Applications / Engineering guide
Rooftop vs Ground-Mounted Small Wind: Project Review
A rooftop and a ground-mounted tower create different resource, structural and service questions. Compare the actual candidate locations before deciding whether either arrangement is worth further engineering; a clear roof area is not approval for mounting a turbine.
Compare complete installation candidates, not height alone.
This guide does not approve rooftop mounting for MARSTON’s current 5–50 kW range. The turbine, support structure, building and installation conditions need configuration-specific evidence and qualified review.
01 / Candidate locations
Define the roof and ground arrangements being compared.
Give each candidate a location identifier with coordinates, proposed rotor position and support arrangement.
Give each candidate a location identifier with coordinates, proposed rotor position and support arrangement. For the roof candidate, identify the building and proposed attachment area. For the ground option, identify the tower position and available installation footprint.
Keep both candidates tied to the same load and intended electrical connection. A roof’s elevation above the street and a ground tower’s hub height refer to different physical arrangements. Record elevations and geometry consistently before comparing resource or installation needs.
02 / Wind exposure
Use evidence at the proposed rotor position.
Document roof edges, parapets, adjacent buildings and other features that could affect the incoming flow.
Document roof edges, parapets, adjacent buildings and other features that could affect the incoming flow. Relate the wind information to the actual candidate height and position. A regional average does not describe flow at a particular corner of a building.
DOE’s small-wind guidance highlights rooftop turbulence as an issue needing assessment. Do not transfer an open-field performance estimate to the roof or assume electric yaw removes disturbed flow. Use the obstacle and turbulence guide to organise candidate-specific records.
03 / Structural review
Identify the complete path from turbine to supporting structure.
The responsible engineer needs the applicable turbine loads, support arrangement and building or foundation information.
The responsible engineer needs the applicable turbine loads, support arrangement and building or foundation information. For a roof candidate, request an assessment of the actual building and attachments. Retain the design conditions, document revisions and any limits affecting the proposal.
Usable floor area or a building height does not establish structural capacity. The ground candidate likewise needs its own tower and foundation review. This page supplies no mounting design, fastener pattern or approved roof load for any MARSTON turbine model.
04 / Vibration & sound
Review transmission paths and the relevant receiving locations.
Identify occupied spaces and neighbouring receiving locations that matter to the assessment.
Identify occupied spaces and neighbouring receiving locations that matter to the assessment. Separate airborne acoustic evidence from vibration transmitted through the support structure. Record the requested quantities, measurement locations, operating conditions and responsible specialist.
DOE identifies structure-transmitted vibration as a consideration for building-mounted turbines. Neither a brochure statement nor a general isolation product proves acceptable conditions for a particular building. The acoustic assessment guide helps define the sound evidence without inventing product decibel ratings.
05 / Access & scope
Compare installation and service arrangements.
Describe delivery access, the installation work area, permitted maintenance access and the proposed routes for equipment and cables.
Describe delivery access, the installation work area, permitted maintenance access and the proposed routes for equipment and cables. Ask the qualified teams to establish the applicable work and access plans. This page provides no climbing, roof-access or lifting procedure.
Compare the building works or ground works, electrical routing, permissions and ongoing service responsibilities for both candidates. A shorter cable route cannot by itself offset unresolved structure, exposure or access questions. Keep provisional items visible in the project scope register.
06 / Feasibility outcome
Explain why a candidate is advanced, deferred or rejected.
Use a decision register with evidence reference, responsible reviewer, conditions and unresolved issue for each candidate.
Use a decision register with evidence reference, responsible reviewer, conditions and unresolved issue for each candidate. If the roof lacks adequate resource or structural evidence, do not promote it as feasible simply because it occupies less ground space. Retain the reasons for excluding it.
Send MARSTON the candidate layouts, intended turbine model, resource information and available structural and acoustic requirements. Ask what product documents are available for review. Further evaluation does not constitute approval of rooftop mounting or a guarantee of lower noise, greater yield or lower cost.
Continue the review with Small Wind Turbine Noise: Evidence & Site Assessment.
Continue the review with Wind Turbine Rotor Clearance & Three-Dimensional Layout.
Continue the review with Wind Turbine Foundation Design Inputs & Site Records.
General background: DOE: building-mounted turbine considerations. These references explain industry concepts; they are separate from the applicable MARSTON product and project documents.
Prepare the information for this review.
Use the checklist to organise the project information. Mark unavailable items and retain document references.
| Review item | Information to provide | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate geometry | Roof and ground positions, elevations and support concepts | Compare defined arrangements. |
| Resource evidence | Relevant wind records, obstacles and rotor-position assessment | Avoid transferring open-site assumptions. |
| Structural scope | Loads, building or foundation records and reviewer identity | Identify the supporting design evidence. |
| Occupant effects | Receiving locations, acoustic quantities and vibration questions | Define specialist review needs. |
| Feasibility record | Access, permissions, work scope and remaining conditions | Document the next decision. |
Engineering questions.
Is rooftop installation approved for MARSTON turbines?
No approval is established here. The current model and complete installation require specific design evidence and review.
Does a taller building guarantee more usable wind?
Assess the flow at the proposed rotor position and the effects of the building and neighbouring obstacles.
Can electric yaw remove rooftop turbulence?
Yaw controls orientation through the specified system. It does not remove the building’s effect on the incoming flow.
Is a vibration-isolation product enough to approve the roof?
Review the actual turbine, support and building arrangement with the responsible specialist. A generic product label is insufficient.
Is ground mounting automatically feasible?
It still needs applicable wind, tower, foundation, clearance, permission and access assessments.
What is the first useful comparison document?
Prepare identified candidate layouts with geometry, resource references, structural questions and installation responsibilities.
Technical enquiry
Bring your project information to the discussion.
A rooftop and a ground-mounted tower create different resource, structural and service questions. Share the available information and the equipment scope you want reviewed in a technical quotation.