G.A., Farquhar, S. & Morrison, M.J., Aerodynamic (28) Structural Engineers Association of Washington, SEAW
mechanisms for wind loads on tilted, roof-mounted, solar arrays, Commentary on Wind Code Provisions, SEAW/ATC 60, 2004
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.
111, pp. 40-52. 2012

Example Problems
The following examples illustrate the application of selected Solution (i) ASCE 7-16:
aspects of the SEAOC PV2-2017 design provisions. Each Using Figure 29.4-7, Roof Wind Zones 3, 2, and 1 can be
example is independent of the other examples, unless stated identified. The width of roof edge zones and corner zones is
otherwise. Each example is intended to address a specific calculated as:
aspect of the provisions. The examples do not address every
2h = 2 (10 ft) = 20 ft
aspect of design of solar PV arrays.
Figure A2(a) shows the roof wind zones per ASCE 7-16.
The examples refer to the 2016 edition of ASCE 7
(ASCE 7-16), unless stated otherwise. To the extent practical, Solution (ii) SEAOC PV2-2017:
the examples provide solutions based on ASCE 7 provisions, SEAOC PV2-2017 defines the same roof wind zones as
as well as solutions based on supplementary provisions of ASCE 7-16, except that SEAOC PV2-2017 Figure 1 provides
SEAOC PV2 that are not included in ASCE 7-16. for the additional Zone 1’, where design wind pressure may be
lower. The distance from the edge of the building to Zone 1’ is
Consistent with the recommendations of SEAOC PV2, for
calculated as:
solar arrays designed per ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 and
29.4.4, these examples do not apply the minimum net pressure 5h = 5 (10 ft) = 50 ft
of 16 psf from ASCE 7 Components and Cladding provisions.
Figure A2(b) shows the roof wind zones per SEAOC PV2-
2017.
A. Roof wind zones
Given:
A solar array is to be placed on the flat roof of a building with
plan dimensions shown in Figure A1. The mean roof height, h,
of the building is 10 feet. The array will be low-profile, with
dimensions such that ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 is applicable
(Lp ≤ 6.7 ft, ω ≤ 35 degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.). The array
consists of rows of tilted panels.
Figure A1: Plan dimensions of an example building.

Problem:
Identify the roof wind zones for rooftop solar arrays for the
building shown in Figure A1 using (i) ASCE 7-16 and (ii) Figure A2: Roof wind zones. (a) Per ASCE 7-16. (b)
SEAOC PV2-2017. Including Zone 1’ per SEAOC PV2-2017.

Discussion: In this example, An is calculated based on the worst case

While ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7 shows roof wind zones for a (longest building side) for the building, per ASCE 7-16. In
rectangular building, ASCE 7-16 Commentary and SEAOC some cases, SEAOC PV2 Section 4.3.2 allows calculation of
PV2-2017 Figure 1 provide guidance for buildings with other An considering the length of the building side at each corner
plan shapes, as used in the solution to this problem. When individually, which may result in reduced wind pressure.
selecting location(s) on a building roof to position a solar
array, identifying the roof wind zones can help identify where C. Nominal net pressure coefficient ((GCrn)nom)
the array will be most economical from a wind design
standpoint. Given:
A solar array is to be placed on the flat roof of a building. The
B. Normalized wind area (An) array will be low-profile, with dimensions such that
ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 is applicable (Lp ≤ 6.7 ft, ω ≤ 35
Given: degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.). The array consists of rows of
A solar array is to be placed on the flat roof of a building with tilted panels. The area of one 39 inch x 66 inch module is 17.9
plan dimensions shown in Figure A1. The mean roof height, h, ft2. Testing or analysis of the solar panel support system
of the building is 12 feet. The array will be low-profile, with demonstrates that effective wind area, A, for a ballast on the
dimensions such that ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 is applicable corner of an array to resist uplift is equal to the area of one
(Lp ≤ 6.7 ft, ω ≤ 35 degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.). The array module. Based on that effective wind area and the building
consists of rows of tilted panels. The area of one 39 inch x 66 dimensions, the normalized wind area, An, for that ballast has
inch module is 17.9 ft2. been calculated as 79.6. The angle between the roof and solar
panel, ω, is 7 degrees.
Problem:
Determine the normalized wind area, An, for a structural Problem:
element whose effective wind area A is equal to the area of Determine the Nominal Net Pressure Coefficient, (GCrn)nom for
one module. design of the weight of a ballast on the corner of an array in
Zone 3, Zone 2, Zone 1 and Zone 1’.
Solution:
The normalized wind area, An, is determined by the equations Solution:
in ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3. Using Figure A1 and a building Because the tilt angle of the panels, ω, is between 5 and 15
height, h, of 12 feet, degrees, it is necessary to interpolate between graphs for
1000 (0 ≤ ω ≤ 5) and (15 ≤ ω ≤ 35) in ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7 for
𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = � � 𝐴𝐴 Roof Zones 3, 2, 1, and SEAOC PV2-2017 Figure 2 for Zone
[max(𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 , 15𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)]2
1’. First, we determine (GCrn)nom for the 0-5 degree graph and
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 = min(0.4(ℎ × 𝑊𝑊𝐿𝐿 )0.5 , ℎ, 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 )
the 15-35 degree graph. To aid in the calculation of (GCrn)nom
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 = min(0.4(12𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 × 273𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)0.5 , 12𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 205𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)
from these graphs, Tables C1 and C2 provide numeric
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 = min(23𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 12𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 205𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)
expressions for the lines plotted in the graphs. Tables C3 and
𝐿𝐿𝑏𝑏 = 12ft C4 calculate (GCrn)nom corresponding to An = 79.6 and A =
1000
𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = � � 17.9𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 2 17.9 ft2. The last column of Tables C3 and C4 calculates
[max(12𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 15𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)]2 (GCrn)nom for ω = 7 degrees by interpolating between the
𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = 79.6 values from the graphs.
Discussion: Discussion:
An is used to determine the Nominal Net Pressure Coefficient, As shown in the last column of Tables C3 and C4, for a given
(GCrn)nom for design of structural element(s) having effective normalized wind area, the Nominal Net Pressure Coefficient,
wind area A, as discussed in subsequent examples. An is non- (GCrn)nom (and consequently the design wind pressure) is
dimensional because it is normalized to account for the effect greatest near the edges and corners of the roof (Zones 2 and 3)
that the size of the building can have on wind pressure on and less in the center of the roof (Zone 1). Pressure
rooftop solar arrays. As shown in this example, a structural coefficients are affected by building dimensions in Zones 1, 2,
element with effective wind area 17.9 ft2 can have greater An and 3, but not in Zone 1’. For this reason, effective wind area,
(resulting in lesser wind pressure) if the array is located on a A, is the input for calculating pressure coefficients in Zone 1’
building with small height and/or small plan dimensions, or it (SEAOC PV2-2017 Figure 2), whereas normalized wind area
can have smaller An (resulting in greater wind pressure) if the An is the input for calculating pressure coefficients in Zones 1,
array is located on a building with large height and large plan 2, and 3 (ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7).
dimensions.

Table C3: Calculation of (GCrn)nom for An = 79.6 and ω = 7

degrees Table C4: Calculation of (GCrn)nom for A = 17.9 ft2 and ω = 7
Roof Wind Zone 0˚≤ω≤5˚ 15˚≤ω≤35˚ ω=7˚ (interpolation) degrees
Zone 3 1.03 1.60 1.14 Roof Wind Zone 0˚≤ω≤5˚ 15˚≤ω≤35˚ ω=7˚ (interpolation)
Zone 2 0.91 1.31 0.99 Zone 1’ 0.56 0.81 0.61
Zone 1 0.69 0.98 0.75
Table C1: Equations for (𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 graphed in ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7
Roof Wind Zone
𝜔𝜔 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛
3 2 1
0° to 5° ≤ 500 −0.6669log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 2.300 −0.5743log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 2.000 −0.4261log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.500
0° to 5° > 500 −0.3500log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.445 −0.3000log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.260 −0.2500log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.025
15° to 35° ≤ 500 −1.0004log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 3.500 −0.8337log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 2.900 −0.5372log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 2.000
15° to 35° > 500 −0.3000log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.610 −0.2500log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.325 −0.2500log10 (𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 ) + 1.225
Table C2: Equations for (𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 graphed in Figure 2

Roof Wind Zone
𝜔𝜔 A (ft2)
1’
0° to 5° ≤ 5000 −0.1892log10 (A) + 0.800
0° to 5° > 5000 0.10
15° to 35° ≤ 5000 −0.2298log10 (𝐴𝐴) + 1.100
15° to 35° > 5000 0.25
E. Chord factor (γC)

D. Parapet factor (γP) Given:
Given:
array will be low-profile, with dimensions such that
degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.) The array consists of rows of
tilted panels. Each module has dimensions of 39 in x 78 in
degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.). The array consists of rows of
(3.25 ft x 6.5 ft).
tilted panels. The mean roof height, h, is 12 feet and the
parapet height, hpt, is 2 feet. Problem:
Determine the Panel Chord Factor, γc, assuming that the
Problem:
modules are in (i) portrait orientation, and (ii) landscape
Determine the Parapet Height Factor, γp, from ASCE 7-16
orientation.
Section 29.4.3.
Solution (i) Portrait:
Solution:
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.6 + 0.06 𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝 , 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑝𝑝 = min(1.2, 0.9 + ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 /ℎ)
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.6 + 0.06 × 6.5𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑝𝑝 = min(1.2, 0.9 + 2𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/12𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.99, 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑝𝑝 = min(1.2, 1.07) 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = 0.99
𝛾𝛾𝑝𝑝 = 1.07
Solution (ii) Landscape:
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.6 + 0.06 𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝 , 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.6 + 0.06 × 3.25𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = max(0.8, 0.8)
𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 = 0.8

Discussion:
For the provisions of SEAOC PV2 and ASCE 7-16 Figure
29.4-7 to be applicable, the panel chord length must be less
than or equal to 6.7 ft (2.04 m). As shown in this example,
arrays with longer chord length (such as rows of modules in
portrait orientation), have greater Panel Chord Factor (and
consequently greater design wind pressure) than arrays with
shorter chord length (such as modules in landscape
orientation).
F. Edge factor (γE)

Given:
degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.). The array consists of rows of
tilted panels. Modules are 39 in x 78 in (3.25 ft x 6.5 ft). At
the upper edge of each tilted panel, the top of the panel is 10
inches (h2) above the roof, and the mean roof height, h, is 12
feet.
Problem:
Determine the Edge Factor, γE, for each module in the array
shown in Figure F1.
Figure F1: Plan dimensions of an example building and array,
Solution: with edge factor γE indicated by gray shading.
Per ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3, γE = 1.5 for a given panel if, in
any plan direction: Discussion:
Whereas ASCE 7-16 defines the edge factor as a step function
• The distance (d1) from the panel to the roof edge is greater than (either 1.0 or 1.5), SEAOC PV2-2017 Section 4.3.3 provides
0.5h = 0.5(12 ft) = 6 ft an optional more detailed approach in which the edge factor
and varies linearly between 1.0 and 1.5 as a function of distance to
• The distance (d1 or d2) to the roof edge or the next array or panel the next array or panel. Table F1 shows how the edge factor
is greater than max(4h2, 4 ft) = max(4(10 in), 4 ft) = 4 ft.
varies for several example values of row spacing, using the
For other panels, γE = 1.0. SEAOC PV2 optional approach.
In cases where, γE = 1.5 applies at the end of a row of Table F1: Edge factors using interpolation per SEAOC PV2
modules, γE = 1.5 applies over a distance 1.5 times the panel Section 4.3.3.
chord length, Lp: h2 (in) d2/h2 d2 (in) γE
2 20 1
1.5𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃 = 1.5 × 6.5𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 9.75𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (Portrait Orientation) 4 40 1.2
1.5𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃 = 1.5 × 3.25𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 4.88𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (Landscape Orientation) 10
6 60 1.3
For the example arrays in Figure F1, modules are in portrait 8 80 1.5
orientation. Figure F1 shows the edge factor for each module.
G. Effective wind area (A) and design wind

pressure (p)
Given:
A solar array is to be located on a building with low-slope
roof. The array will be low-profile, with dimensions such that
degrees, h1 ≤ 2 ft, h2 ≤ 4 ft, etc.).

The velocity pressure qh at the mean roof height of the Table G1 calculates An, (GCrn)nom, (GCrn), and p for each
building is 23.7 psf (based on V = 110 mph, Exposure value of effective wind area A specified in the problem
Category C, Kzt = 1.0, Kd = 0.85, Ke = 1.0). statement, and for each edge condition (pinterior for γE = 1.0,
The mean roof height of the building is 20 ft. The mean and pedge for γE = 1.5).
parapet height above the adjacent roof surface is 2 ft. The Table G1
width of the building on its longest side is 182 ft. The width of (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix)
the building on its shortest side is 160 ft. A (modules)* ¼ 1/2 1 1.5 2 4 6 9 36
The array will be in Roof Wind Zone 1. Modules are 39”x66” A (ft2) 4.5 8.9 17.9 26.8 35.8 71.5 107 161 644
in landscape orientation. The panel tilt-angle is 5 degrees. The An 11.2 22.3 44.7 67.0 89.4 179 268 402 1610
location of the array on the building, location of the array (GCrn)nom 1.05 0.93 0.80 0.72 0.67 0.54 0.47 0.39 0.27
relative to other arrays, and row spacing of the array are such (GCrn)int 0.84 0.74 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.43 0.37 0.31 0.22
that the edge factor γE = 1.5 for modules on the perimeter of (GCrn)edge 1.26 1.11 0.96 0.87 0.80 0.65 0.56 0.47 0.32
the array, and γE = 1.0 for modules on the interior of the array. pinterior (psf) 20 18 15 14 13 10 8.8 7.4 5.2
pedge (psf) 30 26 23 21 19 15 13 11 7.6
Problem: * Effective wind area values listed in this example are not
Calculate the design wind pressure p for elements having each appropriate for all systems nor all limit states. See discussion
of the following effective wind areas A: below for applicability of assumptions for effective wind area
(i) ¼ module A to limit states (uplift, downward force, or sliding).
(ii) ½ module
(iii) 1 module Discussion:
(iv) 1.5 modules As shown in Table G1, design wind pressure is greater for
(v) 2 modules elements with small effective wind area; pressure is less for
(vi) 4 modules elements with large effective wind area.
(vii) 6 modules For example, an effective wind area of ¼ of a module may be
(viii) 9 modules appropriate for designing fasteners that attach modules to the
(ix) 36 modules racking system. Larger effective wind area may be appropriate
Solution: for checking other elements of the array.
γp = min[1.2, 0.9 + hpt/h] = min[1.2, 0.9 + 2/20] = 1.0 Effective wind area depends on the structural characteristics of
γc = max[0.6 + 0.06Lp, 0.8] = max[0.6 + 0.06(40/12)] = 0.8 the solar panel support system, and the limit state under
Lb = min[0.4√(hWL),h,WS] = min[0.4√(20)(182),20,160] = 20ft consideration. For checking the capacity of a 6-module by 6-
An/A = 1000/max[Lb, 15]2 = 1000/max[20, 15]2 = 2.5 module array to resist sliding, an effective wind area of 36
Area of one module = (39)(66)/144 = 17.9 ft2 modules may be appropriate if the array is adequately
interconnected such that all modules would slide as a unit. For
An = (An/A)A = (An/A)(Area of one module)(# of modules)
checking the same 6-module by 6-module array to resist uplift,
= (2.5)(17.9)(# of modules)
smaller effective wind area is typically appropriate. Uplift
From ASCE 7-16 Figure 29.4-7 (or the equations in Table C1 resistance requires consideration of multiple load cases, such
of these examples), for 5-degree panel tilt, as the case where an edge row could be subject to lifting and
flipping over, for example.
(GCrn)nom = 1.5 – 0.4261[log10(An)] for An ≤ 500
(GCrn)nom = 1.025 – 0.25[log10(An)] for An > 500 For most interconnected arrays, the appropriate effective wind
area for uplift is less for load cases with wind pressure at the
Per SEAOC PV2 Section 4.2.1, design wind pressure
edges of the array, compared to load cases with uplift at the
calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.3 shall
interior of the array. This is because:
not be taken less than the design wind pressure calculated
• edges of arrays tend to be more flexible (easier to peel up)
using the pressure coefficients in Figure 2. From Figure 2 (or
than interior portions of arrays, and
the equations in Table C2 of these examples), for 5-degree
• wind pressure demands on the edges of arrays tend to be
panel tilt,
more sensitive to uplift movement than modules on the
(GCrn)nom = 0.8 – 0.1892 [log10(A)] for A ≤ 5000 ft2 interior of the array.
(GCrn)nom = 0.1 for A > 5000 ft2
(GCrn) = (γp)( γc)( γE)(GCrn)nom = (1.0)(0.8)(γE)(GCrn)nom
p = qh(GCrn) = (23.7)(GCrn)

For these reasons (in addition to the aerodynamic edge effect (iv) Design the weight of a ballast in the second row from the
γE), greater ballast weight and/or attachments are often edge of the array.
required around the edges of an array than at the array interior. (v) Design the weight of a ballast at the interior of the array.
(vi) Calculate the total ballast weight for the array based on
Systems with stiffer and stronger structural elements can the designs from (ii) through (v).
engage multiple ballasts or attachments to resist concentrated
wind uplift pressure, resulting in greater effective wind area Solution:
and less ballast and attachments than flexible systems. (i) For effective wind area of ¼ module, the design wind
pressure is 20 psf for modules on the interior of the array, and
H. Design of an unattached (ballast-only) 30 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. Assuming
that the same fastener design will be applied to all modules,
array to resist uplift
design for the worst of these cases, 30 psf. The tributary area
Given: of one fastener is ¼ of one module. The design wind force on
A 6-module by 6-module low-profile solar array is to be a fastener is
located on a building with flat roof. Wind loads on the array
W = pedge(Tributary Area) = (30)(1/4)(17.9) = 134 lb.
are resisted by self-weight of the array and ballast. Ballasts are
located at each corner of each module, such that a ballast at (ii) For effective wind area of 1 module, the design wind
the corner of the array connects to one module, ballasts around pressure is 15 psf for modules on the interior of the array, and
the edges of the array connect to two modules each, and other 23 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. The tributary
ballasts connect to four modules each. The array is not area to a corner ballast is ¼ of one module. All of the tributary
attached to the building structure. area to the corner ballast is on a perimeter module, so the
design wind pressure is 23 psf. The design wind uplift force is
Each module is fastened to the solar panel support system with
four fasteners, one near each corner of the module. (Fasteners Fvert = Wcos(ω)
are not shared between modules.) = pedge(Tributary Area)cos(5°)
= (23)(1/4)(17.9)(0.996)
The area of each module is 17.9 sf. Each module weighs 41
= 103 lb.
lbs. The self-weight of the racking system (excluding modules
and ballast) is 19 lbs per module. The panel tilt-angle is 5 To resist uplift, the ballast weight must be greater than the
degrees. wind uplift force, minus the tributary weight of modules and
self-weight of the racking system. Using allowable stress
Testing or analysis of the solar panel support system
design per the load combinations of ASCE 7-16 Section
demonstrates that effective wind area to resist uplift is as
2.4.1(7), and solving for ballast weight:
follows:
• Fasteners of modules to racking: ¼ module Ballast weight
• Ballast at corner of array: 1 module > Fvert – (module weight)(# of tributary modules) –
• Ballast at edge of array: 1.5 modules (racking weight per module)(# of tributary modules)
• 2nd row of ballast: 4 modules > 103 – (19)(1/4) – (41)(1/4)
• Ballast at interior of array: 6 modules > 88 lb.
(iii) For effective wind area of 1.5 modules, the design wind
The design wind pressure p has been calculated for each of the pressure is 14 psf for modules on the interior of the array, and
effective wind areas listed above, as shown in Table H1. 21 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. The tributary
Table H1 area to an edge ballast is ½ of one module. All of the tributary
A (modules) ¼ 1 1.5 4 6 area to the edge ballast is on a perimeter module, so the design
pinterior (psf) 20 15 14 10 8.8 wind pressure is 21 psf. The design wind uplift force is
pedge (psf) 30 23 21 15 13 Fvert = Wcos(ω)
Problem: = pedge(Tributary Area)cos(5°)
(i) Calculate the design wind force (perpendicular to the = (21)(1/2)(17.9)(0.996)
plane of the module) on one fastener. = 187 lb.
(ii) Design the weight of a ballast at a corner of the array. Ballast weight
(iii) Design the weight of a ballast at an edge of the array. > Fvert – (module weight)(# of tributary modules) –
(racking weight per module)(# of tributary modules)

> 187 – (19)(1/2) – (41)(1/2) because they have greater wind pressure (smaller effective
> 157 lb. wind area, and greater aerodynamic edge effects).
(iv) For effective wind area of 4 modules, the design wind Effective wind area values in the problem statement are for
pressure is 10 psf for modules on the interior of the array, and illustration only. As discussed in the effective wind area
15 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. The tributary problem, these example values are not necessarily applicable
area to a ballast in the second row from the edge of the array is to all arrays. For wind design methodologies that are based on
one module. Half of this tributary area is on perimeter assigning an effective wind area to structural elements of the
modules, and half is on interior modules. The design wind array, such as the approach used in this example, the effective
uplift force is wind area values must be validated by analysis and/or testing
of the structural behavior of the racking system and
Fvert = Wcos(ω) consideration of what uplift displacement (if any) is
= [pinterior(1/2) + pedge(1/2)](Tributary Area)cos(5°) acceptable under the design wind pressure (or other wind load
= [(10)(1/2) + 15(1/2)](1)(17.9)(0.996) levels of interest). For example, uplift displacement exceeding
= 223 lb. a certain threshold may change the aerodynamics of the
Ballast weight system, which may change the wind loads.
> Fvert – (module weight)(# of tributary modules) – The solution demonstrated in this example is not the only
(racking weight per module)(# of tributary modules) valid approach. An alternative, and perhaps more direct,
> 223 – (19)(1) – (41)(1) approach would be to apply load cases with wind “gusts” of
> 163 lb. various sizes (1 module, 2 modules, 4 modules, etc.) and to
For the ballast in the second row from the corner of the array, check that for each case the array has adequate ballast and
¾ of the tributary area is on perimeter modules, and ¼ is on an interconnection strength to resist the pressure.
interior module. Performing similar calculations as above, the The solution above uses allowable stress design load
ballast weight for this location is > 185 lb. combination (7) from ASCE 7-16 Section 2.4.1 to determine
(v) For effective wind area of 6 modules, the design wind ballast requirements. This load combination applies a load
pressure is 8.8 psf for modules on the interior of the array, and factor of 0.6 for dead load and 0.6 for wind, so the 0.6 cancels
13 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. The tributary in the calculation of total ballast weight required. This
area to an interior ballast is one module. All of the tributary calculation could also be performed using the strength design
area to the interior ballast is on an interior module, so the load combination (5) of ASCE 7-16 Section 2.3.1. Solar
design wind pressure is 8.8 psf. The design wind uplift force is designers typically choose to use the allowable stress design
load combination in this case because the strength design load
Fvert = Wcos(ω) combination applies a load factor of 0.9 for dead load and 1.0
= pinterior(Tributary Area)cos(5°) for wind, resulting in slightly greater ballast requirements.
= (8.8)(1)(17.9)(0.996)
= 157 lb.
Ballast weight
> Fvert – (module weight)(# of tributary modules) –
(racking weight per module)(# of tributary modules)
> 157 – (19)(1) – (41)(1)
> 97 lb.
(vi) The total ballast weight for the array is
Total ballast weight
> 4(88) + 20(157) + 12(163) + 4(185) + 9(97)
= 7061 lb.
Discussion:
As shown in this example, tributary area is less than or equal
to effective wind area. While ballasts near the perimeter of the
array have smaller tributary area than ballasts at the interior of
the array, perimeter ballasts tend to require greater weight

I. Design of an unattached (ballast-only) stress design per the load combinations of ASCE 7-16 Section
array to resist sliding 2.4.1(7), and solving for ballast weight:
Total ballast weight
Given:
A 6-module by 6-module low-profile solar array is to be > Fhoriz/µ + Fvert – (module weight)(# of modules) –
located on a building with flat roof. Wind loads on the array (racking weight per module)(# of modules)
are resisted by self-weight of the array and ballast. Ballasts are > 320/0.4 + 3652 – 41(36) – 19(36)
located at each corner of each module. The array is not > 2292 lb.*
attached to the building structure. The coefficient of friction µ * Providing adequate ballast to resist sliding does not
between the array and the roof surface is 0.4. The area of each necessarily provide adequate resistance for other limit states,
module is 17.9 sf. Each module weighs 41 lbs. The self-weight such as uplift, which must be checked separately. See
of the racking system (excluding modules and ballast) is 19 discussion.
lbs per module. The panel tilt-angle is 5 degrees.
Discussion:
Tests and/or calculations have shown that the array is The total ballast weight calculated above averages to 64 lb per
adequately interconnected such that, if the friction between the module in the 36-module array. For most arrays, the total
array and the roof surface is exceeded, all modules would slide ballast weight to resist sliding, as calculated in this example,
as a unit. For an effective wind area A equal to the area of the will be less than the sum of the individual ballast weights
entire array (36 modules), the design wind pressure p has been required to resist uplift of smaller portions of the array. Each
calculated as 5.2 psf for modules on the interior of the array, limit state must be checked, and the ballast design must be
and 7.6 psf for modules on the perimeter of the array. adequate for each.
Problem: See the wind uplift example problem for discussion of
Calculate the total ballast weight for the array that is required allowable stress design vs. strength design load combinations.
to resist sliding from wind.
Solution:
The horizontal component of the wind pressure acting on
modules is p[sin(5 degrees)]. The vertical component is
p[cos(5 degrees)].
In the 36-module array, 16 modules are on the perimeter of the
array, and 16 modules are on the interior of the array. (As
discussed in Section 5.3.1, applying edge factors to more than
one edge at a time is conservative, but we do so in this
example for simplicity.)
The wind uplift force on the array is

Fvert = [(# of interior modules)pinterior + (# of perimeter
modules)pedge][Area of one module][cos(5°)]
= [(16)5.2 + (16)7.6][17.9][0.996]
= 3652 lb.
The wind horizontal force on the array is
Fhoriz = [(# of interior modules)pinterior + (# of perimeter
modules)pedge][Area of one module][sin(5°)]
= [(16)5.2 + (16)7.6][17.9][0.087]
= 320 lb.
To resist sliding (by friction), the total weight of the array
(including ballast, modules, and self-weight of the racking
system) must be such that the normal force (total weight
minus wind uplift) multiplied by the coefficient of friction is
greater than the horizontal force from wind. Using allowable

J. Parallel-to-roof (flush-mounted) modules Other details are as follows:

h = 33 ft, Wind Exposure Category C, Kz = 1.0
Given: WL = 246 ft
A proposed PV array is to be secured to a metal standing seam WS = 140 ft
roof using extruded aluminum external seam clamps (See V = 110 mph, Risk Category II per ASCE 7-16
Figure J1a). The seams of the roof are spaced at 24 inches on Kzt = 1.0
center. The roof slope is ¼ in. per ft. The PV modules will be Kd = 0.85 per ASCE 7-16 Table 26.6-1
parallel to the roof surface. The distance between the flat part Ke = 1.0 per ASCE 7-16 Table 26.9-1
of the roof deck and the top surface of the PV module is to be
5 in. The PV modules are 39 in. wide and 66 in. long. The Clamps must be installed at each deck rib in order to follow
long dimension of the PV modules will run perpendicular to the wind load path of the standing seam roof to which the PV
the deck ribs. Three clamps will be used to secure each long modules are secured. The wind load path goes from the deck
edge of the PV module to the roof deck ribs as shown in Fig. ribs to an internal clip, then through self-drilling screws
J1b. The horizontal space between modules will be 6 in. in securing the internal clips into the top flange of steel purlins.
their longitudinal direction and 1 in. in the opposite direction. The fire department requires a minimum 6 ft. wide aisle every
A minimum of 800 modules must be installed to provide the 100 ft.
required electrical output. The building is just slightly above Problem:
sea level. Determine the roof wind zones for parallel-to-roof (flush-
mounted) solar arrays. Determine the design wind uplift
pressure in each zone for design of the external seam clamps
that attach the modules to the roof. Propose a location for the
array on the roof that satisfies the constraints described above
while minimizing the wind loads on the array.
Solution:
STEP 1: ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4 applies because the PV
modules are parallel to the roof surface, are within 10 in. of
the flat part of the roof deck, and have adequate gaps between
all panels to allow pressure equalization between the top and
bottom surfaces of the panels. The design wind pressure is
p = qh(GCp)(γE)(γa)
where, per ASCE 7-16, Eq. 26.10-1)
qh = 0.00256KzKztKdKeV2
= 0.00256 (1.0) (1.0) (0.85) (1.0) (110)2
= 26.3 psf
STEP 2: The pressure coefficients GCp for elements of the
solar array are determined from Fig. 30.3-2A of ASCE 7-16
for a low slope (≤ 7°) gable roof. The largest area supported
by any clamp is less than 10 ft2, so GCp for clamp design is
based on effective wind area A ≤ 10 ft2.
For Zone 3, GCp = -3.2
For Zone 1’, GCp = -0.9
STEP 3: An edge factor γE = 1.5 must be applied to the
exposed PV modules located along each outer row, or adjacent
Figure J1: Metal standing seam roof with flush-mounted solar to aisles > 4 ft.
array. (a) Photo of an example array. (b) STEP 4: A factor γa is permitted to be applied to reduce the
Dimensions used in this example calculation. design wind pressure to account for pressure equalization

between the top and bottom surfaces of the panels. Per ASCE As the local fire department required a minimum 6 ft wide
7-16 Figure 29.4-8, the Pressure Equalization Factor γa = 0.8 access aisles at maximum distances of 100 ft, the modules
for A ≤ 10 ft2. However, because the top surface of the along each side of the aisle must use an edge factor = 1.5 since
modules is ≤ 5 in. from the roof surface (h1 = h2), and the the aisle is > 4 ft. wide (per ASCE 7-16) and > 2h2 (per
minimum gap between modules in each direction is ≥ ¾ in., SEAOC PV2 Section 5.2.3).
Figure 12 of SEAOC PV2 allows the design pressure to be
This will still allow enough room for the required minimum of
further reduced using a pressure equalization factor γa = 0.6. 800 modules by installing the modules in two – approximate
Table J1 calculates the design wind pressure p for clamps in 100 by 100 ft arrays. Within each array 14 modules in each of
each roof wind zone by applying the equation from Step 1 30 rows are used (see Fig. J2). This allows for up to 840
with the coefficients from Steps 2, 3, and 4. modules total.
STEP 5: A setback of 20 ft from the roof edge is selected in Table J1: Summary of design wind pressure calculations for
order to minimize wind loads on the array by locating the module clamps
array in roof wind Zones 1 and 1’ as shown in Figure J2. Roof Wind Uplift
Roof Wind Zone Module Edge
Based on this location, design pressures shown in Table J1 for Wind GCp Pressure
Dimensions (ft) Location Factor
clamps are limited to the values shown for Zone 1 and Zone Zone (psf)
1’. Modules located in an outer row or column are considered L-shaped areas at
Exposed 1.5 -75.9
“exposed” and are designed using the higher pressures that roof corners:
3 -3.2
include an edge factor of 1.5, as shown in Figure J2. Because 6.6 ft wide, 19.8 ft
Shielded 1.0 -50.6
the aisle between arrays is > 4 ft wide (per ASCE 7-16) and > long on each side
2h2 (per SEAOC PV2 Section 5.2.3), modules along this aisle 19.8 ft wide Exposed 1.5 -54.6
also require an edge factor of 1.5. Whereas ASCE 7-16 would perimeter of roof
2 -2.3
require the application of the edge factor 1.5 to all modules (except areas in Shielded 1.0 -36.4
within a distance of 1.5 Lp from the edge of the array, Lp is not Roof Wind Zone 3)
clearly defined in the case of a flush-mount array such as in 19.8 ft to 39.6 ft Exposed 1.5 -40.3
1 -1.7
this example. For this case, SEAOC PV2-2017 Section 5.3.3 from roof edges Shielded 1.0 -26.9
recommends applying the edge factor to modules within 2h2 = greater than 39.6 ft Exposed 1.5 -21.3
10 inches of the exposed edge. This example applies the edge 1’ -0.9
from roof edges Shielded 1.0 -14.2
factor 1.5 to the edge modules.
Discussion:
The provisions for parallel-to-roof (flush-mount) modules
used in this example apply only when used with ASCE 7-16.
Pressure coefficients GCp for Components and Cladding (to
which the flush-mount provisions refer) changed from
ASCE 7-10 to ASCE 7-16.
In this example, several options were considered in order to
provide the required number of modules, while minimizing
wind forces on the array. Limiting the height of the module
surface above the roof surface to 5 in., and providing a
minimum gap of ¾ in. between modules provides a significant
reduction in the wind uplift design pressure as γa is reduced to
0.6. This is allowed per SEAOC PV2-2017, but this value is
limited to 0.8 in ASCE 7-16.
Another factor is the setback distance from the edge of the
roof to the first row of PV modules, which often is 10 ft on all
sides of the building. In reviewing Table J1, it can be noted Figure J2: Roof plan and array layout. Modules are color-
that the wind pressure has been further reduced considerably coded to identify the applicable roof wind zone and
by increasing the setback distance to 20 ft on all sides and edge factor at each location on the array.
placing the modules in Zone 1 and 1’, and not in Zone 2 or 3.


CODE-Wind Design Solar Panels

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CODE-Wind Design Solar Panels

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

WIND DESIGN FOR SOLAR ARRAYS

SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee

Report SEAOC PV2-2017

Board of Directors, 2016-2017

Structural Engineers Association of California

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays

SEAOC Solar Photovoltaic Systems Committee

SEAOC Wind Committee

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Preface and Acknowledgements

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Requirements and Commentary

SEAOC commentary 1.1. Thickness of solar panels

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Commentary: The terms used in this report – module, panel, and

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

p = qh (GCrn) (lb/ft2) (29.4-5)

where NOTES FOR FIGURE 29.4-7

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

4.3.3. Array edge factor applies to only one array edge at a

4.3.4. Alternate calculation of array edge factor

Figure 3: Building roof plan demonstrating determination of 1.1

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

4.3.5. Gaps between modules

Figure 6: Plan view of the corner of a building model in a wind

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

flow also significantly increases the vertical component of the wind.

Figure 7: Corner vortices on a roof top. (Figure courtesy of CPP)

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Solar Array Pressure

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

7. Wind tunnel procedure

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

effect factor specified in ASCE 7-16 shall not be taken to

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Figure A1: Plan dimensions of an example building.

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Discussion: In this example, An is calculated based on the worst case

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Table C3: Calculation of (GCrn)nom for An = 79.6 and ω = 7

Table C2: Equations for (𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 graphed in Figure 2

E. Chord factor (γC)

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

F. Edge factor (γE)

G. Effective wind area (A) and design wind

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017

Wind Design for Solar Arrays July 2017