Lucke, T and Beecham, S (2010) Capacity loss in siphonic roof drainage systems due to aeration. Building Research & Information, 38(2), pp. 206-217. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
An experimental investigation into air entrainment in siphonic roof drainage systems is presented. By injecting known quantities of air into a 4.7m high experimental test rig, the effect of aeration on flow velocity and flow capacity in the siphonic system was determined. A preliminary relationship between air/water content and a decrease in system capacity was formulated. This indicated that system capacity can decrease by up to 40% for air/water ratios approaching 45%. At typical operational air/water ratios of approximately 10%, system capacity decreased by 16% from the assumed no-air-design situation. In addition, average velocities in the pipework decreased by 13% for air/water ratios of 35%. Friction and form losses were also measured and compared with theoretical values.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | aeration; drainage systems; form loss; pipe friction; roofs; siphonic roof drainage; two-phase flow |
| Index terms: | siphonic roof drainage, roof, investigation, drainage |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, environmental engineering, design practice, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PA |
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