Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[Chris Sparadeo via RE-wrenches]

In high uplift scenarios, I have used both IronRidge Camo clips on the
bottom frame of the module and UFO clips on the top. More expensive, but
definitely an all around rock solid approach.

-Chris

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 9:45 PM Ray Walters via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:

> Hi Jason;
>
> I was like you: thinking good ol' bottom mounting with SS hardware was the
> best.  All of us old wrenches were wrong.
>
> The top down mounting system is much stronger.  I've only had a handful of
> failures over 25 years, and all were bottom mounted.  The module completely
> ripped off the rack, leaving the stainless hardware, washers, etc with a
> thin sliver of module frame between.  For repairs, I come back and install
> 1/2" SS angle on the inside of the module frame to spread the load more.
> ANDon new installs, no more bottom mounting. If you compare today's
> modules with old 12v models from 20 years ago, you'll see: much thinner
> metal on the bottom frames now.
>
> Meanwhile I saw several systems survive Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico:
> all top down mounting.  You are correct that the failures come from the
> modules themselves letting go, not the racking.  Either the wind itself is
> so strong as to blow the glass, then the frame looses its structure, or
> flying debris breaks the glass. There were some MW PV fields that got tore
> up pretty bad.  So no, ground mounts definitely can be destroyed. They had
> tornadoes moving inside of the hurricane, and you could see it in the
> damage, 50' wide strips of total carnage with undamaged modules a few feet
> away. Like you said, The storm has a mind of its own.
>
> As far as mid clamp T bolt failures, I can confirm that probably a
> majority are not installed correctly, especially Unirac, which are terrible
> to get the T lined up right.  I've done numerous inspections world wide,
> and a signifcant % of racking I looked at was NOT installed correctly.
> 1) The Ts not squarely lined up with the rail,
> 2) massive over torqueing, to the point the bolt can't be reversed
> 3)  under torqueing, to the point the modules had slipped down a little.
>
> Most of these problems come from installing with an impact driver.  Impact
> drivers are a great tool (so is a hammer), but you got to know when and
> where to Not use them, too.  They're great for installing the lags and L
> feet, but then get that tool off the roof.
>
> Use an electric screw driver, socket wrench, or *drill with a clutch* set
> low to snug up the clamps, and then final torque with a torque wrench.
> Period.
>
> Ray Walters
> Remote Solar
> Former NABCEP 2004-2016
>
>
> On 3/30/2023 4:34 PM, Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches wrote:
>
> That would be great if it were possible! I'm not sure how you bottom mount
> a flush mount array. For a brief period many years ago, I was building
> solar trailers. I would bottom mount 4-6 panel arrays on rails in my
> warehouse and then hoist them up and through-bolt the whole array on the
> top of a trailer. I wasn't about to allow a trailer going 80 mph on the
> interstate to have panels mounted on the roof with mid-clamps! I had no
> idea what I was doing, but I had enough sense to know that would have been
> a bad idea!
>
> I did provide feedback to IronRidge regarding a handful of failures from
> Hurricane Ian, but most of the issues we saw were most likely related to
> catastrophic module failure. After all, they are only tested to 5600 Pa
> uplift for even the best options we have on the market and 2400 Pa for some
> (which I refuse to use). The mid-clamp T-bolts tearing out of the rail are
> slightly concerning, but this was pretty rare, and honestly it could be
> related to installation torque issues, misalignment, or coupled with module
> failure. There was no widespread or definitive reason for rail failures at
> the clamp locations.
>
> I would suggest that FEMA's recommendation is overkill and not based on
> much science, but conclusions based on anecdotal information without
> statistical data. It should be scrutinized. I think it would be a good idea
> to consider bottom mount for ground racks and tilt mounts that allow it,
> but it's just not practical or possible in the vast majority of residential
> installation cases. On that note, I am not aware of any ground mount
> failures around here from Hurricane Ian except for submerged arrays that
> were washed away from storm surge (Yikes!). And the handful of failures
> that we observed were a drop in the bucket relative to the installed
> numbers here.
>
> One other thing. Wind direction, upwind obstructions/windbreaks, and luck
> have a huge amount to do with failures (of both PV and roofs themselves).
> These storms pick winners and losers. You will have ten houses in a row
> with pool enclosures mangled, and one in the middle that is unscathed. It's
> crazy to see. We have lots of gated communities with houses close together.
> When wind accelerates between houses, it 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[Ray Walters via RE-wrenches]

Hi Jason;

I was like you: thinking good ol' bottom mounting with SS hardware was 
the best.  All of us old wrenches were wrong.


The top down mounting system is much stronger.  I've only had a handful 
of failures over 25 years, and all were bottom mounted. The module 
completely ripped off the rack, leaving the stainless hardware, washers, 
etc with a thin sliver of module frame between.  For repairs, I come 
back and install 1/2" SS angle on the inside of the module frame to 
spread the load more.  ANDon new installs, no more bottom mounting. 
If you compare today's modules with old 12v models from 20 years ago, 
you'll see: much thinner metal on the bottom frames now.


Meanwhile I saw several systems survive Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico: 
all top down mounting.  You are correct that the failures come from the 
modules themselves letting go, not the racking. Either the wind itself 
is so strong as to blow the glass, then the frame looses its structure, 
or flying debris breaks the glass. There were some MW PV fields that got 
tore up pretty bad.  So no, ground mounts definitely can be destroyed. 
They had tornadoes moving inside of the hurricane, and you could see it 
in the damage, 50' wide strips of total carnage with undamaged modules a 
few feet away. Like you said, The storm has a mind of its own.


As far as mid clamp T bolt failures, I can confirm that probably a 
majority are not installed correctly, especially Unirac, which are 
terrible to get the T lined up right.  I've done numerous inspections 
world wide, and a signifcant % of racking I looked at was NOT installed 
correctly.

1) The Ts not squarely lined up with the rail,
2) massive over torqueing, to the point the bolt can't be reversed
3)  under torqueing, to the point the modules had slipped down a little.

Most of these problems come from installing with an impact driver.  
Impact drivers are a great tool (so is a hammer), but you got to know 
when and where to Not use them, too.  They're great for installing the 
lags and L feet, but then get that tool off the roof.


Use an electric screw driver, socket wrench, or *drill with a clutch* 
set low to snug up the clamps, and then final torque with a torque 
wrench. Period.


Ray Walters
Remote Solar
Former NABCEP 2004-2016


On 3/30/2023 4:34 PM, Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches wrote:
That would be great if it were possible! I'm not sure how you bottom 
mount a flush mount array. For a brief period many years ago, I was 
building solar trailers. I would bottom mount 4-6 panel arrays on 
rails in my warehouse and then hoist them up and through-bolt the 
whole array on the top of a trailer. I wasn't about to allow a trailer 
going 80 mph on the interstate to have panels mounted on the roof with 
mid-clamps! I had no idea what I was doing, but I had enough sense to 
know that would have been a bad idea!


I did provide feedback to IronRidge regarding a handful of failures 
from Hurricane Ian, but most of the issues we saw were most likely 
related to catastrophic module failure. After all, they are only 
tested to 5600 Pa uplift for even the best options we have on the 
market and 2400 Pa for some (which I refuse to use). The mid-clamp 
T-bolts tearing out of the rail are slightly concerning, but this was 
pretty rare, and honestly it could be related to installation torque 
issues, misalignment, or coupled with module failure. There was no 
widespread or definitive reason for rail failures at the clamp locations.


I would suggest that FEMA's recommendation is overkill and not based 
on much science, but conclusions based on anecdotal information 
without statistical data. It should be scrutinized. I think it would 
be a good idea to consider bottom mount for ground racks and tilt 
mounts that allow it, but it's just not practical or possible in the 
vast majority of residential installation cases. On that note, I am 
not aware of any ground mount failures around here from Hurricane Ian 
except for submerged arrays that were washed away from storm surge 
(Yikes!). And the handful of failures that we observed were a drop in 
the bucket relative to the installed numbers here.


One other thing. Wind direction, upwind obstructions/windbreaks, and 
luck have a huge amount to do with failures (of both PV and roofs 
themselves). These storms pick winners and losers. You will have ten 
houses in a row with pool enclosures mangled, and one in the middle 
that is unscathed. It's crazy to see. We have lots of gated 
communities with houses close together. When wind accelerates between 
houses, it can topple air conditioning units and pool equipment. If 
you look hard enough at where the wind was coming from and the 
surrounding area, you can really see how there are so many factors 
that come into play.


Jason Szumlanski
Principal Solar Designer | Florida Solar Design Group
NABCEP Certified Solar Professional (PVIP)
Florida State Certified Solar Contractor CVC56956


On Thu, Mar 30, 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches]

That would be great if it were possible! I'm not sure how you bottom mount
a flush mount array. For a brief period many years ago, I was building
solar trailers. I would bottom mount 4-6 panel arrays on rails in my
warehouse and then hoist them up and through-bolt the whole array on the
top of a trailer. I wasn't about to allow a trailer going 80 mph on the
interstate to have panels mounted on the roof with mid-clamps! I had no
idea what I was doing, but I had enough sense to know that would have been
a bad idea!

I did provide feedback to IronRidge regarding a handful of failures from
Hurricane Ian, but most of the issues we saw were most likely related to
catastrophic module failure. After all, they are only tested to 5600 Pa
uplift for even the best options we have on the market and 2400 Pa for some
(which I refuse to use). The mid-clamp T-bolts tearing out of the rail are
slightly concerning, but this was pretty rare, and honestly it could be
related to installation torque issues, misalignment, or coupled with module
failure. There was no widespread or definitive reason for rail failures at
the clamp locations.

I would suggest that FEMA's recommendation is overkill and not based on
much science, but conclusions based on anecdotal information without
statistical data. It should be scrutinized. I think it would be a good idea
to consider bottom mount for ground racks and tilt mounts that allow it,
but it's just not practical or possible in the vast majority of residential
installation cases. On that note, I am not aware of any ground mount
failures around here from Hurricane Ian except for submerged arrays that
were washed away from storm surge (Yikes!). And the handful of failures
that we observed were a drop in the bucket relative to the installed
numbers here.

One other thing. Wind direction, upwind obstructions/windbreaks, and luck
have a huge amount to do with failures (of both PV and roofs themselves).
These storms pick winners and losers. You will have ten houses in a row
with pool enclosures mangled, and one in the middle that is unscathed. It's
crazy to see. We have lots of gated communities with houses close together.
When wind accelerates between houses, it can topple air conditioning units
and pool equipment. If you look hard enough at where the wind was coming
from and the surrounding area, you can really see how there are so many
factors that come into play.

Jason Szumlanski
Principal Solar Designer | Florida Solar Design Group
NABCEP Certified Solar Professional (PVIP)
Florida State Certified Solar Contractor CVC56956


On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:35 AM Christopher Warfel via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:

> If you look at FEMA's design guide for solar installations in FL and the
> Caribbean, the recommended module to rail attachment method is back to
> using the attachment holes in the solar module.  Chris
> On 3/30/2023 5:56 AM, Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches wrote:
>
> This thread has morphed into more than it started as, and for good reason.
> I want to provide some practical/anecdotal information, having just gone
> through arguably the most catastrophic wind event in Florida's history
> (Ian) since the boom in solar energy started, and another major wind event
> (Irrma) just 5 years ago.
>
> First, Aside from the Sunmodo and Quickbolt decking-only products, I would
> check out IronRidge's new entrant into the market, the IronRidge HUG. If
> you can't find info on it, ask your distributor or IronRidge sales rep.
> They have data on truss attachments and also missed truss installation
> procedures. It's a unique approach to a dual-purpose product, and they did
> a stellar job on the engineering documentation in my opinion.
>
> Ok, now let's get to my most important point. Due to Hurricane Ian, the
> number of roofing PV attachments that I have witnessed that failed due to
> fastener pull-out (mine or competitors):
>
> ZERO
>
> The only building where we had any mounts fail was on a flat roof with
> pitched panels and Anchor Products mounts on TPO membrane, but the mounts
> themselves did not cause the failure. The roofing system itself failed,
> causing a small section of the PV system to fail. But even in that case,
> the following applies...
>
> The weak point in a well-designed and installed system is not the fastener
> or flashing system. The module to rail connection is where we saw failures.
> These failures fell into a few categories:
>
>- Windborne debris struck panel, panel frame failed, panel popped out
>of mid-clamps.
>- Catastrophic wind forces popped panels out of mid-clamps (a good
>percentage of panels found INTACT and still functional on the ground!) I
>suspect the panels became covex in the wind, bending frames inward.
>- Windborne debris struck mounting system components, panel dislodged,
>often still on the roof suspended by DC leads.
>- Mid-clamp t-bolt tore out of aluminum rail channel (IronRidge UFO,
>  

Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[Christopher Warfel via RE-wrenches]

If you look at FEMA's design guide for solar installations in FL and the 
Caribbean, the recommended module to rail attachment method is back to 
using the attachment holes in the solar module.  Chris


On 3/30/2023 5:56 AM, Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches wrote:
This thread has morphed into more than it started as, and for good 
reason. I want to provide some practical/anecdotal information, having 
just gone through arguably the most catastrophic wind event in 
Florida's history (Ian) since the boom in solar energy started, and 
another major wind event (Irrma) just 5 years ago.


First, Aside from the Sunmodo and Quickbolt decking-only products, I 
would check out IronRidge's new entrant into the market, the IronRidge 
HUG. If you can't find info on it, ask your distributor or IronRidge 
sales rep. They have data on truss attachments and also missed truss 
installation procedures. It's a unique approach to a dual-purpose 
product, and they did a stellar job on the engineering documentation 
in my opinion.


Ok, now let's get to my most important point. Due to Hurricane Ian, 
the number of roofing PV attachments that I have witnessed that failed 
due to fastener pull-out (mine or competitors):


ZERO

The only building where we had any mounts fail was on a flat roof with 
pitched panels and Anchor Products mounts on TPO membrane, but the 
mounts themselves did not cause the failure. The roofing system itself 
failed, causing a small section of the PV system to fail. But even in 
that case, the following applies...


The weak point in a well-designed and installed system is not the 
fastener or flashing system. The module to rail connection is where we 
saw failures. These failures fell into a few categories:


  * Windborne debris struck panel, panel frame failed, panel popped
out of mid-clamps.
  * Catastrophic wind forces popped panels out of mid-clamps (a good
percentage of panels found INTACT and still functional on the
ground!) I suspect the panels became covex in the wind, bending
frames inward.
  * Windborne debris struck mounting system components, panel
dislodged, often still on the roof suspended by DC leads.
  * Mid-clamp t-bolt tore out of aluminum rail channel (IronRidge UFO,
Unirac SM).
  * Mid-clamp sheared off (Quick Mount QRail).
  * Unexplained module detachment failures.

On 9/28/22, while I stayed up all night bracing myself against my 
front door that I thought was about to fail, I was imagining how many 
roof leaks my clients were about to endure, and wondered about the 
efficacy of my business going forward. Those fears never materialized. 
Aside from a handful of minor panel dislodgements, there was no panic 
following the storm (with respect to solar panels). The bigger problem 
became all of the people needing to remove panels for roof 
replacements, but PV panels largely protected roofs in the areas where 
they were installed. Sadly, the rest of the roof often did not fare as 
well.


Anyway, back to the decking attachments. I have been skeptical of 
non-flashed products for comp shingle roofs for a long time. My 
thinking is coming around, particularly with the HUG (I trust 
IronRidge's testing regime). And sealants have come so far. This 
method will remain up for debate probably for a long time. Around 
here, I am pretty certain these products will outlast the shingles 
they are placed upon. We only get 15 years out of most shingle roofs 
around here.


About the pull-out fears... Mine are gone. We have done many flat 
roofs with long fasteners through steel decking or wood decking. These 
screws are usually something like #15 XHD screws in lengths from 5 - 
12". Not a single failure. We have also used Quick Mount QBase 
Low-Slope bases on pitched tile roofs that were only screwed into 
decking with 4 fasteners each (due to horizontal truss transitions) in 
some cases. Zero failures. But the most relevant attachments I can 
think of that are germane to this discussion are the many thousands of 
S-5 SolarFoot that we have screwed into decking on 5V metal roofs 
around here. These have four screws per attachment, and S-5 load tests 
show something like 240 lbs of pull-out strength in OSB (adjusted for 
safety factor). When engineered for our wind loads, we usually get 
anywhere from 36-48 inch attachment spacing, sometimes 24 inches in 
certain roof zones. Again, not a single failure.


I have more solar installations on Sanibel Island and Fort Myers Beach 
(Hurricane Ian Ground zero) than anyone. Many of those have 
decking-only attachments, S-5 clamps, flat roofs, or other attachments 
other than trusses. I can tell you unequivocally that I trust 
decking-only attachments from a pull-out strength standpoint. When 
properly engineered, with cautious attachment spacing, these mounts 
work in both OSB and plywood. Because of the inconsistencies in OSB, 
we always err on the side of caution, if not in the engineering, then 
in the installation, by 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[Jason Szumlanski via RE-wrenches]

This thread has morphed into more than it started as, and for good reason.
I want to provide some practical/anecdotal information, having just gone
through arguably the most catastrophic wind event in Florida's history
(Ian) since the boom in solar energy started, and another major wind event
(Irrma) just 5 years ago.

First, Aside from the Sunmodo and Quickbolt decking-only products, I would
check out IronRidge's new entrant into the market, the IronRidge HUG. If
you can't find info on it, ask your distributor or IronRidge sales rep.
They have data on truss attachments and also missed truss installation
procedures. It's a unique approach to a dual-purpose product, and they did
a stellar job on the engineering documentation in my opinion.

Ok, now let's get to my most important point. Due to Hurricane Ian, the
number of roofing PV attachments that I have witnessed that failed due to
fastener pull-out (mine or competitors):

ZERO

The only building where we had any mounts fail was on a flat roof with
pitched panels and Anchor Products mounts on TPO membrane, but the mounts
themselves did not cause the failure. The roofing system itself failed,
causing a small section of the PV system to fail. But even in that case,
the following applies...

The weak point in a well-designed and installed system is not the fastener
or flashing system. The module to rail connection is where we saw failures.
These failures fell into a few categories:

   - Windborne debris struck panel, panel frame failed, panel popped out of
   mid-clamps.
   - Catastrophic wind forces popped panels out of mid-clamps (a good
   percentage of panels found INTACT and still functional on the ground!) I
   suspect the panels became covex in the wind, bending frames inward.
   - Windborne debris struck mounting system components, panel dislodged,
   often still on the roof suspended by DC leads.
   - Mid-clamp t-bolt tore out of aluminum rail channel (IronRidge UFO,
   Unirac SM).
   - Mid-clamp sheared off (Quick Mount QRail).
   - Unexplained module detachment failures.

On 9/28/22, while I stayed up all night bracing myself against my front
door that I thought was about to fail, I was imagining how many roof leaks
my clients were about to endure, and wondered about the efficacy of my
business going forward. Those fears never materialized. Aside from a
handful of minor panel dislodgements, there was no panic following the
storm (with respect to solar panels). The bigger problem became all of the
people needing to remove panels for roof replacements, but PV panels
largely protected roofs in the areas where they were installed. Sadly, the
rest of the roof often did not fare as well.

Anyway, back to the decking attachments. I have been skeptical of
non-flashed products for comp shingle roofs for a long time. My thinking is
coming around, particularly with the HUG (I trust IronRidge's testing
regime). And sealants have come so far. This method will remain up for
debate probably for a long time. Around here, I am pretty certain these
products will outlast the shingles they are placed upon. We only get 15
years out of most shingle roofs around here.

About the pull-out fears... Mine are gone. We have done many flat roofs
with long fasteners through steel decking or wood decking. These screws are
usually something like #15 XHD screws in lengths from 5 - 12". Not a single
failure. We have also used Quick Mount QBase Low-Slope bases on pitched
tile roofs that were only screwed into decking with 4 fasteners each (due
to horizontal truss transitions) in some cases. Zero failures. But the most
relevant attachments I can think of that are germane to this discussion are
the many thousands of S-5 SolarFoot that we have screwed into decking on 5V
metal roofs around here. These have four screws per attachment, and S-5
load tests show something like 240 lbs of pull-out strength in OSB
(adjusted for safety factor). When engineered for our wind loads, we
usually get anywhere from 36-48 inch attachment spacing, sometimes 24
inches in certain roof zones. Again, not a single failure.

I have more solar installations on Sanibel Island and Fort Myers Beach
(Hurricane Ian Ground zero) than anyone. Many of those have decking-only
attachments, S-5 clamps, flat roofs, or other attachments other than
trusses. I can tell you unequivocally that I trust decking-only attachments
from a pull-out strength standpoint. When properly engineered, with
cautious attachment spacing, these mounts work in both OSB and plywood.
Because of the inconsistencies in OSB, we always err on the side of
caution, if not in the engineering, then in the installation, by installing
more attachments than prescribed. But the evidence is clear. It works.


Caveat to the above: I have zero experience with snow or seismic, and no
experience on roofs exceeding 8:12 pitch, and few above 6:12.

And one more shout-out to S-5 clamps on standing seam roofs. Aside from one
minor failure of the roof metal itself, 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply

[William Miller via RE-wrenches]

Friends:



Thanks for bringing up this scenario.



I have two problems with using a product such as the easy-feet or other
deck-fastened brackets, particularly on a rigid foam-above-sheeting roof:



1.   I worry about compression of the foam material over time.  This could
leave a void under the bracket which could lead to leaks or wobbly brackets.

2.   I don’t believe in chemical solutions for sloped-roof rain-proofing.
By that I mean the use of caulks, gaskets, etc.  Since roofs were first
thatched, the overriding wisdom is that gravity is the only way to reliably
shed water.  Overlapping, seamless material is the only method to use.
Caulks degrade, roof surfaces become powdery, and the rafter is often under
an architectural feature or seam in the shingles.

I researched the PLP EZ foot back when the company was DPW.  The fasteners
provided were not rated for the application, according to the fastener
manufacturer.  If you can match the fasteners to the decking and the
forces, then maybe you have a start to a mounting solution.



Whatever product you use, I would install it on a section of flashing
metal, lapped under the next course up.  The flashing gives a flat,
seamless surface to caulk or gasket to.  The thicker and wider the
flashing, the more you distribute the downward force

applied to the bracket by weight and fasteners.  Any voids under the
bracket will have an overlapped flashing above it.



I hope these musings help you find a solution.



William Miller



PS:  I have encountered this roof configuration a few times on flat, built-up
roofing (BUR ).  We
have dealt with it by cutting through the foam, installing blocking on top
of the sheeting and having a roofer feather the blocks into the roofing
with cant strips
.
A pitched roof is a different situation, however.



Wm



Miller Solar

17395 Oak Road, Atascadero, CA 93422

805-438-5600

www.millersolar.com

CA Lic. 773985





*From:* RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] *On
Behalf Of *August Goers via RE-wrenches
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:47 AM
*To:* RE-wrenches
*Cc:* August Goers
*Subject:* Re: [RE-wrenches] Attaching Array To or Through Ply



We've found that in the Bay Area that deck-mount solutions typically pencil
out structurally (via a structural professional engineer) as long as the
deck is 1/2" plywood or thicker, assuming we have all the info on how the
roof is constructed. The big assumption is that we can get all that roof
construction info, which can be difficult for existing structures.



We haven't taken the plunge yet on the flahingless deck mount products like
the Sunmodo Nanomount or Unirac Flashloc Duo. I do think that they offer
several significant advantages including not needing to find rafters, thus
virtually eliminating missed pilot holes, and not disturbing the comp
shingle by eliminating prying up the courses to insert the flashing.



August

Luminalt



On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:34 AM Solar Energy Solutions via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:

We like Spider Rax… with the flashing!



*Spider-Rax PV Solar Mounting *

*spiderrax.com *

*Error! Filename not specified.* 



*Andrew Koyaanisqatsi*

President


*Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.The BRIGHT CHOICE*



*Since 1987, helping you and your *

*Portland neighbors move towards an environmentally sustainable future.*




*503-238-4502 <503-238-4502>www.SolarEnergyOregon.com
*



On Mar 29, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Jerry Shafer via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:



Wrenches

Sounds like a SIP's type product, there are quite a few multi hole
attachment bases that are designed for SIP's. Most will have a larger base,
lots of holes for screws to attach that do not require rafters underneath
to attach.

Fun times



On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 8:30 AM frenergy via RE-wrenches <
re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> wrote:

Matt,

I guess my questions are 1/2" plywood or 5/8" and how thick is
the foam?  Oh and I assume its nominal 2X6 T?  Do you know how the
plywood is attached?.through the foam into the T?... to stringers,
nailers or whatever they're called?

Bill

Feather River Solar Electric

Bill Battagin, Owner

4291 Nelson St.(shipping)

5575 Genesee Rd. (USPS, UPS)

Taylorsville, CA 95983

530.284.1925 Office/ 530.258.1641 Cell

CA Lic 874049

Solar powered since 1982

On 3/29/2023 7:53 AM, Dave Tedeyan via RE-wrenches wrote:

Hi Matt,

I've used these in the past when on a comp roof and there was no good way
to get into the rafters (or TJI's in this case)

https://sunmodo.com/nanomount/



You might want to replace the screws with something shorter and beefier
though to get more grip if you are only going into 1/2"