DE-93-1 2-3
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND
POTENTIAL SAVINGS FOR HEATED
iNDOOR SWiMMiNG POOLS
C.C. Smith, P.E. R.W. Jones, P.E.
MemberA SHRAE
ABSTRACT
In a series of extended tests, the rate of evaporation
from the quiet water surface of a large indoor swimming
pool has been measuredand correlated with air and water
temperature and air humidity. Precise measurements of
change in water level and of steam consumptionin the pool
water heater were both used to determine evaporation rates.
Goodagreement of the two methods was observed.
The form of the evaporation rate equation published in
the 1991 ASHRAEHandbook--HVAC Applications was
confirmed. Actual evaporation from the quiet water surface
varied from O. 020 to O. 055 lb/(h.ft2). These rates are 76%
of those obtained by use of the published equation at the
measuredconditions. It is recommended that a 73 % factor
be used as a multiplier in the ASHRAE equation for evapo-
ration from quiet indoor pools at elevations less than 1,000
feet above sea level
iNTRODUCTION
The design and operation of heating and ventilating
equipmentin a natatorium depend on accurate knowledgeof
the rate of water evaporation from the swimmingpool
surface. That information is also necessary for predicting
water-heating requirements and for the design of energy
conservationfacilities.
Energy analysts frequently employ the evaporation
equation presented in the 1991 ASHRAEHandbook--HVAC
Applications for calculating pool energy loads. This equa-
tion was developed by Carrier in 1918. Other equations
have also been proposed. However, there is substantial
disagreementof 50 %to 100 %in the application and results
of these equations. ’riffs disagreementlikely occurs because
equations have been based on the results of tests with small
evaporating pans rather than on direct measurement of
water loss in swimmingpools.
The disparity in evaporation equation results causes
wide differences in predicted energy savings from pool
efficiency and renewable energy measures. Because of this
uncertainty in predicted energy savings, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy has sponsored a series of tests to measure
evaporation rates in swimmingpools. The procedures and
results of tests to measureevaporation rates from a quiet,
Charles C. Smithis a research scientist and GeorgeO.G.LiJf is professor emeritus at the Solar EnergyApplications Laboratory,
ColoradoState University, Ft. Collins. RandyW.Jones is a mechanicalengineer in the Department
Denver, CO.
864
G.O.G. LSf, Ph.D.
Member ASHRAE
indoor pool and their application to prediction of energy
savings by use of pool covers are presented.
Evaporation rates were determined by precise measure-
ments of water level in an unoccupiedpool over sufficient
time intervals (18 to 68 hours) to achieve evaporation errors
no larger than 2%. Rates determined by level change
measurements were closely confirmed by simultaneous
measurementsof rates of heat supply to the pool water. The
results confirm the form of the ASHRAE equation and the
dependenceof evaporation rate on the difference in vapor
pressure of water at pool temperature and at the dew point
of air in the natatorium. The rate of evaporation from an
undisturbed water surface was found to be 76 %of the rate
obtained by use of the ASHRAE equation, with a standard
deviation of 4.5%. Measurementand correlation of evapo-
ration rates from a pool in active use, conditions under
which considerably higher rates are expected, are planned.
The U.S. Departmentof Energy’s Institutional Conser-
vation Program has launched a nationwide campaign to
Reduce SwimmingPool Energy C_osts, or RSPEC. The
initiative will focus awareness on the energy consumption
and operating costs of the nation’s 5.9 million pools and
spas. Market-ready energy efficiency and renewable energy
products will be supported through information and technol-
ogy transfer to institutional and commercialpool owners.
Programgoals are to reduce pool owners’ operating costs,
conserve our nation’s precious resources, and protect the
environment through the use of conservation and renewable
energy.
’/’he measures supported by RSPEC,including hybrid
solar heating systems, pool covers, and windbreaks, must
be adequately assessed before pool owners can make
informed investment decisions about their use. Accurate
methods to calculate pool energy loads before and after
measure implementation must be available. Since evapora-
tion is the primary source of heat loss in pools, typically
accounting for 50%to 70%of the total, its prediction is
particularly important.
Heating and ventilation requirements in indoor swim-
ruing pools depend heavily on the rate of evaporation of
water from the pool surface. Heat must be supplied to the
water at a rate equal to the loss. Maintenanceof acceptable
relative humidity in the natatorium, usually about 50%,
requires removalof that moisture either by ventilation or by
of Energy,DenverSupportOffice,
ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia
operation of dehumidification exluipment. If ventilation is
used, the incoming air must be heated during most of the
year at rates dependenton air quantity, prevailing tempera-
ture, and humidity conditions. Moisture removed by
dehumidification requires electric energy for compressor
operation. The cost of energy for an indoor pool is a large
componentof its operating budget, and the potential for
savings by use of effective conservation measures is
substantial.
The design of heating and ventilating equipment, the
prediction of energy requirements, and decisions on energy
conservation proposals require reliable information on pool
evaporation rates. In numerousinvestigations, the specific
rate of evaporation has been found to be directly propor-
tional to the difference in vapor pressure of water at pool
temperature and at the air dewpoint. The rate also increas-
es with surface air velocity. The widely used evaporation
formula of Carrier has been published in manyeditions of
the ASHRAE Applications Handbook.
Most of the published equations, including Carrier’s,
are based on measurementsof evaporation from undisturbed
water surfaces in small shallow pans exposedto streams of
air at knowntemperature, humidity, and velocity. Evapora-
tion from large water surfaces such as lakes occurs at a
lower rate than from small test pans, but the same variables
have been found to apply.
Although the ASHRAEHandbookhas long stated that
the Carrier equation is applicable to swimmingpools,
measurements of evaporation in an actual pool under
controlled and monitored conditions have not been pub-
lished. Reports of rates of heat supply to pool water and of
condensate collection from dehumidifiers have been pub-
lished, but variation in operating conditions and lack of
conformity of heat supply and condensate recovery with
actual evaporation rates maketheir use unreliable.
Lack of accurate data on evaporation from an actual
pool has resulted in ambiguity and disagreement on the
applicability of the Carrier equation. There are, for exam-
ple, discrepancies in the 1987 and 1991 ASHRAE Applica-
tions as to whetherthe equation should be applied to pools
in use or to undisturbed water surfaces. Thesediscrepancies
need to be resolved, both for reliable heating and ventilating
TABLE1
EvaporationRate Equations
Investiqator ~ear ~ ~
Carrier 1918 95
Rohwer 1931 90
Himus & Hinchley 1924 165
Lurie & Michailoff 1936 117
Meyer (tanks) 1931 ii0
Meyer (reservoirs) 1931 81
NOTES:
(I) Equation also in ASHRAE Handbooks,
(2) Based on several hundred measurements in wind tunnel and
outdoor test pans,
(3) Meyer’s e~*atlons based on air velocity at 30 ft. height.
Values of B in table are computed by asstn~ing surface velocity
is one-half the velocity at 30 ft.
ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia
specifications and for predicting the reduction in energy use
to be realized by covering the pool.
Energy costs can be substantially reduced by the
placement of floating covers on the water surface whenthe
pool is not in use. Evaporation is prevented and water
heating is not needed during those periods. Ventilation and
air heating can also be curtailed whenthe pool is covered.
The prediction of energy savings that can be achieved by
coveting pools is an important factor in determining
whetherthe use of pool covers is cost-effective in specific
instances.
Evaporation rates have been estimated by using equa-
tions based on data obtained in manysmall-scale evaoora-
tion experiments reported in the technical literature. The
Carrier equation, published in ASHRAE Applications, is
W = (95 + .425v)(Pw -pa)/Y (1)
where
W = evaporationrate, lb/0a-ft2);
v = air velocity at water surface, fpm;
Pw = saturation vapor pressure at water temperature, in.
Hg;
Pa = saturation vapor pressure at the air dew point, in.
Hg (also partial pressure of water in pool atmo-
sphere);
Y = latent heat at pool temperature, Btu/lb.
Other investigators have obtained data that conform
reasonably well with the earlier work and the ASHRAE
equation, but in someinstances, substantially higher rates
have been reported. With few exceptions, previous investi-
gators have correlated their evaporation measurementswith
equations similar to Carrier’s, differing only in the values
of the coefficients A and B in the relationship W= (A
Bv)(pw - pa)/Y. Table 1 is a summaryof several reported
coefficients, converted to uniformunits.
Table 1 shows that although there is agreement on the
factors affecting evaporation rate and on the form of the
equation, the measured rates differ as muchas twofold.
Someof the differences are apparently due to variation in
the shape and size of the evaporating surface, factors
receiving only limited quantitative evaluation.
Notes
.425 (I)
.277 (2)
°376
.468
.253 (3)
.185 (3)
865
 Recent reports from the U.S. and Geunany show
evaporation rates lower than indicated in Table 1 and large
differences in the rates from active and inactive indoor
pools. Equations that include additional parameters and
nonlinear variation with vapor pressures have also been
proposed. Evaporation was assumed to be equal to mea-
sured condensate recovery from dehumidifiers, but air
leakage, condensation on building surfaces, other water
losses, and variation in pool conditions adversely affect the
accuracy of the results.
The current ASHRAE recommendations are to assume
that the equation applies to pools in active use and that
evaporation from a quiet pool is about half that rate. Data
supporting these recommendationshave not been published,
however. The object of the present investigation has been
the procurementof reliable information on evaporation rate,
energy requirements, and conservation potential in indoor
swimmingpools.
DESCRIPTIONOF THE TEST FACILITY
The facility used for the tests is a modemswimming
pool with a surface area of 4,340 ft 2 in a natatorium 120
feet by 110 feet by 20 feet in height. Water temperature is
normally maintained at 82°F by thermostat, air temperature
at 80°F, and air humidity at approximately 60%by means
of humidistat-controlledventilation. Air-to-air heat recovery
is used requiring 17.5 horsepowerfor fan power. Automatic
swimmingpool covers are normally used when the pool is
not occupied.
Pool water is circulated by conventional equipment
through filters and through heat exchangers supplied with
steam from a central boiler plant. Condensatefrom the pool
water heaters (along with condensate from shower water
heaters) is returned by pumpsto the central boiler plant.
Automatic water makeupto compensate for pool evapora-
tion is provided, but that feature can be disabled manually
to ensure no change in water level other than by evapora-
tion. Side gutters for overflow of pool water drain into the
recirculation system, but maintenance of the pool level
slightly belowthe gutter lip during the measurements avoids
the need for returning overflow water through an open
surge tank.
Condensate from the steam heating system can be
measured by calibrating the automatic steam trap and
recording the frequency of discharge to the condensate
return pumps. There are, therefore, two methods for
determining evaporation rate, one being the water level
change in the pool and the other being the calculation of
heat supply rate by measurement of condensate from the
pool water heaters.
Temperature and Humidity Control
~’!
Pool water temperatureis maintainedby a thermostati- ;~i
cally controlled valve on a steam line entering the pool
water heater. Ventilation is controlled by a humidistat to
866
supply 100% fresh outdoor air when relative humidity
increases to an upper setpoint. Fans are turned off when
relative humidity decreases to a level approximately 5%
below the upper setpoint. During testing, humidity in the
natatorium was usually within +3%of the average,
occasionally reaching a maximum departure of 5 %. Exhaust
fans operate simultaneously with air supply fans. Air
temperature varied from the average by less than 2°F.
Method and Procedure
Evaporation measurementsby themselves are not useful
in verifying or establishing a relationship with other
variables unless they are controlled and monitored. The
variables are the rate of air movementacross the water
surface, water temperature, air temperature, and air
humidity. Accurate measurementof those quantities and of
the evaporation itself provides the information necessaryfor
establishing a reliable evaporation equation.
The evaporation mass. flux from a water surface cannot
be measured directly by practical means. It can be mea-
sured, however, by the liquid volumeloss during the test
period under consideration. At typical conditions in indoor
pools, evaporation rates of about 0.04 poundsof water per
hour per square foot of quiet water surface maybe expect-
ed. At this rate, the water level in a pool will decrease
about one-fifth inch per day. With suitable equipment,
water levels can be measured to an accuracy of :t:0.002
inch, so the evaporation over a one-day period can be
measured to an accuracy of 1% to 2%. Other means of
water addition or discharge are monitoredor, as in this test,
prevented.
In a test of 68 hours duration, the pool water level was
determined by a micrometer hook gauge rigidly mountedto
the pool side. This gaugeis read visually to 0.005 inch, so
the 0.52-inch change in level was measured with an
accuracy of about 1.5%. In tests of shorter duration, a
micrometer gauge was used. This gauge has a higher
precision adjustment and senses electrical contact with the
water surface instead of a visual indication of contact. Level
observations were repeated until two or more agreed to
within .002 inch. Measurementswere made inside a small
cylinder partially submergedbelow the surface to suppress
any wavemotion during observations (stilling well).
A second measurement method is to monitor energy
input to the pool water and makecorrections for the small
quantities of energy dissipated from the pool by other
mechanisms(primarily radiant and convective heat losses
from the pool surface. The evaporation rate is determined
by applying the heat of vaporization of water at the pool
temperature, which, for the testing conditions, was 1,045
Btu/lb.
Pool heat input was monitored by weighing the conden-
sate collected from a steam-to-pool water heat exchanger.
Steamenters the heater as saturated vapor at 19 psi absolute
pressure and 225°F. Liquid condensate leaves at 150°F.
The resulting enthalpy difference is 1,038 Btu/lb. Conden-
ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia
sate is discharged from a receiver tank by a pump in temperature, and 56% relative humidity, are shown in
response to a level switch. Five condensatedischarge cycles Table 2 and Figure 1. Summarizedin the table are data on
were measured and averaged at 88.6 pounds per cycle. A temperature, humidity, pool water level, water heat supply
digital readout counter was connected to the pumpswitching rate, and measuredand calculated evaporation rate. Figure
contacts, which totaled the discharge cycles during the test 1 showsthe history of water temperature and air tempera-
period. Testing began and ended with the condensate ture and humidity during the Test III period.
receiver empty. Since the hot water heaters serving showers Goodcontrol of temperatures and humidity is evident,
had been turned off, only pool-heating condensate was thereby making possible a meaningful correlation of
admitted to the receiver during the test period. evaporation rates with those parameters. The bottom line in
Air velocity across the pool surface is another variable Table 2 shows the measured hourly rate of evaporation
that must be determined. Since the vdocity is low, a averaged 0.039 pounds per square foot and the evaporation
sensitive methodof measurementwas required. Periodical- 2.
based on an adjusted heat supply rate of 0.044 lb/h-ft
ly, air velocity at the pool surface was measured by Evaporation rates, based on measurementsover short
releasing balloons of neutral buoyancy(helium-filled and periods (as seen in the first three intervals in Table2), are
counterweighted) over the center of the pool and timing not representative because very small errors in measuring
their movement.Measurementswere made when ventilation water levels can be large fractions of the actual level
fans were operating and when they were shut down. changes, and changes of a few tenths of a degree in pool
temperature can account for sizable portions of steam
Temperature and Humidity Measurement condensate (heat supplied) for only a few hours. An error
of only 0.01 inch in measuring the 0.004-foot level charge
So that the pool evaporation rate could be reliably during the first 3.6 hours would result in an evaporation
correlated with the conditions in the pool, high-quality error of 25 %. Similarly, a pool temperature change of only
instruments were used and operating conditions were 0.20F (commonlyobserved) represents about 300,000 Btu
maintained at sufficiently constant levels over the test of stored heat. The average pool heat supply rate is about
periods to validate the computational comparison. Air and 250,000 BtuPa, so evaporation based on steam condensate
water conditions were monitored and recorded at six-minute measurementsspanning only four hours would be in error
intervals using a desktop computer. Pool water and air dry- by almost 30 %.
bulb and wet-bulb temperatures were measured with T-type Errors are minimized, however, over the long periods
thermocouple welded junctions. These temperature sensors used in the tests reported here. Table 2 showsthe develop-
agreed to within 0.5°F with a precision scientific mercury- ment of constancy in evaporation rates determined by both
in-glass thermometer, and the thermocouples agreed with methods.
each other to within 0.2°F. This precision includes the Figure 2 showstotal water evaporated during Test III
electronic signal conditioning and was repeatable during the as measured by the change in pool level and as measuredby
testing period. steam supply to the pool heater. The difference in the two
The primary method of humidity measurement was by results is due to energy factors, whichare described below
obtaining air wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures. These in detail. Also shown in Figure 2 is total evaporation
temperature sensors were mountedin the draft of a small computed by use of the ASHRAE equation.
(40-watt) fan, with the wet-bulb sensors located in a wick Air movement at the pool surface, shownin Table 3,
wetted with distilled water. The wet-and dry-bulb sensors was observed three times during Test III, at 3 hours, 29
were located at the pool side, 12 inches above the water hours, and 58 hours. Air movement was in random direc-
surface. A recording hair hygrometer and a mercury-in- tions when the ventilation fans were not operating.
glass sling psychrometer were also used. All methods An estimate of the duration of ventilation time was
agreed consistently within 3 %relative humidity. Periodic made from observing air humidity records (Figure 1).
measurements with a sling psychrometer showed relative Humidity rises whenthe ventilation is off and falls when
humidity variation of about 3 %around the 13001perimeter. the fans are running. It appears that the on and off periods
Pool water temperature was monitored by a single are nearly equivalent, and air movement was equally
thermocouple probe with the sensor tip submerged four divided between the two conditions. At air velocities in this
inches below the pool surface. Prior to testing and twice range, the ASHRAE equation shows ah almost negligible
during the test period, a mercury-in-glass maximum/mini- effect on evaporation (a 2% increase for a doubling of
mumthermometer was moved throughout the pool water velocity), so an average air velocity of 5.3 fpmwas used as
volumeto determine temperature variation. The thermome- a constant value in the ASHRAE calculation.
ter indicated constancyof temperature within 1 °F. Tests at four other pool operating conditions were
conducted for varying periods of time. Table 4 contains a
RESULTS summaryof the conditions and results of all five evapora-
tion tests. All conditions for these tests were identical
Detailed results of Test III, conducted for 68 hours except for air temperature and relative humidity. As
under conditions averaging 82°F pool temperature, 78 °F air described above, outdoor air was automatically supplied

ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia 867
 TABLE2
Resultsof PoolEvaporation,
Test III
ELAPSED TEMPERATURES - DEG F AIR RH ~APOR PRESSURE-IN MM HG
TIME HRS AIR DB AIR WB WATER WATER AIR DIFF

2.4 78 67 83 59 i. 14 0.57 0.57

3.6 78 68 83 61 I. 14 0.60 0.54
8.7 79 67 83 57 I. 14 0.55 0.59
20.9 76 67 83 64 i. 14 0.58 0.56
26.8 77 65 83 55 I. 14 0.52 0.62
28.9 78 66 83 55 i. 14 0.54 0.60
32.4 80 68 83 57 i. 14 0.58 0.56
45.4 77 67 83 61 i. 14 O. 58 0.56
52.2 77 68 83 65 i. 14 0.61 0.53
56.4 78 66 83 55 I. 14 ,0.54 0.60
68.4 76 66 83 59 I, 14 0.52 0.62

.LEVEL CUM EVAP* ,EVAP RATE* CUM HEAT** HEAT EVAP** EVAP RATE**
LBS 2
LB_L_~HR-FT 2BTU/__~T 2
LBS/HR-F~T

0.686
0.683 813 0,078 241 231 0.092
0.682 1084 0.069 321 306 0.081
0.680 1626 0.043 642 605 0.066
0 ¯ 672 3794 0.042 1231 1141 0.052
0 ¯ 669 4607 0.040 1633 1518 0.054
0. 667 5149 0.041 1753 1629 0.054
0.666 5420 0.039 1954 1815 0.053
0. 658 7588 0.039 2623 2428 0.051
0.654 8672 0.038 2804 2580 0.047
0.650 9756 0.040 2829 2586 0.044
0.643 11696 0.039*** 3480 3186 O.044*ee
~_o~/~:
Determined by water level change
Determined by adjusted heat supply rate
Final results of test

Air ’-- Pool

1oo
# 9O
I
8 8o
~ 7o
~ 6o
~ ~o

~ 3o

10
I I J I _.J.~_m.L__ I

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72

Hours From Start of Test

Figure The recorded trends of temperature and relative humidity during a 68-hour test period (Test III).

868 ASHRAE
Transactions:Syrnposia
 -- Heat Input ...... Level Change --- ASHRAE
to Pool of Pool Calculation

2
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

Hours From Start of Test

Figure 2 Total evaporation (pounds of water) trends during a 68-hour testing period (Test III in Table 4*). (*Adjusted
for pumpenergy and heat losses other than evaporation.)

TABLE3
Observations
of Air Movement OverPool Surface
(fpmair velocity)

Space Ventilation Status

Time of Fans Fans
Observation Off O__n_

3 Hrs. 3 9
29 Hrs. 1 I0
58 Hrs. 2 7

TABLE4
AverageTest ConditionsandResults
2)
Evap. (Lb/Hr-Ft
Test No. Temperatures Rel. Vapor Pres.
[Hrs Air Air WB Pool H~n~idity Difference Level Heat
Duration] (°F) (%) (In-Hg) Change Supply

I [18] 82 76 83 72 .31 .020 .022

II [18] 82 74 83 73 .35 .024 .028
III [68] 78 66 83 57 .59 .039 .044
IV [24] 73 61 83 53 .70 .050 .057
V [20] 71 59 83 51 .75 .055 .059

ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia 869
 wheneverthe humidity reached a high limit and switched
off whenthe humidity reached a low limit. Air temperature
was not controlled, but it remainednearly constant through-
out each test period.
Also shownin Table 4 are evaporation rates determined
by measurementof pool-level changes and by measurement
(and adjustment) of heat supply rates. A nearly threefold
variation is observed, corresponding to a similar range in
vapor pressure differences. Also evident is satisfactory
agreement between these two completely different methods
for determining evaporation rates.
Relative humidity and air temperatures in Table 4 cover
a comparatively wide range of vapor pressure differences.
Figure 3 is a presentation of measuredevaporation rates as
a function of the vapor pressure differences. Evaporation
results based on pool level change and on heat supply rate
in the five tests are shownas data points. Also presented in
Figure 3 is the straight-line ASHRAE relationship.
Alinear fit to the level measurement data (cross points)
is shown in Figure 3; the correlating equation is W
= 74(pw - pa)/Y. The difference in slope of the two lines
indicates that the ~active pool evaporation rate is 76 %of
the ASHRAE prediction.
At the low air velocities in an indoor pool, the influ-
ence of the velocity term is almost negligible. Insufficient
velocity variation preventedits evaluation in this investiga-
tion, but in subsequent measurements on an outdoor pool
(Jones et al. 1993), the coefficient of the velocity term was
found to be 0.36. Using that value and an average air
velocity of 5.3 fpmduring the indoor tests, the evaporation
rate equation is
W = (72 + o36V) (Pw-Pa) /Y"
+ Level 0 Energy Input
Measurement
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
~.~’
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.I0 0.20 0.30
Vapor Pressure
Figure 3 Evaporation rate test results from level (water loss) and energy input measurementscomparedwith ASHRAE
equation as a function of water vapor pressure difference.* (*Adjusted for pumpenergy and heat losses other
than evaporation.)
’ 870
Evaporation Determination by Pool
Heat inputs and Losses
Evaporation rates calculated by the use of measured
heating energy input to the pool are shownin Figure 3 by
circled points. These measurementsserved as useful checks
on the accuracy of the water-loss measurements. Correc-
tions for heat transfer by convection and radiation and for
pumpenergy addition and pool water temperature change
were made.
11ae steam condensate measurement required prior
calibration of the steam trap discharge quantity and the
measurement of the temperatures of entering steam and
leaving condensate. The condensate discharge was weighed
on a beambalance scale five times. Quantities ranged from
87 to 90.5 lbs, with an average of 88.6 lbs. This range
indicates a potential error of 3.5 lbs, or 3.9 %.
The accuracy of a scientific mercury-in-glass thermom-
eter for measuring steam and condensate temperatures was
:hl°F, resulting in a potential overall enthalpy error of
0.19 %. The combined maximumerror in the heat supply
measurements was thus 4.1%.
Other heat losses (and gains) contribute to the small
difference between the results of the two measurement
methods. For the conditions in the pool and natatorium, the
following heat-transfer equations were used.
Radiation from pool to natatorium surfaces:
qr = 0.173 × Io-SA~F(T~- 714w)
where
qr = radiant heat-transfer rate (Btu/h.ft2);
--- ASHRAE
Measurement * Calculation
Toot polnto from Table IV
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Difference-In Hg
ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia
 surface area of pool water (ft2);
water surface emissivity, 0.9;
radiation shape factor from pool surface to sur-
roundings, 1.0;
pool water temperature (R);
temperature of walls and ceiling (R).
The computedradiation loss term ranged from 1 to 11
Btu/h.ft 2, corresponding to 4%to 15%of the total heat
supply rate.
Convection from pool surface to air over pool:
qc = hh(tp - ta),
1/
h 3,
= 0.22(tp-ta)
where
qc = convectiveheat-transfer rate (BtuPa.ft2),
h = convectionheat-transfer coefficient (Btu/h.ft 2. °F),
tp = pool water temperature (°F),
ta = air temperature over pool (°F).
In addition to the above losses, there is an estimated
2.
loss from the heat exchangerand pipeworkof 0.1 Btu/h.ft
Finally, there is an energy gain resulting from recirculation
pumpwork equal to 3.9 BtuPa.fi 2. The combined energy
adjustments for each test condition are reflected in the
values shown in Table 4 and Figure 3. An example of
calculated losses and gain is represented in Table 5.
The small difference between evaporation rates deter-
mined by water level change and heat supply rate, ranging
between8 %and 15 %, provides confidence in their validity.
Inaccuracies in estimating radiation, convection, and the
fractional degree variation in temperatureof a large massof
pool water are considered principal sources of the differenc-
es. For example, a pool temperature rise of only 0.2°F
from the start to the end of a 24-hour test represents more
than 300,000 Btu, corresponding to 12,500 BtuPa. This
quantity is almost 6 %of a typical hourly heat supply rate
of 220,000 Btu.
It is possible, also, that the consistently higher values
of evaporation based on steam condensate measurement
could have been the result of a small and unmeasured
amountof moisture in the saturated steam supply.
Error Potential in ASHRAE
EvaporationDetermination
Error in determiningthe coefficients in the evaporation
equation is dependent on temperature sensor error and the
averaging of temperatures across the entire pool area
relative to the values at the sensor locations.
The temperature sensors (T-type welded thermocouple
junctions) were placed in a temperaturebath prior to testing
and agreed to within ±0.2°F. The air dry-bulb and wet-
bulb temperature variation around the pool perimeter was
observed to be less than 2°F. Pool water temperature
variation was within I°F. Airflow movementcould be in
error by 3 to 4 feet per minute, as seen from Table 3.
By combining the above errors in the ASHRAE
equation at a typical condition (pool temperature83 °F, air
dry-bulb temperature 78 °F, air wet-bulb temperature 67 °F,
and air velocity 7.5 fpm), the error in the compu~xl
evaporation rate is 4.2%.
DISCUSSION
Evaporation rate accurately measured by water-level
change in an unoccupied indoor swimmingpool has been
found directly proportional to the difference in vapor
pressure of water at pool temperature and at air dew point.
The proportionality constant is 76 %of the value determined
by Carrier in pan evaporation tests with undisturbed water.
Identification of the sources of differences amongthe
publishedrelationships is not within the scopeof this paper,
but one major factor is evident. The size of the evaporating
surface in most of the previous investigations was very
small, from a few square inches to a few square feet. Edge
effects, airflow instabilities, and other factors are likely to
have contributed to the differences. Measurementson larger
outdoor water surfaces, although not as accurate, have
shown lower rates than found in pan tests. Estimates of

TABLE5
EnergyGainsandLossesunderTypical
Conditions
in IndoorPool
Pool Temperature 83°F
Air Temperature 78°F
ceiling Temperature 66°F (Estimated)
Steam Supply Pressure, psia 19 psia
Steam supply temperature 225°F
Condensate discharge temperature 150°F
Condensate rate .0483 ibs/hr
Total heat supply 50.1 Btu/hr - Sq Ft
Radiation Loss 5.7 Btu/hr - Sq Ft
Convection loss 2.4 Btu/hr - Sq Ft
Piping heat loss 0.I Btu/hr - Sq Ft
Recirculation pump energy gain (3.9 gain) Btu/hr - Sq

Evaporation heat loss, by difference 45.8 Btu/hr - Sq Ft

ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia 871
natural evaporation from ponds and reservoirs have,
therefore, long been based on the use of reduced values of
the rates measuredin small-scale tests. Meyer(1942), for
example, recommended use of a coefficient for lake
evaporation of 74 %of that for standard pans.
"l~ere can be no better facility for determiningevapora-
tion rates in swimmingpools than a pool itself. Direct
applicability to other pools of accurately measuredwater
losses in a test pool is clear. The departure of the value of
the coefficient from the value found by Carrier with small
test pans is the result of the large difference in surface area
of water. Whetherthere maybe a quantitative relationship
betweenwater surface area and specific evaporation rate is
beyondthe scope of this paper. It is recommended that the
relationship for this 4,300-square-foot pool be considered
applicable to all indoor pools larger than about 1,000 square
feet.
Logic and limited evidence indicate that evaporation
from a pool in active use is higher than from a quiet water
surface. Waves,water splashes, wet deck areas surrounding
the pool, and wet skin of swimmersin and out of the pool
all increase effective evaporating area. Averagesurface air
velocity mayalso increase, but that effect, if any, is small.
The principal factor is increased wetted surface, primarily
deck space across whichpool users travel in and out of the
pool. Althoughhighly variable, that area mayapproach half
the pool water surface. At a comparable rate from such
areas, evaporation could be 50 % higher than whenthe pool
is not in use. Condensatewas collected from dehumidifiers
in Germanpools at substantially higher rates whenthe pools
were in use than whenidle, but quantifying the results is
speculative.
It should be recognized that the energy for evaporation
that occurs outside the pool itself, as from wet deck areas,
is not drawn from the pool water but rather from the
ventilation air. The increase in pool water heat supply is
probably the result of the greater area of turbulent water
surface and possibly higher local velocities of air in contact
with the water.
Evaporation rates found in this investigation apply
directly to requirements for energy, water, ventilation, and
heating during closed periods, typically 40%to 60%of the
time. If pool covers are applied to the water surface when
the pool is not used, the resulting energy savings can be
accurately predicted by use of the equation developedin this
investigation. For design of pool heaters, air exhaust/sup-
ply/heating facilities, dehumidifiers, and heat recovery
units, peak evaporation rates must be knownor estimated.
Measurements are clearly needed. Until the data are
available, it is recommendedthat evaporation rates from
pools in typical active use be estimated 50%higher than
from unoccupied pools under the same temperature and
humidity conditions.
Although a total pressure term is seldom included in
evaporationrate equations, limited studies of its effect have
been made by Rohwer(1931), Russell, Millar (1937),
Sleight. Rohwer’sextensive evaporation measurementsover
872
a range of altitudes (including data for Fort Collins and for
sea level), corrected for wind velocity differences in an
analysis by Hickox (1944), showedagreement with Millar’s
finding of evaporation rate proportional to the -0.25 power
of atmospheric pressure. Applyingthis relationship to the
Fort Collins data obtained at a 24.8-inch barometer yields
a sea level rate 95.4% of the Fort Collins rates. The
equation applicable at low elevations (below approximately
1,000 ft) is then:
W = (69 +.34V) (Pw-Pa) /Y"
This rate is 73 % of that obtained by direct use of the
unadjusted Carrier/ASHRAEequation.
CONCLUSIONS
1. At knownwater temperature, air temperature, and air
humidity, the rate of evaporation from an undisturbed
water surface in an indoor swimming pool can be
reliably calculated using the equation
W = A(C+ .35v) (Pw-Pa) /Y,
where
W = lbs evaporated per hour;
A = surface area of water, ft2;
C = a coefficient dependent on barometric pres-
sure, with a measuredvalue of 72 at 5,000 ft
elevation and a computedvalue of 69 at sea
level;
v = air velocity at water surface, in the range of 1
to 10 fpm;
Pw = vapor pressure of water at pool temperature,
in. Hg;
Pa = vapor pressure of water at air dew point, in.
Hg;
Y = latent heat of vaporization at pool temperature,
Btu/lb.
2. The rate of evaporation from an undisturbed water
surface in an indoor pool is 76 %(73 %at sea level)
the rate computed by using Equation 1, page 4.7, of
the 1991 ASHRAEHandbook(and the identical equa-
tion in earlier editions of ASHRAE Applications).
3. Evaporation rates measured by precise pool-level
differences at closely controlled conditions during five
tests of 18 to 68 hours duration were determined with
an average error of 2 %.
4. Least-squares correlation of measuredevaporation rates
with vapor pressure differences shows a standard
deviation of 4.5 %.
~ 5. Average departure of rateof evaporation by heat
supply measurement from the rate measured by pool-
level changeis 12 %. It is concludedthat the closeness
of this agreementjustifies the determinationof evapora-
tion rates from indoor pools by accurate measurement
of the heat supply and water temperature change,
together with estimates of other energy losses.
ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia
6. The small coefficient of the air velocity term in the Meyer. 1942. Evaporation from lakes and reservoirs.
developed equation was not evaluated because of inade- Minnesota Resources Commission, June.
quate meansfor achieving significant variation in that Millar, F.G. 1937. Evaporation from free water surfaces.
parameter. The 0.38 value shown in the equation is Canadian Meteorological Memoirs 1: 43.
based on subsequent measurements in an outdoor pool NSPI. 1987/88. 1987 and 1988 swimming pool and spa
where the effects of air velocity variation could be industry market reports. National Spa and Pool Insti-
determined. tute.
7. Minimumventilation rates necessary for maintenanceof Reeker, J. 1971. Water evaporation in indoor swimming
constant natatorium humidity whenthe pool is not in pools. Gesutulheits-Ingenieur, March, pp. 72-80
use can be reliably determined by use of the evapora- (Germany).
tion rate equation developedin this investigation and by Rohwer, D. 1931. Evaporation from free water surfaces.
Equation 2, section 4.7, of the 1991 ASHRAEHand- Tech. Bulletin No. 271, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
book. Correspondingair-heating requirements can then Root, D. 1983. Howto determine the heat load of swim-
be determined by use of outdoor and indoor air temper- ruing pools. Solar Age, November,p. 20.
ature. Shah, M.M.1990. Calculated evaporation from swimming
8. Variation in pool conditions monitored at bsix-minute pools. Heating, Piping, a~l Air Conditioning, Decem-
intervals throughout a test period resulted in maximum ber, p. 103.
departures of 5.5% from the average vapor pressure
difference. Computedand measured evaporation rates APPENDIX
were, therefore, essentially constant in each test.
9. Measurementsof pool-level change over periods of at Exampleof Evaporation Reduction and Cost
least 16 hours by use of micrometer gauges can pro- Savings by Use of Pool Cover
vide evaporation rate results with maximum errors less
than 2%. PoolStatistics
10. The equations developed in this investigation maybe Pool surface area 23,000 ft
used with confidence in predicting reductions in water- Surrounding deck area 21,000 ft
heating and air-heating requirements by use of covers Water temperature 800F
on indoor swimmingpools. Air temperature 80°F
Relative humidity in natatorium 50 %
REFERENCES Hours closed per year 4,500
Annual average atmospheric temperature 45°F
ASHRAE.1991. 1991 ASHRAEhandbook--HVAC applica- Powerto exhaust and fresh air fan 10 kW
tions, p. 4.7. Atlanta: AmericanSociety of Heating, Heat source, natural gas 3
1,000 Btu/ft
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Average air movementover water surface 5 fpm
Biasin, V.K., and W. Krumme.1974. Evaporation in an Roomair dew point (from psychrometric chart) 61.5°F
indoor swimmingpool. Electrowarme International, From vapor pressure tables, at 80°F Pw = 1.033 in. Hg
May, pp. al15-a129 (Germany). at 61.5°F Pa = 0.550 in. Hg
Brambley, M.R., and S.E. Wells. 1983. Energy conserva- (Convenient source of vapor pressure data is tables in
tion measures for indoor swimmingpools. Energy8(6): ASHRAEFutMamentals. )
403.
Carrier, W.H. 1918. The temperature of evaporation. Calculations
ASHVETransactions 24: 25.
Hickox, G.H. 1944. Evaporation from free water surfaces. Water-Heating Saving
Papers, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, p. 1297,
October. Using evaporation equation, W= (72 + .36v)(Pw pa)/Y,
Himus, G.W., and J.W. Hinchley. 1924. The effect of a Evaporation heat = (72 + .36 × 5)(1.033 - 0.550)
current of air on the rate of evaporation of water below 235.7 Btu/h.ft
the boiling point. Chemistryand Irulustry 43: 840. Water heating saved by covering pool = 35.7 × 3000 ×
Jones, R., C.C. Smith, and G. Lrf. 1993. Measurement 4500 = 483 mmBtu per year
and analysis of evaporation from an inactive outdoor
swimmingpool. Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of Air-Heating Saving
the AmericanSolar Energy Society, p. 399.
Lrf, G.O.G. 1991. Evaporation from swimming pools. Evaporation rate = 36.2/1048 × 3000 = 103.6 lb/h
Letter in Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning, Humidity ratio at 82°C, 50%RH= 0.0117 lb/lb
October, p. 39. Humidity ratio winter average = 0.0020 lb/lb
Lurie, M., and N. Michailoff. 1936. Evaporation from free Minimumventilation rate = 103.6/[60 × .075 × (0.0117
water surfaces. Ind. atut Eng. Chem.28(3): 345. - .0020)] = 2,373 cfm

ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia 873
Minimumair heating saved = 60 x 2373 x 0.018 x (82
- 45) x 4500 = 427 mmBtu/yr
MinimumTotal Heat Saving
483 mm+ 427 mm= 910 mmBtu saved/yr
At 70%combustion efficiency, natural gas saving = 910
ram/100,000 × 0.70 = 13,000 ccf/yr
Value of gas saved at $0.50/ccf = 0.5 × 13,000 =
$6,500/yr
Electricity Saving
Fan energy reduction = 10 kW × 4500 h = 45,000
kWh/yr
Value of electric saving at $0.05/kWh= $2,250/yr
Total Annual Energy Saving
DISCUSSION
S.A. Sherif, Assodate Professor, Department of Me-
chanical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville:
The accuracy of the water level measurementsin the pool
seems to be quite high (+0.02 in.). Can the authors speak
moreto this issue and describe the instruments they used to
carry out the level measurements?
C.C. Smith: Measurementsof water level are taken by a
micrometerwith a scale readable to .001 inch. The microm-
eter is securely mountedto the side of the pool and is inside
a stilling well to suppress waves. The sharp tip of the
micrometerpoint is sprayed with silicon oil to reduce water
adhesion. Thepoint is lowereduntil it visually contacts the
water surface. The measurementis repeated until consistent
readings are found to ±0.01 inch.

Total saving = $6500 + $2250 = $8750/yr

Alternate Saving Based on Ventilation Rate

in ASHRAE Standard 69-1989, p. 5

Recommendedventilation rate = 0.5(3000 + 6000)

4500 cfm
Air heating saving based on ASHRAE rate:
60 x 4500 x 0.018 x (82 - 45) x 4500 = 809
Btu/yr
Total heat saving = 809 mm + 483 mm = 1292 mm
Btu/yr
Value of total heat saving = 1292 nun X .50/70,000 =
$9,229/yr
Total gas and electricity saving = $9229 + $2250 =
$11,479/yr

Economic Evaluation

At typical installed cost of fully automatic swimming

pool covers providing 95 %suppression of evaporation when
pool is not in use,

$36,000 total installed cost/0.95 × $8750= 4.33 years

simple payback
Based on ASHRAEStandard 69-1989, $36,000/0.95 ×
$11,479 = 3.30 years simple payback

NOTE:

Savings resulting from reduction in water treatment costs

(primarily reduced chlo6ne requirements) and from reduced
moisture damageto structure and equipment not included.

874 ASHRAE
Transactions: Symposia