Investigation of Winter Roof Failures:

Lessons Learned

ASCE Web Seminar

Presented by Alexander Newman, P.E.

Copyright © 2015 Alexander Newman.

All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this material without a written permission
of the copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law
1

 Agenda
 Introduction: Roof failure vs. collapse
 The process of roof failure investigation
 Structural roof failures in winter
 Nonstructural roof failures in winter
 Conclusion, final Q&A

2
 Introduction: Roof Failure vs. Collapse
 Collapse (Structural Failure)
 “Breaking apart and falling down suddenly”
 Non-Structural Failure
 Roof no longer functions as intended, e.g.:
Deflects excessively
Leaks
 Accidents resulting from falls, snow removal (not our focus)
 Original failure can lead to others
E.g., leaks lead to mold or corrosion
3

Introduction
 How We Can Learn From Winter Roof Failures
 By knowing the common causes of failures
 By understanding which elements failed and how
 By learning which design details have performed well…and
which have not
 Learn how structural and nonstructural failures are related

4
 Introduction
 Typical Causes of Winter Roof Failures
 Overload
 Poor or questionable design
E.g., finishes damaged by excessive deflections
 Poor construction
 Deterioration (wood, steel)

Introduction
 Which Roof Structures Are Most Problematic in
Winter?
 An NCSEA survey* after 2003 winter storms, which
represented SEAs from 14 states concluded:
 Most distress was suffered by plated wood-truss roofs (and
cold-formed steel trusses) and MBS

*See Structure, May 2003, pp. 21-23.

6
Photo: A. Newman
 Introduction
 Some Problematic Roofs Areas Discussed
Below
Snow drift
 Shallow slope
 Areas with drifted snow
Parapets, lower roofs
 Valleys

Losses from failures attributable to this condition are counted in $100’s millions
7 Source: Wayne Tobiasson, “Some Thoughts on Snow Loads,” Structure, Winter 1995

The Process of Roof Failure

Investigation

 Extent and Complexity Depend on Scope

 Insurance claims can often be investigated quickly
 Investigation of extensive problems can take months
Litigation, years

8
 Investigation
 The Investigation Process for Simple Cases
 Site visit by a single investigator or a small team
Visual review of field conditions
Use basic tools (e.g., tape, probe)
Interview owner or representative
Review documentation, if available
 Report

Investigation
 The Investigation Process for Complex Cases
 Site visit by a multidisciplinary team (next)
Review design and construction documentation (CDs,
COs, product submittals)
Review of field conditions (visual + measurements)
Use basic and specialized tools (e.g., moisture meters)
Interview owner or representative
Testing samples in lab, if needed
Repeat as needed…
 Report
10
 Investigation
 Who Is On Multidisciplinary Team?
 Specialized design professionals (architects, structural
engineers, material scientists, corrosion experts, cost
estimators, roof consultants)
 Contractors (demolition, roofing)
 Access providers (portable platform operators, riggers)

11

Investigation
 Is True Overload Common?
 Generally, not very, e.g.:
“Most of the failures occurred at snow loads less than the
minimum design roof loads…”*
*Study of Structural Failures Associated with the Winter 2008-2009 Snow Event in the
Spokane/Coeur d’Alene Area, Structural Engineers Association of Washington
(SEAW), Spokane Chapter, December 2009.

12
 Investigation
 Estimating Weight of Snow Loading on Roof
 Some recommend the following general guidelines*:
10-12” fresh snow ≈ 3-5” packed or old snow ≈ 1” ice ≈ 5 psf
So 4’ of fresh snow should be OK (≈ 20 psf) for most roofs
 Others** recommend using 1.25 psf x inches of snow (assume
25% moisture density)
 So 30” of snow ≈ 37.5 psf

*Source: “Guidance for Understanding How Much Snow Is Too Much for Your Home’s Roof to Handle,”
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, 2012, at
[Link]

**Source: Kevin Hunt, “Really, How Much Snow Would It Take to Collapse Your Roof?” The Bottom Line,
March 02, 2013 at
[Link]
13 buildup-snow-load-dense-snow.

Investigation
 Estimating Weight of Snow After the Fact
 Conservatively, see the map of total amount of snow on the
ground on the date of the claim (expressed as inches of water
equivalent) by National Operational Hydrologic Remote
Sensing Center at [Link]

14
 Structural Roof Failures in Winter
 Wood Structures
 Typ., modern houses and other buildings are OK
 Problematic structures:
Old poorly designed or built residential sloped roofs in
barns, garages
Balloon-framed buildings
Wood-rot damaged structures
Trusses (esp. bowstring)

15

Structural Failures

 Balloon Framing and

Similar Systems

16
 Structural Failures
 Case Study 1: Collapse of Utility Building Roof
 Two-story storage building partly collapsed under snow load
 Overload claimed

Investigation
17
complexity: Medium

Structural Failures
 Case Study: Documenting Existing Conditions

joists

8x8 posts

studs
18 2nd floor framing plan 15” max. separation
 Structural Failures
 Case Study: Deciphering Framing System

joists

Trusses
and rafters
bearing
on studs

8x8 posts

studs
19 Roof framing plan 15” max. separation

Structural Failures
 Case Study: Second-Floor Framing

20
Floor joists largely intact but show widespread water damage
 Structural Failures
 Case Study: Roof Framing

Birds-mouth connections
21

Structural Failures
 Case Study: Roof Framing, Cont’d

Fracture of birds-mouth connections.

22
Note the absence of any fasteners
 Structural Failures
 Case Study: Roof Framing, Cont’d

Truss

23

Case Study, Cont’d

Edge of
floor

Studs supporting trusses

Only a Some posts split lengthwise
separated from floor
24 few nails
 Structural Failures
 Case Study: Analysis
 No record snowfalls occurred in the area in last few years
 Conclusion: Cause of failure is gradual deterioration,
compounded by lack of maintenance, in combination with
deficiencies in original design and construction.

25
Conditions elsewhere

Structural Failures

 Failures of Wood Trusses

 Design related
 Overload (by added DL -- roofing layers, esp. if no snow
load used, ceilings, HVAC; will discuss in bowstring trusses)
 Poor construction/workmanship or later alterations
 Deterioration (decay) or creep under load
 Material defects
 Shrinkage
 A combination of these (e.g., chord damage from overstress
in tension, too-high loads on bolted joints + shrinkage)
26
 Structural Failures
 One Common Failure: Bottom Chord Break
 Often at knots (or splits at bottom chord w/ sloped grain)

27
ASCE webinar Renovation of Wood Trusses addresses truss repairs

Structural Failures
 Failures of Bowstring Trusses
 Popular 1920s – early 1960s, span 50-200’, height ~ 1/8 span
 Parabolic top chord of 2 members, each with 4 to 10 spiked
laminations of 2x3 or 2x4, typ. of dense No. 1 So. Pine
 Bear on thru-bolted U-brackets
 In the 1960s, glulam top chords

28
 Structural Failures
 Bowstring Trusses: Typical Problems

 More frequent failures than other trusses

 Overstress of bottom chords (incl. splices) by balanced snow
 Overstress of web-to-chord connections by unbalanced snow
 Decay from leaks in top chord lamination gaps or rot at U-
brackets
 Delaminating and sagging top chord in web-to-chord
connections.

Source: R. Kristie and A. Johnson, “Investigating and Repairing Wood

Bowstring Trusses,” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, Vol. 1, No. 1, Feb. 1996. Reproduced with permission of
29 the publisher, ASCE

Structural Failures
 Case Study 2: Roof Over 2-story Balcony

 Failed under heavy snow accumulation

Investigation
complexity:
Simple

More on wood
30 structures later…
 Structural Failures

 Metal Building Systems (MBS)

 A.k.a. pre-engineered metal buildings

ROOF SYSTEM
ROOF PURLIN
EAVE STRUT
ENDWALL FRAME
RIGID FRAME
BRACING

EAVE
HEIGHT
CLEAR
SPAN

GIRT
RIGID FRAME
COLUMN FRAME
BAY SPACING WIDTH
31

Structural Failures
 Primary and Secondary Roof Members
 Frame flange bracing
 One- or two-sided bracing

Purlins

32 Primary frame
 Structural Failures
 Purlin Failure Modes
 Lateral (flexural) buckling
 Flexural-torsional buckling
 Torsional buckling (suspended loads, etc.)

P
33

Structural Failures

 Purlin Bracing
 Why it is needed
 What can provide it?
 Discrete bracing: angle, strap, channel
Details follow
 Bracing for uplift conditions from wind and gravity
 Using liner panels for bracing bottom flange
 Some practices and assumptions vary among designers

See ASCE webinar Lateral Bracing of Flexural Member for a longer

34 discussion of the topic
 Structural Failures

 Three Functions of Purlin Bracing

1. Provide lateral bracing for member’s compression flange
2. Restrain member from rotation (torsion from load,
suspended items)
3. Restrain the whole assembly of purlins and roofing from
lateral translation

35

Structural Failures
 Purlin Bracing: Effective vs. Less Effective

 Less effective: Parallel-angle bracing and diagonal bracing

- Not very effective against uplift,

- Limited capacity for gravity

Slightly more effective with TFR, less

effective with SSR
36
 Structural Failures
 Effective Bracing: Cross-Bracing

37
Arrival and Departure Airfield Control Facility, Pope AFB, NC (USACE)

Structural Failures
 Effective Bracing: Channel Bracing

 Computed forces in braces often measured in kips

 Spacing: Placing bracing too far apart can lead to local
crippling at points of attachment
 Instructor recommends bracing at ¼ points and at supports

38
 Structural Failures
 Effective Bracing Requires Sturdy Ridge
Channels

39

Structural Failures
 Purlin Bracing at Supports
 Sturdy bearing clips
 Antiroll clips
 The instructor recommends them at every
purlin support

Antiroll clip
After F. Zamecnic, “Errors in Utilization of Cold-Formed Steel Members,”
40 ASCE Journal Str. Div., Dec. 1980
 Structural Failures
 Lack of Bracing Leads to Failures

41

Structural Failures
 Unanticipated Snow Drift Loading
 Snow-drift effects were not considered in previous practice
 Parapets and high walls: A common cause of roof failures

42
 Structural Failures
 Case Study 3: Failure of MBS with High Parapet
under Heavy Snow Load
 Warehouse in a Mid-Atlantic state
 Designed before codes adopted snow-drift provisions

Investigation complexity:
43 Complex

Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Local snow-drift load greatly exceeded Ps

44
 Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d

45

Structural Failures
 Lesson: Properly Specify Roof Loading

 Live vs. Roof Snow Load

 Some notes read: Design Loads => Roof => “live load”…
 LL reduction allowed by code, not snow

 Ground vs. Roof Snow Load

 Code formulas vary
E.g., Pf = 0.7ICtPg

46
 Structural Failures
 Case Study 4: Improper Specifying Snow Load in
Northern New England
 Owner needed storage facility, contracted with out-of-state
supplier, who bought a building from another mfr
 Contract specified 30-psf “live load”… code not given,
generally BOCA was used in NE
 Site was in blacked-out region of BOCA snow maps
 No design professional involved
 Closest mapped value: 60 psf

Investigation complexity:
47 Complex

Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 The out-of-state supplier called local building inspector, was
told to use 30 psf
 The building collapsed under heavy snow accumulation
 Forensic investigation:
Frames failed by overstress at the knees
Actual frame capacity was only 23 psf
Should have used Pg of 60-80 psf (Pf of 42-56 psf)
 Who’s to blame?

48 A similar building
 Structural Failures
 Case Study 5: Failure Under Snow Load, Upper
Midwest
 School gym building collapsed
 Reported 1 ft. of snow + 1” of ice
 Native American territory, building code unclear
 Recent renovations added
insulation and wood studs
between Z purlins
 No original CD’s

Investigation complexity:
49 Complex

Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d

Gable frame

Lean-to

50
 Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d

51

Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Forensic investigation:
Frame had insufficient capacity to resist the reported
load (1 ft. of snow + 1” of ice ~ 28 psf)
Per then-current IBC-03 should have been designed for
Pg = 70 psf (Pf of 49 psf)
Renovations added minor DL (1.3 psf), actually
stiffened purlins laterally

52
 Structural Failures
 Lesson: Consider Partial Loading on Continuous
Elements (see ASCE 7)
 Three cases should be considered, using balanced snow and
½ balanced snow for members perp. to ridge with slopes less
than ½:12
One more reason not to use ¼:12 slope …

Note: Left support

could be absent at
cantilevers

53

Structural Failures

 A Failure Where
Patterned Snow Was
Neglected
 Continuous Z-section
purlins got overloaded

54
 Structural Failures
 Importance of Vertical Deflection Criteria
 Traditional limits: L/360 for plastered ceilings; L/240 for
unplastered ceilings (L/180 roof)
 Deflection limits per IBC Table 1604.3, (partial):

Roof members… Live Snow Dead +

Load or Wind Live
Supporting plaster ceiling L/360 L/360 L/240

Supporting non-plaster ceiling L/240 L/240 L/180

Not supporting ceiling L/180 L/180 L/120

55

Structural Failures
 Vertical Deflection Criteria
 IBC footnotes to Table 1604.3 provide vertical deflection
criteria for metal
Total load deflection L/60 for metal roofing & siding sheets
LL deflection of L/150 for secondary members supp. metal
roof without other roof covering

56
 Structural Failures
 But Remember That…
 For the typ. 25’ span L/150 deflection = 2”
 Tolerances for frame installation often cause local dips
 Deflections from hung pipes, lights, etc. distort purlins
 Limits depend on partition details and adequate slope
 What if a ceiling is added later?

 Large Deflections Could Result In:

 Ice-dam formation, leaks
 Sometimes, total structural collapse

57

Structural Failures
 Case Study 6 (From a Few Litigation Cases)
 Collapse of large industrial metal building facility bought “on
budget,” with little or no collateral load
 Structural trapezoidal roofing, ¼: 12 slope under heavy snow.
 Owner procures a wet sprinkler system after MBS built
 Sprinkler mains suspended from 1st interior line of purlins

Investigation complexity:
58 Complex
A similar building
 Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 8”-dia. water-filled sprinkler main pipe weighs 50 #/ft
Commonly suspended 10 ft o.c. – every other purlin
500 lb hanging load!
Probably applied eccentrically to purlin…
 A 500-lb concentrated load is ~ 8 psf collateral load!
=> major overstress in bottom purlin flange…
…and large deflection of the 1st purlin

59 P

Structural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Investigation: Under deflected purlins and roofing, no
drainage existed, ice formed in the depression. 1st purlin
deflected most, as sprinkler mains were suspended from it.

 Purlin failed, rotated, pulled on roofing, caused other purlins

to fail, since no purlin bracing existed

Little or no deflection at wall

60
 Structural Failures
 Lesson: Snow Guards in Metal Roofing
 Careful: Some roofs have failed under heavy snow
accumulation
– Snow guards can keep snow still, cannot stop a slide
– Design roofs with snow guards for flat-roof
snow?

61

Structural Failures
 Structural Steel and Open-Web Steel Joists
 Generally perform well in winter
Except poorly designed and built
Ponding is one concern (next)

62
 Structural Failures
 Don’t Neglect Potential Ponding Issues
 …even in winter!
 Ponding: lack of positive drainage
 IBC-12 Chap. 2:
POSITIVE ROOF DRAINAGE. The drainage condition in which consideration has
been made for all loading deflections of the roof deck, and additional slope has
been provided to ensure drainage of the roof within 48 hours of precipitation.

 Coordinate location of primary (and secondary, if needed)

drains w/plumbing engineers and framing slope direction
 Ponding can result in leakage,
accumulation of ice in winter,
63 overload and failure

Structural Failures
 Ponding, Cont’d
 Design of steel structures against ponding: AISC Spec. 2010
App. 2, Design for Ponding
Provides “Simplified” and “Improved” design procedures
to find adequate strength and stiffness
 In simplified method, must satisfy two conditions:
Cp + 0.9Cs ≤ 0.25
Id ≥ 25(S4)10–6 where

૜૛ࡸ࢙ࡸ૝࢖ ૜૛ࡿࡸ૝࢙
࡯࢖ ൌ and ࡯࢙ ൌ
૚૙ૠࡵ࢖ ૚૙ૠࡵ࢙
Ip , Is , Id = mom. inertia of primary, secondary members and steel deck (in4)
Lp , Ls , S = length of primary, secondary members and spacing of secondary
64
members, ft.
 Structural Failures
 Case Study 7: Ponding Failure
 Partial roof collapse in a warehouse
Framing: Joists, cantilevered steel beams
 Error: No bracing or web stiffeners
at beams over columns

A poor detail
A better detail See ASCE webinar Lateral Bracing
of Flexural Members for discussion
65 Investigation complexity: Complex of bracing for this system

Nonstructural Roof Failures in Winter

 Most Common
 Leaks
 Excessive deflections
May cause structural damage

 Leaks
 Lesson: Critical role of underlayment
 Another layer of water resistance for steep-slope roofing
 Reduces leaks from ice-dam water
 Often required by codes in new construction
66
 Nonstructural Failures
 Leaks, Cont’d
 In snowy regions, higher-than-min. slope is beneficial
 IBC-12, -09 Chap. 15, Sec. 1507 (also, IRC-09 Sec. R905),
Requirements for Roof Coverings: Min. slope for asphalt
shingles is 2:12
But from 2:12 to 4:12, double underlayment req’d

67

Nonstructural Failures
 Leaks in Sloped Shingle Roofs
 Ice dams: Classic source of leaks in snowy regions
 Lesson: Underlayment helps

68
 Nonstructural Failures
 Avoiding Leaks in Metal Roofs
 Min. pitch of metal roofs per IBC
Lapped, nonsoldered seam without lap sealant 3:12
Lapped nonsoldered seam with lap sealant ½ :12
Standing-seam ¼ :12
Metal roof shingles 3:12
 These may not be adequate for snow regions (see next)

69

Minimum Recommended Slopes for Various Types Slope Slope,

% in./ft.
of Metal Roofing
Panels with water-shedding joints, except as listed below
Architectural (non-structural) and structural panels wider than 305 33 4
mm (12 in.)

Panels with underlayment or with joints > 2 in. high

Architectural panels, and structural panels no wider than 305 mm
(12 in.), both with underlayment and with seams at least 38 mm (1½
in.), but less than 51 mm (2 in.) high
Architectural panels with seams at least 51 mm (2 in.) high, with 25 3
underlayment; and structural panels no wider than 305 mm (12 in.)
with seams at least 51 mm (2 in.) high.

Where the ground snow load is more than 98 kg/m2 (20 psf)
Where the ground snow load is 98 kg/m2 (20 psf) or less 25 3
17 2
(Adapted from US
Army Corps of
Engineers TI 809-53,
1999.) “Waterproof” panels

Where the ground snow load is more than 98 kg/m2 (20 psf) 8 1
Where the ground snow load is 98 kg/m2 (20 psf) or less 4 ½
70
 Nonstructural Failures
 Poor Installation + Low Slope + Snow = Leaks

See ASCE webinar Avoiding Problems in Specifying Metal Roofing for

71 more examples

Nonstructural Failures
 Lesson: Failures of Metal Roofing Under Snow
 Use “waterproof” roofing with Pittsburgh double lock seams
 Increase min. slope requirements beyond code-mandated
(e.g., 1:12 or even 2:12 in snow regions)
 Increase purlin deflection criteria

72
 Nonstructural Failures
 Excessive Deflections at Shallow Roof Slope

 Overly low-slope (1/4:12) roofing allows for ice buildup at the

eaves => leakage and overload (1:12 is better)
 What if a ceiling is added later?
Ceiling tiles buckle under heavy snow loading
 Claims and litigation occurred over this

This condition is
temporary and reversible

See ASCE webinar Design of Building Structures for Serviceability for

73 instructor’s recommendations for new construction

Nonstructural Failures
 Case Study 8: Failure of Steep-Slope Roof
 Leakage in recent 3-season porch addition (closed-up
existing open porch, added windows, finishes)
Damage to gyp. board, paint, one window broken
Under heavy snow accumulation and ice-dam conditions
 Investigation:
Roof pitch 1:12 – well below min. 2:12 for asphalt shingles!
Framing size NG – large deflections + ice dam caused
damage
Asphalt shingles

Investigation
complexity: Simple
74
 Nonstructural Failures
 Case Study 9: Garage Wall Pushed Out
 …After heavy snow accumulation

Garage
door

Longitudinal Section through Garage

Investigation
75 complexity: Medium

Nonstructural Failures
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Investigation Studs

Beam

Beam

No continuous vertical element between

doors

76 Longitudinal Section through Garage

 Nonstructural Failures
 Case Study 10: Cracking Under Heavy Snow
 Observed at point where cathedral ceiling ends

Investigation
complexity: Simple
77

Nonstructural Failures
 Leakage in Roofs with Open-Web Steel Joists
 Example: Flashing rigidly attached to roofing can be torn if
joist next to the wall deflects

Flashing

Roofing

A problematic detail
78
 Nonstructural Failures
 Another Example of Leakage Under Snow

79

Nonstructural Failures
 Lesson: Use This Detail

Flashing

A better detail

80
 Nonstructural Failures
 Leakage in Precast-Concrete Roofs

 Long-Span Precast Double Tees

 Typ., 10-ft wide, spans up to 100 ft. (common span: 60’)

 Specify joints in roofing where movement can occur

Frame with min. 8” curbs per NRCA manual details

Need roofing expansion joints (EJ) over structural EJs, as

req’d by thermal movement capacity of roofing and
insulation, and at the ends of long-span beams (…)

81

Nonstructural Failures
 Lesson: Consider Movements at Ends
 Case Study 11: Membrane Roofing Fracture
 Leakage in large high-tech industrial facility during
construction… expensive equipment below damaged
 Investigation:
No apparent installation deficiencies, fine roofing product
Found membrane fractures in some spots…
…Over precast beam ends!

82
Investigation complexity: Complex
 Nonstructural Failures
 Estimating Horizontal Movement of Beam Ends
 Assume L = 60’, uniform load, max. deflection = L/360, d = 32”

83

Q&A
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Alexander-Newman@[Link]

84