Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
165181
The appliance trap seal plays a vital role in safeguarding occupied space from ingress of foul
sewer gases driven by the barrage of pressure transients generated within the system during
normal appliance discharge. The health risks related to depleted trap seals can be severe.
In 2003, the rapid spread of the SARS virus at the Amoy Gardens housing complex in
Hong Kong was attributed to depleted bathroom floor-drain traps.
This paper presents a technique whereby depleted trap seals can be located remotely by
monitoring the system response to an applied single pressure pulse. A Method of
Characteristic based numerical model allows the system pressure response to be predicted
while laboratory and site test results are shown to validate this proposed technique.
Practical application: Appliance trap seal depletion poses a serious health risk by
providing a route for cross-contamination and infection spread. Implementing a routine and
regular maintenance regime would help to ensure that the water level within the trap seal
remains above the critical level. However, current methods rely on visual inspections which
are highly impractical in large complex buildings. A technique allowing the status of all
connected trap seals to be quickly determined would be an invaluable tool for facility
managers by improving operational efficiency and by indicating persistent failures, thus,
highlighting areas requiring modification to ensure performance compliance.
List of symbols
A
c
CJ
CR
CT
C ,
D
f
F( ), f( )
K
L
mSp
N
p
Q
t
T
t
x
u
Subscripts
actual
appliance
166
atm
local
m
piston
P, R, S
System
Trap
D
J
t t, t
1, 2, N
Atmospheric conditions
Conditions at node
Monitoring location
Piston conditions
Nodes in MoC calculation
System side
Trap conditions
Defect
Defect number
Conditions at node at a time
Nodes
1 Introduction
The fundamental purpose of the building
drainage and vent system is to rapidly remove
appliance discharge while simultaneously
ensuring that foul air from the drainage network is prevented from entering occupied
space. The primary defence against crosscontamination is provided by the appliance
trap which, provided the water seal is retained, prevents the ingress of sewer gases into
the building. Appliance trap seal retention has
dominated the development of building drainage systems since the 1850s, dictating the
inclusion of ventilation pipes and active control devices, such as air admittance valves and
variable air volume containment devices,
which aim to reduce the effects of air pressure
transients created by normal system operation.1 Trap seal depletion, however, remains
a major issue and when coupled with additional causes of depletion such as evaporation, poor maintenance and bad design, the
potential risk of cross-contamination and
infection spread becomes a serious concern.
The consequence of trap seal depletion
was realised in 2003 following the outbreak
of the SARS virus which infected 8098
people worldwide, resulting in 774 deaths.2
An unusually high number of cases were
reported at the Amoy Gardens housing
complex in Hong Kong where a total of
167
DA Kelly et al.
200
Pipe period
Closed end
Open end
150
Note subsequent
alternating
positive and
negative peaks
Positive reflection
from closed end
100
50
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
50
100
Negative reflection
from open end
150
Pressure D
transducer
Pressure
transient
generator
LD
Closed End
(CR=+1) or
Open End
(CR=1)
L
LT
200
Time (s)
Figure 1 Laboratory demonstration of the 1/1 reflection coefficients encountered at a closed or open end termination of a single
pipe system subjected to a pressure surge
given by:
t
L
c
where L is the pipe length from the monitoring point to the system boundary and c is the
wave propagation speed (around 320 m/s for
air in a pipe at ambient temperature).
The time at which the reflection arrives back
at the monitoring point is known as the pipe
period, T, and may be defined as:
2L
c
168
45
40
Cj=(DatabaseTest set)2
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time (s)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 2 Basis of the compliance factor calculation. The relative divergence of the test data from that of the database is determined
for any particular trap seal failure
negative reflection will arrive at the monitoring point from the open trap will be:
TD
2 LD
c
DA Kelly et al.
169
x +ve
Transient
Entry
Reflection
Exit
Boundary condition
solved with C
characteristic
C+
C+
Boundary condition
solved with C+
characteristic
Figure 3 Method of characteristics representation of air pressure transient propagation and reflection within a network branch
@u
@p @p
u 0
@x
@x @t
@p
@u
@u 4fujuj
u
0
@x
@x
@t
2D
6
For low-amplitude air pressure transient
propagation, the density and pressure variables are linked via the wave propagation
speed, c:
0:5
p
7
c
Momentum:
@u
2
@c
@c
0
c
u
@x 1 @t
@x
2
@c
@u
@u
4fujuj
c
u
0
1 @x
@t
@x
2D
uP uR
when
dx
u c,
dt
10
11
170
uP uS
12
when
dx
u c,
dt
13
patm
atm
c 2local
Q0
15
16
1=1
14
17
18
or some known external air pressure history, e.g. wind shear over roof terminations
or pressurisation of the habitable space.
Similarly, at a closed end the boundary
condition to be solved with either the available
C or C characteristic is provided by
putting the local airflow mean velocity to zero:
ulocal 0
19
DA Kelly et al.
20
@p
@v
0
@x
@t
21
171
22
Equation of Continuity
@p
@v
c2 0
@t
@x
23
V Vatm
24
1 h
x
xi
F t
f t
25
c
c
c
172
transient propagation upstream and downstream from the site of the boundary condition change. The F( ) and f ( ) functions
conform to the principle of superposition of
pressure waves and may therefore be used to
develop and explain the more complex pressure time histories associated with transient
propagation in flow networks. The imposition
of a frictionless system excludes attenuation,
however, this approach allowed Allievi to
introduce the first graphical technique for
transient prediction.
Joukowsky17 dealt with two particular
boundaries that remain of fundamental
importance: The presence of either a dead
end or a fully open termination into a zone
held at constant or known pressure.
In the first case, the local velocity remains
zero provided that the pressure at that location remains above the fluid vapour or
dissolved gas release pressure. Thus setting
(V Vatm) 0 in Equation (25) gives F( )
f ( ) and, therefore, the incoming pressure
wave is reflected with the same magnitude
and sign effectively doubling the local effect
of the incoming pressure wave. The reflection
coefficient may be expressed as:
CR 1
at a dead end.
In the case of a constant pressure at the
boundary, placing (p patm) 0 in Equation
(24) implies that F( ) f ( ), and hence a
reflection coefficient at a constant pressure
zone boundary of:
CR 1
or a reflection of the incoming wave with a
change of sign.
The frictionless wave Equations, (24) and
(25), may be solved at any junction boundary
together with the equations of flow continuity
and pressure equivalence across the junction
to determine values for reflection and
26
27
Assuming that the incoming transient arrives along pipe 1, ongoing transmissions will
be generated along pipes 2 ! n and a reflected
transient will propagate back along pipe 1
based on pipe area and local wavespeed.
Solution of Equations (24) and (25) with
(26) and (27) for an incoming transient F1
in pipe 1, a transmitted wave F2 ! Fn in
pipe 2 ! pipe n and a reflected wave f1 in
pipe 1 yields a general expression for the
reflection and transmission coefficient respectively for the junction:
CR
CT
A1 =c A2 =c A3 =c An =c
A1 =c A2 =c A3 =c An =c
28
2A1 =c
A1 =c A2 =c A3 =c An =c
29
Several points emerge from these expressions: The transmission into each of the
receiving pipes is identical and the transmission and reflection depend upon both the area
of the pipe and the wave speed within it,
which in turn involves the pipe material and
pipe wall thickness to diameter ratio. It will be
seen that it is the sum of the (area/wave speed)
that determines the coefficients, hence one
pipe with a low wave speed due to its wall
thickness or material can dominate the calculation. In the application discussed in this
paper, the wave speed in all pipes may be
DA Kelly et al.
173
F2
Pipe 2
F1
F3
Pipe 1
Pipe 3
f1
Fn
Pipe n
Figure 4 General pipe junction with n number pipes
174
6.3 m
T14
T13
T12
T11
T10
T9
41.6 m
(13 3.2m)
T8
T7
T6
T5
T4
T3
T2
T1
75 mm
2.8 m
100 mm
6.2 m
P Pressure transducer
0.37 m
150 mm
Pressure transient
generator
Figure 5 Schematic of laboratory test rig
xpiston, t t xpiston, t
t
30
175
End
T14
T13
T12
T11
T10
T9
T8
T7
T6
T5
Defect at T3
80
T4
Defect at T1
100
T3
Defect free
120
T2
140
T1
DA Kelly et al.
Defect at T12
60
40
20
0
0.95
1
1.05
Negative
40 reflection
60 returned from
80 open trap T1
1.1
20
1.15
1.2
100
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
Time (s)
100
80
End
T14
T13
T12
T11
T10
T9
T8
T7
T6
T5
T4
T3
Defect Free
AIRNET
Defect at T1
AIRNET
Defect at T3
AIRNET
Defect at T12
AIRNET
120
T2
140
T1
Figure 6 Pressure response of the defect free system compared with those with a depleted trap seal
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
Negative
reflection
returned
from open
trap T1
Time (s)
Figure 7 AIRNET simulated pressure response of the defect free system compared with those with a depleted trap seal
176
Termination
open to atmosphere
0.9 m
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
41.6m
(16 2.6m)
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
WHB
Bath
Sink
WC (T17)
Test set 3
PTG
17F
Sink
WC (T16)
16F
Sink
WC (T15)
15F
Sink
WC (T14)
14F
Sink
WC (T13)
13F
Sink
WC (T12)
12F
Sink
WC (T11)
11F
Sink
WC (T10)
Sink
WC (T9)
10F
Test set 2
PTG
9F
Sink
WC (T8)
8F
Sink
WC (T7)
7F
Sink
WC (T6)
6F
Sink
WC (T5)
5F
Sink
WC (T4)
4F
Sink
WC (T3)
3F
Sink
WC (T2)
Pressure
Transducer
5.8 m
Roof
2F
Test set 1
PTG
0.8 m
GF
To sewer
(a)
Defect free
Defect at T3
Defect at T7
Defect at T16
50
40
177
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
TOP
DA Kelly et al.
WHB
Bath
30
20
Sink
2F
WC (T2)
Pressure
transducer
PTG
10
GF
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
10
1.35
1.4
1.5
1.45
Sewer
20
Time (s)
(b)
50
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
TOP
Stack
Defect free
Defect at T2
Defect at T6
40
WHB
Defect at T11
Sink
Bath
2F
WC (T2)
30
Pressure
transducer
20
PTG
10
0
Lower stack
blocked
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
GF
1.5
10
20
Time (s)
Figure 9 Site test pressure response of the defect free system compared with those with a depleted trap seal for Test Set 1 with
the: (a) sewer open, (b) sewer closed. Note: Test Set 3 results generally replicate those shown here
blocking the lower stack connection effectively transforming the three-pipe junction into
a two-pipe junction. Figure 9(b) demonstrates
the improvement made to the magnitude of
the propagating wave. It is now possible to
distinguish a negative reflection returned from
the open upper termination at t 1.3 s from
the defect free system trace, giving a pipe
period of 0.3 s and a subsequent stack height
of 48 m. On introduction of an open trap at
T2, the negative reflection is returned at
t 1.048 s giving a pipe period of 0.048 s and
a reduced transient travel distance of 7.7 m
Top of
stack
Sewer
T17
T16
T2
T15
T3
T14
T4
T12
T13
T5
Defect at T13
30
T6
Defect at T2
T11
Defect free
T7
40
T10
50
T8
(a)
T9
178
Defect at T11
WHB
20
Sink
Bath
WC (T10)
Sink
WHB
10
Bath
0
10
WC (T9)
WHB
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
Bath
1.2
10F
PTG
9F
Sink
1.25
WC (T8)
1.3
8F
20
Defect at T11
Top of
stack
T17
T16
T15
T14
Defect at T10
T13
Defect free
T12
40
T11
50
Time (s)
T10
(b)
Pressure (mm water gauge)
30
Defect at T12
30
Defect at T13
WHB
Defect at T14
20
Defect at T16
10
Bath
0
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
10
WHB
WC (T10)
Sink
WHB
Defect at T17
0.95
Sink
Bath
Defect at T15
1.2
Bath
WC (T9)
10F
PTG
9F
Sink
1.25
WC (T8)
8F
1.3
20
30
Time (s)
Figure 10 Site test pressure response for the defect free system compared with those with a depleted trap seal for Test Set 2:
(a) both upper and lower stack sections open, (b) lower stack section blocked off
DA Kelly et al.
179
Table 1 Compliance factor matrix for Test Set 1 with sewer blocked off (first 10 traps only). The correct system status is identified
when the test set matches the database trace giving Cj ! 0
Test
CF
Databank
DF
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
DF
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
13
45321
43434
41413
40262
41125
38074
32263
24559
24851
46077
24
14781
39460
53771
58996
58393
56374
49237
50448
42929
14740
33
13354
35197
49545
57808
62118
58791
61020
44135
41032
15134
69
11131
28549
44735
56077
62305
70317
41704
54749
37900
11607
39
6578
19992
31658
41079
51009
41150
59162
52529
29447
7537
91
4873
13910
23330
31556
42486
62614
63490
46005
21256
5986
218
4246
12867
19613
32767
56050
64233
55346
32074
15423
4011
59
3228
8439
26049
50555
61833
61663
41266
24670
11215
3570
92
2203
25613
50386
62338
67577
49772
32159
17225
8379
2348
52
7 Conclusion
Following the SARS epidemic at the Amoy
Gardens in 2003, the vital role of the
180
References
1 Swaffield JA, Galowin LS. The engineered
design of building drainage systems. 1992;
England, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
2 World Health Organisation. Summary of SARS
in the WHO European Region, CD News,
Communicable Disease Report, No. 31, Oct.
2003.
3 World Health Organisation. Inadequate
plumbing systems likely contributed to SARS
transmission. Press Release WHO/70, 26
September 2003, WHO, Geneva.
4 Hung HCK, Chan DWT, Law LKC, Chan
EHW, Wong ESW. Industrial experience and
research into the causes of SARS virus transmission in a high-rise residential housing estate
DA Kelly et al.
6
7
8
9
10
11
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.