# Re: Seismic and snow

• To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: Re: Seismic and snow
• From: "Paul Feather" <pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net>
• Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:37:51 -0700
I agree. This is similar to the question with regard to including storage loads in seismic. If a portion of the storage load is included for the lateral, it should also be included for the overturning.
```

Paul Feather PE, SE
www.SE-Solutions.net
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
```
----- Original Message ----- From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil>
```To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: Seismic and snow

```
```
```
I think you can use the snow included in seismic weight to resist overturning
```with the load combinations that exist.  I have had people argue with me if
you have to use snow in seismic weight then you should be able to use that
portion being included in seismic weight to reduce overturning.  It seems
rational.

.6D+.6*(.2*S)+.7*E

The E has a .2*Sds*(D+.2*S) vertical reducing the .6D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eli Grassley [mailto:elig(--nospam--at)psm-engineers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:15 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Seismic and snow

It makes perfect sense.

It's not conservative though. The bottom line is that it's not allowed per
combinations, and I for one think we already have plenty.

0.6D + 0.2S + 0.7(E w/ 0.2S)
0.6D + 0.7E (w/ no snow)

~~ Eli ~~

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordan Truesdell, PE [mailto:seaint1(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:38 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Seismic and snow

That makes no sense.

If you have a high snow load, it is reasonable to assume that a seismic
event is likely to occur while snow is on the roof (20% is what is
assumed to be the intersection of the probability curves).

It is not reasonable to assume that seismic events may only happen while
snow is on the building.  I have always assumed that the 0.6D number was
order to account for the worst case loads (sprinklers, MEP, finishes,
two layers of asphalt shingles, etc.).  Since the conservative approach
is to UNDERestimate the dead loads in the case of uplift, the code makes
it easy on us and lets us take a factor.  Adding a seasonal snow load to
offset a seismic uplift seems non-conservative.

Jason Christensen wrote:

```
```Food for thought.

I just designed a building that had a 100psf flat snow load, with a high
seismic area (SDC = D).  The building was of light frame construction with
wood shear walls.  I added the twenty percent of the snow into the design
base shear as prescribed by code.  Then when I designed my shear walls the
controlling load combo for uplift was 0.6*D + 0.7*E.  Here is my question,
another engineer I talked to mentioned using twenty percent of the snow
```
```load
```
```in addition to the dead load for the uplift design.  His reasoning was 'if
```
the snow has been added to the seismic base shear then it will be there for
```the uplift also'.  This makes sense to me, however I cannot find anything
```
```in
```
```the code that would say this is ok.

Jason

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

```
```

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

```
```

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
```
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
```*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
```
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********