This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Designer’s Guide Actual flow rates? HELP!


Timothy Allinson, P.E., Murray Co., Long Beach, Calif. I


t’s no secret to many of us in this industry that the systems we design are often dramatically oversized. Sometimes this is the fault of the designer, who adds factors of safety


in fear that things might not work. Even those with the courage and faith to design to the knife’s edge of the Code end up with systems that are oversized, because the Codes are theoretical rather than empirical, and what little empirical data that might have served as their foundation at one time, such as Hunter’s Curve, is ancient by today’s standards. This fact recently came to light when talking to Bob


McCook, an industry friend and sales rep, about water soft- ening systems and flow rates. He mentioned in passing that he had sold the water softening system to the Bellagio Casino in Las Vegas. The system measures and records flow data and serves the entire 900-room casino tower with cold and hot water, except for the cooling tower, and recorded the peak domestic flow rate as 190 gpm. Think about that. A quick, low-end estimate based on one


toilet, two lavs and a regular bath/shower in each room would yield a flow rate of nearly 1,000 gpm; that’s not even including the penthouses, with more fixtures and high-flow tubs. In reality, the water demand was, reportedly, only 190 gpm. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. The likely explanation is that, in high-end casinos, guests


spend very little time in their rooms and shower at odd times, creating a very low diversity. If you’ve ever been to Vegas, you know what I’m talking about. But the disparity between the Hunter’s Curve flow rate and the measured demand warrants serious consideration. I know that there are people in our industry working on


updating Hunter’s Curve and fixture unit assignments for ultra low flow fixtures but, given this extreme disparity, these seem to be baby steps. As engineers, we rarely have access to after-the-fact empirical data of actual flow rates for the projects we design. This is what we need more of — empirical data. Some of you out there have it, and those who do probably have a limited amount of it. There are probably manufacturers, like my associate Bob, mentioned above, who have more of it; this is what we need.


Calling all manufacturers! We need your empirical data! Here’s an example of some valuable empirical data I


recently came by. Most of us know rules of thumb for esti- mating cooling tower make-up, a common one being 3% of the tonnage. For example, a 1,000 ton tower would require a make-up flow rate of: 0.03 x 1,000 = 30 gpm In this example, a make-up line sized for 30 gpm would


satisfy the tower at peak demand, and the basin would not run dry, even on the hottest of days. But how much water will that tower use in a day? Would it be: 30 gpm x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day = 43,200 gal? That seems like an awful lot of water, doesn’t it? If you


had to size a water tank for a three-day supply, as we often do here in So Cal for hospitals, would you assume 130,000 gallons just for the tower? To answer this question, an HVAC friend contacted a


Page 16/Plumbing Engineer


local area hospital where he knew the facilities guys quite well; their towers, of course, had a water meter. Based on the data we were able to obtain, during a very hot week (temps in the 90s and dry), the hospital cooling towers consumed the calculated peak for nine hours a day. In our example, the actual daily water demand of the 1,000 ton tower would be: 30 gpm x 60 min/hr x 9 hr/day = 16,200 gal The three-day supply required for the hospital’s tank


would be 48,600 gallons. This is a far cry from the calcu- lated 130,000 gallons. This, of course, makes sense. The towers would not operate at their peak all night long. The calculated peak make-up flow does not run continuously but will cycle on and off all day and night, more during the day and less at night, the sum total equating to nine hours of peak flow. That was a brilliant piece of empirical data to stumble upon, and it made me thirst for more of it. Back in my NYC engineering days, I designed a replace-


ment pumping plant for Bankers Trust Plaza, which later became famous because of its controversial demolition as a result of structural compromise from the 9/11 bombings. The replacement pumping plant had a flow meter, but it was not a recording meter, and there ensued some debate over the ideal flow and pressure settings for the lead and lag pumps. As a result, I had one of my engineers sit by the pumps for an entire day, manually recording the flow and pressure every five minutes, as well as the pump sequencing. The domestic water pumps at the plaza also fed the cool-


ing towers on the roof, which, for this data-heavy building, were large, although I don’t remember their tonnage, and they are, sadly, long gone. Because it was an office building, the water demand was not as intensive as that of a casino or a hospital, but it was a cubic tower with a city block footprint and 40+ stories, so there were a lot of fixtures. At the end of the day, the water demand was seen to flow


at a fairly steady rate of 150 gpm; this flow rate represented mostly the cooling tower demand. The flow for this building was what I would call very spikey, with frequent spikes in flow of 300 or 400 gpm that were too brief to kick on one of the lag pumps. Once a lag pump did kick on, it would run for a considerable length of time as the brief spikes would pre- vent the minimum run timer from timing out. This building had originally been provided with three 100


HP domestic water pumps. As part of the pump replacement, we added a 40 HP lead pump. At the time, variable frequen- cy drives were still impractically expensive for domestic water applications. Today, I would have stayed with the three 100 HP pumps and added VFD drives. This would have smoothed out the pump controls a great deal. Details of the pump replacement aside, this project served


as an example of a building that consumed far less than its cal- culated demand. The combined total of 340 HP rarely used more than 40 HP and when it did, it never demanded more than 100 HP. I have since heard many stories of pumping plants that never use more horsepower than the lead pump. n


The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not reflect those of Plumbing Engineer nor its publisher, TMB Publishing.


March 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68