Roof Drainage Design, Roof Collapses,

and the Codes

Dr. Stephen L. Patterson, RRC, PE
Roof Technical Services, Inc.
1944 Handley Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76112
Phone: 800-256-6693 • E-mail: [email protected]

and

Dr. Madan Mehta, PE

University of Texas at Arlington
PO Box 19108, Arlington, TX 76019
Phone: 817-272-2801 • E-mail: [email protected]

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 121
 Abstract
Every year, roofs in the United States collapse because of roof drainage-related design
issues. These collapses result in large financial losses and serious safety consequences,
including loss of life. This paper is the result of more than three decades of forensic investi­
gations of dozens of catastrophic roof collapses, and addresses recent changes in the codes
that have profound life-safety implications. The paper includes an in-depth discussion of
drainage design fundamentals, flaws in current and past code design standards, examples
of actual collapses, and the drainage design issues contributing to the collapses.

Speakers
Dr. Stephen L. Patterson, RRC, PE — Roof Technical Services, Inc., Fort Worth, TX

STEPHEN PATTERSON is a licensed engineer and Registered Roof

Consultant with more than 40 years of roofing industry experience,
including 34 years as a consulting engineer designing and evaluat­
ing roofs. Patterson coauthored Roofing Design and Practice, Drainage
Design, and Wind Pressures on Low-Slope Roofs, as well as many other
technical papers and articles on roofing. He has evaluated more than
30 roof collapses.

Dr. Madan Mehta, PE — University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX

MADAN MEHTA is a professor of architecture at the University of

Texas at Arlington and a licensed engineer. Dr. Mehta has authored several
books, monographs, and research papers, which include coauthoring roof-
related books, monographs, and papers with Mr. Patterson. His 1,000-page
book on Building Construction, published by Pearson Inc., is one of the two
most widely used books by practicing architects and students of architecture
and construction engineering in North America.

122 • p at t e r S o n and M e h ta 33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018
 Roof Drainage Design, Roof Collapses,
and the Codes

1. INTRODUC TION
Every year, there are several cata­
strophic collapses of roofs in the United
States related to roof drainage, resulting in
prolonged legal proceedings that involve the
consideration of life-safety consequences
and monetary losses from property damage,
business interruptions, inventory loss, loss­
es to employees, and legal costs.1,2,3 Almost
all drainage-related roof collapses occur in
relatively flat (low-slope) roofs with para­
pet walls that have inadequate provisions
for overflow. Roofs that drain water over
the edges of the roof into external gutters
and downspouts are not as subject to such
collapses and, hence, are not reviewed in Figure 1 – A typical drainage-related collapse of a low-slope roof. Photo by
this paper. This paper addresses collapses Stephen Patterson.
occurring in parapeted low-slope roofs with
internal roof drains and/or scuppers. the strength and stiffness of
Most such collapses occur in one-story, components and increases the
large-footprint, big box-type (warehouse likelihood of a collapse.
and retail-type) buildings, whose roofs con­ 3. Low-slope roof drainage design,
sist of long-span, lightweight steel framing though theoretically simple, is
members, typically using open-web joists complicated by the fact that
and joist girders. Designed to the minimum it involves the input of three
permissible code design criteria, they are design professionals: the proj­
prone to collapses when the load from rain­ ect architect, the structural
water accumulation on them exceeds the engineer, and the plumbing
design values. An example of such a col­ engineer (Figure 2). Educated
lapse is shown in Figure 1. Note that small- in disparate disciplines, few
footprint buildings or reinforced concrete of these professionals have a
frame buildings are less likely to collapse comprehensive understand­
from the accumulation of water. ing of drainage design and its
There are several reasons for the col­ relationship with the building’s Figure 2 – Professionals involved in the
lapses just mentioned. The important ones, structure. Therefore, although design of drainage systems of low-slope
discussed in greater detail in subsequent the respective roles of each in roofs. (This illustration applies only to
sections, are as follows: the design process are articu­ new construction. In reroofing, the design
1. A large number of existing build­ lated in practice regimes, put­ professionals may not be involved.)
ings were built before the codes ting the entire design togeth­
addressed requirements related to er is not. Each design discipline collapse under unfavorable weather
roof slope and overflow drains or assumes that if they design their conditions.
scuppers. Many, if not most, of these specific part to meet the code, their 4. It is generally forgotten that code
buildings have inadequate overflow job is done and the building is safe. provisions are minimum require­
and/or slope. In practice, therefore, there is a ments, often arrived at through con­
2. The steel structure is one of the most general lack of communication and/ sensus of only those stakeholders
expensive parts of a large box-type or coordination among the three who are present in code develop­
building. Reducing steel tonnage by members. This can yield a faulty ment meetings. The provisions may
increasing the spacing and spans of design, which can be aggravated by not be comprehensive, may ignore
framing members has a pronounced poor execution by the contracting important design considerations,
effect on the overall cost of the build­ community and deterioration of the and often do not represent the best
ing. The reduction in steel lowers building due to age, resulting in a of building science information.

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 123
 Lack of due diligence by the design
professionals to obtain appropriate
guidance from standards and other
publications can subsequently pres­
ent a serious problem.
For example, neither the
International Building Code (IBC)
nor the International Plumbing Code
(IPC) addresses the drainage flow
rates through roof drains as a func­
tion of hydraulic head. The informa­
tion given in the IPC is the maximum
drainage capacity of roof drains of
various sizes with no reference to the
hydraulic head (Figure 3), erroneous­ Figure 4 – Excerpt from Chapter 32: “Roof Construction and Coverings,” 1988
ly implying that the hydraulic head Uniform Building Code.
is not a consideration in the drainage plumbing code provisions) related apace with the demands of the profession.
design process. to roof slope and overflow drain­ In fact, the reverse has happened as some
The problem is more serious with age. For example, when roof system regulatory provisions have become increas­
scuppers, as there is no information replacement (referred to as “reroof­ ingly more permissive.
related to scupper design in the IBC ing”) takes place, it must conform Therefore, the paper begins with a dis­
or the IPC, which leaves it to the to the provisions of various codes cussion of drainage design provisions for
designer to seek it. To the best of in force at the time of reroofing. low-slope roofs. Because roof collapses more
the authors’ knowledge, the 2003 Because roof drainage is intimately frequently occur in buildings designed in
RCI Foundation (RCIF) monograph, related to the roof system (function­ the past, a brief discussion of how the
titled Roof Drainage4 is one of the ing as the carrier for rainwater), a drainage design provisions have evolved is
few publications that deals compre­ reroofing should automatically trig­ provided in the same section. A comprehen­
hensively with scuppers. ger a scrutiny of the existing drain­ sive discussion of drainage design funda­
5. The requirement for overflow drains age system of the building, so as to mentals and the various parameters that
or scuppers did not appear in build­ bring it to par with the provisions of must be considered during the design devel­
ing codes until the 1960s, and slope the current building and plumbing opment stage are provided next, followed by
was not addressed in them until the codes. a few design examples selected from recent
1980s. Consequently, many exist­ This, however, is not the case roof collapses.
ing buildings have inadequate or no today. The 2015 IBC has, for the first
overflow drains at all and are at risk time since its introduction, eliminat­ 2. DRAINAGE DESIGN PROVISIONS
of their roofs collapsing. ed the requirements for the build­ FOR LOW-SLOPE ROOFS
6. Since the 1980s, there has been ing’s drainage system to meet the The basic elements of proper low-slope
a gradual weakening in sever­ code’s drainage requirements when roof drainage design are:
al requirements of the regulato­ reroofing, setting a dangerous prec­ • Overflow drainage
ry apparatus (building code and edent, discussed in detail in Section • Roof slope
2(v). • Hydraulic head over the overflow
drains or scuppers
WHAT THIS PAPER • Rain loads due to ponded water
ADDRESSES • Design rainfall rates for primary
This paper is the result of drainage and overflow drainage
the forensic work of its primary • Verification that the roof structure
author on several dozen roof col­ has been designed to carry the rain
lapses over a span of 40 years, load
with research collaboration pro­ • Investigation of the roof structure for
vided by the secondary author. ponding instability
Its basic purpose is to high­
light the deceptive simplicity of Overflow Drainage and Roof Slope
low-slope roof drainage design, The earliest direct mention of overflow
which can be quite complex in drainage appeared in the 1964 Uniform
practice because of its multidis­ Building Code (UBC) when it required the
ciplinary nature. The situation overflow drains or scuppers to be installed
Figure 3 – Hydraulic head over a roof drain is an has been aggravated by the reg­ 2 in. above the low point of the roof. There
important determinant of flow rate through it. ulatory provisions not keeping was no requirement for roof slope and no

124 • p at t e r S o n and M e h ta 33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018
 Primary Drainage, Overflow Drainage,
and Design Rainfall Rate
That the primary and overflow drainage
systems should be completely independent
of each other has been mandated by the
codes since 1964. Each system was to be
designed using the maximum of one-hour
rainfall with a mean return period (MRP)
of 100 years. However, the 1991 SPC made
a significant change by requiring that the
overflow drainage system be designed for
15-minute rainfalls with a 100-year MRP.
Figure 5 – Excerpt from Appendix Chapter 32: “Reroofing,” 1988 Uniform Building The 15-minute, 100-year MRP rainfall is
Code. approximately twice the one-hour, 100-
reference to plumbing codes or standards. flow rate. Significant and unsafe buildup year MRP rainfall, providing the necessary
The requirement for providing roof slope of water can easily occur on a roof using safety provision against roof collapses (see
first appeared in the 1988 UBC (Section 1988 UBC criterion (see Example 2 under Section 7).
3207), requiring a minimum ¼-in.-per-ft. the section on Determining the Depth of The first International Plumbing Code
slope. The provision for overflow drains or Ponded Water on a Roof ). (IPC), published in 1995,10 required that the
scuppers was also a part of the code, along drainage capacities of roof drains given in
with reference to the plumbing code for sizing Hydraulic Head and Rain Load IPC tables be divided by a factor of two for
the roof drains. The minimum required open­ The requirement for determining the the design of overflow systems. This provi­
ing height of scuppers was 4 in. (Figure 4).5 rain load—load of water accumulating sion effectively doubled the design rainfall
The provision of overflow drainage and on the roof (with all primary drains rate for overflow drainage, making it virtu­
a minimum ¼-in.-per-ft. slope are now blocked)—was first introduced in the 1988 ally identical to the 1991 SPC provision.
universally accepted design requirements. publication of the ANSI/ASCE7-88 stan­ Unfortunately, the IPC, which became the
They are a part of the 2015 IBC for roof­ dard. The consideration of rain load on governing plumbing code after the merger of
ing (except for reroofing, covered at the end low-slope roofs from ponded water is now all three legacy codes into the International
of this section). A ¼-in.-per-ft. slope helps a standard requirement for the design Code Council (ICC) in 2000, eliminated the
ensure rapid drainage and reduces the of all low-slope roofs with raised edges. effective doubling of design rainfall rate for
probability of ponding instability. However, none of the code publications (in overflow drainage design. The current (2015)
In many ways, the 1988 UBC was a high their various editions) provide any design IPC requires the overflow drainage system
point for roofing and reroofing provisions aid or guidance for determining the depth to be designed for the same rainfall as the
with respect to roof drainage, as it required of ponded water. primary drainage system (one-hour rainfall
that all reroofing shall conform to the same The first such design aid appeared with a 100-year MRP).
provisions of the code that are applicable to in the 1994 Standard Plumbing Code Based on the analysis of several roof
(new) roofing, including the minimum slope (SPC)7 and subsequently in 1995 edition of collapses and the study of hydrological
and overflow requirements. In other words, ASCE/SEI 7-95 standard8 and remained cycles, the authors had recommended the
no distinction was made between the provi­ unchanged up to ASCE/SEI 7-10 stan­ use of 15-minute, 100-year MRP rainfall for
sions for roofing and reroofing (Figure 5 ).6 dard,9 but was updated in ASCE/SEI 7-16 overflow drainage design in the monograph
The 1988 UBC also required roof inspec­ standard (see Section 4, Table 2). on Roof Drainage, published by the RCI
tion before starting to reroof in addition to Foundation (RCIF) in 2003.11
a professional analysis of the roof structure
if extensive ponding of water was observed.
Inspection of the roof after reroofing was
also required. Sadly, these requirements
were deleted from the subsequent versions
of the UBC and never included in various
editions of the UBC or the International
Building Code (IBC) that followed.
The 1988 UBC did not provide any ratio­
nal procedure for determining the scupper
size except to state that the scupper open­
ing area must be at least three times the
roof drain area (Figure 4). It was a flawed
provision because the scupper’s opening
size is a function of the head of water at the Figure 6 – Excerpt from ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
scupper—necessary to provide the required Other Structures, Chapter 8, Rain Loads.

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 125
Ponding Instability f looding it,
Ponding instability is defined as the then waiting
progressive increase in the accumulation for 48 hours
(ponding) of water on the roof due to the to obser ve
lack of sufficient stiffness in roof framing. the a reas
As the ponded water exerts load on the roof, where the
the roof deflects, leading to greater accumu­ water is still
lation of water, which further increases the present.
roof’s deflection. As the deflection increas­ 4. There is no
es, more water accumulates on the roof, mandate in
increasing the deflection further, and so the code for
on—leading to the roof’s ultimate collapse. a third-party
Note that ponding instability may also inspection of
occur from the accumulation of snow or the the process Figure 7 – Comparison of the requirements for overflow
combined effects of snow and rain. and how the drainage and roof slope for roofing and reroofing in 2015
The consideration of ponding instability faulty situa- International Building Code [Ref. 13].
has been a part of the codes and standards tion is to be
for a long time. As previously indicated, IBC corrected. drainage and no overflow drainage. In 30
and ASCE/SEI 7 standards do not require 5. A roof could be dead flat, sur­ years, there was no problem until someone
the investigation of ponding instability for rounded by parapet walls without threw a Fort Worth Star-Telegram Sunday
roofs with a slope greater than or equal any overflow drainage, and could newspaper on the roof. The newspaper
to ¼ in. per ft. (Figure 6 ).12 As shown in still meet the requirement of positive floated into the scupper, forming a perfect
Section 6, this carte blanche assumption is drainage, while remaining highly plug, resulting in a catastrophic collapse.
incorrect. Therefore, roofs designed for slope prone to ponding instability and col­ Fortunately, no one was hurt.
equaling or exceeding ¼ in. per ft. may need lapse. There is a chance that had it not been
to be checked for ponding instability. for the newspaper, the buildings would
A more serious degrading of reroofing have never collapsed, but it happened. As
Code Provisions for Reroofing provision occurred with the 2015 IBC, which consultants and designers, we cannot (and
As shown in Figure 5, at one time, the deleted the requirement for the overflow are not permitted to) rely on chance. In
drainage-related code provisions for reroof­ drainage if the existing roof was not previ­ another grocery store collapse investigated
ing were the same as for roofing (including ously provided with one. Additionally, if the by the primary author, blocked scuppers
those for overflow drainage and roof slope). overflow drainage exists and is below the caused a collapse that claimed two lives.
However, gradually, the reroofing provisions current code, an upgrade is not required. (Unfortunately, the conditions that led to
have been watered down. Several years ago, Reroofing provisions, as they exist in the these failures are now permitted in the
the requirement for a minimum roof slope 2015 IBC, are illustrated in Figure 7.13 Reroofing section of the 2015 IBC.)
(¼ in. per ft.) was eliminated and replaced The primary author recently inspected
by the requirement that the existing roof 3. THE BASIC PROBLEM the collapse of a large warehouse facility
should provide positive drainage. The problem is that many, if not most, in the Dallas area that was constructed in
Positive drainage is defined in 2015 existing buildings were built either with no the early 1980s. The roof had 1/8-in.-per-
IBC (Section 202) as “the drainage condi­ overflow drainage or an inadequate over­ ft. slope, which met the code requirements
tion in which consideration has been made flow. It is a serious design and construction at the time it was constructed. There was
for all loading deflections of the roof deck, defect that has the potential for catastroph­ no significant ponding of water. The roof
and additional slope has been provided to ic consequences. The most logical time to drained freely and exceeded the require­
ensure drainage of roof within 48 hours of correct the situation in such cases is when ments for “positive drainage.” The roof
precipitation.” Water standing on a roof for the roof is replaced. drains were slightly oversized per the design
two days is the definition of “poor drainage,” The argument made against making requirements of the UBC in force at the time
not “positive drainage.” the correction is that if the building has of its construction; i.e., it was overdesigned
Eliminating the requirement for ¼-in.- performed well during all its previous years per the requirements of 2015 IBC.
per-ft. slope has been a retrograde step and even decades, it will perform well in The overflow drainage was provided
because: the future as well. The argument is made through scuppers, which were sized based
1. The criterion is imprecise and has not only by laypersons but also by some on the then-applicable UBC provision,
no relationship to good drainage. architects, engineers, and even by the code requiring that scupper opening area should
2. Water should drain freely and quick­ officials, who are supposedly the guardians be at least three times the area of the roof
ly and not stand on a roof for an of ensuring health, safety, and welfare in drains (see Section 2, Overflow Drainage
extended period of time, let alone buildings. and Roof Slope.) The evidence suggested that
two days. One of the first collapses the primary the roof drains were blocked with debris.
3. Hardly any roofing contractor will author investigated was a 30-year-old gro­ Our calculation indicated that, assum­
test the roof (before reroofing) by cery store with scuppers as the primary ing the drains were blocked, the rain load

126 • p at t e r S o n and M e h ta 33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018
on joists would be in excess of two times the (45,000/60) = 750 cft = is not relevant to this paper; i.e., the design
typical design live load for the joists. These 750 x 7.48 = 5610 gallons of below-deck drainage elements, such as
calculations did not take into account the tail pipes, horizontal pipes, and the con­
additional load that could possibly occur (Note: 1 cft = 7.48 gallons.) ductors.)
from positive wind load on the roof. In other Because the roof contains ten drains,
words, a roof drainage design can meet the the minimum required flow rate of each
code in force at the time when the building drain = (5610/10) = 561 gpm.
was built, but the roof can still collapse. From Table 2,15 the primary drain­
age system will comprise 6-in.-diameter
4. DETERMINING THE DEPTH OF drains. The flow rate of each drain = 563
PONDED WATER ON A ROOF gpm > 561 gpm (minimum required flow
The determination of rain load on a roof rate).
requires calculating the depth of ponded The 2015 IPC requires that the over­
water. This must be preceded by the design flow drains have the same flow rate as
of both the primary and overflow drainage the primary drains. Therefore, the over­
systems. The drainage system design is flow roof drains will also be 6 inches in
based on one-hour, 100-year MRP rainfall diameter.
for the location and the use of IPC table for While the 2015 IPC provides the flow Table 1 – Maximum flow rate (drainage
the drainage capacities of drains of various rates of roof drains, it does not provide capacities) of roof drains in gallons per
sizes, shown in Table 1.14 the head of water that must exist over the minute.
The process just described will be illus­ drain to produce
trated using two examples. In Example 1, that flow rate. To
both primary and overflow drainage systems determine the head
consist of roof drains. In Example 2, the pri­ of water correspond­
mary system consists of roof drains and the ing to the flow rate,
secondary system consists of scuppers. we refer to ASCE/
SEI 7-16 Standard
Example 1 data, given in Table
In consultation with the architect, the 1. From this table,
project’s plumbing engineer has prepared the head of water for
the layout of roof drains for a 300-ft. x the flow rate of 561
450-ft. distribution center (F igure 8 ). The gpm is approximate­
roof slopes ¼ in. per ft. on either side of a ly 5.5 in.
central ridge, and the drains are located 90 Thus, the total
ft. on center along the 450-ft.-long para­ depth of water on the
pets (five drains next to each parapet)—a roof when the prima­
total of ten drains on the roof. It has been ry system is blocked Figure 8 – Roof plan of the building in Example 1. RD is the
decided to use a side-by-side combination = static head + acronym for “roof drains”—in this case, a set of primary and
of primary and overflow drains, with inlet hydraulic head = 2.0 overflow drains.
of the overflow drain elevated 2 in. above + 5.5 = 7.5 in. (F igure
that of the primary drain, using an overflow 9). This information
collar dam. is sent to the project
The architect has asked the plumbing architect for onward
engineer to provide 1) primary and overflow transmission to the
drain sizes conforming with 2015 IPC and structural engineer
2) the depth of ponded water on the roof for determining the
when the primary drains are blocked. The rain load and the
one-hour, 100-year MRP rainfall for the design of the roof
location is 4 in. assembly. The weight
of water correspond­
Plumbing Engineer’s Solution ing to a depth of 7.5
Total roof area = in. = (5.2)(7.5) = 39.0
300 x 450 ft. = 135,000 sq. ft. psf.
(Note that this
Total rainfall on roof in 60 minutes = example does not
135,000 sq. ft. (4 in.) = 45,000 cft provide the entire
drainage solution, as Table 2 – Flow rate through a 6-in.-diameter roof drain as a
Total rainfall on roof in 1 minute = the remaining part function of hydraulic head.

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 127
 the head of water point of a roof because of crickets and other
above the overflow variations in rooftop elevation (F igure 10).
drains or overflow Consequently, the scuppers are typically locat­
scuppers and sub­ ed 4 in. above the roof’s low point, which fur­
mit this informa­ ther increases the depth of water. In the case
tion to the architect of Example 2, this will give a ponding depth of
who, after review­ 9.0 inches in place of 7.0 inches, increasing the
ing it, would send weight of water at the lowest point of the roof to
it to the structural 46.8 psf in place of 36.4 psf.
engineer. However, Returning to the 1988 UBC’s (arbitrary)
the code places provision that the overflow scupper opening
the responsibility area be three times the primary roof drain
on the structural area, we see that in Example 2, the scupper
engineer (who is opening area = 108 sq. in. The area of each
Figure 9 – Hydraulic head and static head over the overflow typically unfamil­ 6-in.-diameter roof drain = 28.27 sq. in.
drains of the building of Example 1 (not to scale). iar with plumb- Hence, three times the area of roof drains
ing design and the = 84.81 sq. in., which is well below that
Example 2 issues discussed in this paper) to verify that obtained from rational analysis (108 sq. in.)
The project architect of the building of the structure will support the load from rain­ in Example 2.
Example 1 has asked the plumbing engi­ water accumulation.
neer to provide an alternative drainage In both examples, the
solution in which the overflow drainage will rain load at the lowest point
be provided by scuppers located close to on the roof (39.0 psf in
each primary drain. Example 1 and 36.4 psf in
Example 2) are greater than
Plumbing Engineer’s Solution the roof’s design live load
Minimum required flow rate of each scup­ of 20 psf. They are much
per = 561 gpm greater if the live load reduc­
The flow rate of a scupper is given by the tion has been assumed by
following equation: the project’s structural
engineer.
Q = 2.9 (L) H 1.5
It is worth pointing out Figure 10 – Because of crickets and tapered insulation
Equation 1 that it is difficult to locate near a parapet wall, the typical difference between the
scuppers 2 in. above the low inlet levels of scupper and the primary roof drain is 4
Where Q = flow rate through scupper in. or greater.
(gpm), L = length of scupper opening (in.), and
H = head of water (in.)
Setting Q = 561 and L = 18 inches in
Eq. (1), we obtain H = 4.87 in., (say 5.0 in.).
Because the inlet level of the scupper is
raised 2 in. above the primary drain, the
head of water at its lowest point = 2.0 + 5.0 =
7.0 in. This information is sent to the archi­
tect. The weight of water (at the lowest point
on roof ) corresponding to a depth of 7.0 in. =
(7.0)(5.2) = 36.4 psf.
The scupper opening size = 18 in. x 6 in.
(Note: A minimum 1-in. clearance is required
above the head of water.) The total scupper
opening area = 108 sq. in. Note that the scup­
per opening height of 6 in. is greater than the
4-in. minimum required by 2015 IPC.

Authors’ Observations
It is the authors’ experience that the
design process illustrated in the given exam­ Figure 11 – Effect of roof slope on rain load on a roof. The maximum rain load in
ples seldom occurs in practice. In theory, all three illustrations is 39.0 psf. The rain load distribution shown in illustration
the plumbing engineer should calculate (a) relates to the building of Example 1.

128 • p at t e r S o n and M e h ta 33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018
5. IMPORTANCE OF ROOF SLOPE
To know the depth of water at the low
point of the roof is the first step in deter­
mining the rain load on the roof. The next
step is to account for the roof’s slope, which
affects the total rain load on the roof and
its distribution. F igure 11(a) illustrates the
distribution of load on the roof of Example
1. Assuming that the joist span is 45 ft., the
rain load extends to a length of 30.0 ft. over
the first joist.
Note that the total load on the first joist
of F igure 11(a) is [0.5(39.0)30] = 585 pounds,
which is equivalent to a uniform load of 19.5
psf over a 30-ft. length of joist. The high
concentration of load near the parapet may
cause deflection-related distress in the deck
and local failure of the joist, but is not likely
to cause ponding instability because the
deflection of the joist should normally not Figure 12 – Effect of the orientation of roof framing members on rain load.
exceed the allowable deflection.
If roof slope is 1/8 in. per ft., the sub­ roof slope. F igure 12(a) shows the rain load been designed by 100% to 200%.
merged area of roof is 60.0 ft. long (F igure distribution of the same building, but the
11(b)). In this case, the rain load on the roof secondary framing members ( joists) are ori­ 7. DESIGN RAINFALL RATE
extends over two joists and is twice that of ented perpendicular to roof slope. The discussion and the examples pro­
F igure 11(a). The average load on the first Note that although the rain load distri­ vided thus far are based on the design rain­
joist = 0.5[39 + 39(15/60)] = 24.4 psf, which bution and the total rain load on the roofs fall rate as the maximum one-hour rainfall
exceeds the design load of 20 psf, indicating of F igure 11(a) and F igure 12(a) are identical, with an MRP of 100 years for both primary
a fair probability of ponding instability in a there is great difference in their structural and overflow drainage. The design rainfall
framing system designed to the minimum implications. In F igure 12(a), the average rate assumes that it is uniform within the
structural design provisions of the code. rain load on the first joist is 32.5 psf along entire one-hour duration. In other words,
If the roof were dead flat, the entire roof the entire span of the joist—much higher the assumption is that if the 100-year MRP
would be submerged in water (F igure 11(c)). than the roof’s design load. This situation rainfall at a location is 4 in. per hour, that
In this case, the entire roof is under a load is similar to the joist of the dead-flat roof location will receive 1 in. rainfall every 15
of 39.0 psf. This is 95% greater than the of F igure 11(c), and hence prone to ponding minutes, or 0.5 in. every 7.5 minutes, or
live load of 20 psf and 144% greater than instability. (Note: In F igure 12(a), we have (4/60) in. = 0.067 in. per minute.
16 psf (if live load reduction was assumed assumed that the joists are spaced 5 ft. on The actual rainfall seldom occurs at a
in the design of the joists). This roof is the center—typical for roofs with steel deck and uniform rate, particularly during thunder­
most likely candidate for ponding instabil­ steel joists.) storms, tropical storms, and hurricanes.
ity failure, unless its structural framing F igure 12(a) shows that the building In such situations, bursts of rainfall may
has been designed with adequate stiffness code provision stating that a roof with a occur in short durations, but the one-hour
to prevent it. slope ≥¼ in. per ft. is not required to be rainfall may be the same as the design rain­
The illustrations in F igure 11 highlight investigated for ponding instability is not fall. Therefore, there is a strong rationale
the importance of roof slope in the structur­ always correct. This observation is further for using a higher design rainfall rate for
al design of the building for ponding consid­ endorsed by F igure 12(b), where the joists overflow drainage.
erations. They also explain why the building from opposite directions are supported by Note that the primary drainage sys­
code historically required the roof structure a joist girder forming a valley, creating a tem is designed to drain water off the roof
to be analyzed for ponding instability if the possibility of substantial overload on the within a reasonable time. There are no life
roof slope was less than ¼ in. per ft. joist girder. safety issues related to the primary drain­
This situation is particularly serious age design. Therefore, designing the pri­
6. ORIENTATION OF STRUCTURAL because the tributary area of a typical joist mary drainage system assuming a uniform
FRAMING AND DIRECTION OF girder is so large that it qualifies for the rainfall rate is fine. The overflow drainage
ROOF SLOPE roof live load reduction of up to 40% by the system, on the other hand, is the safety
F igure 11(a) shows the rain load on the building codes—from 20 to 12 psf. This can valve—to prevent unsafe accumulation of
roof of Example 1, where the secondary result in the design of joist girders that are water on the roof. A strong rationale there­
framing members of the roof (members highly deficient in stiffness and strength fore exists that the overflow drainage design
that provide direct support to the deck, i.e., to support the weight of ponded water that should account for the bursts of rainfall
the joists) are oriented in the direction of may exceed the load for which they have within short durations.

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 129
 8. AUTHORS’ INVESTIGATIONS greater than 16 when the sec­
AND ASCE/SEI 7-16 STANDARD ondary members are parallel
In Section 6, examples of how low- to the free drainage edge, or
slope roofs of large-footprint, big-box-type 4. Bays on which water accu­
structures can be substantially overloaded mulates (in whole or in part)
by ponded water and the resultant pond­ when the primary drain sys­
ing instability, are given. Historically, the tem is blocked but the over­
evaluation for ponding instability has been flow drain system is function­
required on roofs with slopes ≤¼ in. per al. The larger of the snow load
foot. For example, ASCE/SEI 7-05 Standard or the rain load equal to the
Figure 13 – Maximum 15-minute, 100- required: “Roofs with a slope of ¼ in./ design condition for a blocked
year MRP rainfall is approximately ft. (1.19°) shall be investigated for struc­ primary drain system shall
half of one-hour, 100-year MRP rainfall, tural analysis to assure that they possess be used in this analysis.
implying that the rainfall rate in 15 adequate stiffness to preclude progressive
minutes is twice the design rainfall deflection (i.e., instability) as rain falls on ASCE/SEI 7-16 has also recognized
rate. them or meltwater is created from snow on the importance of a higher design rain­
them.” fall rate for overflow drainage, as it now
Hydrological studies16 have shown that The above provision was simplified in requires the 15-minute, 100-year rainfall
a location can get half its one-hour rainfall ASCE/SEI 7-10 Standard (see F igure 6 ) rate. Section 8.2 of the standard states:
in 15 minutes. Thus, if a location receives by requiring that “Susceptible bays shall “The design flow rate of the secondary
a 100-year MRP rainfall of 4 inches in one be investigated by structural analysis to (overflow) drains (including roof drains and
hour, it can receive up to 2 inches of rainfall assure that they possess adequate stiff­ downstream piping) or scuppers and their
in 15 minutes—a rainfall rate of 8 in. per ness to preclude progressive deflection (i.e., resulting hydraulic head (dh) shall be based
hour. F igure 13 illustrates this narrative. instability) as rain falls on them or meltwa­ on a rainfall intensity equal to or greater
In addition to the high rainfall rate over ter is created from snow on them. …Roof than the 15-min duration/100-year return
a short duration that can overload the roof, surfaces with a slope of at least ¼ in. per ft. period (frequency) storm. Primary drain­
hailstorms are another problematic event (1.19°) towards points of free drainage need age systems shall be designed for a rain­
for a drainage system. Small hail is par­ not be considered as susceptible bays.” fall intensity equal to or greater than the
ticularly problematic as it can easily block The 2015 IBC refers to ASCE/SEI 7-10, 60-min duration/100-year return period
or impede the flow. Because hail sometimes published in 2010. ASCE/SEI 7-10 has now (frequency) storm.”
occurs with severe thunderstorms, one can been replaced by ASCE/SEI 7-16, published As the current IBC and IPC require­
expect a large amount of rainfall coupled in July 2017, and will be referenced in the ment for overflow drainage design are still
with hail, increasing the probability of 2018 IBC. based on 60-minute, 100-year MRP rain­
drain blockages. It is important to mention that the fall, the authors hope that in the 2018 edi­
The accumulation of debris on roofs is provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-16 for ponding tions of IBC and IPC, it will be revised to
another problem related to roof drainage. instability analysis are far more stringent that required by ASCE/SEI 7-16. This will
Serious and frequent blockages of drains than those given in the standard’s previous substantially reduce the potential for roof
and scuppers from the accumulation of editions and agree with the authors’ inves­ collapses. Not doing so will be tantamount
debris has been reported by investigators.17 tigations, summarized in Section 6. This to ignoring the expertise of the two major
The types of debris found on roofs includes is a positive vindication of the many years organizations—the American Society of
dirt, leaves, plastic bags, paper, soda cans, of the authors’ work on various collapses. Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural
bottles, and so on. Although regular roof ASCE/SEI 7-16 requires ponding instability Engineering Institute (SEI)—that develop
observation and maintenance can prevent analysis for the following conditions: ASCE/SEI 7 with the help of several hun­
this problem, it is neither enforceable nor dred engineering experts.
practical. 1. Bays with a roof slope less
Designing the overflow drainage with than ¼ in. per foot (1.19°) 9. CONCLUSION
15-minute-per-hour rainfall rate is an when the secondary mem­ Roof drainage design is one of the most
insurance, not only against nonuniform bers are perpendicular to the important roof design elements, and the
rainfall rate, but also against blockage free draining edge, overflow drainage design is its most critical
caused by hail, as well as debris accumula­ 2. Bays with a roof slope less part. The function of the overflow drainage
tion. As stated in Section 2 under “Ponding than 1 in. per foot (4.76°) is to prevent the roof from collapsing—an
Instability,” the 1991 SPC and 1995 IPC when the secondary mem­ important life safety issue in roofs.
required the overflow drainage design to be bers are parallel to the free ASCE/SEI 7-16 has recognized the defi­
based on 15-minute, 100-year MRP rain­ draining edge, ciencies in drainage design with respect to
fall rates. There is a need to revert to that 3. Bays with a roof slope less ponding instability and has made major
provision in future editions of the plumbing than 1 in. per foot (4.76°) revisions from its previous edition, which,
codes. and a span-to-spacing ratio when implemented, will dramatically
for the secondary members reduce the potential for roof collapses. This

130 • p at t e r S o n and M e h ta 33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018
is a major step forward at a time when the
IBC has been moving in the opposite direc­
tion. The standard has also recognized
the importance of the 15-minute duration
rainfall rate for overflow drainage design.
The ICC should re-evaluate the drainage
design requirements in the IBC and IPC
and provide appropriate provisions that are
in compliance with ASCE 7-16 to ensure
public safety.
This is equally important for reroofing
because there is no reason why the IBC’s
requirements for reroofing should not be
the same as for roofing in new construction.
The costs involved to add overflow drain­
age at the time of reroofing (if it does not
already exist) or to modify it to comply with
the current code provisions for roofing are
relatively insignificant compared with the
monetary losses (not counting the injuries
and fatalities) that may occur as a result
of the collapses. Many existing buildings
needlessly fall in the impending-collapse Figure 14 – Cost of correcting/modifying roof drainage system as a function of
category, which can be easily prevented monetary loss from roof collapses. Note the data does not include life safety
at the time of reroofing through overflow consequences from collapses.
drainage. Figure 14 summarizes the cost
data case studies from two of the sev­ eral leading forensic consultants Design Loads for Buildings and
eral collapses investigated by the primary engaged in the same activity over a Other Structures. 1995. p. 187.
author in support of this statement. period of 40 years (unpublished). 9. American Society of Civil Engineers/
Additionally, there is a real problem 2. J. Vamberskey. “Roof Failures Structural Engineering Institute.
with the definition and use of the term Due to Ponding—A Symptom of ASCE/SEI 7-10 Standard, Minimum
“positive drainage” in the IBC with respect Underestimated Development.” Design Loads for Buildings and
to reroofing. Positive drainage as defined in HERON, Vol. 51, No. 2/3. Delft Other Structures. 2010. p. 452.
the IBC is a poor and unworkable definition. University of Technolog y and 10. Internat iona l Code Counci l.
By deleting the relationship between drain­ Corsmit Consulting Engineers. International Plumbing Code. Section
age efficiency and minimum ¼ in. per ft. 2006. pp. 83-96. 1108.3. 1995. p. 358.
slope, the IBC has placed the roofs of many 3. John Lawson. “Roof Drainage—Not 11. Patterson and Mehta. p. 73.
existing buildings at more serious risk. My Problem…May Be,” Proceedings 12. ASCE 7-10. p. 43.
Fundamentally, any roof that has drain­ of Structural Engineers Association 13. American Society of Civil Engineers/
age issues—including, but not limited to of California (SEAOC) Convention. Structural Engineering Institute.
the lack of appropriate slope or the lack of 2012. pp. 136-151. ASCE/SEI 7-05 Standard, Minimum
adequate overflow—should be evaluated by 4. Stephen Patterson and Madan Mehta. Design Loads for Buildings and
a design professional when a building is Roof Drainage. Roof Consultants Other Structures. 2005. p. 95.
reroofed, in the same way as required for Institute Foundation (RCIF) 14. Internat iona l Code Counci l.
roofing. Publication No. 02-03. 2003. p. 34. International Plumbing Code. 2015.
5. International Council of Building p. 94.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Officials. “Roof Construction and 15. American Society of Civil Engineers/
The authors gratefully acknowledge Roof Coverings.” Uniform Building Structural Engineering Institute.
the following experts for their meticulous Code. Chapter 32. 1988. p. 617. ASCE/SEI 7-16 Standard, Minimum
review of this paper: Thomas Smith, AIA, TL 6. Vamberskey. Op. cit. Chapter 32, Design Loads and Associated
Smith Consulting, Inc.; Scott Hinesley, PE, Reroofing. p. 855. Criteria for Buildings and Other
REI Engineers, Inc.; and William Waterston, 7. Standard Plumbing Code. Plumbing- Structures. July 2017. p. 509.
AIA, WJE Associates, Inc. Heating-Cooling Contractors (PHCC) 16. Patterson and Mehta. p 73.
Association. Section 1109.3. 1994. p. 17. Jim Koontz. “The Effects of Debris
REFERENCES 141. on the Flow Rates of Roof Drains
1. Stephen Patterson. Forensic con­ 8. American Society of Civil Engineers/ and Scuppers.” Proceedings of the
sulting related to roof collapses and Structural Engineering Institute. RCI 25th International Convention.
private communications with sev- ASCE/SEI 7-95 Standard, Minimum RCI, Inc. 2010. pp. 149-156.

33rd rCI InternatIonal ConventIon and trade Show • MarCh 22-27, 2018 p at t e r S o n and M e h ta • 131