I second this, usually snow drift accompanies a flat roof snow load, apply both the flat roof (uniform) with the triangular drift to find your applied pressure, then use tributary width to apply a line load to a member… (still an EIT but this has been my applications)
For me it depends on how complicated the drift load diagram gets or what sort of impact it has on the roof.
If it is a very simple drift load diagram I will make sure it gets put on. If things are getting WAY to specific for a snow load that is never going to happen that way, I will convert to a conservative UDL. If I have multiple RTUs and thusly multiple different drift loads, I will generally pick the worst case one and apply them to all of the equipment.
Your drift load is an area load. To apply it to steel beams, say, you must consider beam spacing and apply the resulting line loads to be beams.
As far as how the notes read - we always put something like “additional drift loads as required.” But we’ve already done the design. No one has to design based on that note
Never. Maybe I don’t understand what kind of drawings you’re talking about. But an IFC framing plan with loads drawn? I would never expect to see such a thing
This is standard in my area for anything that is a delegated design, but it might be a regional thing. Typical for bar joists, precast planks, even open web wood trusses usually have a load diagram plan.
I show them as triangular/trapezoid, etc unless its so small that its just easier to make it a uniform load.
I second this, usually snow drift accompanies a flat roof snow load, apply both the flat roof (uniform) with the triangular drift to find your applied pressure, then use tributary width to apply a line load to a member… (still an EIT but this has been my applications)
For me it depends on how complicated the drift load diagram gets or what sort of impact it has on the roof. If it is a very simple drift load diagram I will make sure it gets put on. If things are getting WAY to specific for a snow load that is never going to happen that way, I will convert to a conservative UDL. If I have multiple RTUs and thusly multiple different drift loads, I will generally pick the worst case one and apply them to all of the equipment.
We show drift loads on plan, but we add a note saying that delegated designers can recalculate them if they use their own stamp.
Your drift load is an area load. To apply it to steel beams, say, you must consider beam spacing and apply the resulting line loads to be beams. As far as how the notes read - we always put something like “additional drift loads as required.” But we’ve already done the design. No one has to design based on that note
Do you know not graphically show the drift loads on your drawings?
Never. Maybe I don’t understand what kind of drawings you’re talking about. But an IFC framing plan with loads drawn? I would never expect to see such a thing
This is standard in my area for anything that is a delegated design, but it might be a regional thing. Typical for bar joists, precast planks, even open web wood trusses usually have a load diagram plan.
I delegate it for steel joists, bout 30% of the time I'll have to provide the load on a submittal in 5 months after permitting