Cummings, S; McDougall, J A and Swaffield, J A (2007) Hydraulic assessment of non-circular-section building drainage. Building Research & Information, 35(3), pp. 316-328. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The development of non-circular cross-section in-building drains with a reduced invert cross-section will allow efficient low-flow performance by maintaining flow depth to aid solid transport. An enlarged upper cross-section will allow higher water and air flow rates to be handled. Such developments are essential if the water-conservation benefits of a reduced toilet flush volume are to be realized. The paper demonstrates the background to such solutions based on the ovoid or 'egg-shaped' cross-section sewers that have been used in Europe and the US for two centuries. The steady flow capacity of the ovoid shape is demonstrated, while the reduced wave attenuation in ovoid cross-sections is simulated, using the method of characteristics solution to the wave equations, and it is shown to be an indicator of improved overall solid transport efficiency. Solid transport results demonstrate the efficiency of non-circular sections and provide a direct comparison with the use of reduced-diameter circular drains already acceptable in conjunction with reduced water usage.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building services; drainage design; drainage systems; ovoid sections; solid transport; water conversation; wave attenuation |
| Index terms: | sewer, efficiency, building service, Europe, air flow, hydraulic, drainage, conservation |
| Subjects: | engineering systems, environmental policy, fluid mechanics, physical geography and landforms, performance management, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here