Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Snow Load + Seismic

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Actually I don't argue with Building Officials much, especially if they have a written policy, which in the case of El Dorado County they do.   The Lake Tahoe project on the Nevada side had different client restraints.  

My personal opinion on the Tahoe criteria is that I agree with the building official for that location.   Even with this heat wave going on now (117 last Sunday afternoon, 110 yesterday in western El Dorado County and high 80's at Tahoe), there is still a lot of snow on the ground, but during the winter the drifts were high and they stayed there a long time.  

Remember, we're designing for a one-time event and in the past snow loading was treated poorly.  My first investigation when I moved out of the San Francisco area was a roof collapse in Auburn.  Four foot of snow on a roof designed for a 20 psf load.   (The roof came down and rested on top of cases of beer, unbroken)

At 08:02 AM 7/25/2006, you wrote:

From: Neil Moore [ mailto:nma(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:51 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Snow Load + Seismic
Now Randy Volgelsand disagreed with me on the Nevada requirement, but I still used the 100% requirement on the particular project as it was equipment on a roof with four enclosing walls that would not allow a run off.

But even in such an situation, wouldn?t 33% be more rational? Simply put, that?s the portion of time­a linear quantity­that such a snow condition might possibly exist. The amount of the snow load already takes into account statistical variations, so that linear quantity of time spent with snow on the roof seems reasonable to me.