Daryl:
Thanks for the photos and description of the mounts you are installing. We
have installed many of the DPW ground mount systems in similar
configurations.
http://millersolar.com/MillerSolar/Portfolio/ground-mount/engineered_ground_mount.jpg
We are realizing two things:
1. Concrete fo
William,
There are auger mounted systems that don't require any concrete. For
locations with suitable soil, they probably save some time and are a
little less expensive than concrete. But it takes a substantial
structure to withstand 85 mph, or greater, winds. There's no getting
around the ph
Oh, to have 85 mph winds. Code changes just brought us up to 180 mph
design wind speeds in Southwest Florida. Yay.
Jason Szumlanski
Fafco Solar
On Mar 24, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Kent Osterberg wrote:
> William,
>
> There are auger mounted systems that don't require any concrete. For
> locations wit
Many inland areas in California, Oregon, and Washington are 85 mph
zones. I think that's the lowest requirement anywhere in the U.S. I
can't imagine designing for 185 mph winds.
Doesn't that just blow the glass out of the modules?
Kent Osterberg
Blue Mountain Solar, Inc.
www.bluemountainsolar.c
With the change to ASCE 7-10, the uplift calcs are not that much more,
and in some cases less, but I think in any case the concern is
wind-borne debris. If the mod stays attached to the roof, we are good.
Having lived through it, it's all theory anyway. In a hurricane,
theory goes out the window.
> In a hurricane, theory goes out the window.
Or through it .. if it's even still there.
(Apologies all. Engineering humor.)
Dan
--- On Sat, 3/24/12, Jason Szumlanski wrote:
> From: Jason Szumlanski
> Subject: [RE-wrenches] Off-grid ground mount: Can it be done cheaper
>
We too are suddenly faced with a requirement for an engineer's stamp
on foundation drawings for pole-top racks. This new requirement just
rankles my craw (an _expression_ from our great-grandfathers'
time...). This is even though DP&W (our preferred pole top rack
manufac
7 matches
Mail list logo
