walterbrennan
Structural
- May 21, 2005
- 50
Howdy...
Given: a gabled roof with an attached, flat lower roof immediately adjacent to the low end of the gable on one side.
Desired: is the drift height (hd) specifically limited by the vertical difference between the top of the low (flat) roof and the bottom of the gable above; or can (should) it "creep" up past the end of the gable, if the calculations indicate such a drift height? ASCE's diagram (fig. 7-8, chapter 7.0, ASCE 7-02) only demonstrates an aerodynamic drift situation between flat roofs of different heights, separated only by vertical distance. And the language in section 7.7 doesn’t seem particularly definitive on this matter, either.
A logical extension of that question would be whether or not sliding snow would be included on top of the drift; as was indicated by figures back in the good ol' UBC. Although ASCE 7 states, in section 7.9, “Sliding loads shall be superimposed on the balanced snow loads," it seems to me like if there were a substantial (vertical) difference between upper roof eave and lower roof surface, you could expect (aerodynamic) drifting AND sliding loads to occur at the lower roof. Would you consider such an opinion horrendously over-conservative?
Opinions…?
Thanks,
walterbrennan
Given: a gabled roof with an attached, flat lower roof immediately adjacent to the low end of the gable on one side.
Desired: is the drift height (hd) specifically limited by the vertical difference between the top of the low (flat) roof and the bottom of the gable above; or can (should) it "creep" up past the end of the gable, if the calculations indicate such a drift height? ASCE's diagram (fig. 7-8, chapter 7.0, ASCE 7-02) only demonstrates an aerodynamic drift situation between flat roofs of different heights, separated only by vertical distance. And the language in section 7.7 doesn’t seem particularly definitive on this matter, either.
A logical extension of that question would be whether or not sliding snow would be included on top of the drift; as was indicated by figures back in the good ol' UBC. Although ASCE 7 states, in section 7.9, “Sliding loads shall be superimposed on the balanced snow loads," it seems to me like if there were a substantial (vertical) difference between upper roof eave and lower roof surface, you could expect (aerodynamic) drifting AND sliding loads to occur at the lower roof. Would you consider such an opinion horrendously over-conservative?
Opinions…?
Thanks,
walterbrennan