A cleaning proposal for a stone-processing industrial park in Hubei considered 15.95052 MWp of fixed-tilt PV distributed across 26 corrugated-metal roofs. Persistent process dust, lifting, roof access, water supply, production windows and repeated equipment transfer all affected the proposed workflow. This record explains that planning logic; it does not claim completed deployment or a measured cleaning result.
Send Roof and Site Information · Compare Rooftop Cleaning Equipment
Project at a Glance
| Item | Source planning record |
|---|---|
| Site type | Multi-building industrial rooftop PV |
| Region | Hubei, China |
| Project scale | 15.95052 MWp |
| Buildings | 26 listed industrial roofs |
| Modules | 29,538 modules at 540 Wp each |
| Array | Fixed-tilt PV on corrugated/light-steel roofs |
| Listed roof area | 172,556 m² total roof area; not cleaned module area |
| Main contamination | Stone-processing and surrounding airborne dust described in the proposal |
| Proposed organization | 8 people in four two-person teams |
| Proposed duration | About 5 days for one full cycle; planning estimate only |
| Result status | No measured cleaning, energy, water, labor or cost result published |
Why This Industrial Rooftop Site Needed a Multi-Roof Plan
The main planning challenge was not capacity alone. The PV system was distributed across 26 roofs in an operating industrial park, so each cleaning cycle would involve repeated lifting, setup, supervision, hose or water management, shutdown, recovery and transfer between buildings. Stone-processing dust could also vary by roof, production activity, wind direction and time since the previous cleaning.
For a similar site, equipment selection should start with the roof-by-roof workflow:
- Roof structure: roof type, load limits, tilt, access point, edge protection and walking routes.
- Array geometry: module dimensions, row length, gaps, frames, cables and discontinuities.
- Contamination: dust source, particle condition, adhesion, distribution and whether water is needed.
- Transfer: lifting method, machine modules, hoses, batteries and travel between buildings.
- Operations: production windows, electrical isolation, staffing, water and acceptance records.
The Contamination and Access Challenge
The source proposal associates the main contamination risk with stone-processing activity and surrounding airborne dust. That description supports a dust-focused inspection plan, but it does not establish a universal power-loss percentage or a fixed cleaning interval.
Before work begins, representative roofs should be inspected for loose dust, compacted deposits, mud bands, grease or other material. The cleaning method should then be checked against the module manufacturer's instructions, water quality, brush condition and the risk of abrasive particles. Roof access and fall-protection arrangements require a separate site safety review.
The listed 172,556 m² is the sum of roof areas in the source table. It must not be used as the cleaned module area, productivity denominator or quotation quantity until the actual module coverage and cleaning scope are measured.
Proposed Equipment Path and Selection Boundary
The source proposal evaluated several remotely operated BQ-category machines, pumped water and two-person teams. The customer FAQ library positions portable or lightweight BQ and DQ categories as starting points for distributed rooftop projects because equipment may need to move between scattered arrays. That guidance does not confirm a model for this project.
The original document names legacy BQ1000 and BQ700 configurations. Their relationship to the current product range, final supplied equipment and current specifications has not been verified, so this public version does not present those names as delivered products.
Before a model is selected, engineering review should confirm:
- roof tilt, roof load, access and approved lifting method;
- module width, row length, gaps, frames and edge conditions;
- machine mass in transport and operating configurations;
- track, anti-slip, edge-detection and recovery requirements;
- dry versus wet cleaning and the deposit-removal test;
- water source, quality, flow, pressure and hose routing;
- battery, charging, spare-parts and shift arrangements; and
- the operator, spotter and fall-protection procedure.
Remote-controlled does not mean autonomous or unattended. Personnel may still be required for lifting, installation, supervision, water and battery management, transfer, abnormal-stop recovery and inspection.
Planned Deployment Workflow
The proposal organized eight people into four two-person teams and estimated about five days for a complete cycle. These figures are planning inputs, not verified project results. A production plan should validate them roof by roof.
- Review permits, weather, electrical state, access and fall protection.
- Inspect the selected roof, module surface, machine, brushes, controls, battery, pump and hose.
- Lift and install equipment using the approved method; establish exclusion zones below.
- Test a limited area and confirm cleaning method, brush contact and water settings.
- Operate under supervision within the approved temperature and weather window.
- Record the roof ID, cleaned module area, operating time, water, charging, transfers, downtime and observations.
- Stop, recover and transfer equipment using the defined route.
- Inspect the completed area and document exceptions before acceptance.
Actual productivity must include lifting, setup, hose handling, charging, transfers, production restrictions and downtime. A machine's nominal cleaning rate cannot be multiplied by shift hours to predict the whole-site duration without those factors.
How Cleaning Frequency Should Be Set
The source uses seasonal rainfall to discuss cleaning frequency, but its monthly schedule and stated annual total do not agree. This version therefore does not publish a fixed number of cycles.
A condition-based plan should consider:
- visual inspection by representative roof and dust source;
- soiling or normalized performance data, when available;
- production schedule, wind direction and short-term dust events;
- rainfall amount and whether it removed or redistributed the deposit;
- water, lifting, staff and permitted work windows; and
- the recorded cost and outcome of earlier cleaning cycles.
Any final schedule should be approved by the site owner and updated from operating evidence rather than copied from another plant.
What This Record Does—and Does Not—Verify
This record verifies only what the source proposal considered during planning. It does not verify that the proposed machines were delivered, that the planned staffing and duration were achieved, or that the modules recovered a specific amount of energy.
To publish a completed case, the project record should add:
- final equipment model, quantity, configuration and commissioning record;
- actual cleaned module area, roof IDs and cleaning dates;
- operating hours, staffing, water, charging, transfers and downtime;
- pre-cleaning condition and post-cleaning acceptance method;
- any result metric, baseline, unit, data source and measurement window; and
- authorized project images with location, date and caption.
The source document contains before-and-after images labelled for other cities. They are excluded because they do not document this Hubei project. Visible surface change alone would not prove energy recovery, ROI, water savings or suitability for another site.
Information to Prepare for a Similar Industrial Rooftop Project
Buildings and roofs
- building count, roof plan, roof material, tilt and structural/load information;
- access points, ladders, lifting zones, edge protection and walking routes;
- operating areas below the roof and permitted production windows.
PV arrays
- module manufacturer, dimensions and cleaning guidance;
- row length, orientation, gaps, frames, cables and obstacles;
- module coverage and the actual area included in the cleaning scope.
Cleaning and operations
- contamination photos, source, adhesion and seasonal pattern;
- current cleaning method and any known module-surface restrictions;
- water source, quality, pressure, drainage and hose route;
- charging, storage, transport, staffing and target frequency; and
- required logs, acceptance criteria and result metrics.
These inputs support equipment review. Final suitability requires confirmed site data, a safety review and an agreed engineering and commercial scope.
Related Equipment and Applications
- Compare BQ Series Rooftop Equipment
- Explore Industrial Rooftop PV Cleaning
- Explore Commercial Rooftop PV Cleaning
- Compare All Cleaning Equipment
Final suitability requires confirmed site data and engineering review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a completed cleaning case?
No. The available source is a technical proposal. This page records project conditions and a proposed workflow without claiming delivery, completion, acceptance or a measured result.
Why are portable or lightweight robots considered for distributed rooftops?
Distributed rooftop arrays can be separated by buildings and access routes. Portable or modular equipment may reduce handling difficulty, but the final choice depends on roof load, tilt, module layout, lifting, edge protection and the complete operating workflow.
Is a BQ model confirmed for this project?
No. The source evaluated legacy BQ configurations, while the customer FAQ identifies BQ and DQ as equipment categories commonly considered for distributed rooftops. The legacy/current model relationship and final project configuration require product and delivery records.
Does remotely operated mean autonomous?
No. Remote operation can still require people for lifting, setup, supervision, water and battery management, transfers, recovery and inspection.
Can the 172,556 m² roof area be used as the cleaning area?
No. It is the sum of listed roof areas. The actual module coverage and contracted cleaning scope must be measured separately.
How often should a stone-dust site be cleaned?
There is no universal interval. Use representative inspections, contamination or performance evidence, production events, weather, access and the recorded cost and outcome of earlier cycles.
Do before-and-after photos prove an energy gain?
No. They can document visible conditions at a specific place and time. Energy results require a defined baseline, metric, data source, measurement window and method.