|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- Discuss Design factors used in IBC snow load design
- Review the history of ASCE-7 and how its changes have affected
unbalanced snow load design.
- Show where this design standard is moving to in 7-05
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
- Pf = .7 * Ce* CT* I * Pground
- .7 = 70% on roof
- Ce = Roof Exposure
Factor (.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
- CT = Temperature Factor (1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
- I = Importance Factor (.8, 1.0, 1.2)
- Pground= Map values
- Pf = flat roof snow
load design value
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
- 1.0
- 1.1
- 1.2
- All except as indicated below (heated, R< 25)
- Structures kept above freezing, ventilated roofs in which the R between the
ventilated space and the heated space exceeds 25. (i.e. 12” insulation,
R38)
- Unheated structures
- (see IBC pp 308- table 1608.3.2)
|
|
9
|
- Ct= 1.2 unheated
- Ct = 1.1
- heated with attic and r= 38 insulation in ceiling
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
- Cs (roof slope) factor is Multiplied times the Pf (flat roof
snow load) and this yields the final design roof snow load (Ps)
- It is a function of roof insulation and Roof temperature
- It is favorable to Steel roofs (range=.7- 1.0- generally about~.95 for 3
and 4 /12 roof pitches with cold roofs)
- Less favorable to shingle roofs( Equal to 1.0 for roof pitches up thru
12/12- 45 degrees cold roofs)
- Steel roofs with snow guards are to be treated like shingle roofs.
- This factor becomes smaller with higher roof pitches- thus it reduces
the design roof snow load.
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
- Pf = .7 * Ce* CT* I * Pground
- .7 = 70% on roof
- Ce = Roof Exposure
Factor (.9, 1.0, 1.1)
- CT = Temperature Factor (1.0, 1.1, 1.2)
- I = Importance Factor (.9, 1.0, 1.1)
- Pground= Map values
- Pf = flat roof snow
load design value
- Pf= .7*1.0*1.2*1.0*Pg= .84*Pg
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
- Snow Drift
- Sliding snow
- Drifting snow
- Roofing Conditions
- Steel or shingles
- Snow guards
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- Footings
- Possibly columns
- Sidewall headers
- Truss to column connections
- Trusses
- purlins
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
- In 2003 Wisconsin was one state that understood the ramifications of
this extreme change in unbalanced snow load design and adopted an
“alternate unbalanced snow load standard”, allowing the use of the Canadian
Building Code design procedure.
- In the meantime ASCE 7-02 was relaxing some of their unbalanced snow
load design provisions.
- These were then adopted by IBC-2003
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
- The current 2003 IBC adopts the use of this same EP-486 for design of
Post frame buildings.
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- * 5’ H.D with an 18” footing.
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
50
|
- NFBA supports the 7-05 unbalanced snow load provision.
- History tells us that buildings designed under ASCE 7-93, 7-95 have
shown good performance and 7-02 and 7-05 are moving back toward these
results.
|
|
51
|
|