Analysis of Methods for Estimating Water Demand in Buildings

Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science Degree

In the
Department of Biomedical, Chemical and Environmental Engineering
Of
The College of Engineering and Applied Science
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
June 25th, 2014

Prepared by:
Toritseju O. Omaghomi
B.Eng. (Agricultural Engineering) University of Ilorin, Kwara, Nigeria, 2004

Committee Chair:

Dr. Steven G. Buchberger, University Of Cincinnati

Committee Members:

Dr. Dominic Boccelli, University of Cincinnati

Dr. Thomas Poerio, P.E., Univesco LLC, Pittsburgh

Analysis of Methods for Estimating Water Demand in Buildings

Abstract
The estimation of water demand in a building is a useful tool for planning, design and
construction purposes. Estimates of peak water demand expected from a building is the main
determining factor of pipe size for water distribution within the building. The three key
parameters that affect water demand in buildings are the number of fixtures to be supplied
water, the probability that each fixture is busy and the flow rate of each group of fixtures within
a building. The current methods of estimating water demand as prescribed by the UPC and IPC
involves graphical interpretations of fixtures units from the works of Roy Hunter (1940). Hunters
method, although thorough and classic, involves cumbersome calculations and is not flexible to
the current changes in water use patterns and high efficiency fixtures. This study focuses on
water use in residential buildings and it can be extended to other end uses provided the key
parameters are known. A water demand algorithm was developed using MATLAB software. The
algorithm utilizes the binomial distribution in a Monte Carlo method to randomly simulate water
use events in a building. The result of these simulations is used to generate a cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of demand flows, from which the design water demand (99th
percentile) is extracted. A comparison of these simulated peak water demand methods show
that Hunters curve overestimates water demand. Wistorts application of the Central Limit
Theorem is a reliable method while a modified version of Wistorts method includes the variation
in flow due to end users choice or pressure drop. Results from the water demand algorithm from
a wide range of building end users was normalized into generic dimensionless demand curves
that can be applied to any building type with random water use for known values of n, p and q.

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
My sincere gratitude goes to my advisor Dr. Steven G. Buchberger for his constant support, words
of encouragement and for providing invaluable suggestion throughout the duration of this
project. Additional thanks go out to Dr. Dominic Boccelli for suggesting that the Binomial random
method for simulating water use and Dr. Thomas Poerio for his prompt feedback on other
relevant water use issues as regards this project. A big thank you goes to Dan Cole of IAPMO for
provision of AQUACRAFT Database.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents, siblings and extended family for their prayers,
love, unconditional support and understanding during my study. To my friends who listened to
me even when they would rather not, I say thank you very much.
Financial support for this work was provided by the University Graduate Assistantship from the
University of Cincinnati.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section

Page

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................ix
List of Notation ...............................................................................................................xi

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Study Objectives ..................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Hunters Method .................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Wistorts Method ................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Other Models for Water Demand Estimation ..................................................... 10
2.4 Key Parameters for Estimating Water Demand ................................................... 11

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Determining Peak Water Use from Field Measurements .................................... 13
3.1.1 Congested versus Non Congested Use .................................................... 20
3.1.2 Total Time versus Busy Time .................................................................... 21
v

3.2 Water Demand Algorithm .................................................................................... 24

3.3 Revised Hunters Curve/Fixture Weights ............................................................. 29
3.4 Wistorts Boundary Conditions ............................................................................ 30
3.5 Direct Calculation ................................................................................................. 34

4. Results .................................................................................................................... 37
4.1 General ................................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Comparison of Water Demand Estimates ............................................................ 37
4.3 Dimensionless Demand Curve ............................................................................. 40

5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 50

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 54
6.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 54
6.2 Future Research ................................................................................................... 55

References .............................................................................................................. 56

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 58
Appendix A. ............................................................................................................. 59
Appendix B. ............................................................................................................. 65
Appendix C. ............................................................................................................. 73

vi

List of Tables
Table 2-1

Finding the 99th percentile for busy fixtures ........................................ 8

Table 2-2

Relative demand weight of fixture (Hunter 1940)

Table 3-1

Probability calculations for a busy shower from survey data of 6

.............................. 9

residential buildings .......................................................................... 19

Table 3-2

Total Time: Expected number of busy fixture, np

........................... 22

Table 3-3

Busy Time: Expected number of busy fixture, np* ............................. 23

Table 3-4

Total time , busy time variance and COV ............................................ 23

Table 3-5

Parameters required for demand flow estimation in a building .......... 25

Table 3-6

Probability distribution of busy fixtures in a hypothetical residential

building ............................................................................................. 27

Table 3-7

Example: 10 Simulations of busy fixtures in a hypothetical residential

building ............................................................................................. 27

Table 3-8

Examples of cdf of the standard normal deviate ................................ 31

Table 3-9

Criteria for suitability of normal approximation to binomial distribution

.......................................................................................................... 32

Table 4-1

Summary of n, p and q values for sample residential buildings ........... 38

Table 4-2

Summary of n, p and q values for 4000 different building fixture

configurations ................................................................................... 41

Table 4-3

Calculating the weighted flow rate .................................................... 43

Table 4-4

Calculating estimates of demand flow ............................................... 48

Table 5-1

Summary of simulation count test ..................................................... 51

vii

Table 5-2

Summary of difference in total time versus busy time flow calculations

.......................................................................................................... 53

Table A-1

Parameters for revised Hunters method ........................................... 60

Table A-2

Relative demand weights of fixtures (Revised) ................................... 62

Table C-1

Expected values for flows in a building with K fixture groups .............. 75

viii

List of Figures
Figure 2-1

Fixture Operation ................................................................................ 6

Figure 2-2

Estimate Curve for design purposes (Hunter 1940) ............................... 9

Figure 3-1

Screenshot of water use survey records ............................................. 14

Figure 3-2

Query: Hourly records for volume of water used per fixture .............. 15

Figure 3-3

Daily water use pattern during study period in a residential building . 15

Figure 3-4

Query: Summary of hourly records of volume of water used per home

surveyed ........................................................................................... 16

Figure 3-5

Peak hour of water use during study period ....................................... 16

Figure 3-6

Illustration of congested use at a single fixture .................................. 20

Figure 3-7

Flow chart of the Water Demand Algorithm ...................................... 25

Figure 3-8

CDF of demand flow in a hypothetical residential building ................. 29

Figure 3-9

Boundary conditions for normal approximation of the binomial

distribution ....................................................................................... 32

Figure 3-10

Binomial distribution where n = 15 with different probability of use .. 33

Figure 4-1

Sensitivity of Water Demand Estimate to key parameters .................. 39

Figure 4-2

Sensitivity of CDF to fixture efficiency level ........................................ 40

Figure 4-3

Demand cloud of 99th percentile demand flows for different

hypothetical parameters in 4000 buildings ....................................... 41

ix

Figure 4-4

99th Percentile Dimensionless Design Curve ....................................... 44

Figure 4-5(a)

Dimensionless Design Curve (H < 10).................................................. 45

Figure 4-5(b)

Dimensionless Design Curve (200 < H < 300)....................................... 46

Figure 4-5(c)

Dimensionless Design Curve (400 < H < 500)....................................... 46

Figure 4-6

Estimating Demand from a Dimensionless Demand Curve .................. 48

Figure A-1

99th Percentile plot of probable flow (Revised) ................................... 61

Figure A-2

Combined 99th Percentile demand flow ............................................. 63

Figure A-3

Revised Estimate Curve ..................................................................... 64

Figure B-1

CDF of demand flow .......................................................................... 72

Figure B-2

Histogram of Busy Fixtures ................................................................ 72

Figure C-1

Sensitivity of Dimensionless Design flow to p ..................................... 81

Figure C-2

Sensitivity of busy-time COV to p ....................................................... 81

List of Notations
The following symbols are used in this report.
B

Total fixture busy time (minutes)

H (n,p)

Expected number of busy fixtures, given busy conditions

HoD

Hour of the Day

k, K

Number of fixture types

m, M

Number of buildings

n, N

Number of fixtures

Probability of busy fixture

Representative average probability of use for a busy fixture (opportunity weighted)

P0

Probability that no fixtures are in use

Design water flow rate of fixture (gpm)

Representative average flow for a busy fixture (opportunity weighted)

Demand flow rate for a combination of fixture types (gpm)

Q (n, p)

Dimensionless demand flow

Duration of water flow when fixture is in use (minutes)

Average time between successive fixture uses (minutes)

Number of water use events

Volume of water (gallons)

Total fixture observation time

Number of busy fixtures (0, 1, 2 n)

Standard Normal random variable with mean 0 and variance 1

xi

Summation of variables

Product of variables

Coefficient of Variation

Standard deviation

Variance

Mean

xii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Problem Statement

Water end users differ depending on a buildings function. There are typical end user groups like
residential, industrial, commercial, institutional and public end users. Residential water use varies
greatly and is dependent on weather conditions/location, water availability, time of the day/day
of the week, household size, age group within household, occupation of residents and fixture
types (Blokker et al., 2010). Within a residential building, different types of water fixture can be
found such as shower, toilet, faucets, clothes washer and dishwasher etc. Efficient indoor
plumbing is one of the ways in which water distribution can be improved by using water efficient
plumbing fixtures such as low-flow showers, etc. Water efficient fixtures and appliances can
contribute to the reduction in water use from fixture fittings. The continuous promotion and
endorsement of water efficiency measures (EPA water sense) is a very effective way of reducing
water usage thus lowering water demand from buildings. A good estimation of water demand
for pipe sizing purposes is necessary with the constant improvement of plumbing fixtures and
water saving methods. The study of consumer water use behavior will provide a good
measurement of water efficiency and water use patterns in buildings. The results and
measurements from such a study is applicable for determining water demand in a building as it
is an essential water management practice that enables the understanding of changes in water
use patterns.
In determining the pipe size for plumbing fixtures, an estimate of the peak water demand is
required. The determination of peak water demand from a building requires the following key
1

parameters: n (fixture count), q (fixture flow rate) and p (probability of a busy fixture). The current
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) employs a methodology from the early 1940 from the works of
Roy Hunter that utilizes all these parameters in estimating peak water demand for buildings.
Hunter developed a graphical representation for easy interpretation Hunters curve. Hunters
method is also applied around the globe however, the suitability of his methodology in the
millennium is put to question as it overestimates design demand flows (AWWA, 2004).
Overestimated demand flows directly results in over sizing the pipes within a building. Oversized
pipes have larger volumes of water within the pipes, this poses a health risk during periods of low
flow and stagnant conditions, which are suitable conditions for the growth of some microbes
such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and legionellae (WHO 2011). These microbes thrive in
distribution systems with varying water temperatures between 25 C and 50 C e.g. domestic hot
water systems (WHO 2011). Pipe corrosion is also exacerbated by stagnation. Chemicals are
released from corroding pipes and their ttings (e.g. cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel) within a
building distribution network (WHO 2011). Also oversized pipes aid water and energy wasting in
a building while waiting for hot water at a fixture. Klein, (2004) determined that the volume of
water wasted is directly proportional to the pipe diameter in his analysis of the wait time for hot
water at a fixture. After a hot water use event, a larger volume of water is cooled in a larger pipe
compared to a smaller pipe (e.g., 1 pipe compared to a pipe) resulting in water/energy
wasting especially when hot water use event are infrequent (Klein, 2004). These fallouts from
overestimated water demand in a building goes beyond just updating the design codes, it affects
end users and the environment indicating a cogent need to update the method of estimating
peak water demand in buildings.
2

Design conditions in the early 1940s are very different from today. Years ago, designers required
manual calculation, made lots of assumptions and there was no water conservation technique in
place. Todays technology provides reliable statistical tools for analysis that can be applied
alongside the water conserving measures already in place e.g., high efficiency fixtures. Over the
years there has been little documented progress made in updating Hunters method. Hunter
(1940) focused on congested use (i.e., there is a queue waiting to use a fixture) and a large
number of available fixture as the basis for peak demand. This is easily applicable to buildings
with a large number of fixtures and a high probability busy fixtures during a peak period e.g., half
time in a stadium or opera house etc. There are various modifications to Hunters method which
is usually based on the users experience as it applies to different buildings thus resulting in a
plethora of design curves for different end users under various conditions. There is currently no
consensus on a modification to Hunters Curve for estimating peak water demand that is
applicable to todays high efficiency buildings. In 1994, Robert Wistort proposed a direct
analytical method to determine water demand in buildings. Wistort (1994) incorporates Hunters
(1940) probabilistic theory with a normal approximation of the binomial distribution to
determine the 99th percentile flow for a combination of different fixture types. Wistorts method
was not vetted as an update to Hunters method. The assumptions and limitations of Hunter
(1940) and Wistort (1994) make their methods especially unsuitable for estimating demand flow
in single residential homes. In these settings, the number of fixtures is usually small (n < 20) and
the probability of use p is very low. In such cases, the minimum pipe size recommended for the
main pipe into a building is [UPC 610.10], and such pipe size can conveniently deliver about
10 gpm (12 gpm depending on the pipe type and smoothness) with a velocity of 8 feet per second
3

within a buildings distribution system. This minimum pipe size will be used in design when the
estimated total demand for a building is less than 10gpm. There is also a possibility of under
estimating water demand that will result in undersized pipes due to inconsistency in the
application of the current code (users modifications based on experience). Undersized pipes
would require higher pressure to deliver water at comparable flow rates to a properly sized pipe.
Higher pressure in pipes encourages cavitation that can result in noisy situations, vibrations and
cause damage to the pipes. At lower flow velocities in the pipes, microbial growth is promoted
(WHO, 2011).
The conditions of transition from the deterministic method (using minimum code requirements)
to a probabilistic approach for estimating demand flow in a building are yet to be defined. The
probability of fixture use changes as the building size, fixture count and occupancy changes, thus
the need to employ a probabilistic approach in determining the demand flow for different end
users. In pipe sizing for single households, a deterministic method may be employed while for
multiple apartment complexes, a probabilistic method would be most suitable. A cumulative
distribution function (CDF) that reflects possible water use scenarios in a building can provide a
true picture of the combinations of fixture use and their corresponding demand flows. The design
demand flow from the CDF for multiple buildings of different end users will be a starting point
for the development of a new generalized design curve that incorporates the characteristics of
todays buildings and can be applied to a wide range of end users.

1.2.

Study Objectives

The goal of this research is to develop and demonstrate a rigorous, reliable, reasonable method
for estimating the peak water demand in buildings. This goal has three primary objectives and
three secondary objectives.
Primary Objectives - The primary objectives of this research are:
(a) Generate and verify the full cumulative distribution function (CDF) of random water
demands at any point in a building, given the number (n) and operating characteristics (p,
q) of all downstream end uses. This CDF will represent the ground truth or benchmark
for subsequent comparisons.
(b) Compare estimates of peak water demands from other analytical methods (e.g., Hunter,
Wistort, and Modified Wistort) against the benchmark CDF; define the regions of
applicability for these analytical approximations.
(c) Identify conditions that control the transition from a deterministic method to a
probabilistic method for estimating peak water demand in buildings; in particular,
determine the conditions at which results from a total time peak flow analysis and a
busy time peak flow analysis are identical.
Secondary Objectives The secondary objectives of this research include:
(d) Study water consumption patterns measured in single family homes and determine
representative values for the probability of use for various fixtures during the peak period
of the day.
(e) Determine the scale at which probability averaging can be used to estimate the peak
demand expected from a diverse collection of downstream end uses.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The pattern of water demand from a residential home is random, and it changes with time and
location. The inherent randomness in residential water use makes it difficult to estimate the
water demands (Clark et al., 2004). The effectiveness of water distribution within a building is a
function of the pipe size, pressure from the main distribution and vertical distance traveled
between the meter and the fixture at an end point. According to the UPC 610.10, the size of the
water meter and pipe shall be determined based on the total demand. The piping system is also
designed to ensure maximum velocities permitted by code (8 fps) and account for pressure drops
between the meter and the fixture. A fixture water demand is determined by multiplying the
number of fixture by its corresponding fixture weight to get its fixture units (FU). The total water
demand is a sum of different fixture water demand (FU) in a building. The FU is a common
currency between different fixtures; it was derived by Hunter (1940) and it is still in use today
around the world.

2.1.

Hunters Method

Hunter (1940) developed a theoretical and graphically convenient method for estimating water
use in buildings with the assumptions that the fixture would experience constant demand. Hunter
(1940) designed for a 1% chance that demand will be exceeded and his calculations were based
on the probability that a fixture is either idle or busy and that all the fixtures might not be used
simultaneously. The duration and frequency of each fixture use are different, and these served
as characteristic parameters in determining the peak demand flow in pipes. For example,
suppose a water closet is operated for t = 9 second and demand for each flush q = 4 gallons; the
6

design flow rate Q required would be [(4 gallons /9 sec)*(60 sec/min) = 26.6 gpm] approximately
27 gpm. If the average water closet flushes at 5 minute (300 seconds) T interval as depicted in
Figure 2-1, the probability of the busy fixture is t/T i.e., 9/300 = 0.03. Figure 2-1 shows 2 uses of
duration t at a water fixture.
p=

t
T

[1]

Figure 2-1: Fixture Operation

Water use at a single fixture is a Bernoulli trial, that is, there are only two possible outcomes; the
fixture is either on or off (busy or idle). It follows that, given a bank of n identical fixtures
each with probability p of being busy, the probability that exactly x fixtures are busy is given by
the binomial distribution with parameters n and p,

Pr (

) = ( ) (1 )

The 99th percentile of the binomial distribution is given by

= 0,1,2, ,

[2]

( ) (1 ) 0.99

{0 < }

[3]

=0

Let x be the smallest integer that satisfies Equation [3]. Hunter adopted this value as the number
of busy fixtures needed to compute the design plumbing load for a bank of n identical fixtures.
To illustrate, consider a building with n = 4 water closets (WC), p = 0.20 and q = 4 gpm. Using the
binomial model, the probability distribution of busy fixtures is computed and summarized in
Table 2-1 which shows the 99th percentile occurs at x = 3 busy fixtures. The corresponding 99th
percentile for the design flow is 3 fixtures x 4 gpm/fixture = 12 gpm, as shown in Table 2-1. The
probability of having more than 3 busy WC under congested conditions is less than 1% in this
example.
Table 2-1: Finding 99th percentile for busy fixtures with n = 4 and p = 0.20

(1)
Busy
Fixtures

(2)
Eq [2] with
n = 4; p = 0.2

0
1
2
3
4

0.4096
0.4096
0.1536
0.0256
0.0016

(3)

(4)

Sum Col (2)

1 - Col (3)

(5)
Flow
(gpm)

0.4096
0.8192
0.9728
0.9984
1.0000

0.5904
0.1808
0.0272
0.0016
0.0000

0
4
8
12
16

This example is for one fixture type and buildings typically have multiple fixture types. To find
the 99th percentile of the flow from a mixture of fixtures types, Hunter (1940) devised a clever
weighting scheme by comparing fixture counts with the same probable demand flow. He
assigned arbitrary weight to a fixture and estimated the corresponding relative weights for the
other fixtures as shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2:

Relative demand weights of fixtures (Hunter 1940)

Flush Valves
Flush Tanks
Bathtubs
Number
Number
Number
Demand
of
of
Relative
of
Relative
(gpm)
Weight
Fixtures
Fixtures Weight Fixtures Weight
n
n
n
150
56
10
133
4.21
167
3.35
200
93
10
185
5.03
238
3.91
250
133
10
238
5.59
312
4.26
300
176
10
292
6.03
398
4.42
Average weight
10
5.21
3.99

The product of the number of fixtures and their relative weights gives the Fixture Unit (FU). The
FU is summed and converted to the total demand (gpm) from a plot [Figure 2-2]. This method
was convenient for its time however, todays demand is considerably different from 1940 due to
improved technology designed to reduce rate of water consumption (Beal et., al, 2013).

Figure 2-2: Estimate curve for design purposes (Hunter 1940)

2.2.

Wistorts Method

Wistort (1994) applied a normal approximation to the binomial distribution to directly find
demand flow from the mean and variance of the flows for K different fixture types. This approach
is straight forward as it calculates the 99th percentile demand flow without the need for fixture
units using Equation [4]. As before, the number of busy fixtures x is a random variable with a
binomial distribution. It has a mean E[X] = np and variance Var [X] = np (1-p).

(1) = + (1) (1 )q2

=1

[4]

=1

In this expression, nk is the number of fixtures in fixture group k, pk is the probability of a single
fixture in fixture group k been busy, qk is the flow rate of fixture group k and Z (1-) is the critical
value that corresponds to the 1- percentile of the standard normal distribution with level of
significance.

2.3.

Other Models for Water Demand Estimation

There are models on estimating the peak demand flow in a building such as Poisson rectangular
pulse (PRP) model (Buchberger et al, 2003) and the end use model SIMDEUM (Blokker et al,
2010). The PRP assumes the frequency of residential water use to follow a Poisson arrival process
with a time dependent rate parameter (Buchberger and Wu, 1995). Water use is represented by
a single rectangular pulse based on the intensity and duration at an individual fixture. The PRP
model utilizes 5 input parameters to generate the residential water demands, namely mean and
variance for pulse intensity, mean and variance for pulse duration and the average customer
10

arrival rate. The PRP model will generate water demands for every second of the day and
averages grouped consecutive 1-s flows to the desired time step of the user. It is a descriptive
model for estimating peak demands. SIMDEUM (Simulation of water demand: an end-use model)
is a model based on statistical information of users and end-user, namely household size and age
distribution, frequency of use, duration of use, flow per water use for the different types of
fixtures (Blokker et al., 2010). It is based on the principle of rectangular pulses from enduse
intensity, frequency of use, duration and the probability of busy fixtures over the day based on
the different users. The model took into account the different types of end-uses (water closet,
shower, bathtub, etc.) fixtures in a residential home, users household size, age, occupationimportant for frequency and duration of use, intensity of flow varies for fixtures such as a
shower and faucet and the time of water use based on the time of the day. The models good
comparison to measured data was greatly attributed to the use of statistical information on the
home and residents surveyed. The need for statistical analysis in the estimation of water demand
cannot be overemphasized. It will provide a true picture of domestic water use patterns. Water
use patterns may vary for different locations, but the basic parameters such as probability of a
busy fixture, number of fixture and fixture flow rate is adequate information useful for estimating
water demand in a building.

2.4.

Key parameters for estimating water demand

There is a mathematical method that can enumerates the various possible outcomes of fixture
use in a building and determines the exact probability from expected outcomes. This is similar to
the binomial distribution; however, there is the flexibility for variation in the probability because
each fixture can have a different probability. Buchberger et al. (2012) examined the effect of
11

variations in probability and of fixture flow rates on estimating the 99th percentile demand flow
in a home with 7 different fixtures. With an average probability of use same as the binomial
probability of success, the resulting cumulative distribution function (CDF) of demand flow rates
varied only by 1%. Overall, in one limited study, variations in fixture use probability did not greatly
affect the resulting CDF and the 99th percentile demand flow.
The probability of a busy fixture is a relevant information that is not yet readily available for
different fixtures type and similar end users. It can only be determined from field studies. An
example is a survey of residential end uses of water by AQUACRAFT (AWWA, 1999). Over 1100
homes at 12 different locations in the United States were surveyed, and their water use
measured for an average of 10 days. Meter Master 100EL loggers were installed in each
participating home. The logger recorded flow trace at a 10 seconds interval. The flow trace was
analyzed by a Trace Wizard software and further disaggregated into individual fixture end uses.
(AWWA, 1999). Data such as duration of flow, volume of flow, hour of the day and number of
use per fixture type were recorded for every water use activity in these homes. Analysis of such
dataset would produce an insight on water use patterns in residential buildings and can be used
as the basis for estimating demand flow and subsequently pipe sizing. An accurate and up-todate method of estimating peak water demand is necessary for efficient water distribution within
a building as it will adapt current water usage patterns and aid proper design.

12

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1.

Determining peak water use from field measurements

The determination of busy fixtures is dependent on the fixture count n, and the probability that
a fixture is busy p. The corresponding flow from a group of busy fixtures is the sum of the
individual busy fixture flow rate q. The fixture count n is a physical feature and can be physically
measured, while the flow rate q has a nominal value from the manufacturer that is unique to
each fixture. However, the probability that a fixture is busy p is a social feature that is dependent
on human behavior but also relative to the fixture count. The value of p can only be estimated
from field studies of how water is used by different end users.

The probability that a fixture is busy can simply be defined as the percentage of time water is
running from a fixture during the observation period for that fixture. Hunter (1940) simplified it
to equation [1] P = t/T where t = duration of fixture operation and T = duration between
consecutive operation of fixture. The expression t is determined from field measurement while
T is rather confusing and elusive. The probability that a fixture is busy can be accurately estimated
from data collected in the field. One of such field measurement is the AQUACRAFT water survey
data set. Water sensors were used to gather data on water use within the buildings surveyed.
The data collected were categorized according to the fixture/appliance in use. Start time, end
time, number of events and volume of flow for each end use event were assigned to the hourly
interval in which they occurred. Other relevant survey information such as number of occupants,
age group, location, date of survey, age of building, were collected and matched to a unique
building identifier (Keycode). Details of the water survey were stored in a Microsoft Access
13

database that can be queried. Figure 3-1 shows a screenshot of records from water end use study
with the key information highlighted

Figure 3-1: Screen shot of water use survey records

From the summary of the water survey, the following details can be extracted on an hourly basis
for every fixture type in the buildings surveyed.

U = number of events/ uses

V = volume of water that flowed (gallons)

t = duration of water flowing (minutes)

Record of water flow that cannot be associated to any fixture is referred to as a leak. The
probability that a fixture is busy varies during the day with periods of high use, low use and
sometimes no use. This behavior is captured properly when a day is split into intervals and details
of fixture use within these intervals are investigated. A one hour interval is convenient and other
intervals can be fixed based on available data and need. The probability of a busy fixture can be
determined for any hour of the day, however, for design purposes, the probability of a busy
fixture during the peak hour is what is required for water demand estimation- peak water
demand. The peak hour of water use in a building, is the hour that has the highest volume of flow
recorded during the observation period. Figure 3-2 from a database shows the volume of water
14

recorded in each hour for each fixture type while Figure 3-3 is a graphical representation of daily
water use in a building.

Figure 3-2: Query: Hourly records for the volume of water used per fixture per home
Flow volume (gallons)

16
Day 1

14

Day 2

12

Day 3
Day 4

10

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8
Day 9

Day 10

0
0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HoD

Figure 3-3: Daily water use pattern during study period in a residential home
The total volume of water used from the fixtures in a building can be queried from the database
(Figure 3-4). This summary captures the water use pattern -as shown graphically in Figure 3-5 for the specific building.

15

Figure 3-4: Query: Summary of hourly records of volume of water used per home surveyed
A plot of the summary values of water flow in a building (Figure 3-5) clearly identifies the peak
hour (HoD 7) and the diurnal pattern of this residential end use.

Volume (gallons)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HoD
Figure 3-5: Peak of water use during study period in a residential home (n = 16 fixtures)
Details of water use during the peak hour is then extracted to determine to probability of a busy
fixture for the different fixtures types in the building.
Case 1 One fixture (n = 1)
Suppose that a fixture is used U times during an observation period with duration W, the busy
time B resulting from the U uses of this fixture is

[5]

=1

Where tu is the duration of water use every u time at a fixture.

16

The probability that this fixture is busy is given by,

=

[6]

Dividing the expression by U gives the expression for p as defined by Hunter (1940) and used by
Wistort (1994).
1

=
=
1

[7]

Example 1: A building with one shower is monitored for 10 days. Measurements show that the
peak hour was observed between 7:00 am and 8:00 am with 12 occasions of use for a total
duration of 69 minutes of busy time when water was flowing.
From the above description, the busy period B = 69 minutes, the observation period W = 10 days
* 60 minutes/day = 600 minutes and the number of uses U = 12. The average shower duration t
= B/U = 69 minutes/12 shower uses = 5.75 minutes per shower use. The average duration
between consecutive shower use, T = W/U = 600 minutes/12 = 50 minutes.
Using expression [5]

Using expression [6]

69
=
= 0.115

600

5.75
=
= 0.115

50

Case 2: Multiple fixture of the same group in a building (i.e., n > 1)

Suppose that any of the fixtures in the same group is used U times during an observation period
with duration W. The expression [6] gives the probability that the group of fixtures (N>1) is busy
in the building. The probability that a single fixture is busy is given by
17

[8]

The expression [8] assumes that each fixture in a group is equally likely to be used.
Example 2: From the previous example 1 where B = 69 minutes, U = 12 events and W = 600
minutes, let N = 2.
The probability that any given individual shower is busy in the peak hour (between 7:00 am and
8:00 am) is
=

69
= 0.0575
2 600

Case 3: Multiple fixture of the same group in multiple buildings (i.e., n > 1 and M > 1)
The preceding 2 examples can be generalized to estimate the probability of use for an individual
fixture of the same group from a study of multiple similar M buildings. In this case, the probability
that an individual fixture is busy is given by

1 + 2 + +
1 1 + 2 2 + +

[9]

This expression can also be written as a weighted average of individual building fixture
probabilities.

[10]

=1

18

Where pm is given by equation [8] and m is a weighting factor for each building m

=1

[11]

= 1.0

Example 3: Water use in 6 residential buildings was monitored for a period ranging from 10 14
days. The data in Table 3-1 show the details of shower activities for the peak hours of each home
and their average probability of fixture use (depending on external factors, each residential home
has a unique peak hour). Table 3-1 also shows the average probability that a fixture is busy in a
residential home based on sampling of activities in 6 similar residential homes.
Table 3-1: Probability calculations for a busy shower from survey data of 6 residential homes
[1]

[2]

[3]

Shower
Building Observation Fixture
number
Days
Count

[4]

[5]

Shower
Fixture
Events

Home
Observation
Window
(minutes)

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Average
Fixture
Peak
Average
Time
Observation
Hour
Duration between
Time
Busy Time per event
uses
(minutes)
(minutes) (minutes) (minutes)

[10]

[11]

[12]

Average
Weighted
probability Weighting Probability
of Use
factor
of Use
pm = B/N*W

D *60 minutes
W

N*W

t = B /U

T = N*W/U

pm = t/ T

m *pm

1
2
3
4
5
6

12
10
11
12
13
14

2
2
3
1
3
1

7
18
7
10
11
9

720
600
660
720
780
840

1440
1200
1980
720
2340
840

77.33
203.00
62.33
112.83
63.33
89.00

11.05
11.28
8.90
11.28
5.76
9.89

205.71
66.67
282.86
72.00
212.73
93.33

0.0537
0.1692
0.0315
0.1567
0.0271
0.1060

0.1690
0.1408
0.2324
0.0845
0.2746
0.0986

0.0091
0.0238
0.0073
0.0132
0.0074
0.0104

4320

8520

607.83

58.16

933.30

0.5441

1.0000

0.0713

Totals

The values in columns [1] [7] are from field measurements. The probability of shower use in a
home of similar use (Residential) as per data sampling above can be calculated as follows:

607.83
=1
From equation [9]; =
=
= 0.0713
=1
8520

19

From equation [10];

= = 0.0713
=1

The above example reflects the average probability of a busy shower from the peak hour in each
home. Care should be taken when residential homes from a large dataset are sub-grouped as
factors like number of occupants, age of occupants and duration of study can affect the average
probability of fixture use. The definition of peak use can also be based on the individual fixtures
and details from the hour of maximum fixture use (volume wise) in each home can replace
column 7 in Table 3-1. This approach would however, assume that all the fixtures in a building
peak during the same hour.

3.1.1. Congested versus Non Congested Use

Wistort (1994) adopted Hunters method of determining the probability of fixture use, however
not necessarily under congested use. From the illustration in the Figure 3-6 let T = To + Tu. Where
t = average duration of flow for a given fixture in one use (minutes)
To = average time that a fixture is occupied for use (minutes)
Tu = average time between use that a fixture is unoccupied (minutes)
T = average time between successive operation of a given fixture (minutes)

Figure 3-6: Illustration of congested use at a single fixture

20

Hunters congested use assumes Tu = 0 hence T = To. For example, in calculating the probability
of a busy fixture that flows for 9 seconds and occupied (thereby unavailable for use) for 5 minutes
is =

9
5 60 (secs)

= 0.03 provided the fixture is immediately occupied.

However, Wistort (1994) allowed for situations where a fixture is not under constant demand i.e.
Tu > 0. Therefore, if the fixture illustrated above is not occupied for another 20 minutes, the
probability of use is =

9
(5+20 )60 (secs)

= 0.006. The value of Tu varies thus making it difficult

to estimate. p is inversely proportional to Tu.

3.1.2. Total time versus Busy time

The calculations to determine the probability of a busy fixture p from a bank of n fixtures of the
same type, implicitly includes the probability that no fixture is busy and can be referred to as
total time probability. Depending on the size of n, this probability of zero busy fixtures (P0) can
be high and translates to a less than 1 expected number of busy fixtures (np < 1). In practice, this
is not possible as there has to be at least 1 busy fixture for flow to occur in a home. The effect of
total time probability is only evident in cases where n is very low, and p tends towards its lower
boundary 0. Table 3-2 shows the expected number of busy fixture np from a single fixture type
with the highlighted number of fixtures below 1.

21

Table 3-2: Total Time: Expected number of busy fixture, np

n 1
p
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00

0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00

10

50

100

500

1000

0.05
0.25
0.50
2.50
5.00

0.10
0.50
1.00
5.00
10.00

0.50
2.50
5.00
25.00
50.00

1.00
5.00
10.00
50.00
100.00

5.00
25.00
50.00
250.00
500.00

10.00
50.00
100.00
500.00
1000.00

Busy time probability on the other hand, is conditioned on at least one fixture in use. It
eliminates the possibility of no busy fixtures and redistributes the P0 probability among the other
probabilities of at least one fixture is busy (P(x>1)). This means, the probability of zero busy fixtures
would be set at p = 0 and the subsequent probabilities (P(x>1)) will be normalized by the probability
of at least one busy fixture.
Let p be the total time probability and p* be the busy time probability.
Busy time probability is calculated using the equation [12]
=

[12]

Where is a dimensionless mean correction factor

=

1
1 P0

[13]

From Equation [2], when x = 0

0

Pr (
) = ( ) 0 (1 )0

0

P0 = (1 )

therefore

= (1 )

1
1 (1 )

Table 3-3 shows the expected number of busy fixtures from one fixture type using busy time
probability equation [12] with the minimum expected number of busy fixture as 1.

22

Table 3-3: Busy Time: Expected number of busy fixture, np*

n

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.02
1.11
1.22
2.58
5.00

10

50

100

500

1000

1.05
1.25
1.54
5.00
10.00

1.27
2.71
5.03
25.00
50.00

1.58
5.03
10.00
50.00
100.00

5.03
25.00
50.00
250.00
500.00

10.00
50.00
100.00
500.00
1000.00

p
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00

As expected, as n and p increase, the busy time and total time results converge. This reflects a
practical situation where there is at least a busy fixture from a large bank of n fixtures or where
the probability that a fixture is busy is high. Total time and busy time can also be applied to
variance and coefficient of variation (COV) for busy fixtures with the expressions in table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Total time, busy time variance and COV

x 0,1, 2 ... n

TOTAL TIME VIEW:

x 1, 2 ... n

BUSY TIME VIEW:

Includes the case where all fixtures are idle; that

is, it allows the possibility that x = 0 (i.e., no
fixtures is busy)

Excludes the case where all fixtures are idle; that

is, it requires x > 0 (i.e., at least 1 of the n fixtures
is busy)

E x np

E x busy np

Var x np 1 p
x

np 1 p
np

Var x busy 2 np 1 p

1 p
np

x busy

np 1 p
np

1 p
np

Where:
2
1 1 p n np 1 p n 1

n 1 x
2
Variance Correction Factor : 2

2


1 2 1 p n 1 p 2 n
x

n 1 x
1 1 p
2 x

Coefficient of Variation of Correction Factor :

23

3.2.

Water Demand Algorithm

As earlier mentioned, estimating water demand in a building requires three key parameters (n, p
and q). With known values of n, p and q, water use events in a building can be simulated.
Repeated simulations of water use events is then used to build a cumulative distribution function
(CDF) of water demand for a building. A CDF of the possible water use scenarios in a building will
provide a benchmark for comparison to other water demand estimation methods. For n number
of fixtures in a building, there are 2n different combinations of independent simultaneous use of
the fixtures. As n increases, the analysis of each possible outcome is cumbersome and time
consuming, however computational aid provides a simple, fast and efficient method of perform
such an analysis. MATLAB (R2013a) programming software was used to develop a water demand
algorithm that evaluates different water use scenario in a building by Monte Carlo simulations,
using binomial distribution to determine busy fixtures. Figure 3-7 shows the algorithm flow chart
that generates a CDF for a building with K different fixture groups - the true curve of demand
flow. As did Hunter (1940) and Wistort (1994), the 99th percentile is the design condition for peak
water demand estimation used in this study. The peak water demand (Q99) is represented by the
flow rate corresponding to the 99th percentile of the CDF of demand flows.

24

Figure 3-7: Flow chart of the Water demand algorithm

To illustrate, consider a residential building having k = 6 fixture types with parameters as shown
in Table 3-5. There is a total of 12 fixtures with 212 = 4,096 mutually exclusive possible
combinations of fixture use as outlined in Table 3-6.
Table 3-5: Parameters required for demand flow estimation in a building
Fixture group
Bathtub (B)
Clothes Washer (C)
Dishwasher (D)
Faucet
(F)
Shower (S)
Toilet
(T)

n
1
1
1
4
2
3
25

p
0.100
0.150
0.110
0.190
0.130
0.067

q (gpm)
4.0
3.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.2

Detailed calculations for the possible combinations of K = 6 fixture types can be done using the
water demand algorithm. Table 3-6 shows that they are 792 different ways of exactly 5
simultaneously busy fixtures out of 12 fixtures. One of these 792 groupings of 5 fixtures is
[1C, 2F, 1S, 1T]. With n, p and q values from Table 3-5, the probability of this event is
{0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 1}
= (1 )1 ( )1 (1 )1 ( )2 (1 )2 ( )1 (1 )1 ( )1 (1 )2
= (0.9)1 (0.15)1 (0.89)1 (0.19)2 (0.81)2 (0.13)1 (0.87)1 (0.067)1 (0.933)2
= 0.00001877
From Table 3-5, the corresponding flow rate with these 5 busy fixtures is
= + 2 + + = 3 + (2 1.5) + 2 + 2.2 = 10.2 gpm
Similarly the probabilities of the remaining 791 combinations can be found. The sum of the
probabilities from all 792 combinations of 5 fixtures is the probability that exactly 5 fixtures are
busy (i.e., Pr (x = 5) = 0.0105 see table 3-6 for simulation results). Using the same approach, the
probability for the 2 extreme cases no fixture busy (Q = 0 gpm) and all fixtures busy (Q = 26.1
gpm) - happens in only one possible way and can be computed using the expressions below:

Zero Busy Fixtures:

[ = 0] = 0 = (1 )

[14]

=1

0 = (1 0.10)1 (1 0.15)1 (1 0.11)1 (1 0.19)4 (1 0.13)2 (1 0.067)3 = 0.1802

All Fixtures Busy:

[ = 12] = 12 =
=1( )

[15]

12 = (0.10)1 (0.15)1 (0.11)1 (0.19)4 (0.13)2 (0.067)3 = 1.093 x 1011

26

Table 3-6: Probability distribution of busy fixtures in a hypothetical residential building

Number of
Busy
Fixtures, x
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total

Number of
Combinations [1]
1
12
66
220
495
792
924
792
495
220
66
12
1
4,096
[1] From the binomial coefficient, n C x.

Simulated
Probability[2]
0.1804
0.3357
0.2832
0.1410
0.0471
0.0105
0.0018
0.0002
2.6 x 105
2.0 x 106
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
1.00

Exact
Probability[3]
0.1802
0.3358
-nc-nc-nc-nc-nc-nc-nc-nc-nc1.040 x 109
1.093 x 1011
1.00

[2] From the Monte Carlo method with 500,000 total simulations of the fixture groups in Table 3-5.
[3] From enumeration (-nc- means not computed).

The approach described above is repeated while sampling from the binomial distribution that
simulates the number of busy fixture from each fixture group. For example fixture parameters
from Table 3-5 can produce the combinations of busy fixtures in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Example; 10 Simulations of busy fixtures in a hypothetical residential building

Simulation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Number of
Busy Fixtures
3
0
1
2
0
1
4
2
0
3

Busy Fixture Combination

{1B, 0C, 0D, 1F, 0S, 1T}
{0B, 0C, 0D, 0F, 0S, 0T}
{0B, 0C, 0D, 0F, 0S, 1T}
{0B, 1C, 0D, 1F, 0S, 0T}
{0B, 0C, 0D, 0F, 0S, 0T}
{0B, 0C, 1D, 0F, 0S, 0T}
{0B, 1C, 1D, 0F, 1S, 1T}
{0B, 0C, 1D, 1F, 0S, 0T}
{0B, 0C, 0D, 0F, 0S, 0T}
{1B, 0C, 0D, 2F, 0S, 0T}

27

Demand Flow (gpm)

4.0+1.5+2.2 = 7.7
0
2.2
3.0+1.5 = 4.5
0
2.5
3.0+2.5+2.0+2.2 = 9.7
2.5+1.5 = 4
0
4.0 + (2*1.5) = 7

These simulations are repeated until a stable representation of the frequency of busy fixtures
and their corresponding demand flow have been evaluated. The total time probability of a unique
simulated flow is calculated by dividing the number of unique flows simulated by the total
number of simulations. For busy time conditions, the zero flow (Q = 0 gpm) simulated are deleted
from the total simulations, resulting in busy flow simulations (where Q > 0 gpm)
[i.e., Total simulations Zero flow simulations = Busy flow simulations]. The busy time probability
is then calculated by dividing the number of unique flows simulated by the total busy flows
simulations. The unique flow are ranked and plotted against their corresponding cumulative
probability. The CDF of flows generated from 500,000 Monte Carlo simulations for input
parameters as in Table 3-5 is shown in Figure 3-8. This CDF represents a complete description of
flow rates that can be possible in this hypothetical residential building for total time and busy
time simulations. As expected in the total time CDF, there is a spike representing about 18%
chance of zero flow activities in the building. Over 70% of the flow is expected from one or two
simultaneously busy fixtures (Pr (x = 1) + Pr (x = 2) = 0.4111 + 0.2943 = 0.7054. The 99th percentile
is 10.4 gpm which is about 40% of the maximum total demand (26.1 gpm) from all the fixtures in
the building. The busy time CDF eliminates zero flow conditions and would generally increase the
demand flow estimated -in this example by 2%. The difference between total time and busy time
demand flow depends on P0 for a given fixture combination. Demand flow estimated using the
total time approach equals demand flow estimated using the busy time approach when P0 = 0.

28

Total time Q99 = 10.4 gpm

Busy time Q99 = 10.6 gpm
Total time
Busy Time

Figure 3-8: CDF of demand flow in a hypothetical residential building (n, p and q as in Table 3-5)

3.3.

Revised Hunters Curve/ Fixture weights

Hunters ingenious curve for estimating demand is not flexible to fixture performance and the
probability of use for individual fixtures. For Hunters curve to be applicable to a specific end user
(with parameters p and q), the entire calculations to determine the 99th percentile of fixture use,
plot of probable flow, fixture weights/ fixture units and Hunters curve would have to be derived
and the process repeated for a change in any parameter. To qualitatively compare demand flow
estimates from Hunters method, Wistorts method and the water demand algorithm, Hunters
Curve would need to be plotted having more fixture groups, efficient fixture flow rates and
probabilities representative of building end use. Details are in Appendix A.

29

3.4.

Wistorts Boundary Conditions

Estimates of peak water demand flow using Wistorts method (normal approximation of the
binomial distribution) can be calculated for known values of n, p and q using equation [4] and
compared with results from other methods of demand flow estimation. It should be noted that
where np 5 AND n (1-p) 5, the binomial random variable is approximately normally (Walpole
et. al, 1998). Where the above conditions are not met, a normal approximation of the binomial
distribution may be unsuitable. The number of busy fixtures x is an integer between 0 and n with
the probability that the fixture is busy, p. The normal distribution does not have constraints and
it will have a possibility of busy fixtures, x < 0 or x > n. A measure of how good the normal
approximation is for the binomial distribution can be tested by looking at how it behaves near
the boundaries.
At the lower boundary, x = 0

x np
0 np
0 np
Pr[ < 0] = [
<
] = [ <
]
np(1 p) np(1 p)
np(1 p)

0r

Pr[ < 0] = [
]
1p

Here (z) is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal variable z.

30

[16]

Table 3-8: Some examples of the cdf for the standard normal deviate.
Z

(z)

Comment

-2.326

0.0100

1st Percentile

-1.645

0.0500

5th Percentile

0.000

0.5000

50th Percentile

1.645

0.9500

95th Percentile

2.326

0.9900

99th Percentile

For instance, assume that under the normal approximation there is a 5% chance that x < 0,
This can be expressed as

Pr[ < 0] = [
1p

1.645
1p

] 0.05 ;

2.706
1p

Where z = -1.645 (from Table 3-8)

At the upper boundary, x = n
x np
n np
n(1 p)
Pr[ > ] = [
>
] = [ >

np(1 p) np(1 p)

[17]

0r
n(1 p)
Pr[ > ] = 1 [
]

Also assuming that there is a 5% chance that x > n, z = 1.645

Pr[ > ] = 1 [

n(1 p)
] 0.05 ;

n(1 p)
1.645

n(1 p)
Pr[ > ] = [
] 0.95

31

n(1 p)
2.706

Table 3-9: Criteria for suitability of normal approximation to binomial distribution.

Lower Boundary
Criterion

Upper Boundary
Criterion

x <0

x >n

= 2.706
1p

=5
1
= 5

(1 )
= 2.706

(1 )
=5

(1 ) = 5

Probability of
Boundary Violation
0.0500
0.0126
< 0.0126

Table 3-9 shows the probability of boundary violation is approximately 1% for np AND n (1-p) =5.
Combinations of fixture count and probability conditions suitable for the normal approximation
of binomial distribution are represented by the shaded portion of the Figure 3-9 for an
approximate 1% probability of boundary violation.
1.0
0.9

Probability, p

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1

10

100

1000

Number of Fixtures, n
Figure 3-9: Boundary conditions for normal approximation of the binomial distribution

Within these boundary conditions (np AND n (1-p) = 5), the Wistorts method provides a good
estimate of the demand flow. It should be noted that a free standing single household building
does not have large number of fixtures (usually 10 n 20) and will not satisfy the boundary
32

conditions necessary for normal approximation of a binomial distribution. To further illustrate

figure 3-10 shows the binomial distribution for 15 fixtures with different probabilities of a busy
fixture. The normal distribution will allow for a negative infinity (- ) to a positive infinity (+ )
outcome of busy fixtures while the binomial distribution limits the possible outcomes of busy
fixtures between 0 and n. This boundary limits for the binomial distribution will result in a
negatively skewed normal distribution curve with a low probability of fixture use (e.g., p = 0.15)
and a positively skewed normal distribution curve with a high probability of fixture use (e.g., p =
0.90), thereby eliminating the shaded region (figure 3-10) for outcomes x < 0 and outcomes
x > n respectively.
Boundary conditions are satisfied for p = 0.5 with the possible outcome of busy fixtures
normally distributed within the limits (0 and n).
0.4

Probability

0.3

p = 0.15
p = 0.50
p = 0.90

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of fixtures, n

Figure 3-10: Binomial distribution with different probability of use, n = 15 fixtures

33

3.5.

Direct Calculation

The total flow from a group of n fixtures in a building is the sum of the individual flows. The
individual flows is random and varies due to intensity of use (i.e., the flow rate of a faucet/shower
at maximum possible flow is higher than when the fixture operates at less than full capacity).
Therefore the total flow Q is a sum of the random variable qi of X busy fixtures.

Q =

[18]

=1

According to Ross (1983), the mean and the variance of the total flow in equation [18] are
[Q] = =

[19]

Var[Q] = 2 = 2 + 2 2

[20]

Where and 2 represents the mean and variance, respectively

Let the total number of fixture be n and the probability of a single fixture use be p, then X is a
random variable with a binomial distribution that has a mean and variance
[M] = = np

[21]

Var[M] = 2 = (1 )

[22]

Substituting equations [21] and [22] into [19] and [20]

= n p

[23]
34

 2 = n p 2 + np(1 p) 2

[24]

The design peak flow is estimated using a classic frequency factor approach,
1 = + 1

[25]

Here Z1- is the frequency factor or as earlier defined.

Substituting [23] and [24] into [25] gives the design peak flow for a single fixture type as

1 = n p + 1 n p 2 + np(1 p) 2

[26]

For k different fixture types equation [26] becomes

(1) = , + (1) , 2 + (1 ) , 2
=1

[27]

=1

Let 2 = 2 2 be the coefficient of variation of flow substituting for q2 in [27]

(1) = , + (1) , 2 ( , 2 + 1 )
=1

[28]

=1

Equations [4] and [28] are the same when there is no variation in flow from a fixture ( = 0).
Zero variations in flow rate can be true for fixtures like the water closet, dishwashers and clothes
35

washers but not for faucets and shower heads with flow rate depending on the users
preference. Equation [28] will be referred to as a Modified Wistorts Method (MWM).

Results from these methods of estimating peak water demand would be used in comparison with
the benchmark -water demand algorithm- for known values of p (peak period probabilities), n
(fixture count) and q (fixture flow rates) for different buildings/end users.

36

4. RESULTS
4.1.

General

Estimating water demand from any of the methods in this study requires some form of
probability. The choice of method to determine the probability of a busy fixture from field
measurement should reflect actual water use patterns by the end user as it affects the estimated
water demand. A CDF of demand flows generated with Monte Carlo simulation is a convenient
and flexible way to depict the full range of outcomes for water demands in a building.

4.2.

Comparison Water Demand Estimated

Peak water demand estimated from different methods, for a wide range of residential buildings
having six different fixture types (summary in Table 4-1) was compared. For this purpose,
Hunters curve was revised with hypothetical p and q values as in Table 4-1 as a base case (See
APPENDIX A). Peak water demand for the hypothetical residential buildings was also determined
with lower and higher probabilities of fixture use and fixture flow rate ( 25% of the average p
and q for the base case) to compare the sensitivity of methods of estimating water demand to
changes in the key parameters. The average p and q was calculated while taking into account the
number of fixtures in each fixture group in the sample buildings and is referred to as the base
case for sensitivity analysis.

37

Table 4-1: Summary of hypothetical n, p and q values for sample residential buildings

Fixture type
3 Br Apt
3 Br - Building
5 Br - Building

Bathtub
1
1
4

4, 3-Br Apts
8, 3-Br Apts
12, 3-Br Apts
16, 3-Br Apts
20, 3-Br Apts
24, 3-Br Apts
28, 3-Br Apts
32, 3-Br Apts
36, 3-Br Apts
40, 3-Br Apts
60, 3-Br Apts
80, 3-Br Apts
100 3-Br Apts
Base p
Base q (gpm)

4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
60
80
100
0.125
4.0

Clothes
Washer Dishwasher
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
60
80
100
0.140
3.0

4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
60
80
100
0.100
2.5

Faucet
4
6
8

Shower
1
2
2

Toilet
3
4
6

Total Fixture
Count
11
15
22

16
32
48
64
80
96
112
128
144
160
240
320
400
0.200
1.5

4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
60
80
100
0.125
2.0

12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
180
240
300
0.067
2.4

44
88
132
176
220
264
308
352
396
440
660
880
1100
Avg p
Avg q (gpm)

Building
Type
Single Home

Multi
Apartment
Building

0.136
2.25

There is an excellent correlation between the demand flows estimated from the water demand
algorithm and estimates from the various methods mentioned (Figure 4-1(a)). The Revised
Hunters Estimate had a range of between 2 - 10% differences in demand flow estimated, due to
the approximations during fixture weights calculations. Figure 4-1(b) shows that the Hunters
method is not flexible to the fixture efficiency and changes in probability of fixture use. As with
the current practice, the estimated demand flow is calculated with predetermined fixture
weights. If there are changes in the fixture efficiency and the probability of fixture use, the fixture
weights ought to change. However, the changes in fixture weight are not updated and the
estimate curve is also not adjusted to accommodate the changed fixture weights (current

38

practice). Thus resulting in the same estimate demand flow from Hunters method for buildings
with similar fixture count, irrespective of the efficiency level and probability of fixture use.
400

Revised Hunter's Estimate of Demand Flow

Simulated Demand Flow
Wistort's Methods

350

99th Percentile Demand Flow (gpm)

300
250
200
150

(a)

100
50
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Revised Hunter's Estimate of Demand Flow

Simulated Demand flow - Avg p: -25%
Simulated Demand flow - Avg p: +25%
Simulated Demand flow - Avg q: -25%
Simulated Demand flow - Avg q: +25%

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

(b)

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Total number of fixtures, N

Figure 4-1: Sensitivity of water demand estimate to key parameters

A standard fixture will have a flow rate that is comparable to the current federal standard (e.g.,
2.5 gpm for shower head and 1.6 gpf for a toilet). A fixture with higher efficiency would require
less water for a similar function. EPA water sense program is promoting a 20% reduction in fixture
flow rate resulting in a 2 gpm shower head and 1.28 gpf toilet compared to federal standards.
Such changes affects the overall water demand from a building. Figure 4-2 shows that a 20%
reduction in fixture flow rate impacts the simulated CDF and in turn reduces the overall water
demand estimate. In this example, the water demand estimate had a corresponding decrease of
20%.
39

Probability

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

High Efficiency Fixture Flow Rate

0.2

Standard Fixture Flow Rate

0.1

HE fixture Q99 = 8.3 gpm

0
0

10

15

20

Standard fixture Q99 = 10.4 gpm

Demand flow (gpm)

Figure 4-2: Sensitivity of CDF to fixture efficiency

4.3.

Dimensionless Demand Curve

A method similar to Hunters curves for estimating peak water demands in buildings can be
derived from estimated peak water demands from different end users. This curve will show a
dimensionless peak flow versus the expected busy fixtures. Unlike Hunters curve, there is no
need for fixture units. This approach is applicable to any combination of fixtures provided the key
parameters n, p and q for each fixture type are known. A flexible method of estimating demand
that is applicable to a broad range of end users would be a helpful update to the Hunters curve.
The demand flow (Q

(99)

gpm) corresponding to the design percentile (99th percentile) was

extracted from a CDF of demand flow for 4000 different buildings with six fixture groups. These
4000 building fixture configuration represents a wide range of end users. The parameters n, and
p are increased while q is between 1 4 gpm (see summary in Table 4-2).

40

Table 4-2: Summary of n, p and q values used in 4000 different buildings fixture configurations
(gpm)

1-4

n
k 1

10
:
100
:
1000

0.001 - 0.15
1000
buildings
fixture
configurations

0.15 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.85

0.80 - 0.99

1000
1000
1000
buildings
buildings
buildings
fixture
fixture
fixture
configurations configurations configurations

Depending on the combination of parameters (n, p, and q) in a building, the CDF and the 99th
percentile demand flow changed. Figure 4-3 shows a demand cloud of 99th percentile demand
flow from 4000 buildings with different water use parameters.
2400

Q(99) demand (gpm) - p(0.001-0.15)

Q(99) demand (gpm) - p(0.15-0.50)

Demand Flow (gpm)

2000

Q(99) demand (gpm) - p(0.50 - 0.85)

Q(99) demand (gpm) - p(0.80 - 0.99)

1600
1200
800
400
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Total number of fixtures, N

Figure 4-3: Demand cloud of 99th percentile demand flows for different hypothetical parameters
in 4000 buildings

41

An increase in the total number of fixtures and probability of fixture use increases the peak water
demand estimate as shown in Figure 4-3. The data points in figure 4-3 covers a wide range of end
users, however, the demand cloud cannot be used for design purposes, and thus there is a
need to consolidate the multiple demand flows into a dimensionless form. The development of
a dimensionless form of water demand from the 4000 data points in Figure 4-3 is shown in Figure
4-4.

In Figure 4-4, the x-axis represents the expected number of busy fixtures (H) - an independent
variable from n and p derived using equation [29a].
K

H n, p

n
k 1

pk

[29a]

1 P0

Here nk is the number of fixtures in fixture group k, pk is the probability of a busy fixture in fixture
group k and P0 is as defined in equation [14]. H is the expected number of busy fixtures when
water is used in a building. H replaces the total number of fixtures in Figure 4-3 and Hunters
fixture units. As the values of n and p increases, P0 approaches zero and equation [29a] becomes

(, ) =

[29]

=1

From the 4000 buildings, where H > 5, P0 is less than 0.005. This provides a similar boundary
condition for applying Wistorts approach, where H > 5, equation 29b would suffice. The y axis
is a dimensionless design flow derived from equation [30].

42

 , 0.99 (, ) =

Where q

n
k 1
K

pk qk

n
k 1

pk

k qk

with k

k 1

99

[30]

nk pk
K

n
k 1

so

k 1

pk

[31]

The numerator in equation [30] is the simulated 99th percentile demand flow from the CDF of the
Monte Carlo simulation. The denominator is a weighted flow rate that reflects the opportunity
flow from a busy fixture - from equation [31]. To illustrate, detailed calculations of the weighted
flow rate for a building with 12 fixtures is shown in Table 4-3. The average flow rate from the
fixture configuration in this sample building is 26.1 gpm/12 fixtures = 2.175 gpm, however, the
average expected flow rate from a busy fixture is 2.0413 gpm.
Table 4-3: Calculating the weighted flow rate for a hypothetical building
Fixture group
Bathtub (B)
Clothes Washer (C)
Dishwasher (D)
Faucet
(F)
Shower (S)
Toilet
(T)
SUM

n
1
1
1
4
2
3
12

p
0.100
0.150
0.110
0.190
0.130
0.067

q (gpm)
4.0
3.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.2

nq
4.0
3.0
2.5
6.0
4.0
6.6
26.1

np
0.100
0.150
0.110
0.760
0.260
0.201
1.581

k
0.06325
0.09488
0.06958
0.48071
0.16445
0.12713
1.00

k q
0.2530
0.2846
0.1740
0.7211
0.3289
0.2797
2.0413

The dimensionless design flow from equation [30] is a peak demand that has been rescaled by
an expected flow rate from busy fixtures. Due to the application of busy time probability in
deriving the expected number of busy fixture, the minimum value for H (n, p) and Q0.99 (n, p) is one.
This implies that for a single fixture the expected number of busy fixtures is one, peak demand is
the same as the given fixture flow rate and so the dimensionless demand equals one. H (n, p) = 1
43

and Q0.99 (n, p) = 1 is the origin on the dimensionless demand curve. The dimensionless design flow
Q0.99 (n, p) has a very high positive linear correlation with the expected number of busy fixtures
H > 5 as shown in Figure 4-4. As H increases, so also does the certainty of a busy fixture. As the
probability of fixture use increases, the variation in the expected flow under busy conditions
lowers (Figure C-2).

99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand Flow

800

p < 0.00001 (Upper limit)

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.001 - 0.15 )

700

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.15- 0.5 )

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.5 - 0.85 )

600

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.8 - 0.999 )

p = 1 (Lower Limit)

500

See Figure 4-5 (c)

400
300

See Figure 4-5 (b)

200
100
See Figure 4-5 (a)
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Expected number of busy fixtures, H

Figure 4-4: 99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand Curve
The relationship between Q0.99 and H is non-linear for values of H < 5 - where the normal
approximation of the binomial distribution is not suitable. Figure 4-5 (a-c) shows details of the
shaded regions of Figure 4-4.

44

99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand Flow

20

p < 0.00001 (Upper limit)

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.001 - 0.15 )
Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.15- 0.5 )
Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.5 - 0.85 )

15

Q(0.99) (n,p) for p (0.8 - 0.999 )

p = 1 (Lower Limit)

10

0
0

Expected number of busy fixtures, H

Figure 4-5 (a): 99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand Curve for H < 10

45

10

99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand

Flow

99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand

Flow

300
(b)

250

200
200

250

300

500

(c)

450

400
400

Expected number of busy fixtures, H

450
Expected number of busy fixtures, H

Figure 4-5: 99th Percentile Dimensionless Demand Curve for

(a) (H < 10) (b) (200 < H < 300)
(c) (400 < H < 500)
46

500

Mathematically, the dimensionless curve can be derived from the expression (See APPENDIX C
for details)

Q0.99 n, p 1 z0.99 Qn, K Q 0 H (n, p)

[32]

Here [Qk] is the busy-time coefficient of variation (COV) in the flow from a building computed
with the expression [33] and Z0.99 = 2.326 is the 99th percentile of the standard normal
distribution.
K

n p q

nk pk 1 pk 1 P0 nk2 pk2 P0 2
Q
qk
2
1

P
k 1

k 1

k k

1 P0

[33]

Figure 4-5 shows that the dimensionless curve is not necessarily a single curve. It is a series of
curves that fall between the upper limit (as p approaches 0) and the lower limit (where Q (n, p) =
H (n, p) and p approaches 1. The lower limit, is a deterministic case where the fixture is always
busy or there is only one fixture, however the region between the limits, a probabilistic approach
has to be applied to determine the demand flow.
An example of how the dimensionless curve can be used in estimating demand flow. A building
with 120 fixtures and other parameters as shown in Table 4-4. The current plumbing code would
estimate a total of 470 fixture units having a corresponding demand of 115 gpm (From Hunter's
estimate curve Figure 2-2). The building is expected to have 17.3 busy fixtures (H equation C7) and an opportunity flow ( q - equation C-5) of 2.10 gpm during its peak period. The average
probability of fixture use, ( pavg

np

n ) in the building is 14.42%. A dimensionless demand

curve was derived using equation C- 19 (see Figure 4-6) for a 0.1442 average probability of fixture
use. An estimate of the dimensionless demand from figure 4-6 would be 26.3. Rearranging

47

equation [30], the demand flow (Q99) is a product of the dimensionless design flow- Q0.99 n, p
and the weighted opportunity flow - q . In this case Q99 = 26.3 * 2.0994 = 55.21 gpm. Detailed
calculations using equation C-13 estimates a demand of 56.07 gpm.
Table 4-4: Calculating estimates of demand flow
Dimensionless Demand Curve
n

q
(gpm)

10

0.10

4.0

Clothes Washer (C)

10

0.15

3.0

Dishwasher (D)

10

0.11

Faucet

(F)

40

Shower

(S)

Toilet

(T)

Fixture group
Bathtub

(B)

Current plumbing code

n

Fixture
Weights [1]

Fixture
Units

pavg

10

80

10

50

2.0

0.1442
q

10

50

0.2

1.5

2.0994

40

120

20

0.18

2.5

20

80

30

0.07

2.2

17.300

30

90

Total

470

[1] AWWA (2004)

30

Q0.99 (n,p)

25

20
15
10
p = 0.001
p = 0.1442
p = 0.2883
p = 0.50
p = 1.0

5
0
0

10

15

Figure 4-6: Estimating Demand from the Dimensionless Design Curve

48

20

A closer look at figures 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 show that the dimensionless curve drop towards the 45
angle (p = 1 and Q0.99 n, p = H) as p increases. The dimensionless demand for an expected
number of busy fixtures increases as p decreases. This is an unusual feature of the dimensionless
demand curve. For example, using the building fixture configuration in table 4-4, if n is reduced
by half and p is doubled, the H and q remain the same. However, the dimensionless demand

Q0.99 n, p would be derived from the dimensionless curve where pavg = 0.2883. Although the
dimensionless demand reduces, the demand flow will be Q99 = 25.5 * 2.0994 = 53.53 gpm for a
building with 60 fixtures with an average 28.84% chance of a busy fixture.

49

5. DISCUSSION
This study was focused on fixtures that are readily found in residential buildings. Water demand
from buildings with other types of fixtures can be estimated using the water demand algorithm,
provided the key parameters n, p and q are known. Preliminary analysis of the AQUACRAFT
dataset show that the probability of fixture use in a residential home during the peak hour of
demand is usually below 20% and it varies with building occupancy. The dataset also show a wide
range of fixture efficiency levels and care must be taken while studying subsets to determine the
average values of p and q that accurately represents the end users. Peak water demand is
sensitive to changes in p and q (see figures 4-1 and 4-2), however preliminary experiments show
that changes in q will result in a higher percentage of change in peak water demand when
compared to a similar magnitude of change in p. Here, p dictates the frequency of fixture use
while q dictates the magnitude of flow from a busy fixture. Doubling the magnitude of flow from
a fixture would double the demand flow while doubling the frequency of fixture use would
increase the demand flow but not necessarily double it. A deterministic approach to determining
water demand is applicable to situations where there is either only one fixture downstream of a
pipe, the probability of a fixture use is 1 (i.e., the fixture is always busy) and situations where the
minimum code requirement is applied (e.g., single family homes). Estimating water demand for
non-deterministic conditions would require a probabilistic approach. The transition from a
deterministic approach to a probabilistic approach of determining water demand occurs when
n > 1 and 0 < p < 1 and also when the estimated water demand for a building is greater than the
minimum requirement of the plumbing code (~ 10 gpm).

50

Monte Carlo simulation of a binomial distribution becomes more accurate with increased
simulations. The differences of demand flows in the CDF was compared for different number of
simulations to determine the minimum number of simulations necessary for an accurate result.
Table 5-1 shows the difference between simulated results for different simulation count in a
building with 12 fixtures and another building with 1000 fixtures.

Table 5-1: Summary of simulation count test

Total Number of Fixtures N = 12

Total Number of Fixtures
SimulatioN = 1000
Number of
Difference
Simulation
Difference CDF Sum of n Run
Simulations
in Q(99) CDF Sum of Run Time Increase in in Q(99)
Squared
Time
Increase in
Compared
Estimated
Squared
Difference Simulation Estimated
Errors Difference Simulation
(gpm)
Errors (SSE)
(mins)
Run Time
(gpm)
(SSE)
(mins)
Run Time
25,000 and
50,000
0.1
10 E-5
0.23
175%
0.70
10 E-4
0.25
150%
25,000 and
100,000
0.1
10 E-5
1.27
950%
0.60
10 E-4
1.37
820%
50,000 and
100,000
0.0
10 E-5
1.03
282%
0.10
10 E-5
1.12
268%
100,000 and
500,000
0.0
10 E-6
30.7
2192%
0.10
10 E-5
34.28
2235%

The SSE is the sum of the squared differences of the probabilities for the unique demand flow
from the CDF between the simulation runs compared. The effect of the simulation count on the
CDF is only evident at the tail ends; however repeated simulations show a difference of less than
1 gpm (0.2%) difference in the estimated 99th percentile demand flow for both same seeded and
random seeded simulations. A choice of 100,000 simulations saves time while providing
comparable results with minimized errors.

51

In combining multiple fixtures, Hunter introduced fixture units while Wistort applied the central
limit theorem. The water demand algorithm applies a binomial distribution to each fixture group
with known nk and pk values to determine number of busy fixtures x. The number of busy fixtures
x is multiplied by the given fixture flow rate qk to estimate demand flow (x*qk (gpm)) from a
fixture group. The sum the demand flows from K different fixture groups is the building demand
flow for a simulation. The simulation is repeated thousands of times. It is assumed that fixture
use within a fixture group is independent of fixture use in other fixture groups. This study
introduces the busy time concept that can be applied to the number of fixtures and expected
flow. Busy time concept is very important when fixture count is small and there is a probability
of zero flow conditions. Practically, designing for zero flow conditions seems unreasonable.

The AQUACRAFT dataset showed an average peak period probability of a busy fixture at less
than 20% for a majority of the Residential homes surveyed. The effect of probabilities on water
demand is especially critical in single homes where n is small and the expected number of busy
fixture (total time) is less than 1. Busy time calculations can be applied to single homes to
eliminate the zero flow conditions and estimate water demand with conditions of actual water
use. The difference between total time and busy time in flows calculations of one fixture group
is summarized in Table 5-2.

52

Table 5-2: Summary of difference in total time and busy time flow calculations

Expected
busy fixtures
H (n,p)

Mean flow
(gpm)

Q(99)
Demand
(gpm)

COV; [Q]

Formula
[ N = 10; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 100; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 1000; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
Formula
[ N = 10; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 100; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 1000; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
Formula
[ N = 10; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 100; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 1000; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
Formula
[ N = 10; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 100; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]
[ N = 1000; p = 0.01; q = 2.5]

Total Time
Equation [29b]
0.10
1.00
10.00
See Table C-1
0.25
2.50
25.00
Equation [4]
2.08
8.29
43.30
See Table C-1
3.146
0.995
0.315

Busy Time
Equation [29a]
1.05
1.58
10.00
See Table C-1
2.61
3.94
25.00
Equation [C-10]
3.86
8.63
43.29
See Table C-1
0.206
0.511
0.315

Total time flow in calculations have higher COV compared to similar conditions with busy time
calculations. The busy-time COV varies depending on the probability of fixture use, with a peak
in the region where H < 5 (see figure C-2 in Appendix C). The COV reduces as the probability of
fixture use increases due to a reduced deviation from H in a normal distribution of np.

53

6. CONCLUSION
6.1.

Summary

The need to estimate peak water demand from buildings is an integral part of building
construction and management. However, peak water demand per capita is decreasing with the
adoption of water saving measures. The current practice of using fixture units is not flexible to
unique fixture and end use characteristics (q and p) thus overestimates water demand. The water
demand algorithm developed in this thesis is a flexible method of estimating water demand. It
can accommodate unique fixture characteristics - depending on end use - within a building while
returning accurate estimates from demand flow. The ease of this application will come to the
fore when water demands from different sections of a building are required and the key
parameters are readily available. The results from the water demand algorithm provides
excellent agreement with a revised Hunters curve (derived for this study) and Wistorts analytical
method. Generally, demand flow changes with changes in the key parameters (Figures 4-1, 4-2
and 4-3). Depending on the end use of a building, higher fixture counts and or higher probability
of fixture use translates to a certainty of busy fixtures and higher water demand during periods
of peak use.
The introduction of dimensionless curve is a promising to eliminate the need for arbitrary
adjustment based on experience in the calculations to determine water demand in a building. It
will require some calculation, however the calculated values H and are not just numbers. They
provide an idea of expected operating condition within a building. This makes it easier to
interpret the water demand estimates and to know which key parameter is the dominating
factor.
54

6.2.

Future Research

Further work in this area will require field measurement of water use at end users for
determination of applicable p values. Also the fixture nominal flow rates from manufacturers can
be collected and stored in a data bank thus building a library of p and q values for all water
fixtures. This library can be readily available for computing water demand expected from any
type of building. Actual peak flow measurement should be used to corroborate the results from
the water demand algorithm using the p values from field data. This study assumed fixture use
was independent of fixture use in other fixture groups. The effect of dependent fixture use on
peak water demand can also be studied. Further sensitivity analysis should be carried out on p
and q to determine which parameter is more important. The parameters p and q can be treated
as random variables. A range of characteristic H values for different typical end uses would be a
valuable area to explore especially for clustered buildings within a city water distribution
network. The analysis of water demand should be extended to the Poisson rectangular pulse
method.

The results from the dimensionless curve (Figure 4-5) show that the dimensionless data points
fall within two limits that represent conditions of almost no demand flow and constant demand
flows. These limits were calculated for one fixture group, further investigation needs to be carried
out on the effects of more fixture group (K >1) on the dimensionless curve limits. The Region H
< 5 comprises of single family homes and small multi apartment buildings that requires further
investigations to properly define an appropriate method of estimating demand flow for buildings
that fall within that region.
55

REFERENCES
AWWA (2004) American Water Works Association, Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters,
Manual M22, Denver, CO
AWWA (1999). Residential End Water Use. American Water Works Association research
foundation, Denver, Colorado. 17 pages
Beal, C. and Stewart, R. (2013). "Identifying Residential Water End Uses Underpinning Peak Day
and Peak Hour Demand." J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. , 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.19435452.0000357 , 04014008.
Blokker, E. J. M., Vreeburg, J. H. G., and van Dijk, J. C. (2010) Simulating residential water demand
with a stochastic end-use model, J. Water Resource Planning Management. 136(1), 1926.
Buchberger, S. G., Blokker, E. J. M., and Cole, D. (2012) Estimating peak water demands in
hydraulic systems I- Current practice, in Proc. Water Distribution System Analysis
(WSDA), Adelaide, Australia
Buchberger, S. G., Carter, J. T., Lee, Y. H. and Schade T. G (2003) Random demands, travel times
and water quality in dead ends, American Water Works Assoc Research Foundation,
Denver.
Buchberger, S.G. and L. Wu (1995) Model for instantaneous residential water demands, ASCE
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 121(3): 232-246

56

Buchberger, S.G. and Z. Li, (2007) PRPsym: Modeling system for simulation of stochastic water
demands, in Proceedings ASCE EWRI Annual Conference, Tampa FL.
Clark, R. M., Grayman, W. M., Buchberger, S.G., Lee, Y. and Hartman D. J (2004) Chapter 4:
Drinking water distribution systems, An Overview: Water Supply System Security McGraw
Hill Companies Inc, NY, 4.1 4.49
Gary Klein (2004) Hot water distribution system part 2, Plumbing Systems & Design magazine
may/June 2004 pp. 16-20 http://www.utili-save.com/hwdk2.pdf accessed April 2014
Hunter, R.B. (1940) BMS65 Methods of Estimating Loads on Plumbing Systems, Wash DC: US
National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
Ross, S. (1983) Stochastic Processes, Wiley and Son, NY, 309 pp
IAPMO, Uniform Plumbing Code, 25th ed., vol. 1, Ontario, CA: IAPMO, 2009.
Walpole, R. E., Myers, R. H. and Myers, S. L. (1998) Probability and Statistics for Engineers and
Scientists, 6th Ed. Prince Hall, NJ pp 739
WHO

(2011)

Water

safety

in

buildings

WHO

press,

Switzerland

146

pages

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548106_eng.pdf accessed April 2014

Wistort, R.A. (1994) A new look at determining water demands in building: ASPE direct analytic
method, inTechnical Proc. American Soc of Plumbing Engrs Convention, Kansas City, MO:
ASPE, pp. 17-34.

57

APPENDICES

58

APPENDIX A
Revised Hunters Curve

59

Revised Hunters Curve

Objective
In this study a revised version of the Hunters Curve is necessary to estimate of demand flow for
comparison with demand flows estimated using other methods with the same parameters n, p
and q.

Method
Table A-1 shows hypothetical values of fixture use that is similar to each fixture use during the
peak hour in a residential building with 4 occupants. The individual fixture flow rates are average
values representative of moderate efficiency fixtures while the corresponding p values were
calculated using equation [7]. For instance the duration of flow per use for the bathtub and
showerhead was assumed to be 5 minutes and the faucet, 1 minute. The duration of flow for the
Toilet, Clothes washer and Dishwasher was calculated from the capacity of the fixture and its
corresponding flow rate. E.g., 25 gallons of water will flow at a 3 gpm flow rate for 8.33 minutes.
Table A-1: Parameters for a revised Hunters method

Toilet (1.6 gpf)

Shower Head
Bathtub
Faucet
Clothes Washer
(25 gal per Load)
Dishwasher
(15 gal per Load)

Uses/Hr
6.0
1.5
1.5
12.0

q (gpm)
2.4
2.0
4.0
1.5

p = t/T
0.067
0.125
0.125
0.200

1.0

3.0

0.140

1.0

2.5

0.100

60

The plot of probable flow (Figure A-1) was estimated by determining the number of busy fixtures
x that satisfy equation [3] and multiplying it by the given fixture flow rate q.

250

Toilet
Shower Head
Bathtub
Faucet
C. Washer
D. Washer

x * q (gpm)

200

150

100

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

n
Figure: A-1: 99th Percentile Plot of probable flow (Revised) (with parameters as in table A-1)

Similar to what Hunter (1940) did, fixture counts with the same probable demand flow were
compared and weighted by assigning arbitrary weight to a fixture and estimating the
corresponding relative weights for the other fixtures as shown in Table A-2.

61

Table A- 2:

BATH TUB
Demand Number
(gpm)
of
Fixtures
n

Relative demand weights of fixtures (Revised)

CLOTHES WASHER

DISHWASHER

FAUCET

SHOWER HEAD

TOILET

Weight

Number
of
Fixtures
n

Relative
Weight

Number
of
Fixtures
n

Relative
Weight

Number
of
Fixtures
n

Relative
Weight

Number
of
Fixtures
n

Relative
Weight

Number
of
Fixtures
n

Relative
Weight

50

65

10

82

7.9

134

4.83

129

5.0

142

4.6

197

3.3

100

142

10

175

8.1

284

5.00

264

5.4

296

4.8

415

3.4

150

219

10

268

8.2

433

5.05

400

5.5

451

4.9

633

3.5

200

296

10

361

8.2

583

5.08

536

5.5

605

4.9

854

3.5

250

373

10

454

8.2

733

5.10

672

5.6

759

4.9

1069

3.5

300

451

10

547

8.2

882

5.11

807

5.6

914

4.9

1287

3.5

Average weight

10.00

8.15

5.03

5.42

4.83

3.44

Nominal weight

10.0

8.1

5.0

5.4

4.8

3.4

62

The product of the revised fixture weights and the number of fixtures n is the Fixture Units. The
99th percentile demand flow from a group of n fixtures was also calculated. The resulting plot of
the fixture units and the 99th percentile demand flow for each fixture group is as shown in Figure
A-2.

250
TOILET [3.4]
SHOWER HEAD [4.8]
BATH TUB [10]
FAUCET [5.4]
CLOTHES WASHER [8.1]
DISHWASHER [5]

Demand Flow (gpm)

200

150

100

50

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Fixture Units
Figure A-2: Combined 99th percentile demand flow

63

3000

Results
A Revised demand estimate curve- Figure A-3 was then derived by smoothing the data point
values in Figure A-3. The fixture weights for individual fixtures in Table A-2 will be used in
calculating the total fixture units in a building, while Figure A-3 will be used to estimate the
corresponding demand.

250

Demand Flow (gpm)

200

150

100

50

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Fixture Units
Figure A-3: Revised Estimates Curve

64

3000

APPENDIX B
MATLAB Program
Matlab (R2013b)

65

MATLAB Program
Objective
Develop an algorithm that can simulate water use in a building with known parameters k, n, p
and q to generate a CDF from multiple simulations and determine the *th percentile of demand
Flow.

Method
WaterDemandAlgorithm is a MATLAB script that serves as an input to the MATLAB function
WaterDemandEstimate. The values of k, N, p, q and th (Percentile of demand flow) required by
the WaterDemandEstimate function are entered manually.
%% Water Demand Algorithm
% This script serves as medium for data input into a function
% "WaterDemandEstimate" that runs the Monte Carlo simulation and
% with an output of the 99th percentile demand.

% Input the parameters for estimating peak flow water demand

% k = Number of Fixtures groups such as Toilet, Faucet, Shower etc.
k = input('Number of Fixture groups (k): ');

% creates variable in the workspace for input parameter

N = zeros(1,k);

% N = Number of fixtures.

p = zeros(1,k);

% p = Probability of busy Fixture (0 <= p <= 1)

q = zeros(1,k);

% q = Individual fixture flow rate.

% Manually input parameters n, p and q for each fixture group.

for i = 1:k;

66

N(1,i) = input(['Number of Fixtures (n) in Fixture group' ' ' num2str(i) ' '
'is : ' ]);
p(1,i) = input(['Probability (p) that a fixture in

group' ' ' num2str(i) '

' 'is busy: ']);

q(1,i) = input(['Fixture' ' ' num2str(i) ' ' ' Flow rate (q, gpm): ' ]);
end

th = input('Percentile of demand flow (0-100): ');

Flag = input('Select Estimation method: 0 = Total time ; 1 = Busy time
TH

');

= num2str(th);

% Calls the Water demand estimate function.

[stat] = WaterDemandEstimate(k,N,p,q,th,Flag);

; - Output from the

WaterDemandEstimate
%stat = [Qth', H', BFth, np',nmp', DDQth', QW99', wq']

% Displays the results from the water demand estimate simulation

if Flag == 0

% Use of flag to select between total time demand and busy

time demand
disp (['The ' TH 'th Percentile "Total time" Demand Flow is: '
num2str(stat(1)) ' ' ' gpm '])
else
disp (['The ' TH 'th Percentile "Busy time" Demand Flow is: '
num2str(stat(1)) ' ' ' gpm '])
end
disp (['There are ' num2str(stat(2))' ' 'expected number of Busy fixtures '])

The following program is a function WaterDemandEstimate accepts input values from the script
WaterDemandAlgorithm and employs the binomial distribution B(n,p) in a Monte Carlo
method to randomly simulate water use events in a building.
function [stat] = WaterDemandEstimate(k,N,p,q,th,Flag)
% This Function generates the CDF of water demand in a building
% and the 99th Percentile demand flow (gpm)

% k = Number of Fixtures groups such as Toilet, Faucet, Shower etc.

67

% N = Number of fixtures.
% p = Probability of busy Fixture (0 <= p <= 1)
% q = Individual fixture flow rate.
% The values of N, p and q should be in a column array with each fixture
% group in a new column e.g. N = [2, 1, 1, 5, 2, 4];

% Important simulation variables

m = 1;

% Start simulation counter

maxm = 100000; % maximum number of simulations

th = th/100;

% Convert the desired Percentile to Fraction

% Other variables to store results while simulating

fl = zeros(1,k);
Flow = zeros(m,1);

for m = 1:maxm
% accessing n, p and q for each fixture group
for i = 1:k
n = N(1,i);
P = p(1,i);
Q = q(1,i);

Br = binornd(n,P);

% Generates Random number of busy fixtures

% within the binomial distribution for n trials
% and probability of success P.

fl(1,i) = Q*Br;

% Calculates the flow rate for the random

% busy fixture generated

end
Flow(m,1:k)= fl(1,1:k);

% stores data for k fixture groups within

a simulation
end
Fw = sum(Flow,2);

% Demand flow for each simulation - A sum of the flows

% from the simulated busy fixture in each group

if Flag == 0

% Use of flag to select between total time calculations and

bust time calculations

68

type = 'Total Time';

% Determination of probability of the simulated flows (Total Time)
Qflow = unique(Fw);
c = length(Qflow);
P0 = zeros(1,1);
for i=1:c;
P0(i)= sum(Qflow(i,1)== Fw);
end
% Extracting the Probabilities based on simulated sample size - maxm
P1 = P0/maxm;
Prob = cumsum(P1);

% Calculate Cumulative probability

Pth = find(sort(Prob)>= th);

Pth = Pth(1);
Qth = Qflow(Pth);

% extract Index for the 'th' percentile

%from the cumulative probability

% extracts the 'total time' demand flow corresponding

to the 'th' Index.

wq = sum(q.*((N.*p)./(sum(N.*p)))); % Universal weighted flow rate
DDQth = Qth./wq;

%Dimensionless Demand Q

else
type = 'Busy Time';
% Determination of probability of the simulated flows (Busy time)
Bflow = Fw;
Bflow(Bflow== 0)=[];

% Delete simulated flow = 0

Qflow = unique(Bflow);
c = length(Qflow);
P0 = zeros(1,1);
for i=1:c;
P0(i)= sum(Bflow == Qflow(i,1));
end
% Extracting the Probabilities based on adjusted sample size
P1 = P0/length(Bflow);
Prob = cumsum(P1);

% Calculate Cumulative probability

Pth = find(sort(Prob)>= th);

Pth = Pth(1);
Qth = Qflow(Pth);

% extract Index for the 'th' percentile

%from the cumulative probability

% extracts the 'total time' demand flow corresponding

to the 'th' Index.

wq = sum(q.*((N.*p)./(sum(N.*p)))); % Universal weighted flow rate
DDQth = Qth./wq;

%Dimensionless Demand Q

69

end

% Determination of probability of busy fixtures from the simulated flows

BusyFixtures = zeros(maxm,1);
for i=1:maxm;
BusyFixtures(i) = sum(Flow(i,:)./q,2);

% Count the number of simulated

Busy Fixtures
end
BF = unique(BusyFixtures);

% Get Unique values of Busy fixtures

e = length(BF);
Pbf = zeros(1,1);
for i=1:e;
Pbf(i)= sum(BF(i,1)== BusyFixtures); % Count frequency of busy fixtures
end
Pbf1 = Pbf/maxm;

% Determine probability of each unique busy fixture

ProbBF = cumsum(Pbf1);

% Calculate Cumulative probability

Bfth = find(sort(ProbBF)>= th);

Bfth = Bfth(1);
BFth = BF(Bfth);

% Calculations for other busy time flow parameters

Po = prod((1-p).^N);

% Probability of No Busy Fixtures

h = sum(N.*p)/(1-Po);
H = h(1);

% Expected Number of Busy Fixtures

np = sum(N.*p);

% Criteria for normal approx. of binomial distribution.

nmp =sum(N.*(1-p));

% Collate data for Into One Matrix

stat = [ Qth', H', BFth, DDQth', QW99', wq'];
- %Output for the WaterDemandAlgorithm

%Plotting the results

figure

% Plot for CDF of Demand Flows

plot(Qflow,Prob,'r-','LineWidth',2);
hold on
title (['CDF of ' num2str(type) ' Demand Flow '])

70

xlabel ('Flow (gpm)')

ylabel ('Probability')
axis([0

max(Qflow) 0 1]);

grid on

figure

% Plots of Distribution of Busy Fixtures

bar(BF,Pbf1);
xlabel ('Busy Fixtures')
ylabel ('Probability')
grid on
title ('Histogram of Busy Fixtures ' )

end

% End of program

Results
The following is the output from the algorithm with Input parameters obtained from Table 3-5.
The 95th Percentile "Busy time" Demand Flow is: 8.2 gpm
There are 1.9284 expected number of busy fixtures

71

Figure B-1: CDF of demand flow (n, p and q as in Table 3-5)

Figure B-2: Histogram of Busy fixtures (n, p and q as in Table 3-5)

72

APPENDIX C
Mathematical Expressions for the Dimensionless Demand Curve

73

Dimensionless Design Expressions

This appendix provides the derivation of the expression for dimensionless peak demand.

Some Definitions
The probability that no fixture is in use is denoted P0 . Under the assumption that fixture use is

P0 is computed as follows,

independent,

P0 1 pk nk

[C-1]

k 1

Note when p is small and n is large,

P0 is well approximated by,

P0 exp nk pk
k 1

[C-2]

The expected fraction of busy fixtures attributed to group k is denoted

nk pk
K

nk pk

so

k 1

k and given by
[C-3]

k 1

It will also be convenient to define the following sum,

K

B k2

so B 1

[C-4]

k 1

The weighted average flow at a typical fixture that is busy in a building with K fixture groups is

74

q
k 1

[C-5]

k k

The weighted average probability that a typical fixture will be in use at a building with K fixture
groups is

k 1

pk

[C-6]

The mean, variance and coefficient of variation of the total-time and the busy-time flows are
summarized in Table C-1.
Table C-1: Expected values for flows in a building with K fixture groups.
Total-Time Results

Busy-Time Results

(Q 0)

(Q > 0)
K

n p q

Mean, E[Q]

k 1

k 1

k k

pk qk

1 P0
K

K 1

Variance, Var[Q]

n
k 1

pk (1 pk )q

K 1

Coef. of Variation,

n
k 1

k 1

1 P0

pk (1 pk )q

n
k 1

n p 1 p 1 P n
k 1

n p q

pk qk

k 1

75

pk2 P0 qk2

2
k

2
k

K 1

[Q]

n p 1 p 1 P n

2
k

k k

2
k

pk2 P0 qk2

If

P0 0 then at every instant one or more fixtures are in use. In this case, the busy-time results

reduce to the total-time results.

The expected number of busy fixtures, given the flow Q > 0, is given by:
K

H n, p

k 1

pk

[C-7]

1 P0

The dimensionless peak flow is given by

Q n, p
Here Q is the

Q
q

[C-8]

percentile of the peak flow distribution and q is defined in Equation [C-5].

Probability Model
The

percentile of the peak flow distribution is given by

Q E Q z Var Q

Here

[C-9]

z is the frequency factor or the percentile of the standardized peak flow distribution.

In what follows, it is assumed that

z is obtained from the standard normal distribution (from

the central limit approximation to the binomial distribution). Putting the busy-time expressions
from Table C-1 into Equation [C-9] gives

76

n p q
k

k 1

k k

1 P0

n p 1 p 1 P n
k

k 1

2
k

pk2 P0 qk2
[C-10]

1 P0

Dividing by q and factoring out 1 P0 gives,

K
nk pk qk
Q
kK1

q
nk pk qk
k 1

n p 1 p 1 P n
k

k 1

n
k 1

pk qk

2
k

K
pk2 P0 qk2 nk pk
k 1
1 P0

[C-11]

Substituting Equations [C-7] and [C-8] and canceling common terms gives,

Q n, p 1 z

2 2
2

n
p
1

p
1

n
p
P
q

k
0
k k 0 k
k k

k 1
H (n, p)
2
K

nk pk qk

k 1

[C-12]

The expression under the radical is coefficient of variation of the flow (see Table C-1) expected
K

from a total of

n
k 1

water fixtures, given busy conditions. Hence, [C-12] can be written

Q n, p 1 z Q Q 0 H (n, p)

[C-13]

Equation [C-13] is the most compact form of the dimensionless design expression for estimating
peak flows in buildings. Given an appropriate

z value only two terms are needed: [i] coefficient

of variation of busy-time flows and [ii] expected number of busy fixtures. Both can be readily
evaluated if the characteristic data (n, p and q) are known for each fixture group. The following
77

section explores this expression to provide further insight and show Q n, p as a more explicit
function of H n, p .
To simplify notation, let Q n, p Q and H n, p H . Then expanding Eq [C-12] gives

Q 1 z

Q 1 z

2
2 2 2
K
K
nk pk 1 pk 1 P0 qk nk pk qk P0

2
2

K
k 1
k 1
K

nk pk qk
nk pk qk
k 1

k 1

1 P
0
K
n pq
k k k
k 1

K
K
2
2
2

n
p
q
n
p
q
n
p
q

k k k
k k k k k k
H
kK1
k 1K
P0 k 1
2

K
n p q

nk pk qk
k k k nk pk qk
k 1
k 1

k 1

[C-14]

[C-15]

Using Equations [C-3], [C-4], [C-5] and [C-7] gives,

2

K
1 K k qk2 K k pk qk2
qk

Q 1 z

P0 k H

q
q
k 1
k 1
Hq k 1 q

[C-16]

Which leads to,

Q H z

2
2
2
K
K
qk K
qk
qk
H k k pk HP0 k
k 1 q k 1
q
k 1
q

[C-17]

If qk q for all k, then equation [C-17] can be written,

K
K
K

Q H z H k k pk HP0 k2
k 1
k 1
k 1

78

[C-18]

Using Equations [C-3], [C-4] and [C-6], Equation [C-18] simplifies to

Q H z H 1 p BHP0

[C-19]

Some Limiting Cases

When K=1 and n=1:
K 1

1 P0 1 1 pk k 1 1 p1 p1
n

k 1

Therefore
K 1

H n 1, p

k 1

pk

1 P0

p1
1
p1

K 1

Also q

nk pk qk
k 1
K 1

n
k 1

pk

K 1

n pq
1 1 1 q1
n1 p1

and

pk2

pk

k 1
K 1
k 1

n1 p12
p1
n1 p1

K 1

E Q n 1, p Q 0

n
k 1

pk qk

1 P0

p1q1
q1
p1

K 1
n p 1 pk 1 P0 nk2 pk2 P0 2
Var Q n 1, p Q 0 k k
qk
2
1

P
k 1

p 1 p1 p1 p12 1 p1 2
1
q1 0
p12

Q0.99 n 1, p 1 z0.99 Q1,1 Q 0 H (n 1, p) 1;

79

Hence, Q 0.99 q1

To determine the upper and lower limits of the dimensionless Q0.99 (n, p) as shown in Figure 4-4
the limits of equation [C-12] are evaluated as p approaches its upper and lower boundaries.
Limit as p 0, but n such that np and hence, H n, p remain constant; substituting
into equation [C-19]

Q0.99 n, p 0 1 z0.99 Qn,K Q 0 H (n, p 0)

H n, p z0.99 H n, p 1 H n, p BP0

Limit as p 1, P0 0 ,

1 p
Q0.99 n, p 1 1 z0.99
BP0 H n,1 1 z0.99 0 0 H n,1 H n,1
H

Results from above limiting cases are represented graphically in figure C-1. As the probability of
use increases, the dimensionless curve approaches a 45 degree line where Q = H. In between the
upper ( p < 0.001) and lower limits ( p = 1) will be series of curve representing a p value. The stair
stepping dots represent simulation results for 0.001 < p < 1.

80

Q0.99 (n,p)

20

15

10

p = (0.001 - 1.0)
p = 0.001
p = 0.50
p = 0.75
p = 1.00

0
0

10

15

H (n,p)

20

Figure C-1: Sensitivity of dimensionless demand curve to p

Figure C-2 shows the sensitivity of p to COV especially in the region H < 5. The sensitivity is
reflected in the slight curvature of the dimensionless curve in figure C-1 where H < 5.

0.6

p = 0.001
p = 0.02
p = 0.50
p = 0.75
p = 0.99

0.5

COV

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
0

10

15

20

25

H
Figure C-2: Sensitivity of busy-time COV to p

81

30