Jump to content

A Rodding Point too far?


ToughButterCup

Recommended Posts

This inspection chamber will be 1100 mm below the ground level. The I/C base indicates the position of the foul drain for the loo.   (Orange elipse)

20200422_163001.thumb.jpg.ac92b25903ccb63e8352afaae9d2221f.jpg

Our shower drain (red elipse) exits the property upstream of the toilet drain. And so, in theory, I should put another I/C there ( green rectangle) because rodding points should be provided at all changes of direction.

 

I'd like to avoid putting another I/C there because  I'm going to put a rodding point in at the yellow circle.

 

If I were to follow the letter of the recommendations there would be two access chambers and  1 rodding point within 2 meters.

 

Can putting a rodding point in at the yellow circle be seen as sufficient provision for clearing the drainage system?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PeterWWill provide a definitive answer to your main question. I want to comment on the orientation of your toilet IC, it should be rotated 45 degrees clockwise so the solids follow the main channel through the IC and the shower enters a minor branch.

Edited by epsilonGreedy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

This inspection chamber will be 1100 mm below the ground level. The I/C base indicates the position of the foul drain for the loo.   (Orange elipse)

20200422_163001.thumb.jpg.ac92b25903ccb63e8352afaae9d2221f.jpg

Our shower drain (red elipse) exits the property upstream of the toilet drain. And so, in theory, I should put another I/C there ( green rectangle) because rodding points should be provided at all changes of direction.

 

I'd like to avoid putting another I/C there because  I'm going to put a rodding point in at the yellow circle.

 

If I were to follow the letter of the recommendations there would be two access chambers and  1 rodding point within 2 meters.

 

Can putting a rodding point in at the yellow circle be seen as sufficient provision for clearing the drainage system?

 

Could you not use a rest bend on its side or something, rods will easily go around that, it is just your shower so in theory should never block unless it was a backup and then you could always back rod from the IC. I know this is not perhaps by the book, but I see your predicament in filling the place with IC's and rod points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

[...] I want to comment on the orientation of your toilet IC, it should be rotated 45 degrees clockwise so the solids follow the main channel through the IC and the shower enters a minor branch.

 

Right, thanks very much . Appreciate the attention to detail.

I'll go and look at that now .... back in a few minnits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would dig away a bit more of that "island" of soil between the two exits from the house.  Put whatever bend is needed so that the toilet waste goes into the first side branch and the shower waste into the second side branch.

 

Then the rodding point into the straight through connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

[...]  Put whatever bend is needed so that the toilet waste goes into the first side branch and the shower waste into the second side branch.

Then the rodding point into the straight through connection.

 

My BCO has just this minute agreed that I can put a 135 from the shower outlet into the main run and a rodding point where the yellow dot is.

 

Interestingly she suggested I arrange for the rain 'wash' from the piggery roof be used to help flush the foul drainage line. The roof is very small ( 5 by 1 ) .

 

27 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

[...]

 I want to comment on the orientation of your toilet IC, it should be rotated 45 degrees clockwise so the solids follow the main channel through the IC and the shower enters a minor branch.

 

Here's a close-up 

 

20200423_095208.thumb.jpg.4c7372eaaa93fcc7bc626e05cb97213e.jpg

To me it looks OK, but I have been so wrong so often ...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have been aiming for the WC straight into the side as you have it pictured, and the shower into the 45 degree outlet to the left of that.

 

Our main stack comes into the side of an identical looking chamber with no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

Our main stack comes into the side of an identical looking chamber with no issues.

 

 

The idea behind my suggestion is that it is better if solids don't splat over the branch change in level and instead slither through the primary channel. I have read this in some docs though the alternative is not doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

The idea behind my suggestion is that it is better if solids don't splat over the branch change in level and instead slither through the primary channel. I have read this in some docs though the alternative is not doomed to fail.

So how would you do that?  You would have to put a bend in to get the WC waste into the end straight through port, then where would the shower go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, AnonymousBosch said:

Interestingly she suggested I arrange for the rain 'wash' from the piggery roof be used to help flush the foul drainage line. The roof is very small ( 5 by 1 ) .

 

That is an interesting thought however I would ensure that it doesn't swamp the treatment plant. It should be ok if it is only a 5sqm roof, even with your wet weather.

 

9 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

 

Here's a close-up 

 

20200423_095208.thumb.jpg.4c7372eaaa93fcc7bc626e05cb97213e.jpg

To me it looks OK, but I have been so wrong so often ...........

 

So I wouldn't use the first connection. 

 

Dig the IC out so it is further down the trench and come in on the second branch - it is a 45 degree full flow, and doesn't have the kink that the 90 branch has. Then use a 45 degree long radius bend into the second socket. 

 

Shower should use a 45 degree bend into a Y branch, then come up to the rodding point from the back end of the Y branch.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the need for the rodding point.

 

I would put a 45 bend on each side of the main run so that manhole is serving the toilet without the solids having to change direction. The chamber is rotated 45 clockwise as per your photo.

 

Then use the other branch and several 30 degree bends or a swept bend to pick up the shower.

 

All should be rod-able from the chamber that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So how would you do that?  You would have to put a bend in to get the WC waste into the end straight through port, then where would the shower go?

 

 

Yes to a bend at the main exit.

 

If the main entrance port is 12'o clock then the shower could come in on the 10:30 port. I thought all of this was broadly accepted best practice, maybe I read too many docs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PeterW said:

[...]

I wouldn't use the first connection. 

Dig the IC out so it is further down the trench and come in on the second branch - it is a 45 degree full flow, and doesn't have the kink that the 90 branch has.

[...]

 

Yes, it does have a kink : if I were to use your suggestion, that kink would be in the pipe, a few mm before it gets to the I/C.         Wassa diffrunce?

 

Somewhere, at some stage, the flow has to go through a 45 degree turn. Your way involves a good deal of digging in what is now bone-hard clay. After a solid week of digging  (more now I come think of it) I've kind of had enough. Mind you, I don't want the good weather to end.......

 

Thanks to @Bob, I have two of those Bend-It-With-Beckham (grey) joints. Any Gottchas using this? I'm using it because the level of the shower outlet is about 40mm higher than the loo outlet. Bummer. ( Oooops ? unintentional malapropism.)

20200423_135143.thumb.jpg.88ec79f9bd2791803e84bf0452b4349e.jpg

 

Thanks to @Construction Channel  for the tip about holding the end of the pipe in place (in his case) bits of rebar. I used a fork to hold the assembly stable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

Thanks to @Bob, I have two of those Bend-It-With-Beckham (grey) joints. Any Gottchas using this? I'm using it because the level of the shower outlet is about 40mm higher than the loo outlet. Bummer.

 

 

You would eliminate much of the 40mm if the IC was rotated 45 degrees as suggested. Could it be that your groundwork team anticipated this arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Yes they aren't certified for underground

Got an 11 or a 22 lying about..??

 

Oh boogre.

11 or 22 - ah'm ahn it honey, ah'm an it.... if not, lets pray that @Bob has one lying around .... Jamie??? if you are reading this....?

 

Why an 11 or 22?    Whassa craik?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

You would eliminate much of the 40mm if the IC was rotated 45 degrees as suggested. Could it be that your groundwork team anticipated this arrangement?

Can you do a sketch of what you are proposing please as I just can't understand how it can be anything other than how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I'm spending tomorrow digging ........ 

20200423_152323.thumb.jpg.1b03b4dfd6c58c0ce4853abe9cf92c40.jpg

The peg at the end of the line is about 50mm from the side of the trench.

So I need to shave another 80mm off the left hand side - which is a real ball ache because the land drain is about 81mm from the side: in other words, it's going to collapse.  kcuf it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AnonymousBosch said:

Looks like I'm spending tomorrow digging ........ 

20200423_152323.thumb.jpg.1b03b4dfd6c58c0ce4853abe9cf92c40.jpg

The peg at the end of the line is about 50mm from the side of the trench.

So I need to shave another 80mm off the left hand side - which is a real ball ache because the land drain is about 81mm from the side: in other words, it's going to collapse.  kcuf it


what distance is that ..??

 

if you use 3m lengths of pipe you can get 75mm movement off centre anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...