See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262567211

PIPEWALL BUCKLING IN SIPHONIC SYSTEMS

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 418

2 authors:

Terry Lucke Simon Beecham

University of the Sunshine Coast University of South Australia
93 PUBLICATIONS   1,144 CITATIONS    206 PUBLICATIONS   3,486 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relating stromwater quality to rain events and urban catchments View project

Biodiversity in Streetscale Water Sensitive urban Design in Australia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Terry Lucke on 25 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PIPEWALL BUCKLING IN SIPHONIC SYSTEMS
Terry Lucke1, & Simon Beecham1
1
Centre for Water Management and Reuse, University of South Australia,
CWMR, UniSA, Mawson Lakes, Adelaide, Australia.
email: terry.lucke@unisa.edu.au

ABSTRACT
Siphonic roof drainage is a highly efficient type of drainage system that is particularly suitable for large buildings and
other structures over approximately 4m in height. Many buildings worldwide such as Stadium Australia in Sydney,
Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong and the Rolls-Royce production facility in Inchinnan, Scotland have been
designed with siphonic roof drainage systems. Siphonic systems have much appeal for architects and designers due to
the many advantages they offer over traditional gravity driven roof drainage systems. Although siphonic roof drainage
systems are enjoying ever increasing popularity with designers, there is still some uncertainty regarding the minimum
pipe pressure ratings required for siphonic pipework, especially in tall buildings. This is particularly the case in warmer
countries since higher temperatures can drastically decrease the strength of the pipework material typically used in
siphonic systems such as PVC and HDPE. There is very limited information available on how plastic pipes behave
under the sub-atmospheric pressures that occur under operating conditions in siphonic systems. This paper describes
experiments conducted to investigate sub-atmospheric pressures in siphonic systems. Recommendations for minimum
pipework pressure ratings are also provided. This paper will help engineers design siphonic systems with more
confidence that they will continue to perform over their intended design life.

INTRODUCTION
Traditional roof drainage systems
Traditional roof drainage systems collect runoff in box, eave or valley gutters and remove that water using freely
discharging downpipes (Kalinske, 1940; Wright et al., 2002). For large roof surfaces this can result in numerous
downpipes. The effective driving head at the outlet is usually only the depth of water in the gutter, which is typically of
the order of 100mm (May, 1995). These systems lead to the development of annular flow in the downpipes with up to
two thirds of the pipe’s cross-sectional area being taking up by air. This air core maintains atmospheric pressure
throughout the system. This inefficient design method necessitates the use of many, relatively large diameter downpipes
within the system (Wright et al., 2002).

Siphonic roof drainage systems

Siphonic roof drainage is a highly efficient type of drainage system that is particularly suitable for large buildings and
other structures over approximately 4m in height. These systems were first developed in the 1970s by Ebeling and
Sommerhein in Scandinavia (May, 1995). Many buildings worldwide such as Stadium Australia in Sydney, Chek Lap
Kok airport in Hong Kong and the Rolls-Royce production facility in Inchinnan, Scotland have been designed with
siphonic roof drainage systems.

These systems have much appeal for architects and designers due to the many advantages they offer over conventional
gravity-fed roof drainage systems. In order to prime, siphonic systems are designed to purge air from the pipework as
the pipes quickly fill with water. Once primed, the pipes then flow at sub-atmospheric (negative) pressure and the
driving head is then effectively the difference in level between the water in the gutter and discharge point, which is
usually near ground level. This causes significant increases in both the flow velocity and volume compared to
traditional systems (Arthur et al. 2005). May (1995) writes that these increases can cause siphonic outlets to have up to
ten times the capacity of traditional outlets. One of the major advantages of siphonic systems is that the roof runoff from
siphonic systems is usually directed into a single downpipe, so the normally extensive, underground drainage pipe
system is virtually eliminated (Lucke et al. 2007).

The theory of siphonic action has been understood for centuries and is broadly based on simple energy principles, as
expressed by the energy equation (May, 1995). The current steady (peak) flow design of siphonic drainage systems uses
a version of this equation that estimates the difference in energy between two points (1 and 2) by summing the pressure,
kinetic and potential energies at those points (Eq. 1). This energy is then balanced against the pipe system’s friction
(Hf) and form losses (HL). Priming and pipe full flow conditions are promoted by these energy losses at certain points in
the network.

P1 Q 12 P2 Q22 … Eq. 1
2
z1 z2 H 1, 2 Hf HL
g 2 gA 1 g 2 gA22 Point 2
Point 1

One of the key benefits of siphonic systems is their ability to collect all rainwater and runoff from large roof areas and
direct it at roof level to only one or two desired discharge points. The discharged roofwater can then be harvested and
stored for later reuse.

1
Negative pressures and pipe wall collapse
Although siphonic roof drainage systems are enjoying ever increasing popularity with designers, there is still some
uncertainty regarding the minimum pipe pressure class required for siphonic pipework in tall buildings. Worldwide,
there have been some known failures of siphonic systems because pipes have collapsed due to the negative pressures
generated in the system pipework (Sommerhein, 1999; Bowler and Arthur, 1999). This is particularly the case in warm,
tropical countries since higher temperatures can drastically decrease the strength of the pipework material typically used
in siphonic systems. Materials used include unplasticised polyvinylchloride (PVC-U) and high density polyethylene
(HDPE). Pipe pressure classes are based on internal positive pressure bursting capacity and there is a good deal of
information available on this type of testing. However, there is very limited information available on how plastic pipes
behave under the high negative pressures that occur under operating conditions in siphonic systems.

There is currently no recognised international standard for siphonic roof drainage pipes operating under negative
pressures (Bowler and Arthur, 1999). Bowler and Arthur (1999) published the first research into how the HDPE
pipework used in siphonic systems behaves under short-term and longer-term negative pressure durations. They found
that the lowest, commonly available, positive pressure rated HDPE pipe (PN 3.2, rated at 320kN/m2) collapsed when
the internal pipe pressure was less than 86kN/m2 below atmospheric at 200C, during short duration testing (less than
five minutes duration). Due to the uncertainty of pipe buckling capacities, they suggested using a minimum factor of
safety of six in design. Some siphonic drainage designers specify a minimum pipe pressure class of PN6.3 (630kN/m2)
to address this uncertainty.

Current design procedures

Recent studies (Arthur et al., 2005; Arthur and Swaffield, 2001; May, 1995; Sommerhein, 1999) and design manuals
(ASPE, 2006; VDI, 2002) suggest that the expected internal pipe pressures should be limited to a minimum pressure of
90kN/m2 below atmospheric pressure. However, if the siphonic pipework used is not able to withstand the -90kN/m2
pressure, it could lead to system failure through pipe buckling. The -90kN/m2 pressure limit is currently recommended
for two reasons. The first is to ensure that the generation of negative pressure transients does not lead to system failure
due to pipe wall collapse (Arthur and Swaffield, 2001). The second reason is to reduce the likelihood of cavitation,
which could lead to serious erosion damage on the inside of the pipes (May, 1995). However, research by Lucke and
Beecham (2009) demonstrated that damage to plastic siphonic system downpipes due to cavitation is unlikely to occur.

In current design practice, two different approaches are usually adopted to ensure that the downpipe pressures do not
fall below the recommended limits. The first approach is to increase the head losses in the pipework to a point where
the very low buckling pressures are unattainable. This is usually accomplished by utilising smaller pipe diameters than
would usually be required. The smaller diameters consequently cause the pipe flow velocities to increase which in turn
increases the system head losses. However, these high velocity flows can cause other problems at the discharge point
such as scour and splashing (Ross, 2006). The second approach to control the negative pressures is to cause a break in
the siphonic action within the downpipe. This is usually achieved by increasing the downpipe diameter after a certain
vertical drop distance. However, on tall buildings, this can significantly increase material costs. Handling large
diameter, heavy pipes can lead to further construction problems. This paper describes a series of experiments
undertaken at the University of South Australia to investigate the behaviour of pipes experiencing negative pressures in
siphonic systems. Experiments were conducted on various grades of both PVC-U and HDPE pipework to determine the
pipe buckling loads and to establish the minimum allowable system operating pressures for these pipes.

TESTING APPARATUS
Testing pipe wall strength under negative pressures
As it is not possible to achieve a negative pressure lower than -101.3kN/m2 (zero absolute pressure) using a vacuum
apparatus, a unique differential pressure chamber was constructed to undertake the pipe testing. The pressure chamber
was designed so that it could develop a differential pressure of up to 1500kN/m2 between the outside and inside walls of
the test pipe samples. The pressure testing chamber is shown in Figure 1. The testing chamber shown in Figure 1 was
constructed from PN16 (1600kN/m2) HDPE pipe. The pipe had an internal diameter of 350mm and was 6.5m long to
allow for full length pipe testing (in Australia the standard plastic pipe length is usually 6m). Flange plates
manufactured from 20mm thick galvanised steel were attached to both ends to seal the chamber.

Three samples of each of the different pipe types were pressure tested. The test pipes were first sealed using either a
reinforced end-cap for the PVC-U pipes, or by welding a flat plate onto each end in the case of the HDPE pipes (Figure
2). All the test pipe samples were six metres long which ensured that the critical pipe wall buckling load was not
affected by any potential support provided by the end caps. Industry technical recommendations state that any support
from end restraints can be considered to be equal to zero at a distance of seven pipe diameters from the end restraint
(Vinidex, 2004).

2
Figure 1 - Pressure chamber Figure 2 – Sealing Pipe Samples: PVC-U with
End Caps (a) and HDPE with Flat Plates (b)

Figure 3 – End Plate Figure 4 - Water Level Chamber Figure 5 - Deformed 315mm PN4 pipe

A 20mm diameter threaded pipe was first fitted into one end of each pipe test sample and sealed. The test samples were
then inserted into the pressure chamber with the threaded pipe and locking flange nut protruding from one end as can be
seen in Figure 2. The galvanised steel end plate was then attached to the chamber allowing the threaded pipe to protrude
through to the outside of the chamber. The threaded pipe was then sealed on the outside of the steel end plate using
another flange locking nut with rubber o-rings and then connected to a flexible pressure hose as shown in Figure 3.
Two of the pressure control valves on the external face of the end plate can also be seen in Figure 3. The other end of
the flexible hose was then connected to the bottom of the acrylic water level observation chamber shown in Figure 4.
This arrangement allowed the test pipe inside the pressure chamber to be filled with water from outside. A small air
bleeding hose with a float attached was inserted through the pressure hose and into the test pipe to allow the air inside
the test pipe to escape as it was filled with water. When the test pipe was full, the water level in the observation
chamber was set to the same level as the water level in the top of the test pipe so there was no hydrostatic pressure
difference in that system. Any volume changes in the test pipe due to increasing external pipe wall water pressure could
then be observed and quantified by an increase in the water level within the observation chamber. Figure 4 also shows
the gauges that were used to measure the water pressure changes inside the pressure chamber. The water pressure was
applied in two different ways depending on the pipe samples being tested. For the pipes with diameters greater than or
equal to 100mm, the mains water pressure in the laboratory was generally sufficient to eventually cause pipe failure.
For the smaller diameter pipes (less than 100mm), a high pressure water pump was used to apply the pressure within the
chamber.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Once the inside of the test pipe sample was filled with water (at 18°C), the pressure chamber (Figure 1) was then also
filled with water (also at 18°C). This meant that there were effectively two independent pressure systems; the test pipe
internal pressure system (kept at constant atmospheric pressure of 101.3kN/m2) and the pressure chamber internal
system (applying uniform pressure to the outside wall of the test pipe). At the start of each test both systems were at
atmospheric pressure. During the testing procedure, the pressure inside the chamber was increased in increments of
5kN/m2 and left to stabilise for a period of at least five minutes. Once the water level had stabilised inside the
observation chamber, the change in the water level due to the extra 5kN/m2 pressure was then recorded. This procedure
was in effect, squeezing the outside of the test pipe to observe the change in internal volume. The process of increasing
the chamber pressure was repeated until the observation chamber water level would no longer stabilise. At this point,
the pipe had effectively failed as it could no longer resist the water pressure acting on the external pipe walls. The
ability of both PVC-U and HDPE pipes to withstand negative pressures was tested. PVC-U pipe is the predominant
material used in drain waste & vent (DWV) applications in Australia and is used by some manufacturers of siphonic
drainage systems. Seven different PVC-U pipe diameters were tested, namely 50, 65, 80, 100, 150, 225 and 300mm.
DWV pipe is not normally classified by its pressure class but rather by its stiffness (SN) class. The corresponding
pressure class of the 50mm to 150mm diameter PVC-U pipes was approximately PN5.3 (530kN/m2) and approximately

3
PN4 (400kN/m2) for the 225mm and 300mm diameter pipes (Vinidex, 2004). Testing was conducted on HDPE pipes
with diameters of 250mm and 315mm. Two different pipe pressure classes were tested in the 315mm diameter pipe
size, namely PN4 (400kN/m2) and PN6.3 (630kN/m2). Only PN4 (400kN/m2) class was tested in the 250mm diameter
pipe size. Figure 7 shows one of the failed 315mm diameter PN4 test pipes that was cut open. The permanent
deformation of the pipe due to the pressure differential failure is clearly evident in Figure 5.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
PVC-U Pipe Results
The results of the PVC-U pipe wall testing (at 18°C) are listed in Table 1. The lowest differential pressure (DP) to cause
a pipe wall failure in one of the three test samples of each pipe size is listed in Column 4. The approximate pressure
class of each pipe size is listed in Column 3. Figure 6 shows the test results for the three 150mm diameter PVC-U pipes
(at 18°C), namely Tests 7, 8 and 21. The differential pressure is shown on the horizontal axis and the decrease in pipe
volume is shown on the vertical axis. The final point on each line represents the failure point of each of the pipe
samples.
0.35%
Table 1 - PVC-U Pipe Results (18°C)
0.30%
Diameter Class Approximate Lowest
Pressure Observed 0.25% Test 7

Volume Decrease (%)

Class DP Failure Test 8

(mm) (SN) (PN) (kN/m2) 0.20% Test 21

50 18.5 5.3 585 0.15%

65 18.3 5.3 395
80 13 5.3 460 0.10%

100 6 5.3 135 0.05%

150 4 5.3 110
225 4 4 120 0.00%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
300 4 4 100 Differential Pressure (kPa)

Figure 6 - 150mm Diameter PVC-U Pipe (18°C)

HDPE Pipe Results
The results of the HDPE pipe wall testing (at 18°C) are listed in Table 2. The lowest differential pressure (DP) to cause
a pipe wall failure in one of the three test samples of each pipe size is listed in Column 3. The approximate pressure
class of each pipe size is listed in Column 2.
0.30%

Table 2 - HDPE Pipe Results (18°C) 0.25%

Diameter Pressure Class Lowest

Observed
Volume Decrease (%)

0.20%
Test 1a

DP Failure Test 2a

(mm) (PN) (kN/m2) 0.15% Test 3a

250 4 65
0.10%
315 4 65
315 6.3 140 0.05%

0.00%
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Differential Pressure (kPa)

Figure 7 - 250mm Diameter HDPE Pipe (PN4 at 18°C)

Figure 7 shows the test results for the three 250mm diameter HDPE (PN4 at 18°C) pipes, namely Tests 1a, 2a and 3a.
The differential pressure is shown on the horizontal axis and the decrease in pipe volume is shown on the vertical axis.
The final point on each line represents the failure point of each of the pipe samples.

DISCUSSION
PVC-U Pipe Results
Several pipe manufacturers use Equation 2 to calculate pipe buckling capacities due to negative pressure effects. The
critical pressure (PCR) represents the differential pressure between the inside and the outside of the pipe wall. The
derivation of Equation 2, which is widely used as a basis for the design of underground pipes, was summarised by
Timoshenko (1934).
3
2E t … Eq. 2 24 * SN
PCR PCR * FC … Eq. 3
1 2
Dm 1 2

4
DWV pipe is typically categorized by its lateral stiffness class (SN) and a number of pipe manufacturers use Equation 3
to calculate the pipe buckling capacities of DWV pipe (Vinidex, 2004). The FC term in Eq. 3 is a correction factor used
to account for variations in material modulus with time and temperature (Vinidex, 2004). The appropriate FC value for
the pressure testing undertaken in this study was equal to 1.0. Australian Standard (AS 2566.1:1998) specifies a
minimum combined long-term factor of safety of 1.5 when calculating pipe buckling capacities unless the designer
specifies an alternative. Vinidex (2004) also suggest that a safety factor of 1.5 may be appropriate in a calculation of
unsupported buckling of a pipe under vacuum. Table 3 compares the lowest observed differential pressures (DP)
failures for each pipe size and class with the predicted failure pressures (PCR-SF) using both Eq. 2 (Column 4) and Eq. 3
(Column 5) with both having a factor of safety of 1.5 applied. The modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio used in Eq.
2 were supplied by the pipe manufacturer and were given as E = 2750kN/m2 and v = 0.38 respectively.

Table 3 - PVC-U Pipe results

Diameter Class Lowest Observed DP Failure Predicted PCR-SF (Eq. 2) Predicted PCR-SF (Eq. 3)
(mm) (SN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
50 18.5 585 293 352
65 18.3 395 473 349
80 13 460 211 248
100 6 135 94 114
150 4 110 84 76
225 4 120 85 76
300 4 100 88 76

Research by Lucke and Beecham (2009) found that the minimum system pressures in their experimental siphonic rig
did not fall below -99kN/m2. Therefore, the predicted failure pressures (PCR-SF) for the 50, 65, 80 and 100mm diameter
DWV pipes shown in Table 3 suggest that pipes of these sizes and classes used in siphonic drainage systems are
unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures at operating temperatures of approximately 20°C.
However, the predicted failure pressures (PCR-SF) for the 150, 225 and 300mm diameter (SN4) pipes shown in Table 4
suggest that some degree of caution should be exercised when specifying these pipe sizes and classes for siphonic
drainage system downpipes in tall buildings. In situations where design system flowrates necessitate pipework
diameters larger than 100mm, it may be still be acceptable to use PVC-U class SN4 pipe provided that the expected
differential pressures between the inside and the outside of the pipe wall are not greater than those values shown in
Column 5 of Table 4. If design calculations show that the expected differential pressures are above these values, or the
expected operating temperatures are significantly above 20°C, then a stiffer pipe class should be specified. PVC-U
pipes of 150, 225 and 300mm diameters are also available in the SN8 stiffness class. Eq. 3 gives a predicted failure
pressures (PCR-SF) of 152kN/m2 for SN8 class pipes and this suggests that this class of PVC-U pipe should be suitable to
withstand the negative pressures developed in the pipework of all siphonic drainage systems.

HDPE Pipe Results

Table 4 compares the lowest observed differential pressures (DP) failures (Column 3) for each pipe size and class with
the predicted failure pressures (PCR-SF) using Eq. 2 (Column 4) with a factor of safety of 1.5 applied. The modulus of
elasticity and Poisson's ratio used in Eq. 2 were supplied by the pipe manufacturer and were given as E = 800kN/m2 and
v = 0.38 respectively.
Table 4 - HDPE Pipe results
Diameter Pressure Class Lowest Observed DP Failure Predicted PCR-SF (Eq. 2)
(mm) (PN) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
250 4 65 50
315 4 65 46
315 6.3 140 99

Table 4 shows that for the three HDPE pipe types tested, the observed differential pressure pipe failures were
significantly greater than the predicted PCR-SF values. The results for the 315mm (PN6.3) pipe suggest that pipes of this
size and class are unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures in siphonic drainage systems at
operating temperatures of approximately 20°C. However, both the 250mm and the 315mm (PN4) pipe results suggest
that caution is needed when specifying these pipe sizes and class for siphonic drainage systems. This is especially the
case for siphonic system downpipes in tall buildings. It may still be possible to use large diameter HDPE PN4 pipe
provided that the expected differential pressures are not greater than those values shown in Column 4 of Table 5. If the
expected differential pressures are above these values, or the expected operating temperatures are significantly above
20°C, then a minimum pipe pressure class of PN6.3 should be specified. Research into four different siphonic systems
by May and Escarameia (1996) found that measured system pressures were generally less negative than predicted by
design calculations. This suggests that current design methods will tend to overestimate the negative operational system
pressures. Further research is required to verify and quantify the implications of these findings.

5
 CONCLUSIONS
This study has produced detailed experimental results relating to the behaviour of plastic pipes under the negative
pressures that occur in siphonic systems. This study has shown that at operating temperatures of approximately 20°C:
PVC-U (SN4 class) pipes of 50, 65, 80 and 100mm diameter are unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to
negative pressures.
PVC-U (SN4) pipes of diameters greater than 100mm, subjected to negative pressures less than -76kN/m2 are
unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures. However, some degree of caution should be
exercised when specifying these pipe sizes and classes for siphonic drainage system downpipes in tall
buildings.
PVC-U (SN8 class) pipes are unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures in siphonic
drainage systems.
HDPE (PN6.3) 315mm diameter pipe is unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures in
siphonic drainage systems.
HDPE (PN4) pipes of 250mm and 315mm diameters, subjected to negative pressures less than -46kN/m2 are
unlikely to fail by pipe wall collapse due to negative pressures.

These findings will help engineers design siphonic systems with more confidence that they will continue to perform
over their intended design life. They also highlight the importance of correct plastic pipe class specification to avoid
potential problems that may lead to a system failure. This could have serious consequences such as box gutter
overtopping and consequent flooding damage. Further research is required to investigate the behaviour of plastic pipes
in siphonic drainage systems where operational temperatures are expected to significantly exceed 20°C. Further
research is also required to investigate the relationship between operational negative system pressures and calculated
negative pressures in siphonic systems.

REFERENCES
American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) 2006, Siphonic Roof Drainage Design Standard (Draft Version 3),
ASPE, Chicago, USA.
Arthur, S and Swaffield, JA 2001, ‘Siphonic roof drainage system analysis utilising unsteady flow theory’, Building and
Environment, vol. 36, pp. 939-948.
Arthur, S, Wright, GB and Swaffield, JA 2005, ‘Operational performance of siphonic roof drainage systems’, Building
and Environment, vol. 40, pp. 788-796.
Bowler, R and Arthur, S 1999, ‘Siphonic roof rainwater drainage – design considerations’, in Proceedings of Water
Supply and Drainage for Buildings, CIB W62 1999, Edinburgh.
Kalinske, AA 1940, ‘Hydraulics of vertical drain and overflow pipes’, Iowa Institute of Hydraulics Research.
May, RWP 1995, ‘Design of conventional and siphonic roof drainage systems’, in Proceedings of Public Health
Services in Buildings – Water Supply, Quality and Drainage, IWEM conference, London.
May, RWP and Escarameia, M 1996, ‘Performance of siphonic drainage systems for roof gutters’, Report No. SR463.
Wallingford: HR Wallingford, 1996.
Lucke, T and Beecham, S 2009, Cavitation, Aeration and Negative Pressures in Siphonic Roof Drainage Systems,
Journal of Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 30(2), pp103-119.
Lucke, T, Beecham, S and Zillante, G 2007, ‘Rainwater Harvesting Options for Commercial Buildings Using Siphonic
Roof Drainage Systems’, in Proceedings of 4th International Conference, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors,
Adelaide, Australia.
Ross, W 2006, ‘Understanding Siphonic Drainage—The Why’s and How’s’, PM Engineer, website, Accessed 1/7/08,
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/Archives/280ee3eac5a1b010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0
Sommerhein, P 1999, ‘Design parameters for roof drainage systems’, in Proceedings of Water Supply and Drainage for
Buildings, CIB W62 1999, Edinburgh.
Standards Australia 1998, Buried flexible pipelines Part 1: Structural design, (AS/NZS 2566.1:1998), Standards
Australia, Homebush, Sydney.
Timoshenko, S 1934, Theory of Elasticity, USA: McGraw-Hill.
VDI - Verein Deutscher Ingenieure 2002, ‘Roof drainage with siphonic system’ (in German), VDI 3806, Gebaeude and
Grundstucks Entwaesserung, 1 Aufgabe, (German Institute of Engineers Siphonic Roof Design Manual).
Wright, GB, Swaffield, JA and Arthur, S 2002, ‘The performance characteristics of multi-outlet siphonic rainwater
systems’, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 127–141.
Vinidex 2004, PVC-U pipes under external pressure, Technical Note, no. VX-TN-4F.2, website accessed on 3-9-2009
at:
http://vinidexho.sitesuite.ws/files//technical_notes/technical_notes/mar04PVC-Upipesunderexternalpressure.pdf

View publication stats