WABO-SEAW Snow Load White Paper
WABO-SEAW Snow Load White Paper
WABO-SEAW Snow Load White Paper
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW) presented a seminar on snow load design at three locations in the State. The main purpose of the seminar was to introduce a new edition of the SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington to engineers and regulators. The first edition was published in 1975. At the late 1996 seminar in SeaTac, an ad-hoc committee of members of the Seattle Chapter of SEAW conducted a panel discussion of issues related to the seminar, including snow load regulation. Much of the discussion focused on the lower elevation regions of the Puget Sound area. As a result of the panel discussion, it was recommended that SEAW and the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO) attempt to bring more consistency to the design and review process relating to snow loads. A joint WABO-SEAW Ad Hoc Snow Load Committee (see Appendix III) was subsequently formed to consider snow load issues and to facilitate consistency of design and enforcement.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is the adopted model code in the State of Washington. In general, the provisions of the UBC (1994 Section 1605.4, 1997 Section 1614) require local jurisdictions to establish snow loads used in the design of structures constructed in the local community. The load that the UBC intends for local determination is a uniform load. In addition the UBC requires consideration of non-uniform accumulation due to potential drifting. This may appear non-specific, but the lack of data and numerous influencing variables, such as moisture, wind, elevation, temperature, geographic location, and proximity to large bodies of water, as well as variations in roof shapes and in the sizes and shapes of adjacent structures, together make state-wide adoption of specific loads and drift methodologies difficult. Lack of specificity of the Code helps cause an inherent lack of consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as compared to more defined regulation. Furthermore, the design practices of private professional engineers vary considerably. Appendix 1634 of the UBC (Append. Chapter 16 Div. I 1997 UBC) provides methods for calculating loads due to drifting snow. Generally, Appendix Chapters of the UBC are not adopted by the state; rather, they are left available for local jurisdictions to adopt if desired. Appendix Chapters contain regulations that have not been developed sufficiently to gain the standing necessary for incorporation into the main body of the code. In some cases, individual jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that establish a specific local uniform snow load. In other cases, snow load requirements are developed by the local jurisdiction as written or unwritten policies.
intent of the owner/developer - is the intent construction for a long-term capital investment, or is the focus minimum construction for immediate sale? technical capabilities of the design engineer, the local plan reviewer and the inspector - is the engineer practicing in an area of expertise? does the jurisdiction have licensed engineers and certified inspectors on staff? does the jurisdiction as well as the design engineer have a continuous education plan? lack of communication between the design engineer and those responsible for inspection regarding critical concerns - does the design engineer realize an inspectors time is limited? (10-15 inspections per day are common.) does the contract allow for field involvement by the design engineer? staffing level of the local regulator- does the jurisdiction have budget to hire engineering staff and sufficient inspection staff? contractor knowledge and understanding - does the contractor have a good line of communication with the engineer? does the contractor realize a seemingly small change in design or specification may not be equivalent but rather have long term impacts? financial and economic pressures - are the terms of the construction contract so tight as to drive consideration of less than what was specified? is competition between manufactured products driving designs to be marginalized? are assumptions being made regarding a level of independent inspection that does not exist? timely mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the regulator and the project designers - does time it takes obstruct getting the right answer and promote further gaps in communication? perceived relative importance between different sizes and occupancies of structures - is the position of some jurisdictions justified that small car ports and storage buildings, etc. have lower priority for regulatory structural involvement than other larger and more highly occupied buildings?
While it should be recognized that the Snow Load Analysis is the best resource available to help both the designer and the local building official determine local snow load requirements, it is, by itself, not a legally enforceable document. It was written solely to provide information about snow load design.
The Holiday storm caused much damaged around Puget Sound as well as in regions beyond Puget Sound, particularly on the east side of the Cascade Mountain Range, and in the south central regions of the state. The Holiday storm injected a need for consideration well beyond this White Paper, and indeed, the Seattle Chapter of SEAW joined with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to write a report on the resulting damage in Washington. The report includes a description of the weather event, the general extent of damage, a survey of building departments, as well as case studies of various types of structures, which experienced failure. The report was published in June of 1998, titled An Analysis of Building Structural Failures Due to the Holiday SnowStorms. This document and this White Paper are obviously closely related, and reading SEAW/FEMAs Analysis is recommended reading.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
After considering the information provided by the WABO survey, the FEMA/SEAW joint effort, and the experience of committee members, the Committee established the following findings: The climates are similar enough in the low-lying areas of western Washington that it is reasonable to establish a consistent specification, and consistency benefits, designers, building officials, as well as the forest product industry... The historic approach of uniform snow loads has provided acceptable performance. The historic uniform load approach keeps the design and review process straightforward. The drift provisions found in the reference documents were developed for significantly different climates and are questionable for the Puget Sound. Based on the SEAW/FEMA a joint effort, recent storm damage was not related to drifting. Consideration should be given for conditions resulting from a rain storm following a snow storm (rain on snow effect), on flat or near flat roofs- the UBC Appendix chapter suggests 5 psf. For roofs less that :12 slope.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In low lying areas between the Cascades and the coastal mountains of western Washington, it is recommended that all roof structures be designed for a minimum uniform roof snow load of 25 psf. However, this should not preclude certain jurisdictions from adopting a more conservative loading if historical data supports such, due to localized weather phenomenon or particular geographical features. For the purposes of the 25 psf recommendation and the effects of drift, low lying areas are defined areas in jurisdictions that have a recommended ground snow load of 25 psf or less in Appendix A of the 1996 SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington. (Note that this is typically conservative in comparison the method outlined in UBC Appendix and the SEAW Analysis where a 30% reduction is commonly applied to the ground snow load to determine roof snow load).
2.
3.
In low-lying areas of Puget Sound as described in item 2, there is not a significant enough concern about drift to warrant proactive regulatory enforcement by the local jurisdiction. In some unusual cases (such as buildings with a UBC Importance Factor greater than 1), it may be appropriate for the design engineer to consider the effects of drift and the possibility of snow sliding off steep, upper roofs onto lower ones. However, the method for considering drift (UBC Appendix or SEAW Snow Load Analysis for Washington) requires significant judgement which should generally fall within the realm of the design engineer, rather than become part of proactive jurisdiction enforcement. To account for the potential of rain on snow effects in low-lying area, it is recommended that an additional uniform load of 5 psf for roofs with a slope of less than 5 degrees be further studied. (Note: this was a topic where the Ad Hoc Committee did not gain consensus and therefore the further study recommendation; this should not be enforced by local jurisdictions based on this Paper unless specifically adopted under ordinance, with consensus on a regional basis with broad industry involvement). It is recommended that those jurisdictions in low-lying regions that do not have a specific written ordinance on snow loads adopt one.
4.
5.
City 1. ADAMS Lind Othello * Ritzville Washtucna 2. ASOTIN Anatone * Asotin Clarkston 3. BENTON Benton City Kennewick * Prosser Plymouth Richland 4. CHELAN Ardenvoir Blewett Chelan Entiat Holden Lake Wenatchee Leavenworth Peshastin Plain Stehekin Stevens Pass Ski Area * Wenatchee 5. CLALLAM Fairholm Forks La Push Neah Bay * Port Angeles Sekiu Sequim 6. CLARK Amboy Battle Ground Camas Orchards * Vancouver Washougal
City 7. COLUMBIA * Dayton Starbuck 8. COWLITZ Castle Rock Kalama * Kelso Longview Toutle 9. DOUGLAS Bridgeport East Wenatchee Mansfield Rock Island * Waterville 10. FERRY Curlew Inchelium Keller Laurier * Republic 11. FRANKLIN Connell Kahlotus * Pasco 12. GARFIELD * Pomeroy 13. GRANT Coulee City * Ephrata Grand Coulee Hartline Mattawa Moses Lake Quincy Soap Lake Warden
120 22 20
50 210 80 21 492 3
19 24 18 18 34
15 15 15 15 15
36 22 57 25 88
1280 2320 3 1130 800 3224 1868 1180 1010 1870 1120 4060 3 780
50 112 23 86 54
15 18 15
1855
28
53 36 30 15 20 40 20
25 16 20 20 20 20
24 24 18 29 15 15 34 20 18
City 14. GRAYS HARBOR Aberdeen Elma Hoquiam Humptulips McCleary * Montesano Oakville Ocean Shores Quinault Taholah Westport 15. ISLAND * Coupeville Freeland Oak Harbor 16. JEFFERSON Brinnon Leland * Port Townsend Queets Quilcene 17. KING Auburn Bellevue Bothell Black Diamond Carnation Duvall Enumclaw Fall City Humphrey Issaquah Kent Kirkland Lester North Bend Palmer Renton * Seattle Skykomish Stevens Pass Ski Area Vashon Island 18. KITSAP Bremerton * Port Orchard Poulsbo
City 19. KITTITAS Cle Elum Easton * Ellensburg Kittitas Lake CleElum Lake Kachess Lake Keechelus Liberty Roslyn Snoqualmie Pass Ski Area Vantage Wymer 20. KLICKITAT Appleton Bickleton Centerville Glenwood * Goldendale Klickitat Lyle Satus Pass Trout Lake White Salmon Wishram 21. LEWIS Centralia * Chehalis Mineral Morton Mossyrock Onalaska Packwood Pe Ell Randle Toledo Vader 22. LINCOLN * Davenport Harrington Odessa Reardan Sprague Wilbur
15 18 15 28 18 15 15 15 45 30 15
1905 2160 1540 1647 2223 2260 2517 2680 2280 3000 640 3 1300 3
80 110 120
17 15 17
77 200 3 120 30 20
30 30 20 30 25
85 100 90 650 75 140 720 90 1200 3 100 3 50 180 1620 442 880 3 15 350 931 4060 3 375
20 20 20 24 25 25 25 30 84 20 20 20 100 33 55 20 20 80 400 17
2308 3020 1605 1895 1633 447 140 3146 1900 640 180
189 226 1770 940 698 505 1051 412 880 110 175
20 20 88 57 34 25 100 34 78 19 19
56 41 23 37 34 32
100 140 15
15 15 18
City 23. MASON Belfair Lake Cushman Hoodsport Lilliwaup Matlock * Shelton 24. OKANOGAN Brewster Conconully Coulee Dam Mazama Methow Nespelem * Okanogan Omak Oroville Tonasket Twisp Winthrop 25. PACIFIC Ilwaco Lebam Long Beach Naselle Raymond * South Bend 26. PEND OREILLE Cusick Ione Metaline Falls * Newport 27. PIERCE Ashford Buckley Carbonado Chinook Pass Crystal Mountain Ski Area DuPont Eatonville Elbe Greenwater Kapowsin McMillin Reservoir Longmire Orting Paradise Puyallup
City 27. PIERCE (continued) Roy Sunrise * Tacoma 28. SAN JUAN Deer Harbor * Friday Harbor Lopez Olga Orcas Roche Harbor Rosario 29. SKAGIT Anacortes Blanchard Burlington Concrete La Conner Lyman Marblemount McMurray * Mount Vernon Rockport Sedro Woolley 30. SKAMANIA Carson North Bonneville Skamania Spirit Lake Stabler * Stevenson Willard 31. SNOHOMISH Arlington Darrington * Everett Index Granite Falls Marysville Monroe Monte Cristo Mountain Terrace Oso Silverton Stanwood Startup Sultan Verlot/Robe
820 2300 1145 2111 3 1153 1820 860 837 930 940 1614 1760
33 61 18 105 49 29 25 25 29 25 64 91
60 3 91 40 3 60 3 60 55 90
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
11 190 10 12 14 80
15 15 15 15 15 15
15 17 17 57 15 21 60 17 15 50 15
68 63 70 80
50 50 50 384 171 50 73
1770 726 1180 5432 3 4380 245 810 1211 1720 629 580 3 2757 215 5440 3 40
120 549 110 532 391 20 55 2756 3 440 200 3 1520 3 5 140 114 1000 3
City 32. SPOKANE Cheney Deer Park Medical Lake Mount Spokane Ski Area Bottom Top * Spokane Rockford 33. STEVENS Boundary Chewelah * Colville Hunters Kettle Falls Northport Springdale Wellpinit 34. THURSTON Littlerock * Olympia Rochester Tenino Tumwater Vail Yelm 35. WAHKIAKUM * Cathlamet Grays River Skamokawa 36. WALLA WALLA Attalia Waitsburg * Walla Walla
City 37. WHATCOM Acme * Bellingham Blaine Deming Diablo Ferndale Glacier Lawrence Lynden Maple Falls Mt. Baker Ski Area Newhalem Nooksack Sumas Wickersham 38. WHITMAN * Colfax Lacrosse Palouse Pullman Rosalia St. John Tekoa 39. YAKIMA American River Goose Prairie Grandview Naches Rimrock Lake Sunnyside Toppenish Wapato White Swan White Pass Ski Area * Yakima
36 59 36 120 151 39 32
48 50 46 64 45 47 56 80
310 100 45 210 910 60 900 145 3 103 643 4200 3 510 84 36 310
15 15 15 15 15 22 18
26 15 36 30 36 41 39
53 27 26
22 15 15
15 30 18
2800 3266 800 3 1470 2950 770 760 855 973 4720 1066
Source unless noted: U. S. Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System, U.S.G.S. Earth Science Information Center, Spokane, WA. In no case should the roof design live load be less than the minimum as required by the 1994 Uniform Building Code Section 1605 nor less than required by the local Building Official. Source of elevation: U.S.G.S. map per U.S.G.S. Earth Science Information Center, Spokane, WA.
Of statewide responses reporting including county double count, the following relate to the drift related enforcement: no. perceiving drift as problem / total responding yes no yes no yes no 25 / 131 103 /131 15 / 131 111 /131 57 / 131 69 / 131
Of the statewide responses reporting including county double count, the following relates to formal amendment and policies relating to specific snow load requirements: no. with local amend. specifying snow load / total resp. yes no yes no yes no yes no 15 /131 112/131 26 /131 92 / 131 53 /131 67/131 32 /131 67 /131
Of the statewide responses including county double count, the following relate to local failures from the storm: no. of failures carports boat storage commercial prefabricated mobile home other other 498 51 230 109 136 525 350
Note that this was a statewide survey, and although it provides good information, it should not be considered professional. The term double count relates to the fact that the relationship between some counties and the included jurisdictions with respect to snow load regulation is not known.
Of the statewide responses including county double count, the following relate to building official perceptions of needed attention for improved building product relative to snow loads: no. perceive. drains as major contributor / total resp. yes no yes no 1 2 3 4 27/131 73/131 66/131 34/131
current status quo is OK, recent damage was due to unique storm
range of importance (0= not important - 4 = very important) potential improvements number of jurisdiction
better engineering is needed better construction is needed increased building to approved plans is needed improved technical knowledge better enforcement plan review inspection more regional enforcement uniformity increase the code standards
10 10 11 5 18 17 10 23
19 8 7 5 11 12 13 27
42 31 25 19 26 24 28 19
24 36 19 39 33 35 16 18
15 25 45 43 22 21 42 21
APPENDIX III SEAW / WABO AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Tom Kinsman ICBO Chuck Williams WABO Don Cole Cap Pearson Corey Schmidt Gregg Schrader David Shaver SEAW Terry Lundeen Jay Taylor John Alving Joe Gehlen Kris Hamilton Coughlin Porter Lundeen Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Engineers Northwest Kramer Gehlen Associates Geiger Engineers
Seattle