Stability of Open Web Steel Joists Subjected to

Ponding Loads
Duncan Stark1
Christopher Higgins, Ph.D., P.E.2
Perry S. Green, Ph.D.3

INTRODUCTION
Roof collapse under ponding loads is a relatively common failure type
for engineered structures. Ponding loads result from water
accumulation on a roof system. The water conforms to the deflected
shape of the roof and thus the load effects increase in a geometrically
nonlinear fashion. The interaction of the deflection and resulting load
effects produces either equilibrium or failure. Failure can be due to
instability or overload. The behavior of roof systems under ponding
load conditions is not well documented. Steel joists are widely used in
structural roofing systems for low-rise commercial construction in the
US. Experimental research was undertaken to study the response of a
roof system comprised of open web steel joists under ponding loads to
collapse. Results showed roof collapse upon buckling of the top chord
at loads significantly above the expected minimum design strength.

1
Former Graduate Research Assistant, 2 Professor, Oregon State
University, School of Civil and Const. Eng., 220 Owen Hall, Corvallis,
OR 97331, e-mail: starkdu@orst.edu; chris.higgins@orst.edu
3
Technical Director, Steel Joist Institute, 196 Stonebridge Drive, Unit
1, Myrtle Beach, SC 29588, e-mail: psgreen@steeljoist.org
BACKGROUND
Haussler (1962) considered flat and simply-supported beams subjected
to ponding loads and established that the system is stable if it satisfies
the following inequality:
 4 EI   BL4 (1)
where E is the modulus of elasticity, I the moment of inertia, L the
length, B the spacing between beams and γ is the unit weight of the
fluid. Kuenzi and Bohannan (1964) investigated the amplification
effects of ponding loads and determined that when a uniformly
distributed load leads to ponding, the amplification of deflections and
internal forces is given as:
1
  BL4 
Ao  1  4 
(2)
 EI  
Marino (1966) investigated the stability of two-way systems and
developed the graphical design aides for determining the stability of a
system that are the basis of the improved American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) ponding check found in the Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings Appendix 2: Design for Ponding (AISC
2005). Later, the analysis was simplified by Burgett (1973) to just two
design equations with a factor of safety of four (4). This work is the
basis of the simplified AISC ponding check also found in Appendix 2
(AISC 2005). A single set of experimental results was published by
Kuenzi and Bohannan (1964). In their experiments, the authors studied
the simplest case and confirmed their analytical work.

In general, the AISC and Steel Joist Institute (SJI 2005) specifications
allow ponding to be ignored if a designer provides sufficient slope for
adequate drainage. If a roof has a slope less than 1:48, then designers
must comply with the ponding criteria given in Appendix 2 of the
AISC Specification (2005), where the previously mentioned analysis
methods are provided. Both methods are expected to ensure adequate
stiffness of the roof to prevent ponding instability.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Two laboratory tests were conducted to investigate ponding response of
a typical open web steel joist roof system. The first specimen was a flat
roof while the second roof was identical except for a 1:48 pitch. A steel
joist, steel deck roofing system was chosen because it provides an
economical, light-weight, long-span roof system that is widely used.
The experimental design was intended to produce a roof system which
effectively represented a slice of a typical roof installation.

Both roof specimens were 12 ft. (3.66 m) wide and 48 ft. (14.63 m)
long. Each consisted of three joists, evenly spaced at 67 in. (1.70 m)
on-center, spanning the long direction with steel decking spanning
between joists. The joists were supported by a pin (south end) and true
roller (north end) system. Joists were all 48 ft. (14.63 m) long and 2 ft.
(60.96 cm) deep. The center joist was a standard SJI K-Series joist,
24K9, that had a total safe uniformly distributed load-carrying capacity
(Allowable Stress Design (ASD)) of 211 plf (3.07 kN/m), while the
edge joists were 24KSP121/58 (ASD) joists (SJI 2005). These were
specially designed and fabricated to be half as stiff as the center joist,
considering the different tributary areas, so that all joists would deflect
approximately equally. For reference, the joist geometry and member
numbering scheme is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: Joist elevation view with member number identification.

The joist series type and spacing were selected to place the flat roof just
over the AISC primary direction stiffness limit that would enable a
designer to avoid further investigation of ponding stability (ignoring
decking contribution, Cp=0.31>0.25 limit, AISC 2005). This is not to
say that the system is unstable, given the factor of safety of 4 inherent
in the AISC Specification. Indeed, a geometrically unstable roof system
would require impractically wide joist spacing for the span length of
the commercially available joists used in this study.

The joists supported 0.0295 in. (0.75 mm or 22 gage) Wide Rib Steel
Decking that was puddle welded to the top chord of the joists every 12
in. (305 mm or in a 36/4 pattern). Over the decking, 0.25 in. (6.35 mm)
Georgia Pacific DensDeck was used to provide a flat surface for a
0.045 in. thick (1.14 mm or 45 mil) rubber waterproofing membrane.
Existing concrete walls available in the laboratory, paired with
plywood parapet end walls (Fig. 2) produced an enclosure that would
hold the ponding water over the roof system while enabling vertical
deflections.

Fig. 2: Joist elevation views at ends showing support details.

The joists were braced laterally by continuous angle section bridging

elements terminating at the edges with specially designed roller
bearings in contact with the concrete walls as shown in Fig. 3a and 3b.
The roller bearings restricted out-of-plane motions while permitting
free vertical motion of the joists. Both completed specimens met all
other relevant design and fabrication requirements from the
ANSI/AISC 360-05, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC
2005), the ANSI/SJI-K-1.1, Standard Specifications for Open Web
Steel Joists, K-Series and Load Tables (SJI 2005) and the ANSI/SDI
RD 1.0 Standard for Steel Roof Deck (SDI 2007).

Flat case

Pitched case

Fig. 3a: Bridging locations along span (x is horizontal bridging, and d

is cross bridging as illustrated in Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3b: Bridging details along span.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
Instrumentation was focused on the center joist, which was considered
a typical member in a roof continuum. Strain gages were used to
measure individual joist member forces as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Displacement sensors were used at 25 locations to measure the roof
deflection profile. Load cells were placed under the ends of all joist
bearing seats to measure support reactions (Fig. 2). Horizontal motion
of the joist end supported on rollers was measured relative to the steel
support beam. Water flow and water level sensors were also deployed.
In total, data from over 130 sensors were collected for each test. In
addition to the sensor data, video and still digital cameras were used to
document the experiments.

(a) (b)
Fig. 4: Strain gages at joist member section to identify forces and
moments in components a) top view and b) bottom view of section.

To determine the initial roof geometry, each roof was surveyed prior to
testing. The measured initial conditions corresponded closely to the
theoretical. Testing was performed by slowly impounding water on the
specimens until collapse. Data from sensors were collected using a
commercially available data acquisition system and stored for post
processing.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Load Distribution and End Reactions
As expected, the center joist held approximately twice as much load as
the side joists, verified by the end reaction load cells. In the flat roof,
the support reactions were equal at the ends of each joist (Fig. 5a). In
the pitched test, the reactions on the down-slope side were larger due to
water collecting at the lower parapet wall. Once the water level reached
the up-slope reaction end, the reaction loading rates were essentially
equal as seen in Fig. 5b. Due to the initial pitch, the down-slope shear is
larger and diagonal member forces are affected as discussed later.

Center Joist Support Reactions - Flat Test

12
Legend
North End
10 South End

8
Force (Kips)

-2
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
(Pseudo) Time

Fig. 5a: Center joist end reactions for flat test.

Center Joist Support Reactions - Pitched Test

14
Legend
North End
12 South End

10

8
Force (Kips)

-2
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
(Pseudo) Time

Fig. 5b: Center joist end reactions for pitched test.

Displacement Profiles
At early stages of loading in both tests, the displacements were not
uniform due to small initial geometric imperfections. These became
insignificant as the water load increased. The displacements for the
pitched test were asymmetrical early in the loading history due to the
imbalanced load along the span. However, as the water continued to
accumulate, the deflection profile became more symmetric and
differences between the two roofs became smaller as seen in Fig. 6.
This figure shows the net joist displacement profiles for both test
specimens at a total water load of 40 kips. Little difference is observed
for the two cases.

Legend
Flat Center Joist
1 Flat West Joist
Flat East Joist
Sloped Center Joist
Sloped West Joist
2 Sloped East Joist
Displacement (in)

6
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Position along Span (ft)
Fig. 6: Net joist displacement profiles at total water load of 40 kips
(initial geometry removed from pitched case for comparison).

The maximum moment in both center joists was calculated using the
deflected shape profile as the load profile. From these calculations, the
maximum moment for the flat roof increased almost linearly with the
total water load until near collapse. For the sloped roof, the maximum
moment was not quite linearly related with total load and was smaller
than in the flat test at early stages of loading. At higher loads, the flat
and pitched test moments were similar. These results illustrate
similarity of response near collapse for the two specimens, even as they
have very different initial conditions. Finally, as seen in Fig. 7 for the
pitched test, the lowest elevation of the roof near failure is no longer
very close to the lower support location. The location of highest water
pressure moves during the test and may have design implications for
the decking. At collapse, the height of the water at the parapet wall was
12 in. (305 mm) for the flat roof and 17.4 in. (442 mm) for the pitched
case. Including the deflection of the roofs, the maximum height of the
water was 18 in. (457 mm) at midspan for the flat roof and 19.4 in.
(493 mm) at 18 ft. (5.5 m) from the down-slope parapet wall for the
pitched case.

2 Legend
Center Joist
West Joist
4 East Joist
Displacement (in)

10

12

14

16
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Position along Span (ft)
Fig. 7: Absolute joist deflection profiles at 45.5 kip total load (1 minute
from failure) for pitched specimen.
Member Forces
From the strains measured on individual joist members (Fig. 4),
internal member forces and moments were computed. It was observed
that the bottom chord double angle sections carry large tension forces
and insignificant bending moments. The top chord sections carry large
compressive forces, positive in-plane bending (positive defined as
putting top of top chord in compression) and out-of-plane bending
moments as seen in Fig. 8. Each of the angles that make up the built-up
double angle chord members carried axial forces of similar magnitude.
While the top chord built-up double angles bend down together
similarly (Mx in Fig. 8), they eventually bend away from each other in
the out-of-plane direction (have different signs for My in Fig. 8). The
chords are designed in accordance with the AISC Specifications (2005)
as a double angle member with two angles connected at properly
designed discrete locations along their lengths so as to produce the
behavior of a single (built-up) member. As seen in Fig. 8, at early
stages of loading (up to a total ponding load of approximately 12 kips
or approximately the deflection design limit of the joists seen in Fig.
11), the angles act compositely. At higher loading levels they begin to
bend in opposite directions indicating loss of composite behavior. At
collapse, the out-of-plane bending moments in the top chord angles are
approximately equal in magnitude and opposite in sign. Similar data
were observed for the pitched roof test.
 Chord Forces
Top Chord #3 - Flat Test
10000 10000
East Angle M x
5000 5000
West Angle M x

Bending Moments (lb-in)

0 East Angle M y 0
Axial Load (lb)

-5000 West Angle M y -5000

-10000 East Angle Axial -10000

-15000 West Angle Axial -15000

-20000 Legend -20000

West Angle
East Angle
-25000 -25000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Total Load (kips)
Fig. 8: Resolved top chord forces and moments for member #3 (Fig.
1a) in flat test (My=out-of-plane moment, Mx=in-plane moment).

From the web member strains, it was observed that the vertical
members all carry approximately the same compressive force because
they support a similar tributary area of decking. It was also seen that
some of the diagonal web members in the pitched test experienced
stress reversals (initially tensile members became compressive and vice
versa) as the water load moved along the joist span. The member
responses for diagonals located near midspan of the pitched test are
shown in Fig. 9. These stress reversals demonstrate a path dependent
loading response. For cases where ponding is a design criteria, partial
span loading for certain web members may need to be considered. For
example, web member #13 has compressive force when the span is
partially submerged. The maximum observed compressive force was
40% of the eventual tension magnitude at collapse. Thus, depending on
the relative slenderness of a member, it is possible that a web member
could buckle during intermediate loading stages for pitched roofs.
 Central Web Members
Pitched Test
2000

1000

0
Member Force (lb)

-1000

-2000 Web #18

Web #13
-3000 Web #15
Web #16
-4000 Web #12
Web #19
-5000
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Total Load (kips)
Fig. 9: Resolved diagonal member forces for pitched test showing load
reversal in some members as the water height advances along the span.
(+ = tension).

The bottom chord of the center joist was instrumented in both tests to
allow calculation of the moment profile based on the internal joist
member forces (without interference from bending effects). These
showed that the moments in the two roofs become similar as the water
load increased, corroborating the findings from the displacement
measurements.

Shear Deformations
Using the displacement sensor data to estimate the water load profile,
the reactions, shears, bending moments, and eventually the displaced
shape were calculated. The calculated displacements (including the
Appendix 2 (AISC 2005) and Technical Digest No. 3 (SJI 2007)
prescribed 15% reduction in bending stiffness for trusses) were
compared to the empirically measured displacement values. The results
show that there were significant deviations early in the tests, but that as
the load increased, the two data sets matched well, with differences less
than 3%.

Because the strains were known in many of the diagonal web members,
the shear displacements were estimated. It was found that the shear
deformations made up 11.2% of the total displacement in the flat test
and 13.8% in the pitched test. These results showed that for much of
the test, the 15% reduction in the overall joist moment of inertia was a
reasonable estimate to account for shear contributions to deformations.

Failure
The failure in both tests was initiated by buckling of the joist top chord
near midspan as seen in Fig. 10a. At the onset of failure, the
displacements increased rapidly, water flowed toward the center of the
roof, the top chords buckled, and then the north end of the joists fell off
the roller supports. The buckling of the top chord was observed in the
video taken during testing. In both tests, the chords failed in the same
location, the centermost section just to the north of the centerline (top
chord member #11 in Fig. 1). The double angles flattened out, moving
down and away from each other (Fig. 10b). The flattening of the angles
even occurred adjacent to locations that had welded spacers.

The double angle members failed under a combination of biaxial

bending and axial compression and were analyzed for the dominant, in-
plane bending and compressive forces. Based on the nominal
compressive and bending moment capacities of the built-up member,
computed per Chapter H of the AISC Specification (AISC 2005), it was
found that the load to capacity ratio reached a maximum value of 0.98
in the pitched test.

The maximum strain in the failed element (at the interior corners of the
angles) was calculated based on the measured section strains. When
most heavily loaded, the maximum strain was 1796 με. The yield stress
of this steel, based on coupon tests was 60.1 ksi (414 MPa)
corresponding to a yield strain of 2067 με. This data showed that the
failed element was elastic until collapse.

Fig. 10a: Buckling failure of the top chord near midspan.

Fig. 10b: Buckling failure of the top chord near midspan close-up view.
Note flattening of top chord angles (joist is upside down in the image).
Design Applications
Both roofs were geometrically stable during most of the experiment.
The roof systems were just over the applicable AISC ponding stability
requirements. Both roofs failed upon buckling of the top chord
member. Load-deformation response curves are shown for both tests in
Fig. 11. The experimental results show slightly larger deflections than
predicted. The joist response remained approximately linear beyond the
projected strength (including the factor of safety provided in the design
load-carrying capacity from the K-Series Load Table) for both tests.
The apparent safety factor was more than twice the ASD design limit
and well above the expected minimum design strength (removing the
1.67 factor of safety from the ASD level).

For design applications, a ponding amplification factor is useful for

cases that satisfy ponding stability criteria. For both test specimens, the
moment amplification factor, calculated most reliably from the
displacement data, was 1.45. The amplification factor calculated from
Eqn. 2 is 1.44 (considering only the flat case). The experimental results
correspond closely to the analytically predicted amplification factor for
these specimens. Designers should be aware that satisfying ponding
stability criteria or providing 1:48 pitch alone does not mean that water
loading need not be considered. Load effects from accumulating water
can be significantly amplified due to the geometric nonlinearity of the
phenomena. Designers should also check to ensure strength under
accumulating water (using Eqn. 2) for the maximum expected water
loading event (such as to level of free overflow scuppers) and
investigate partial-span ponding loads.
 Midspan Displacement (cm)
0.0 2.5 5.1 7.6 10.2 12.7 15.2 17.8 20.3 22.9 25.4 27.9
50 222
Legend
Flat Roof
45 Flat Roof Design Expectations 200
Pitched Roof
40 Estimated 178
Flat
FlatRoof
RoofActual Design
Minimum Strength
Expected
35 156
Design strength
Total Load (kip)

Total Load (kN)

30 133

25 111
Flat Roof
Flat RoofListed
ListedDesign
DesignStrength
strength
20 89

15 67
Flat
Flat Roof
Roof Deflection
Deflection Limit
Limit Equivalent
Equivalent Load
Load
10 44

5 Flat Roof Design Live Load Deflection Limit 22

Flat Roof Design Live Load Deflection
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Midspan Displacement (in)
Fig. 11: Load-deformation curves for both roof tests with reported
design reference levels.

Based on the strength values provided in the Steel Deck Institute

Design Manual (SDI 2007), the decking was sufficient to support 12.9
in. (32.8 cm) of water. During the pitched test, the maximum water
depth was 19.4 in. (493 mm) at 18 ft. (5.5 m) from the down-slope
parapet wall. This decking was chosen to match the strength of the
joists for a flat roof with uniform loading. This illustrates a potential
issue for design of the decking on pitched roofs that may be subjected
to ponding loads. With ponding loads, the load is not uniform and
water builds up more quickly in low lying areas. Designing for a
uniform equivalent load based on the joist strength could lead to
understrength decking at lower roof elevation areas for pitched cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Two full-scale open web steel joist roof systems were designed, built,
and tested to failure using water loads to investigate ponding effects.
Based on the results of this research, the following conclusions are
drawn:
 The joists considered were just beyond the AISC Specification
criteria to ignore ponding effects. The joists exhibited stable
response under ponding loads until near collapse. Failure was due
to buckling of the joist top chord. Both roofs provided strengths
well above the expected minimum design strengths.
 Early in the experiments, the behaviors of the two roof systems
(flat and pitched) were different based on the initial geometries.
After significant ponding load was added, however, the responses
became similar in terms of moment profiles and displaced shapes.
Large loads made the effects of initial imperfections and camber
insignificant for the roofs considered.
 Near the point of collapse in both experiments, the water elevation
starts to decline as the volume created by the displaced shape
exceeded the volume provided by adding new water to the system.
 For the pitched case, web members exhibited stress reversals as the
ponded water moved up the slope. For these intermediate loading
stages, partial span loading may need to be considered for ponding
design.
 The double angle sections that make up the top chords carried
biaxial bending and axial force. The only significant forces carried
in the bottom chord double angles were tension forces. The
magnitudes of the force components were similar in the paired
angle sections.
 Of the observed biaxial bending in the top chord, the in-plane
bending was larger due to the water pressure acting downward on
the decking along the joist. The observed out-of-plane bending
tended to move the two angle sections away from each other. Due
to this bending, these members are not fully composite.
 The maximum water pressure on the decking occurred at midspan
in the flat test and near the third point in the pitched test. These
 local pressures are significantly larger than the pressure equivalent
to the uniformly loaded joist strength.
 Based on the experimental data, the factor by which the ponding
effect amplified the first order joist moment in both roof tests was
1.45. Analytically, the predicted amplification factor is 1.44.
 The current practice of using a 15% reduction in the joist moment
of inertia to account for shear deformations is reasonable and
appears slightly conservative when compared with experimentally
measured responses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the Kiewit Center for Infrastructure and
Transportation at Oregon State University. Canam Steel Corporation of
Sunnyside, Washington provided the joists and decking materials and
the assistance of Mr. Tim Holtermann, Corporate Engineering
Manager, Canam Steel Corporation is greatly appreciated. The
findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented are those of the
authors and may not necessarily reflect the views of those
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction. (AISC) Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL, 2005.
Burgett, L B. “Fast Check for Ponding.” AISC Engineering Journal.
(1973): 26-28.
Haussler, R W. “Roof Deflection Caused by Rainwater Pools.” Civil
Engineering. (October, 1962): 58-59.
Kuenzi, E W. and Bohannan, B. “Increases in Deflection and Stresses
Caused by Ponding of Water on Roofs.” Forest Products
Journal. (September, 1964): 421-424.
Marino, F J. “Ponding of Two-Way Roof Systems.” AISC Engineering
Journal. (July, 1966): 93-100.
Steel Deck Institute. (SDI) Design Manual for Composite Decks, Form
Decks, and Roof Decks, Pub. No. 31, Fox River Grove, IL,
2007.
Steel Joist Institute. (SJI) 42nd Edition Catalog, Standard Specifications,
Load Tables and Weight Tables for Steel Joists and Joist
Girders, Myrtle Beach, SC, 2005.
Steel Joist Institute. (SJI) Technical Digest No. 3, Structural Design of
Steel Joist Roofs to Resist Ponding Loads, Myrtle Beach, SC,
2007.
REFERENCE PAGE NUMBERS
(Pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12 13, 14, and 15)
American Institute of Steel Construction. (AISC) Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL, 2005.

(Page 2)
Burgett, L B. “Fast Check for Ponding.” AISC Engineering Journal.
(1973): 26-28.

(Page 2)
Haussler, R W. “Roof Deflection Caused by Rainwater Pools.” Civil
Engineering. (October, 1962): 58-59.

(Page 2)
Kuenzi, E W. and Bohannan, B. “Increases in Deflection and Stresses
Caused by Ponding of Water on Roofs.” Forest Products
Journal. (September, 1964): 421-424.

(Page 2)
Marino, F J. “Ponding of Two-Way Roof Systems.” AISC Engineering
Journal. (July, 1966): 93-100.

(Pages 5 and 16)

Steel Deck Institute. (SDI) Design Manual for Composite Decks, Form
Decks, and Roof Decks, Pub. No. 31, Fox River Grove, IL,
2007

(Pages 2, 3, and 5)
Steel Joist Institute. (SJI) 42nd Edition Catalog, Standard Specifications,
Load Tables and Weight Tables for Steel Joists and Joist
Girders, Myrtle Beach, SC, 2005.

(Page 7)
Steel Joist Institute. (SJI) Technical Digest No. 3, Structural Design of
Steel Joist Roofs to Resist Ponding Loads, Myrtle Beach, SC,
2007.