|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy
|
EREN Home Page |

Home Energy Magazine Online July/August 1996
Try These On for Size:
New Guidelines for Multifamily Water Heating
by Fredric S. Goldner
Fredric S. Goldner, C.E.M., is principal of
Energy Management and Research Associates in Brooklyn, New York. He is
the author of the new 1995 ASHRAE guidelines discussed in this article.
ASHRAE has published new sizing guidelines
for hot water systems, based on recent studies of water-heating use in
apartment buildings. If adopted in practice, the new sizing method should
prevent the costly oversizing that is now common.
The 60-unit building in the photo above houses middle-income
families. As part of a study conducted in New York City, researchers monitored
the building's hot water consumption, which fell into the medium usage
category under the 1995 ASHRAE guidelines. |
Energy professionals have
long been frustrated by the lack of reliable data for sizing domestic hot
water (DHW) equipment in multifamily buildings. To be on the safe side,
many designers oversize the equipment, resulting in systems with higher
equipment costs, operating costs, and energy use. Now ASHRAE has incorporated
data from recent studies into new guidelines for properly sizing DHW systems.
Using previous (pre-1995) ASHRAE guidelines resulted
in serious undersizing (see Figure 1). In practice,
however, DHW systems and combined heating/DHW boilers are often oversized
by 30%-200%, according to the New York City Department of Housing Preservation
and Development, Energy Conservation Division. Discussions with designers
in other parts of the country revealed similar oversizing.
What happens is that the individual responsible
for installing a boiler will often size it with a "what was there before,"
"looks like ...," or other rule-of-thumb method. Even when they do try
to calculate the loads, designers use enormous safety factors because they
know the DHW demands estimated with the old methods tend to undersize (see
"Evolution
of an Oversizing Rule"). The safety factors cause considerable oversizing
even when the space heating portion is calculated properly, which is rarely
the case. I've seen factors that double the size of the boiler relative
to the space heating load (a rule of thumb that is particularly inaccurate
for the New York climate).
Evolution of an Oversizing Rule
A review of manufacturers' literature uncovered
at least half a dozen different methods for sizing both combined heat/DHW
units and stand-alone systems.
Many of these methods were initially based on the pre-1995 ASHRAE approach.
I once sat down with the VP of marketing and one of the design engineers
for a prominent manufacturer and asked them how the data sheets in their
catalog determine system size. They replied "the ASHRAE Handbook
method." After running some calculations, we found that in fact their results
were somewhere between two to three times greater than the results obtained
using the Handbook method.
What probably happened was that the engineer
who had written the sizing sheets ("many years ago") started with the Handbook
values as a base. But from his experience, he recognized that the numbers
were not sufficient to meet a building's demand, so he added a safety factor
based on that experience. Subsequently, as the catalog has been revised,
each engineer given the responsibility to update the sheets has said to
himself or herself, "Well, I'm not going to be responsible for there
not being enough hot water in a building" and has added another safety
factor on top of the previous one. And then the chief engineer in charge
of the revision says, "I'm not going to be responsible for there
not being enough hot water . . . " and adds yet another safety factor.
Thus over time these values have in some cases become grossly inflated.
To aggravate this already bad situation, the
contractor on the job may look at the data sheets and say, "Well I'm
not . . . " and add another level of so-called safety factor. The job then
gets sized out and a call is made to the warehouse, whose staff, feeling
like all the other parties, applies the next-size-up approach before sending
the heater/boiler out to the job site. |
|

Figure 1. Comparison of monitored data to hot-water usage calculated
with values from the 1991 ASHRAE HVAC Applications Handbook Table
7. For these New York City buildings, using the 1991 ASHRAE guidelines
would have resulted in severely undersized equipment. |
The 1995 ASHRAE Guidelines
The new guidelines update the previous ASHRAE hot-water
demand values. In part, the new values reflect changes in numbers of water-consuming
devices, personal habits, lifestyles, and sanitation needs since the late
1960s, when the previous values were determined. In addition, sophisticated
computers and monitoring equipment have enabled us to gather more extensive
data on which to base sizing criteria.
The 1995 guidelines also take a new approach.
Rather than a single value for volume of water used per apartment, they
offer a range of values for different types of users. The residents or
likely residents of a building are separated by their demographic characteristics
into three usage categories: low, medium, or high (LMH). Additionally,
the usage factors are provided per capita rather than per apartment.
This reflects the fact that people, not apartments or square footage, use
water.
To help in the design process, the new ASHRAE
tables give more detailed levels of consumption for the peak 5 minutes
and the peak 15 minutes (the old tables had only 60-minute peak values).
These values more closely represent the instantaneous demand peak that
a building will experience.
Using the New Method
The first step in calculating DHW demand is to determine
the demographic profile of the project and building occupants. Different
types of building occupants consume hot water in fairly predictable patterns.
Users can be lumped into one of the three typical LMH categories of water
consumers.
Table 1 lists a variety of
occupant classifications, one or a combination of which should describe
the occupants of any particular multifamily building. For example, a luxury
condominium in an area inhabited predominantly by young couples will tend
to fall into the "all occupants work" category of low anticipated water
consumption. By contrast, a low-income housing project will generally fall
somewhere between the "low income" and "no occupants work" categories of
high-volume water consumption. An abundance of hot-water-consuming appliances,
such as clothes washers or dishwashers, will tend to increase hot-water
consumption. If the condominium building example above intended, or allowed,
the future installation of a clothes washer in each unit, the demographic
category should be augmented from "low" to "medium." It is up to the system's
designer to determine this category.
Once this LMH factor has been determined, values
for hot-water consumption can be selected from Table 2.
Values are indicated per capita in peak or maximum flows of 5 minutes,
15 minutes, one hour, two hours, three hours and one day, as well as average
daily flow. From these values, anticipated demand can be determined for
the estimated maximum building population.
| Table 1. Demographic Characteristics Correlation to
DHW Consumption |
| Demographic characteristics |
Usage factor |
No occupants work
Public assistance and low income (mix)
Family and single-parent households (mix)
High percentage of children
Low income |
High |
Families
Public assistance
Singles
Single-parent households |
Medium |
Couples
Higher population density
Middle income
Seniors
One person works, one stays home
All occupants work |
Low |
| Table 2. National DHW Sizing Guidelines (Low-Medium-High) |
| Hot Water Demands and Use for Multifamily Buildings |
|
Maximum hour |
Peak 15 minutes |
Maximum day |
Average day |
| Low |
2.8 gal (10.5 l)/person |
1 gal (4 l)/person |
20 gal (76 l)/person |
14 gal (53 l)/person |
| Med |
4.8 gal (18 l)/person |
1.7 gal (6.4 l)/person |
49 gal (185 l)/person |
30 gal (114 l)/person |
| High |
8.5 gal (32.5 l)/person |
3 gal (11.5 l)/person |
90 gal (340 l)/person |
54 gal (205 l)/person |
|
Peak 5 minutes |
Peak 30 minutes |
Maximum 2 hours |
Maximum 3 hours |
| Low |
0.4 gal (1.5 l)/person |
1.7 gal (6.5 l)/person |
4.5 gal (17 l)/person |
6.1 gal (23 l)/person |
|
| Med |
0.7 gal (2.6 l)/person |
2.9 gal (11 l)/person |
8 gal (31 l)/person |
11 gal (41 l)/person |
|
| High |
1.2 gal (4.5 l)/person |
5.1 gal (19.5 l)/person |
14.5 gal (55 l)/person |
19 gal (72 l)/person |
| Note: These volumes are for DHW delivered to the tap at
120oF. |
| Sources: Data from "Chapter 45: Service Hot Water," In
1995 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications, Atlanta: ASHRAE, 1995, and Goldner,
F.S., and D.C. Price. "Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection
for Multifamily Buildings." In 1994 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency
in Buildings Proceedings, 2.105-2.116. Berkeley: American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, 1994. |
Author Fredric Goldner discusses meter equipment with
building superintendent John Perkins. The meter he is pointing to monitors
hot water recirculation, and above it is a domestic hot water consumption
meter. |
The number of occupants per apartment should
be estimated based on local standards or regulations. For example, in a
given city, studios may accommodate two persons; one-bedroom apartments,
three persons; two-bedroom apartments, three to five persons; and so on.
In buildings where corrective maintenance cannot
be done, a safety factor of 20%-30% may be employed to compensate for poorly
maintained fixtures and distribution piping. However, this should be done
only in extreme cases.
The figures presented in Table
2 are for centrally fired systems; individual apartment water heater
systems are likely to have lower levels of consumption because the resident
usually pays for fuel directly, which encourages conservation. There isn't
a set of values for individual systems in ASHRAE, but a suggested rule
of thumb for sizing these would be to use a low-end estimate for a single-family
home load.
ASHRAE based its 1995 guidelines (published in
the 1995 HVAC Applications Handbook) on new research conducted in
New York City (see "Collecting Usage Data in New York
City") as well as data from studies in seven other areas of the United
States and Canada. Both research and practical experience in different
areas of North America indicate that there are variances in DHW use among
geographical locations. There is, however, no distinctive pattern that
can be identified with the available data.
The joint ASHRAE/ASPE (American Society of Plumbing
Engineers) Domestic Hot Water Design Manual, to be published this
fall, will go into greater depth than the ASHRAE standards,
including the patterns of consumption and demand derived from the New York
study. Becoming familiar with these patterns can help designers choose
the best equipment and help auditors troubleshoot related system problems.
Collecting Usage Data in New York City
In 1990-91, Energy Management & Research Associates
(EMRA) gathered 14 months of real-time monitoring data in 30 New York City
multifamily buildings. The New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority sponsored the study.
The data were collected by computerized heating
controllers, which monitored burner on-off times and the following temperatures:
apartment air, outdoor air, boiler water (aquastat), and DHW. Eight buildings
had additional monitoring equipment installed to record stack temperature,
boiler makeup water flow, DHW flow in 15-minute increments, oil flow, and
DHW temperature before and after the mixing valve and on the return line.
In 1993, we equipped a subset of three of the
sites to record DHW flow in 5-minute increments and to record recirculation
flows. This was done to get a more precise picture of short-term/instantaneous
demand peaks and to collect the missing information necessary to create
an accurate simulation of real-time operations. We collected data in these
three buildings for 100 days.
EMRA also collected building operation and tenant
information from superintendents and property managers via questionnaires
and interviews, and building and apartment occupancy records. We conducted
energy audits to determine the type and condition of equipment and buildings.
Within the New York research, we tried to include
a variety of building sizes, income levels, ethnic backgrounds, and locales.
The study buildings are characteristic of the older and predominant stock
of the over 120,000 New York City multifamily buildings. The buildings
range in size from 17 to 103 apartments in either five or six above-ground
stories. These buildings were built before 1902 or between 1902 and 1928.
All have combination steam-space-heating and DHW-generating steel tube
boilers, which use primarily #4 or #6 oil in air-atomizing burners. DHW
is generated by a tankless coil just under the surface of the boiler water.
Energy Use Analysis
An evaluation of the energy used to produce DHW
was conducted for the summer period, when the systems are used strictly
for DHW purposes. This analysis revealed that an average of 150 gallons
(ranging from 100 to 200 gallons) of DHW was produced and used at the tap
for each gallon of #6 oil (or equivalent) consumed by the burner. Included
in these figures are various levels of combustion efficiency, standby losses,
pipe insulation, and other real-time factors that affect the operation
of systems in occupied buildings. These numbers can be used as a check
against results of energy savings predictions from audit calculations related
to hot water conservation measures (such as low-flow showerheads).
For further details, a copy of Report No. 94-19,
Energy
Use and Domestic Hot Water Consumption: Phase 1, is available from
NYSERDA. Tel:(518)465-6251, Ext. 250. |
Figure 2. Seasonal variations in weekend consumption, gallons per
person (composite of data from New York City apartment buildings). |
The Variations Behind the Values
Seasonal and Daily Variations
The multifamily buildings we studied show distinct
seasonal variations of DHW consumption levels (see Figure
2). The average daily consumption rises 10% in the fall (from summer
consumption), and rises 13% more in the winter. Consumption then drops
slightly in the spring and drops significantly (19%) in the summer.
There is generally a slightly higher daily consumption
on weekends than on weekdays. This holds true in all seasons. The average
weekend daily consumption is 7.5% greater than the average weekday daily
consumption.
Weekday and weekend hot-water consumption patterns
have distinct differences (see Figure 3). Weekdays
have little overnight usage; a morning peak; lower afternoon demand; and
an evening or nighttime peak. Weekends have just one major peak, which
begins later in the morning and continues until around 1 pm to 2 pm. The
usage then tapers off fairly evenly through the rest of the day. The weekend
peak is greater than any of the weekday peaks.
The highest peaking level occurs during winter
weekends. Thus, the best tactic for an engineer who has the time and money
to custom-design a retrofit system is to monitor current consumption for
two or three winter weekends to determine a building's actual peak usage,
rather than estimating it with Table 2. A system designed
to meet these draws should satisfy all other year-round requirements.
|

Figure 3. Weekday versus weekend consumption (composite
of data from New York City apartment buildings). Research in New York City
found that apartment residents use the most water between 10 AM and 12
noon during winter weekends. |
Two morning peaks occur on the weekdays, the
first between 6 am and 8 am and the second between 9:30 am and noon. Individual
buildings tend to exhibit one of these two peaks. Generally, the buildings
with large numbers of working tenants and middle-income populations experience
the early morning peak, while buildings with many children exhibit the
later morning peak (especially during the summer period).
This knowledge of flow patterns can come in particularly
handy when troubleshooting hot water complaints. For instance, a large
fluctuation in water temperature at a time when the usage was extremely
low recently helped me to identify a problem with a faulty hot water coil.
If the fluctuation was observed only during a high usage period, the cause-perhaps
an undersized coil or a problem with the mixing valve-would have been harder
to determine.
Recirculation Systems
DHW systems in multifamily buildings generally employ
one of three types of return or recirculation system. The first option
is to have no recirculation piping at all. This is most often found in
the smallest end of the multifamily sector, where there are short runs
between the supply source (boiler or heater) and the farthest tap. The
second option is a gravity return system (thermosiphon circulation). The
monitoring data indicate that these systems have a very small flow, ranging
from 0 to 0.5 gpm. The third option is a forced recirculation system. These
systems employ a small pump to keep water flowing, thus avoiding stagnation
and the need for residents to run the tap for a long period (particularly
on upper floors) to receive sufficiently hot water. The pumps either are
run continuously or may be cycled on and off by an aquastat.
Although recirculation pumps should be sized
to meet each individual building's requirements, common practice is "one
size fits all." Thus we found the same pump size at all sites. (A methodology
for proper pump size selection can be found on page 45.5 of the 1995 ASHRAE
HVAC
Applications Handbook.)
Our monitoring showed that water consumption
has an inverse relationship with recirculation flow. In the overnight
period, when there is little or no consumption, the pump reaches its maximum
capacity rate. Designers should consider this and the flow curves in Figure
3 when choosing between recirculation control strategies (see "The
Best Boiler and Water Heating Retrofits," HE Sept/Oct '95, p.
27, and "Controlling Recirculation Loop Heat
Losses," HE Jan/Feb '93, p. 9). A new study investigating three
very low-cost approaches to reduce recirculation system losses while maintaining
resident comfort and satisfaction should be completed in early 1997.
Peak Demands and Average Consumption
In the New York City buildings, the average hourly
consumption is only 42% of the consumption in the peak hour. Instead of
sizing a system to be able to provide the peak demand, it's possible to
generate and store hot water during the periods of average and below-average
demand to meet the peak. This could be accomplished by installing a system
with a heater designed to generate the average hourly load, running essentially
continuously, and providing enough storage tank capacity to store unneeded
hot water during the night and furnish it during periods of peak demand
(such as morning shower time).
Figure 4. Parts of three-hour peak and 60-minute peak
consumption. |
Concurrence of Peaks
Beyond the general usage patterns of a building,
peaking times and flows are used to more closely identify demands on the
boiler. Figure 4 shows how all of the peak volumes
contribute to the one-hour and three-hour peak demands on the DHW generation
and/or storage system. These relationships can be used to model various
configurations of hot water supply systems (see "A Sizing
Example").
The 5-, 15-, 60-, 120-, and 180-minute peak demand
times coincide with each other. These volumes should therefore be addressed
as different (time length) measurements within the same peak DHW draw,
so the system can be designed to satisfy this load. An instantaneous system
designed to meet the peak 5-minute draw will have no problem meeting the
rest of the load. Generation and storage systems should be designed both
to provide hot water for the average load and to meet the short, sharp
peaks.
A Sizing Example
Let's take a 58-unit apartment building whose
occupants are a mix of families, middle income couples, and some singles.
Most adults work outside the home. There is a public laundry in the basement
with a few washers, and the leases prohibit both clothes washers and dishwashers
in the apartments (although conversations with the building superintendent
have confirmed that a number of people have such appliances.)
Step 1. Compute the maximum potential occupancy, based on local
standards and expectations, and conversations with the building owner or
manager.
Maximum Total
Apt size Apts people/apt people
3-bedroom 4 x 5 = 20
2-bedroom 14 x 4 = 56
1-bedroom 25 x 3.5 = 87.5
Studios 15 x 2.25 = 33.75
Building total 198
Step 2. Determine the Low, Medium, or High (LMH) usage factor
of the building's occupants from Table 1, based on knowledge of the building,
conversations with the building owner or manager, and observations. Consider
the effect of either currently installed or potential future additions
of appliances that might move a building up to a higher usage category.
Based on the information above, the Medium usage factor was selected.
Instantaneous Systems
For either an instantaneous DHW-only system or a tankless coil in a combination
heat/DHW boiler, first find the system load (gallons per hour) based on
the peak 5-minute demand. Next, convert this to a Btu/h rating. This rating
can then be used to select equipment.
Step 3a. Compute the system load using the 5-minute peak demand
values in Table 2.
Number Peak 5-min Peak
LMH factor of people demand Periods/h system load
Medium 198 x 0.7 gal/person x 12 = 1,663 gal/h
Step 4a. Convert the system load to a Btu/h rating. (In New York
City, the average year-round temperature rise required is about 90oF.)
1/Boiler
System load Conversion Temp rise combustion efficiency DHW load
1,663 gal/hr x 8.33 lb/gal x 90oF x 1/0.8 (80% CE) = 1,558,439 Btu/h
Instantaneous DHW-Only Heater. The 1,558,439 Btu/h should be the
size of the DHW heater. (Note that a higher combustion efficiency should
actually be used for sizing an instantaneous heater; use 85% or the efficiency
specified in the equipment documentation.)
Combination Heat/DHW Boiler. When sizing a tankless coil in a
combination heat/DHW system, the 1,663 gallons per hour is the coil size
to be ordered. The 1,558,439 Btu/h is the additional load capacity for
DHW to be added to the space-heating load to size the boiler. (In an existing
steam heating distribution system, the space-heating load should be computed
by the EDR-equivalent direct radiation-methodology.)
Generation and Storage System
For a system with a mix of generation and storage, calculate the generator
size based on the peak 30-minute demand to get a Btu/h rating. Calculate
the storage tank volume based on the maximum three-hour demand.
Step 3b. Compute the system load using the peak 30-minute and
maximum three-hour hot water values in Table 2.
Number Peak 30-min
LMH factor of people demand category Periods/h System load
Medium 198 x 2.9 gal/person x 2 = 1,148 gal/h
Number Maximum 3-hours
LMH factor of people demand category Storage
volume Medium 198 x 11 gal/person = 2,178 gal
Step 4b. Next, convert the load into equipment ratings.
1/Boiler
System load Conversion Temp rise combustion efficiency DHW load
1,148 gal/h x 8.33 lb/gal x 90oF x 1/0.85 (85% CE) = 1,012,536 Btu/h
The 1,012,536 Btu/h is the size of the hot-water heater. This heater should
then be used to supply 2,100 gallons of unfired storage tanks.
Estimating Consumption in Existing Buildings
To estimate how much hot water is used in a building for energy consumption
or savings calculations, use the LMH factor and the average day hot-water
value in Table 2. In this calculation, replace the
maximum potential occupancy from Step 1 with the actual current (or best-guess
recent) occupancy level.
Step 3c. Calculate system load using the average day values in
Table
2.
Current number Average day
LMH factor of people demand System load
Medium 153 x 30 gal/person = 4,590 gal/day
|
Straighten Up and Size Right
There seem to be as many different types of DHW
heating systems as there are people who design them. What they all attempt
to accomplish is to provide the correct mix of generation capacity and
storage to satisfy both the peaks and the average load. One major concern
during the development of the LMH approach was the acceptance and use of
the new system. Because it results in higher load estimates than the old
guidelines, it is important that the new method be used correctly.
If the current practice of defensive oversizing
is applied to the new guidelines, this will only exaggerate the capital
and energy inefficiencies experienced in the past. It is therefore important
for the designer to recognize the inherent safety nets in the new approach.
The most significant of these is that the method uses the building's maximum
potential occupancy, which may never actually occur. Also, using the new
guidelines, an engineer designs a system to satisfy the higher-volume but
short-duration peaks (not delineated in the old guidelines), which occur
only a few times during the year. Even if the system were not able to satisfy
that load, the problems would probably be minor-for instance, the occupants
might experience slightly lower temperature hot water at their taps a few
times per year.
The main question concerning acceptance and use
of the new guidelines is whether the designers and energy professionals
are comfortable with their reliability and professional backing. ASHRAE's
Technical Committee 6.6 (Service Hot Water) was the main force in the call
for a new sizing tool based on the vast quantity of real-time data that
has been collected. The new joint ASHRAE/ASPE Domestic Hot Water Design
Manual, scheduled for publication this fall, should also provide substantial
support for those who wish to size systems properly. It includes a how-to
sizing guide for 17 different building types-from residential buildings
to commercial, industrial, and recreational facilities.
Further Reading
"Chapter 45: Service Hot Water," In 1995 ASHRAE
Handbook: HVAC Applications, Atlanta: ASHRAE, 1995.
Goldner, F.S. "DHW System Sizing Criteria for
Multifamily Buildings." ASHRAE Transactions 100, No.1 (January 1994):
147-65.
Goldner, F.S. Energy Use and DHW Consumption
Research Project, Report No. 94-19. Final Report: Phase 1. Prepared
by Energy Management and Research Associates for New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, November 1994.
Goldner, F.S., and D.C. Price. "Domestic Hot
Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection for Multifamily Buildings." In
1994 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings Proceedings,
2.105-2.116. Berkeley, CA: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,1994.
| Back to Contents Page
|
Home Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy
|
EREN Home Page |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright
Notice

|