Beginning-Bear
Structural
- Apr 16, 2025
- 3
Hi all, long time listener and first time caller.
I have a project in the Denver metro area and Colorado has recently adopted a "Colorado Model Electric Ready and Solar Ready Code" for all new buildings. The issue with my project is that it is an existing shell building that was designed in 2022 and likely built in 2023 so it was just before all of this was enacted (note: I do have the architectural and structural drawings for the shell). The initial structural scope was minor, provide some slab-pour back details for the ground floor (slab was previously left open in most of the building) and RTU reinforcement details along with the standard architectural and MEP finish out. The reviewer is now arguing that this constitutes a "major renovation" and is forcing the solar ready code upon us despite the scope of the project to essentially make the shell building inhabitable.
Roof framing is open web wood trusses bearing on steel beams at the exterior and interior grid lines and is a flat roof so any theoretical PV panels would have to be raised and the panels angled. As far as my understanding, the theoretical PV panels could be "ballasted," i.e. use concrete blocks to weigh them down or to penetrate the roof deck with anchors into the roof framing below. Neither are very appealing as the open web wood trusses are unlikely to have much additional capacity (note: I do not have the shop drawings) and the panel orientation is likely to be perpendicular (typical to face panels in the southern direction) to the framing below (running east-west) and I'm worried any horizontal load transmitted to them would cause them to roll.
Has anyone encountered a similar situation with the code reviewer requiring solar ready framing on an existing roof? Or how have you handled it when designing new flat roofs? I've done some work in the past for placing PV panels on carports, ground-mounted systems, and parallel to a sloped roof but this is a first for me and I'm interested to see how others have interpreted these (or similar) provisions.
The architect and I are pushing back against the reviewer, but they are obtuse and don't quite understand the implications of what they're enforcing. (Those who cannot do, review).
I have a project in the Denver metro area and Colorado has recently adopted a "Colorado Model Electric Ready and Solar Ready Code" for all new buildings. The issue with my project is that it is an existing shell building that was designed in 2022 and likely built in 2023 so it was just before all of this was enacted (note: I do have the architectural and structural drawings for the shell). The initial structural scope was minor, provide some slab-pour back details for the ground floor (slab was previously left open in most of the building) and RTU reinforcement details along with the standard architectural and MEP finish out. The reviewer is now arguing that this constitutes a "major renovation" and is forcing the solar ready code upon us despite the scope of the project to essentially make the shell building inhabitable.
Roof framing is open web wood trusses bearing on steel beams at the exterior and interior grid lines and is a flat roof so any theoretical PV panels would have to be raised and the panels angled. As far as my understanding, the theoretical PV panels could be "ballasted," i.e. use concrete blocks to weigh them down or to penetrate the roof deck with anchors into the roof framing below. Neither are very appealing as the open web wood trusses are unlikely to have much additional capacity (note: I do not have the shop drawings) and the panel orientation is likely to be perpendicular (typical to face panels in the southern direction) to the framing below (running east-west) and I'm worried any horizontal load transmitted to them would cause them to roll.
Has anyone encountered a similar situation with the code reviewer requiring solar ready framing on an existing roof? Or how have you handled it when designing new flat roofs? I've done some work in the past for placing PV panels on carports, ground-mounted systems, and parallel to a sloped roof but this is a first for me and I'm interested to see how others have interpreted these (or similar) provisions.
The architect and I are pushing back against the reviewer, but they are obtuse and don't quite understand the implications of what they're enforcing. (Those who cannot do, review).
