slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Department of Building Construction Management

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 3

School of Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 151 Views
  • Uploaded on

350g Sinking Waste 350g Floating Waste. Average Carry Distances 350g Sinking Waste 350g Floating Waste. Department of Building Construction Management. Impact of ULF and H-E toilets on Drainline Carry. Veritec Test

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'School of Technology' - jana


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

350g Sinking Waste

350g Floating Waste

Average Carry Distances

350g Sinking Waste

350g Floating Waste

Department of Building Construction Management

Impact of ULF and H-E toilets on Drainline Carry

Veritec Test

This test created, “more difficult than average” conditions for testing. It used a 4” clear plastic pipe rather than 3” at a 1% grade. The clear pipe was chosen to allow the distance sample’s travel to be viewed. A minimum of 4 meters (approx. 13 feet ) was required. Three styles of H-E toilets were tested: 1.2 gpf gravity washdown, 1.28 gpf gravity siphonic and 1.0 gpf pressure assist. Testing was run with no supplemental flows from other waste water producing devices and ran a ratio of liquid to solid flushes of 1:1 rather than the average range of 3:1 to 5:1. The samples used were 350g samples of soy paste and toilet paper. To create the floating samples powdered styrofoam was mixed into the soy paste. The toilet paper sample was four balls of six sheets each. The results are shown in the chart.

Additional Facts

Pressure assisted toilets are less likely to clog than 3.5 gpf toilets.

The majority of 1.6 gpf toilets work well and owners claim to be satisfied or very satisfied with performance

90% of owners in San Diego, CA

95% of owners in Austin, TX

91 % of owners in Tampa, Fl

Caroma

Developed new dual flush toilet 1.2 gpf/0.8 gpf. After testing in lab setting, ran a test by retrofitting 100 private residences. Dr. Stephen Cummings, head of Research and Development for Caroma stated,

Several of the test locations had situations of “above average” difficulty due to the length of the minimum grade line, varying grades along the line, old earthenware pipes, and a lack of upstream fixtures. Ten of the 100 locations were chosen to be inspected with CCTV. Upon this inspection no blockages were found, the homeowners were also surveyed and confirmed satisfaction with the performance of the new toilets.

the key requirement between the WC and drain line is to fully discharge the waste from the bowl outlet using initial part of the flush and then to achieve steady flow conditions within a minimum distance within the drain line system in order for the waste to effectively clear the drain line.

Average Carry Distances

350g Sinking Waste

350g Floating Waste

Test Rig for Veritec Test

Sewer Plant Technology Impact

Through conversation with John Toore; maintenance supervisor at the West Lafayette, Indiana water treatment plant; it was found out that solid waste is 1% of all of the waste entering the facilities. Mr. Toore does not feel that the increased ratio of solid to liquid waste will make any impact on the facility.

Gauley, B. (October 10, 2006). RE: WaterSense Drainline Carry Testing Results. Mississauga, ON: Veritec Consulting Inc.

Gauley, B., & Koeller, J. (March 11, 2005). Evaluation of Water-Efficient Toilet Technologies to Carry Waste in Drainlines: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Testing Times \'Down Under\' (2007). World Plumbing Review(1), 4.

Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet - High-Efficiency Toilets (September 2000). Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Professor Kirk Alter Research Assistant: Russell Kahn

slide2

Department of Building Construction Management

Impact of Grey Water Systems

Aquifer Recharge

The impact that grey water systems have on different aspects of concern are varied. Many localities limit the use of untreated grey water use to subsurface irrigation. This is typically accomplished through a drip system (see illustration) or mini leach fields. This limitation of grey water to subsurface irrigation has the unintended consequence of not only putting the water and nutrients that it carries, commonly nitrogen and phosphorous, directly back into the ground to feed plant life but also to recharge the aquifer. Use of greywater also limits the use of potable water that is pulled from the municipal systems . Irrigation is the single greatest use of municipal water for households.

Cost Data for Average 3bd/2bth House w/ Family of 4

Storage

The state of Californinia requires that “the tank must be solid, durable, watertight

when filled, and protected from corrosion. The tank must be vented and have a locking gasketed lid.” There must also be an overflow valve that is permanently attached to a sewer line of septic tank. Austin, TX considers grey water systems to be adaptations of septic systems and treats them as such.

Typical grey water hookup to subsurface drip irrigation system

A Sourcebook for Green and Sustainable Building - Graywater (January 13, 2007).

Gelt, J. Home Use of Graywater, Rainwater Conserves Water--and May Save Money.

. Graywater Systems (2008) Sustainable Building Sourcebook. Austin, TX: Sustainable Sources.

Using Graywater in Your Home Landscape Graywater Guide (January 1995). In D. o. W. R. S. o. California (Ed.): State of California.

http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/graywater_guide_book.pdf

Professor Kirk Alter Research Assistant: Russell Kahn

slide3

Department of Building Construction Management

Most Effective Areas of Plumbing in Water Savings

  • Future Areas of Research
  • Actual cost of retrofitting a facility with grey water recycling and/or rain water reclamation
  • Technology to treat grey water and rain water to tertiary standards within reuse systems and cost effectiveness
  • Grey Water Recycling
  • Grey water can be used in place of potable water in all areas of water use except for drinking , food prep and cleaning. Only 20% of the potable water that we use is for these purposes. This makes grey water an attractive alternative for water uses such as irrigation and toilet flushing.
  • Benefits
  • The ability to reuse water from our sinks, showers and laundry facilities as toilet water, in irrigation and in closed loop systems such as HVAC&R can make a serious impact on the amount of water that is being used as well as limit the amount spent on water and sewer costs. Ease of use is major benefit of grey water use. Once the system is installed it acts without the user having to interact with it. The facility is plumbed to feed the areas that can use grey water to do so and those that cannot are plumbed for potable water. There should be periodic checks on the filtration system and cistern but that would most likely be done by a professional, similar to a service contract on a mechanical system.
  • Concerns
  • Cost of Implementing a grey water recycling system. While this may not be an overly excessive cost in new construction, it is a concern in existing structures. The ROI should be closely examined to determine if this is a feasible option. Local codes should also be referred to in order to confirm that this is a legal option.
  • Low–Flow Fixtures
  • The use of low–flow fixtures can make a significant impact on the amount of water that a facility uses. This area is not limited to commodes and urinals. The simple act of exchanging out a shower head or aerator on a lavatory can make an impact.
  • Benefits
  • For household use low-flow showerheads and aerators can make a larger impact than low-flow toilets. We all shower and wash in our homes but for many the amount of time that we are not at home limits the use of our toilets. At 1.6 gpf for a toilet and 2.5 gpm for a shower head it is easy to see where more water is used. There are also options such as foot pedals to control sinks and vacuum assisted commodes. Foot pedals allow water to be turned off when it is not needed without having to touch the hand controls. This is a consideration for locations like kitchens in residential application or ideal in hospitals where sanitation is imperative. The vacuum assisted commode systems are already starting to be used in hospitals.
  • Concerns
  • Commercial facilities should look at the concerns with drainline carry of wastes before spending the money on low-flow commodes.
  • Rain Water Reclaimation
  • Similar to grey water, rain water can be used in place of potable water in all areas except for drinking , food prep and cleaning.
  • Benefits
  • The benefits of rain water use are the same as those for grey water with one exception, in most areas, with the appropriate roofing material, rain water can be as clean if not cleaner that municipal water.
  • Concerns
  • The concerns are the same as for grey water.

Low-Flow faucet in Union at University of North Carolina

Breakdown of US Urban Water Uses

http://sustainability.unc.edu/Water/ConservationandEfficiency/LowFlowFixtures/tabid/87/Default.aspx

References

Green Guide for Healthcare (20Anon (2004).

Grey water recycling device for re-use. [Jour]. Filtration and Separation, 41(5), 18.

Leggett, D. J., Brown, R., Stanfield, G., Brewer, D., & Holliday, E. (2001). Rainwater and greywater use in buildings: decision - making for water conservation. London: CIRIA.

Image from www.c2intl.com/waterconservation

Professor Kirk Alter Research Assistant: Russell Kahn

ad