ROOF SNOW LOADS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN

By Michael J. O ' R o u r k e , 1 M . ASCE

a n d Ulrich Stiefel 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Lognormal probability distribution functions for both ground snow

loads and the ground-to-roof conversion factor are used to establish lognormal
probability distribution functions for roof snow loads. Site specific values for
the conversion factor multiple aN were determined. The conversion factor mul-
tiple has the property that product of a N , the exposure factor EX, the thermal
factor T and the N-year mean recurrence interval (MRI) ground load equals the
Af-year (MRI) ground load equals the N-year MRI roof load. The conversion
factor multiples aw for mean recurrence intervals of 25, 50 and 100 years are
presented for 128 sites in the United States. The 50 year MRI multiples for all
except four sites fell in the range 0.56 s a s j S 0.66. These values were compared
with roof snow loads provisions in the 1982 American National Standard. It
was found that the use of the ANSI-1982 ground loads, which have a MRI of
about 50 years, in conjunction with the ANSI-1982 coversion factor multiple of
0.70 results, on average, in a flat roof snow load with a MRI of about 80 years.

INTRODUCTION

Roof snow loads are an important design consideration for many

structures. Presently, in the United States, the uniform roof snow load
for a flat single level roof is taken as the product of a design ground
snow load for the site and a conversion factor. The design ground snow
load for the site usually has a mean recurrence interval (MRI) of about
50 years. This indicates that there is about a 2% probability that the ground
load at the site will exceed the design ground load during any given
winter. The conversion factor is a function of the exposure of the site,
the thermal characteristics of the structure and the importance of the
structure (2).
Information is presently available on the probability density functions
for both the conversion factor as well as ground snow loads. In this
paper, the probability density function for the roof snow load is estab-
lished. In addition, the value of the conversion factor which when mul-
tiplied by the N year MRI ground load results in the N year MRI roof
load is determined. This information could prove useful to code and
standards writing groups in establishing a conversion factor for design
purposes.
Ground Loads.—In 1955, Thorn (7) used a lognormal distribution to
fit the series of annual maxima of the water equivalent of ground snow.
The 50-yr mean recurrence interval ground snow loads generated by Thorn
are the basis for the ground snow load map in the 1972 American Na-
tional Standard A58 (1). The ground load provisions for the 1982 Amer-
'Assoc. Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
12181.
2
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
New York 12181.
Note.—Discussion open until December 1, 1983. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical
and Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for
review and possible publication on August 11, 1982. This paper is part of the
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 7, July, 1983. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-.
9445/83/0007-1527/$01.00. Paper No. 18106.
1527

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 r
^ 0 . 3
-

/
/~N
1\ \ .^-loanormal Drobab

ity Density
density function
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^histogram
o
n
E o.i
o
0-
: /
/, i • :—r .
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Ground Snow Load (inches water)

FIG. 1.—Histogram and Probability Density Function for Annual Maximum Ground
Snow Load for Rochester, N.Y. (\„ = 0.815 and £s = 0.594)

ican National Standard A58 (2) are based upon work by Tobiasson and
Redfield (8), who also used a lognormal distribution to obtain 50-yr mean
recurrence interval ground loads for the United States.
Recently Ellingwood and Redfield (4) analyzed annual maximum water-
equivalent data recorded at 76 sites in the northeast quadrant of the United
States. They conclude that if one probability distribution is desired for
describing annual maximum water-equivalent ground snow data, the
lognormal distribution is preferable. In addition, the observation that
Type I or Type II distribution fit the data at a small number of stations
may result from sampling error due to limited sample size (4).
Based upon the aforementioned, it will be assumed that the annual
maximum water-equivalent ground load is modeled by the lognormal
distribution; the cumulative distribution function for ground load pg has
the form

F
PS(Vg) = <b (i)

in which \g = E[ln pg\, ^ = Var [ln pg], E[ ] is the expected value, Var
[ ] is the variance and <\> (.) is the standard normal probability integral
(5). A histogram of annual maximum ground loads and the correspond-
ing lognormal probability density function for Rochester, N.Y. are shown
in Fig. 1.
The parameters of the distribution, \g and %g, vary from site to site.
Table 1 presents Xg and %g for 128 stations located in the United States.
The distribution parameters \g and £g for the 76 stations in the North-
eastern quadrant are from Ellingwood and Redfield (4) while the distri-
bution parameters for the remaining 52 stations are from Tobiasson and
Redfield (8).
Conversion Factor.—As mentioned previously, the relationship be-
tween roof and ground snow loads is quantified by the conversion fac-
tor. Specifically, the conversion factor is defined as the ratio between
the annual maximum roof load and the annual maximum ground load
which may occur on different days. Therefore, multiplying the annual
maximum ground load by the conversion factor yields the annual max-
imum roof load which is the parameter of interest to structural engineers.
1528

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SETSog o o Ow ?3 3 # > g w 21
£i 5 § Si O 3 " 3 " O O, $ ST o £* <»
S s g S S re re 3 S. n 13
c 3 £- »- „ ° 3 8 3" O o re O u . re &> »
.ft- so en SOT
o" 05 re OQ OQ ff_ K 3 ^ SB
S ? 3" W § BJ"^ » p - P o ST ><K p* o
s n
PJT , , »-j OJ O % 3 CO H Jf
5> 3 P-B n i—
- B) so so BBo>yz Jo 5 o
* S Z.T3. F IS

iian jolis,
3 3 so

uth end, ]
Wa ne, In

s Moines, I
rlingt on, lo
ring eld, 11
£ I «? • i^s- sr-? p ' o'
3 CT a :-
If 3
n 3" 5 s> £3 ID O »—' o
3" • !"* 3 " n 01 t ;
mi o n
o
o" 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
>-» o o o o o o l - ' O O O l - ' l - ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O ©
M 0 1 K J ^ P W O » H « J O O l t J 0 \ ( J 1 * . M W U 1( M i ) W H * . O P » H U O O N O O M 0 1 0 1 ( j ) l v ) 0 \ 0 ^ 0 \ O U 0 1 f f i O > S l 3
O O v M M C M » 0 \ ^ h ' I I l * O H ! 1 0 \ » C h O \ J N U M f t l O K > N » I O U O « f t a U O O N ( » ^ t U O l ) ) U S l M M C O U [ »
"0

o p p p o o p o p p p p o p p p p o p o o p o p o p p p p o o p o p p p o o p o p p o p p p p o o
^ t J \ O C J i a C f t U W O ^ U l C O ^ W \ D ^ O \ O ^ H N J i [ J l C O U l v O O l O l W ^ t J v O O O H C M > J O [ O W U W \ 0 0 \ U ^ N 1 ^ 0 0
r o c ^ 0 1 W O M O 0 V O 0 \ W 0 1 h J 0 \ V 1 0 1 V I 0 0 0 \ i ^ > ^ ^ X l ^ a i C j l W M 0 i a i O i ^ l ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V 0 V 0 W M O 0 \ C n ^ D O O U I O
3
3
o p p p o p o o p o p p o p o p p o p o p p o p o p o p o o p o p p o p o p o p p o p o - o p o p o a
o

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

o

o p o o o o o o o o p o p o o o o o o o o o p o o o o o o o o o o o o o p o o o p p o o o o o o o
^cjiCjiuibicjiaNaNONaNasaNaNONUiCTNUiuiaNCjicjiCjicnbicnuicnui^ I
IT
N J C O i ( ) ( ! O O I O^ H-—O ^U W
H-O*WOO
W OO ^OO' C
OOO (O» I0) \CDON ON v] D
S 1^ Q
^ SO l Cl »O I <» ! »O( O) lOt D
» ^' O
C IC»CCOO\ ^0 W
[ O« ^l M
WO0 1
! ^i K
HO- 'W
O \UD»^ f Nt IMWO O) C
0 <O »C l O» H
H \« Dl
O VD S 1 U I100\ \ O C < H D S l » 0 \ O M U l U C h ( i U O O C 0 1 ! J M M 0 1 S l M M * a U l t O C O i » . H S l U W O \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 > S I
oi o\ ON oo vi to

oopoppooppopopooooooopoppoooopoopopoopooooooppopo
I
1
O O O~O O O r.>
_ N ^O H. .^ m J Or.,J W I ,rv K
r.^ V ^I i K K)
hTJC
r.^O .k^^ N
K-.J O
^ ^V .C^h jOv jh ,- „^i OQ0
O v*£>
CO00O O
O O H-' O O O O O h- •£>• I—' h^. ^O %] W W (Jl h-l V ] GO U1 K> O O U> h ^
" " * . 0 1 0 \ 0 1 » N O « M O \ ^ N 9 > l H O W 0 1 C M n N O O \ H H O » 0 ( J l ( l ( H O S | U U « 0 \
I
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Erie, Pa.
Ely, Nev.
Elko, Nev.
~

Burns, Oreg.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Albany, N.Y.
Newark, N.J.
Omaha, Neb.
Havre, Mont.

Dayton, Ohio
Norfold, Neb.

Fargo, N.Dak.
Duluth, Minn.

Clayton, N.M.
Helena, Mont.
Billings, Mont.

Syracuse, N.Y.

AUentown, Pa.
Concord, N.H.
Asheville, N.C.
Valentine, Neb.

Rochester, N.Y.
Kalispell, Mont.
Glasgow, Mont.

Missoula, Mont.
Springfield, Mo.
Int. Falls, Minn.

Mansfield, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Scottsbluff, Neb.
St. Cloud, Minn.
Rochester, Minn.

Kansas City, Mo.

Muskegon, Mich.

Williston, N.Dak.
Bismarck, N.Dak.
Atlantic City, N.J.
Great Falls, Mont.

North Platte, Neb.

Binghamton, N.Y.

Winnemucca, Nev.

Youngstown, Ohio
Grand Island, Neb.

Toledo, Expr., Ohio

Columbia Reg., Mo.

Akron-Canton, Ohio
Sault S. Marie, Mich.

Minn.-St. Paul, Minn.

NYC-LA Guard, N.Y.

|

1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o p p o p p p p o o p O O O O O o O t-> O o o o p o o o p o i—* »—»• i—^ p
p o p p p p "r^
p p1 o p o o p op o o
to U roHOiwbibiwbio OJ e o b s i - " N> b bo bo * * ON x i ON k) ON b o i J- bi to XI I—* b H »isj i-» 4=- M* OJ XI 4* b i >-> b i x i XI
01 H K) Ol W ON -!S
to W W * . U l U < J O O l l ( » OJ XI o K OJ
b io b tbo
ON ON 0 0 o o to ON XI N> IO t o ^ to NO H* ON X I XI 4=- H NO
U S) M Ol O Ol O ON
OJ >-» M c o » s > - t o i O N 0 4 ^ x i a N NO OS to Ol K) OJ XI Ol O NO XI O H-* * * XI ON * i M W IO 4=" OJ XI OI I—* XI ON 0 0 4* O ON Hi ON 4=- t o M XI OJ O l

p pp o p p p p p o o o p o p O O p p p p p p O p o p p o p p p p p p o o p p o p p p o p p p o o o
en ON O N ^ b i x j a N O N b i b i b i bo ON ON bo x i b i b i bo x i b i 4 * ON ON X I ON b o O N x i ON bo bo ON X I b i X I 4 ^ ON b i x i ON bo bo bo bo 4 * 4=- b i ON GO
IO Ol U V O N H M O O O O I O I h-*
** >-> OJ XI O Or Oi NO IO (-» NO 00 O l Ol 1—* O l O U H CO O 0 0 H» O l M O J NO 0 0 O M» ON X I t - » N O O l O l QO K ON -XJ
ON O ^ O S H O O s O m M M O XI Cn ON x i ON H-i NO * * XI * - XI K > ON XI * * ON O l O J O l o 4^ O J ON 0 0 ON |NJ O J 4 ^ ON NO o ht-
o * . o NO NO I O 0 0

p p o o p p o p o o p p p o p O p p o o p p p o p o p p o o p p pp p O o o p o p p p p pp p o o o
ON b i b i O N O s b i u i L n b i o s o s ON b i b i b i In In ON O l O l Ol Ol ON O l Ol Ol Ol Ol OI Ol Ol Ol Ul b i b i ON b i ON b i ON b i Ol b i b i b i b i ON ON ON b i
O 00 O O W O X I O O N O N O O O O J ON 00 0 0 ON ON NO ON X | NO h^ 00 00 XI 00 ON 00 XI XI ON O l NO ON M* XI h-» N ) H M 00 Ol ON Ol Ol W M M 00 *5

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

00 4=- • g o i ^ D t o s i i o c n w w 00 M ON O OJ
o
NO h-» l ^ O ^ U V OJ OJ 4=" OJ OJ XI * . NO OJ Ol 00 o to ON NO OJ tf> t o ON to 4^ 00 Ol N M
o *-»
p p a o o o p p p p o p p o o o p o p p p p p p p o p p o p p p p o o p p p p o p p o o o o p o p p
ON ON O N O N O N O I O N O N O N O N O N ON Ln ON ON In In ON ON O l O l ON ON ON ON O l ON O l ON O l ON O I O l ON b i ON b i O N ON ON O l ON b i b i b i b i ON ON ON ON
1
OJ o O l t ' U v O ' M H N I O M XI XI O O 00 0 0 I O l - » X I NO H-> 4 > X | 1—1 0 0 O J NO 4=> O 4 \ NO X I 00 XI XI OI 4 * 4 * 3
ON OS N O O l X l t O O O N M N O N O OJ NO NO I—1 • - *0 0 X I 0 0 0 0 #>• 0 0 NO O l O l * -
o o N O Ool 0(-»0 Ot - NO
*»
o 0h-10 H-» O J X I NO M * ON O to 4^ o t o Ol XI XI
o
O OJ
o #* o o

p p o p o o o o o p o p p o p p o O o o p p p p p o p p o o p p pp p o o p p o p p o o o o p o p p
b\ b\ O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N VI Ln ON ON b i O N ON ON O l ON ON ON ON ON ON ON O l ON ON ON Ol O l ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON b i b i b i b i ON ON ON ON
OS t o W M O H H W L O ^ U I C J I NO OJ IO NO O e n * » NO l - > 4* XI K) K> M | 0 NO OJ H* t o NO 00 OJ ON M-> XI H ON H IO 00 NO 0 0 NO 00 XI ON t o •H*
'55
K> X! K M U H W O D O l ) ^ ^
o
ON ON O >-> XI ON M-1 H * » O C D ON Ol OJ ON X I H^ OJ XI ON O I
o
Ol Ol O O J NO NO NJ O l X I ON Ol XI Ol X I OJ
o o
 TABLE 1.—-Continued
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Harrisburg, Pa. 0.206 0.649 0.584 0.606 0.627
Philadelphia, Pa. -0.426 0.781 0.566 0.584 0.601
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pittsburgh, Pa. 0.060 0.710 0.575 0.595 0.614

Scranton, Pa. -0.033 0.576 0.597 0.623 0.646
Williamsport, Pa. 0.134 0.595 0.594 0.618 0.641
Providence, R.I. 0.164 0.631 0.587 0.610 0.632
Aberdeen, S.Dak. 0.498 0.788 0.565 0.583 0.600
Huron, S.Dak. 0.321 0.909 0.552 0.568 0.583
Rapid City, S.Dak. -0.300 0.635 0.586 0.609 0.631
Sioux Falls, S.Dak. 0.340 0.830 0.560 0.577 0.593
Amarillo, Tex. -0.842 0.748 0.570 0.589 0.607
Milford, Utah -0.151 0.618 0.589 0.613 0.635
Salt Lake C , Utah -0.221 0.351 0.663 0.703 0.742
Washignton, D.C. 0.209 0.527 0.608 0.636 0.661
Burlington, Vt. 0.664 0.647 0.584 0.607 0.628
Spokane, Wash. 0.401 0.814 0.562 0.580 0.596
Stampede Pass, Wash. 3.868 0.350 0.663 0.704 0.743
Yakima, Wash. -0.228 0.881 0.555 0.571 0.586
Green Bay, Wise. 0.410 0.776 0.566 0.585 0.602
La Crosse, Wise. -0.006 0.919 0.552 0.567 0.581
Madison, Wise. 0.062 0.884 0.555 0.571 0.586
Milwaukee, Wise. 0.310 0.758 0.568 0.587 0.605
Charlestone, W.Va. -0.586 0.948 0.549 0.564 0.578
Elkins, W.Va. 0.089 0.649 0.584 0.606 0.627
Huntington, W.Va. -0.462 0.738 0.571 0.591 0.609
Casper, Wyo. -0.355 0.496 0.615 0.645 0.672
Cheyenne, Wyo. -0.228 0.617 0.590 0.613 0.635
Lander, Wyo. 0.346 0.479 0.620 0.650 0.679
Sheridan, Wyo. -0.084 0.805 0.563 0.581 0.597
a
Units In (inches of water).

While there are at least 10 years of data on annual maximum ground

loads for 128 stations in the United States, data on the conversion factor
is less plentiful. The largest collection of conversion factor data, corre-
sponding to 199 structures, was recently analyzed by O'Rourke, Red-
field and von Bradsky (6). Three years of conversion factor data was
available for 21 structures, while two years of data was available for the
remaining 120 structures.
O'Rourke et al. (6) have shown that the conversion factor is a function
of the exposure of the site (sheltered, semisheltered or windswept) as
well as the thermal characteristics of the structure (heated or unheated).
An analysis of the data resulted in the following relationship (6) for the
conversion factor C;
C = 0.47 EXTe (2)
in which EX = the exposure factor; T = the thermal factor; and e = a
random variable. The exposure factor EX equals 1.32 for sheltered roofs,
1.00 for semisheltered roofs and 0.95 for windswept roofs. The thermal
factor T is 1.00 for heated structures and 1.22 for unheated structures.
1531

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 The random variable e is an error term which accounts for the scatter in
the conversion factor data unrelated to exposure and thermal terms.
O'Rourke et al. (6) fit the error term data with a lognormal distribution
having Xe = E[ln e] = 0.0 and g = Var [In e] = 0.176. Hence the cu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mulative distribution function for the error term e becomes

lne
Fe(e) = * (3)

A histogram of the error term data and the corresponding lognormal

probabilistic density function are shown in Fig. 2.
For a given structure, the exposure and thermal factors are known
constants; therefore, the conversion factor is the product of a set of con-
stants times a lognormal distribution. From Eqs. 2 and 3, the cumulative
distribution function for the conversion factor becomes
ln c
Fc(Q = + (4)

where \ c = In (.47 EXT) and £c = £E = 0.42.

Roof Loads.—As mentioned previously, the roof load pr is the product
of the ground load and the conversion factor
Pr=C-pg (5)
or pr = 0.47EXTep g . (6)
where again EX and T are constant for a particular structure while both
e and pg are lognormal random variables. It will be assumed herein that
the ground load and conversion factor are statistically independent for
ground loads of engineering design interest. Hence, the annual maxi-

hislogram

lognormal probability density

function

0.6 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

Conversion Factor - Error Term

FIG. 2.—Histogram and Probability Density Function for Conversion Factor Error
Term (X, = 0.0 and £e = 0.419)

1532

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 mum roof load also has a lognormal probability distribution. The cu-
mulative distribution function for the maximum annual roof load becomes
In (pr) - V
fp,(Pr) = <f> (7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which \r = \c + Xg = In (.47 EXT) + \g and g = g + gg = .176 +

(jg. This approach is quite similar to that used by Ellingwood and Har-
ris (3) in their study of snow loads for nuclear power plant structures.
The design ground snow loads specified in most codes and load stan-
dards (1,2) have a mean recurrence interval of about 50 years. From Eq.
1, the ground snow load with a mean recurrence interval of N years is
given by
1
(pg)N = e x p K + L<$>~ (8)

where 4T1 ( ) is the percentage point function of the standard normal

distribution. For example, using \g = 0.610 and %g = 0.482 results in a
50 yr MRI ground load for Albany, N.Y. of 4.96 in. of water or 25.8 psf.
Likewise, from Eq. 7 the roof snow load with a mean recurrence interval
of N years is given by

(Pr)h exp X. + i ^ j l - i (9)

Conversion Factor for Structural Design.—The design conversion fac-

tor in codes and load standards should be such that the product of the
design conversion factor and the N-year MRI ground snow load equals
the N-year MRI roof load; one would be interested in the value for aN
such that
(pr)N = a N EXr(p g ) N .. (10)
or from Eqs. 8 and 9

0.47 exp Vg + . ^ e W i - ^
<%: (11)
exp fe*" 1

Note that the multiplier aN is always larger than 0.47. This results from
the fact that the variance of the roof loads, which results from a com-
bination of the variance of the ground load and the variance of the error
term is larger than the variance of the ground loads. If the variance of
the error term, g was equal to zero, the multiplier aN would equal 0.47
for all values of N. In addition, the multiplier aN increases for increasing
values of N due to the difference in variances between roof and ground
loads.
Ot25 < « 5 0 < <*100 (12)
Finally, the multiplier aN is independent of' the exposure factor EX and
the thermal factor T.
1533

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 Listed in Table 1 are the site specific multipliers aN evaluated for mean
recurrence intervals of 25, 50 and 100 years. At each site, as expected,
the 100 year MRI multiplier is larger than the 50 year MRI multiplier
which in turn is larger than the 25 year MRI multiplier; however the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

difference between a 2 5, otso and a100 at each site is generally small.

Except for four sites, all the 50 year MRI multipliers fall in the range
.56 :£ a50 ^ .66. Sites with low values for the variance of ground load,
ijg, have corresponding larger site specific values for a 50 , as expected
from Eq. 11. The average value of a50 for the 128 sites listed in Table 1
was 0.606. The corresponding average values for a25 and ai00 are 0.584
and 0.627 respectively.
Although the multipliers are slightly higher for Northern Minnesota
and Northern Michigan, the overall correlation between the conversion
factor multiplier and the ground loads is poor. For example, Fig. 3 shows
the scatterplot of a50 vs. the 50-year MRI ground load for the sites in
Table 1. The correlation coefficient for the 128 data points in Fig. 3 is
less than 0.10.
Comparison with ANSI Load Standard.—The most up-to-date snow
load provisions for the United States are found in the 1982 National
Standard (2). The 1982 ANSI equation for the basic flat roof snow load
in the contiguous 48 states is
pr = 0.70 CeCtIpg (13)
where 0.70 = the conversion factor multiple for normal roofs; Ce = the
ANSI exposure factor; Ct = the ANSI thermal factor; I = the importance
factor; and pg = the design ground snow load having a MRI of about 50
years.
The exposure factor in the 1982 ANSI standard ranges from 0.8 to 1.2
for five classifications of roof exposure. The 1982 ANSI values of Ce are
1.2 for sheltered roofs, 1.0 for semisheltered roofs, and 0.8 for wind-
swept roofs. The 1982 ANSI exposure factors Ce have about the same

° SINGLE DATA POINT

8
MULTIPLE DATA POINTS

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (PQ).5
50 YEAR MRI GROUND SNOW LOAD (INCHES WATER)

FIG. 3.—Scatterplot of a50 versus the 50 Year MRI Ground Load (ps)5(
1534

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 range as the exposure factors EX developed by O'Rourke et al. (6).
The 1982 ANSI thermal factor C, is a function of the inside temperature
of the structure. Q equals 1.0 for heated structures, 1.1 for structures
kept just above freezing, and 1.2 for unheated structures. Notice that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the 1982 ANSI thermal factors C, are quite close to the thermal factor T
developed by O'Rourke et al. (6).
The purpose of the risk factor I is to increase structural design loads
for cases where the consequences of failure are greater than normal and
conversely, reduce loads where the consequences are less than normal.
The risk factors range from 0.8 to 1.2 with a value of 1.0 for most per-
manent structures. The risk factor adjusts the basis for pg. That is, 0.8
pg has a MRI of about 25 years while 1.2 pg has a MRI of about 100 years.
From Eq. 13 it is clear that the 1982 American National Standard rec-
ommends a conversion factor multiple of a = 0.70 for normal permanent
structures. Recall from the previous section that the 50-year MRI con-
version factor multiple averaged 0.606 for the sites considered herein.
Hence at sites where a50 = 0.606, the use of a = 0.70 in combination
with a 50 year MRI ground load results in a roof load which is about
16% larger than the 50 year MRI roof load (0.70/0.606 = 1.155). For sites
where a50 = 0.56 roof loads are about 25% higher and where aso = 0.66
the load is about 6% higher than the actual 50 year MRI roof loads.
The ground loads recommended in ANSI-1982 are zone specific val-
ues. Since the zoned value is generally a little larger than many of the
site specific ground loads in the zone, the ANSI recommended roof load
exceed, on average, the 50 year MRI roof load at the site by a little more
than 16%.
In other words, the use of the ANSI-1982 ground loads which have a
MRI of about 50 years in conjunction with a conversion factor multiple
of 0.70, results, for the average site, in flat roof snow load with a MRI
of about 80 years.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Lognormal probability distribution functions for both ground snow loads

and the ground-to-roof conversion factor are used to establish the log-
normal probability distribution function for roof snow loads. Site specific
value for the conversion factor multiple aN were determined. The con-
version factor multiple has the property that the product of aN EX T and
the N-year MRI ground load equals the N-year MRI roof load. The con-
version factor multiples a^ for mean recurrence intervals of 25, 50 and
100 years are presented for 128 sites in the United States. The average
values for a 25 , aso and a100 were 0.584, 0.606 and 0.627 respectively. The
50-year MRI multiples for all but four sites fell in the range of 0.56 s
a50 < 0.66.
The 50-year MRI conversion factor multiple inherent in the 1982 Amer-
ican National Standard is 0.70 in the lower 48 states. Since this value is
larger than almost all a50 values, the flat roof snow loads recommended
in ANSI-1982 are, on average, about 16% higher than the 50 year MRI
roof loads. In other words, the use of the ANSI-1982 ground loads, which
have a MRI of about 50 years, in conjunction with the ANSI-1982 con-
1535

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 version factor multiple of 0.70 results, on average, in a flat roof s n o w
load with a MRI of about 80 years.
It must be noted that t h e s e conclusions are based o n conversion factor
data in which the bulk of the information w a s from a single year.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation

through grant n u m b e r 81-10025. However, the findings a n d conclusions
are the authors alone, a n d do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation. The authors w o u l d also like to thank Bruce
Ellingwood of the National Bureau of Standards a n d Louis Steyart of the
National Oceanic a n d Atmospheric Administration for their review of
this manuscript.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. "American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum De-

sign Loads in Building and Other Structures," ANSI A58.1-1972, American
National Standard Institute, New York, 1972.
2. "American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum De-
sign Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," ANSI A58.1-1982, American
National Standard Institute, New York, 1982.
3. Ellingwood, B., and Harris, J., "Snow Loads for the Design of Nuclear Power
Plant Structures," NUREG/CR-2638, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Apr., 1982, p. 44.
4. Ellingwood, B., and Redfield, R., "Ground Snow Loads for Structural De-
sign," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 4, Apr., 1983, pp.
950-964.
5. Johnson, N., and Kotz, S., Continuous Univariate Distributions, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, N.Y., 1970.
6. O'Rourke, M., Redfield, R., and von Bradsky, P., "Snow Loads on Structures;
Uniform Loads," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST12,
Dec, 1982, pp. 2781-2798.
7. Thorn, H., "Distribution of Maximum Annual Water Equivalent of Snow on
the Ground," Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 94, No. 4, Apr., 1966, pp. 265-
271.
8. Tobiasson, W., and Redfield, R., "Snow Loads for the United States," U.S.
Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Report, Hanover,
N.H., 1983.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

C = conversion factor;
Q = exposure factor in ANSI-1982;
C, = thermal factor in ANSI-1982;
EX = exposure factor;
F = cumulative probability distribution function;
I = importance factor in ANSI-1982;
p = water equivalent snow load;
T = thermal factor;
P = conversion factor multiple;
e = error term for conversion factor;
1536

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537

 \, £ = parameters of lognormal distribution; and
$(•) - standard normal probability integral.

Subscripts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 06/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

g = ground;
N = Mean Recurrence Interval; and
r = roof.

1537

J. Struct. Eng., 1983, 109(7): 1527-1537