4146 Rates of Evaporation from Swimming Pools in Active Use Charles C. Smith, P.E. Member ASHRAE Fellow ASHRAE ABSTRACT The rates of water evaporation from indoor and outdoor swimming pools in active use have been measured and ‘compared with evaporation rates from unoccupied pools and with values calculated by the equation W=(95+0.423 v) (pw- PaJY, where W is evaporation rate, lb/h ft; vis air velocity at ‘water surface, f/min : pwis saruration vapor pressureat water temperature, in. Hg: pa is saturation vapor pressure at air dewpoint, in Hg: and Yi latent heat at pool temperature, Bu’ 1b. Inundisturbed pools, evaporationrates were measuredand Sound to be 74% of the rates obtained by use of the equation. Rates of evaporation from pools inactive use increase with the ‘number of swimmers, rising 40% to 70% above the rates from quiet water surface. Measurements of evaporation from a Pool.in use by 15 10 20 swimmers per 1,000 fl? were found to ‘average 26% higher than the rate calculated by the equation. INTRODUCTION ‘The design of equipment for heating water in indoor and. ‘outdoor swimming pools and for heating ventilation air in indoor pools requires reliable information on rates of heat loss from the pools. Such information is also needed for predicting, energy quantities and costs and for estimating the savings obtainable by use of energy conservation measures. Propet sizing of water heaters, air heaters, ventilation fans, heat ‘exchangers, dehumidification systems, and numerous acces- sories and the evaluation of heat recovery systems, pool covers, and other energy saving equipment are directly involved. mn indoor pools, virtually all the heat supplied to the pool water is dissipated to air in the natatorium by evaporation, Radiation and convection transfers are usually negligible. ‘Moisture entering the air must be removed either by ventila- tion (requiring fresh-air heating when outdoor temperatures. ‘are appreciably below 80°F) or by condensation in a dehumid- George 0.6. Laf, D.Sc., P.E. Randy W. Jones, P.E. ification system. Heat losses from outdoor pools are also largely by evaporation. but radiation and convection to the surroundings are typically 30% to 40% af the total loss. Prior to the current investigations, there have been no ‘measurements of energy supply to swimming pools under well-controlled conditions. Equipment designers have commonly relied on a relationship originally formulated by W. H, Carrier (1918) and presented in ASHRAE Applications (1995, 1991, 1987). The equation is W = (9540425 v)(py—p,/¥ a where W = evaporation rate, vn f?; ¥ = alirvelocity at water surface, Amin. Pe ~ saturation vapor pressure at water temp, in. Hg; Pe ~ saturation vapor pressure at ar dew point in Hg; also partial pressure of water in pool atmosphere: Y = latent heat at poo! temperature, Bub ‘This formula was based on the results of measurements of evap- oration from a shallow pan of water over which air was passed ina wind tunnel. Water losses were correlated with vapor pres- ‘sures, humidities, and air velocity. Investigations of evaporation from open outdoor tanks by Rohwer (1931), from outdoor Florida pools by Root (1983), from five outdoor pools in Switzerland by Molinaux et al. (1994), and from measurement of condensate recovery from ‘dehumidifier systems in German pools by Labohm (1971), Biasin and Krumme (1974), and Reeker (1978)have produced widely differing results. Variations in test conditions, uncer- tain measurement accuracy, and departures from typical pool designs have prevented significant use of any of these find- ings, thus leaving the ASHRAE relationship generally used for estimating pool evaporation and the requirements for heat- ing and ventilation, ‘Shares Smith isa esearch scientist and George LAfisprofessoremertusand founding director of te Colorado Site Universiy Solar Energy Grrlisalons Laboratory, For Collins, Colo. Randy W. Jones is a federal energy program specialist with the US. Deparment of Energy, Golden. Colo Fans GREEN IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. FOR INCLUSION IN ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS 1990 V. 104 Pt 1, Noto be reprinted in whol on eng pat winout writen perasnon of the Ameren Seco Retigratng and Ar-Conasonng Engineer, inc, 1751 Tlie nae NE Atata GA 30528 Samar, Sede, concurs crecommencauonsexresseain is pape’ oe those of te aura) so at noeataly ence he Bene REE Ba ‘quesvons ana comments egucng fe pape shoud be cand a ASHRAE rolna San Feb #1358,‘There has recently been disagreement, however, on the pool conditions to which the ‘equation applies. Inthe 1987 ASHRAE Hand. 00k, the equation is stated to represent evapo- ration from a quiet pool surface (Carrier) increasing as much as 50% when in active use Bur in the updated ASHRAE Handbook (1991), ‘without supporting evidence or explanation, the {equation was stated to apply to public pools at high to normal activity” and that “other pool uses may have up to 50% less moisture evapo- ration." In the 1995 ASHRAE Handbook, the ‘equation is reported to apply directly to pools atnormal activity:” “other pool uses may have ‘more or less evaporation.” The lack of data on rates of evaporation from swimming pools, and the need for that information for equipment design and energy requirements, has stimulated a series of four ‘evaporation measurement programs in institu- ional pools. In the order of performance, these tests have been conducted on (1) an unoccupied indoor pool, (2) an unoccupied outdoor pool. G) an indoor pool in active use, and (4) an ‘outdoor pool inactive use. In each of these projects, the two vapor pressures in Equation 1 were determined by measure- ‘ment of water and air temperatures and air humidity overtime intervals ranging from 2 hours to 68 hours. Airflow rate was also measured. Evaporation from the unoccupied outdoor pool ‘was determined by measurement of water loss rate, whereas ‘water loss and heat supply rate were both measured inthe tests ‘onthe unoccupied indoor pool. The results ofthe indoor inves- tigation have been published by Smith etal. (1993), and the ‘outdoor measurements and results were presented by Jones et al. (1994). Rates of evaporation from the inactive indoor pool deter- ‘mined by the measurement of water level change during extended time imervals are in satisfactory agreement with Values based on the measurement of heat supply rates during the same period. Figure 1, based on results by Smith et al. (1993), shows both sets of data, and for comparison, the result of using the Carriet/ASHRAE Equation 1 at the measured pool conditions is shown. The final evaporation rate equation. for a quiet indoor pool, based on level change measurements and adjusted to apply to altitudes less than 1000 ft above sea level, is 5 i 5 W = (694035 ipy-p,)/Y. @ Evaporation rates for the quiet pool computed by the use of Equation 2 are 74% of those obtained by the use of Equation 1, the “ASHRAE equation.” Rates of evaporation from the inactive outdoot pool, ‘determined by the measurement of water level change (Jones etal, 1994) differed less than 2% from those in the indoor pool ‘at comparable conditions. In contrast with the indoor tests, air | | Equation 2 (Revised) 040 060 060 070 080 0 020 020 ‘Vapor Prasaure Ditfrence-in Ho Figure 1 Rate of evaporation from quiet indoor pool based on level (water loss) measurements and energy input measurements compared with rate computed by Equation I as a function of ‘water vapor pressure difference. (Adjusted for pump energy ‘and heat losses other than evaporation.) Velocity varied enough for quantifying its effect on evapora- tion rate. The velocity coefficient, 0.35 (Equation 2) is based ‘on the results of the outdoor pool tests. During two periods ‘when no heat was supplied tothe pool heater, water tempera- ture decreases were used in heat balances, which showed 56%, of total energy loss was by evaporation, 26% by radiation, and. 18% by convection, ‘The determination of evaporation rates from pools in active use was made by measuring the rate of change of water, level and by evaluating the heat loss rate by measuring the ‘decrease in water temperature when there were no heat addi- tions to the pool. Correlation of these evaporation rates with the number of people inthe pool provided the primary data for evaluating the influence of pool activity on evaporation rates, and energy losses. Equation 1 shows the importance of vapor pressures in ‘controlling pool evaporation rates. Reduction in watertemper- ‘ature and maintenance of higher natatorium dewpoin, i /higherairtemperature and relative humidity, can minimize the ‘vapor pressure gradient and evaporation rate, but conditions, ‘must be acceptable to swimmers and spectators. Relative hhumidity appreciably above 50% is not only uncomfortable ‘but can cause corrosion and structural damage by excessive ‘condensation on cooler surfaces. Dewpoint control by regula- tion of ventilation air supply, exhaust fan use, and/or dehu- ‘midifier operation is, therefore, essential. Both indoor pools, involved in these evaporation studies had automatic control of ‘air dewpoint, thereby minimizing vapor pressure variations. ‘The facility descriptions, procedures, results, and conclu- sions for tests on indoor and outdoor pools in active use follow. as) TEST FACILITIES Indoor Poo! A tmunicpal facility in For Collins City comprises three pools 1.200 f wading/play pool. 2900 therapy pool, and 213.000 athletcfitmess pool (Figure 2), The three pools are mechanically independent, having separate water recircula. vin, heating, chemical reatment,andmake-up water systems The pools share the same natatorium space and equipment axea, The large athlete pol selected for this study has ot water volume of 526,000 gallon (438 million pounds) The pools were open to swimming and other activities ‘ach day for 8-12 hours. The large pool served a number of activites at onetime, such as swimming, diving, and aquatic exercise. The numberof people nthe pool varied from 1-2 and up to more than 150, Pool-water temperatures _were thermostatically controlled normally at 80°F - 82°F, The room airwas normally a 85°F and 50% relative humidity. Automatic. humidity Control regulated the supply of fresh air andthe operation of exhaust fan, The entire complexis served by the same heating equipment, so fuel used specifically for pool heating could not be measured Outdoor Poot The site for testing the outdoor pool in active use was the ‘same as used earlier for the inactive pool tests. The pool is ‘operated by a neighborhood association and is open for approximately three months in the summer. Its total surface ‘area is 4125 f and contains 144,000 gallons of water (1.2 ‘million pounds). Buildings, trees, and fences are set back at least 20 ft, so the pool is relatively open to wind and solar radi- ation exposure (Figure 3). Radiation losses from the pool are directly to the sky. ‘The pool is maintained at temperatures near 83°F by a thermostat in the return water line, Natural-gas billing records indicate energy input is approximately 8 million Btu per day Figure 2 The 13,000? indoor athletic/fimess pool used Sor activity testing. ae — Figure 3 The 4,000 outdoor community pool without covering and 5.5 million Bru per day when covered for about !2hours overnight. The outdoor pool activity was simi- lar to that in the large indoor pool. This pool was open to all {types of activity for 45 minutes per hour and then limited only 10 swimming for 15 minutes. ‘The pool water in both the indoor and outdoor facilities is circulated continuously by conventional means through sand filters, chiorinators, and natural gas-fired boilers. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Measurement of Temperatures, Humidity, and Air Velocity ‘The rate of evaporation from a water surface is propor- tional to the difference between the vapor pressure of the liquid water and the partial pressure of water vapor in the immediately adjacent air. Determination of these two quanti- ties requires the measurement of water temperature, air temperature, and air humidity (or dew point). Air and water temperatures were measured with calibrated T-type thermo- couples, with voltage recorded at six-minute intervals by use of a desktop computer-controlled data-acquisition unit. Differences between sensors and between repeated measure- ‘ments with the same sensor did not exceed 0.1°F. Air humidity was obtained by monitoring the dew point temperature with a dew-point hygrometer. This instrument ‘was calibrated against a secondary dew-point temperature standard immediately prior to use. The limit of departure of 0.2°F corresponds to a humidity difference of approximately 0.6%. Outdoor wind speed was obtained by the use of a rotating cup anemometer located at the edge ofthe pool, 1 ft above the water surface. Determination of Evaporation Rate ‘Two methods have been used for determining evapora- tion rates. One procedure involves the precise measurement of the change in water level during an extended period when no ‘water additions or liquid losses occurred. The other method isbased on water temperature measurements during time inter- val when heat additions and losses are either measured or calculated. An energy balance then indicates heat dissipation by evaporation and the quantity involved. Inn inactive pool, the change in water level is an exact ‘measure of evaporation. In an active pool, however, splashing ‘onto deck areas, water running over pool ims into drains, and ‘water cartied out on the wet skins of swimmers leaving the ool make level changes appreciably greater than that caused by evaporation alone. For that reason, evaporation from the active indoor pool was determined by temperature measure- ments and energy calculations. In the outdoor pool, doubtful accuracy of computed heat losses other than by evaporation ‘made it necessary to use water level changes for estimates of the evaporation rat. Measurement of Heat Loss Rates The rate of evaporation is determined by measuring pool water-temperature change over an extended time interval, ‘computing enthalpy increase or decrease, adding measured ‘energy gains such as heater inputs, ifany, and deducting losses other than by evaporation. The resulting energy quantity is ‘that which was transferred to water vapor escaping from the Poo! surface ata rate computed by applying the heat of vapor- ization, 1040 Bru/b. ‘The heat-loss measurement method was used only forthe indoor pool because solar energy gains and large radiative and ‘convective losses from an outdoor poolimpose inaccuracies in computing energy differences resulting from evaporation. ‘Water temperatures in the indoor pool were measured during, Periods when heaters were shut down. Calibrated thermocou- piles in the return lines carrying water from evenly spaced points around the pool perimeter provided measurements with 0.1°F accuracy, With no external source ofheat and negligible convective and radiative transfer in the active indoor pool (air and water temperatures are nearly equal), typical rates of temperature decrease of 0.2°F/h to 0.3°F/h result from evaporative heat loss. Considerable and frequent variation in pool occupancy restricted the duration of tests to a few hours; hence, total temperature changes were usually less than 2°P. The accuracy of these results is discussed below. In addition to evaporative heat loss, there was an esti- ‘mated steady heat loss from the heat exchanger and pipework of 0.1 Bruhh-ft poo! surface and a steady energy addition of 3.9 Buwh-ft? pool surface resulting from recirculation pump work. Evaporative heat loss was, therefore, determined by adding 3.8 Bru/h- to the measured hourly enthalpy decrease ‘Measurement of Water Loss Rates Rates of water loss from the outdoor pool were deter- mined by the measurement ofthe decrease in pool water level over time intervals of several hours. No water additions ‘occurred in these periods, but small quantities of water were Tos by splashing ‘Ata typical hourly evaporation rate of 0.1 If? in an outdoor pool, the water level decreases about 0.02 inh In order to measure water levels with sufficient accuracy, 2 micrometer gauge was rigidly mounted othe side ofa small basin adjacent tothe pool. A hydrostatic tube maintained 2 water level inthe basin identical that inthe poe A small uantyof salt wasaddedto the waterto increase is clecieal conductivity. Contact between the water surface and a metal point on the gauge was indicated by closure of an electric circu. A Vernier sealeon the gauge was read tothe nearest 001 in, Iferors at the start and end ofa three-hour tes are Adkitve,0.06in. change canbe determined with an accuracy ‘of about 3%. A photograph of this instrumentation is shown in Figure 4. Shore intervals were sometimes necessated by changes in conditions suchas the number of pool uses and wind velocity ‘Measurement of Activity in Pool Since there was no regulation of the number of people in the pools during these tests, the activity level was variable. Figure 4 Precision water level gauge (micrometer) 10 ‘monitor pool water loss. ae C‘The method for activity measurement was to count people in the pool, regardless of the type of activity, each 13 minutes during test periods. The sum of the 15-minute counts over the testing period was divided by the number of periods, thus siving the approximate average number of people using the Poo! during the test. ‘The water surface disturbance caused by different types of activity occurring atthe same time could not be quantified, However, it was assumed that the combination ofall activity effects upon evaporation was consistent with time. Activity in ‘and arounda pool causes disturbance of the water/air interface and creates an additional wet surface when people leave the water of otherwise remove water as liquid. Surface distur- Dances increase the mass-transfer coefficient and the water surface area. Six-inch waves at 3 ft wave intervals have about 20% more surface area than smooth water. Random turbue lence causes further increase in surface area. Energy for the pool surface component of evaporation is supplied by pool water heating, whereas water evaporating from other surfaces ‘within the pool enclosure requires energy fromthe ventilation- Air heat source, rather than from the pool water heater. EVAPORATION RESULTS—INFLUENCE OF POOL ACTIVITY Indoor Poo! Under active conditions, energy, rather than water loss, is ‘the more reliable gauge of evaporation since water is partially Jost by splashing onto deck areas. Water-level measurements were also made for estimating liquid losses but were not used in determining rates of evaporation from the indoor pool. Rates of evaporation from the active indoor pool, deter- ‘ined by calculations based on measured water-lemperature decreases, are shown in Table 1. Also tabulated are vapor pressure differences, test durations, the average count of pool users, and, by the use of Equation 2 adjusted for the 5000 ft elevation of the site, the calculated rates of evaporation from an inactive pool at the same condi- tions of temperature and humidity, Nearly equal water and air temperatures make convective heat transfer negligible, and radiation to or from walls and ceiling is essentially zero. The rate of evaporation {s, therefore, equal tothe rate of heat loss plus the small gain from pump work, divided by the latent heat, 1040 Brw/b. Evaporation from the active pool a divided by evaporation from an inactive pool atthe same conditions is based on the heat-loss measurements. Table 1 shows a strong dependence of evaporation rate on ool activity, rising 40% to 70% above 2.00 1.80 Evaporation Ratio, (BR) Figure s the rate from a quiet water surface when numerous swimmers ae using the poo. Figure 5, based onthe data in Table 1, shows evaporation rates inreasing in proportion to pool occupancy. Measured temperatures and humidities were used with pavehrometic data for 5000 f elevation to obtain vapor pressures, which were then used in Equation 2, multiplied by an altiudecorec. tion (0.98)t0 obtain evaporation rates forthe unoccupied pool ‘Actual evaporation divided by those computed. velues Provides the ratios shown in Figure 5. The average departure of the measured ratio values from the egresion line 6 0.0% ‘which represents =3.8% in the range of | - 15 persons/1000 2 A few observations (not shown) of poo! ‘occupancy as high as 20 people10008 indicate an approximate upper limit on activity effects correspondingto the 15 people /1000 ff count Ina typical instttional pool 40 «75 (8000 f), about 30 swimmers would correspond to the upper extreme of activity ‘measured in these tests. AAs indicated in the discussion of wateremperature measurements, frequent changes in pool actviy levels prevented lenghy test inervals and substantial temperanre changes from the star tothe end of atest Atypical change of FF, subject to 0.1°F unceraimy of each measurement, can Produce a 20% maximum error inthe result ofthat test. The Probable rors, however, about half that figure. The ero in 4 pantcular temperature measurement falls between O°F and 0.1°, or ata probable level of 0.05°F. The probable eor in the difference ofthe two temperanures i also reduced. Only if ‘one measurement is erroneously high and the other erone- ously low are the errors additive. f, however both measure. ments are, for example, 0.05°F low, the erorin te difference iszeo. The probableerrorin the measured tmperaturechange in a particular test, therefore, should not exceed about 0.05°F. ‘Rvaln0.9681 2 4 6 © ww 12 14 46 Swimmers per 1000 Sq Ft, (C) ‘Rate of evaporation from indoor active pool relative to rate from ‘inactive pool as a function of activity level (number of swimmers er 1000 ft). a6TAI BLE1 C Indoor Poo!’ T Evaporation Tnactve pool Test | Testduration, Swimmers!) heatrate. | py py | evaporation heat rate | Evaporationratioy| referencenumber | 000 #* | BeumA? | in HG | Btw (Equation?) | activelinactve pa 2] 7] ae 40 | 2 Somat |e iced toe 7a (sai 380 ut 3 37 a7 26 2 | asi 643 mt 4 42 91 7a os |e 453 1a L 3 aie (ass 72 es | 692 304 136 6 38 1 Freee taal es (saa 397 12, 7 | 2 Te a9 38.1 $54 04 146 s | 36 8 00 9 | 63 462 1.06 9 0] 167 00 319. $53 403 094 10 30 nm 16 s 570 a6 116 =m 27 a5 7 | 307 | 455 332 133 2 1 25 no | 6 09 aa 156 3 13 36 122 no | 591 6. 165 i 75 8 Bs na_| 585] 27 169 “Poo! temperature, $1.5°F -82.5°F: sir temperature. 80°F - 83°F: air Except in the tests of less than a two-hour duration, when ‘temperature changes of less than one degree took place, prob- able errors in heat loss are, therefore, not more than 5%. Periods of high pool activity were of short duration, so evaporation rates under those conditions could not’ be ‘measured with comparable accuracy. The four points repre- senting those conditions are identified in Figure 5 and the ‘corresponding portion of the graph is indicated by the dashed line. Although not as accurate as the data for less active condi tions, the results conform with the trend and extend the results into the high pool occupancy range. The linear regression, ‘based on all 14 points is ER=I.04 + 0.046C, and ifonly the ten lower points are considered, the equation is ER=1.05 + 0.047C. The difference is relatively insignificant, and use of the equation based on all points is recommended. ‘The logical value ofthe intercept on the evaporation ratio axis is 1.00, but the regression analysis yields 1.04. The discrepancy is due tothe fact that water waves caused by even. ‘one swimmer in a large poo! (0.08 swimmer/1000 ft in this, 13,000 ft? pool) result in a significant effect on the water-air interface and an increase in evaporation. Below one swimmer! 1,000 ft, the relationship is, therefore, not linear, as indicated by the doted curve in Figure 5 ‘When a pool is heavily used, (approaching 15 swimmers! 1000 £), natatorium humidity will rise uniess heating and ventilating equipment have capacities approximately 70% higher than necessary for an inactive pool. Equation 1 (ASHRAE), with the coefficients traditionally used, yields an relative humidity, 45% - 55%. ‘evaporation rate 1.35 times that from a quiet water surface. Figure 5 shows that this rate is characteristic of a pool being used by about 6 people/1000 ft?. To provide full heating and ventilating capacity of equipment for maximum pool usage, i.e, 70% higher than for a quiet pool, and to use the ASHRAE. ‘equation, is result should be multiplied by 1.70 x 0.74= 1.26. Evaporation from a poo! in active use by numerous swimmers. is, therefore, about 26% greater than computed by the ASHRAE equation. In summary, the ASHRAE equation in its widely used {form shows an evaporation rate characteristic of a pool with about 6 swimmers/1000 fi? of area. Evaporation from an unoc- cupied pool is 74% of the rate calculated by the equation; ‘maximum evaporation, useful for equipment design require- ‘ments, is 26% higher than obtained from the equation, i.e., 1.26 times that value. Outdoor Poo! Results of measurements inthe outdoor pool inactive use are shown in Table 2. Also tabulated are evaporation rates calculated by Equation 2 foran inactive pool, adjusted foralti- tude. Ratios of measured evaporation rates to those based on the equation for an inactive pool atthe same conditions are also tabulated. Measured wind speeds were used in the equa- tion, so the computed ratios show the specific influence of pool activity on evaporation. Evaporation rates reported in Table 2 are based entirely ‘on measured changes inthe pool level overthe listed time peri- aus.TABLE 2 Outdoor Poo! Calculated | | Eau. cvap.heatrate | Average ony. fram inactive | Evap. tet | Tet | water temp. neatrate Poolatsame | rat reference| duration, | Swimmers! duringtes | velocity Evan, | (10456). ‘wind sped, | activ number h 1000 fe period mph jitwnt? | Bent? Bewh ft? | inactive (Tess [75 m2 | 22 | 017 | 01m | asi m [1 | 2 | 40 | 63 829 13 | 00s | ons [123 96 128_| 3 | 39 65 817 11_[ 0103 [0002 | 96 75 129 | 4 34a | 65 835 os 0.063 0.096 100 65 134 3 36 19 84.0 1s | 0058 0.083 37 80 1.08 a 27 | 28 | 006 | ons | 131 128 | 103 7 | 65-22 siz | 20 | 00s | ors | 30 Te 8 42 80 83.2 14 | 0082 0.101 106 85 fb 12s Sys urs a BF mo | 28 | ono | 0150 | 157 sommes imc wo | s6 | at ag | 29 | os [ai [vs ore | on |e [a [4s [39 wi [27 [one [or [ise [07 | 20 | 129 Cao ea wo | 22 | os [om | as | oss! 140 ods. Measurements were made shortly before and after swim- ‘mers were in the water, thereby avoiding effects of surface disturbances on water levels, Water disappearance other than. by evaporation is limited to splashing onto deck areas and ‘removal on skins of swimmers leaving the pool. tis estimated that these physical water losses are less than 5 gaUh, equiva- lent to about 5% of the total measured disappearance. No Correction for this estimated loss has been made, so evapora- tion rates from the outdoor pool may be overstated by an ‘amount approaching 5%. ‘The effects of wind speed and pool activity on evapora- tion rate are shown graphically in Figures the adjusted water-lossrates, divided bythe rates computed by the use of Equation 2, for an unoccupied pool at the same temperatures, humidity, and air speed as measured. Wind velocity varied over a wide range, but its use in Equation 2 yields results showing the specific effec of pool activity only ‘tis evident that the data points in Figure 7 forthe outdoor pool are more widely scattered than those for the indoor pool in Figure 5. The “R” value forthe outdoor pool data, 0.6448, is considerably lower than the 0.9681 value for the indoor ‘pool. But itis seen thatthe equations for the best linear ft 0 the two sets of data are in good agreement. The principal 6, 7, and 8. The data points in Figure é 200 show that in active pools, regardless ofthe 120 number of swimmers, evaporation rates 68.3432.0xV (No Activity) are substantially higher than those in an 316° unoccupied poo, shown bythe "noacv- 140 ity” line based on the results of previous 120F tests by Smith et al. (1993). The rates 100 increase rapidly with wind speed. To g compensate for differences in tempera- 3 30 tures and humidity the data are presented gg Ssevaporation ates peri diffeencein ZS? ‘water vapor pressure. The scatter of points = is due tothe wide variation in pool occu- 20 ancy and the resulting influence on evap- ° oration 0.00 In Figure 7, relative evaporation from the outdoor poo! is correlated with the ‘number ofswimmers. Ordinate values are a6 0.01.00 150 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 ‘Wind SpeedV~ MPH Figure 6 Effect of wind speed on evaporation from active pool2.00 140 ER=1.08+0.0390C Evaporation Ratio, (ER) Rv ‘and outdoor pools are in close agreement at very low outdoor wind veloci ‘of pools in active use. evaporation ratios (evap- oration rates compared with those from inactive pools atthe same conditions) are also compara- ble, slight differences probably resulting from | unmeasured water losses. Itis concluded thatthe higher consistency and quality of the indoor ‘measurements support use of those results for the correlation equation, ER=I,04 + 0.046C. 2 4 6 © 0 42 Swimmers per 1000 Sq Ft, Figure 7 Outdoor pool evaporation as affected by activity level (swimmers/100 fe) ‘easons forthe scatter of data on the outdoor pool ae the vari- ation in wind velocity, fluctuation in number of swimmers during a test period, and variable splashing losses. With fewer than about 5 swimmers/100 ff2, the outdoor water-loss rate was found to be slightly higher than the indoor rate (possibly because splashing influenced the outdoor measurements). With ten swimmers, the highest use of the outdoor pool, the ‘wo pools show approximately equal water-loss rates, Combination of Indoor and Outdoor Results Figure 8 is a summary of pool testing results: inactive ‘outdoor pool (line for zero swimmers), active indoor (four intercepts on the zero wind speed ordinate), and active outdoor (three lines for 5, 10, and 15 swimmers /1,000 ft of pool area). Figure 8 also shows the range of conditions that were not tested (dotted lines). In indoor pools, where air speeds are negligible, evaporation rates depend only ‘on water and air conditions and the turbu- 400 lence of the water as indicated by the number of swimmers. Air movement over = a.g9 outdoor pools, even atacomparatvely low = 3 mph (4.4 fsec) velocity has a strong @ 4 4g additional effect, roughly doubling the rate of evaporation that occurs in an indoor & ool. The combined effect of wind speed g *8° and pool activity is indicated in Table 3. The values at zero wind speed are for the | 2.00 indoorpoolandatotherwindspeedsforthe ‘outdoor pool. gus Difference in indoor and Outdoor = 1.00 Evaporation Rates E000 Previously published results by Smith etal, (1995)and Jones etal. (1994) of evap- oration measurements in inactive indoor CONCLUSIONS 0.6448 Rates of evaporation from indoor and ‘outdoor pools in active use have been deter- 14 16 mined by measuring rates of heat loss and water © level change. These results are consistently higher than those previously obtained in quiet pools, the departure being proportional to the ‘pool activity as represented by the number of users per unit area of pool surface. In indoor pools, disturbance and motion of the water surface caused by typical swimming activity increase evapo- ration rates to levels approximately 70% higher than those TABLE 3 Evaporation Relative to Rate in Unoccupied Pool and Zero Air Speed WIND SPEED - MPH Personsnoooe? [0 [05] 1 | 2 | 3 o 1.00 | 123 | 146 [193 | 240 3 128 | 1s7 | 1a7 [247 | 307 10 147 | 181 | 216 | 286 | 355 15 1665 | 2.06 [ 245 | 324 | 403 ‘GWHONER COUNT/1000 Ga FI- 6 & 10 16 260 1.00 200 Wind Spesdivi- MPH 140 260 9.00 Figure 8 Relative evaporation as affected by wind speed and activity level as, C2 from quiet water surfaces. Comparable increases are observed in outdoor pools where increased air movement causes addi- tional evaporation losses. At wind speeds of 3 mph. evapora- tion rates ae typically twice the rates from pools in still ar. ‘The activity of 15 people/1000 ff area of pool over which there is a3 mph wind results in evaporation rates nearly four times those from an unoccupied pool instill ar. ‘Constant humidity can be maintained in an indoor pool being used by 15 to 20 persons'1000 fr’ ifthe design ofheating ‘and ventilation facilities is based on evaporation rates ‘computed by use of the traditional ASHRAE equation, Equa- tion 1, W= (95 + 0.425) (Py ~ pa) ¥ to which a 1.26 multi plier is applied. Use of the equation with a multiplier of 0.74 Drovides reliable evaporation rates from quiet (unoccupied) indoor pools. REFERENCES, ‘ASHRAE. 1987. 1987 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Appli- cations, p. 4.7. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Reftigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE. 1991. 1991 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Appli- ations, p. 4.7. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, inc. ASHRAE, 1995. 1995 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Appli- ‘cations, p. 4.7. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. aus Biasin, Von K., and W. Kromme. 1974. Evaporation in an idoor swimming pool. Elecirowarme International, pp. al 5-a129. May (Germany), Carrier, W.H. 1918. The temperature of evaporation. ASHRAE Transactions 24: 25. Jones. R.. C. Smith, and G. LOf. 1994, Measurement and analysis of evaporation from an inactive outdoor swim- ‘ming pool, Solar Energy $3(1): 3. Labohm, G. 1971. Heating and air conditioning of swim- ming pools. Gesundheits Ingenieur, pp. 72-80. March (Germany), Molinaux, B., B. Lachal, and ©. Guisan, 1994. Thermal analysis of five outdoor swimming pools heated by unglazed solar collectors. Solar Energy $3(1):21 Reeker, J. 1978. Water evaporation in indoor swimming pools. Klima & Kalte Ingeniewr. no. 1, pp. 29-32. Janu- ary (Germany). Rohwer, D. 1931. Evaporation from free water surfaces. Tech, Bulletin no. 271, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Root, D. 1983. How to determine the heat load of swimming pools. Solar Age, pp. 20-23. November. ‘Smith, C.C., R. Jones, and G. LOf. 1993. Energy Require- ‘ments and Potential Savings for Heated Indoor Swim- ‘ming Pools. ASHRAE Transactions 99(2): 864.