[RE-wrenches] Solar World Wind Damage

Thu Jan 12 14:14:37 PST 2017

At a 13,200' elevation installation in W CO we had an anemometer lose its
cups at 135MPH. The SWWP Air lost its blades at some point, but the Solarex
modules stayed on their rack. The NWS said that this was typical of the jet
stream touching down to ground level [if you consider 13.2K Ft ground
level]. It seems that at a high elevation this could be a much greater
possibility than say sea level.

How high an elevation install was this? and was it subject to a ventury
effect between 2 opposing canyon or valley walls, like on a canyon side wall
or something similar?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dana Orzel - Great Solar Works, Inc - C - 208.721.7003

NABCEP # 051112-136 : Idaho PV Licence # 028374

E - dana at solarwork.com  - Web - www.solarwork.biz

"Responsible Technologies for Responsible People since 1988"  

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On
Behalf Of Ray Walters
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:16 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Cc: Sefchick, Steve
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Solar World Wind Damage

Hi Bill;

Solar World customer support did come through yesterday with flying colors.
They got hit by a big storm in the North West.  Right now though, they are
saying that we exceeded the 64 PSF rated  loading to the back of the module.
I've pointed out that that would correspond to over 170 mph winds, so I'm
not quite ready to concede the warranty.   Their engineering team is
reviewing my information.  
As always, the Wrench list experience is invaluable.  Are 170 mph winds
possible, outside of a tornado or hurricane?

Whether or not Solar World stands by their product in this extreme
situation, I definitely stand by my installations. I'm taking a snow cat up
to replace and reinforce the modules next week, then hopefully get a little
help from my supply chain after.  My repair costs will be many times the
cost of one replacement module anyway. 

Yes, the 33 mm vs 31 mm refers to the module thickness.  I don't have a
version 2.5 frame to check the flange metal thickness, and it is
conspicuously absent from the specs.  I have a good micrometer, and I will
compare metal thicknesses of several module brands, because with all the
cost cutting, many module manus seems to be using thinner metal lately.  As
Jay pointed out, we're bolting much bigger modules down with much weaker
flanges, and the same hardware we used on a 75 w module, so its not entirely
surprising to start seeing high wind failures.

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
BSME 1988, 
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 1/11/2017 9:07 PM, frenergy wrote:

Let's see, we're all on the same page here, right?  The 33 vs 31 mm refers
to the frame height not the thickness of the frame material where fastener
pulled through.  

Also, hang in there with getting help from Solarworld.  They have given me
exceptional help in the past...not sure if they can/will in this case,
but.....
Bill

On 1/11/2017 12:08 PM, Ray Walters wrote:

HI Steven;

Do you mean the bolts were over torqued and then later broke?  Here's some
pics that just came in of the damage.  Hardware looks good, just ripped the
module's framing.  The old Solarworld 2.5 frame not only was thinner (31mm)
and so could possibly flex more, but it had less metal to bolt to.  Their
newer 4.0 frame is 33 mm thick, but also appears to have a wider flange to
bolt to.  I still have not had any contact from Solar World.  Not good.
I've been installing their stuff since the ARCO days, so I need some support
for the first time in decades.  Solar World Reps are you out there?

R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer, 
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 1/11/2017 12:42 PM, Steven Lawrence wrote:

Hi Ray,

Have you checked the torquing on all the other bolts?  My company's had a
few projects where some modules blew off - it's always been due to
over-torquing of the bolts.

Steven Lawrence

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20170112/81fae39e/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 95282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20170112/81fae39e/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 52143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20170112/81fae39e/attachment-0005.jpg>