] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Randy Vogelgesang" <rvogel(--nospam--at)jps.net>]

Brian,

Thanks for your post.  As an example, I am working on a single family
residence in Kirkwood with a 300psf roof LL, 1/2 is used with the DL as per
Alpine County.  The roof diaph is roughly 54'x54', resulting in a diaph load
of almost 1200+ACM-/ft +ACEAIQ-
I still can't bring myself to believe that the money spent to build for
loads like this is well spent.  Hopefully we can use information like this
article to persuade the snow country building officials that over
conservative design criteria adds considerable construction costs, when
apparently the probabilities do not justify it.

Randy Vogelgesang S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: BVeit +ADw-BVeit+AEA-aol.com+AD4-
To: seaoc+AEA-seaoc.org +ADw-seaoc+AEA-seaoc.org+AD4-
Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 11:00 AM
Subject: 25+ACU- snow load is Conservative


+AD4-I know not many people deal with lateral forces due to large snow loads,
but
+AD4-those of who do might find this interesting.
+AD4-
+AD4-You can imagine the enormous lateral loads if you were to count even part
of a
+AD4-400psf snow load toward seismic.
+AD4-
+AD4-Compounding this, the code is unclear on how much snow load to count toward
+AD4-seismic in heavy snow country.  It says, at the discretion of the building
+AD4-official, the amount of snow counted toward seismic may be reduced to 25+ACU-.
+AD4-
+AD4-Some counties have chosen to go big, such as Placer Co +AEA- 1/3rd and Amador
Co
+AD4-(kirkwood) +AEA- 1/2+ACE-  In addition, the snow loads in these areas are routinely
+AD4-above 300 psf.
+AD4-
+AD4-As someone has said previously (Lew Midlam?) Where are the bodies?
+AD4-
+AD4-A recent article in ICBO Bld. Standards, Mar-April '98, clearly, rationally
+AD4-articulates why 25+ACU- of snow is CONSERVATIVE.  It's all Stats 101.
+AD4-
+AD4-So if there are any code authors out there, how about addressing this in
2000?
+AD4-
+AD4-Brian Veit, P.E.