VII.

4 Test Method of Trap Performance for

Induced Siphonage

K. Sakaue (1), H. Kuriyama (2), H. Iizuka (3), M. Kamata (4)

(1) sakaue@ isc.meiji.ac.jp

School of Science and Technology, Meiji University, Japan

(2)kuriyama.hana@nikken.co.jp

Nikken Sekkei Ltd., Japan

(3) iizukah@nikken.co.jp

Nikken Sekkei Ltd., Japan

(4) ft101743@kanagawa-u.ac.jp

Faculty of Engineering, Kanagawa University, Japan

Abstract
The drainage system is designed in such a way that drain traps are not prone to seal
break. Seal break is caused by seal loss phenomena, and induced siphonage plays an
important role. A reliable drainage system cannot be designed without first defining
trap performance for induced siphonage. However, no effective methods have been
established to test the performance of traps.

Based on the premise that seal loss phenomena are produced as response of seal water
to pneumatic pressure in drain, we conducted free vibration test, single sine wave
response test, and √2 times natural frequency response test using a pressure generating
device with two types each of fixture traps, floor drain traps, and WC to elucidate their
characteristics and strengths. The results clearly indicated that methods defining
minimum pressure required to cause seal break was most appropriate for testing traps
performance to withstand pneumatic pressure. It was also found that natural

407 
 
frequencies obtained by the free vibration test, and max. response magnifications by the
single sine wave response test were relevant and applicable.

Keywords
Drainage system, trap, induced siphonage, test method, single sine wave
1. Introduction

The first consideration in designing any drainage system including vent system is to
make it in such a way that it does not cause seal break. So-called seal break phenomena
include such conditions as induced siphonage, self-siphonage, and evaporation. Of
these, however, one that is pertinent to the entire system would be induced siphonage,
which is characterized by seal loss caused by pneumatic pressure (referred to as
pressure below) affecting the trap seal. In other words, induced siphonage is a dynamic
vibrational response phenomenon caused by the flow of water in the drainage pipe.

To prevent seal break caused by this induced siphonage, it is necessary to establish a

way to predict pressure resulting from discharge load and entire system configuration
such as piping, pipe diameter, type of vent system, as well as to clarify anti-pressure
performance of trap (referred to as trap performance below). Theoretically it can be
achieved by establishing permissible pressure based on trap performance, and by
defining permissible flow rate against it for each system type. The more clearly we
define the performance of each trap, the more flexibly we can design the section of
piping in which the trap is placed.

In the current designing scheme, trap performance is only defined by minimum seal
depth with no pressure prediction made, and at the very best rough permissible flow rate
for each system type is defined. Of all plumbing codes in the world, only the former
DIN1986 in Germany and SHASE-S-218 in Japan stipulate permissible seal loss. As
for permissible residual seal depth, only SHASE-S-218 has stipulations.

In the ever-evolving world of plumbing system, designing of drainage system,

extremely ill-defined compared to that of water supply system and hot water supply
system, has been unable to respond to the trend of rationalization. Though the self-
sealing traps without requiring seal water have been developed in Great Britain, water
seal trap is still the mainstream in the world. It seems imperative that we clearly define
trap performance to improve designing methods of drainage system.

Based on the above considerations, the authors have tested various methods of defining
trap performance [1-4]. In this study, as continuation of the ongoing research, the
authors have examined testing methods using a simple device generating single sine
waves with two types each of fixture traps, floor drain traps, and WC.

408 
 
2. Experimental apparatus and measuring equipment
2.1 Experimental apparatus

The experimental apparatus used in this study consists of a pressure generator (pistons,
a frequency variable device, various chambers), drainage pipes, and an analyzer (Figure
1). It has a triple-piston structure with cranks adjustable at 8 steps between 15 ~ 50mm
in increments of 5mm. Frequencies are variable in increments of 0.033Hz within the
range of 0.166 ~ 4.5Hz. It is also equipped with a small blower as a bias pressure
device, which reproduces the steady pressure component. Amplitudes were adjusted by
changing the water contents of vertical cylindrical chamber and pressure adjustment
chambers, which in turn changed air volume in the chambers. Only one of the three
pistons on the apparatus was operated this experiment.

2.2 Test traps

Basic configuration parameters and cross sectional shapes of test traps are shown in
Table 1 and Figure 2. The P trap and S trap for fixtures, the bell trap and contrary bell
trap for floor drains are made of transparent resin, and seal conditions inside can be
observed from outside (Figure 2). Actual models of two types of WC, supper water
saving WC (WC-6L) and water saving WC (WC-8L) were used.

409 
 
2.3 Measuring equipment

We used a diffuse semiconductor type pressure sensor for measuring pressure, and a
capacitive water level sensor for seal water level. The water level sensor had been
modified so that it could be inserted into the inlet leg of a trap. Both of them had
adequate response frequency of more than about 10kHz.

8  9  12 13 1

7  2
11 
10 

3 3 3
6 

4 4 4
5

1; Changing device of frequency 2; Blower for bias pressure

device

3; Chamber with piston 4; Pressure control valve 5; Mixing

chamber

6; Pressure control chamber 7; Test trap 8; Water level sensor

9; Amplifier 10; Pressure sensor 11; Amplifier 12; Data roger

13; PC

Figure 1 - Test apparatus

410 
 
 Table 1 – Basic parameters of test raps

Ratio of leg’s
Test traps Volume of seal Seal depth sectional area
1)
F [-]

For P trap 150 60 1.00

Fixtures S trap 150 60 1.00

Bell trap
For floor 550 53 1.41
drains Contrary bell
410 50 1.26
trap

WC-6L 2,470 55 -2)

WC
WC-8L 1,370 67 -2)

Note 1) F = (mean sectional area of inlet leg) / (mean sectional area of outlet leg) of a
trap

2) These weren't confirmed because an internal form was complex.

31 
88
45

14  50 
53 
60 

60 

10 

92 33 
112 43 
30  40  30 30 40 30

P trap S trap Bell trap Contrary bell trap

Figure 2 - Test traps

3. Free vibration test

3.1 Purpose

Natural frequency and damping ratio are the two main basic response characteristics in
forced vibration phenomena. Having damping ratio of 0.4 ~ 0.6, seal fluctuation is
known to cause weak damping oscillation [5, 6]. Considering the effects on trap
performance, we used only natural frequencies as a parameter. Though there are several

411 
 
methods of measuring natural frequencies, we adopted a method based on power
spectrum of response of water level in this study.

3.2 Experimental method

We first caused half-full seal to free-vibrate, and measured free-vibration wave patterns
of seal. Then we obtained the density distribution of power spectrum of response of
water level by giving FFT treatment to the wave patterns. The frequency at which the
power spectrum density became maximum value was determined to be the natural
frequency f0.

3.3 Results and discussion

As shown in Figure 3, power spectrum density distributions of each test trap were as
follows:

P trap: 1.95Hz, S trap: 1.93Hz, Bell trap: 2.43Hz, Contrary bell trap: 2.57Hz.

These values corresponded with the values obtained from the calculate equation of
natural frequency. Although the density distribution of WC generally forms two peaks
as that of WC-6L [7], the second predominant frequency of WC-8L was extremely low
forming only one peak. If the most predominant frequency is regarded as natural
frequency, the peaks of density distribution for WC-6L and WC-8L were 1.61Hz and
1.46Hz respectively. From this, the range of natural frequencies when test traps were
half-full was found to be to be 1.4 ~ 2.6Hz.

12
P trap  Bell trap  WC‐6L 
Power spectrum 

9
2

6 F : 1 95 Hz F : 2 43 Hz F : 1 61
3
6

0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
12
S trap  Contrary Bell trap  WC‐8L 
Power spectrum 

9
6 F 1 93 H F : 2 43 Hz F : 1 46
2

3
6

7
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz] 

Figure 3 - Power spectrum of water level and natural frequency f0

412 
 
 4. Single sine wave response test
4.1 Purpose

This experiment was intended to define trap performance by obtaining response

characteristics (maximum response magnification) when frequencies of sine wave
pneumatic pressure were fluctuated with its amplitudes kept constant.

4.2 Experimental method

Single sine waves mainly consisting of atmospheric pressure with various frequencies
and constant amplitude were applied to half-full seal. Then the response magnification
curve as a function of frequency was obtained by based on calculation of the static seal
level (X) of trap seal and the ratios of response fluctuations (Xt) against single sine
wave pressure (response magnification M=Xt/X) at each frequency were obtained.

4.3 Results and discussion

Response magnification curves for each test trap are shown in Figure 4. Response
magnification curves corresponded with density distribution curves in the free vibration
test, and frequencies at which response magnification M reached maximum roughly
corresponded with natural frequency f0. However, with WC-8L, response magnification
comparable to natural frequency f0 was noted at the second predominant frequency
(2.4Hz)

Vibration characteristics of test trap seal seemed to manifest more evidently in the
single sine wave response experiment than in the free vibration experiment.
Experimental method is simpler with only single sine waves of constant amplitudes
used. As a result an experimental apparatus is not required to generate a wide range of
pressure load, and the experimental apparatus itself can be reduced to small size.

6
Bell trap 
M

P trap  WC‐6L 
5
4
Response

M = 4.8 (1.9 Hz) 
ifi ti

3
2
1
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
6
WC‐8L 
M

S trap  Contrary bell trap 
5
4
Response

M = 5.0 (2.0 Hz) 
ifi ti

3
2
1
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz] 

Figure 4 - Response magnification M of test raps

413 
 
Vibration characteristics of test trap seal seemed to manifest more evidently in the
single sine wave response experiment than in the free vibration experiment.
Experimental method is simpler with only single sine waves of constant amplitudes
used. As a result an experimental apparatus is not required to generate a wide range of
pressure load, and the experimental apparatus itself can be reduced to small size.

5. Seal break test

5.1 Purpose

This experiment is intended to define trap performance by measuring amplitudes at the

time of instantaneous seal break when frequencies and amplitudes of single sine waves
are changed. Instantaneous seal break refers to the conditions when air bubbles pass
through top dip of trap.

5.2 Experimental method

Single sine waves consisting of amplitudes of atmospheric pressure with a constant

frequency were applied to half-full seal, and the minimum amplitude leading to
instantaneous seal break within 10 seconds (referred to as seal break pressure) at the
given frequency was measured. Then the seal break characteristics curve was obtained
as a function of frequency and seal break pressure.

5.3 Results and discussion

Seal break characteristics curves (seal break pressure curves) for each test trap are
shown in Figure 5. The seal break characteristics curves roughly corresponded with
density distribution curves obtained from the free vibration test and response
magnification curves from single sine wave response test. The frequency where seal
break pressure was minimum also corresponded with the natural frequency f0. However,
the minimum value of seal break pressure was extremely small in WC. The reason for
this seems to be that WC was made of opaque ceramic, and that instantaneous seal
break was not detected accurately as the conditions of seal could not be observed
directly.

Based on dynamic oscillation, seal break test is geared to focus on seal break, the most
important element in this study, and seal break pressure provides convenient data to
evaluate trap performance. However, as mentioned above, seal break test has a
drawback in that instantaneous seal break cannot be detected accurately if traps are
made of opaque materials.

414 
 
 6. √2 times natural frequency response test
6.1 Purpose

In the field of oscillation technology, frequency √2 times the natural frequency f0 of

experimental subject has been used as eigenvalue of force. This experiment is
Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz]  Frequency [Hz] 
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
0
P trap  Bell trap  WC‐6L 
-200
Seal break pressure [Pa] 

-400 Psmin.=  Psmin.=  Psmin.= 

-600
‐196 Pa  ‐216 Pa  ‐183 Pa 
-800
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
0
S trap  Contrary bell trap  WC‐8L 
-200
-400 Psmin.=  Psmin.=  Psmin.= 
-600
‐186 Pa  ‐204 Pa  ‐152 Pa 
-800
Psmin : Minimum seal break pressure 

Figure 5 – Seal break curve of test raps

intended to define trap performance by studying response levels of seal to single sine
wave with √2 times natural frequency f0.

6.2 Experimental method

Single sine waves mainly consisting of atmospheric pressure with various amplitudes
and constant frequency were applied to half-full seal for 30 seconds, and seal
fluctuations and seal loss Hloss were measured. Pressure waves with natural frequency f
and √2 times f0 were applied.

6.3 Results and discussion

The relationship between applied pressure and maximum seal fluctuation for each trap
is shown in Figure 6. The input pressures (pressures waves inputted into the pressure
generator) were retained at a constant level until the amplitude of applied pressure
reached approximately ±150Pa, but the larger the amplitude, the more differences in
output pressures (pressures actually measured in the pipe of test apparatus) were
actually measured in traps (Table 2, Table 3). This phenomenon seems to have more to
do with seal volume than with the size of cross-sectional areas of trap legs. It can be
assumed that input pressure was lessened by resonance phenomenon when frequency f0
is applied, but on the other hand, air inside the apparatus became compressed before

415 
 
 applied pressure had any influence on seal fluctuation as seal volume increased when √2
times f0 frequency was applied. As far as seal loss is concerned, no evaluation of trap
performance was possible as seal loss remained zero regardless of amplitude of applied
pressure at √2 times f0 frequency (Figure 7).

The experiment using √2 times natural frequency f0 proved to be unproductive as it

required cumbersome procedures and considerable time, and it was difficult to adjust
amplitude of applied pressure because of compression of air inside the apparatus. It was
also found difficult to obtain clear indices by which performance of each trap can be
evaluated and ranked.

120 P trap  Bell trap  WC‐6L 

90
60
Maximum seal water level [mm] 

30
0
0 -200 -400 -600 0 -200 -400 -600 0 -500 -1000
120 S trap   Contrary bell trap  WC‐8L 
90
60
30 7

0
0 -200 -400 -600 0 -200 -400 -600 0 -500 -1000
Pressure [Pa]  Pressure [Pa]  Pressure [Pa] 

Figure 6 – Relations ship between Pressure and max. water level of test raps

416 
 
 Table 2 Input pressure and output pressure (f0)

Input pressure [Pa]

Test traps 150 200 250 350 400 450 550 650 750 850

Output pressure [Pa]

P trap 225 229 287 352 425 -- -- -- -- --

S trap 184 237 252 359 424 -- -- -- -- --

Bell trap 164 206 220 337 371 -- -- -- -- --

Contrary bell 169 235 250 336 378 -- -- -- -- --

tarp

WC-6L 246 262 318 400 480 405 469 545 564 637

WC-8L 105 120 174 262 310 283 355 418 442 456

Table 3 Input pressure and output pressure (√2･f0)

Input pressure [Pa]

Test traps 150 200 250 350 400 450 550 650 750 850

Output pressure [Pa]

P trap 167 226 288 323 453 -- -- -- -- --

S trap 214 201 313 367 445 -- -- -- -- --

Bell trap 222 255 333 431 497 -- -- -- -- --

Contrary bell 179 223 308 408 490 -- -- -- -- --

tarp

WC-6L 213 238 314 383 479 511 631 765 941 1.057

WC-8L 187 241 319 422 502 523 600 695 816 900

417 
 
 40 40
35 P trap  35 Bell trap 
30 30
Seal loss [mm] 

Seal loss [mm] 
25 25
20 f0 20 f0
15 √2･f0 15 √2･f0
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 -200 -400 -600 0 -200 -400 -600
Pressure [Pa]  Pressure [Pa] 
Figure 7 – An example of output pressure against input pressure (f0, √2･f0)

7. Conclusion

√2 times natural frequency response test was found inappropriate for testing trap
performance. Considering the ease of experimental method and the size of
experimental apparatus, minimum seal break pressures obtained by the seal break test
seems to provide most appropriate criteria for evaluating trap performance. In addition,
it is desirable to include natural frequencies and maximum response magnifications
obtained by the free vibration test and the single sine wave response test respectively.

An issue that needs to be addressed in the future is how to apply the seal break test to
opaque traps. One way to achieve this would be not to judge instantaneous seal break
by visually, but to use a water level indicator, and regard seal break as having occurred
when water level reaches near seal depth 0mm when pressure is applied.

In this study performance evaluation was only made in terms of negative pressure,
where seal break is most likely to occur, as we used amplitudes of pressure waves based
on atmospheric pressure. Therefore it is necessary to develop a method of performance
evaluation in terms of positive pressure by applying bias inside the apparatus.

418 
 
8. References

1. Sakaue, K., Kamata,M., Kuroda, K., Wang Y. (2001). Studies on Dynamic

Characteristics of Trap Seal, Proceedings of CIB W062 International Symposium (pp.
E4-1-4-5)

2. Sakaue, K., Kamata, M., Zyang, Y. (2007). A study on the Test method of Trap
performance, Proceedings of CIB W062 International Symposium (pp.321-332)

3. Kuriyama H., Sakaue, K., Yanagisawa, Y., Kamata, M., Sudo, H. (2006), Studies on
the Test method of Trap performance (Part 11), Technical papers of Annual meeting,
SHASE (pp.793-796).

4. Kuriyama, H., Sakaue, K., Yanagisawa Y., Kamata, M., Iizuka, H. (2008). A study
on the Test method of Trap performance using Simple Test Apparatus, Proceedings
of CIB W062 International Symposium (pp.252-263)

5. Sakaue, K., Shinohara, T., Kaizuka, M. (1977). A Study on the Dynamic

Characteristics of the Trap Seal, Proceedings of CIB W062 International Symposium.

6. Sakaue, K., Shinohara, T., Kaizuka, M. (1982). A Study on the Dynamic

Characteristics of the Seal in Deformed Traps, Proceedings of CIB W062
International Symposium.

7. Tomonari, H., Wang, Y., Kamata, M., Sakaue, K. (2002). Numerical Studies of Seal
Movement in Traps, Transactions of SHASE (pp.87-96)

419