You are on page 1of 32

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

STUDIES

STUDIES IN ENGINEERING

BULLETIN 10

REPORT ON HYDRAULICS AND
PNEUMATICS OF PLUMBING DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS—I
BY

F. M. D aw son

and

A. A. K a l in s k e

PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY, IOWA CITY, IOWA

Issued semi-monthly throughout the year. E ntered at the post office at Iowa City,
Iowa, as second class m atter under the Act of October 3, 1917.

http://ir.uiowa.edu/uisie/10

TH E COLLEGE OF EN GINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Offers complete undergraduate courses in Civil, Electrical, Mechan­
ical, Chemical, Commercial, and Hydraulic Engineering, also graduate
courses in these fields leading to advanced degrees.
For detailed information application may be made to
H . C . D orcas , R egistrar,
Iowa City, Iowa

IN STITU TE OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH
The Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research has been organized to
afford an agency for the co-ordination of the talent, facilities, and the
resources that may be made available at the University of Iowa for
undertaking projects of unusual magnitude, scope, or complexity in
the field of hydrology and hydraulic engineering.
The Institute affords a connection, through which technical societies,
governmental departments, industrial corporations, and other interest­
ed parties may effectively co-operate with the University in the field of
hydraulic research. Correspondence regarding the work of the Insti­
tute should be addressed to
E. W. L a n e
Associate Director in
Charge of Laboratory.

http://ir.uiowa.edu/uisie/10

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
STUDIES IN ENGINEERING

B U L L E T IN 10

REPORT ON HYDRAULICS AND
PNEUMATICS OF PLUMBING DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS—I

BY

F . M . D aw so n

Dean, College of Engineering
D irector, Io w a In stitu te o f H ydraulic Research

AND

A. A. K a l in s k e

I n s t r u c t o r ,H ydraulic and S anitary Engineering
Research Assistant Engineer
I o w a In stitu te o f H ydraulic Research

PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY
IOWA CITY, IOWA
1937

http://ir.uiowa.edu/uisie/10

edu/uisie/10 .uiowa.http://ir.

and 6-in. 3.. Previous Work 6 II. 4-in. Velocity of Water in 3-in. Procedure IS 12.uiowa. Water Flow.. Pressure Variation in Open Unvented 3-in. Stacks 16 Fig. I n t r o d u c t io n 5 1. Stack 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Air Flow. Analysis of Data 9 a. Synopsis S 2. P n e u m a t i c E f f e c t s of W ater F l o w in g D o w n P artly F u l l V ertical P i p e s 14 9. Velocity Determination Apparatus 8 Fig. 2. S. Rational Analysis 9 b. 1.. Statement of Problem 6 5. F l o w o f W ater i n P artly F u l l V ertical P ip e s 6 4. Analysis of Test Data 10 8. Page I. Maximum Velocity and Friction Constants in 3-in. and Air Pressure Data for 4-in. Stack 18 Table 3. 4. Stack 22 http://ir. Air Flow Data for 3-in. Stacks 12 Table 2. and 6-in. Summary and Applications 27 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. Acknowledgments 6 3. Stack 20 Table 4. and 6-in. Summary and Applications 13 III.. Air Flow Data for 6-in. 4-in. Apparatus 7 6. Analysis of Data 16 13. Statement of Problem 14 10. Apparatus IS 11. Experimental Vertical Pipe Installation 7 Fig. Stacks with Different Rates of Flow 11 Fig.edu/uisie/10 . Air Flow Data for 4-in. Procedure 8 7.

uiowa.edu/uisie/10 .http://ir.

it became quite clear th at the hydraulic and pneumatic problems involved in the flow of water down vertical plumbing pipes and the prevention of re­ sultant excessive atmospheric disturbances in the drainage system. a rational analysis of http://ir. The first deals with the hy­ draulics of steady flow in partly full vertical pipes of plumbing sys­ tems. as found in every plumbing drainage system. besides considerable experimental data. Since the pipes flow only p a rt­ ly full the flowing water causes pressures to be developed within the closed plumbing drainage system which m ay be detrim ental to the w ater seals of plumbing fixture traps. and it was evident th at the work could not be completed in a short time. The purpose of these studies is to establish definite minimum drain. Therefore air m ust be supplied a t certain points and removed at others by a system of vents. I. After considerable time spent in reviewing existing information. The report is divided into two parts. and to ana­ lyze the various parts of the plumbing drainage system so th at they can be designed on a sound rational basis. Accelerated and retarded flow in the vertical pipes and drains with steep and flat slopes. stack.— T he general problem of non-uniform flow in conduits of various types is a fascinating and fertile field for hydraulic research. it was not thought advisable to present them here. were far from simple.uiowa. and vent sizes could be made up from the infor­ mation contained in the report. the plumbing drainage system pre­ sents interesting pneumatic problems. and development of test techniques. As the work progressed the complexity of the many hydraulic problems encountered became apparent. However. and vent sizes for various plumbing installations. Although tables of re­ quired stack. except in a few instances. Besides the hydraulic problems. pre­ liminary test work. overlooked the hydraulics involved in the flow of liquids in various parts of the plumb­ ing drainage system. present complicated hydraulic problems which merit further study by hydraulicians. drain. IN T R O D U C T IO N 1. Synopsis .edu/uisie/10 . the information given can be of considerable value to designers of plumbing drainage systems of large buildings. Experimenters have so far.

” Bulletins 143 and 178. B a b b itt. B u ild in g Code C om m ittee. B abbitt3 has presented some good information on tests of different parts of the plumbing drainage system but presents little experimental information on the hydraulics of vertical pipes. what veloci­ ty it attains in different heights of fall.— The purpose of this investigation was to determine how water flows down partly full vertical pipes. E. such as discharges down l “ R ecom m ended M inim um R e q u ire m en ts for P lu m b in g . cit. M a v is . From the standpoint of pneumatics the vertical pipes (or stacks) in a plumbing drainage system are the most im portant parts of the system. U.— H unter and Snyder of the United States Bur­ eau of Standards1 mention certain characteristics they observed in flow of water down partly full pipes and discuss the factors affecting the velocity of the water. II. T. http://ir. S. R eport of Sub-C om m ittee on P lu m b in g . pp. FLOW OF W A TER IN PA R TL Y FU LL V ER TIC A L P IP E S 4.uiowa.— The authors wish to acknowledge the many helpful suggestions given in the preparation of this report by F. “ H y d ra u lic s a n d P n e u m a tic s of H ouse P lu m b in g . T he second deals with the pneumatic disturb­ ances caused by the flow of water in vertical pipes. In the report2 they present a sound basis for design of vents. A considerable p a rt of this report is devoted to the hydraulics and pneumatics of stacks.the flow is presented. 104-108. U n iv e rs ity of Illin o is E n g in e e rin g E x p e rim e n t S ta tio n . 110-120. because flow of water in them produces by far the worst pneu­ matic effects. Professor of Hydraulic Engineering. bu t do not give very extensive data on air-flow. and Consulting Engineer. and with the factors effecting the am ount of air necessary to prevent excessive negative pressures in adjoining drains. The experimental work on which this report is based was per­ formed a t the Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin. and how th at velocity varies with rate of discharge and size of pipe. 2. 3H.edu/uisie/10 . No tests were made with water entering stacks vertically. Acknowledgements . pp. The tests were made with water entering vertical stacks from hori­ zontal drains similar to plumbing system installations. the State University of Iowa.” 1929. 3. D e p a rtm e n t of Com­ merce. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. 1924 a n d 1928.. 2Loc. Previous Work . respec­ tiv e ly . Statement of Problem .

and roof rain collectors. vats. Apparatus. pipe set-ups in which the velocity of water was de- Fig.edu/uisie/10 . S. 1 shows a diagrammatic sketch of vertical 3-in..pipes from tanks.uiowa. Tests on such flow conditions are to be undertaken later. The theory presented may be applied to any type of entrance condition.. 1. 4-in. — Fig. as long as the vertical pipe flows only partly full. E x p e r im e n t a l V ertical P ip e I nst a l l a t io n http://ir. and 6-in.

uiowa. 6. F ig . 2. In virtually all instances this pressure head was negative (below atm ospheric).edu/uisie/10 . A correction was also made for height of water column above the pitot tube opening in the connection lead­ ing to the mercury gage. The water was discharged a t the bottom through a horizontal drain. V elocity D e t e r m in a t io n A ppa r a t u s A velocity reading was taken by recording the average mercury column difference reading of the pitot tube gage during the period of constant discharge. T he velocity reading as finally computed represents about ten different observations for any single rate of flow. I t was necessary to read the pressure head in the vertical pipe in order to obtain the correct velocity head from the observed pitot tube gage pressure difference. was available in which the velocity could be observed. The water entered the vertical pipes from a large tank through a valve the opening of which determined the rate of flow. 2 the velocity was deter­ mined in the following manner: http://ir. In each of the three installations a vertical length of approximately 30 ft.termined for various constant rates of discharge. 2. Procedure.— The velocity was measured with a pitot tube. the velocity head being determined by a mercury U-tube gage as shown in Fig. readings were taken a t various points inside of the pipe in order th at an average velocity value could be computed. Between the entrance point and bottom of the vertical pipe there were various openings through which a pitot tube could be inserted for determining the velocity head. Referring to Fig. At any one level.

A can best be expressed as ~ where Q is the rate of discharge in cubic feet per sec. 2. the water tends to flow along the walls of the pipe a few feet below the entrance.uiowa. ft. 13 6 H = ( ' hi) -f.hs = velocity head in ft. usually a vacuum. Let A I be an accelerating elemental disc of water a distance L be­ low the point of entry into the vertical pipe.) g = gravitational constant = 32./sec. Also. of water. The disc is accelerating. w = unit weight of water. hi = height of water above pitot tube opening. The direction of the average velocity is parallel to the pipe except a t very low rates of flow. fe = static pressure in stack. As shown diagrammatically in Fig./ft.— (a ) R ational A nalysis A rational analysis of the flow down a p artly full vertical pipe in­ volves the establishment of a relationship between the velocity a t any point below entrance and the initial velocity and height of fall. (Frictional force varies approximately as square of velocity. At the very low rates of flow the water spirals around the walls of the stack. D = diameter of stack.edu/uisie/10 . lb s. ft. ft./sec.2 a = acceleration of water a t any point. Analysis of Data . per unit density of liquid flowing per unit velocity. hi — velocity head as measured by pitot tube in in. of water. of mercury.:i V — average velocity of water in ft. 7. per sec. nia = mg — k' x D (A L) wV2 (1) in which k' — the friction resistance expressed in lbs.hi -(. V = \/2 g H ■= velocity in ft. feet. per sq.2 ft. w m — mass of water = (A L ) A — g Since the stack is not flowing full. and the force acting on it is equal to the difference between gravita­ tional force and frictional force. in order that the friction constant used be dimensionless k' is replaced by k http://ir. No velocity determinations were made under such conditions.

stack installation it was possible to maintain the initial velocity a t about 3 ft. Q — 90 gpm. for conditions stated.. vertical pipes. T he maximum velocity for a given rate of discharge in any size pipe is independent of the initial velocity and is definitely determined for any given discharge. L — 11. and find the distance in which maximum velocity is a t­ tained. per sec. per sec. For all practical purposes it can be said th at the maximum velocity is attained in approximately 12 to IS ft.3 ft. V0 — 3 ft. L = 16.. k X D V3 Therefore: a = g ---------^ ---.edu/uisie/10 . b u t practically this is not the case... In the 3-in.01 ft. per sec.. (2) T . / \.1 . therefore from Equation (5 ). dL = (3) Integrating and letting V = V0 when L = O: 1 r. 3 F WF \-i 6ZF„ [ gfi( + ( 7 * — F)V ~ gc( + (FW— 7 0)2)] -----. and 6-in. when (Vm — V) = . From experimental data shown in Table 1. Note th at the velocity a t any point increases as the rate of discharge increases. Assume D = 3 in.= --------( arctan----------= -----. for http://ir.. 3VmV 3K«iK \ _ / . it is evident from Equation (2) th a t maximum or terminal velocity of water in the stack is Qg (S) According to Equation (4 ). as obtained experimentally. Substituting in Equation (4) and letting ( Vm — V) = . I.D A V dV Let z = — —— . 7 k.. and also th at the velocity becomes constant a relatively short distance below the inlet. (b) Analysis of Test Data Fig. Changes in frictional resistance on the walls of the pipe cause the water to attain a maximum velocity in a definite length and Equation (4) can readily be used for computing L.7 ft. per sec. Vm = 15. 3 shows the variation of velocity with height of fall in the 3-in. the maximum velocity will be attained when L is infinite.uiowa. and as a = ——■■ ■ V dL then. k = .a rc ta n -------------= — ] (4) V3 ZVm\ Vm \/l Vm\Jl J Since the velocity V is a maximum when the acceleration a is zero.00225. Velocities are plotted as ordinates and heights of fall as abscissas..4 ft. 4-in.

. The friction coefficient k for each discharge and size of pipe was computed from Équation (5) and the values are shown in Table 1.i n .. in which the hydraulic radius is —— —and the slope is 1.edu/uisie/10 . and 6-in. for the 6-in. H e ig h t of Fall in S tack in Feet F ig . S ta c k s w i t h D if f e r e n t R ates of F lo w all discharges. 3. stack. On the 4-in. In these tests k was usually higher for the low rates of flow and de­ creased as the rate of flow increased becoming fairly constant for the higher rates of flow. and from 2 to 10 ft. stack. per sec. a n d 6 . The maximum velocity for any discharge in a given size stack can be computed by M anning’s formula. when water filled the stack to at least one-fourth the cross-sectional area. 4 . Vx Ü http://ir. varying from about 6 to 14 ft.. V e l o c it y of W ater i n 3 . installations the initial velocity was not constant for all discharges. for the 4-in. per sec.i n .uiowa.0.i n .

i n .0066 220 17.00129 .0053 240 21.edu/uisie/10 .8 .3 . 4 .0062 6 115 12. opening.6 .4 .00152 . thus account­ ing for the smaller values of n at the high rates of discharge.00226 .i n .0063 90 15. stack tests the water entered through a 4-in. D irect visual observation through openings in the 6-in. stack indicated th at a t the higher rates of flow the stream of water did not touch the walls a t all points.0047 190 20. pipe. Experimental values of n are given in Table 1. N ote that the rela­ tion between k and n for uniform velocity is: /1 .00220 . S tac ks Diam.0066 4 90 16.00225 .5 .00190 .0067 165 14.0044 135 19.00280 .0064.0055 4 50 25.00155 .4 .00170 .uiowa. and for the lower rates of flow the stream of water probably did not touch the walls of the 4-in. of Water Maximum Stack Discharge Velocity k n in..0059 345 21.0062 135 17.0057 300 22.5 .0057 http://ir.7 .0 . opening.5 .00132 .. and 6 -in .0054 675 27.0 .00139 .00134 ./sec.4 .5 . stack tests the water entered the ver­ tical pipe through a 6-in.00190 . In the 3-in.00148 . gpm ft.0065. 3 45 11. and the values of n for the various rates of discharge differed less than 3 per cent from the average . The values for the 4-in. In the tests on the 4-in.0064 180 19.4 8 6 \ % / Q y /s \ n ) n) The experimental values of n generally fall in the range .4 .0052 560 26. stack the water entered the vertical pipe through a 3-in.0055 to .2 . In the 6-in. stack are below this range.00268 . For T able 1 M a x im u m V el o cit y and F r ic t io n C o n st a n t s iisr 3 .0 .00252 . opening.

3 for the experimental data. The only test in which visual observation definitely indicated th at the stream of water touched the entire perimeter a t all times was th at for the 3-in. determined by experiments on 3-in.5 per cent. it is necessary to compute L by Equation (4) for increments of velocity for which the average value k can be assigned. These curves had the same general shape as those in Fig..0060. curves were drawn b y computing values of L from Equation (4 ).rates of flow between 200 and 700 gpm in the 6-in.0055 and the maximum deviation was 6. stack.. and 6-in. and 8-in. If the velocity is changing the value of k can be computed from the expression: (8) Using experimental values of initial velocity and friction constants n for the 3-in.— From the experimental data and the theoretical relations presented. will vary with size of pipe and discharge. In the foregoing calculations it was assumed th at the wetted peri­ meter was equal to x D. 4-in. Summary and Applications . is sug­ gested also for 2-in. cast iron vertical pipe. The maximum velocity attained in vertical pipes flowing partly full. The length in which the maximum velocity is attained varies with the initial velocity. as computed from formulas in which it D is used as the wetted perimeter. 5-in. This value of n. the maximum velocity in a pipe flowing partly full and the height needed to produce that velocity can be determined for any of the common sizes of vertical pipes used in plumbing and industrial installations. The method for com­ puting this length by use of the theoretical relation between length http://ir. stack. vertical pipes. 8. with the water entering the pipe through an opening equal to or great­ er in size than the pipe itself. stack the average value of n was ...edu/uisie/10 . Obviously if actual conditions do not approxi­ m ate this. Since k varies with velocity for any given stack and discharge. Relative size of entrance opening and vertical alignment of the stack are im portant factors in determining whether the stream will flow along the entire inside perimeter of the stack. can be computed within 10 per cent by M anning’s formula in which n — . the roughness index n. however a general idea of the magnitude can be ob­ tained from the experimental data presented.uiowa.

I t is also to be used in the pneumatic studies in order to determine how much air can be carried by the rapidly flowing water. it is an im portant quantity when the maximum possible discharge a t any one level into a vertical pipe is considered. The problem is to determine w hat these rates of air flow are for various rates of water flow in different size http://ir.edu/uisie/10 . The theoretical relation between height of fall L and velocity V can be used in computing the initial vertical velocity Vo by experimentally measuring the velocity a t a known distance below entrance. in most plumbing fixture traps. These pneumatic disturbances are im portant in plumbing systems since the pressure differentials may not be greater than about 1 in. creates pneumatic disturbances of various degree depending on the installation and rate of flow. Although it is difficult to determine the initial vertical velocity by direct ob­ servation. of water in the drains to which plumbing fixtures are connected. Although the water seal is about 2 in. II I.uiowa. To prevent the formation of excessive pressure differentials in the drains to which plumbing fixtures are connected. roof leaders. The falling water entrains air and compresses it near the bottom of the stack to a degree depending on the ease with which the air can escape a t the bottom.— W ater flowing down vertical pipes such as plumbing stacks. As water enters a vertical pipe from a horizontal drain and flows down. PN E U M A T IC E F F E C T S OF W A TE R FLO W IN G D OW N PA RTLY FU LL V E R T IC A L P IPE S 9. partial vacuums are formed under the point of entrance. some are as small as 1 in. and tank drains. The magnitude of the pressures or vacuums depends on the rate of flow and installa­ tion conditions. and positive pressures near the bottom of the down-flow pipe. The maximum velocity obtained is of importance in studying effects a t bottom of vertical pipes where the flow turns 90° and flows in a horizontal drain. A partial vacuum or positive pressure is maintained a t various points in the stack for the duration of the water flow. Statement of Problem . air must be supplied or removed at definite rates.and velocity is fairly simple if the initial and maximum velocities are known.

of water would be the maximum head for producing air flow. The air flow was measured with a 3-in. Intervals of time were measured by an electric clock reading to 1/100 second. anemometer which was cali­ brated by means of standard sharp-edge orifices. Apparatus . for different rates of water flow down the pipes. thus permitting the use of ordinary hydraulic formulas in cal­ culating the air flow. and also because the pres­ sure just outside of the vertical pipe in the vent. 4-in. T hree quantities were observed for each air­ flow measurement: (1) the rate of air flow. The pressure ju st outside the vertical pipe in the vent was maintained a t -1 in.— Two separate studies were made on each of the vertical pipe installations. A negative pressure greater than 1 in. 11.uiowa. First. The instrum ent was calibrated for different sizes of pipes.vertical pipes a t various distances below water entrance. Air pressure measurements were made with ordinary U-tube water or mer­ cury gages. The second study was concerned with air-flow measurement for vari­ ous water discharges. T he deter­ mination of these rates of air flow will provide a basis for proper vent design. Procedure. 10. An anemometer was used for convenience. from the point of water entrance to the bottom. A tee was installed in the vertical pipe approximately one floor level below the water entrance and most of the measurements of air flow were made a t this level.. would produce too much siphonage of plumbing fixture traps. could be maintained constant much more readily than if orifices or other types of meters were used directly. pressures were read along the entire length of the pipe with no air entering except at the top of the vertical pipe. This test indicated the variation of the pressure inside the pipe flowing partly full of water. The pressure differ­ ence across the orifices used for calibration did not exceed 6 in.edu/uisie/10 . of water.— The 3-in. A head of 1 in. vertical pipe apparatus (Fig.. (2) the pressure inside the http://ir. of water corresponding to th at which can exist in a plumbing installation. and 6-in. 1) used in the velocity studies was also used in these tests.

F ig . N ote that the point where pressures change from negative to positive is the same for all rates of flow.— The data for the first study are shown on Fig. P r e s s u r e V a r i a t i o n i n O p en U n v e n t e d 3 . of 4-in. pipe in­ stallations as abscissas.in . 12. S tack C onnected to 25 ft. The location of this point of zero http://ir. and (3) the pressure inside the vented stack with air flow.in .edu/uisie/10 . unvented stack without air flow. 6-in. Sewer. Sewer. Analysis of Data . of 6-in. The pressure shown is th a t produced inside a stack open a t the top but having no vents below w ater entrance This pressure reaches a maximum negative value a short distance be­ low water entrance and maximum positive value a t the bottom. both with and w ithout venting below the water entrance. a n d 6 . 4 in which the distances below water entrance are plotted as or­ dinates and the pressure differentials for the 3-in. 4 . the magnitude for any installation depending upon the rate of discharge. S ta c k C onnected to 70 ft. Some tests were also made to determine the am ount of air entering through the top of the vertical pipes for different rates of w ater flow. S t a c k s 3-in.uiowa. and 6-in.

A ir F l o w . 5(c) are for a 3-in. „__•• ••n •* is |. Representative data for the second study are shown in Fig. stack indicate in general all the various items th at affected the variation of air flow and pressure inside of stack with water discharge.stack Clost s an 0 0 100 200 300 100 200 300 Rate o f W a te r F lo w in G a l l o n s pe r M in u te F ig . and 6-in. below w a te r en tra n c e. gage pressure. Fig. 33. W ater F low . and A ir P r e ssu r e D ata e o r 4 -i n . stacks do not indicate anything different from w hat http://ir. and length of drain at the bottom.uiowa. Sta c k For A.6 'N •y 300 £ D- -4 200 £ prej: o P re& o -2 100 5 «3 -10 500 c / •V -8 / 400| / V. vent opening but with top of stack entirely closed. — t — o -2 ■ r rVSSW'L-'O' a> 100 +- CO0’ 3 ' \ /ent.5 ft. Rates of air flow and the corresponding pressures inside the 4-in.obtained two floor levels below water entrance instead of one floor level.5 ft. 5(b) the conditions are sim­ ilar except th a t the vent opening is 3 in. ( d h >" Veri t .StacV n (b) 3"Yerit .:itacV Ope n Li- -6 • 300 J. The data in Fig. type of base fitting. The test results on the 3-in. stack are plotted as ordinates and rates of water flow are plotted as abscissas. 5(a) shows these data for a 4-in. 5. sanitary tee vent connection and top of stack entirely open. and the location of the point of maximum negative pressure depend on conditions a t the bottom of the vertical pipe. a n d C a ir flow w as m e a su re d 12. In Fig. 5(d ) the data were . S. For D a ir flow w as m easured 24.edu/uisie/10 .S t a c k Oper +■ <U Q- 1 400 c u-8 < L> f 10 -f. below w a ter e n tra n c e. ■ ■ i • 500 „ O (a ) 4 ” V?nt . T h e data for the 4-in. < -4 Ÿ jy 200 <+. the magnitude of the positive and negative pressures. In Fig.

O' ^ O O 00 a fi H O M g H O X3 C a o H V in H http://ir. <Oo qi!-« *0 t-H Ö ui uinnDUA SupuaA °N o o p o o ijlTM 3pB}S g O' to N O ' V) UI Uinn3By\ ”* < CH /3 T abl e < Q MOIJ j. O 00 O O' 'O 't O 't rO O' O' 1P0 O O O VO O }UDA (SI VO O o H N 'lO O to to o N.uiowa.edu/uisie/10 .v S CN rO M tN rsi ro c<j cn aiqissoa ? O to to to (N N N M O to to to M (N M M um uiprej\[ Cd dox 0}«i O' o o o o MOIJ jjv *}U3A qSnojqj O M o u jry o 0O ' ^^ 0M to ri.

The recorded values are the average of some five separate observations. (3) When the top of the vertical pipe was closed. Complete test data on the 3-in. Ex­ cept for the smallest rates of water discharge. 6 ft. the negative pressure inside of the stack exceeded 1 in. and 6-in. stacks respectively. the rate of air inflow was not greatly increased above th a t existing when the top was open. For instance... note the curves indicating the pressure inside the stack a t the point of air entrance. high partial vacuums were developed. stack. (2) The negative pressure inside the stack with air flowing in increased almost uniformly with increase in rate of water discharge.can be concluded from the 4-in. http://ir. the air inflow a t the first floor level was about one-half th at a t the second floor level. and 6-in. of water for the 6-in. stack data. 5 (c). 90 gpm.. In all the tests the negative pressure in the vent just outside the stack was m aintained a t 1 in. of water.. a slightly greater maximum rate of air inflow was caused by water rates of 40 gpm. for the 3-in. 4-in. and 2 ft. (5) The maximum air inflow for each stack occurred on the floor immediately below the water entrance.uiowa. (4) T he type and size of vent opening through which the air flows into the vertical pipe af­ fects the air inflow. stack. W ith the top of the stack closed. 3. 5. A definite pressure difference existed between the vent. stack which is similar to a 3-story building installation. of water. In other words a pres­ sure differential existed between a point in the vent just outside the stack and a point inside the stack— two points but a few inches apart. and 4. A study of the experimental data brought out the following facts: (1) For a given stack the maximum rate of air flow occurred a t the same rate of water discharge for all conditions except when the top of the stack was closed. 4-in.. and 550 gpm in 3-in. No air entered the stack at the second floor when the air flow measurement was made a t the first floor level. when water entered on the third floor. However. In Fig. For open stacks the maximum rate of air inflow was caused by water rates of 130 gpm. 190 gpm.edu/uisie/10 . for the 4-in. stack. stacks are shown in Tables 2.. on the 4-in. and 6-in. just outside of the stack. If the stack received air at the second floor no great am ount of air was required a t the first floor level. Toward the bottom of the stack the air inflow decreased and became air out­ flow in the regions of positive pressure. 4-in. reaching about 13 ft. and 350 gpm in 3-in. though the partial vacuum inside of the pipe re­ mained much higher as shown in Fig. and inside of the stack itself. stacks respectively.

io Oo qSnojqx O 'O <N CO rt CO Cv| O CO 0M C0 O CO 1-H CO co co co mou iiy o ^ o o o ON CO ON Tf o O <M CO fi ö H oa & m g Ho •9 > ri a ao V V co H http://ir.v CM CM CM CO co *?U3A 5 o O mO oTl.edu/uisie/10 . M u < H in to 'O O VO < Q £o * °IJ J!V « O ^ o O O io O io O O io M aiqissoj g in o*— I vp o io ON u) VO »— in \oI \o o in O' V mO uinraixBj\| 0> doX oiu] to O O O O Mou j. P> o> o> H v> CO H V ) fO "LO t o 't I O 'O .uiowa.U3A O co O o ^O o CO p co’ PC cm’ CO ui xunnD-B^ SupuaA o_^ 5 o o o o tfliM 3]OB5g £ ui uinno-BA.

0 9. Ö cj http://ir. O' p o o o o o o 29.edu/uisie/10 .uiowa.5 IT . vq 10 P p lO CO O 13.0 lo 100 205 O O *0 o *0 o O VO 570 615 o O ' VO TH O ON VO VO 'O to lO VO VO *0 lO 0 0 0 in vo O *o o 450 410 310 i—I vO f" vO •'3- O o to O 90 § cBo 45 135 Tt O <N «o cm 3" Vent to Top Closed a San.5 6.5 11. O 5 H S.2 O O' vj lo VO O O O O 1.25 p p (N N N O 2.0 3.0 00 vO 00 *"» N 44. Tee.

ri o cöo rs) co d o ^ ui umnDuy\ • h (N CO CO Stack 6 -In .uiowa. v cÖ rPS' C u tj.IT) vo vd }U d j \ q ^ iM 3pK }§ ( P p p O' u t u in n 3 B y \ ts > CO to .edu/uisie/10 .to vO i— H M - CO -t IO VC- c# ____i cm CO rf to -*-* . to to ^ N fO N CO CO rj. Supua^ ON o p q o o O o o o- I fllM jp B J S s "3. I'* r-l CO *0 uirraiixBj^ O A ir doX °lnI <-£ to to to O "O co O' rf r j. co H http://ir. rH aiqissoj § 1—I H CO O' CS) F low CO * 0 £■■» t'~. \n m a«IJ «V *?U3A 5 o o o O o o O O IO to qSnoaqx 0> t '- m O O ' oo O e«) co CO 00 O O' O j . o> ■«s O ' 00 o in t>. io O O IO O CO Cvl co 00 'O on D ata m o ij J iv O O O O o o O O O O 1-H CO O CS -cj.v O ^ to O *o O O 'o to o i n O O to A lO [ j N VO N Tf U) VOo vO ro tJ. <v< ai C U a a H £• H o q g.

IO VO ** V O CM Tft h M co rf to vO t"o- a O vo in H c/3 H http://ir.edu/uisie/10 . o n o ^ o (N p o o p o o 10 O ' N N r M o (N Tj.' 00 O CO O OM On C O i—I O co O On O Csi O t}- cO VO H CO VO i>> o o o o o o O O O to O O O Q vO cm to CM to Q 'o Ö t J.vO oo C (S H H M O' to o« \to o vo) vo) C h o o —MI IO t 1 Oo O O q oo ^ _ rH rH r-H CNJ CO ^ y—I r—I CO f '“ (v* i '"‘ o in o o o o p p p p p p Th VO »-H TH Ö Ö cm co CO CM t co to O vC) 'O^ O ' IO ^ O to o o ° ° vO O t (N O ' ^ CM co co i .uiowa. 00 O CM O O' ON t Vo OM to I OO V OO X *'o t o O to Oo VOO t OC H CM CO rj.

N ote th a t in these experiments the pressure in the vent ju st outside of the stack was -1 in. stack. to which fixtures are connected. of water less than the value indicated on the curves in Fig... from the outside air to the stack. of water.The resistance to the flow of air producing this pressure differential is the blanket of flowing water covering the vent opening. stack installations respectively. 170 gpm for the 4-in. If the vent opening is smaller than the stack diameter the allowable rate of water discharge will be less. the discharge was ISO gpm. and 6-in. If the pressure differential is to be kept. air inflow.edu/uisie/10 . However. above -1 in. The Yi in. stack produced a pressure differential greater than 1 in. vent. Interpolating between the experi­ mental values given it is seen that a rate of water flow above 500 gpm for the 6-in. on a 4-in. Table 4 B shows correspondingly on a 6-in. Table 3B shows th at for a 1-in.' If the tee through which the air flowed into the stack had been open directly to the air. say. 4-in. the permissible rate of discharge is quite low. of water. If the allowable differential is 1 in. If the negative pressure inside of the stack exceeds 1 in. 3/1. a partial vacuum whose intensity de­ pends on the rate of water flow must exist inside the vertical pipe even if there is a direct opening to the air a t the vent or drain con­ nection tee.uiowa. Therefore when there was a pres­ sure differential of 1 in. when the stack top was open and a sanitary tee vent connection was used equal in size to the diameter of the stack. of water and if the negative pressure in the vent just outside the stack is Yz in. vent open­ ing. The fact th at there is a pressure differential as mentioned above has a practical significance in the venting of plumbing systems. below 1 in. the discharge was 350 gpm. and stack air pressure data for the 3-in. The higher the rate of discharge the thicker was this wall of water and the greater the pressure differential. of water. stack with a 3-in. and 4A show the water flow. stack with a 4-in. and 100 gpm for the 3-in. pressure differential be­ tween inside of stack and vent. stack. Tables 2A. of water. of water. http://ir. the negative pressures inside the stack as shown for various discharges would have been simply 1 in. 5. of water.S in. of water between inside and outside of stack the pressure inside the stack (hv ) was -2 in. of water would be the pressure producing the necessary air flow in the vent. Hence. the pressure inside the stack will be -l. as long as there is proper and sufficient venting to keep the pressure in the ad­ joining drains. there is no apparent reason why the pressure inside of a plumbing stack should be kept a t any particular limit.

stacks. 110 gpm. and every drain or fix­ ture connected to the stack a t that point must have a vent leading to the outside air. 5 (a ). stack and refer to the data shown in Fig. ft. 4-in..^ ) Vm (9) 4 Vm in which: Qn ax.uiowa. Since the air is carried along in the stack by the rapidly flowing water. If the pressure in the vent is not to exceed -J4 in. In the tests the pressure in the vent was kept a t -1 in. inside the stack therefore. and air pressure for the 3-in. per sec..5 in. Tables 2. The sum of the air flow into the top and th a t through the vent was found to agree quite closely with the computed theoretical maximum rate of air flow when the vacuum in the stack was small. per sec. Vm = maximum velocity of water. of water. stack and one on the 6-in.every drain or fixture connected into the stack through a multiple opening fitting at th at particular level should have a separate vent. it is necessary to de­ termine the factors upon which the actual maximum air flow depends. The actual air inflow will undoubtedly be less than this theoretical maximum rate. cu. per sec. of water. stack (see Table 3B and Table 4B) the air flow into the top of the stack was determined for rates of flow a t which the air inflow in the vent below the water entrance had also been measured. and 6-in. and 4 show water flow. Theoretical maximum rates of air flow ( Qmax. of water and a pressure of -1. Qw = rate of water flow. the pressure in the stack will be greater than -1 in. ft.) computed from http://ir. indicating that the stack was getting all the air it required. air flow. means th a t there was a pressure differential of Yi in. The value of water discharge obtained from Fig. ft. 5(a) is th at for which the pressure inside of the stack was -1.5 in. cu.edu/uisie/10 . and if the water rate is greater than. = theoretical maximum rate of air flow. = ( ^ . In order to be able to predict roughly the maximum air inflow for a particular size of stack. For one test on the 4-in. between a point inside the stack and one just outside the stack in the vent. Consider a specific case on the 4-in. the theoretical maximum air flow for any rate of discharge is equal to the product of the area of the stack not occupied by the water and maximum water velocity: Qn:ax. 3.

vent. and 4. both with and without air inflow. for any given discharge.54 for 3-in.79 for 6-in. Tables 2. stack and 4-in. therefore.edu/uisie/10 . 3. . and in every case its maximum value coincided with the water discharge pro­ ducing maximum air inflow. and 9 of Tables 2. also de­ pends on the conditions at the vent opening into the stack. a study was made of the pressure data inside the stack.uiowa. Therefore. stack and 4-in. The reason for this is th a t the actual air flow. 3. These ratios correspond to the water flow producing maximum http://ir. . and 4 shows the ratio of actual to theoretical air flow.63 for 6-in. be determined for any given installation by experimentally determining the maximum value of the above indicated quantity. in other words on the difference between the pressure reading with no air and with air. 3. Also. besides being a function of the theoretical air flow. stack and 6-in. In an attem pt to find some criterion that would indicate the rate of water flow producing maximum air flow for a given stack installa­ tion. 3. if the remaining negative pressure in the stack with air flowing in is high. vent. The relative amount of air inflow will depend on the amount the negative pressure is reduced at the point on the stack where the air enters.the water discharge and velocity data (Column 5. The rate of water discharge producing the maximum rate of air inflow can. stack and 3-in. N ote th at the values of actual air flow. stack and 4-in. decrease relatively much more after reaching a maximum than do the computed values of theoretical air flow.58 for 4-in. (See Columns 7. vent. ■— — JL. vent. shown in Column 3 of Tables 2. vent. This hv quantity was computed for various rates of water discharge. The maximum value of this ratio for open stacks with sanitary tee connections was . The last column of Tables 2. In other words for any stack installation there is a defi­ nite maximum rate of air inflow coming within a range of water dis­ charge that stacks are ordinarily designed to carry. the air inflow will be relatively low. At high rates of water discharge the blanket of water across the vent opening produces enough resistance to the inflow of air to decrease the air flow appreciably. . and 4 ). If vents are pro­ vided to supply this maximum rate of air flow the worst possible con­ dition of venting will be provided for.61 for 4-in. and 4) reached a maximum and then gradually decreased. (knv — hv). and . 8. the actual air flow should be a function of the ratio.

i s o ^ a s ) .. However. these rates will be considerably less for stacks with tops closed or with top openings much smaller than the stack diameter. Referring to Columns 1 and 2 of Tables 2.81 cu. stack. stack. (See Column 3. (2) The pressure differentials for the greater portion of the stack are negative and relatively large. 13. W hat will be the maximum possible rate of air inflow through a 3-in. *This does not im ply t h a t the v e n t pipe its e lf m u st be 3-in. per sec. Also.air flow or to the “design rate. and 4.edu/uisie/10 . The curves showing pres­ sure variations along the stack are similar in shape for all rates of water flow.5 ft. Table 1). 0 . or 36S gpm. stack.— This investigation may be sum­ marized as follows: (1) W ater flowing down a vertical pipe creates pressure differentials from the point of water entrance to the bottom of the stack. vent opening?* For 200 gpm the maximum water velocity is about 20. 190 gpm for the 4-in. stack installation it is found th at a water rate of 200 gpm will produce the maximum rate of air flow. These pressures vary in magnitude and sign depending on the distance be­ low the entrance and on installation details. the actual maximum rate of air inflow can easily be calculated for common sizes of stacks from the above data. approximately 30 in. of water. per sec.” Thus if the water discharge produc­ ing the maximum rate of air inflow has been determined. « > ( i £ . In any plumbing system these large pressure differentials will break the water seals of fixtures and they must be relieved by supplying air. suppose for a given 4-in. and 550 gpm for the 6-in. these rates should apply to 45° wye vent connections. Therefore from Equation (9) the maximum possible rate of air flow is.20' 5 = . note th at for the test installations with sanitary tee vent connections and open stacks the rates of water flow producing maximum air inflow are: 130 gpm for the 3-in. For other installations these rates may be slightly differ­ ent bu t there seems no reason to suppose the variation will be great.uiowa. = . For example. ft. Summary and Applications. http://ir. 3.

The actual maximum rate of air inflow observed in these tests was approximately 50 per cent of this hypothetical maximum for the 3-in. there is no reason to believe th at these values would be different for the common 45° wye connections. stack. and 75 per cent for the 6-in. 60 per cent for the 4-in. These values are for sanitary tee connections and vent open­ ings of size equal to the stack diameter. For a given installation this water discharge can be determined experimentally by finding the maximum value of the ratio. http://ir.uiowa. air must be supplied for the duration of the water flow a t a definite rate depending on the water discharge and the ability of the water to carry the air along. Other types of openings may give values slightly different depending on how the water flows by the vent opening. (4) For any stack there is one rate of water discharge which pro­ duces the maximum rate of air flow. ^ nv.edu/uisie/10 . stack. ^V' > where hnv is the negative pressure inside of the stack w ithout air inflow (vent closed). (3) Where fixtures are connected to a stack and where a negative pressure exists. stack. (5) The rate of air inflow cannot exceed the product of the area of the stack occupied by air and the velocity of the falling water. however. and hv the negative pressure inside of the stack with air inflow (vent open).

edu/uisie/10 .uiowa.http://ir.

price $0. Bulletin 5. 1936. 1937. A. Bulletin 7. 1936. by Chesley J. Bulletin 2. C hitty Ho. price $0. Bulletin 3. price $0. by D . 32 pages. 72 pages. and Yun-Cheng T u. M . 1936. by Theodore R. by Ralph M . Tests of Anchorages for Reinforcing Bars. The T ransportation of D etritus by Flowing W ater. Mavis and Edw ard F. by H uber O. price $0. price $0. Yarnell. 128 pages.35.75. 1932. 1926. STU D IES IN E N G IN E E R IN G Bulletin 1. 32 pages.35.uiowa. Bulletin 4. An investigation of Some H and Motions Used in Fac­ tory W ork. by F. 1933.35. price $0. Woodward. price $0. T . price $0. 5 figures. R eport on Hydraulics and Pneumatics of Plumbing Drainage Systems— I. http://ir. Laboratory Tests on H ydraulic Models of the Hastings Dam. 18 figures. The Flow of W ater Through Culverts. 17 figures.60.edu/uisie/10 . 32 pages. M . price $0.50. T he Physical and Anti-Knock Properties of Gasoline Alcohol Blends. 1935.00. Bulletin 6. 23 plates. 15 figures. Schmarje. 1936. Bulletin 9. Thoren. T . 22 figures. 60 pages. A Study of the Perm eability of Sand. by F . A. Radiation Intensities and H eat-Transfer in Boiler F u r­ naces. Mavis and Edward Soucek. 56 pages.50.50. 25 figures. Dawson and A. F. Ralston Creek W ater­ shed. price $1. 40 figures. Mavis.35. 32 pages. 32 pages. Bulletin 8. 12 figures. 1934. by F. F. 1924-35. and S. Wilsey. Nagler. Nelson. A Summary of Hydrologic D ata. Barnes. by F. by M artin E. L. 26 figures. 72 pages. Posey. 13 figures. Croft and C. T . Bulletin 10. Kalinske.