Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

A scale model to evaluate water evaporation from indoor swimming pools

F. Asdrubali *
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The evaluation of water evaporation from indoor swimming pools is a topic of considerable practical
Received 11 February 2008 interest, since evaporation may cause the highest energy consumption of the pool plant. A purposely
Received in revised form 28 August 2008 designed experimental apparatus was used to measure the water evaporation rate from a pool scale
Accepted 5 October 2008
model inserted into a climatic chamber to control environmental conditions. The experimental data were
obtained varying various parameters such as water temperature, air temperature, relative humidity and
Keywords: air velocity. The results were used to propose a prediction model for water evaporation which was
Evaporation
compared to other methods found in the literature, showing a good agreement.
Heat loads
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Swimming pools
Scale model

1. Introduction in various conditions of temperature, relative humidity and air

The study of water evaporation from indoor swimming pools
is a topic of major interest both for the design of HVAC—heating,
ventilation and air-conditioning systems and of water heating
plants: in indoor swimming pools, in fact, the highest thermal
load is often due to water evaporation, which therefore
represents the main source of energy consumption of the entire
plant.
A precise evaluation of the evaporation flow rate in these basins
is therefore very important, to the extent that it makes it possible
to correctly design the air conditioning system and to reduce
energy consumption. Furthermore, water evaporation adds
moisture to the building atmosphere and the resulting high
humidity may cause discomfort to the occupants and damage to
materials by promoting rot and corrosion.
Water evaporation from free surfaces is a function of many
parameters, such as water temperature, air temperature and
relative humidity, air velocity, as well as number and kind of
activity of the occupants. There are various studies in the literature
concerning the evaluation of evaporation from indoor pools [1–4];
most of them have considered data from real, occupied or
unoccupied pools, but there is no evidence of recent studies done
on small-size scale models.
The main objective of this study is to develop data and relations
of general validity to calculate the water evaporation flow from
indoor swimming pools, starting from experimental investigations
* Tel.: +39 0 75 5853716; fax: +39 0 75 5853697.
E-mail address: fasdruba@unipg.it.
velocity.
To this extent, an experimental apparatus was designed at the
Thermotechnical Labs of the University of Perugia to carry out
initial water evaporation measurements from a scale model of a
swimming pool [5,6]; the apparatus, inserted into a climatic
chamber, made it possible to control air temperature and relative
humidity but not water temperature. The preliminary results
encouraged the design and construction of an improved apparatus,
which also allowed precise control of water temperature, as in real
indoor swimming pools.
Measurement results were used to implement a correlation to
predict evaporation and, therefore, to estimate heat loads in indoor
swimming pools under different service conditions.
2. Literature review
Many methods for evaluating evaporation from water basins
have been proposed over the years [7–9], although only a few are
specifically related to indoor swimming pools. Some of them were
derived from experimental measurements in real pools, others
from energy balances of the pool or basin, others from the
evaluation of the amount of condensate on the cooling coil of the
air-conditioning unit, assuming that this is equal to the amount of
water evaporated from the pool surface. Shah recently provided a
summary of available methods [3,10,11] both for unoccupied and
occupied pools: the two cases have to be discussed separately,
since for various reasons evaporation is higher in occupied pools,
most notably because of the increase in contact area between air
and water. Occupants, in fact, cause waves, ripples and mist,
increasing with the number of occupants and their activity.

0378-7788/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.10.001
312 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319

The expression is based on laboratory experiments in which air

Nomenclature was blown above the water surface of a pool. Some authors suggest
that the formula overestimates evaporation for unoccupied pools
A surface of evaporation area (m2) and recommend it for evaluating evaporation losses from occupied
D diffusivity swimming pools [14].
E evaporation rate (kg/(m2 s); kg/(m2 h), lbs/h) Smith et al. [15,16] conducted tests on occupied and
G mass flow rate (kg/s, g/h) unoccupied swimming pools and gave empirical formulas based
on these data; their equations are:
I water latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg)
For unoccupied pools:
K mass transfer coefficient (referred to pressure) (kg/
(Pa m2 s)) E ¼ ðC þ 0:35V a ÞAp DP=Y (3)
L water evaporation heat (kJ kg1)
where C is a coefficient which depends on barometric pressure
m mass (kg)
(C = 72 at 5000 ft elevation and C = 69 at sea level).
N number of pool occupants (–)
P saturation pressure (Pa, Hg) For occupied pools:
Re Reynolds number (–)
E ¼ ð0:068 þ 0:063F u ÞAp DP=I (4)
Sc Schmidt number (–)
Sh Sherwood number (–) where Fu is the pool utilization factor (Fu = Amax/ApN); Amax is the
t time (s) pool area Ap increased by waves area; I is the latent heat of
T temperature (8C) evaporation of water (kJ/kg).
V velocity (m/s) A different model has been proposed by Hannsen and Mathisen
Y latent heat of evaporation (kJ kg1) in [1]. Their formula for unoccupied pools may be written as
W specific humidity (kg of moisture/kg of dry air)
E ¼ 3  105 V 1=3 ðe0:06T w  Fa e0:06T a Þ (5)
0:5
0:5 2
Subscripts where V ¼ ½Va2 þ ð0:12ð4ð1  Fa Þ  ðT a  T w ÞÞ Þ  ; Tw is the
a air water surface temperature (8C); Ta is air temperature (8C); and Fa
ev evaporation is air relative humidity (–).
los loss Shah [10] proposed a correlation based on the analogy between
heat and mass transfer for unoccupied pools, later modified to
max pool area plus waves area
improve accuracy:
p pool
r room E ¼ KAp rw ðrr  rw Þ1=3 ðW w  W r Þ (6)
un unoccupied
v ventilation where r is the air density (kg/m3); rr is the room air density, while
w water rw is the saturated air density; W is the specific humidity (kg of
moisture/kg of dry air); and K is a constant.
In Eq. (5), K = 40 if rr  rw < 0.02; K = 35 if rr  rw > 0.02.
Greek letters The correlation was evaluated against undisturbed water pool
D interval (–) test data from various sources, covering a wide range of water
D deviation (–) temperatures (7.1–94.2 8C), air temperatures (6.1–34.6 8C) and air
y viscosity relative humidities (28–98%).
r air density (kg/m3) Shah recommends Eq. (6) for indoor water pools with
F relative humidity (%) undisturbed surfaces and unforced airflow over those surfaces.
He also proposed an empirical correlation based on test data
from various sources for occupied pools:
Most of the empirical equations for unoccupied pools are of E ¼ Ap ð0:113  0:0000175Ap =N þ 0:000059 DPÞ (7)
following type:
Eq. (7) is recommended for normal activity occupied pools (N,
n
E ¼ g Ap ðDPÞ (1) number of pool occupants less than 45), under the following
conditions: water temperature (25–30 8C), air temperature (26–
where E is the water evaporation rate per unit area of the pool (kg/ 31.7 8C) and air relative humidity (33–72%). Finally, Shah [11] also
(m2 s)); g is a constant; Ap is the pool surface area (m2); proposed another formula for pools with very intense activity such
DP = Pw  Pr is the difference between water and room saturation as diving and water polo.
pressures (Pa); and n is a value ranging from 1 to 1.2. As stated previously, some of the correlations mentioned are
The most widely published and used correlation for water derived from energy balances and others from experimental
evaporation rates is the one proposed by Carrier in 1918 [12] and measurements in real pools, but there is no evidence in the
later reported in the ASHRAE Application Handbook [13]: literature of measurements carried out on scale models, apart from
some studies quoted by Shah in [11], some of which date back to
E ¼ ð0:089 þ 0:40782 V a Þ Ap DP=Y (2) more than 60 years ago and cover a range of air and water
temperatures that is too wide to be considered reliable. The aim of
where Va is the velocity of air parallel to the water surface (m/s) this paper is therefore to provide new experimental results for
and Y is the latent heat of evaporation of water (kJ/kg). evaporation rates from water basins, thanks to a scale model and
In Eq. (2), E, Ap and DP are measured respectively in kg/h, m2 an apparatus which allows one to accurately control all the main
and Pa. parameters influencing the phenomenon.
 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319
3. Experimental apparatus
Various apparatuses have been built at the Thermotechnical
Labs of the University of Perugia for the experimental determina-
tion of water evaporation rates. Preliminary analyses were carried
out by means of a scale model of a swimming pool inserted into a
climatic chamber for air temperature and relative humidity
control. Evaporation was determined using such apparatus,
varying air temperature, humidity and air speed and measuring
the resulting water temperature and evaporated water [5,6].
The experimental campaign described in this paper was carried
out thanks to an improved apparatus, which includes a water heat
regulation system. In indoor swimming pools water temperature is
in fact controlled by a specific plant and is not a function of air
temperature.
The experimental apparatus (Fig. 1) for the tests is made up of:
(1) Environmental test chamber: Mazzali Climatest Model climatic
chamber, volume for testing 300 l, dimensions 700 mm
 660 mm  680 mm, temperature range 40/+150 8C, uni-
formity 0.3 8C, relative humidity range from 15% to 98% (3%);
the chamber is equipped with two centrifugal fans to guarantee
uniformity and with heating elements and a refrigerating
machine to control air temperature.
(2) Precision balance: Scaltec model Bel Engineering Ultra Mark
4000, digital screen, range from 0 to 4 kg, accuracy 0.01 g;
operating temperature conditions between 0 and 40 8C, relative
humidity between 20% and 85%, used to value evaporated mass.
(3) External aluminum container: dimensions are 300 mm
 300 mm  95 mm, internally insulated with polyurethane
foam 50 mm thick, so that heat exchange occurs mainly
through the free water surface.
(4) Internal aluminium container: dimensions 250 mm  150 mm
 70 mm, container capacity 2.5 l.
(5) Temperature regulator (Gefran 2000).
(6) Temperature probe: PT100, Class A, Din 43760, precision
0.04 8C, immersed in the water and connected to regulator (5);
for measuring water temperature.
(7) Thermal resistor used to heat water inside the container.
(8) Wooden box used to regulate air velocity inside the climatic
chamber.
(9) Air velocity probe: hot wire type, model BSV 101, with
compensation for operating temperature conditions between
0 and 40 8C and relative humidity between 10% and 95%; the
instrument precision is 0.01 m/s in the range 0–l m/s; an
Fig. 1. Experimental apparatus for water evaporation measurements.
313
externally controllable mechanical stick allows one to move the
probe appropriately over the container surface.
(10) Fluke 45-01 mode for five figures and double fluorescent
display, for signal acquisition of air velocity.
The container (4) can store up to 2.5 l of water and it is put
inside another insulated container. In this way, the first container
is thermally insulated and at the same time it can be easily
extracted. A wooden structure (8) with various openings is
inserted into the climatic chamber, making it possible to regulate
air flow velocity in proximity of the free water surface and to vary
its rate by moving the openings.
A thermoregulation system guarantees a temperature oscilla-
tion of water of about 0.1 8C from the fixed one. The use of an
electrical impulse system to regulate water temperature allows a
drastic reduction of temperature oscillations caused by thermal
inertia of heating elements. Measured water temperature oscillations
and air temperatures during a typical test are shown in Fig. 2.
During the preliminary stage, air velocities were measured to
determine the perfect positioning of the wooden structure
openings in order to guarantee different air velocities over the
free water surface. Velocity is measured at about 10 mm from
water surface in five different positions.
4. Measurement methodology
At the beginning of each test, container (4) was filled with about
2500 g of distilled water and placed inside the insulated box and
into the climatic chamber. Water temperature, air relative
humidity, air velocity and air temperature values were then set,
according to the combinations given in Table 1, typical of indoor
swimming pools. In particular, water temperature ranged from 20
to 30 8C, and air temperature from 22 to 32 8C: in order to
guarantee thermal comfort conditions for pool occupants, espe-
cially when they get out of the pool, air temperature has to be 28
higher than water temperature. The relative humidity values
investigated ranged from 50% to 70%; as concerns air velocity, was
not only the value of 0.05 m/s suggested by ASHRAE [17] and UNI
[18] standards for indoor swimming pools considered, but also, for
the sake of completeness, the higher values of 0.08 and 0.17 m/s.
Once the stationary conditions in the chamber were reached,
water temperature and evaporated water mass were measured
every 10 min.
During all measurements, barometric pressure remained
within the range of 99.5–100.50 kPa.
314 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319

Table 2
K value (108) as a function of water temperature and air humidity for V = 0.05 m/s.

Va = 0.05 m/s

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 23 30

50% 3.35 3.33 3.40 3.35 3.31 3.33 3.34 3.30 3.24 3.20 3.23
60% 2.94 3.16 3.33 3.48 3.60 3.72 373 3.59 3.74 3.76 3.65
70% 3.06 3.17 3.54 3.85 385 3.65 3.57 3.61 3.52 3.53 3.44

where Gw is the water mass flow rate (kg/s); A is the evaporation

surface area; K is the mass transport coefficient; and Pw is the water
saturation pressure.
Fig. 2. Oscillations of air (Ta) and water (Tw) temperatures during a typical test.
In Eq. (8) the concentration degree is expressed in terms of
pressure difference between saturated vapour in balance with
basin water and vapour which is in the air flow hitting the
Table 1 evaporating surface. From Eq. (8) we can calculate K,
Water evaporation measurements: investigated environmental conditions.
Tw (8C) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Dm 1
Ta (8C) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 K¼ (9)
Dt A½Pw ðT w Þ  fPw ðT a Þ
F (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 K values, calculated using Eq. (9) thanks to the measured values of
70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 evaporated water flow rate Dm/Dt and using the typical air
Va (m/s) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
velocity in indoor pools of 0.05 m/s, are given in Table 2.
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 008 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 K depends on a geometrical parameter as shown by the
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 dimensionless relation for laminar flow along a flat plate [19]:

Shx ¼ CðRex Þ1=2 ðScÞ1=3 for Re < 5  105 (10)

5. Results where the Sherwood number (Sh) has the same or similar
functional dependence on the Reynolds (Re) and Schmidt (Sc)
All measurements were repeated at least two times and the numbers as the Nusselt number has on the Reynolds and Prandtl
results averaged; evaporated water mass was then calculated as a numbers.
function of water temperature, for the different values of air The Sherwood number is defined as
relative humidity and velocity (see, for example Fig. 3, for air
velocity = 0.05 m/s). Shx ¼ Kx=D (11)
The results show that as expected evaporated mass flow
increases when water temperature increases and relative humidity where x is the distance of free water surface from friction surface
decreases. and D is diffusivity.
The measured data allow the calculation of the coefficient of Sh assumes the significance of the ratio between total mass
mass transport for every condition investigated. In a system in transfer and diffusive mass transfer.
which the transport mechanism is convective, mass flow can be The Schmidt number is defined as
described by introducing a mass transport coefficient which from a
Sc ¼ n=D (12)
physical point of view, has the same significance as the convection
coefficient in problems concerning heat transfer. where n is the viscosity.
In particular, for problems which concern evaporation from a Sc assumes the significance of the ratio between momentum
basin where air flow hits a water mass at a certain speed, mass diffusivity and mass diffusivity.
transport evaporation is given by [19] Finally, the Reynolds number is defined as

Gw ¼ kA½P w ðT w Þ  FPw ðT a Þ (8) Rex ¼ V x=n (13)

Fig. 3. Evaporated water flow rate (g/h), as a function of water temperature, for different values of relative humidity (Va = 0.05 m/s).
 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319 315

Fig. 4. Predicted water evaporation flow rate per unit area, as a function of water temperature, for different values of air relative humidity (Va = 0.05 m/s).

Re assumes the significance of the ratio between inertial forces and 6. A model for predicting evaporation flow rate
viscous forces.
Hence, for the same values of D, V and n: When K value is known, it is possible to predict the water
evaporation flow rate in a basin as a function of water temperature,
K ¼ mx1=21 (14) air temperature and humidity, using the equation:

so the existing relationship between the parameters of the real
scale and the scale model of the swimming pool is
 11
K̄ x̄ 2
¼ (15)
K x
where K̄ is the mass transfer coefficient relative to the real
swimming pools; x̄ is the real size of the swimming pool; x̄=x ¼ f is
the scale factor.
Hence
1 methods found in the literature for unoccupied pools in similar
K̄ ¼ pffiffiffiffi  K
f environmental conditions and for three typical air velocity values
The scale factor between a real swimming pool and the model is
therefore around 10. Therefore, to obtain the real scale value of K
from Eq. (16), the scale model value has to be multiplied by 3.16. In
the measurements carried out on the scale model, the Re values
remained lower than 5  103.
Eq. (10) can be used for Re lower than 5  105 and under the
hypothesis that mass transfer of a laminar flow along a flat plate is
equivalent to the that of air slowly lapping a water surface.
Experimental data confirm, as foreseen in theory [20], that the
value of K remains constant in various tests during the same cycle
of measurements in which the geometry of the system and air
velocity are unvaried; for example K is equal to the average value of
3.4  108 kg/(m2 Pa s) for V = 0.05 m/s and of 4.2  108 kg/
(m2 Pa s) for V = 0.08 m/s.
G ¼ KðPw ðT w Þ  FPw ðT a ÞÞ (17)
Figs. 4–6 show the predicted evaporation mass flow per unit
area using Eq. (17) as a function of water temperature for the
different values of relative humidity and, respectively, the three
investigated values of air velocity and the corresponding values of
K obtained for the scale model.
As previously stated, the experimental facility used in this
research is inserted into a climatic chamber for air relative
humidity and temperature control.
The proposed method has been compared only with prediction
(16)
(0.05; 0.08; 0.17 m/s). The Shah [10] model for unoccupied pools
was considered, since it is the most recent and accurate work; in
addition, the Hannsen–Mathisen (H&M) model [1] (formulated in
forced ventilation conditions) and Smith model [15,16] for
unoccupied pools were also included in the comparison.
For the comparison, the evaporation rate values evaluated using
the real scale models were reduced according to the scale model
factor as described in Section 5.
Predicted values in this work can be compared mainly with the
ones predicted by other models using two types of deviation data:
P
d
Average deviation ¼ (18)
n
P
AbsðdÞ
Mean deviation ¼ (19)
n

Fig. 5. Predicted water evaporation flow rate per unit area, as a function of water temperature, for different values of air relative humidity (Va = 0.08 m/s).
316 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319

Fig. 6. Predicted water evaporation flow rate per unit area, as a function of water temperature, for different values of air relative humidity (Va = 0.17 m/s).

where deviation d is defined as
data predicted by present work  data predicted by model
d¼
data predicted by model
(20)
n is the number of measured points.
Figs. 7–15 show a comparison between the proposed model and
the models found in the literature, for relative humidity values of
50%, 60% and 70% and for different water temperature values.
Figs. 10–12 in particular show that the proposed model
produces values very similar to those of the Shah and Hannsen–
Mathisen (H&M) models for an average velocity of 0.08 m/s
(average d = 12% and 3.5%).
On the contrary, the values estimated using the proposed model
are lower than the ones estimated with the other models (Figs. 7–
9) for air velocity of 0.05 m/s (typical of indoor swimming pools)
(average d = 20% and mean d = 19% compared to Shah and H&M
models) and higher (Figs. 13–15) for air velocity of 0.17 m/s
(average d = +27%; +17% and mean d = 27%; 17% compared to Shah
and H&M models).
It can be concluded that the proposed method, based on
the experimental data found for the scale model, is in good
agreement with Shah and H&M prediction formulas for
unoccupied pools. The Smith model always overestimates water
evaporation.
7. Errors evaluation
Error committed in the calculation of the mass transport
coefficient depends on errors in measurement of the various
parameters that regulate the evaporative phenomenon, and in
particular: water temperature, air temperature and relative
humidity, mass of evaporated water and time. The new experi-
mental apparatus and the new measurement procedure originate
the absolute errors reported in Table 3.

Fig. 7. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 50%, Va = 0.05 m/s).

Fig. 8. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 60%, Va = 0.05 m/s).
 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319 317

Fig. 9. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 70%, Va = 0.05 m/s).

Fig. 10. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 50%, Va = 0.08 m/s).

Fig. 11. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 60%, Va = 0.08 m/s).

Fig. 12. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 70%, Va = 0.08 m/s).

Relative error on K can be calculated applying the theory of
propagation of errors at Eq. (8). Under the experimental conditions
examined, such error varies from a minimum of 1% to a maximum
of 11.6%, with a mean value of 7%, therefore lower than the one
found for the previous experimental apparatus (11%) [5].
8. Energy consumption due to water evaporation in pools
As stated previously, in indoor swimming pools the highest
thermal load in winter is due to water evaporation. With the aim of
linking the proposed evaporation model to energy impacts, a real
318 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319

Fig. 13. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 50%, Va = 0.17 m/s).

Fig. 14. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 60%, Va = 0.17 m/s).

Fig. 15. Comparison between predicted water evaporation rates per unit area: proposed model and models found in the literature (F = 70%, Va = 0.17 m/s).

case was considered and energy consumptions due to all the The environmental conditions (internal and external air)
different contributions were evaluated. An indoor swimming assumed for the calculations are reported in Table 4, along with
facility with two pools – which is quite a typical situation – was the heat transfer coefficients of the various building components.
considered: the biggest pool is 316.60 m2 (25.1 m  12.6 m) while The building heat load due to water evaporation was calculated
the one for children is 57.96 m2 (12.6 m  4.6 m). The pools are by multiplying water latent heat (2500 kJ/kg) by the evaporated
inside a building whose surface is 792 m2 and whose volume is flow rate G given by Eq. (17), using the values of coefficient K
5100 m3 and are located in Perugia, central Italy (latitude: calculated in this work. The result is 60.5 kW.
43870 000 N, longitude 128230 000 , altitude 490 m above sea level). A second contribution to energy consumption in the building is
due ventilation; a certain air flow rate has to be taken from the
outside, heated and inserted into the building to keep internal
Table 3
Absolute mean errors for the main parameters.
relative humidity constant and equal to 50%. The higher is water
evaporation and the higher is ventilation flow rate and the
Parameter Absolute error corresponding heat load. A value of 87 kW resulted from the
Water temperature 0.1 8C calculations.
Air temperature 0.2 8C Finally, the heat load due to dispersions through the building
Relative humidity 3% components was evaluated in winter conditions, according to
Evaporated flow rate 0.01 g
Italian law on energy efficiency in buildings [21], obtaining a value
Time interval 15 s
of 56 kW.
 F. Asdrubali / Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 311–319
Table 4
Environmental conditions and building thermal properties used in the calculations.
Va (m/s) Ta (8C)
Internal conditions 0.08 29
External conditions – 2
Roof (W/(m2 K)) External wall (W/(m2 K))
Heat transfer coefficients 0.84 0.84
Fig. 16. Different contributions to the total heat load in an indoor swimming pool.
The overall heat load is the sum of the three contributions and is
equal to 203.5 kW (Fig. 16): it may be noticed that the heat load
due to water evaporation and the one due to ventilation
(depending also from water evaporation) are respectively 30%
and 42% of the overall heat load and are much bigger than the heat
dispersed through the building components. It is therefore
extremely important to use an accurate model to evaluate water
evaporation from indoor pools: an error of about 10% in the
evaluation of coefficient K in Eq. (17) may result in an error of about
7% in the evaluation of the overall heat load.
9. Conclusions
Water evaporation from indoor swimming pools frequently
causes the highest energy consumption of the pool plant, so an
accurate evaluation of the thermal loads due to water evaporation
is a topic of considerable practical interest.
A large experimental campaign has been carried out to measure
water evaporation flow rate from basins of assigned temperature.
Measurements were carried out by means of an original
conception apparatus based on a pool scale model inserted into
a climatic chamber; experimental data, available in the range of air
and water temperatures and air relative humidity typical of indoor
swimming pools, were correlated and the mass transport
coefficient K, as well as the model scale factor, were calculated
for the environmental conditions considered.
319
Tw (8C) Wa (g/kg) F (%)
27 12.6 50
– 2.6 80
Internal wall (W/(m2 K)) Soil (W/(m2 K)) Glass (W/(m2 K))
1.38 0.57 3.5
A new prediction model has therefore been proposed to
evaluate evaporation flow rate from indoor swimming pools: the
model has been compared with some of the most widely known
models found in the literature, and in particular the Shah, Hannsen
and Mathisen and Smith models, derived from measurements in
real pools, and a good agreement was found.
References
[1] S.O. Hanssen, H.M. Mathisen, Evaporation from swimming pools, in: Proceedings
of Roomvent ‘90, Oslo, 1990.
[2] K. Biasin, W. Kumme, Die Wasserverdunstung in einem Inneschwimmbad, Elec-
trowaerme International 32 (1974) A115–A129.
[3] M.M. Shah, Prediction of evaporation from occupied indoor swimming pools,
Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 707–713.
[4] R.K. Linsley, M.K. Kohler, J.L.H. Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, Mc Graw Hill
International Book Company, 1982.
[5] F. Cotana, Experimental determination of the water vapour mass transfer
under various environmental test conditions, Heat and Technology 18 (1)
(2000) 69–77.
[6] F. Asdrubali, G. Baldinelli, A. Presciutti, Misure di portata di evaporazione da
superfici a pelo libero di temperatura assegnata, in: Atti del XXI Congresso
Nazionale dell’Unione Italiana Termofluidodinamica, Genova, giugno, 2004 (in
Italian).
[7] P.G. Whitehead, M. Robinson, Experimental basin studies an international and
historical perspective, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Methods of Hydro-
logic Basin Comparison, Oxford, UK, 1992.
[8] B.L. Sill, Free and forced convective effects on evaporation, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering ASCE 109 (9) (1983) 1216–1231.
[9] P.J. Ryan, D.R.F. Harleman, K.D. Stolzenbach, Surface heat loss of cooling ponds,
Water Resources Research 10 (5) (1974) 930–938.
[10] M.M. Shah, Calculating evaporation from swimming pools, Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning Engineering 21–26 (2004).
[11] M.M. Shah, Rate of evaporation from undisturbed water pools to quiet air:
evaluation of available correlations, International Journal of HVAC&R Research
8 (2002) 125–131.
[12] W.H. Carrier, The temperature of evaporation, ASHVE Transactions 24 (1918)
25–50.
[13] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook HVAC Applications, Atlanta, USA, 1999.
[14] R. Tang, Y. Etzion, Comparative studies on the water evaporation rate from a
wetted surface and that of a free water surface, International Journal of Building
and Environment 39 (2004) 77–86.
[15] C.C. Smith, C.O.G. Lof, R.W. Jones, Energy requirements and potential savings for
heated indoor swimming pools, ASHRAE Transactions (1993) 864–874.
[16] C.C. Smith, C.O.G. Lof, R.W. Jones, Rates of evaporation from swimming pools in
active use, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1A) (1999) 514–523.
[17] ASHRAE, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE Standard 62-89,
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers,
Atlanta, USA, 1989.
[18] UNI 10637, Requisiti degli impianti di circolazione, trattamento, disinfezione e
qualità dell’acqua di piscina, Giugno, Milano, 1997 (in Italian).
[19] R.E. Treybal, Mass-transfer, McGraw-Hill International Editions, 1981.
[20] F.P. Incropera, D.P. De Witt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1985.
[21] F. Asdrubali, M. Bonaut, M. Battisti, M. Venegas:, Comparative study of energy
regulations for buildings in Italy and Spain, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008)
1805–1825.