Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Alternative low-cost overflows for siphonic roof drainage systems:

Proof of concept
Terry Lucke a,n, Simon Beecham b
a
Stormwater Research Group, University of the Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia
b
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, SA, Australia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes an experimental investigation of alternative overflow systems for roof structures
Received 26 November 2014 that are drained siphonically. Many buildings that have siphonic roof drainage systems currently in-
Received in revised form corporate a separate secondary overflow system, which is quite often also siphonic. An alternative low-
1 March 2015
cost technique that is explored in this study is to connect each overflow outlet to a single, vertical
Accepted 20 March 2015
downpipe. Seven different overflow configurations, each with five different downpipe lengths, are in-
Available online 21 March 2015
vestigated in terms of maximum flowrate and corresponding water depth in the gutter. The results of this
Keywords: study are significant in that they do not support the common theoretical assumption that there is a
Siphonic roof drainage system limiting length of a siphonic downpipe over which pipe-full flow may occur before gravity causes the
Secondary overflow system
water to accelerate enough for it to no longer occupy the full cross-sectional area. Instead, this study has
Siphonic outlets
found that once a downpipe is flowing full, it is possible for pipe-full flow conditions to be maintained
Full pipe flow
over the entire pipe length.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction conventional roof drainage systems and also requires extensive

Siphonic roof drainage systems (SRDS) are a highly efficient
type of drainage system that are particularly suitable for buildings
with large roof areas that need to be drained quickly. SRDS were
first developed in the late 1960s by Ebeling and Sommerhein in
Scandinavia [20] and they have much appeal for architects and
designers due to the many advantages they offer over conventional
roof drainage systems. These include a significant reduction in the
number of downpipes required, the possibility of relocating
downpipes to areas that are esthetically less sensitive, and the ease
of harvesting all of a building's roofwater for later reuse.
Conventional roof drainage systems typically include box, eave
or valley gutters that collect the runoff from the roof and channel
this rainwater into outlets connected to vertical downpipes located
in the soles of the gutters. The volume of water that can enter the
gutter outlets depends primarily on the depth of water in the
gutter, and on the cross sectional area of the outlet. This volume
can be estimated using standard weir and orifice equations [20].
However, the volume is relatively limited because up to two-thirds
of the downpipe volume can be taken up by an air-filled core
[1,19,26]. This necessitates the installation of many downpipes in
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tlucke@usc.edu.au (T. Lucke).
underground pipework systems (Fig. 1). This has significant cost
implications for the broader construction industry.
Unlike conventional drainage systems, the pipework of a SRDS
is designed to flow full at its design capacity [18]. Through the use
of specially designed gutter outlets and pipework, air is purged
from the system and the pipes quickly fill with water. Once the air
is purged from the pipes, they then operate under sub-atmo-
spheric pressures. The driving head for the system is the effective
difference in levels between the water surface in the gutter and
the discharge point, which is usually near ground level. This causes
significant increases in both flow velocity and volumetric flowrate
compared to traditional systems [20,23]. May [20] explained that
these increases can cause siphonic outlets to have up to 10 times
the capacity of conventional outlets.
One of the major advantages of SRDS is that the roof runoff
from each siphonic system is usually directed into a single
downpipe, so the excessive number of vertical downpipes, and the
extensive underground drainage pipe system typically associated
with conventional systems can be virtually eliminated (Fig. 1). A
single downpipe also makes it much easier to harvest all the
roofwater from a building. However, some building designs, par-
ticularly those with roof areas at different levels, may incorporate
numerous siphonic systems and downpipes.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.03.006
2352-7102/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16

Fig. 1. Conventional and siphonic roof drainage system layout.

1.1. Siphonic design
The theory of siphonic action has long been understood and is
broadly based on simple energy principles, as expressed by Ber-
noulli's energy equation [20]. The current steady (peak) flow de-
sign of SRDS generally uses a version of this equation that esti-
mates 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 sys-
tem's friction (Hf) and form losses (HL).
⎛ P1 Q 12 ⎞ ⎛ P2 Q 22 ⎞ ensure that the outlets are balanced during operation and that the
⎜⎜ + + z1⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ + + z2 ⎟⎟
2 2
⎝ ρg 2gA1 ⎠Point 1 ⎝ ρg 2gA2 ⎠Point 2
= ∑ H1,2
= ∑ Hf + ∑ HL
where: P is pressure, Q is flowrate, ρ is density, g is gravity, A is
cross-sectional area and z is height above datum.
Although SRDS are designed to operate under pipe-full flow
conditions, they can also operate efficiently when the pipes are
only partially full. The transition between these two flow states
involves priming or unpriming of the system. Priming is the term
used to describe the process where resistance to flow is sufficient
to cause the pipe system to purge air from the pipework and be-
come full of water [2,20]. It is the friction and form losses present
in every pipe flow situation that resists the movement of the water
and assists in the development of pipe-full flow conditions [19].
The priming action that occurs in SRDS is an extremely complex
process. Although there have been a number of studies
undertaken to try to better understand the priming process
[3,16,23] it is still not fully understood.
The design of a SRDS for a commercial building can be a highly
complex procedure. It generally involves an iterative design pro-
cess of adjusting pipe lengths, pipe diameters and the inclusion or
exclusion of pipe fittings, in order to accurately balance both sides
of Eq. (1) for a particular design storm. This is usually only possible
by using a computer program [20]. Apart from ensuring that a
SRDS has the capacity to cope with the roof runoff from a parti-
cular design storm, the other principle design objectives are to
pipe pressures do not become too negative [20].
Previous studies [2,3,17,20] and design manuals [4,25] suggest
that the expected internal pipe pressures should be limited to a
minimum pressure of 90 kN/m2 below atmospheric pressure. This
(1) 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 [2]. The
second reason is to reduce the likelihood of cavitation, which
could lead to serious erosion damage on the inside of the pipes
[17,20].
As siphonic drainage systems are designed for pipe-full flow
conditions, the design usually assumes that there is no air in the
system. To achieve this, most siphonic outlets are specially de-
signed to reduce the amount of air entering the system. This is
often achieved by including some type of baffle plate, or similar
configuration, in the outlet's design (Fig. 2a). These baffle plates
help restrict the formation of a vortex above the outlet that would
otherwise draw air into the system. Air drawn in through a vortex

Fig. 2. Normal and overflow siphonic outlets.

 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16
can break the siphonic action required to drive the system.
The particular storm selected for the SRDS design is highly
dependent on its location. In Australia for example, SRDS are
generally designed with a capacity to accommodate the peak
flowrate resulting from a 100 year average recurrence interval,
5 min duration design rainfall intensity at the building location
(referred to as 100I5). This design standard is based on procedures
outlined in Australian Rainfall and Runoff, [14]. In New Zealand, a
50 year average recurrence interval, 10 min duration (50I10) design
rainfall intensity at the building location is used. However, in the
UK for example, SRDS are designed according to a derived statis-
tical range of rainfall intensities, r (L/s/m2), and are often based on
a critical storm duration of 2 min resulting from a 50 year average
recurrence interval (50I2) [12].
Irrespective of the procedure used to select the appropriate
design storm for the SRDS location, it is clear that the use of peak
flow design method means that there will only be one solution for
Eq. (1) for each individual SRDS. This means that every other
rainfall intensity that the SRDS experiences is either below or
above the design capacity of the SRDS. While this is generally not a
problem for SRDS experiencing rainfall events below the design
storm intensity, it could potentially result in operational problems
such as gutter overtopping and building flood damage for rainfall
intensities that occur above the design storm [6,22]. This could
now be of particular concern as climate change is potentially
creating situations where normal ranges of rainfall intensity are
being frequently exceeded [13].
1.2. Gutter overflow configurations
To reduce the risk of gutter overtopping and flood damage due
to unexpected rainfall events, or due to outlet or pipework
blockages, the design of SRDS generally also includes a secondary
overflow system [8,9,23]. The design of conventional roof drainage
systems also often incudes provisions for gutter overflow devices.
However, these are generally not specifically designed for siphonic
action, and may not be suitable due to potential limitations in
operating pressures, airtightness and outlet designs. Notwith-
standing this, previous research has shown that siphonic action
can develop in conventional downpipes [23].
May [22] explained that in SRDS design, there is an increasing
tendency to install two parallel systems (“primary” and “second-
ary” systems) due to the uncertainty of SRDS operating sa-
tisfactorily during high-intensity storms. The outlets of secondary
SRDS are typically surrounded by some type of raised weir ar-
rangement around their perimeter (Fig. 2b). The weir is set to
some predetermined height above the normal operational gutter
Fig. 3. Example of primary and secondary SRDS.
11
water level and the overflow outlets only become operational if
the water level in the gutter rises to the height of the weir [22].
The height of the outlet weir is dependent on the environmental
conditions at the building's location as well as the individual de-
sign requirements of each SRDS. Generally, the weir height must
be determined on a case-by-case basis, however, it is typically
between 70 and 120 mm above the base of the outlet. Some pro-
prietary systems include a baffle plate above the weir (Fig. 2b),
while others simply use a normal siphonic outlet surrounded by a
weir which is open to the atmosphere [9].
Many SRDS designs also generally include a complete second-
ary system to allow for potential overflow situations. For example,
the Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 [5] states that (Clause
3.7.5.1) “The hydraulic capacity of an overflow device shall be not
less than the design flow for the associated gutter outlet.” This
requirement for secondary systems is evident in other interna-
tional standards. For example, the British Siphonic Standard BS
8490:2007 [11] simply states that for overflow arrangements, each
roof area has to be fitted with… “at least one emergency overflow
pipe discharging in a conspicuous location outside the building.”
Similarly, the equivalent American standard (ASTM F2021:2006)
states that the gutter design should… “incorporate a built-in
overflow facility and shall be designed to hold water up to this
level should the design rainfall be exceeded or unexpected
blockages occur.” Probably the most specific standard is the Ger-
man VDI 3806:2000, which requires that… “the drainage capacity
of the emergency overflows is set to the difference between the
100 year rainfall and the maximum drainage capacity…” of the
SRDS.
The requirement for a complete secondary overflow system
significantly increases the overall design, installation and material
costs associated with SRDS [10,21]. In SRDS designs where the
secondary system is required to cope with the entire runoff vo-
lume in case of primary system failure, the secondary system costs
can be similar to the primary system costs. Fig. 3 shows an ex-
ample of a SRDS in Australia where both the primary and sec-
ondary systems were designed to manage the total roof runoff
volume independently. It is clear that the secondary system would
have considerably added to the cost of this building.
Many structures have been specifically designed with a SRDS
because building esthetics are a leading priority and unsightly
downpipes are undesirable, or because designers have explicit
requirements or restrictions regarding the location of downpipes.
This is particularly the case in sports stadia where traditional
downpipes connected to downward sloping roofs would be highly
obtrusive. Other structures, such as large factory buildings with
valley roofs and box gutters, may opt for a SRDS to reduce the
12 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16
number of downpipes (and internal supporting columns) required
in order to maximize open floor space. For these types of struc-
tures, the installation of a complete secondary overflow SRDS is
probably the best option.
However, for structures that are using SRDS for other reasons,
such as to minimize underground pipework requirements, or to
harvest rainwater from the roof (Fig. 3), a complete secondary
overflow SRDS may not be necessary. For more functional struc-
tures where esthetics are not the main priority, there may be al-
ternatives methods available to manage potential overflows. If a
more cost effective overflow system could be developed for these
types of structures, this may make SRDS a more attractive option
for building designers and owners. This could significantly in-
crease the appeal of SRDS and potentially lead to a substantial
increase in the number of SRDS installed globally.
This study investigated the possibility of connecting SRDS
overflow outlets to single, vertical downpipes as a potential low-
cost alternative to the requirement for a complete secondary SRDS
to manage gutter overflow situations. The weir and orifice equa-
tions typically used to predict flowrates through gutter outlets are
based on the assumption that the system is operating under at-
mospheric pressure. Hence, maximum flowrates predicted using
these equations for typical outlet and downpipe sizes are generally
relatively low. However, by purposely inducing siphonic action
(and sub-atmospheric pressures) in the vertical downpipes, the
flowrates through the outlets could be significantly increased.
Normal weir and orifice equations are no longer valid under these
flow conditions [20]. This paper describes an experimental in-
vestigation of the performance of seven different overflow con-
figurations that can be used in SRDS.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental design
A full-scale experimental siphonic drainage rig (Fig. 4) installed
at the University of South Australia was used in this study to in-
vestigate options for a low-cost alternative overflow system for
SRDS. The experimental rig had a 600 mm wide  300 mm high
box gutter that was 32 m long. The maximum potential driving
head of the rig was approximately 6 m. The gutter inflow rate for
the experimental rig was controlled by a number of gate valves
Fig. 4. Full-scale experimental study rig.
and was measured using a magnetic flow meter (Type ABB Mag-
master CL16) that was installed in the 150 mm diameter supply
pipework.
Four different prototype overflow devices were tested during
this study. These included: one 90 mm diameter circular stainless
steel outlet (Fig. 5a); one 80 mm diameter circular polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) outlet (Fig. 5b); one 300 mm square, proprietary
steel siphonic outlet with a 110 mm diameter outlet in its base
(Fig. 5c); and one 300 mm square, raised-weir type (similar to the
configuration shown in Fig. 2b) proprietary PVC siphonic overflow
outlet with a 110 mm diameter outlet in its base (Fig. 5d). Each of
the overflow outlets was installed at the single outlet location in
the sole of the box gutter shown in Fig. 4 and tested separately. All
of the test rig's normal operational siphonic outlets were sealed
during the study and this enabled accurate measurement of the
flowrates through the new single outlet.
The four selected overflow types represent the two main ca-
tegories of overflows used in siphonic systems. The first two types
(Fig. 5a and b) are two different sizes of gravity-fed, non-siphonic
overflows. The remaining two types (Fig. 5c and d) are two dif-
ferent siphonic overflows, one level with the gutter floor and one
with a raised weir outlet. Together these four types of overflow
represent the range of overflows commonly used in siphonic
systems. It should be noted that because most gutters in siphonic
systems are internal box gutters, the use of gutter wall cut-out
overflows are very rare.
A variety of vertical downpipe materials, diameters and lengths
were investigated for each of the seven overflow configurations,
involving four different overflow types. For each configuration, five
different downpipe lengths were investigated, namely 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 m. These were attached to each of the overflow config-
urations and the maximum possible flowrate through each over-
flow was recorded (Fig. 6). The discharge from the downpipes was
collected and returned to the water supply system using a col-
lection pipe system with adjustable heights to allow for the dif-
ferent downpipe lengths (Fig. 6c and d).
Fig. 6a shows a 75 mm diameter high density polyethylene
(HDPE) downpipe connected to a 90 mm diameter outlet (Fig. 5a)
and Fig. 6b shows an 80 mm diameter acrylic downpipe connected
to an 80 mm diameter PVC outlet (Fig. 5b). Fig. 6c shows a 5 m
length of 75 mm diameter HDPE downpipe discharging to the
collection pipe system below. Fig. 6d shows a 4 m long, 80 mm
diameter acrylic downpipe discharging into the opening of the
collection pipe system.
2.2. Maximum flowrate measurements
The primary objective of this investigation was to measure the
maximum flowrate through each of 35 configurations shown in
Table 1.
The following test procedure was followed for each of the 35
tests listed in Table 1:
a. The flowrate into the test rig was first set to 5 L/s.
b. The water level in the gutter was then allowed to stabilize for at
least 5 min.
c. The water level depth directly next to the outlet was measured
and monitored for a further 10 min. Depending on the inflow
rate, the water level in the gutter often cycled in a range be-
tween distinctive maximum and minimum levels.
d. If the water level did not rise above the maximum reached in
Step c) above after 10 min, the water inflow rate into the rig
was increased by a further 5 L/s.
e. Steps (b)–(d) were repeated until such time as the water level
failed to stabilize. The flowrate of the previous increment was
then recorded as the maximum flowrate for the particular test.
 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16
Fig. 5. Four different overflow types.
2.3. Gutter water level measurements
A secondary objective of this investigation was to measure the
average water levels in the gutter above the outlet as the different
downpipe configurations were experiencing the maximum flow-
rates described above.
3. Results
The maximum flowrates measured through each of the outlets
with the different test configurations are shown in Fig. 7. The
testing for Configuration 2 was discontinued after the initial re-
sults showed that the maximum flowrate for the outlet with the
5 m long downpipe was only 20 L/s and further testing of the
outlet with a 75 mm downpipe was considered to be unnecessary.
However, the other six configurations were tested with all five
downpipe lengths.
Fig. 8 shows the average water levels in the gutter above the
outlet for the six different configurations and the five different
downpipe lengths.
4. Discussion
It is clear from the results in Fig. 7 that the flowrates through
outlets connected to single vertical downpipes can be significant
when the depth of water above the outlet, and the volume of
water in the gutter are sufficient to maintain full-pipe flow in the
downpipe. This is consistent with previous research results
13
[15,20,24], which have reported a degree of siphonic action oc-
curring in vertical downpipes of both conventional and siphonic
systems. May [20] concluded that the effective head acting on the
outlet is increased by the distance that the pipe is flowing full and
this can significantly increase flowrates through the outlet. The
results shown in Fig. 7 concur with this finding. The previous
studies cited above concluded that the siphonic action was limited
by the length of pipe-full flow that occurred in the downpipes. For
example, May [20] explained that a “pipe may flow full for a cer-
tain distance until gravity causes the water to accelerate enough
for it to no longer occupy the full cross-sectional area”.
However, this study found that there was no limiting length for
which downpipes flowed full. These results were in contrast to
those reported by May [20] who concluded that there was a limit
to the length of full pipe flow. The experiments demonstrated that
once a pipe was flowing full, it would continue to flow full for its
entire length (Fig. 9). The results verified that increasing the length
of the downpipe increased the flowrate through the outlets.
However, full-pipe flow conditions would only occur if the depth
of water in the gutter was sufficient to ensure continuous flow and
did not allow air to be drawn into the downpipe. Otherwise, air
would be drawn into the outlet and the flowrate would decrease
[6]. Lucke and Beecham [17] also reported full-pipe flow in single,
vertical downpipes up to 16 m in length. However, a cavitation
zone was found to develop at the top of the downpipe when pipes
longer than approximately 12 m were flowing full. Increasing the
length of the downpipe further was found to increase the length of
the cavitation zone and not the length of pipe-full flow.
From Fig. 8 it can be seen that the dominant effect on water
level was the presence of a baffle plate as the water levels were
considerably lower for configurations 4 and 6 than for configura-
tions 1–3. This is consistent with experimental data from a multi-
14 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16

Fig. 6. Different downpipe configurations and materials used in the study.

outlet siphonic rig [7]. Obviously the water levels were increased
by the raised weir used in configurations 5 and 7 but again, be-
cause of the presence of baffle plates, the water levels did not rise
above those for configurations 1–3, which had no baffle plates.
Interestingly, the length of downpipe seemed to affect the
water levels in configurations 4–7 more than an increase in outlet
diameter (from 110 mm to 125 mm). Overall this experimental
investigation has demonstrated that single, vertical downpipes
may potentially be utilized as a low-cost alternative to a complete
secondary SRDS to meet box gutter overflow requirements. The
study found that, if gutter water conditions are suitable (i.e. the
depth of water above the outlet, and the volume of water in the
gutter are sufficient to maintain full-pipe flow in the downpipe),
siphonic action can occur in vertical downpipes connected to
overflow outlets to produce flowrates greatly exceeding the
maximum allowable 16 L/s per outlet specified in AS3500.3:2003.
However, the water depths required within the gutter to produce
these increased flowrates (Fig. 8) may necessitate the use of dee-
per box gutters in order to provide the same freeboard. Further
research would be required to quantify these increased gutter
depths.
As previously mentioned, some buildings are specifically de-
signed with both a primary and secondary SRDS because of
building esthetics or due to restrictions on the location of down-
pipes. However, for more functional structures, a primary SRDS
may be used in conjunction with a number of strategically placed
overflow outlets each connected to a single, vertical downpipe.
This may provide a more cost-effective alternative overflow sys-
tem to a complete secondary SRDS. The alternative overflow out-
lets could be incorporated into the roof drainage design without
the need for an expensive secondary SRDS system, or for an ex-
pensive additional underground drainage system. The downpipes
could either be turned out through the wall a short distance below
the gutter but still relatively high off the ground (High Level Dis-
charge PipeFig. 10b), or taken down to the base of the building and
directed out through the wall to the overland drainage system
(Low-level Discharge PipeFig. 10c). In these cases, the average
frequency of once every 100 years for overflow discharges exiting
the building may be considered acceptable.
Use of the alternative low-cost overflow solutions suggested

Table 1
Outlet and downpipe configurations.

Configuration number Outlet shape and diameter Downpipe diameter and material Downpipe lengths

1 Circular 90 mm Steel Outlet, no Baffle Plate (Fig. 5a) 125 mm HDPE 1–5 m
2 Circular 90 mm Steel Outlet, no Baffle Plate (Fig. 5a) 75 mm HDPE 1–5 m
3 Circular 80 mm PVC Outlet, no Baffle Plate (Fig. 5b) 80 mm Acrylic 1–5 m
4 300 Mm Square Steel, 110 mm Outlet, with Baffle Plate (Fig. 5c) 110 mm HDPE 1–5 m
5 300 mm Square PVC Raised Weir, 110 mm Outlet, with Baffle Plate (Fig. 5d) 110 mm HDPE 1–5 m
6 300 mm Square Steel, 110 mm Outlet Weir, with Baffle Plate (Fig. 5c) 125 mm HDPE 1–5 m
7 300 mm Square PVC Raised Weir, 110 mm Outlet, with Baffle Plate (Fig. 5d) 125 mm HDPE 1–5 m
 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16 15

60

1m 2m 3m 4m 5m
50

40
Maximum Flowrate (L/s)

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outlet Configuration Number

Fig. 7. Maximum flowrates for each configuration and downpipe length (1–5 m).

above may make SRDS a more attractive option for building de-
signers and owners, which in turn could significantly increase
their rates of adoption in modern buildings.

5. Conclusions

This study has investigated seven alternative siphonic drainage

overflow system configurations. The experimental results show
that, for these configurations, increasing the length of the down-
pipe increases the flowrate through the outlets providing there is a
sufficient depth of water in the gutter to maintain pipe-full flow
conditions in the downpipe. In contrast, an increase in outlet
diameter did not lead to increased flowrates, although only four
outlet diameters were investigated in this study and more data is
required to verify this finding. Overall, it is concluded that de- Fig. 9. Pressurized pipe flow conditions in the vertical downpipe (Configuration 3,
2 m long downpipe, 25 L/s).
signers may be able to consider lower-cost alternatives to ex-
pensive full secondary siphonic overflow systems.

250

1m 2m 3m 4m 5m

200
Avearge Gutter Water Level (mm)

150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outlet Configuration Number

Fig. 8. Average gutter water levels at maximum flowrates for downpipe lengths of 1–5 m.
16 T. Lucke, S. Beecham / Journal of Building Engineering 2 (2015) 9–16
Fig. 10. Possible conceptual designs for overflow outlets.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of Standards
Australia Committee WS-014-03-02 – Siphonic Systems for their
support and advice throughout this research project. The re-
searchers also gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by
Syfon Systems Ltd. Finally, the authors would like to thank Mr. Tim
Golding and Mr. Doug Coleman from the University of South
Australia for the technical advice and support provided to this
project.
References
[1] S. Arthur, J.A. Swaffield, Siphonic roof drainage system analysis utilising un-
steady flow theory, Build. Environ. 36 (2001) 939–948.
[2] S. Arthur, J.A. Swaffield, Siphonic roof drainage: current understanding, Urban
Water 3 (1) (2001) 43–52.
[3] S. Arthur, G.B. Wright, J.A. Swaffield, Operational performance of siphonic roof
drainage systems, Build. Environ. 40 (2005) 788–796.
[4] ASTM International (ASTM F2021:2006), Standard Guide for Design and In-
stallation of Plastic Siphonic Roof Drainage Systems, ASTM International,
Pennsylvania, USA, 2006.
[5] Australian/New Zealand Standard™ (AS/NZS 3500.3:2003), Plumbing and
Drainage-stormwater Drainage, Standards Australia, North Sydney, Australia,
2003.
[6] S. Beecham, T. Lucke, Air water flows in building drainage systems, Urban
Water J. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.820335.
[7] S. Beecham, T. Lucke, Influence of channel geometry on water levels above
siphonic roof outlets, J. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (1) (2014) 83–98.
[8] R. Bowler, S. Arthur, Siphonic roof rainwater drainage – design considerations,
in: Proceedings of Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings, CIB W62, Edin-
burgh, UK, 1999.
[9] M.A. Bramhall, A.J. Saul, Examination of the performance of siphonic rainwater
outlets, in: Proceedings of Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings, CIB W62,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1998.
[10] M.A. Bramhall, A.J. Saul, The hydraulic performance of siphonic rainwater
outlets relative to their location within a gutter, in: Proceedings of Water
Supply and Drainage for Buildings, CIB W62, Edinburgh, UK,1999.
[11] British Standard (BS 8490:2007), Guide to Siphonic Roof Drainage Systems, BSI
Group, Chiswick, London, UK, 2007.
[12] British Standard (BS EN 12506-3:2000), Gravity Drainage Systems Inside
Buildings. Roof drainage, layout and Calculation, BSI Group, Chiswick, London,
UK, 2000.
[13] D.P. Campbell, Novel modulated flow, self configuring, siphonic roof drainage
system, J. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (4) (2014) 349–361.
[14] Engineers Australia, Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estima-
tion, Engineers Australia, Canberra, Australia, 1999.
[15] A.A. Kalinske, Hydraulics of Vertical Drain and Overflow Pipes, Iowa Institute
of Hydraulics Research, Iowa State University, Iowa, USA, 1940.
[16] T. Lucke, S. Beecham, Y.Y. Qu, Estimating flowrates through individual outlets
of siphonic roof drainage systems, Build. Res. Inf. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2014.987030.
[17] T. Lucke, S. Beecham, Cavitation, aeration and negative pressures in siphonic
roof drainage systems, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 30 (2) (2009) 103–119.
[18] T. Lucke, S. Beecham, Capacity loss in siphonic roof drainage systems due to
aeration, Build. Res. Inf. 38 (2) (2010) 206–217.
[19] T. Lucke, S. Beecham, Aeration and gutter water levels in siphonic roof drai-
nage systems, Build. Res. Inf. 38 (6) (2010) 670–685.
[20] R.W.P. May, Design of conventional and siphonic roof drainage systems, in:
Proceedings of Public Health Services in Buildings – Water Supply, Quality &
Drainage, IWEM Conference, London,1995.
[21] R.W.P. May, Manual for the hydraulic design of roof drainage systems: a guide
to the use of British Standard BS 6367:1983, H.R. Wallingford, UK, 1996, Report
No. SR 485.
[22] R.W.P. May, Manual for the design of roof drainage systems: a guide to the use
of European Standard BS EN 12056-3:2000, H.R. Wallingford, UK, 2003, Report
No. SR 620.
[23] R.W.P. May, M. Escarameia, Performance of siphonic drainage systems for roof
gutters, H.R. Wallingford, UK, 1996, Report No. SR463.
[24] J. Swaffield, S. Arthur, RW.P. May, Priming of a siphonic rainwater drainage
system, in: Proceedings of Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings, CIB W62,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1998.
[25] Verein Deutscher Ingenieur (VDI) (3806:2000-04), Dachentwässerung mit
Druckströmung (German Institute of Engineers Siphonic Roof Design Manual),
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., VDI Standards Departement, Düsseldorf,
Germany, 2004.
[26] G.B. Wright, S. Arthur, J.A. Swaffield, Numerical simulation of the dynamic
operation of multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage systems, Build. Environ. 41
(2006) 1279–1290.