ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Numerical simulation of the dynamic operation of

multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage systems
G.B. Wrighta,, S. Arthurb, J.A. Swafelda
a
Drainage and Water Supply Research Group, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland
b
Sustainable Water Management Group, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland
Received 7 July 2003; received in revised form 18 March 2005; accepted 4 May 2005

Abstract

Although siphonic roof drainage systems have been installed in Europe since the 1970s, the design of such infrastructure is still
based on steady state theory. Such approaches are only truly applicable at the design condition, under specic rainfall conditions,
and cannot be used to assess the response of siphonic systems to alternative rainfall conditions and/or operational scenarios.
Previous research at Heriot-Watt University led to the development of a numerical model capable of accurately simulating the
performance of single outlet systems under a range of different conditions. The work reported herein details the logical extension to
this work; i.e., the development of a numerical model to simulate the performance of multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage systems.
The experimental work undertaken to assist in the development of the new model boundary conditions is briey described, and
relevant results are illustrated. The development of the numerical model is then detailed, and model output is presented. Finally,
conclusions are drawn regarding the developed model, and plans for future work are outlined.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Siphonic roof drainage; Multi-outlet; Numerical modelling

1. Background gutter outlets and the point of discharge being equated

Siphonic roof drainage systems have been in existence
for approximately 30 years, and are becoming an
increasingly common element of urban drainage infra-
structure. In that time, the construction industry in most
developed countries has been gradually persuaded of the
benets that these systems offer when compared to
conventional roof drainage technologies. Current design
practice assumes that, for a specied design storm, a
siphonic system lls and primes rapidly with 100%
water. This assumption allows siphonic roof drainage
systems to be designed utilising steady state hydraulic
theory. The steady ow energy equation is normally
employed [1], with the elevation difference between the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 4518261;
fax: +44 131 4513161.
E-mail address: g.b.wright@hw.ac.uk (G.B. Wright).
to the head losses in the system. Although this approach
neglects the small quantities of entrained air that always
enter a siphonic roof drainage system, it has been
reported to yield operational characteristics similar to
those observed in laboratory test rigs at the fully primed
state [1,2]. However, existing design methods cannot be
used to analytically assess the ability of a system to
prime. Furthermore, steady state design methods cannot
predict performance when a system is exposed to rainfall
events below the design criteria, when the ow may
contain substantial quantities of entrained air, or events
with time varying rainfall intensity. As such events are
the norm, current design methods may not be suitable
for determining the day-to-day performance character-
istics of siphonic roof drainage systems. This is a major
disadvantage, as it is during these events that the
majority of operational problems tend to occur, e.g.
noise and vibration. In addition to these types of

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1280 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290
Nomenclature
A ow cross-sectional area
c wave celerity
f friction factor
g acceleration due to gravity
H pressure head
I1 rst moment of the area A about the free
surface
m hydraulic radius
everyday operational issues, a number of more serious
problems are known to have occurred with siphonic
roof drainage systems; experience has shown that such
failures are normally due to blockages of an outlet or as
a consequence of delays and/or difculties in achieving
steady-state operating conditions. It should be noted
that thousands of siphonic systems have been installed
in Europe over the past decade, and there is no data to
suggest that they are more prone to failure than
conventional systems. However, although work is now
ongoing, there is as yet no specic British or European
standard for the design of siphonic drainage systems.
A siphonic roof drainage research programme,
initiated at Heriot-Watt University in 1996, has led to
a better understanding of the performance character-
istics of single outlet siphonic systems, with particular
reference to the priming of such systems [2] (the purging
of air from the system). In turn, this work resulted in the
development of a numerical model capable of accurately
simulating the priming phase of single outlet siphonic
roof drainage systems. However, the majority of
installed systems incorporate multiple outlets, and the
interaction between such outlets was not well under-
stood. It was therefore recognised that further research
was required to extend the applicability of the existing
model to multi-outlet applications. This work is
reported herein.
2. Aims and objectives
The aim of the reported work was to further develop
the unsteady ow model that simulates conditions
within an idealised, single outlet siphonic roof drainage
system [3]. It was envisaged that the enhanced numerical
model would be capable of simulating the conditions
within multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage networks,
where local gutter water levels may mean that one or
more of the outlets acts as an air inlet to the system,
causing re-pressurisation, transient propagation and
cessation of siphonic action. In addition to this dynamic
balancing, it was also intended to investigate and
Q ow rate
Sf friction slope
S0 pipe slope
t time
V ow velocity
x distance along pipe
e difference director parameter
r ow density
i,P,R,S nodal subscripts
n time superscript
numerically model the effect of different types of
connection between a siphonic system and the below
ground sewer network. In order to achieve these aims,
the primary objectives of the research were as follows.
1. Experimentally investigate the performance of multi-
outlet siphonic systems, including the effects of
system imbalance, different types of sewer connection
and outlet blockages.
2. Develop an enhanced numerical model to simulate
the operation of multi-outlet siphonic drainage
systems under a variety of realistic scenarios.
3. Laboratory investigations
Laboratory investigations were undertaken to gain a
better understanding of the conditions occurring within
multi-outlet siphonic systems, and hence to assist in the
development of the boundary conditions and solution
techniques to be used in the enhanced numerical model.
Whilst a detailed description of the laboratory work is
given elsewhere [4], the following sections summarise the
salient results.
3.1. Overview
The experimental test rig used in this study (Fig. 1) was
designed to be representative of a simple multi-outlet
siphonic roof drainage system. To ensure realistic ow
conditions, each gutter was fed via a rear supply trough
and a simulated sloping roof. A PC based data acquisition
system was used in conjunction with pressure transducers
and magnetic induction ow meters to record system
conditions. As the pipework was transparent, direct
observations and high-speed video footage were used to
assist in the identication of relevant ow conditions.
3.2. Experimental results
It should be noted that, unless otherwise stated, the
gutter inow rates were constant during the testing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290 1281

Pumped flow to simulated gutters

F
F

Flow direction
0.37m

12.1m

4.47m

T2 T1
gutter 2 gutter 1

Collection tank and

recirculation pump
T4 0.85m
Legend 1.65m
53mm diameter siphonic outlet T5 0.65m
T3
69mm diameter pipework
57mm diameter pipework
T1 transducer location 2.37m
F flow meter Plan view of section above

Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental test rig.

Gutter depth (mm)

periods; that is the rainfall events were assumed to

150
instantaneously reach a constant intensity.
100
Depth in gutter 1 (T1)
3.2.1. Design criteria rainfall event (fully primed system) 50 Depth in gutter 2 (T2)

The priming procedure of the test rig was charac- 0

Pressure in branch 1 (T3)
0.3
Pressure in branch 2 (T4)
terised by the formation of full bore ow conditions Pressure in common pipe (T5) 0.0

Pressure (mH2O)
upstream of the branch junction, and the subsequent
-0.3
propagation of these conditions throughout the system.
During the priming process, trapped air pockets formed -0.6
time
and moved downstream through the system, exiting lag -0.9
either as a single entity or becoming mixed with water at -1.2
the branch junction to form a bubbly ow. Once all of 32.5 33.0
Enlarged view of -1.5
the initial air pockets had exited the downpipe, system re-pressurisation phase
pressures decreased and remained relatively constant. -1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
The system was then fully primed, although small Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)
quantities of entrained air continued to enter with the
Fig. 2. Measured conditions for design criteria rainfall eventgutter 1
water inows.
inow 5.85 l/s, gutter 2 inow 7.78 l/s (refer to Fig. 1 for
Fig. 2 illustrates typical data collected during the transducer layout).
priming of the test rig. As shown, the different head
losses associated with the upstream branches meant that
the system was only in a balanced state (primed with
constant gutter water depths) when the inow into siphonic system is similar to that associated with a single
gutter 2 was signicantly higher than that into gutter 1. outlet system [3]; the only signicant difference is that
The partial re-pressurisation phase occurring at approxi- the inter-relationships inherent in multi-outlet systems
mately 33 s illustrates the effect of the trapped air result in more complex ow conditions, particularly
pockets travelling through the downpipe and exiting the with respect to the formation and movement of trapped
system; the time lag between pressure peaks clearly air pockets within the system.
illustrates that the re-pressurisation wave was generated
at the downstream end of the common pipe, and 3.2.2. Rainfall events below the design criteria
propagated upstream. At ow rates up to approximately 15% of the design
In general, the recorded data and visual observations criteria inows, the laboratory test rig behaved as a
conrm that the priming process for a multi-outlet conventional roof drainage system. Above these inows,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1282 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

220 mm 380mm

1.25m

system system system system

termination 1 termination 2 termination 3 termination 4

Fig. 3. Siphonic terminal connection types investigated.

the test rig was found to exhibit one of three different Table 1
sets of unsteady characteristics. Observations also high- Variation in design criteria gutter inows with type of terminal
connection
lighted that, if the inow into one of the branches of a
fully primed system was reduced sufciently to induce Terminal Approximate Fully primed depth Fully primed
free surface ow conditions within that branch, the connection time to (mm) capacity (l/s)
remaining branch would continue to ow full bore up type priming (s)
Gutter 1 Gutter 2 Gutter 1 Gutter 2
until the junction, after which the combined down-
stream ow would contain large quantities of air, and 1 33 144 100 7.46 5.71
exhibit pulsing characteristics. 2 34 153 99 7.35 5.57
3 43 211 138 7.28 5.54
4 52 272 164 7.11 5.45
3.2.3. Rainfall events above the design criteria
With rainfall events above the design criteria, the
pressures measured in the test rig were almost identical
to those obtained at the design condition; the only and variations in effective system head1. As shown in
minor differences being due to the slight variations in Table 1, the use of any conguration other than a freely
driving head associated with higher gutter depths. discharging vertical downpipe resulted in a lower system
However, the additional system inows (above the capacity, even though the gutter depths (and hence
design criteria levels) resulted in continuously increasing driving head) may have actually been marginally higher.
gutter depths, which would have eventually lead to Furthermore, this data illustrates that submerged
overtopping of the gutter(s). terminal connections resulted in signicantly longer
priming times and higher gutter ow depths than those
3.2.4. Gradually increasing and staggering gutter inflows discharging directly to the atmosphere; a consequence of
Gradually increasing the gutter inows up to design the greater (positive) pressures required to purge the
criteria levels, and hence simulating a progressive initial air pockets from the system.
increase in rainfall intensity, was found to simply
increase the priming time of the test rig. Experimental
data obtained with staggered gutter inow start times, 3.2.6. Blockage of an outlet
which may be thought of as representing systems Theory suggests that the sudden blockage of a
incorporating widely varying roof geometries or branch siphonic outlet (e.g. by leaves) can lead to the generation
lengths, yielded very complex ow conditions; exhibiting of very large pressure transients; the sudden cessation of
two or three of the unsteady ow regimes identied ow producing a negative pressure wave that propagates
previously. However, in both of these scenarios, it was and reects throughout the system. Although it is
apparent that after a short period at the design criteria hazardous, and virtually impossible to replicate such
inows, the gutter ow depths and system pressures severe events in the laboratory, a number of less extreme
mirrored those obtained with constant inows and blockage events were simulated. Fig. 4 illustrates that
synchronised start times. signicant pressure transients were generated even when
the blockage was only partial and relatively slow. With
3.2.5. Different terminal connection types reference to Fig. 4, it should be noted that the initial,
Although siphonic systems are normally designed to high positive transient was a result of the method used
terminate at a point of free discharge, site layout and/or to simulate the blockage event (pushing an upturned
surcharging of the surface water sewer network may 1
Effective head is dened as the elevation difference between the
preclude this. Experimental work on four different gutter outlets and the point of discharge (free discharge case) or the
terminal connection types (Fig. 3) highlighted the effect point at which the downpipe becomes submerged (submerged
of head losses associated with different connections discharge case).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290 1283

0.0 written in conservative form as [6]

Pressure (mH2O)

-0.4 qA qQ
0, (1)
qt qx
-0.8

qQ q Q2
-1.2 gI 1 gAS 0
S f . (2)
qt qx A
-1.6 Whilst the continuity and momentum equations of one-
120 121 122 123 124
dimensional, unsteady full bore ow may be written
Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)
as [7]
Fig. 4. Variation in branch 2 pressure (T4) with a partial, slow and

2 qV qH qH
temporary blockage of the outlet in gutter 2design criteria rainfall rc V rg S 0 rg 0, (3)
event. qx qx qt

Table 2
Measured system conditions with outlet 1 unblocked and blocked
Outlet blocked Fully primed Capacity of
capacity (l/s) outlet in gutter
2 (l/s)
None 13.63 7.78
Outlet 1 11.30 11.30
container over the outlet), rather than a result of the
blockage itself.
Where an outlet was blocked prior to the initiation of
a simulated rainfall event, the system acted as a single
outlet siphonic system, with a lower, fully primed
capacity. Table 2 compares the conditions occurring in
the unblocked test rig, and in the test rig with the outlet
in gutter 1 permanently blocked. As shown, although
the total system capacity was lower with the outlet
blocked, the capacity of the open outlet was actually
higher than was the case in an unblocked system. This
data also highlights that system pressures were con-
siderably lower when the outlet was blocked; indicating
that if a system were designed to operate at very
low pressures (below approximately 7 m H2O), a
complete blockage of an outlet may result in the onset
of cavitation and/or failure of the system by pipe
implosion [5].
4. Development of an enhanced numerical model
The observations made and the data collected during
the laboratory experimental work were used in the
development of an enhanced numerical model (SIPH-
ONET2).
4.1. Governing equations
The continuity and momentum equations of one
dimensional, unsteady ow in open channels may be
qV qV qH
V g gS 0
S f . (4)
qx qt qx
Eqs. (1)(4) form the basis of SIPHONET2. As they are
hyperbolic partial differential equations, they cannot be
Minimum
measured solved directly, and recourse must be made to some
system pressure form of numerical solution technique.
(m H2O)
4.2. Numerical solution techniques

1.388

2.147
The existing numerical model developed at Heriot-
Watt University utilises a method of characteristics
based solution technique [8], which has previously been
employed successfully at Heriot-Watt University in the
simulation of both free surface and full bore ow
conditions. However, during the development of SIPH-
ONET2, it became clear that the method of character-
istics technique was not particularly suited to the
simulation of moving hydraulic jumps in networks as
complex as multi-outlet siphonic systems. As the wide
ranging movement of hydraulic jumps is an essential
element of system priming, the MacCormack method [9]
was employed to simulate the initial free surface ow
conditions, whilst retaining the method of character-
istics technique for the simulation of full bore ow
conditions.
4.2.1. MacCormack method
The MacCormack solution technique relies on the
hyperbolic nature of the governing equations, which
leads to spontaneous discontinuities that have real
physical meanings, e.g. hydraulic jumps. The technique
is a non-centered, two step nite difference scheme
which is second order, accurate in time and space.
Starting from the initial time level, when steady state
theory is used to calculate conditions at regular points
throughout the system (nodal points), the solution at the
next time level is computed in a two-step predictor
corrector process. This technique is illustrated schema-
tically in Fig. 5, and may be described by rst expressing
the governing Eqs. (1) and (2) in vector form, thus
qU qF
S, (5)
qt qx
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1284 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

Pipe length chosen such that it is in the same direction as that of any
wave moving through the system [6].
The second-order nature of the MacCormack method
means that it generates spurious oscillations in the
New time level (n + 1)
vicinity of hydraulic jumps; oscillations which have no
Corrector step real meaning, and are purely a numerical anomaly. One
Intermediate level
method of alleviating this problem is to add articial

t
(predictor values) viscosity to the solution scheme [6]. In SIPHONET2, the
Predictor step Jameson [10] articial viscosity technique has been
employed. Furthermore, although the governing equa-
Current time level (n)

x
x
x
x
tions have been derived specically for free surface ow
node i - 2 node i -1 node i node i +1 node i +2 cases, utilisation of the Preissmann slot technique [11]
Legend
means that they may also be applied to the short periods
pipe node of pressurised, full bore ow conditions that occur just
information route (data from one node passed to another node)
before the vertical downpipe starts to ll. In common
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of one version of the MacCormack with many such numerical techniques, it is necessary to
method. supply additional information at system boundaries to
allow the solution to proceed.
It should be noted that, as the MacCormack method
where is not readily applicable to vertical pipework, the free
" # " # " # surface ow conditions in the downpipe are assumed to
A Q 0 be annular [12], whilst the lling of this pipework (just
U ; F Q2 ; S .
Q A gI 1 gAS0
S f before the system primes) is simulated using a volu-
metric based technique.
Application of the MacCormack technique now enables
the solution to proceed as follows: 4.2.2. Method of characteristics
As the vertical downpipe within a siphonic system
starts to ll, the system will start to depressurise, thus
1. From known ow variables at time n, the values of rendering the MacCormack method unsuitable. At this
U ni , F ni and Sni can be calculated for all nodes. point, it is necessary to switch over to the classical
2. Predictor values U pi can then be calculated for each method of characteristics solution technique of the
node from governing equations of full bore ow. This technique is
Dt   illustrated schematically in Fig. 6, and may be described
U pi U ni
1

F ni1
1
2
F ni

F ni
1 DtS ni .
Dx by rst manipulating the governing Eqs. (3) and (4) to
(6) yield two total derivative equations (characteristics), thus
C
characteristic:
3. The predictor values and F pi
can then be S pi
calculated for each node from the predictor values dV g dH g f jV j dx
V Sin S0 0 when V
c,
U pi . dt c dt c 2m dt
4. Using the predictor values (again with known U ni (8)
values at time n), the U n1
i values and hence ow C+ characteristic:
variables at time n+1 can then be calculated from
dV g dH g f jV j dx
Dt

V Sin S0 0 when V c.
U n1
i 0:5U ni U pi
dt c dt c 2m dt
2Dx (9)
  Dt

F pi1 1
2
F pi

1F pi
1 S pi . These equations provide the basis for a nite
2
7 difference solution, yielding two expressions which
may be solved simultaneously for V and H. With
reference to the points R, S and P shown in Fig. 6, these
In the above expressions, the e term may be set equal expressions may be written as
to either zero or one, and is used to vary the direction of  
differencing, e.g. if e is set to 1 forward differencing is g
VP VR
H P
H R
gS f R
S 0 Dt, (11)
used during the predictor stage, whilst backward cR
differencing is used during the corrector step (this is  
the approach shown in Fig. 5). Alternatively, the g
VP VS H P
H S
gS f S
S0 Dt. (12)
direction of differencing in the predictor step could be cS
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290 1285

Pipe length

New time level (n + 1) P

t

Current time level (n)

R S

x
x
x
x

Legend
pipe node
C+ characteristic (downstream information route from one time level to the next time level)
C- characteristic (upstream information route from one time level to the next time level)

Fig. 6. Schematic representation of the method of characteristics applied to full bore ow conditions.

When the system starts to depressurise, the model
checks for regions where free surface conditions exist; it
is these regions that correspond to the trapped air
pockets observed during the experimental work. Once
the system is primed, these air pockets are then tracked
as they leave the system, their velocities being set equal
to that of the local water ows and their volumes/
pressures being dependent on the universal gas laws and
local water pressure conditions. Depending on system
layout, certain types of air pockets are assumed to
become mixed with the water ow before exiting the
system, hence forming the type of bubbly ow
discussed previously. As with the MacCormack method,
the method of characteristics solution technique requires
boundary conditions to enable the solution to proceed.
4.3. Boundary conditions
When using either of the solution techniques detailed
above, the conditions occurring at system boundaries
(internal and external) are normally calculated by
solving the available characteristics with a relationship
relating depth or pressure head to ow rate (Fig. 7).
These relationships are termed boundary conditions
(BCs), and can take the form of empirical formulae
derived from experimental data. Boundaries within free
surface ow are dealt with as follows:
 System entry (Fig. 8a). In subcritical ow, the
available C
characteristic is solved with a weir type
expression relating system inow to gutter depth. A
volumetric balance of gutter inows (rainfall) and
gutter outows (entering system) during the previous
timestep yields the necessary gutter depths. If super-
critical conditions exist at entry, no characteristics are
available, and it is necessary to assume normal ow
conditions.
 Two-pipe junction, e.g. 901 bends or changes in pipe
diameter. Both pipes are treated as a single pipe
length, with varying depth/area characteristics if
necessary, and the conditions are determined by
solution of the C+ characteristic (upstream pipe) and
the C
characteristic (subcritical conditionsdown-
stream pipe, supercritical conditionsupstream
pipe). This approach is necessary to ensure the
smooth progress of any upstream moving hydraulic
jumps, and is considered a valid technique given that
the degree of ow disruption at such elements is
relatively minor under free surface conditions.
 Three-pipe junction (Fig. 8b). As ow is always
subcritical at this type of boundary, there are three
characteristic equations available. These character-
istics are solved with the junction continuity equation
and an empirical expression relating the common
junction depth to the junction through ow and the
diameter of the downstream pipe.
 Horizontal to vertical pipework connection. As ow
within the system is free surface, there will be a free
discharge from the last horizontal pipe section. In
the case of subcritical ow, the available C+
characteristic is solved with the critical depth equa-
tion, whilst supercritical conditions are calculated
using the two available characteristics at the down-
stream end of the last horizontal pipe (as shown in
Fig. 7, the C
characteristic slopes downstream in
supercritical ow).
 System exit. As conditions within the vertical down-
pipe are annular, the conditions at the system exit are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1286 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

Pipe length

Qentry = f (Hentry) Qexit = f (Hexit)

New time level (n + 1)

t

Current time level (n)

x
x
x
x
node 1 node 2 node n -1 node n

Legend
pipe node
subcritical and supercritical C+ characteristic
subcritical C- characteristic
supercritical C- characteristic

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of boundary solution using either the MacCormack method or the method of characteristics.

Q = function (gutter depth)

C+ equation available at C- equation available at
downstream end of pipe 1 upstream end of pipe 3

Q1 Q3

C+ equation available
at downstream end continuity equation and
of pipe 2 common depth equation at
junction

(a) C- equation available at (b) Q2

upstream end of first pipe

Fig. 8. System entry and three pipe BCsfree surface ow.

determined using a simple annular ow formulation, Q = function (Hg, AC, Hh, Hle)

and no specic BC is required. gutter depth (Hg)= f (inflows, outflows)

air content (AC)= f (gutter depth)

Boundaries within full bore ow are dealt with as hydrostatic head head losses through
follows: (Hh) entry section (HLe)

 System entry (Fig. 9). The available C
characteristic

is solved with expressions for gutter depth, air C- equation available at
content of the ow (itself related to gutter depth), upstream end of first pipe

losses through the entry section (outlet, short vertical
pipe, bend) and hydrostatic head at the base of the
entry section.
 Blocked system entry. This boundary is dealt with in
a similar way to that detailed above; the only
difference being that, at a specied time, the inow
is set to zero (total, instantaneous blockage) or some
percentage of the pre-blockage ow (partial/slow
Fig. 9. System entry BCfull bore ow.
blockage). The method of characteristics solution
technique then automatically calculates the effect of
this event on system conditions.
 Two-pipe junction, e.g. 901 bends or changes in pipe
diameter. The available C+ characteristic (upstream
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290
pipe) and C
characteristic (downstream pipe) are
solved with an expression relating the junction head
loss to the junction through ow.
 Three-pipe junction. The two available C+ charac-
teristics (upstream pipes) and the C
characteristic
(downstream pipe) are solved with an expression
relating the junction head loss to the junction through
ow. This BC can also account for the conuence of
ows with different air contents, and the possibility
that one of the junction branches reverts back to free
surface ow conditions, i.e. drains due to insufcient
inow.
 Horizontal to vertical pipework connection. The C+
characteristic available at the exit of the last
horizontal pipe is solved with the C
characteristic
available at the entry to the downpipe; the method of
characteristics solution automatically accounting for
the change in pipe slope.
 System exit. The C+ characteristic available at the
system exit is solved with an expression relating exit
head loss to ow. Inclusion of a hydrostatic exit
pressure term also accounts for the possibility of
discharge to a submerged or sealed manhole.
It should be noted that the full bore BCs are applied
whenever surcharged conditions occur, irrespective of
the solution technique being employed.
4.4. Additional numerical considerations
The following additional points concerning the
computational principles underlying the numerical
model are worth noting:
 Once a system entry ows full bore, it is assumed
that any ow entering the system is a homogeneous
air/water mixture; the air content, and hence
wave celerity, being a function of the gutter water
depth.
 As there is no satisfactory, theoretical method of
simulating the type of pulsing ow conditions that
were observed to occur downstream of the three-pipe
junction under certain circumstances, the model
represents these conditions by assuming full bore
ow conditions with a high air content (based on the
relative ow rates converging at the junction). To
simulate the additional head losses incurred due to
the pulsing nature of the ow, an increased pipe
roughness value is utilised downstream of any such
junctions.
 As well as tracking the progress of the full bore front
in the vertical downpipe, the model also tracks the
progress of any free surface fronts, and can hence
simulate the draining of individual system
branches or complete systems as rainfall intensities
decrease.
1287
 The model utilises sharp crested weir theory [6] to
calculate the onset and volumetric extent of ooding
due to gutter overtopping.
 Both spatial and timeline interpolation techniques
[11] are employed to determine the base conditions
necessary for the method of characteristics solution at
each time step.
 The allowable timestep using both solution techni-
ques is limited by the Courant criteria [6].
 Frictional representation is via the ColebrookWhite
equation, with due allowance being made for air
content of the ow [11].
4.5. Model output
Figs. 1014 show a selection of measured data (from
the test rig) and predicted data (from SIPHONET2)
obtained under a number of different rainfall/system
scenarios. In general, it can be seen that the numerical
model can accurately simulate a number of important
phenomenon, including:
 System priming, including the partial re-pressurisa-
tion that occurs when the main air pocket leaves the
system (Fig. 10).
 Rainfall events below the design condition. Fig. 11
illustrates that the model accurately simulates the
decrease in gutter depth that occurs as a result of
insufcient gutter inows. As shown, this results in
increased air entrainment, decreased ow densities
and, hence, an increase in the steady state system
operating pressures.
 Variable rainfall conditions. Fig. 12 shows that the
model can accurately simulate the draining and
relling of an individual system branch as variations
in gutter inows, and hence gutter depths, results in
the cyclical formation and cessation of siphonic
conditions.
 Outlet blockages, which may result in the generation
of pressure transients and a decrease in the prevailing
steady state system pressures (Fig. 13).
 Submergence of the system exit, which will result in a
decrease in the available driving head, an increase in
system pressures and a resulting decrease in system
ow rates (Fig. 14).
The only signicant discrepancy in these gures are
the oscillations that occur when the system starts to de-
pressurise, and the model switches from using the
MacCormack solution technique to the method of
characteristics (see Fig. 10). These may be considered
temporary adjustment errors; a fact borne out by the
accuracy of the model immediately prior to and
immediately after this switch has occurred.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1288 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

150

Gutter depth (mm)

100 Measured gutter 1 inflow = 5.85l/s
Predicted gutter 1 inflow = 5.91l/s

50 Measured gutter 2 inflow = 7.78l/s

Predicted gutter 2 inflow = 7.80l/s

0 0.3
Numerical oscillations as solution
method switches
0.0

-0.3

Pressure (mH2O)
-0.6

-0.9
Depth in gutter 2 (measured)
-1.2
Depth in gutter 2 (predicted)

Pressure in common pipe (measured) -1.5

Pressure in common pipe (predicted)
-1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)

Fig. 10. Measured and predicted conditions for design criteria rainfall.

120
Gutter depth (mm)

80

40

0
Depth in gutter 2 (measured)
0.3
Depth in gutter 2 (predicted)

Pressure in common pipe (measured) 0.0

Pressure in common pipe (predicted) -0.3

Pressure (mH2O)

-0.6

-0.9

-1.2

-1.5

-1.8
0 20 40 60 80
Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)

Fig. 11. Measured and predicted conditions for a rainfall event below the design criteria (gutter 1 inow 5.10 l/s; gutter 2 inow 6.10 l/s).

5. Conclusions and future work
The conclusions of the work reported herein may be
briey summarised as follows:
 Current design methods may over simplify ow condi-
tions within siphonic roof drainage systems, which could
result in operational problems and/or system failure.
 The priming of a multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage
system is similar to, although more complex, than
that of a single outlet system.
 A numerical model has been developed which can
accurately simulate the operational characteristics of
multi-outlet siphonic roof drainage systems under all
realistic scenarios.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290 1289

160

120

Flow rate (l/s)

80

40
Depth in gutter 1
0 (measured) 0.4
Depth in gutter 1
(predicted) 0.0
Pressure in common
pipe (measured)

Pressure (mH2O)
-0.4
Pressure in common
pipe (predicted)
-0.8

-1.2

-1.6

-2.0
0 25 50 75 100
Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)

Fig. 12. Measured and predicted conditions for design criteria rainfall event, with no ow into gutter 1 between 55 and 86 s.

0.4 2.5
Measured Predicted

Predicted
0.0 0.0
Pressure (mH2O)
Pressure (mH2O)

-0.4 -2.5

-0.8 -5.0

-1.2 -7.5

-1.6 -10.0
115 125 110 120 130 140
Time since start of simulated Time since start of simulated
(a) rainfall event (s) (b) rainfall event (s)

Fig. 13. Measured and predicted common pipe pressures for design criteria rainfall event, when the outlet in gutter 2 was blocked and reopened. (a)
Partial, slow and brief blockage, (b) total, instant and prolonged blockage.

Although the model performance is good, numerical near future. In addition, modications are being made
stability problems and extended computational run to the existing model to extend its applicability; for
times do restrict its general applicability. However, the example, a simplied version has been developed as
model continues to evolve, and it is envisaged that it part of a collaborative EPSRC research programme
will form the basis of a toolkit to be used for diagno- on the impact of climate change on urban drainage
stic design purposes and code development in the systems [13].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1290 G.B. Wright et al. / Building and Environment 41 (2006) 12791290

Flow rate (l/s)

time = 49s : depth of submergence = 220mm
4 predicted inflow to branch 1 = 5.51l/s (measured = 5.54l/s)
predicted inflow to branch 2 = 7.27l/s (measured = 7.28l/s)
2 time = 57s : depth of submergence = 380mm
predicted inflow to branch 1 = 5.41l/s (measured = 5.45l/s)

Pressure / Depth of submergence (mH2O)

predcited inflow to branch 2 = 7.11l/s (measured = 7.11l/s)
0 1.0

0.5

Inflow to branch 1 0.0

Inflow to branch 2
Depth of submergence of exit . 5
-0
Pressure in common pipe

. 0
-1

. 5
-1
0 20 40 60 80
Time since start of simulated rainfall event (s)

Fig. 14. Predicted conditions for design criteria rainfall event, with gradually submerging system exit.

Acknowledgements [5] Bowler R, Arthur S. Siphonic roof rainwater drainagedesign

The researchers remain grateful for the assistance
given by Dales Fabrications Ltd. (UK), EPSRC (UK),
Fullow Ltd. (UK), Geberit AB (Switzerland), HR
Wallingford Ltd. (UK), Pick Everard (UK), Simona
Ltd. (Germany), Sommerhein AB (Sweden), The Scot-
tish Executive (UK), Rattenbury Engineering LLC
(USA).
References
[1] May RWP, Escarameia M. Performance of siphonic drainage
systems for roof gutters. Report No SR 463. HR Wallingford;
1996.
[2] Arthur S, Swafeld JA. Siphonic roof drainage: the state of the
art. Urban Water 2001;3(1):4352.
[3] Arthur S, Swafeld JA. Numerical modelling of the priming of a
siphonic roof drainage system. Building Services Engineering
Research and Technology 1999;20(2).
[4] Wright GB, Swafeld JA, Arthur S. The performance character-
istics of multi-outlet siphonic rainwater systems. Building
Services Engineering Research and Technology 2002;23(3)
127141(15).
considerations. Proceedings of water supply and drainage for
buildings: CIB W62 1999. Edinburgh; 1999.
[6] Chaudhry MH. Open channel hydraulics. New York: Prentice-
Hall; 1993.
[7] Chaudhry MH. Applied hydraulic transients. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold; 1979.
[8] Lister M. Numerical solutions of hyperbolic partial differential
equations by the method of characteristics. In: Ralston A, Wilf
HS, editors. Numerical methods for digital computers. New
York: Wiley; 1960.
[9] MacCormack RW. Numerical solution of the interaction of a
shock wave with a laminar boundary layer. Proceedings of second
international conference on numerical methods in uid dynamics,
Berlin; 1971.
[10] Jameson A, Schmidt E, Turkel E. Numerical solutions of the
Euler equations by nite volume methods using Runga-Kutta
time stepping schemes. Proceedings of AIAA 14th uid and
plasma dynamics conference, Palo Alto, USA; 1981.
[11] Wylie EB, Streeter VL. Fluid transients in systems. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall; 1993.
[12] Swafeld JA, Galowin LS. The engineered design of building
drainage systems. UK: Ashgate; 1992.
[13] Blanksby J, Ashley R, Saul AJ, Cashman A, Packman J,
Maksimovic C, Jack L, Wright G, Kay D. Adaptable urban
drainage (AUDACIOUS). Proceedings of NOVATECH 2004:
fth international conference on sustainable techniques and
strategies in urban water management, Lyon; 2004.