Influence of Spacing Parameters On The Wind Loadingof Solar Array

Journal of Fluids and Structures ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Fluids and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfs
Influence of spacing parameters on the wind loading

of solar array
Workamaw P. Warsido a, Girma T. Bitsuamlak b,n, Johann Barata a,
Arindam Gan Chowdhury a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555 W Flagler St, Miami, FL 33174, USA
b
WindEEE Research Institute/Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario in London, ON, Canada
N6A 5B9
a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
Article history: Boundary layer wind tunnel tests were conducted to investigate the effects of different
Received 2 May 2012 spacing parameters on the wind loading of ground and roof mounted solar arrays. On the
Accepted 17 March 2014 ground mounted array the effect of lateral and longitudinal spacing between panels was
investigated. On the roof mounted array the effect of array perimeter gap from the
Keywords: building edge was investigated. Based on the results obtained, the magnitude of force and
Wind load moment coefficients on the ground mounted array decreased across panel rows as a result
Solar array of sheltering effect from the neighboring upwind panels. The largest reduction of wind
Ground mounted load coefficients was observed on the second row panels but the amount of reduction
Roof mounted
dropped quickly afterwards, becoming minimal after the fourth row. It was also observed
Sheltering
that panels located in the outer array column could be subjected to relatively higher wind
loads compared to panels located in the inner array columns. Increasing the lateral
spacing between array columns was observed to have minimal effect on the force and
moment coefficients. However, the wind load coefficients increased as the longitudinal
spacing between panel rows was increased. The wind load coefficients on the roof
mounted array decreased with increasing perimeter gap from the building edge.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Solar energy is enjoying an increased attention as one of the alternative energy sources to satisfy the fast growing global energy
demand. Over the last couple of decades several studies have been conducted to make solar energy systems financially viable.
One area of focus has been optimizing the solar panels and their support systems for wind loading. Since 1980s wind tunnel tests
have been widely used to study wind effects on solar panels. Although several wind tunnel studies have been conducted, the results
from very limited research or commercial works are publicly available. Radu et al. (1986) conducted wind tunnel tests on array of
solar panels mounted on the top of a five-story residential building and noticed the reduction on mean force coefficients as a result
of sheltering effects from the building and the first row solar collectors. Peterka et al. (1987) conducted series of wind tunnel tests
on array of heliostats and investigated the wind load reductions obtained from the sheltering effects of neighboring upwind panels
and from utilizing protective fences. Wood et al. (2001) conducted wind tunnel tests on array of solar panels mounted on an
n
Corresponding author Tel.: þ1 519 661 2111x88028; fax: þ 1 519 661 3339.
E-mail address: gbitsuam@uwo.ca (G.T. Bitsuamlak).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.03.005
0889-9746/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Warsido, W.P., et al., Influence of spacing parameters on the wind loading of solar array. Journal
of Fluids and Structures (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.03.005i
2 W.P. Warsido et al. / Journal of Fluids and Structures ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
industrial flat roof building and studied the effect of solar panel position on the wind loading of the roof cladding as well as on the
solar panel support structure. Kopp et al. (2002) conducted wind tunnel tests on solar arrays and observed the significance of strong
vortex shedding and turbulence of the wind flow on aerodynamically induced torque loads. Hosoya and Peterka (2008) conducted
wind tunnel tests on parabolic trough solar collectors and provided force, moment and local pressure coefficients. Aly and
Bitsuamlak (2014) conducted wind tunnel investigation of solar panel mounted on sloped residential roofs. Besides aerodynamic
wind tunnel tests, full scale tests were also conducted on solar panels by some researchers (e.g., Erwin et al., 2011; Geurts and
Steenbergen, 2009). Moreover, computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation has also been implemented to study wind effects on
solar panels (e.g., Bitsuamlak et al., 2010; Bronkhorst et al., 2010; Shademan and Hangan, 2009; Wu et al., 2010) and nonlinear
aerodynamic forces on a thin flat plate (Huang et al., 2014). This paper presents the results of wind tunnel tests conducted to
investigate the effects of different spacing parameters on the wind loading of ground and roof mounted solar arrays. On the ground
mounted array the variation of wind loads on solar panels with lateral and longitudinal spacings between panels was investigated
while on the roof mounted array the variation of wind loads with array perimeter gap from the building edge was studied. Effects
of the different spacing parameters could vary across the panel rows as well as with wind direction. Hence, the variations with
wind direction will be shown on selected sample panels and the variation across panel rows will be shown on all panels for
a selected wind direction. The paper also discusses sheltering effects from neighboring panels in different wind directions as well as
at different locations across the solar array. In addition, wind load comparison between isolated and array systems is also presented.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Wind tunnel set-up
The wind tunnel tests were conducted at RWDI's boundary layer wind tunnel facility in Florida, USA. The tunnel has
a cross-section of 2.13 m 2.44 m (7 ft 8 ft) and the test model was placed at 13.3 m (43.5 ft) down-stream of the tunnel
TI(%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
35
V(measured)
30
V(Power Law,alpha= 0.15)
TI(measured)
25 TI(Target)
20
Z(m)
15
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
V/V30m
1
Measured
von Karman
0.1
2
f*SV ( f )/
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
f*Lv /V
Fig. 1. (a) Normalized mean wind speed (V/V30m) and turbulence intensity (TI) profiles and (b) longitudinal turbulence spectrum at 5.64 m (building
height) of the simulated open exposure.
W.P. Warsido et al. / Journal of Fluids and Structures ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3
entrance. The lower part of the atmospheric boundary layer was simulated in the wind tunnel to generate an open upwind
exposure. The mean wind speed and turbulence intensity profiles of the open exposure simulated are shown in Fig. 1(a).
The mean wind speed profile fits well to a target profile obtained with a power law exponent of 0.15 ( 1/6.5). Moreover, the
turbulence intensity profile also fits well to a target profile of 1/ln(z/zo) suggested based on the large-scale depression
system measurements near the ground (Holmes, 2007). A full scale value of 0.02 m was taken for the roughness coefficient
zo as per the recommendation of ASCE-7 (2010) for exposure category C. Fig. 1(b) shows the normalized longitudinal
turbulence spectrum which also shows a good match with von Karman spectrum.
Each solar panel model was produced from a 3.175 mm (1/8 in) thick, 0.3 m by 0.045 m (1 ft 0.15 ft) plexiglass plate to
represent a 9.14 m 1.34 m (30 ft 4.4 ft) panel at 1:30 scale (see Fig. 2(a)). The solar panel was mounted on a pair of 251
inclined trapezoidal supports having 81.28 cm (32 in) short legs (see Fig. 2(b)) produced at 1:30 scale panel scale. Even
though this is a relatively large scale compared to commonly used scales for testing buildings in the wind tunnel it was
required for practical simulation of the solar panel. Such relatively large scales have been used in the past by different
researchers (e.g., Kopp et al., 2005; Suaris and Irwin, 2010; Visscher and Kopp, 2007) to model small structures in the wind
tunnel. Detail study on scale effects has been also conducted by Aly and Bitsuamlak (2013). For such large scale wind tunnel
tests, one of their proposed solution is to simulate a portion of the atmospheric boundary layer at a relatively large scale.
Hence, the open upwind profile developed for the present study simulated only the lower portion of the atmospheric
boundary layer at large scale.
Both the ground and roof mounted solar arrays tested in the present study constitute multiple rows and columns.
In order to facilitate testing the different configurations of the ground mounted array, the dummy (un-instrumented) panels
in one column were glued to a single acrylic sheet at the required longitudinal spacing. However, the instrumented panels
were not glued to a single acrylic sheet instead narrow plexiglass bars were used to get the required longitudinal spacing.
In this manner, the different configurations were tested effectively without disconnecting the instrumented panels from the
data acquisition system. For the roof mounted test, a two story flat roof rectangular building having 5.64 m (18.5 ft) height
and 27.43 m (90 ft) 35.66 m (117 ft) plan dimensions was produced at 1:30 scale. The maximum blockage obtained from
Fig. 2. (a) 3D drawing showing full scale dimensions of the panel (in m) and location of pressure taps; (b) orientation of the coordinate axes and positive
directions of normal force and overturning moment shown on side view of the panel.
the roof mounted test is 4.2% which is less than 5% hence no correction was required for blockage effect (Holmes, 2007).
The building model was constructed in four different blocks to facilitate testing of different configurations. One block was
dedicated to mounting the instrumented panels and was always kept at the center of the turn table while the remaining
three blocks with the dummy panels were rearranged to create the required test configurations. Photographs of sample test
configurations of the ground and roof mounted arrays are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively. For each test configuration,
pressure readings were taken on the top and bottom surfaces of 10 panel rows on the same column with 48 pressure taps
installed on each panel (24 on each surface). It was attempted to exactly overlap the top and bottom surface pressure taps at
each of the pressure measurement locations, however, with the thickness of panel used in the present study it was not
possible to do so. Instead, the top and bottom surface taps at each location were separated by a distance equivalent to the
pressure tube diameter which is 0.053 in (1.34 mm). Considering the magnitude of this distance, the top and bottom surface
pressure taps can be considered to overlap at each measurement location for net pressure calculation. This has been a very
common practice in the wind tunnel testing of similar structures such as canopies. It is to be noted that the adopted tap
distribution could be on the lower side particularly for My assessment. It might be useful, provided the size of the testing
facility allows, to use a higher density of taps using large scale test models. The wind tunnel tests were conducted at a wind
speed of 15 m/s (50 ft/s), measured at 1.524 m (60 in) height above the tunnel floor, in multiple wind directions ranging
from 01 to 1801 at 101 interval. For each wind direction, the pressure data was collected for 90 s duration at a sampling
frequency of 512 Hz. The resonance effect from vibration of the PVC tubes used to connect the pressure taps with the
pressure sensing system was accounted for by treating the measured data with an inverse transfer function specifically
derived for the tubes used in the experiment (Irwin et al., 1979).
Longitudinal spacing
Lateral spacing
Dummy panels
Instrumented panels
Fig. 3. Photograph of a sample ground mounted array test configuration.
Dummy panels
Instrumented panels
Array perimeter gap

from the building edge
Fig. 4. Photograph of a sample roof mounted array test configuration.
Fig. 5. Location of solar panels used in the present study on a typical ground mounted array field.
2.2. Array test configurations
2.2.1. Ground mounted array

In a typical ground mounted array, such as the one shown in Fig. 5, the most critically loaded panels are located near
the corner regions. Hence, the present study considers the northwest and southwest corner regions of the ground
mounted array which will also cover the northeast and southeast corner regions by symmetry. As it can be seen from
Fig. 5, 10 rows of panels extending over three columns were investigated. The northwest corner panels were tested for
0–901 wind Angle of Attack (AoA) and the southwest corner panels were tested for 90–1801 wind AoA. It is to be noted
that in all subsequent figures the row number counting in the range of 0–901 wind AoA starts from the front row panels
of the northwest corner region while in the range of 100–1801 wind AoA it starts from the front row panels of the
southwest corner region. Since relatively a large number of taps were installed on each panel it was only possible to
instrument 10 panels at a time. By systematically testing the configurations shown in Fig. 6(a, c and e) separately and
assembling the test results together it was possible to cover the northwest corner region. Similarly, by testing the
configurations shown in Fig. 6(b, d and f) separately and assembling the test results together, it was possible to cover the
southwest corner region. In all test configurations, the instrumented array column was kept at the center of the turntable
as shown in Fig. 6. The ground mounted array was tested for three full-scale lateral spacings (0, 0.91 m (36 in) and 1.83 m
(72 in)) and three full-scale longitudinal spacings (0.61 m (24 in), 1.22 m (48 in) and 1.83 m (72 in)) between panels
(see Fig. 3). An informative nomenclature is adopted based on the instrumented column number as well as lateral and
longitudinal spacings to refer to the different test cases. The column number where the instrumented panels were
located is designated by the prefix ‘C’ followed by the column number; the lateral spacing between columns is
designated by the prefix ‘Y’ followed by the full-scale value of spacing in inches; the longitudinal spacing between rows
is designated by the prefix ‘X’ followed by the full-scale value of spacing in inches. For instance, column three of the array
with lateral and longitudinal spacings of 36 in and 48 in respectively is referred as ‘C3Y36 48’. Summary of the test
cases for the ground mounted arrays is given in Table 1.
2.2.2. Roof mounted array

Similar to the ground mounted case, the northwest and southwest corner regions of a typical roof mounted array
were investigated, which by symmetry also covered the northeast and southeast corner regions respectively. For the
same reason as in the ground mounted case the northwest corner panels were tested for 0–901 wind AoA while the
southwest corner panels were tested for 90–1801 wind AoA. Moreover, in all subsequent figures the row number
counting in the range of 0–901 wind AoA starts from the front row panels of the northwest corner region while in the
range of 100–1801 wind AoA it starts from the front row panels of the southwest corner region. For the roof mounted
test, 10 rows of panels from the last two columns of the array were selected from the two representative corner regions.
The instrumented panels were the same panels used in the ground mounted study where it was possible to instrument
only 10 panels at a time. By systematically testing the configurations shown in Fig. 7(a and c) separately and assembling
the test results together, however, it was possible to cover the northwest corner regions. Similarly, by testing the
configurations shown in Fig. 7(b and d) separately and assembling the test results together, it was possible to cover the
southwest corner region. As it can also be observed from Fig. 7, the three column array was arranged in such a way that
the instrumented column was always kept at the center of the turn table. In one configuration the instrumented column
was placed between two columns of dummy panels while in the other configuration both columns of dummy panels
Fig. 6. Wind tunnel configurations used to test the first column (a and b), second column (c and d) and third column (e and f) of the ground mounted array.
were moved to one side and the first column of the array was instrumented. In the roof mounted array the panels were
arranged with a constant full-scale longitudinal spacing of 1.22 m (48 in) but without any lateral spacing. The array was
tested for three different full-scale array perimeter gaps (0, 0.91 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in)) from the building edge (see
Fig. 4). Similar to the ground mounted case an informative nomenclature is adopted based on the instrumented column
number and the array perimeter gap from the building edge to refer the different test cases. The column number where
the instrumented panels were located is designated by the prefix ‘C’ followed by the column number and the array
perimeter gap from the building edge is designated by the prefix ‘D’ followed by full-scale value of the gap in inches. For
instance, a test case where the array perimeter gap was 36 in and the instrumented column was located between two
dummy columns (i.e. column 2) is referred as ‘C2D36’. Summary of the test cases for the roof mounted array is given
in Table 2.
Table 1
Summary of test cases for ground mounted array.
Test name Inst. column # Lateral spacing (Y) Longitudinal spacing (X) Tested wind AoA
C3Y0 24 3 0 24 in (0.61 m) 0o–180o

C3Y0 48 3 0 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C3Y0 72 3 0 72 in (1.83 m) 0–180o
C3Y36 48 3 36 in (0.91 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C3Y72 48 3 72 in (1.83 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C2Y0 24 2 0 24 in (0.61 m) 0–180o
C2Y0 48 2 0 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C2Y0 72 2 0 72 in (1.83 m) 0–180o
C2Y36 48 2 36 in (0.91 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C2Y72 48 2 72 in (1.83 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C1Y0 24 1 0 24 in (0.61 m) 0–180o
C1Y0 48 1 0 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C1Y0 72 1 0 72 in (1.83 m) 0–180o
C1Y36 48 1 36 in (0.91 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
C1Y72 48 1 72 in (1.83 m) 48 in (1.22 m) 0–180o
3. Discussion of results
3.1. Data analysis
The pressure data collected from the wind tunnel tests were normalized by a reference dynamic pressure to get non-
dimensional pressure coefficients as follows:
P P o
CP ¼ 1 2
; ð1Þ
2 ρa V H
where C P is the non-dimensional pressure coefficient; P is the pressure measured on the panel surface; P o is the mean static
pressure at a reference height; ρa is the density of air and V H is the mean wind speed at a reference height which was taken
to be the mean height of panels from the wind tunnel floor. The reference height for the ground mounted case is equal to the
mean height of the trapezoidal panel supports (i.e. 1.09 m (43 in) from the ground at full-scale). However, for the roof
mounted solar array case it is considered as the sum of mean height of the trapezoidal panel supports and the building
height (i.e. 6.73 m (265 in) from the ground at full-scale). Time history of the net pressure coefficients was obtained by
combining the time histories of the top and bottom surface pressure coefficients as follows:
C PN ðtÞ ¼ C PT ðtÞ C PB ðtÞ; ð2Þ
where the subscripts N, T and B denote the net, top surface and bottom surface pressure coefficients respectively. At each tap
location, the time history of the net force was computed by multiplying the time history of the net pressure coefficient with
the corresponding tributary area and the reference dynamic pressure. The time history of the total net force on the panel
was obtained by superimposing the forces from all tap locations:
m
2
F n ðtÞ ¼ ∑ 2 ρa V H C PN ðtÞAi ;
1
ð3Þ
i¼1
where F n is the total net force which is normal to the panel surface, Ai is the tributary area corresponding to tap i, and m is
the total number of taps. Moreover, the force at each tap location creates an overturning moment about the geometric
center of the panel. Similarly, the time history of the total overturning moment, My(t), was computed by superimposing the
overturning moments from the individual forces. Positive directions of the normal force and overturning moment are
shown in Fig. 2(b). Hence, based on the sign convention adopted the critical wind loads for the structural design of the solar
panel are the largest negative normal force and positive overturning moment. The normal force and overturning moment
were converted into non-dimensional coefficients through the following normalization:
F n ðtÞ
C Fn ðtÞ ¼ 1 2
; ð4Þ
2 ρa V H BL
M y ðtÞ
C My ðtÞ ¼ 2 2
; ð5Þ
2 ρa V H B L
1
where C Fn and C My are the normal force and overturning moment coefficients respectively; L and B are length and width of
the panel respectively (see Fig. 2(a)). Most of the discussions in the following sections are based on these normal force and
overturning moment coefficients. In addition, mean and root-mean-square (rms) values of the coefficients were computed
from the time history data. However, rather than using measured peak values from the time history a more stable statistical
peak estimation approach, which was suggested by Sadek and Simiu (2002), was adopted to compute peak values of the
Fig. 7. Wind tunnel configurations used to test the first column (a and b) and second column (c and d) of the roof mounted array.
Table 2
Summary of test cases for roof mounted array.
Test name Inst. column # Perimeter gap (D) Tested wind AoA
C1D0 1 0 0–180o
C1D36 1 36 in (0.91 m) 0–180o
C1D72 1 72 in (1.83 m) 0–180o
C2D0 2 0 0–180o
C2D36 2 36 in (0.91 m) 0–180o
C2D72 2 72 in (1.83 m) 0–180o
coefficients. The method involves fitting a combination of gamma and normal distributions to the time history of wind-
induced responses and uses the standard translation processes approach suggested by Grigoriu (1995). The method was
implemented after checking goodness of the probability distribution fit to the time history of responses from the probability
plot correlation coefficient (PPCC) (Filliben, 1975) as well as from the probability and cumulative distribution plots.
3.2. Variation of wind load across array rows
Fig. 8 shows the variation of peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the 10 panel rows in different
wind directions for a sample ground mounted test case C3Y0 48. As it can be seen from the figure, the largest negative
force coefficients are observed on the first row panel for northerly wind close to 01 AoA. The largest positive force
coefficients are observed on the first row from the southerly wind close to 1801 AoA. The largest overturning moment
coefficients are also observed on the first row panel for southerly wind. The force and moment coefficients show reduction
across panel rows. The highest reduction occurs on the second row and it becomes minimal after the fourth row. This
indicates that most of the energy in the oncoming wind flow is dissipated by the first three panel rows resulting in a
5.0
Row-1
4.0 Row-2
Row-3
3.0 Row-4
Row-5
Row-6
2.0
Row-7
Row-8
CFn(peak)
1.0 Row-9
Row-10
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
Northwest corner Southwest corner
-4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
0.6
Row-1 Row-2
Row-3 Row-4
0.5
Row-5 Row-6
Row-7 Row-8
0.4 Row-9 Row-10
0.3
CMy(peak)
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
Fig. 8. Variation of peak (a) normal force and (b) overturning moment coefficients with wind direction on each of the 10 panels for a sample ground
mounted test case C3Y0 48.
significant reduction of the wind speed which is directly related to the wind loads on solar panels. Minimal variation of the
wind load after the fourth row panel also shows that the turbulent wind flow will be well mixed after the first four panel
rows. It can also be observed that the wind load reduction on the second row panel is higher for southwesterly wind
between 1001 and 1801 AoA than for northwesterly wind between 01 and 901 AoA. Hence, higher sheltering effect from the
first row panels is observed when they are inclined along the direction of wind flow than when they are inclined against the
direction of wind flow. This is because panels inclined along the direction of wind flow help to divert the wind to flow above
the downstream panels unlike panels inclined against the direction of wind flow. Fig. 9 shows the variation of peak normal
force coefficients on the 10 panel rows for sample roof mounted test cases C2D0 and C2D36 in different wind directions.
As it can be observed from Fig. 9(a), the force coefficients for test case C2D0 show reduction up to the fourth row particularly
for northwesterly wind between 01 and 901 AoA. The force coefficients for test case C2D36 show a more complex variation
as it can be observed from Fig. 9(b). For the northerly wind close to 01 AoA the force coefficients show reduction up to the
fourth row but for diagonal wind from northwest (i.e. close to 451 AoA) slight increase of force coefficients is observed. For a
southerly wind close to 1801 AoA the largest peak force coefficient is positive on first row panel but it is negative on the
second row panel due to wake effects from the first row panel. From the third row up to the sixth row magnitude of the
negative force coefficient shows slight reduction and at the seventh row it changes back to positive and shows slight
increase up to the tenth row. Sign change of the force coefficient at the seventh row can be attributed to the potential
reattachment of wind flow separated from the windward edge of the roof.
3.0
Row-1
Row-2
2.0 Row-3
Row-4
Row-5
Row-6
1.0 Row-7
Row-8
CFn(peak)
Row-9
0.0 Row-10
-1.0
-2.0

-3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
3.0
Row-1
2.5 Row-2
Row-3
2.0 Row-4
Row-5
1.5 Row-6
Row-7
1.0 Row-8
CFn(peak)
Row-9
0.5 Row-10
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
Fig. 9. Variation of peak normal force coefficients with wind direction on each of the 10 panels for sample roof mounted test cases (a) C2D0 and (b) C2D36.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of peak overturning moment coefficients on the 10 panel rows for roof mounted test cases
C2D0 and C2D36 in different wind directions. As it can be observed from the figure, the moment coefficients for both test
cases show complex variations across panel rows. For both test cases the largest moment coefficient is observed on the first
row panel and significant reduction of the coefficient is observed on the second row panel for northerly wind close to 01 AoA
and for southerly wind close to 1801 AoA. The variation of moment coefficients after the first row is far more complex and it
does not show consistent trend in different wind directions. The clear decreasing trend in the wind load coefficients that is
observed across the ground mounted array is not observed for the roof mounted array. This shows the impact of building
generated flow speed-up, flow separation and turbulence on the wind loading of the roof mounted array which is observed
to be a function of the array perimeter gap from the building edge.
Some of the notable differences considering the force coefficients on the first row panels of the ground and roof mounted
arrays for southwesterly wind between 1001 and 1801 AoA given in Figs. 8(a) and 9 respectively are discussed as follows. The
force coefficients on the ground mounted panel are positive while the corresponding coefficients on the roof mounted panel
are positive for test case C2D36 and negative for test case C2D0. Similarly, considering the overturning moment coefficients
on the first row panels of the ground and roof mounted arrays for southwesterly wind between 1001 and 1801 wind AoA
(see Figs. 8(b) and 10 respectively) the following has been observed. The moment coefficients on the ground mounted panel
are positive while the corresponding coefficients on the roof mounted panel are positive for test case C2D36 but negative for
test case C2D0. Theses variations in wind load coefficients between the ground and roof mounted test cases can be further
explained by looking at the pressure distribution on the ground and roof mounted panels.
0.4
0.2
0.0
CMy(peak)
Row-1
-0.2
Row-2
Row-3
Row-4
-0.4 Row-5
Row-6
Row-7
-0.6 Row-8
Row-9
Row-10
-0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
0.35
Row-1 Row-2
0.30 Row-3 Row-4
Row-5 Row-6
0.25 Row-7 Row-8
Row-9 Row-10
0.20
0.15
CMy(peak)
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees)
Fig. 10. Variation of peak overturning moment coefficients with wind direction on each of the 10 panels for sample roof mounted test cases (a) C2D0 and
(b) C2D36.
Fig. 11 shows the mean top surface, bottom surface and net pressure coefficients on the first row panels of the ground
and roof mounted arrays at 1801 wind AoA. As it can be observed, the top surface pressure is positive on the ground
mounted panel but negative on the roof mounted panel for both test cases. In the case of ground mounted panel, there is no
upwind structure which disturbs the wind flow in front of the solar panel. Hence, the wind interacts with the solar panel
directly and induces positive pressure on the top surface of the 251 inclined panel. However, in the case of roof mounted
panel the wind flow will be deflected by the leading edge of the roof thus a negative pressure zone is created in the
separation bubble developed close to the windward edge of the roof. Hence, the mean top surface pressure is negative on
the first row of the roof mounted panels for both test cases. Since the largest suction occurs close to the windward edge of
the roof, magnitude of the negative top surface pressure for test case C2D0 is larger than for test case C2D36. The mean
bottom surface pressure is negative for both the ground mounted and roof mounted test cases. The net mean pressure on
the ground mounted panel is positive since the top surface pressure is positive and the bottom surface is negative. The net
mean pressure for the roof mounted panel test case C2D36 is positive since the magnitude of the negative bottom surface
pressure is larger than the top surface pressure. The net mean pressure for the roof mounted panel test case C2D0 is negative
since magnitude of the negative top surface pressure is larger than the bottom surface. For all the three test cases,
magnitude of the net pressure decreases from the windward edge to the leeward edge of the panel. Hence, with this type of
pressure distribution, the net positive pressure which produces positive normal forces and results in positive overturning
C3Y0X48
C2D0
WIND at 180o
C2D36
C3Y0X48
C2D0
WIND at 180o
C2D36
C3Y0X48
C2D0
WIND at 180o
C2D36
Fig. 11. Mean (a) top surface, (b) bottom surface and (c) net pressure coefficients at 1801 wind AoA for ground mounted test case C3Y0 48 and roof
mounted test cases C2D0 and C2D36, (a) mean top surface pressure, (b) mean bottom surface pressure, (c) mean net pressure.
moment, and the net negative pressure produces negative normal forces and results in negative overturning moment. Thus,
for the roof mounted test case C2D0 the largest peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row
panels are negative in southwesterly wind directions. However, for the roof mounted test case C2D36 the largest peak
normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row panels are positive in southwesterly wind directions.
Although such a complex flow mechanism can be difficult to explain only from the pressure data, it can be investigated by
using flow visualization techniques such as particle image velocimetry (PIV) method (see Pratt and Kopp, 2012) or
tomographic PIV based turbulent flow structure investigation (Deria et al., 2013) or CFD simulations.
3.3. Variation of wind load across array columns
Peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row panels of the first, second and third columns of
the ground mounted array are compared in Fig. 12(a and b). The coefficients are obtained from sample test cases C1Y0 48,
C2Y0 48 and C3Y0 48 which correspond to the first, second and third columns respectively. Similarly, the peak normal
force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row panels of the first and second columns of the roof mounted array
are compared in Fig. 12(c–f). Fig. 12(c and d) shows the comparison of wind load coefficients between test cases C2D36 and
C1D36 for which the array perimeter gap from the building edge is 0.91 m (36 in). Fig. 12(e and f) shows the comparison of
wind load coefficients between test cases C2D0 and C1D0 for which the panels were mounted flush with the building edge
without leaving any gap. As it can be observed from Fig. 12(a–d) the roof mounted test case with 0.91 m (36 in) array
5.0 0.50
C3Y0X48 C3Y0X48
4.0 C2Y0X48 0.45 C2Y0X48
3.0 C1Y0X48 0.40 C1Y0X48
0.35
2.0
CMy(peak)
CFn(peak) 0.30
1.0
Northwest Southwest 0.25
0.0 corner corner 0.20
-1.0 0.15
-2.0 0.10 Northwest Southwest
-3.0 0.05 corner corner
-4.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Azimuth(degrees) Azimuth(degrees)
3.0 0.35
Southwest
2.0 0.30
corner
0.25
1.0
CMy(peak)
CFn(peak)
Southwest 0.20
0.0 Northwest
corner corner 0.15
-1.0
0.10
-2.0 C2D36 Northwest C2D36
0.05
C1D36 corner C1D36
-3.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
3.0 0.60
C2D0 C2D0
2.0 0.40
C1D0 C1D0
1.0 0.20
Southwest
CMy(peak)
0.0 Northwest
CFn(peak)
0.00 corner
-1.0 corner
-0.20
-2.0
-0.40
-3.0
Southwest Northwest
-4.0 -0.60 corner
corner
-5.0 -0.80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fig. 12. Variation of peak normal force (a, c and e) and overturning moment coefficients (b, d and f) on the first row panels of the different columns in the
ground and roof mounted arrays with wind direction.
perimeter gap and the ground mounted test case shows the same pattern of variation of wind load coefficients with wind
direction. For northwesterly wind between 201 and 801 AoA the magnitude of force and moment coefficients on the outer
(first) column panels are larger than the coefficients on the inner (second and third) column panels. For southwesterly wind
between 1001 and 1801 AoA the wind load coefficients from the outer and inner columns of the array are more or less
similar. This shows that bluff body obstruction to wind flow across the array columns is relatively higher when the panels
are inclined against the direction of wind flow than when they are inclined in the direction of wind flow. In the roof
mounted test case with zero array perimeter gap a different pattern of variation of wind load coefficients with wind
direction is observed. As it can be observed from Fig. 12(e and f) for northwesterly wind between 01 and 901 AoA the
magnitude of force and moment coefficients on the outer column panel are larger than the corresponding coefficients on the
inner column panel. However, for southwesterly wind between 1101 and 1801 AoA the magnitude of force and moment
coefficients on the inner column panel are larger than the corresponding coefficients of the outer column panel. It can also
be observed that the critical wind directions on the roof mounted array panels could vary with the location of the panels in
the array. For instance, the largest negative force coefficients on the outer column panel occur when the wind comes
diagonally from northwest close to 451 AoA while the corresponding coefficients on the inner column panel located in the
same region occur for northerly wind close to 01 AoA. The increase in the wind load coefficients of outer column panels for
diagonal wind directions can be attributed to the effect of conical vortices developed on the roof when the wind comes from
diagonal directions. As it was shown by several researchers conical vortices can induce very high suctions in the corner
regions of low-rise building roofs (e.g. Banks and Meroney, 2001; Marwood and Wood, 1997). Hence, roof mounted panels
particularly those located in the corner region can be subjected to significantly higher wind loads for diagonal wind
directions.
3.4. Effect of lateral spacing between panels
Fig. 13 shows the variation of peak force and moment coefficients with lateral spacing between panels in different wind
directions. The sample panels used for comparison are taken from the first row of the third (inner) and first (outer) columns
of the ground mounted array. In both the inner and outer column panels, the force and moment coefficients obtained from
0.91 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in) lateral spacings are close for all wind directions. However, the peak force and moment
coefficients obtained without any lateral spacing show a different pattern from the corresponding coefficients obtained with
the two non-zero spacings. As it can be seen from Fig. 13(a and c), for northwesterly wind between 401 and 701 AoA the peak
force and moment coefficients on the inner column panel obtained without any lateral spacing are slightly less than the
coefficients obtained with the two non-zero spacings. As it can be seen from Fig. 13(b and d), for northwesterly wind
between 01 and 901 AoA the magnitude of peak force and moment coefficients on the outer column panel obtained without
lateral spacing are larger than the coefficients obtained with the two non-zero spacings. It can also be noticed that the
variation of wind load coefficients with lateral spacing is minimal for southwest wind directions between 1001 and 1801 AoA
compared to northwest wind directions between 01 and 901 AoA. Considering 401 wind AoA the variations of mean, peak
and rms values of the force and moment coefficients across the inner and outer column panels are shown in Fig. 14. On the
inner column panels the variation of force and moment coefficients with lateral spacing is minimal except the reduction of
wind load coefficients observed on the first three rows at zero lateral spacing. On the outer column panels the magnitude of
peak, mean and rms values of the wind load coefficients obtained without lateral spacing are larger than the corresponding
coefficients obtained with the two non-zero lateral spacings.
3.5. Effect of longitudinal spacing between panels
Fig. 15 shows the variation of peak force and moment coefficients with longitudinal spacing between panels in different
wind directions. The sample panels used for comparison were taken from the second row of the third (inner) and first
(outer) columns of the ground mounted array. As it can be observed from the figure, the peak force and moment coefficients
generally increase with increasing longitudinal spacing between panels. This increase of force and moment coefficients with
5.0 5.0
C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
4.0 4.0
C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48
3.0 C3Y72X48 3.0 C1Y72X48
2.0 2.0
CFn(peak)
CFn(peak)
1.0 Northwest 1.0

corner Northwest
0.0 0.0 corner
-1.0 -1.0
-2.0 Southwest -2.0 Southwest
-3.0 corner -3.0 corner
-4.0 -4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.6 0.6
C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
0.5 C3Y36X48 0.5 C1Y36X48
C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48
0.4 0.4
CMy(peak)
CMy(peak)
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 Northwest Southwest 0.1 Northwest Southwest

corner corner corner corner
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fig. 13. Variation of peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row panels of the third (a and c) and first (b and d) columns in the
ground mounted array with lateral spacing in different wind directions.
0.0 0.35
-0.5 0.30
-1.0 0.25
CMy(peak)
CFn(peak) -1.5 0.20
-2.0 0.15
-2.5 C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48 0.10 C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
-3.0 C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48 0.05 C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48
C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48 C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48
-3.5 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Row number Row number
0.0 0.12
C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
-0.2 0.10 C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48
C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48
-0.4 0.08
CMy(mean)
CFn(mean)
-0.6 0.06
-0.8 0.04
C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
-1.0 C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48 0.02
C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48
-1.2 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.40 0.04
C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
0.35
C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48
0.30 C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48 0.03
0.25
CMy(rms)
CFn(rms)
0.20 0.02
0.15
0.10 0.01 C3Y0X48 C1Y0X48
C3Y72X48 C1Y72X48
0.05
C3Y36X48 C1Y36X48
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 14. Variation of (a) peak CFn, (b) peak CMy, (c) mean CFn, (d) mean CMy, (e) rms CFn and (f) rms CMy with lateral spacing across the first and third columns
of the ground mounted array at 401 wind AoA.
increasing longitudinal spacing can be attributed to the reduction of sheltering effect from neighboring upwind panels.
It can also be observed that, the magnitude of force coefficients on the outer column panel obtained with 1.22 m (48 in)
spacing are slightly larger than the coefficients obtained with 1.83 m (72 in) longitudinal spacing for northwesterly wind
between 01 and 501 AoA. Moreover, the force and moment coefficients obtained with 1.22 m (48 in) and 1.83 m (72 in)
longitudinal spacings are relatively close on the outer column panel than they are on the inner column panel. As it can be
observed from Fig. 15(c and d), the peak overturning moment coefficients obtained with 0.61 m (24 in) spacing are negative
for most wind directions even though positive moments are expected just like the other two spacings (1.22 m (48 in) and
1.83 m (72 in)). However, when the panels are placed close enough to be highly sheltered by the upwind panel the
magnitude of pressure on the windward edge of the panel could be lower than the pressure on the leeward edge which will
induce a negative overturning moment.
Fig. 16 shows the variation of mean, peak and rms values of the coefficients across panel rows on the third column for
northerly wind close to 01 AoA. As it can be seen from the figure the effect of longitudinal spacing is pronounced on the
second row panels. From the third to the tenth rows all the peak, mean and rms force coefficients obtained with the three
different longitudinal spacings closely match while the moment coefficients obtained with 0.61 m (24 in) longitudinal
spacing are slightly less than the corresponding coefficients obtained with the other two spacings. Another interesting
phenomenon observed is the slight increase in the force and moment coefficients of the first row panel with increasing
3.0 3.0
Northwest
2.0 corner 2.0
1.0 1.0
CFn(peak)
CFn(peak)
0.0 0.0 Southwest
Southwest Northwest
-1.0 corner -1.0 corner corner
-2.0 C3Y0X24 -2.0 C1Y0X24

-3.0 C3Y0X48 -3.0 C1Y0X48
C3Y0X72 C1Y0X72
-4.0 -4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.4 0.4
C3Y0X24 Southwest
0.3 C3Y0X48 0.3
corner
C3Y0X72 0.2
0.2
CMy(peak)
CMy(peak)
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1 -0.2 C1Y0X24
Northwest Southwest Northwest
-0.2 -0.3 C1Y0X48
corner corner corner
C1Y0X72
-0.3 -0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fig. 15. Variation of peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the second row panels of the third (a and c) and first (b and d) columns of
the ground mounted array with longitudinal spacing in different wind directions.
longitudinal spacing. This shows that the modification of wake flow behind first row panels by the downstream panels can
have an impact on the wind loading of first row panels.
3.6. Effect of array perimeter gap from the building edge
Fig. 17 shows the variation of peak force and moment coefficients of the first row panels from the first (outer) and second
(inner) columns of the roof mounted array with array perimeter gap from the building edge in different wind directions.
As it can be observed from the figure, force and moment coefficients decrease with increasing perimeter gap from the
building edge. Moreover, when the panels are mounted flush with the building edge (zero array perimeter gap)
the magnitude of force and moment coefficients are significantly larger than the coefficients obtained with 0.914 m
(36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in) gaps left from the building edge. Moreover, the force and moment coefficients obtained with zero
array perimeter gap show different patterns of variation with wind direction from the corresponding coefficients obtained
with 0.914 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in) array perimeter gaps. As it can be seen from Fig. 17(a), for 0.914 m (36 in) and 1.83 m
(72 in) gaps the largest negative force coefficients on the inner column panel are obtained for northerly wind close to 01 AoA
while for zero perimeter gap the largest coefficients are observed for northerly wind close to 01 AoA and for southerly wind
close to 1801AoA. The moment coefficients obtained with 0.914 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in) gaps are all positive and the
largest coefficients are obtained for northerly wind close to 01 AoA and for southerly wind close to 1801AoA. However, for
zero perimeter gap the moment coefficients are positive for northwesterly wind between 01 and 901 AoA and negative for
southwesterly wind between 1001 and 1801 AoA and the largest coefficients are obtained for southerly wind close to 1801.
Taking sample wind directions, 101 wind AoA for inner column panel and 451 wind AoA for outer column panel, variations of
mean, peak and rms values of the force and moment coefficients across the panel rows are shown in Fig. 18. As it can be
observed from the figure the effect of array perimeter gap is the highest on the first row panel. On the inner column panels,
the effect becomes minimal after the second row for 0.914 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in) gaps while for zero perimeter gap
the effect can be observed up to the fourth row. From the fourth to the tenth rows of the outer column panels the largest
peak, mean and rms values of the force and moment coefficients are obtained with 1.83 m (72 in) perimeter gap while the
least peak, mean and rms values of the force and moment coefficients are obtained with 0.914 m (36 in) perimeter gap. The
variation of force and moment coefficients with array perimeter gap is caused by the turbulence created from the flow
separation occurring at the building edge as it was discussed before. The influence of this building generated flow separation
and turbulence is the highest on the first row panels particularly when they are mounted flush with the building edge and it
decreases with increasing gap from the building edge.
0.0 0.4
-0.5 0.3
-1.0 0.2
CMy(peak)
-1.5
CFn(peak) 0.1
-2.0
0.0
-2.5
C3Y0X24 -0.1 C3Y0X24
-3.0
C3Y0X48 C3Y0X48
-3.5 -0.2
C3Y0X72 C3Y0X72
-4.0 -0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0 0.12
-0.2
0.08
-0.4
CMy(mean)
CFn(mean)
-0.6 0.04
-0.8 0.00
C3Y0X24 C3Y0X24
-1.0
C3Y0X48 -0.04 C3Y0X48
-1.2
C3Y0X72 C3Y0X72
-1.4 -0.08
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.40 0.05
C3Y0X24 C3Y0X24
0.35
C3Y0X48 0.04 C3Y0X48
0.30
C3Y0X72 C3Y0X72
0.25
CMy(rms)
CFn(rms)
0.03
0.20
0.15 0.02
0.10
0.01
0.05
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 16. Variation of (a) peak CFn, (b) peak CMy, (c) mean CFn, (d) mean CMy, (e) rms CFn and (f) rms CMy with longitudinal spacing across the third column of
the ground mounted array at 01 wind AoA.
3.7. Comparison with an isolated solar panel
A single (isolated) ground mounted solar panel, which has the same size as the panels used in the array, was tested in the
wind tunnel to understand the variation of wind loading between isolated and array solar panel systems. Fig. 19 shows the
comparison of peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients obtained from an isolated solar panel and from the
first row panels of the first (outer) and second (inner) columns of the ground and roof mounted arrays. Fig. 19(a)
shows the comparison of force coefficients of the isolated panel with the corresponding coefficients of the outer column
panels of the roof and ground mounted arrays. As it can be observed, the isolated panel has the largest force coefficients in
all wind directions except when the wind comes diagonally from northwest between 401 and 601 AoA where the outer
column roof mounted panel for test case C1D0 has the largest force coefficients. It can also be seen that the outer column
roof mounted panel for test case C1D36 has the least force coefficients in all wind directions. Moreover, for northwesterly
wind between 101 and 701 AoA, the outer column roof mounted panel for test case C1D0 has larger force coefficients than
the outer column ground mounted array panel. However, for southwesterly wind between 1001 and 1801 AoA the outer
column ground mounted array panel has larger force coefficients than the corresponding roof mounted panel for test case
C1D0. Fig. 19(b) shows the comparison of peak force coefficients of the isolated panel with the inner column panels of the
ground and roof mounted arrays. As it can be observed, the isolated solar panel has the largest force coefficients in all wind
3.0 3.0
C2D0 C1D0
C2D36 2.0 C1D36
2.0
C2D72 1.0 C1D72
1.0
0.0 Northwest
CFn(peak)
CFn(peak)
Northwest
0.0 corner -1.0 corner
Southwest
corner -2.0
-1.0
-3.0
-2.0 Southwest
-4.0 corner
-3.0 -5.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.4 0.6
0.2 0.4
0.0 0.2
CMy(peak)
CMy(peak)
Northwest Southwest
-0.2 corner corner 0.0 Northwest Southwest
corner corner
-0.4 -0.2
C2D0 C1D0
-0.6 C2D36 -0.4 C1D36
C2D72 C1D72
-0.8 -0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fig. 17. Variation of peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients on the first row panels of the second (a and b) and first (c and d) columns of
the roof mounted array with array perimeter gap from building edge in different wind directions.
directions. Moreover, the inner column ground mounted array panel has relatively larger force coefficients than the inner
column roof mounted panel in all wind directions. Fig. 19(c) shows the comparison of peak moment coefficients of the
isolated panel with the outer column panels of the roof and ground mounted arrays. As it can be observed from the figure,
for southwesterly wind between 1001 and 1801 AoA the isolated panel has the largest moment coefficients compared to
both the ground and roof mounted array panels. For northwesterly wind between 01 and 90o AoA the isolated panel and the
outer column roof mounted panel for test case C1D0 have equivalent moment coefficients. For southwesterly wind between
100o and 180o AoA the outer column roof mounted panel for test case C1D0 and the outer column ground mounted panel
have moment coefficients which are in the same order of magnitude but with opposite signs. Fig. 19(d) shows the
comparison of the moment coefficients from the inner column panels of the roof and ground mounted arrays with the
isolated panel. As it can be observed from the figure, the isolated solar panel has the largest moment coefficients in all wind
directions. Moreover, the inner column ground mounted array panel has relatively larger moment coefficients than the
inner column roof mounted panel in all wind directions. As it can be seen from Fig. 19(a and b), the minimum and maximum
peak force coefficients of the isolated panel have the same order of magnitudes and occur for northerly wind close to 0o AoA
and from south close to 180o AoA respectively. In both the inner and outer column panels of the ground mounted array
panels the maximum force coefficients which occur for southerly wind close to 180o AoA have larger magnitudes compared
to the minimum force coefficients which occur for northerly wind close to 0o AoA. The variation of force coefficients on the
roof mounted array is observed to be a function of the array perimeter gap as well as the location of the panel in the array.
For the outer column panel of the roof mounted array the minimum force coefficient occurs when the wind comes
diagonally from northwest close to 451 AoA and has larger magnitude compared to the maximum force coefficient which
occurs for southerly wind close to 1801 AoA. The maximum force coefficient on the inner column roof mounted panel for
test case C2D36 occurs for southerly wind close to 1801 AoA and has larger magnitude compared to the minimum force
coefficient which occurs for northerly wind close to 01 AoA. However, the inner column roof mounted panel for test case
C2D0 has negative force coefficients in all wind directions except for westerly wind close to 90o AoA. Moreover, the
minimum force coefficients occur for northerly wind close to 0o AoA and for southerly wind close to 180o AoA. As it can be
seen from Fig. 19(c and d), the moment coefficients of the isolated panel, ground mounted array panel and the roof mounted
panel for test cases C1D36 and C2D36 are positive for all wind directions and the maximum values occur for southerly wind
close to 180o AoA. However, for the roof mounted test cases C1D0 and C2D0 the moment coefficients are negative for
southwesterly wind between 100o and 180oAoA. Moreover, the minimum moment coefficients for southerly wind close to
180o AoA have larger magnitudes compared to the maximum moment coefficients for northerly wind close to 0o AoA.
To summarize the discussion presented in this section, the wind loads on isolated systems are generally larger than the wind
0.0 0.5
-0.5 0.4
-1.0 0.3
0.2
CMy(peak)
-1.5
CFn(peak) 0.1
-2.0
0.0
-2.5
C2D0 C1D0 -0.1 C2D0 C1D0
-3.0 -0.2
C2D36 C1D36 C2D36 C1D36
-3.5 -0.3
C2D72 C1D72 C2D72 C1D72
-4.0 -0.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0 0.20
-0.2 C2D0 C1D0
0.15
C2D36 C1D36
-0.4
0.10 C2D72 C1D72
CMy(mean)
CFn(mean)
-0.6
-0.8 0.05
-1.0
C2D0 C1D0 0.00
-1.2
C2D36 C1D36 -0.05
-1.4
C2D72 C1D72
-1.6 -0.10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.40 0.07
C2D0 C1D0 C2D0 C1D0
0.35 0.06
C2D36 C1D36 C2D36 C1D36
0.30 0.05
C2D72 C1D72 C2D72 C1D72
0.25
CMy(rms)
CFn(rms)
0.04
0.20
0.03
0.15
0.10 0.02
0.05 0.01
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 18. Variation of (a) peak CFn, (b) peak CMy, (c) mean CFn, (d) mean CMy, (e) rms CFn and (f) rms CMy with array perimeter gap from building edge across
the first and second columns of the ground mounted array at 451 and 101 wind AoA respectively.
loads on individual panels of the ground and roof mounted solar arrays. Although the panels used for comparison from the
ground mounted array are the first row panels, which are not subjected to sheltering effect from upwind panels, the force
and moment coefficients on the array panels are relatively lower than the coefficients on the isolated panel. Moreover, the
kind of equivalence observed between the minimum and maximum force coefficients of the isolated panel is not observed
in the individual array panels. Hence, the wind loads on first row panels can be affected by the downstream panels located
in the wake of first row panels. Comparison of the first row panels from the roof and ground mounted array shows that the
roof mounted array starts to show the same pattern of wind loading as the ground mounted array when the array perimeter
gap from the building edge is increased. Moreover, depending on the array perimeter gap from the building edge, the wind
direction and location of the panel in the array, the wind loads on the roof mounted array panels could be higher or lower
than the ground mounted array panels. For instance, when the array perimeter gap is zero and the wind comes from
northwesterly directions normal force coefficients on the outer column panels of the roof mounted array are larger than the
corresponding coefficients on the ground mounted array. However, when the array perimeter gap is 1 m (36 in) or when the
wind comes from southwesterly directions, normal force coefficients on the outer column panels of the ground mounted
array are larger than the corresponding coefficients on the roof mounted panels. Moreover, if the same comparison is carried
out between the second column panels of the roof and ground mounted arrays it can be observed that the normal force
coefficients on the ground mounted panel are larger for all cases tested in the present study.
6.0 6.0
C1Y0X48 C2Y0X48
4.0 Isolated 4.0 Isolated
C1D0 C2D0
C1D36 C2D36
2.0 2.0
CFn(peak)
CFn(peak)
Northwest Northwest
0.0 corner 0.0 corner
-2.0 -2.0
-4.0 Southwest -4.0 Southwest

corner corner
-6.0 -6.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.8 0.8
Northwest Northwest
0.6 corner 0.6 corner
0.4
0.4
0.2
CMy(peak)
CMy(peak)
0.2
0.0
0.0 Southwest Southwest
corner -0.2 corner
-0.2 C1Y0X48 C2Y0X48
Isolated -0.4 Isolated
-0.4 C1D0 -0.6 C2D0
C1D36 C2D36
-0.6 -0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fig. 19. Comparison peak normal force and overturning moment coefficients of an isolated ground mounted panel with the coefficients on the first row
panels in the first column (a and c) and second column (b and d) of the ground and roof mounted arrays.
4. Conclusions
The influence of different spacing parameters on the wind loading of ground and roof mounted solar arrays was investigated
through wind tunnel tests. The ground mounted array was tested for a combination of different lateral and longitudinal spacings
between panels while on roof mounted array the perimeter gap from the building edge was varied, while keeping the lateral and
longitudinal spacings constant. The variations of normal force and overturning moment coefficients with the different spacing
parameters were investigated across panel rows as well as along different columns of the ground and roof mounted arrays and
several wind directions. From the results obtained it was observed that high reductions of force and moment coefficients due to
sheltering effect occur on the second row panel and the amount of reduction drops quickly, becoming less significant beyond the
fourth row. Comparison of wind loads across array columns showed that panels located in the outer array column could be
subjected to relatively higher wind loads than panels located in the inner array columns. In particular, the outer column roof
mounted panels located close to the roof corner regions could be subjected to significantly high wind loads when the wind comes
from diagonal directions. The effect of lateral spacing between panels on the inner column panels was found to be minimal, except
the slight reduction of force and moment coefficients observed on the first three panel rows, for the case of zero lateral spacing.
On the outer column ground mounted panels, the coefficients obtained with zero lateral spacing were larger than the coefficients
obtained with 0.91 m (36 in) and 1.83 m (72 in), spacings and the variation was observed across all the 10 panel rows. Both the
force and overturning moment coefficients on the ground mounted panels increased with increasing longitudinal spacing between
panels. Moreover, when the panels were placed close enough to be strongly influenced by the wake flow from the neighboring
upwind panel, unusual wind loading such as negative overturning moment, can be observed. The force and moment coefficients on
the roof mounted array decreased with increasing array perimeter gap from the building edge. It was also observed that the flow
separation occurring at the building edge can have a significant impact on the first row panels, particularly when they are mounted
flush with the building edge. Comparison of wind load coefficients of an isolated solar panel with the corresponding coefficients
from the first row panels of ground and roof mounted arrays revealed that isolated panels are generally subjected to higher wind
loads than individual panels in a solar array.
Acknowledgment
Financial support through Florida International University's International Hurricane Research Center and the Canada
Research Chair to the second author is greatly acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agencies.
References
Aly, A.M., Bitsuamlak, G.T., 2014. Wind-induced pressures on solar panels mounted on residential homes. Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 20(1),
04013003.
Aly, A.M., Bitsuamlak, G.T., 2013. Aerodynamics of ground-mounted solar panels: test model scale effects. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 123(a), 250–260.
ASCE-7, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Banks, D., Meroney, R.N., 2001. A model of roof-top surface pressures produced by conical vortices: model development. Wind Structure 4, 227–246.
Bitsuamlak, G.T., Dagnew, A.K., Erwin, J., 2010. Evaluation of wind loads on solar panel modules using CFD. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010), Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Bronkhorst, A., Franke, J., Geurts, C., Bentum, C.v., Grepinet, F., 2010. Wind tunnel and CFD modelling of wind pressures on solar energy systems on flat
roofs. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2010), Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Deria, E., Brazaa, M., Cida, E., Cazina, S., Michaelisc, D., Degouetd, C., 2013. Investigation of the three-dimensional turbulent near-wake structure past a flat
plate by tomographic PIV at high Reynolds number. Journal of Fluids and Structures.
Erwin, J., Chowdhury, A.G., Bitsuamlak, G., Guerra, C., 2011. Wind effects on photovoltaic panels mounted on residential roofs. In: Proceedings of the
Thirteenth International Conference on Wind Engineering Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Filliben, J.J., 1975. The probability plot correlation coefficient test for normality. Technometrics 17, 111–117.
Geurts, C.P.W., Steenbergen, R.D.J.M., 2009. Full scale measurements of wind loads on stand-off photovoltaic systems. In:. Proceedings of the Fifth European
and African Conference on Wind Engineering Florence, Italy.
Grigoriu, M., 1995. Applied Non-Gaussian Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Holmes, J., 2007. Wind Loading of Structures, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, UK.
Hosoya, N., Peterka, J.A., 2008. Wind Tunnel Tests of Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors. Cermak Peterka Petersen, Inc, Fort Collins, CO.
Huang, L., Xub, Y.L., Liaoc, H., 2014. Nonlinear aerodynamic forces on thin flat plate: numerical study. Journal of Fluids and Structures 44, 182–194.
Irwin, H.P.A.H., Cooper, K.R., Girard, R., 1979. Correction of distortion effects caused by tubing systems in measurements of fluctuating pressures. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 5, 93–107.
Kopp, G.A., Surry, D., Chen, K, 2002. Wind loads on a solar array. Wind Structure 5, 393–406.
Kopp, G.A., Surry, D., Mans, C., 2005. Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: part 1. Basic aerodynamics and local loads. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 93, 817–841.
Marwood, R., Wood, C.J., 1997. Conical vortex movement and its effect on roof pressures. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 69–71, 589–595.
Peterka, J.A., Bienkiewicz, B., Hosoya, N., Cermak, J.E., 1987. Heliostat mean wind load reduction. Energy 12, 261–267.
Pratt, R.N., Kopp, G.A., 2012. An initial study of the aerodynamics of photovoltaic panel arrays mounted on large flat roofs. In: Proceedings of the Seventh
International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications, Shanghai, China.
Radu, A., Axinte, E., Theohari, C., 1986. Steady wind pressures on solar collectors on flat-roofed buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 23, 249–258.
Sadek, F., Simiu, E., 2002. Peak non-Gaussian wind effects for database-assisted low-rise building design. Engineering Mechanics 128, 530–539.
Shademan, M., Hangan, H., 2009. Wind loading on solar panels at different inclination angles. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on
Wind Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Suaris, W., Irwin, P., 2010. Effect of roof-edge parapets on mitigating extreme roof suctions. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 98,
483–491.
Visscher, B.T., Kopp, G.A., 2007. Trajectories of roof sheathing panels under high winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 95,
697–716.
Wood, G.S., Denoon, R.O., Kwok, K.C.S., 2001. Wind loads on industrial solar panel arrays and supporting roof structure. Wind Structure 4, 481–494.
Wu, Z., Gong, B., Wang, Z., Li, Z., Zang, C., 2010. An experimental and numerical study of the gap effect on wind load on heliostat. Renewable Energy 35,
797–806.

Influence of Spacing Parameters On The Wind Loadingof Solar Array

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Spacing Parameters On The Wind Loadingof Solar Array

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Fluids and Structures ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Fluids and Structures

Influence of spacing parameters on the wind loading

2.1. Wind tunnel set-up

Fig. 3. Photograph of a sample ground mounted array test configuration.

Array perimeter gap

Fig. 4. Photograph of a sample roof mounted array test configuration.

2.2. Array test configurations

2.2.1. Ground mounted array

2.2.2. Roof mounted array

C3Y0 24 3 0 24 in (0.61 m) 0o–180o

3.1. Data analysis

3.2. Variation of wind load across array rows

Northwest corner Southwest corner

3.3. Variation of wind load across array columns

3.4. Effect of lateral spacing between panels

3.5. Effect of longitudinal spacing between panels

1.0 Northwest 1.0

0.1 Northwest Southwest 0.1 Northwest Southwest

-2.0 C3Y0X24 -2.0 C1Y0X24

3.6. Effect of array perimeter gap from the building edge

3.7. Comparison with an isolated solar panel

-4.0 Southwest -4.0 Southwest

You might also like