Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Seismic and snow

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] I misread that you were including 20% of the snow load in the calculation for earthquake uplift. Including snow as a dead load for uplift doesn't really make much logical sense, unless you are considering ice as part of the snow load. In the case of the acceleration separating the ground from the structure, the "force" is a body force (proportional to mass), not an applied one, so the snow will not matter - it's not fastened to the roof. Unless, of course, it is ice and is stuck to the roofing.
Jason Christensen wrote:

Sorry I left part of his argument out; his thought was the seismic load has
been increased so the design is greater.  If the earthquake occurs without
the snow load the design will be adequate, since it was designed with the
higher force.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********