NBSIR 73-161

^

Field Test of Hydraulic Performance of

a Single-Stack Drainage System at the

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site

in King County, Washington

Robert S. Wyly and Daniel E. Rorrer

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Burtau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

May 1973

Final Report for Period

April 1972 ~ May 1973

Prepared for Office of Research and Technology

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington. D. C. 20410

NBSIR 73-161

FIELD TEST OF HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF

A SINGLE-STACK DRAINAGE SYSTEM AT THE

OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH PROTOTYPE SITE

IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Robert S. Wyly and Daniel E. Rorrer

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

May 1973

Final Report for Period

April 1972 - May 1973

Prepared for Office of Research and Technology

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D. C. 20410

U. S. DEPARTMEIMT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director

FOREWORD

This report describes the results of a field demonstration of

hydraulic performance of an innovative design of drain-waste-vent (DVJV)

plumbing system installed in several housing units at the Operation

BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site in King County, Washington. The v;ork was

sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in response

to a request by the Factory Built Housing Section, Department of Labor

and Industries, State of Washington, and- conducted by the Building

Environment Division, National Bureau of Standards.

Because the state of the art in testing for hydraulic performance of

innovative plumbing systems is in an early developmental stage, it was

necessary to select a methodology for testing. One of the purposes of

this report is to describe this methodology in some detail, since there

are no standard methods which are applicable.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I * PAGE

FOREWORD.

.

i

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF TABLES . vi

ABSTRACT. .' 1

1. INTRODUCTION 2

' l.I Background 2

1.2 Scope of Work

,

3

1.3 Acknowledgments 4

2. SUMMARY OF TEST PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION 5

2.1 Test Approach 5

2.2 Site Conditions and Preparation 6

2.3 Instrumentation 7

3. RESULTS 8

3.1 General 8

3.2 Hydraulic Performance 9

3.2.1 Trap-Seal Retention 9

3.2.2 Blow Back 10

3.2.3 Self-Siphonage 10

3.2.4 Cross Flow 11

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12

4.1 Significance of Findings in Context of OBT

Guide Criteria 12

4.2 General 12

4.2.1 Potential Effects Due to Possible Fouling of

Horizontal Drains 13

11
PAGE

4.2.2 Possible Frost-Closure Effects 13

4.2.3 Recommended Laboratory Tests. ... 14

4.2.4 Reconnnended Survey of In-Use Experience .... 14

4.2.5 Criteria for Design and Evaluation of

Single-Stack Systems 14

APPENDICES:

A. Test Procedure for Demonstration of Hydraulic

Performance 16

A.l Terminology 16

A. 2 Selection of Stacks for Demonstration 17

A. 3 Selection of Test Loads 18

A. 4 General Approach in Tests 22

A. 4.1 Self-Siphonage Demonstration 22

A. 4. 2 Demonstration of Induced Effects on

Idle Traps 22

A. 5 Details of Test Procedures 22

A. 3.1 Communications 22

A. 5. 2 Additions to Clean-Water Loads 23

A. 5. 3 Detection of Cross Flow 24

A. 5. 4 Detection of Blow-Back 24

A. 5. 5 Detection of Trap-Seal Surface Elevation. . 24

A. 3. 6 Calibration of Fixtures for Volume,

Discharge Rate, and Duration of Discharge . 26

B. On-site Preparations 43

B. l Fixture Flow-Rate Calibrations 43

iii
PAGE

B.2 Fixture-Leakage Abatement 47

B.3 Other On-Site Preparations 47

C. Acknowledgment of Cooperation and Assistance 55

REFERENCES 57

1 >

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure Al MFLR Back-To-Back Bathroom/Laundry Stack

(Stack No. 1) 28

Figure A2 MFLR Back-To-Back Kitchen Stack (Stack No. 2). . . 29

Figure A3 ' MFLR Single-Kitchen Stack (Stack No. 3) 30

Figure A4 SFA Back-To-Back Bathrooms/ Ha If Bath/ Kitchen/

Laundry Stack (Stack No. 4) 31

Figure A5 SFA Single Bath/Half Bath/ Kitchen/Laundry Stack

(Stack No. 5) 32

V
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table Al Description of Stacks Observed and Rationale

for Selection 33

Table A2 Description of Hydraulic Loads and Observtions

for Performance Demonstration of Single-Stack

Systems 34

Table A3 Guide for Application of Procedures for Per-

, formance Demonstration of Single-Stack Systems ... 37

Table A4 A Guide for Selecting Test Loads for SingleBranch- Interval Portions of Plumbing Systems .... 39

Table A5 A Guide for Selecting Test Loads for Multistory

Plumbing Systems 40

Table A6 Comparison of Estimated Test Load Discharge Rates

with the Corresponding "Hunter" Curve Values for

Tests Involving Multistory Soil and Waste Stacks . . 41

Table A7 Basis of Load Selection for Tests Involving

Induced Effects at Different Floor Levels 42

Table Bl Hydraulic Properties of Fixtures 48

Table B2 Full Trap-Seal Depths as Measured on Site 50

Table B3 Data Summary- -Hydraulic Performance Demonstration of Single Stack Plumbing System 51

vi
FIELD TEST OF HYDRAULIC PERFORM/uNCE OF A SINGLE- STACK DPJ^INAGE SYSTEM

AT THE OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH PROTOTYPE SITE IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

R. S. Wyly and D. E. Rorrer

ABSTRACT

A procedure for measuring the hydraulic performance of

DWV systems in the field is described, ana the results obtained with this procedure in a field demonstration of the hydralic

performance of a single-stack drain-waste-vent (DWV) system are presented.

Among the most important criteria for hydraulic performance of drain-waste-vent systems are the following:

(1) Trap-seal retention in idle fixtures.

(2) Ability of the system to resist the ejection of

suds, sewage, or foul gases due to hydrostatic or pneumatic

pressures in the DWV system.

(3) Absence of cross flow between fixtures.

(4) Absence of self-siphonage in the individual fixture traps.

Considering the needs for minimization of maintenance in

service and for the continuation of venting during cold weather,

the following additional criteria can be identified:

(5) Ability to maintain adequate hydraulic performance

over a long period of service without excessive maintenance

of branch piping.

(6) Adequacy of performance under climatic conditions con- ducive to frost closure of vent terminals.

The procedures for selection and application of hydraulic

loads, based on state-of-the-art guidelines, are described as applied to the soil and waste stacks evaluated for conformance

to criteria (1) through (4) above.

The results show adequate performance in relation to

criteria (1) through (4), with a single example of non- conformance on criterion (3), subject to the limiting condition that some uncertainty exists as to the degree of leak

resistance of the DWV systems made available for the tests.

Recommendations are offered concerning further work that

could provide information to confirm estimated conformance to

criteria (5) and (6).

1
1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The single-stack sanitary drain-waste-vent (DV/V) system as designed

for several housing units at the King County prototype site in the Operation BREAKTHROUGH (OBT) program was derived from British designs and was

evaluated in the design stage on the basis of a 1971 in-house working

paper prepared by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) concerning the

application of simplified DIW designs derived from British single-stack

drainage to housing systems produced in Operation BREAKTHROUGH. The

working paper was prepared in part from a careful review and analysis of

British and European data and in part from professional judgment (see

Appendix A for definition of single-stack drainage).

Because of the prevailing opinion that American plumbing fixtures

and use patterns produce heavier loads than those typically occurring in

British and European service, and because some of the important details

of the system as installed are not suitably documented, the FactoryBuilt Housing Section, Department of Labor and Industries, State of

Washington (FBH), requested that The Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) supply additional evaluation of the single-stack

sanitary drainage system. Since the Uniform Plumbing Code (the model

code used in the State of Washington) is generally interpreted to require

secondary ventilation of DWV systems (and as such precludes the use of

single-stack systems), officials of FBH also requested HUD to furnish

corroborating evidence of satisfactory hydraulic performance.

2
The concerns expressed by FBH in relation to the hydraulic

performance of the single-stack design relate primarily to trapseal retention, blowback of suds or gases, long-term serviceability of

branch piping, and resistance to frost closure of vent terminals (see

Appendix A.l for definitions of these terms).

1.2. Scope of Work

The scope of work originally approved by HUD in response to the

needs of FBH was described as follows:

a. Conduct field demonstration ol hydraulic performance with

simulated hydraulic loads, following test procedures mutually acceptable

to Washington State, NBS, and HUD, patterned after procedures that have

been used in similar situations and that are described in NBS BSS41 and

elsewhere [1, 2, 3].^

b. Conduct laboratory tests at NBS concerning significant

hydraulic parameters not subject to suitable evaluation under prevailing

field conditions; e.g., effects of variations in fitting geometry and

branch configuration, performance with stacks of greater height, or

other parameters identified and agreed upon through NBS-FBH-HUD

discussions .

c. Survey service experience after occupancy of the units

in cooperation with officials of FBH and HUD; and with owners, occupants,

^Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at the end of

this paper.

^The scope of these laboratory tests has been subsequently reduced

considerably; this is discussed in some detail in section 4.4.

3
and maintenance personnel. Identify causes of hydraulic performance

problems which may develop in the first few months of occupancy, with

particular reference as to whether problems are due to improper design

or installation, or to the particular functional properties of the DWV

systems.

I d. Based on parts (a), (b), and (c), report on the adequacy of

the design and on the adequacy of possible modified designs that may be

authorized for study under part (b). Utilizing the results of this

study and incorporating recommendations on quality assurance procedures

for single=stack systems, prepare an updated edition of the criteria

guidelines that were used in the OBT program.

The present report covers test procedures and results under item

(a) above. Discussion and recommendations are also given concerning

completion of the work under items (b), (c), and (d) above.

It should be understood that the results of the tests reported here

and the conclusions drawn from these results are known to be applicable

only to the system tested. This situation arises in part from the fact

that working drawings were not available for determination of installation detail, and from the fact that many variations of so-called singlestack design can be developed, not all of which could be expected to

perform identically to the design tested.

1.3. Acknowledgments

The site tests described in this report were funded by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development. Preparatory arrangements

3The scope of this task has been reduced as discussed in section 4.2.3.

4
were made by the Seattle office of HUD and by the Prototype Site

Developer. Briefings were presented to FBH and the King County Building

Department. Assistance in conducting the tests was provided by FBH and

4

lAPMO. Without the cooperation and assistance of these groups, the

performance demonstration could not have been carried out effectively.

The Building Environment Division wishes to express special appreciation

to a number of individuals from the above organizations who contributed

notably to the success of the endeavor. The parts played by these

individuals are acknowledged in Appendix C.

2. SUMMARY OF TEST PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION

2.1. Test Approach

Test loads to be applied to the systems were determined on the

basis of a review of relevant publications from both domestic and foreign

sources. This review resulted in the development of a test plan which

was primarily patterned after existing English single-stack standards,

and which utilized hydraulic loadings approximating the design flow rates

currently used in American plumbing practice. The procedure used for

these tests is described in some detail in Appendix A. The selection of

the particular DWV stacks to be tested was made by reviewing the plans of

the single-stack DWV system which was installed at the King County OBT site

and, through professional judgment, estimating which particular stack

was least likely to perform satisfactorily. Schematic representations

of the particular DWV stacks selected for the tests are shown in

Appendix A, figures Al through A5.

4International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.

5
These figures are, for the most part, copies of schematic piping diagrams provided by the Housing System Producer /. ^ / •

Among the most important criteria for consideration in the evaluation of the hydraulic performance of any DWV system under load are the

following:

a. Trap-seal^ retention in idle fixtures.

b. Ability of the system to resist the ejection of suds, sewage, or

foul gases due to hydrostatic or pneumatic pressures in the DWV system.

c. Absence of cross flow^ between fixtures.

d. Absence of self -siphonage^ in the individual fixture traps.

2.2 Site Conditions and Preparation

Before beginning stack testing under load, all fixtures were calibrated for drainage flow rate and all stacks selected for test were inspected for leakage while discharging various fixtures.^ Adjustable

fixtures (such as bathtubs and water closets) were set for optimum performance^ and the automatic dishwashers were disconnected from the foodQ waste-disposal units."

5 See Appendix A for definitions. It is to be understood that the exclusion of the normal and beneficial siphonic action of a water closet is

not intended by criterion (d)

.

^Visual inspection only. No pressure tests were made by NBS, since HDD's

records indicated such tests had been successfully completed.

^According to manufacturer's recommendations. See Appendix Bl.

®This was permissible and necessary since the dishwashers were not

involved in creating the hydraulic loads in these tests and because

the dishwasher drain connection was required to be closed in order to

permit measurement of the kitchen sink trap-seal retention, by the

particular method used.
In the cases where leakage was detected in the chosen DWV stack, an

Identical system that was not leaking was selected as determined by

visual means during the discharge of various fixtures. This was done to

reduce the possibility that observed hydraulic performance might be

artificially enhanced due to air relief through unintended openings in

the DWV piping.

Instrumentation for the detection of water-surface elevation in the

traps was placed at the required points throughout the test stack and

initial readings were recorded prior to each test run. In addition,

photographs were taken at each test point of major interest or importance.

2.3 Instrumentation

Trap seal depth measurements were made using instrumentation described

as follows:

a. Rulers were placed vertically in the water closet traps, from

which visual observations were made of the existing water depth at

appropriate times.

b. Battery-powered probes were placed in bathtubs, lavatories,

laundry sinks, floor drains, and clothes washer standpipes. These

probes were connected to a transistor detection circuit which provided

the means for the determination of water level changes in 0.1 in increments by a visual light indicator. All probe angular and placement

errors, as well as indicator light reading errors, were such that worstcase stack performance would be indicated. This particular technique

was developed by NBS specifically for use in the tests of the systems at

the King County OBT Prototype Site.

c. A pneumatic pressure/vacuum gauge and two-mode manifold assembly

were used to determine water level before and after each test run requiring

7
detection of trap-seal depth changes in kitchen sink traps. This v/as

done by measuring the pressure necessary to push air through the trap

seal from the fixture side of the trap and/or by measuring the vacuum

necessary to draw air through the trap seal from the drain side of the

trap. For accurate results in the vacuum mode, this technique assumes

that the inside diameter of both the trap and fixture tailpiece are equal

and constant. In the tests reported herein, essentially identical values

of full trap-seal depth were determined in the pressure and vacuum modes.

This confirmed the reliability of the vacuum mode used with the traps

involved in these tests. This method of trap-seal depth measurement was

also used in the self-siphonage tests on lavatories. Since this technique requires a certain amount of operator skill, all measurements so

taken were repeated for consistency.

d. Cross-flow measurements were made by placing a dye solution in

the traps of selected active fixtures, and, after application of test

loads, visually observing for color in samples of water drawn from

appropriate idle rixture traps.

3. Determinations concerning blow back (positive pressures result"

ing in ejection of suds, sewage, or gases out of the system) were based

on visual and auditory observations of the idle traps considered most

subject to such effects. In these tests, the determinations were made in

the traps within the lowest branch interval, generally those connected to

the soil or waste stack nearest its base.

3. RESULTS

3.1. General

Out of ten DIW stacks which were examined, four of these were found

to be leaking. These leaks were evidenced by water emanating from

8
ceilings, electrical fixtures, and other parts of the structure below

the level at which fixtures were discharged. It was not possible to

determine, in the context of this investigation, the actual number of

leaking DWV stacks on the site. Since the points of leakage were hidden

within the structure, no attempts were made to determine the exact locations or causes. Substitute stacks that did not exhibit leaks from discharging fixtures were used in the tests for DWV system performance. No

pressure tests for leak detection were planned, nor were any made as part

of the work described herein. Table B3 Appendix B summarizes the data

of primary interest as determined by the on-site tests.

3.2 Hydraulic Performance

3.2.1. Trap Seal Retention

All traps which were examined in tests for induced-siphonage maintained a satisfactory residual seal depth. The maximum reduction in

trap seal observed after four runs was 0.3 in of water with an average

reduction of between 0.1 in and 0.2 in. These figures represent a trapseal retention of at least 2.3 in.

Under normal loading conditions, trap-seal retention of more than

50% oi the full trap-seal depth effectively satisfies the intent of all

major model codes. This means that reductions of as much as 1 3/8 in

are allowable in traps with full seal depths of 2 3/4 in.

In the system tested, full seal depths ranged from 2 1/U in

for a laundry tub to 3 1/2 in for the water closets.

9
Trap-seal retention of 50% or more in all traps on a DWV system

after repeated loading without refill of idle traps was set forth as an

acceptable performance limit in the Guide Criteria for Operation BREAKTHROUGH (see Criterion H.3.8.1). Acceptance of a 1-in trap-seal retention in a trap with a 2-in seal depth has been indicated by research

experts j_ 5, 6_/ . More recently, the Building Codes Bureau of the State

of New York has accepted a trap-seal retention of 50% in traps with at

least a 2-in seal depth determined in accordance with OBT Criterion

H.3.8.1 as satisfying the intent of the New York State Building Construction Code Applicable to Plumbing for the purposes of testing a singlestack DWV system ^U "

During one run on stack No. la slight sucking sound was heard

momentarily in the floor drain; however, net seal reduction in the drain

was only 0.2 in. This could possibly indicate a reverse slope on the

floor drain branch. Because seal retention was adequate, and because no

blow back or suds ejection occurred, the momentary sucking action (air

flow into the floor drain) is not considered significant.

3.2.2. Blow Back | No evidence of blow back was observed during any of the demonstratio

of performance runs. The maximum momentary positive pressure recorded

at any trap was 0.6 in of water with most pressures averaging between

0.2 in and 0.4 in. These pressure fluctuations were well within a

satisfactory range for the traps involved.

3.2.3 Self-Siphonage

In all but one of the tests designed to examine the performance of

the traps most subject to self-siphonage, no self-siphonage greater than
0.13 in of water was detected. The one instance in which self-siphonage

did occur was on a kitchen sink with the food waste disposal unit operating and with a full sink of detergent-charged water. In this case, the

maximum trap-seal reduction was 1.5 in from a 2.75 in original full trap

seal, which is excessive according to the criterion suggested in section

3.2.1. However, a person using the food waste disposal unit would not

normally operate it with a full sink of sudsy water, and would normally

wash the sink bowl with clean water (and thereby replenish the trap seal)

after draining the kitchen sink. Thus, this is not considered a significant deficiency as determined by the test made. This result may be

attributable to the use of an S-trap configuration (see Si on figure A4).

No trap-seal reduction was detected for this trap with clean water loads

nor with detergent loads with the food-waste disposal unit not running.

3.2.4 Cross Flow

No cross flow was detected between back-to-back water closets nor

between back-to-back bathtubs or kitchen sinks which were checked.

Cross flow was detected between one pair of back-to-back lavatories

which were located in two different dwelling units.

It was not known, at the time the tests were made, what significance,

if any, should be placed on the occurrence of cross flow between these

particular lavatories. The cross flow may have resulted from improper

installation, e.g., a reverse slope in the horizontal branch drain or

the use of an inappropriate fitting in the common branch serving the

back- to-back lavatories. Such a branch assembly would perform the same with respect to cross flow regardless of whether a part of a conventional

vented system or a single-stack system.

11
4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Significance of Findings in Context of OBT Guide Criteria

The tests described herein indicated conformance to the functional

requirements of the OBT Guide Criteria, within the limitations of the

test program and with certain exceptions, as described below. It should

be understood that the absence of detailed documentation on as-built

installation detail limits the value of the findings in relation to extra

polation to systems other than those tested. Also, the fact that leaks

were found in some of the DWV systems by discharging the fixtures in pretests before selecting stacks to be tested raises a question as to

whether there may have been leaks in the systems that were tested. If

undetected leaks existed in the DWV systems on which the hydraulic tests

were made, test results could have indicated somewhat better performance

than had there been no leaks. The program described herein did not provide for pressure testing for leak detection. Those items found to be

in non-conformance, by the tests employed, are:

a. Leakage

The DWV system should not leak (Criterion H.3.2.1). The tests

which were conducted indicated non-conformance of some of the DWV

assemblies under this Criterion. It is considered highly probably that

had these same assemblies been tested on-site after completion of erection by the methods referenced in the Guide Criteria, similar leaks

would have been detected. It is recommended that the detected leaks

be corrected and the causes for same be determined.

b. Cross flow

The OBT Guide Criteria state that excessive cross flow between

fixtures in the DWV system is not permitted (Criterion H.8.4.4.C.).

12
while unrelated to the single stack design, final housing unit inspection should verify that cross flow due to improper installation does not

exist

.

4.2. General

4.2.1 Potential Effects Due to

Possible Fouling of Horizontal Drains

The results of the functional tests and the cross-flow and selfsiphonage tests did not reveal any significant problems. However, these

performance demonstrations were conducted on fixtures which were installed in new and unused DWV systems. After a period of service, the

horizontal branch drains of DVJV systems tend to accumulate grease and/

or other foreign matter, and this restriction can retard the discharge

from a fixture if the accumulation is sufficiently far advanced to cause

the development of a hydrostatic head above the crown of the fixture drain..

With traditional designs, the use of a separate fixture drain for each

fixture isolates any effects of such excess hydrostatic head to the

fixture served by that drain. However, with a back- to-back fixture arrangement employing a common horizontal branch drain, .as utilized in the

design described herein, the development of restrictions at critical

locations could contribute to excessive cross flow and siphonage of either

or both of the traps served by the common branch, particularly where the

connection to the drainage stack is lower than the dip of the trap. Thus,

maintenance needs with this common-branch arrangement might be greater

than with conventional designs. The survey described in section 4.2.4

could aid in the resolution of this question.

13
Possible Frost-Closure Effects

Severe frost closure may result in a temporary deterioration in

functional performance of single-stack as well as conventional systems.

Thus, the preventative measures generally specified for conventional

designs in frost-closure-prone areas may also be sufficient for singlestack designs. The survey recommended in section 4.2.4. would establish

whether frost closure is a problem for the single-stack system installed

at the OBT Prototype Site in King County, Washington.

4.2.3. Recommended Laboratory Tests

The site tests indicated satisfactory functional performance of

the single-stack design approach used in the King County system; hence,

extensive laboratory testing of functional performance is no longer considered necessary.

However, some laboratory tests will be conducted concerning the

cross-flow potential of the subject back- to-back lavatory design. These

tests will assess the performance of the special twin-ell fitting used

in the back-to-back lavatory arrangement, and of the drain slope used.

4.2.4. Recommended Survey of In-use Experience

It is recommended that a survey be conducted to obtain data on inuse experience with these designs. The data would include maintenance

experience, user response to functional characteristics, frost closure,

and other applicable items. This survey would consist of sampled data

collected over a period of not less than three years, and it would include

comparable housing systems with conventional DWV designs. Also selected

field tests would be conducted to assess the effects of accumulated fouling

matter in horizontal common fixture branches and in S- trap- like fixture

drains.
4.2.5. Criteria for Design and Evaluation of Single-Stack Systems

Originally this study was to include a detailed review of existing

criteria for single-stack drainage (see item (d) of section 1.2).

However, this task was deleted with HUD and FBH concurrence for two

reasons. First, HUD made available to FBH a copy of the most recent

NBS guidelines for the evaluation of single-stack designs in the OBT

Program. These recommendations were derived from a review of the stateof-the-art. Second, the current program sponsored by HUD (being

conducted by American Standard, Inc. at Stevens Institute of Technology)

on testing of singla-stack designs is expected to prodace improved

criteria and oesign oata.

15
APPENDIX A. TEST PROCEDURE FOR DEMONSTRATION OF HYDRAULIC PEPFORMANCE

A.l. Terminology

In general, the terminology used herein is consistent with that

commonly used in plumbing codes and in the plumbing trade. However,

for the sake of clarity, the following terms are specially defined for

this work.

Active fixture - A fixture that is discharged for the

purpose of creating or contributing to a hydraulic test

load.

Blow-back - Ejection of liquids, suds, air, or other gases

through the trap seal to the room-side of a trap as a result of excessive pneumatic, hydrostatic, or hydrodynamic

pressures on the drain-side of the trap.

Cross-flow - Movement of waste water from the trap of an

operating (active) fixture to the trap of a non-operating

(idle) fixture. 10

DWV system - The drain-waste-vent system, including all the

sanitary drainage and venting piping inside the building or

relevant living unit(s), and including the building drain

or relevant part thereof.

'^In other test programs it might be appropriate to broaden the

definition to cover movement from active to idle trap arm, active

to Idle branch drain, etc.

16
Idle fixture - A fixture that is not discharged during the

Imposition of a hydraulic test load by active fixtures.

Induced siphonage - Reduction in trap seals of non-operating

(idle) fixtures caused by the discharge of one or more operating (active) fixtures.

Run - A complete hydraulic event, beginning with the discharge of selected fixtures and ending when the water so

discharged has passed through the DWV system.

Self -siphonage - Reduction in trap seal of a fixture (after

completion of fixture discharge) caused solely by the discharge

of that fixture.

Single-stack drainage - A simplified type of DWV system in which

conventional individual, common and branch vents, as well as the

conventional vent stack, are omitted. In essence, both drainage

and venting are accomplished by one stack in contrast to

the conventional design which employs both a drainage and a

vent stack, together with individual, common, and/or branch

vents.

Trap seal - The depth of water in a trap, measured vertically

from the top dip of the trap bore upward to the free surface

of the water.

Trap-seal reduction - A decrease from full trap-seal depth.

Trap-seal retention - The amount of trap seal retained. (The

difference between the full depth and the reduction.)

A. 2. Selection of Stacks for Demonstration

Table Al identifies the demonstration stacks and indicates the

s for their selection.

17
Figures Al through A5 show the stacks referred to in table Al.

Certain calculations are shown on the schematics including connected

fixture-unit loads and estimated peak discharge rates.

Table A2 lists the various observations by test number and fixture

discharged. Table A3 categorizes the tests by load composition and

type of observation.

A. 3. Selection of Test Loads

The literature describes at least two general approaches that

have been used in selecting test loads for DW testing j_ 1, 2, 3__/ . The

British approach for the testing of systems used in dwellings is to consider the test loading to be comprised of water closets, lavatories, and/

or kitchen sinks as/if applicab le . The British recommendations ignore

the effect of bathtubs that are connected to the same stack as water

closets, lavatories, and kitchen sinks. In the case of a stack serving

bathtubs only, the number to be discharged simultaneously should be

taken to be the same as for sinks, according to CP 304 j_ 3_/

In the selection of the test loads for the two- and three-branch

interval stacks, the British procedure of considering each type of

fixture (to be involved in the load) separately was utilized. In

addition, test loads were selected that involved bathtubs. This produced loads generally in excess of those predicted from the Hunter

curve for drainage design j_ 8, 9_/

^^CP 304 does not specifically state what loading allowance is to be

made for clothes washers connected to a combination soil-waste system

component.

18
The fixture-unit loads and "Hunter" flow rates appearing on

figures Al through A5 and in table A6 were obtained from the application

of the National Standard Plumbing Code l_ 10_/ and BMS 79 l_ 9__/

,

respectively.

Table a4, derived from a table presented in BSS 41 1_/ was used to

select test loads for single-branch interval portions of the systems.

Table A5, also derived from BSS 41, was used to select composite loads

for the two- and three-branch- interval stacks. In the application of

table A5, the following approach was used:

(1) British-determined values of use frequency, t/T (see table A5),

rounded to the next highest hundredth, were utilized: i.e., t/T = 0.01

for water closets and lavatories; t/T - 0.05 for bathtubs; t/T = 0.02 for

kitchen sinks. British data were used because corresponding American

data for residential occupancy were not available.

(2) A test load comprising water closets and bathtubs was determined,

considering each type separately and discharging the resultant separately

computed loads simultaneously. This is a conservative application, as

discussed in BSS ^l /'lj/-

i

,(3) Another test load was determined in a manner similar to that

in (2) but comprising, in addition, lavatories or kitchen sinks.

(Lavatories for stack No. 1 and sinks for stack No. 4.)

(4) In the case of stack No. 1, a load comprising the simultaneous

discharge of two back-to-back water closets and a bathtub within the

sam., -biuach interval was applied. The estimated discharge from this

load was nearly the same as in (3), but involved a different combination

of fixtures.

19
(5) The test loads (in gpm) assumed (estimated) in the preparation

of the test plan for the multi-story systems were based on the results

reported in earlier investigations of fixture flow rates £ 8, 11,12__/.

It would have been appropriate to have used the flow-rate values determined from on-site calibrations, as in table Bl, but this was not done

because the test plan had to be completed before the site tests were

conducted. The estimated test load flow rates all exceeded the values

obtained from the "Hunter curve" £ 8, 9, 11, 13_/ by substantial amounts

in most cases. It is significant that the actual test load flow rates

closely approximated the Hunter values, some loads being a little less

and some a little greater than the Hunter rate.

Table A6 compares the estimated test load discharge rates for the

multi-story systems with the values obtained from the "Hunter" curve.

The actual rates can be computed by reference to tables A2 and Bl.

Table A7 provides further detail on the procedure used in selecting

the test loads for use in the determination of adequacy of trap-seal retention and of absence of blow-back at idle fixtures in the tests designed to detect induced effects at different floor levels. It should

be remembered that in this work, where table a5 was utilized, it was

applied separately to each fixture type assumed to be involved in the

peak period of use, as recommended in CP304./^ 3__/

As shown in BSS 41 this approach results in heavier loads than if

the different types involved are first grouped before computing test

loads. Calculations using the estimated fixture discharge rates, the

British values of t/T, and the British non-grouping technique showed

that the test loads utilized, computed in this manner, were actually

20
greater than if computed using the grouping approach and the greater

values of t/T often assumed by American plumbing engineers for some of

the fixtures, as described in BSS Al.

A. 4. General Approach in Tests^"^

A. 4.1. Self-Siphonage Demonstration

a. Fill fixture indicated in table a2. (Lavatory to overflow

level, kitchen sink to 5 3/4 in (7.5 gal).

b. Discharge fixture

(1) For lavatory, discharge by operating the pop-up waste

mechanism.

(2) For kitchen sink, discharge by

(a) Lifting basket strainer

(b) Operating the food-waste disposal unit with the basket

strainer removed.

(3) Observe trap-seal reduction in active trap. Replenish trap

before each run and repeat to give results in duplicate.

A. 4. 2 Demonstration of Induced Effects on Idle Traps

a. Fill fixtures that are to be involved in creating the hydraulic

j load (see table A2)

.

Lavatory to overflow level

Sink to 5 3/4 in (7.5 gal)

12

Table A3 is a summary of some of the most significant parameters as

related to the various hydraulic loads listed in table A2.

21
Bathtub to 6 1/2 in above outlet orifice (25 gal)

Water closet to manufacturers mark in tank

b. Discharge fixtures simultaneously that are to be involved in

creating the hydraulic load.

(1) For lavatory, discharge by operating the pop-up waste

mechanism.

(2) For kitchen sink, discharge by

(a) Lifting basket strainer

(b) Operating the food-waste disposal unit with the

basket strainer removed.

(3) Bathtub - discharge by operating the pop-up waste mechanism.

(4) Water closet - trip handle on tank.

c. Observe trap-seal reduction, blow back, and/or cross flow as

applicable.

Replenish all idle traps before demonstration. Apply selected

hydraulic load for four successive runs without trap«seal replenishment.

Observe for blow-back near bottom of stack during each application of

load. Observe for cross-flow and/or trap-seal reduction at appropriats

idle traps after a series of four successive runs.

A. 5 Details of Test Procedures

A. 5.1 Communications

Utilize 2-way radio communications when appropriate, such as In

circumstances where test personnel are distributed on two or more floors <,

22
Designated chief will signal load application and call for and record

each measurement after application of load. Before the start of each

series of hydraulic loads, each crew member will be instructed by the

chief as to what measurements or other activities he will be responsible

for. This will serve to assure that confusion is kept to a minimum and

that all data is appropriately recorded.

A. 5. 2 Additions to Clean-VJater Loads

(1) Detergent (in kitchen sink)--A concentration of granulated

detergent shall be prepared and used as reconanended by the manufacturer

with the sink loads requiring detergent. Place the detergent required

for a single run in the sink bowl involved. Run tempered water (approx

lOO^F) at wide-open rate from faucet to agitate the detergent. Scoop

off excess suds in container provided for the purpose so that the water

level in the sink can be determined to be 5 3/4 in (7 1/2 gal). Each

detergent run (the first and third runs in a series of four flushes) shall

be followed by a similar run using clean water with no detergent.

(2) Bubble-bath additive (in bathtub)--A concentration of bubblebath flake additive shall be prepared and used as recommended by the

manufacturer with the bathtub loads requiring such additive. Measure the

additive required for a single run and place in the bathtub involved in

the load. Run tempered water (approx 100*^?) at wide-open rate from

faucet to agitate the additive. Scoop off excess suds in container provided for the purpose so that the water level in the bathtub can be

determined to be at 6 1/2 in (25 gal). Each bubble-bath run (the first

and third runs in a series of four flushes) shall be followed by a

similar run using clean water.

23
(3) Paper diaper (in the water closet)--One large-size paper diaper

shall be flushed with loads requiring paper diaper. The paper diaper

shall be placed in the appropriate WC bowl as instructed on the package

by the manufacturer except that the cloth membrane shall not be removed

(the plastic membrane shall be removed). Each paper diaper run (the

first and third runs in a series of four flushes) shall be followed by

a similar run using clean water with no paper diaper.

i A. 5. 3 Detection of Cross Flow

Where it is desired to detect cross flow (see table A2), add a small

quantity of suitable dye, before each run, to the active trap opposite the

idle trap being observed. After end of the run or series of runs, and

after trap-seal retention is measured, withdraw a sample of the water

from the idle trap and observe for evidence of dye crossover.

A. 5. 4 Detection of Blow Back

Where it is desired to detect blow back, e.g., basement and/or firstfloor idle fixtures (see table A2), station an observer at the critical

location. Observer shall observe visually the most critical idle trap

seal under suitable illumination, and shall listen for evidence of blow

back in other nearby critical idle traps during application of hydraulic

load.

A. 5. 5 Detection of Trap- Seal Surface Elevation

Where it is desired to detect trap-seal reduction/retention, or to

determine initial depths of trap seal, utilize electrical water-levelchange detector. Where the electrical approach is not feasible, utilize

the pneumatic water-level-change detector, e.g., kitchen sink with foodwaste disposal unit.

24
(1) Procedure, pneumatic approach ' --fill trap with v;ater. Close

off overflow openings and other supplemental openings on room-side of

trap seal.

(a) Place suction cup of instrument over drain outlet, and set

valves for vacuum mode. Operate squeeze-bulb pump slowly while observing

gage. Record stabilized high-value from gage. Slowly reirove vacuum.

(b) Then set valves for pressure mode and repeat. Remove

suction cup from drain outlet. After prescribed hydraulic loading is

completed, repeat procedures (a) and (b) and again record stabilized highvalues from gage for both vacuum and pressure modes. Generally, the

trap-seal reduction may be calculated as (aj^ - a2)/2, or in the event

(*1 " ®2) > then trap-seal reduction may be approximated by bj^ - b2.

This procedure in the vacuum mode yields accurate results if the

inside diameter of the trap and tailpiece are equal and constant.

(c) From (a) and (b), the initial values may be used to compute

the full trap-seal depth, the general relationship being H<:5^-^ ^i::^ bj^,

assuming the trap is symetrical and that the trap and lower tailpiece

have a uniform internal diameter.

H is the full trap- seal depth.

is the initial gage reading in vacuum mode, inches of water

«2 is the final gage reading in vacuum mode, inches of water

is the initial gage reading in pressure mode, inches of water

b2 is the final gage reading in pressure mode, inches of water

25
(2) Procedure, electrical approach--Fill trap with water. Place

electrical probe vertically in tube extending upward from room-side of

the trap seal, until with a slowly-moving upward motion of the probe, a

selected numbered lamp on the indicator panel begins to fade, but is not

"out". Secure probe at that position so that vertical movement is

impossible, recheck and record the highest lamp number that is "on".

After completion of hydraulic loading on the idle trap thus prepared, the

increase in the number of unlighted lamps multiplied by 0.1 in shall be

taken as the trap-seal reduction.

(3) Procedure, scale approach--For a water closet, fill the idle

i

; trap with water. Secure a vertically positioned ruler (scal^ calibrated

in inches and fractions of an inch) in the water closet bowl. Observe

and record initial scale reading (hj^). After prescribed hydraulic loading is completed, again observe and rec*rd scale reading corresponding to

elevation of the water surface at that time (h2) • Trap-seal reduction

may be calculated as {h^ - h2).

. A. 5. 6 Calibration of Fixtures for Volume, Discharge Rate,

and Duration of Discharge

(1) Lavatory-Measure volume of water necessary to fill to overflow

level, then discharge by operating the pop-up waste mechanism. Measure

the time duration of discharge. Repeat to obtain duplicate measurements.

Compute volume in gallons, duration of discharge in seconds, and average

discharge rate in gpm.

(2) Kitchen sink--Fill to a depth of 5 3/4 in (7.5 gal) then discharge by lifting basket strainer out of sink. Measure the time duration

of discharge. Repeat to obtain duplicate measurements. Calibrate both

26
with and without the food-waste disposal unit operating during the discharge. Compute volume in gallons, duration of discharge in seconds, and

average discharge rate in gpm.

(3) Bathtub--Fill to a depth of 6 1/2 in above drain orifice

{j=s:^25 gal), then discharge by operating the pop-up waste mechanism.

Measure the time duration of discharge. Repeat to obtain duplicate

easurements . Compute volume in gallons, duration of discharge in

seconds, and average discharge rate in gpm.

(4) Water closet (tank type)--Adjust high-water level to correspond

to manufacturer's mark. Trip flush handle and measure time until flush

valve closes at bottom of tank. Then determine volume of water required

to refill tank to high-water level. Also measure or compute volume of

water delivered to the bowl through trap-refill tube and to tank through

hush tube during the time that water is being discharged from the tank,

and add this volume to the larger volume represented between the high

and low water levels in the tank, to obtain "total volume of flush."

Repeat to obtain duplicate measurements. Compute volume of flush in

gallons, duration of discharge from the tank in seconds, and average

discharge rate from the tank in gpm.

It is realized that the characteristics of the discharge from the

water closet bowl into the drainage system differ somewhat from the

corresponding characteristics of the discharge from the tank into the

bowl, depending on the siphonic action and other aspects of the bowl.

However, since on-site conditions preclude calibrations based on measurements of the discharge from the bowl, tank-discharge calibrations

represent the only feasible alternative.

27
<Sa>

Lavatory

Lavatory

Clothes Washer

(CWMg)

Lauudry Iray

(LT)

Cleanout

Connected Load = 35 Fixture UnitJ

Hunter Flow Rate =44 gpm

Floor Drain

(FD)

Figure Al

MFlR Back-To-Back Bathroom/ Laundry Stack

12311 N.E. 147th Court, Apartments IC, ID, 2C , 2D

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

(Stack No. 1)

28
Figure A2

MFLR Back-To -Back Kitchen Stack

12311 N.E. 147th Court, Apartments IC and 2C

Operation BEIEAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

(Stack No. 2)

29
Kitchen Sink

A in

2 in

Kitchen Sink

Cleanout

Connected Load = 6 Fixture Units

Maximum Flow Rate - 30 gpm (est)

Figure A3

- - MFLR Single-Kitchen Stack

12311 N.E. 147th Court, Apartments lA and 2A

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

(Stack No. 3)

30
Lavatory

Figure <A4 SFA Back-To-Back Bathrooms/Half Bath/Kitcfien/Laundry Stack

12312 N.E. lA7th Court (Lot 39)

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

(Stack No. 4)

31
Lavat

(L r u

Kitchen Sink

Clothes Washer

(CWM)

J

Water Closet

(WCj)

Cleanout

0

Bathtub

(B2)

Expansion Joint

4 in

Lavatory

(L^)

j Water Closet

-> (WC^)

4 in

Cleanout

Floor Drain

(FD)

Connected Load = 20 Fixture Units

Hunter Flow Rate = 35 gpm

Figure A5

SEA Single Bath/Half Bath/ Kitchen/Laundry Stack.

12307 N.E. 147th Court (Lot 35)

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

(Stack No. 5)

32
Table Al

Description of Stacks Observed, and Rationale for Selection

(Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington)

Stack Description j Test

1 Order

Levitt

Unit No.

Housing Type Rationale for

Selection

Stack No. 1, 4 inch

soil stack; backto—back bathrooms

on 1st and 2nd

stories; laundry

and floor drain in

basement.

1

1

1

[

10 & 11 MFLR

(Multi-Family

Low Rise)

Heaviest loading

due to back-to

back arrangement.

Trap-seal retention of lower

floor fixtures

should be verified. Possible

cross flow in

twin ells. Possible back pressure at bottom

of stack.

Stack No. 2, 3 inch

separate kitchen

stack; back-toback kitchens

on 1st and 2nd

stories.

4 10 & 11 MFLR Greatest loading

for sink stacks.

Possible suds

problem at bottom of stack.

Stack No. 3, 2 inch

separate kitchen

stack; single

kitchen on 1st

and 2nd stories.

2 10 & 11 MFLR Possible back

pressure & suds

problem due to

off-sets and

small stack diameter.

Stack No. 4, 4 inch

soil stack; backto-back 2nd story

bathrooms, halfbath & kitchen

1st story, clothes

washer and floor

drain in basement.

3 5 SFA

(Single Family

Attached)

Possible selfsiphonage of

sink trap due to

unvented vertical section in

drain. Possible

suds problem or back pressure in

basement

Stack No. 5, 4 Inch

soil stack; full

bath 2nd story

kitchen & 1/2 bath

1st story, clothes

washer in basement.

5 8 SFA Possible self- i siphonage of 1 lavatory trap ; due to unvented ! vertical section 1 in drain.

33
Table A2

Description of Hydraulic Loads and Observations for Performance Demonstration of

Single-Stack Systems at the Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County,

Washington (TEST PLAN)

Test

No.

Description

Fixture (s)

to be

Discharged

Estimated

Discharge 15

Observations

' (Remarks)

1.1.1

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.3.1

1.3.2

1.4.1

1.5.1

1.6.1

B

'2A(CW)

2A(CW)

^2A(BB)

WC,

WC

'2A(CW)

2A(PD)

2A(CW)+

^Sb(cw)

B2A(CW)+

WC

:b(cw)

2A(CW)+

2A(CW)+

2B(CW)

1.6.2

1.6.3

1.7.1

Same as 1.6.1

Same as 1.6.1

WC

2A(CW) +

'2A(CW) +

*2A(CW) +

^2B(CW)

1.7.2

1.7.3

Same as 1.7.1

Same as 1.7.1

gpm

10.0

13.5

13.5

27.0

27.0

37.0

40.5

54.0

54.0

54.0

64.0

64.0

64.0

Observe L^^ for cross flow, seal reduction

Observe for cross flow, seal reduction

Observe B^g for cross flow, seal reduction

Observe ^^2^ cross flow, seal reduction

Observe ^C^^ for cross flow, seal reduction

Observe B^. & WC_. for seal reduction 2A 2A

Observe B^„ & WC_^ for sea] reduction

2B 2A

Observe idle f ixtures^^for seal loss and blow-back

on first floor and in baseir.ent

Except flush PD in WC^^

Except use BB in B2^

Observe idle fixtures^ for seal loss and blow-back

on first floor and in basement

Except flush PD in WC2^ and use Bjj^^cy) instead of

^2B(CW)

Except use BB in B2^ and use B

lA(CW)

instead of

B2B(CW)

Based on the assumption of the following mean discharge rates;

WC = 27.0 gpm

Lav = 10.0 gpm

B = 13.5 gpm

S = 15.0 gpm

16,For the purposes of this demonstration, it will be sufficient to make measurements

on only one trap of each pair of idle back-to-back fixtures that are plumbed

^ ...symetrically

.
Table A2 Continued

Test

No.

Description

Fixture (s)

to be

Discharged

Estimated

Discharge 15 Observations

(Remarks)

1.8.2 WC

wc

B

2A(PD) +

2B(CW) +

1.8.3

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

4.1.1

4.1.2'

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.2.3

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

5.1.1

2A(CW)

Same as 1.8.2

^2(CW)

Same as 3.1.1

Same as 3.1.2

^l(CW)

Same as 4.1.1

^^2A(CW)+

4a(cw)+

^l(CW)

Same as 4.2.1

Same as 4.2.1

^2A(CW)

Same as 2.1.1

^2A(CW)+

^2B(CW)

Same as 2.2.1

'1 (CW)

1^:

67.5

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

52.0

52.0

52.0

15,0

15.0

30.0

30.0

10.0

Observe idle f ixtures^^ f or seal loss and blowback on first fl and in basement

Except use BB in B2^

Observe for seal loss and blow-back in

Except use Det in S2

Except operate fwdu during discharge of sink

Observe for self siphonage of S^

Except add Det and operate fwdu

Observe for seal loss and blow-back in idle fixtures on first fl and in basement

Except use PD in WC^^

Except use Det in S^^ and operate fwdu

Observe for seal loss and blow-back in S lA

Except use Det in S^^ and operate fwdu

Observe for seal loss and blow-back in first

floor fixtures

Except use Det in S^^ and operate fwdu

Observe for self-siphonage of

\ ^^Ibid

16 Ibid

NOTES: Subscripts for fixtures discharged indicate floor no., right or left side (A or B)

In back-to-back arrangements, and whether clean water (CW), detergent (DET), bubble bath

i(BB), or paper diaper (PD) is used.

35
Table A2 Continued

NOTES : Continued

The subscript fwdu stands for food-waste-disposal unit,

Fixture Symbols: WC - water closet

B - bathtub

L - lavatory (wash basin)

S - sink (kitchen)

CWM - clotheswashing machine

I DWM - dishwashing machine

LT - laundry tray (tub)

FD - floor drain

Test No. Code: First number stands for the

Second number identifies a particular combination of fixtures

discharged.

Third number identifies variations in the load, e.g., clean

water, detergent, paper diaper, fwdu running/not running,

etc

.

36
Table A3

Guide for Application of Procedures for Performance Demonstration

of Single-Stack Systems at the Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site,

King County, Washington (TEST PLAN)

Test No. Load Composition

1 —.

i Phenomena to be Observed Similar to

Series No.

1

1.1.1, 1.2.1

1.3.1, 1.4.1

1.5.1

Clean, cold water Cross flow and seal reduction in certain fixtures on 2nd floor

1.2.2 Bubble-bath in warm

water in bathtub

•t 1.2.1

1.3.2 II 13 1

1.6.1, 1.7.1

1. 8.

Clean, cold water Seal reduction and blow

back in idle fixtures on

1st floor in basement

1.6.2 Paper diaper in WC 11 1.6.1

1.7.2 II II 1.7.1

1.8.2 II II 18 1

1.6.3 Bubble-bath in warm^^

water in bathtub

II 1.6.1

1.7.3 •1 II 1.7.1

1.8.3 II •1 1.8.1

3.1.1 Clean, cold water Seal reduction and blow

back In first floor sink

3.1.2

(w/o fwdu)

Detergent in sink

with warm*' water

It 3.1.1

3.1.3

(w/fwdu)

It II 3.1.1

4.1.1

(w/o fwdu)

Clean, cold water Self slphonage of first

floor sink

4.1.2

(w/fwdu)

Detergent in sink

with warm water

II 4.1.1

4.2.1 Clean, cold water Seal reduction and blow

back in idle fixtures on

1st floor and in basement

4.2.2 Paper diaper in WC •1 4.2.1

4.2.3

(w/fwdu)

Detergent in sink

with warm ^ water

It 4.2.1

Estimated lOO'F.

37
Table A3 Continued

Test No. Load Composition Phenomena to be Observed Similar to

Series No.

2.1.1 Clean, cold water Seal reduction and blow

hjl/^lf ^n IQ^ T A r\r\ir fiv^iii"oc

2.2.1 II II

2.1.2 Detergent in sink

with warm^^ water

II 2 11

2.2.2 II M 2.2.1

5.1.1 Clean, cold water Self siphonage of second

floor lavatory

1^ Ibid

38
<

(0 H

nl

4-J 0) COUU

00

r—

M

•H - * pr*1 *pn ^ 1 rrl O

P-*

SI/ O 1 1 \jww VI/

4-*

P-l

r—i

n CI Q

HI 4J

O rrs <a

M

0) 3 O e X 3 -H

cdM

PQ

0) iH

60

•HCO

d

}^O •H

0]

cdom

0) H

00a

1-1

4-1 o

0) iH

0)

C/}MO

(1) •H3O

>.T3 ^ (U

4-* ^3 CO

(1) 00

CO

C

•H

CO 0) 0) pq U3

4JXU

(U

(Ucoo

.-4CN Ol CM CO CO CO CO

cs cn

m so 00 o\

<u

CO o

<1) o •H o U) 4J c3

(U <U CO

(1) o "O

{J Cj CO CJM CO

(1) CO CO 'I Q CO

CO (U n tH CO CO QJ CU o 4J tlO V4 -i }_l CO 3 CO iH r» (-; 3 CO Cj O fl) CO •H <u 4_) D

*J 4J CO U O CO OJ 0) r* 4J

<u 1 

U-l CO (U CO O CO }^

CO •f-l

Q

C3 }.l >> O 4-1 n. •H o w CO 4J o O c o o

(U o 4-1 iH •H

0) 4-1 iH CO CO CO 3 <u C O 0) r-l 0) •H CO ^ to i

•p

B o •H o CO 4-t CO c o o u >,

CO 3 u

O o i< a CO u •H O B 3

•H •4-1 4-1 QJ 'd

IS CO •H •H U 3 > 3 00 CO o .H

00 c iH rH •H 3 a CO

d o 4-1 o >-l •H c CO •H <u (U

0) 4J

d 0)

CO 4J »-l CUM

(U CO CO 00 3 > 0 a CO 4-* •H •H CD X

00 >-( •H o 4-1 o (4-1 (U <u •H •H 4-1 0) rH CO CD x: o 00 o

CO 00 •H CO

4-> c c 4J o (U e G •H CO u

CO CU 4-J 0) •H U CO > ^ 00

<DO <U

d o u

G 4-1

M

a CO oMH

00

0}o

(0

ON

39
1 !-i OO 1 3 c e

•VI

O

O CO

C

w

u

O

O cfl CJ >-i o

OJ -U J-) CD

O

O CD 0) CM COm vO

Q)

H

M

0) iH 3 OJ XI +J CD e C X •H 3 (1) -r^ >-i o

r-i CO 00 CO o 001 rH rH CN u r-i 1 CM in 1 ON 1 •vT 1 ON

rH rH e

0) a\

•u CD o

CD 0) <r o ^

>> (D o CM in rH CM

to 1 1 1 1 1 1

II rH CO o in rH

C>0 c rH rH CN c 0) 4J|h

0) ^6 00 3 <u O tH XI o eg CTv o CM in rH rH CM CM

<u 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 II iH cn rH CO

•H rH rH CM

O ^—

H 4->|

H P CD

CO 0) 0) •H CM ^-l 00

*J

M

O iH CO Csl 00 vO CO 3 x: O CM rH rH CM CO

i—i

u 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD II rH CO CO CTi •H rH rH CM

O e 73

Q 4J 1 H <+-) 0) 0)

M-l CD CD O O

o;

O to CO c c rH o CTi o c O o CM 1^ rH CM CO CO

U-l o •H 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o J-l II <-i 00 in CM rH

CO rH CM CO

cn (U 14-1 !-i 4-j|

H

(U

N

O 3 H Q

CO )-l in

0) o a XI vD vO r~. •H e o o cn <Ti rH CM CO <r

4-> 3 •H 1 1 1 1 1 1 CJ 4-) II ' .H vT o r>. r-« rQJ ^—

CO rH rH CM CO

iH ^ 4-j|

H (1) cn 0)

cn

)-i o o f-H rH CM in 00

<+-i <4-t o <3- rH CN CO in o 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) II iH m CM CM CO v£) tJ >, rH CM CO <3- •H o 3 c O a>3 < o* o <u in r~- CO o 00 o in rH CM -<3- 1 1 1 1 1 1 u VO vO 00 rH rH CM ^

•ulH O CM rH CTi rH o CM •<r 00 rH D 1 rH 1 00 1 m 1 CM 1 in 1 O CM vj- vD <3N

I—

o 00 00 CO m CM CM CO o rH 00 rH rH CM nH 1 rH 1 1 in 1 CO 1 ON 1 ON

rH 00 CvJ 4J|H rH rH I I AJ CO

CO cn 00 ^ u u U CD •H 0) 0) 3 X >

00

•H CO

cn i-j >H

0) o u B u o u COO)

T3 T) rH d 3 CO o

cn CO

CUo

rH

I"

0)

(U U3O -H

CD

U

tH3

*J

X

CO

0)

CJc

(U3

cr

a>

CO

V4

CO rH3a

OJcn

U CO

CO CJ rH3 4-> O CD •H >J U O

is? X X u u

•HX ^ u

CO&.

l*Hoco

•H

•uO

QJ rH

0)CD

CU x:

4-1

CDCO

CD

OJ00U

CO XO

CO •H co

(1) o

CO 13

•H3

00oc c

0)

>4H (U O X u cn

(1) CO XX3 -W C -H

-C3 "

<U 00

4J C3 O -H

0) -U rH CO 0) (U CO

CO (0

C

flj

M > 14H •H O

00 c c

0)OO

rH -H -rl X 4-1 -U

CO CO CO 4J C C

•H -H

in

XX •H B E X o o H o a oMoCM

CO

J-i 0)o

4Jc3Ucoo

<+Ho

0)oc

CUu

i-i 3

CJuo

•H OJ c c

CO 0)

OJ00 0)

>H >-l CO CO rH

<u

4-J 5j O 3 c -ca

0) CD u B o

0)

M

4-' &

(0>> CD

0) 4-t O

•rt UH > O

i-l

(1) CD

CO

O

C

Uh (Us

rH CO O• c O 3

MH c

CO 0) X rC

4-1

H

X

CO XOU

CU

CU (U x: 3 H

4J•HrH

•rl XCO Xo

>-4 Puco

CD

CD •HO

P-i

(U X

OJ • 4-J ^CO cn

>-j

u

00 3

4-1

4-)

X

O -H C

CD

CO CL) 4-J X) o

0) CU u C 3 C

&, o E o oO 14Ho

CD

0) . -a -2 ^ Cd E rH o 3 ^ rH c^—

CD OJ ^

0) 00 »

4-)

C

CO ^ CO S-J

)H 13 O COO eou

14H -o

0) 4J3QOo

CO <u -a o

CJw ^

0) CO _Q rH 4-) 3

0) CD a,

cn

CU

1-1 x; 23

(u 4-) 2: XE C 3 X -H C to

-T3 4-1 tU (U M X 4-1 (U 4J CO U u

l*H -H

C

O -H

to

(UCuO

tU

to 00 u d

CU -H

CU CD O

CO c

•H i4HO E

tu

d

4-1 o

CD -H

4-) CD COM

0) 3

<J ^3

•H> <U

>-< E

0) -rl CD 4-1

CO MHo do o

•H

(U 4-1 U CO 3 !-i 4-1 X OJ •H X *4H 4-1 U O ' CO u

rH3 rH O CO ,

4-1

a

COCu cn

CO X)

00

d

d CO •Hx) « d -o

•H o

l+H -H

<4H CU O CI.

4J to •H O

rH rH

•H I X ^ CO CO X <U O CU U

(X rH

CO rH O

CO -H 3 Cu TD >^ •H -U >

•H CO Xld 00

•H

d

•H

(U

n

X 3

4-1 Xl

cndo

•H

4-1 COM

0)CUo

CU>

CO

CD

<Uu

CJ3

CDd

<u

(U

4-1 CU X

QJE

•H

cn So

-o

H

d ^ CO 4J !-i

00

COu

OJ>

CO

(U X

CO -a

l-i <u>

(U X£-1

Csl Cn!

^0
Table A6

Comparison of Estimated Test Load Discharge Rates with the

Corresponding "Hunter" Curve Values for Tests Involving Multistory

Soil and Waste Stacks

Test

Load No.

"Hunter" Load Values Estimated Discharge

Rate of Test Load

1.6.1

Fixture Units gpm gpm

1.6.2 35 44 54.0

1.6.3 J 1.7.1^

1.7.2 35 44 64.0

1.7.3

1.8.2 '

1.8.3 1

35 44 67.5

2.2.1|

2.2.2

J

30.0

4.2.1^

4.2.2 26 38 52.0

4.2.3 J

3.1.1]

3.1.2

3.1.3 J

6 Not Appllca- 15.0

Values in this column are based on generally accepted fixture flow rates.

Actual flow rates, which were determined later by site calibration, differed from these values (see table Bl). Test-loao discharge rates computed

from the actual fixture discharge rates more closely agreed with the "Hunter"

loac values.

Hunter curve does not extend below 10 fixture units. Estimated "fair"

test loaa - 1 sink, or approximately 15 gpm.

NOTE: The f^ixture-unit loads were computed from the rating scheme given in

reference J_ 10__/, and the corresponding "Hunter" flow rates were obtained

from reference . 41
Table A7. Base* of Load Selection for Tests Involving Induced Effects at Different Floor Levels

FIXTURES

Test

Scries

Fixture Types

Comprising

Load

Nunber o£ r l.-.i-jzch oi Inaicated

Type to be Considered in Load

Computation

Number to be Discharged

Together

frequency of

Ose,-^ t/T

Guide for

Choosing S'uiabers of Fixtures to be Discharged

Load Type Per

BS3 Al/CP 304

Terminology

1.6

1.7

1.8

B

VC

X

iic B

4.. . *

4

2 (top floor)

2 (top floor)

0.01

.05

.01

.05

.01

2.1

2.2

o;o2

.02

4.2 ncL

S

1

11

.01

.01

.02

Table AS

Table AS

No. 2, Evening

p«ak bathroom

load

No. 3, Composite peak bath- room load

Special Choice:

2 back to back

WC's flushing,

plus one bsthtub

draining on same

floor. Agrees

with use of Table

A4 for selection

of 3 fixtures

operating (of the

4 on top fl)

arbitrarily chosen

«s the two WC's

and one of the

bathtubs.

Table A5

Special Choice: _

Vorst case by engrg. Judgment. Agrees

vith use of Table AA considering 4 fix- tures

Special Choice: Vorst case by engrg. Judgment. Equivalent

to use of Table A-, considering 2 fix- turesTable AS No. 1 morning

peak bathroom

load, plus

kitchen sink

25 The values given are those determined iroa British sources. Io« term "t" is the duration of a single operation of a tixture. and 'TT is the average tl-« betveen successive operations In a period ot peak use.

42
APPENDIX B. ON-SITE PREPARATIONS

B.l. Fixture Flow-Rate Calibrations

Tables Bl and B2 contain a summary of the results of fixture ana

trap calibration, determined essentially as briefly described in Appendix

A and as described in more detail below. The measurements indicated were

used to determine volume discharged, duration of discharge, and average

discharge rate as called for in the test plan, section A. 5. 6.

a. Bathtubs

Quantities of water, as measured with a graduated container, were

placed in the individual bathtubs and corresponding depth markings were

placed on masking tape which was attached to the inside of the tub before the surface was wetted. The bathtub was then drained and the time

necessary to empty all of the water into the building DWV system was

26 determined by means of a stop watch. Measurements of the time for

filling and draining the bathtubs were made as many as four times in

order to establish a meaningful average. In those cases where the first

drain time was consistent with the time previously obtained on fixtures

of the same type and model, replicate measurements were not made. Attempts

were made to adjust the bathtub drain pop-up mechanisms such that a maximum flow rate could be obtained in the open position, and such that no

leakage into the drain occurred in the closed position. In some few

cases, elapsed time was recorded at intermediate depths while the bathtub

was draining so that a volume discharged versus time profile could be

2^The time required to drain the small quantity of trail flow was

neglected as being irrelevant and misleading for the purposes of

these tests.

43
established. In addition the time required to fill certain fixtures with

maximum water valve (faucet) openings was recorded; this was done in order

to establish a meaningful estimate as to the maximum flow rates obtainable

at the fixtures (see criterion H3.10.1.a of the Guide Criteria).

b. Lavatories

The volume of water necessary to fill each of the three different

types of lavatories utilized in the housing units was measured with a graduated container and the value recorded. Each lavatory was filled to

the overflow level and the pop-up stopper was released causing drainage

to occur. The time required to empty all of the water into the DWV

system was recorded for each lavatory fixture in a manner similar to

that described above for bathtubs. This measurement was repeated several

times on certain fixtures in order to obtain an idea of the degree of

repeatability.

c. Kitchen Sinks

The dishwasher discharge line was disconnected from the food waste

disposal unit and a rubber stopper was installed in its place, on those

kitchen sinks which were to be used as idle fixtures (this was necessary

to the use of the pneumatic method for measuring trap-seal depth, because

this method required closing off all overflow openings and other supplemental openings on the room-side of the trap seal. Measured quantities

of water were then placed in the kitchen sinks and time measurements were

made in a manner similar to that described for the bathtubs. These calibrations were conducted with the food waste disposal unit not operating,

and then were repeated with the disposal unit operating. The detailed

description of test procedures included in the original test plan is

given in Appendix A. 5.

44
d. Water Closets

The water closet calibrations were conducted approximately in

accordance with the procedure outlined in section A. 5. 6(4). In order to

make the required computations, the following on-site procedure was used,

beginning with a typical fixture selected at random:

(1) The float mechanism was adjusted to yield a water level in the

tank corresponding to the manufacturer's recommended water level with

the supply stop valve fully open, in a normal flushing cycle.

(2) The elevation of the water surface was determined at the instant

that the tank flush valve closed, anu a corresponding reference mark made

on the side of the tank.

(3) A reference mark was made on the inside of the tank at approximately the mid-range elevation of the water surface in the tank during

the flush cycle.

(A) Next, the supply stop valve was fully closed, and the tank was

emptied to the low-water level as determined in (2) . Then, with the tank

flush valve closed, the volumes of water required to be added to the

tank, using a graduated container to bring the water level up to the

mid-range mark (item 3) and to the manufacturer's. recommended water level

(item 1), were determined.

(5) The volume of water delivered by ttie trap-refill mechanism

during the period of time when the tank flush valve was open in a normal

flush, was determined with the supply stop valve fully open.

(6) The following measurements of time were made:

(a) Time to empty tank (ending with drop of tank flush valve),

with supply valve fully closed.

45
(b) Time to empty tank (ending with drop of tank flush valve),

with supply valve fully open.

(c) Time to fill tank to the mid- level mark referred to in

item (3) above, with stop valve fully open.

The volume measurements described above were made on one water closet

of each manufacturers make and model type. The other water closets involved in the tests were assumed to have the same volume/ discharge

characteristics as those of the same make and type which were actually

calibrated as described above. The tirue for each of the other water

closet tanks to empty (ending with the drop of the tank flush valve) was

measured, with the supply stop valve fully open, as in (6)(b) above. It

was assumed that the time for the tank to refill to mid-elevation, as in

(6)(c) above was the same for all the water closets of the same make and

type. It was also assumed that the volume of water delivered by the

trap-refill mechanism, as in (5) above, was the same for all the water

closets of the same make and type.

Based on these measurements and assumed values, the volumes, times,

and average discharge rates for the several water closet tanks were computed, as listed in table Bl. These rates include the small rates contributed by the trap-refill mechanism while the tank is in the process of

emptying.

e. Full Trap-Seal Depths

Full trap-seal depths were measured using the pneumatic method where

feasible and, when sufficient access was available, the results thus

obtained were checked by a simple ruler measurement of the trap geometry.

The full trap-seal depths are summarized in table Bl.

46
B.2. Fixture-Leakage Abatement

All fixtures to be used in the demons'tration program were inspected

for leakage around their drain and overflow fitting connections and,

where such leaks were discovered, they were eliminated.

B.3. Other On-Site Preparations

Prior to beginning the performance demonstration tests on any of the

selected stacks, a positive visual identification of stack and fixtures

was made. This identification was established in order to preclude the

possibility of inadvertantly performing a series of test runs on a stack

other than the one selected, or with the wrong fixtures discharging. The

appropriate building, apartment, and lot numbers were recorded, and the

stack was assigned a number which was marked on tape and placed with each

fixture group served by the stack.

With each stack thus identified, a short series of fixture discharges

into the DWV system was made, and a visual check for leaks was conducted.

On occasions where leaks occurred in the DWV system, another geometrically

similar stack was chosen.

Once stack selection and preliminary leak tests were completed, each

fixture to be involved in the demonstration was assigned an identification number and this number was placed on the fixture by means of masking tape. This facilitated rapid positive identification of idle and

active fixtures as called for In the test plan and improved verbal

communication during the tests. Finally, all instrumentation to be used

In the test demonstration involving the stack selected was installed in

the appropriate locations and initial values were recorded. This

Instrumentation included electrical probes and rulers. In some cases

the pneumatic water- level-change detector was used, and in such cases

47
Initial pneumatic readings were made and recorded. Check-out of the

communications (walkie-talkie and loud voices) to be used was conduct

and, when proven satisfactory, the performance demonstration tests

involving the stack selected were begun.

48
Table Bl

Hydraulic Properties of Fixtures

at the King County, Washington OBT Prototype Site

(As Determined from On-Site Calibrations)

Fixture/Stack Unit No/' Lot 28 Volume Time Flov; Rate

gal seconds gpm

wc/l(P)

lA

10-11 Unknown 4.41 16.6 15.44

WC,„/1(P)

IB'

10-11 Unknown 4.28 16.8 15.81

WC„,/1(P) 10-11 Unknown 4.38 16.3 16.14

WC2g/l(P) 10-11 Unknown 4.36 16.0 16.35

B,^/1(P)

lA

10-11 Unknown 25.0 142,0 10.56

Bt„/1(P) IB

10-11 Unknown 25.0 173.0 8,67

B^./1(P)

2A

10-11 Unknown 25.0 169.0 8.88

B^g/KP) 10-11 Unknown 25.0 148.0 10.14

lA/

10-11 Unknown 2.1 15.2 8.26

IB

10-11 Unknown 2.1 14,8 8.49

L„./1(P)

2A

10-11 Unknown 2,1 13.2 9.52

L2b/1(P) 10-11 Unknown 2.1 15.2 8.26

S,./2(P)

lA

10-11 Unknown 7.5 32.9 13,68

S,«/2(P)

IB

10-11 Unknown 7.5 35.2 12.78

S,./(P)

2A

10-11 Unknown 7.5 31.0 14.52

S2b/2(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 32.6 13.80

S,./2(P)

lA

10-11 Unknown 7.5 39.0 11-54 1129

10-11 Unknown 7.5 36.2 12 , 43

S2^/2(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 33.0 13.64

i 2S

S2b/2(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 36.2 12.43

S^/3(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 36.2 12.43

S2/3(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 30.2 14.88

Sj^/3(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 39.0 11.54 29

S2/3(P) 10-11 Unknown 7.5 35.5

29

12.68 ^

27

Unit Number refers to the drawing code number of the dwelling unit in which the

fixture was located.

28 Lot number refers to the HUD lot location within the OBT Prototype Site.

29

With food-waste disposal unit running.
Table Bl Continued

Fixture/Stack Unit No.^^ Lot^y • Volume Time Flow Rate

S^/A(T)

5

5

39

39

gal

7.5

7.5

seconds

30.2

36.0

gpm

14.90

•12.50^^

S,/5(R)

J- 8

8

Unknown

Unknovm

7.5

7.5

33.2

38.0

13.55

29

11.84

WC,/4(T) 39 4.26 14.8 17.27

WC2^/4(T) 39 4.28 15.0 17.11

WC2g/4(T) 39 4.36 16.0 16.35

39 25.0 147.0 10.20

B23/4(T) •5 f 39 25.0 151.0 9.93

L^/4(T) 39 1.94 14.8 7.85

L2^/4(T) 39 2.0 15.0 8.00

5 -.; .; 'J ; 39 2.1 14.8 8.49

S^/4(T) 5 39 7.5 30.2 14.90^^

S^/4(T) 39 7.5 36.0 12.50

S^/5(R) ;'8' Unknown 7.5 33.2 13.55

S^/5(R) Unknown 7.5 38.0 11. 84"^^

WC^/5(R) 8 Unknown 4.34 15.8 16.50

0 Unknown H . /y 1.J . /

B2/5(R) Unknown 25.0 150.0 10.00

L^/5(R) Unknown 1.94 14.2 8.19

,L2/5(R) Unknown 2.09 16.2 7.75

27 Ibid

2^Ibid

• ^29i5id

50
Table B2

Full Trap-Seal Depths As Measured on Site

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype Site, King County, Washington

Trap/Stack No. Nominal Dla.

In

Unit No.^' By Ruler

Inches of

Water

By Pneu. MethoQ-**^

Incnes or water

1-1/2 10-11 Unknown —

3/P

1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 2-7/8/P

FD/1 2 10-11 Unknown — No Results - FD

Not Connected

to Trap

cJ 1QJO II l» M

1-1/2 5 38 Mmm 2-3/4/P; 2-3/4V

1-1/2 5 39 3P; 3V

WCj^/1 — 10-11 Unknown 3-1/2

10-11 Unknown 3-1/2

WC^^/l lU-il Unknown 0 "1 / 0

La

10-11 Unknown 3-1/2

1-1/

4

1 A 11 10-11 Unknown / /o

1-1/A 10-11 Unknown 2-7/8 2-3/4P

rtJM /

1

1 A 11 10-11 Unknown ir 51 1\ CWM^/1 2 10-11 Unknown

LT 1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 2-1/8

1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 3 3P; 3V

S2a/2 1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 3

S^/3 1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 331 2 3/4P; 2 3/4V

S2/3 1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 3^^

Sia/2 1-1/2 10-11 Unknown 3-3/8P; 3-3/8V

27

28

Ibid

Ibid

The symbol "P" means the measurement is based on the use of the instrument in the

pressure mode, and the symbol "V" in the vacuum mode. ^^ This particular No. 3 stack (in Unit 10-11) was not tested. Ruler measurements were

not repeated on substitute No. 3 stack, which was tested.

51
0

4) 43

4J

a

0) 4J

CO>»

CO CM c c

a 00 3 C

4S

' (0

C ^ ' a

00 o

c o

CO eoc

m

CO

onV

E

»:xtc

CO

COco

u

> V *J

•H 3

cn CO U4 O o

4)

i-l (0 ^ CO JS

(0 u

V e X c

T3 o

> V

> > > > >

V u u

00 «

Xi « CD • • «0 o JO 43 43 0 o o O 0

CO » » §

^

o o o

t-4 r-l ( § « CO «

M-<CO

<4-l CO

r-l tt CO ao CO

«4.| O o o O o

CO M u U

COo

U o u O u

O o o u 2:

a

a e

< M

uH COCO §3

a

»< «

9) 00 9 «

X a

•H 3

00 jO

H 32

I I I I I i I I I I I I

I O

I

I o

I

I o

I o •

I o

I I I O »-< CM o o * o • • • •

I I O I o o o o

so

I O ^ CM o • • •

I o o o

I O i-l CM o • •

I o o o

pq pq CQ fM <N» CM ^ » m

(N CM «v| <Csl U

CM

CM CM a COt—< r-l —, 1—' S CO U H >-) U

r

04 —1 CM f-4 CM CO

9—

CM CM CO to

• •

• • • •

.—

t

1—(-4 f—

52
'J-

(0 J£M

COe

OS

-oc

to

01cou

>M

V

01 S

8.

00

«

g

«M>v

•-4O.a

9

u

«

ai

606

U

01

m

e

9

oM

e

O

9

CO

60

es <<

• •II*

o o

II 'I 'I

o o o

« I

a e

« M

I:

9

e

vO ^0 \0 OO*** ilO<-4«^ 0***l I O fvl CO O***** I O <-< CN ro o*** iO<Mcn i O ^ <M «N i llOOO O'*** o I O O O lOOOOO lOOO lOOOO I I

I n

O t—

'

I

o o

« 09 w ^

9 V

4J JO K e

iJ CQ CO ^ S CQ CQ

<—I ^ Q 3 ,—1 -^H

PQCQ U Cbi U «Q U ^

03 CQ CQ Z!

,—I ^ _i 3 Q

»J U CQ )J U b4

CQ OQ £ I—I »-H H 3

n u i-J u

CQ

CQ CQ ac ^ —I H Q 5

Q3U ^ Cs« U CO CO

<: CQ

.o•

4J V CM

CM •-4 CM 1—1 • • • • • • CO 00 1-4 CM

• • • • • • CM CM

53
ecoH

<3-

COe

l»c

c3CoH

J-l >

0)03 X)ou

4>

0) 4J •w 00 (0

•r4 3 U W o o

0.1 «)

l-i TO § 3 a; TO j= B in y

«) c X i-i M

<d S In c a M

as ft s 0X 4)

cd CO

4> OS u u 3 4> X g ••^ 3 h z H 3Z

4> 9>

V <: 00 00 00 « « «9 X C c c o o o T3 J= C a a a 0) t4 1-1 a

OS

n CO 1 i 1 < ^ U-l >4-l rH <-< 4) 0) « aa CO o 0 o

4J CO « <u 0) o 2 a i • CM I • • I o o

0^ o O

O f-l 1 <-• o • • • « • • o • 1 o d o d o r-4 o o 1 o I I I o 0 o o • 1 I I o oI

o5^

O 3 o3 o O 3

iJ 3 Cvi

U

O 3

CM Csl CO I—1—1 • • • CM • • • • • • CM cn CO

CM

CM

CO

CM UO <

0)

J3ICOaco>V

CO J3O

4)O0V3

O*

4)«

00c

•»>»

i-l 4) J3

4J«

4)Co

Cl

1-4 uo

CO

4)«

4)O

Chi c o

QJC C/) CO6 c

CD •H

CA

13

U

<u

QJ

r" 0) '^ CO 'O >u u

0) o

•W J-l c c

•1-1 "O

a) Hi JC ? o CJ c 0)

CO

a

M 1-1 -Q Uc 4-1 w to 0) o H)3 4-1 ^ 1 o 1-1 m) r-i OJ Q« c

*r4 <U u J= to 4J CO3 M c

a. ^ >^O

<u to (0u u 3 D o w CO CJ u to tfl CO (U <u M 4-1 •U D.

<u

0) !-l CO > O

0* •1-1 JZ

CO CO o a.

CO

to3

COo

cu J3

CO

O

0) 1—1

CJ "O C -H

lU U M-i to O

•rH

•^

QJ CO o u (U^4 4-1 oq 3 CO OJ c 4-1 CJ

•1-1

X

0) 4-1 1-) ? to >s

CJ

C

CO •l-< (U C3

4.1 -o c c u

<u 1-1

O E c

01 c o

•r-l QJ 3 1—1 >

CO

U

a o > a>

0) 1-1 7) 6 1—1 X)

CO to o0) u ^ 4J C 0) c 3 (U 4-1 a> 0

CO e CO E c

to 3 0)

<DMu CO

M 4-1 c 3 a a to iH c CO

1-1 0) <D -Mi > CO e U

1-1 (U •l-< 4J >-( 11

CO 4-1 CO

0) o

x: x; o 4-1 4J <r CO

54
APPENDIX C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

The Building Environment Division (BED) wishes to express special

appreciation to a number of individuals who contributed notably to the

success of the Performance Demonstration.

Background briefing and definition of the problem was provided

under the able direction of Mr. Austin K. Van Dusen, Director, FBH.

Helpful further and more detailed assistance in these categories was

furnished by Mr. Gail L. Ferry, Deputy Director, FBH; Mr. Jim Arvan,

Director of Inspections, FBH, Mr. Kenneth E. Swanson, Plans Examiner, FBH;

Mr. Norman Latter, Technical Director, lAPMO; ana Messrs. Charles E. Kelly

and Stan Gerrard representing lAPMO in the Seattle area. Messrs. Arvan,

Latter, and Kelly also deserve special thanks for their long hours of

careful work in providing technical assistance to BED staff in conducting

the various tests according to a tight time scnedule.

Helpful further briefing and background discussion were provided

under the direction of Mr. Fred Aldridge, Director of Environmental

Management, King County; and Mr. Fred King, Chief Plumbing Inspector,

King County.

Special thanks are expressed to Mr. Randy Kirk, The Boeing Company,

and Mr. John H. McGowan, The Boeing Company, who handled the many detailed arrangemerts at the site as required to facilitate the tests.

The able administrative support of Mr. William Werner, HUD, Washington, in recognizing the need for this demonstration is acknowledged.

The excellent services provided by Mr. George Herrin, HUD-Seattle in

55
coordinating the meeting and transportation schedules of the BED personnel and in other important details contributed notably to the satisfactory

conclusion of the work.

56
REFERENCES

j_ \_l Wyly, Robert S. and Sherlin, Grover C, Performance of a SingleStack DW System Utilizing Low-Angle Stack-Branch Confluence and

Bottom-Shunt Venting, National Bureau of Standards BSS 41 (April,

1972).

IJ Wise, A. F. E., Payne, R., and Griffiths, T. J., Sanitary Services

for Modern Housing, Public Works and Municipal Services Congress

(1966).

I_ 3__/ Sanitary Pipework Above Ground, Code of Practice for, CP304-1968,

British Standards Institution, London, England.

r^_l Operation BREAKTHROUGH Plumbing Drawings for Units 5, 7, 8, 10,

and 11; King County, Washington; Department of Housing and Urban

Development File Numbers H. 1239.09. (502, P-2/504, P-4/505,

P-5/507, P-7), Schematic Piping Diagrams, 6/18/71.

I_ 5_/ Recdmmended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing in Dwellings and

Similar Buildings, National Bureau of Standards BH2 (1924).

I_ 6__/ French, John L. , Stack Venting of Plumbing Fixtures, NBS Building

Materials and Structures Report BMS 118 (1950).

7__/ Maybeck, Edward M., Demonstration of Performance for a Sovent

System Installed at Townsend Tower, Near East Side Renewal Project

for New York State Urban Development Corp., Syracuse New York,

Barnard and Maybeck, Consulting Engineers, Rochester, N.Y.

(July 17, 1972).

j_ 8_/ Hunter, R. B., Methods of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems,

NBS Building Materials anc Structures Report BMS 65 (1941).

l_ 9__/ Hunter, R. B., Water Distributing Systems for Buildings, NBS

Building Materials and Structures Report BMS 79 (1941).

57
J_ 10_/ National Standard Plumbing Code, National Association of Plumbin

Heating-Cooling Contractors, Inc. (1971).

/ 11 / Eaton, Herbert N. and French, John L., Fixture Units as used in

Plumbing System Design, Housing and Home Finance Agency HRP 15,

(March, 1951).

_/ 12_/ Manas, Vincent T., National Plumbing Code Handbook, McGraw-Hill

(1957).

£ 13_/ Nielsen, Louis S., Performance Test for Single-Stack System,

Technical Forum, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Business (April 1970).

58
FORM NBS-114A (t.71) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. | 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA NBSIR 73-161

SH E E T i

2, Gov't Accessiorj No.

3. Recipient s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Field Test of Hydraulic Performance of a Single-Stack

Drainage System at the Operation BREAKTHROUGH Prototype

Site in King County, Washington

6. Performing Organization Code

/ . AU 1 HUKvs' Robert S. Wyly and Daniel E. Rorrer

8. Performing Organization

NBSIR 73-161

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Tasi</Worl< Unit No. 4628387

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period C oV e re d Final report 1972

14, Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) A procedure for measuring the hydraulic performance of drain-waste-vent (DW) systems

in the field is described, and the results obtained with this procedure in a field

demonstration of the hydraulic performance of a single-stack DWV system are presented.

Among the most important criteria for hydraulic performance of drain-waste-vent

systems are the following:

(1) Trap-seal retention in idle fixtures.

(2) Ability of the system to resist the rejection of suds, sewage, or foul gases due

to hydrostatic or pneumatic pressures in the DWV system,

(3) Absence of cross flow between fixtures.

(4) Absence of self-siphonage in the individual fixture traps.

Considering the needs for minimization of maintenance in service and for the continuation of venting during cold weather, the following additional criteria can be identified:

(5) Ability to maintain adequate hydraulic performance over a long period of service

without excessive maintenance of branch piping.

(6) Adequacy of performance under climatic conditions conducive to frost closure of

vent terminals

.

- continued -

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) crossf low; field testing, plumbing; performance

criteria, plumbing; performance, functional; single-stack drainage; siphonage, induced;

siphonage, self; test loads, hydraulic; trap-seal reduction detector; trap-seal retention

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

UNLIMITED.

UNCLASSIFIED

1 1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 66244-P71
i

i-