4146
Rates of Evaporation from Swimming Pools
in Active Use
Charles C. Smith, P.E. George O.G. Löf, D.Sc., 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+0.425 v) (pw-
pa)Y, where W is evaporation rate, lb/h ft2; v is air velocity at
water surface, ft/min.; pw is saturation vapor pressure at water
temperature, in. Hg; pa is saturation vapor pressure at air
dewpoint, in. Hg; and Y is latent heat at pool temperature, Btu/
lb. In undisturbed pools, evaporation rates were measured and
found to be 74% of the rates obtained by use of the equation.
Rates of evaporation from pools in active use increase with the
number of swimmers, rising 40% to 70% above the rates from
a quiet water surface. Measurements of evaporation from a
pool in use by 15 to 20 swimmers per 1,000 ft2 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. Proper
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.
In 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-
Charles Smith is a research scientist and George Löf is professor emeritus and founding director of the Colorado State University Solar Energy
Applications Laboratory, Fort Collins, Colo. Randy W. Jones is a federal energy program specialist with the U.S. Department of Energy,
Golden, Colo.
514
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% of 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 = ( 95 + 0.425 v ) ( p w – p a ) ⁄ Y (1)
where
W = evaporation rate, lb/h⋅ft2;
v = air velocity at water surface, ft/min.;
pw = saturation vapor pressure at water temp, in. Hg;
pa = saturation vapor pressure at air dew point., in. Hg;
also partial pressure of water in pool atmosphere;
Y = latent heat at pool temperature, Btu/lb.
This formula was based on the results of measurements of evap-
oration from a shallow pan of water over which air was passed
in a 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.
ASHRAE Transactions: Research
 There has recently been disagreement,
however, on the pool conditions to which the
equation applies. In the 1987 ASHRAE Hand-
book, the equation is stated to represent evapo-
ration from a quiet pool surface (Carrier),
increasing as much as 50% when in active use.
But 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
“at normal 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 Figure 1 Rate of evaporation from quiet indoor pool based on level
evaporation measurement programs in institu-
tional pools. In the order of performance, these
tests have been conducted on (1) an unoccupied
indoor pool, (2) an unoccupied outdoor pool,
(3) an indoor pool in active use, and (4) an
outdoor pool in active 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 over time
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 in the tests
on the unoccupied indoor pool. The results of the indoor inves-
tigation have been published by Smith et al. (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 intervals 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 Carrier/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
W = ( 69 + 0.35 v ) ( p w – p a ) ⁄ Y . (2)
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 outdoor pool,
determined by the measurement of water level change (Jones
et al. 1994) differed less than 2% from those in the indoor pool
at comparable conditions. In contrast with the indoor tests, air
ASHRAE Transactions: Research
(water loss) measurements and energy input measurements
compared with rate computed by Equation 1 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 to the 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 in the 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 water temper-
ature and maintenance of higher natatorium dewpoint, i.e.,
higher air temperature and relative humidity, can minimize the
vapor pressure gradient and evaporation rate, but conditions
must be acceptable to swimmers and spectators. Relative
humidity 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.
515
TEST FACILITIES
Indoor Pool
A municipal facility in Fort Collins City comprises three
pools; a 1,200 ft2 wading/play pool, a 900 ft2 therapy pool, and
a 13,000 ft2 athletic/fitness pool (Figure 2). The three pools are
mechanically independent, having separate water recircula-
tion, heating, chemical treatment, and make-up water systems.
The pools share the same natatorium space and equipment
area. The large athletic pool selected for this study has a total
water volume of 526,000 gallons (4.38 million pounds).
The pools were open to swimming and other activities
each day for 8-12 hours. The large pool served a number of
activities at one time, such as swimming, diving, and aquatic
exercise. The number of people in the 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 air was normally
at 85°F and 50% relative humidity. Automatic humidity
control regulated the supply of fresh air and the operation of
exhaust fans. The entire complex is served by the same heating
equipment, so fuel used specifically for pool heating could not
be measured.
Outdoor Pool
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 ft2 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
Figure 2 The 13,000 ft2 indoor athletic/fitness pool used
for activity testing.
516
Figure 3 The 4,000 ft2 outdoor community pool.
indicate energy input is approximately 8 million Btu per day
without covering and 5.5 million Btu per day when covered for
about 12 hours 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
to swimming for 15 minutes.
The pool water in both the indoor and outdoor facilities is
circulated continuously by conventional means through sand
filters, chlorinators, 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 of the 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
ASHRAE Transactions: Research
water additions or liquid losses occurred. The other method is Measurement of Water Loss Rates
based on water temperature measurements during a time inter- Rates of water loss from the outdoor pool were deter-
val when heat additions and losses are either measured or mined by the measurement of the decrease in pool water level
calculated. An energy balance then indicates heat dissipation over time intervals of several hours. No water additions
by evaporation and the quantity involved. occurred in these periods, but small quantities of water were
In an inactive pool, the change in water level is an exact lost by splashing.
measure of evaporation. In an active pool, however, splashing At a typical hourly evaporation rate of 0.1 lb/ft2 in an
onto deck areas, water running over pool rims into drains, and outdoor pool, the water level decreases about 0.02 in./h. In
order to measure water levels with sufficient accuracy, a
water carried out on the wet skins of swimmers leaving the
micrometer gauge was rigidly mounted to the side of a small
pool make level changes appreciably greater than that caused
basin adjacent to the pool. A hydrostatic tube maintained a
by evaporation alone. For that reason, evaporation from the water level in the basin identical to that in the pool. A small
active indoor pool was determined by temperature measure- quantity of salt was added to the water to increase its electrical
ments and energy calculations. In the outdoor pool, doubtful conductivity. Contact between the water surface and a metal
accuracy of computed heat losses other than by evaporation point on the gauge was indicated by closure of an electric
made it necessary to use water level changes for estimates of circuit. A Vernier scale on the gauge was read to the nearest
the evaporation rate. 0.001 in. If errors at the start and end of a three-hour test are
additive, a 0.06 in. change can be determined with an accuracy
of about 3%. A photograph of this instrumentation is shown in
Measurement of Heat Loss Rates
Figure 4. Shorter intervals were sometimes necessitated by
The rate of evaporation is determined by measuring pool changes in conditions such as the number of pool users and
water-temperature change over an extended time interval, wind velocity.
computing enthalpy increase or decrease, adding measured
Measurement of Activity in Pool
energy gains such as heater inputs, if any, and deducting losses
other than by evaporation. The resulting energy quantity is that Since there was no regulation of the number of people in
which was transferred to water vapor escaping from the pool the pools during these tests, the activity level was variable.
surface at a rate computed by applying the heat of vaporiza-
tion, 1040 Btu/lb.
The heat-loss measurement method was used only for the
indoor pool because solar energy gains and large radiative and
convective losses from an outdoor pool impose 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-
ples 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 of heat 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°F. 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 Btu/h⋅ft2 pool surface and a steady energy addition of
3.9 Btu/h⋅ft2 pool surface resulting from recirculation pump
work. Evaporative heat loss was, therefore, determined by Figure 4 Precision water level gauge (micrometer) to
adding 3.8 Btu/h⋅ft2 to the measured hourly enthalpy decrease. monitor pool water loss.

ASHRAE Transactions: Research 517

The method for activity measurement was to count people in rate from a quiet water surface when numerous swimmers are
the pool, regardless of the type of activity, each 15 minutes using the pool.
during test periods. The sum of the 15-minute counts over the Figure 5, based on the data in Table 1, shows evaporation
testing period was divided by the number of periods, thus rates increasing in proportion to pool occupancy. Measured
giving the approximate average number of people using the temperatures and humidities were used with psychrometric
pool during the test. data for 5000 ft elevation to obtain vapor pressures, which
The water surface disturbance caused by different types were then used in Equation 2, multiplied by an altitude correc-
of activity occurring at the same time could not be quantified. tion (0.98) to obtain evaporation rates for the unoccupied pool.
However, it was assumed that the combination of all activity Actual evaporation divided by those computed values
effects upon evaporation was consistent with time. Activity in provides the ratios shown in Figure 5. The average departure
and around a pool causes disturbance of the water/air interface of the measured ratio values from the regression line is 0.05,
and creates an additional wet surface when people leave the which represents ±3.8% in the range of 1 - 15 persons/1000 ft2.
water or otherwise remove water as liquid. Surface distur- A few observations (not shown) of pool occupancy as high as
bances increase the mass-transfer coefficient and the water 20 people/1000ft2 indicate an approximate upper limit on
surface area. Six-inch waves at 3 ft wave intervals have about activity effects corresponding to the 15 people /1000 ft2 count.
20% more surface area than smooth water. Random turbu- In a typical institutional pool 40 ft × 75 ft (3000 ft2), about 50
lence causes further increase in surface area. Energy for the swimmers would correspond to the upper extreme of activity
pool surface component of evaporation is supplied by pool measured in these tests.
water heating, whereas water evaporating from other surfaces As indicated in the discussion of water-temperature
within the pool enclosure requires energy from the ventilation- measurements, frequent changes in pool activity levels
air heat source, rather than from the pool water heater. prevented lengthy test intervals and substantial temperature
changes from the start to the end of a test. A typical change of
EVAPORATION RESULTS—INFLUENCE 1°F, subject to 0.1°F uncertainty of each measurement, can
OF POOL ACTIVITY produce a 20% maximum error in the result of that test. The
probable error is, however, about half that figure. The error in
Indoor Pool a particular temperature measurement falls between 0°F and
Under active conditions, energy, rather than water loss, is 0.1°F, or at a probable level of 0.05°F. The probable error in
the more reliable gauge of evaporation since water is partially the difference of the two temperatures is also reduced. Only if
lost by splashing onto deck areas. Water-level measurements one measurement is erroneously high and the other errone-
were also made for estimating liquid losses but were not used ously low are the errors additive. If, however, both measure-
in determining rates of evaporation from the indoor pool. ments are, for example, 0.05°F low, the error in the difference
Rates of evaporation from the active indoor pool, deter- is zero. The probable error in the measured temperature change
mined by calculations based on measured water-temperature in a particular test, therefore, should not exceed about 0.05°F.
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
is, therefore, equal to the rate of heat loss
plus the small gain from pump work,
divided by the latent heat, 1040 Btu/lb.
Evaporation from the active pool
divided by evaporation from an inactive
pool at the same conditions is based on the
heat-loss measurements. Table 1 shows a
strong dependence of evaporation rate on Figure 5 Rate of evaporation from indoor active pool relative to rate from
pool activity, rising 40% to 70% above the inactive pool as a function of activity level (number of swimmers
per 1000 ft2).

518 ASHRAE Transactions: Research

 TABLE 1
Indoor Pool*

Evaporation Inactive pool

Test Test duration, Temperature Swimmers/ heat rate, pw - pa, evaporation heat rate, Evaporation ratio,
reference number h loss, °F 1000 ft2 Btu/h⋅ft2 in. HG Btu/h⋅ft2 (Equation 2) active/inactive
1 4.1 .69 2.4 49.7 .603 44.0 1.13
2 3.9 .74 7.6 55.7 .521 38.0 1.47
3 3.7 .87 2.6 71.2 .881 64.3 1.11
4 4.2 .91 7.4 64.5 .621 45.3 1.43
5 2.8 .65 7.2 68.8 .692 50.4 1.36
6 9.4 1.43 .7 44.5 .544 39.7 1.12
7 3.2 .63 8.9 58.1 .554 40.4 1.44
8 3.6 .59 0.0 48.9 .633 46.2 1.06
9 13.0 1.67 0.0 37.9 .553 40.3 0.94
10 3.0 .48 1.6 48.2 .570 41.6 1.16
11 2.7 .45 12.7 50.7 .455 33.2 1.53
12 1.1 .25 13.0 69.1 .609 44.4 1.56
13 1.5 .36 12.2 71.0 .591 43.1 1.65
14 .75 .18 13.8 72.4 .585 42.7 1.69

*
Pool temperature, 81.5°F - 82.5°F; air temperature, 80°F - 83°F; air relative humidity, 45% - 55%.

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=1.04 + 0.046C, and if only 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 of the intercept on the evaporation ratio
axis is 1.00, but the regression analysis yields 1.04. The
discrepancy is due to the fact that water waves caused by even
one swimmer in a large pool (0.08 swimmer/1000 ft2 in this
13,000 ft2 pool) result in a significant effect on the water-air
interface and an increase in evaporation. Below one swimmer/
1,000 ft2, the relationship is, therefore, not linear, as indicated
by the dotted curve in Figure 5.
When a pool is heavily used, (approaching 15 swimmers/
1000 ft2), natatorium humidity will rise unless 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
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 ft2. 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, its result should be multiplied by 1.70 × 0.74 = 1.26.
Evaporation from a pool 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 ft2 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 Pool
Results of measurements in the outdoor pool in active use
are shown in Table 2. Also tabulated are evaporation rates
calculated by Equation 2 for an inactive pool, adjusted for alti-
tude. Ratios of measured evaporation rates to those based on
the equation for an inactive pool at the 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 in the pool level over the listed time peri-

ASHRAE Transactions: Research 519

 TABLE 2
Outdoor Pool

Calculated
Measured Equiv. evap. heat rate
Average depth evap. from inactive Evap.
Test Test water temp. Wind change heat rate pool at same ratio,
reference duration, Swimmers/ during test velocity, (decrease), Evap., (1045xG), pw - pa, wind speed, active/
number h 1000 ft2 period mph in. lb/h⋅ft2 Btu/h⋅ft2 in. HG Btu/h⋅ft2 inactive
1 5.3 7.5 82.2 2.2 0.147 0.144 151 0.811 112 1.34
2 4.0 6.3 82.9 1.3 0.091 0.118 123 0.871 96 1.28
3 5.9 6.5 81.7 1.1 0.105 0.092 96 0.721 75 1.29
4 3.4 6.5 83.5 0.5 0.063 0.096 100 0.772 65 1.54
5 3.6 1.9 84.0 1.5 0.058 0.083 87 0.690 80 1.08
6 4.0 1.2 82.7 2.8 0.096 0.125 131 0.809 128 1.03
7 6.5 2.2 81.2 2.0 0.083 0.128 134 0.840 111 1.21
8 4.2 8.0 83.2 1.4 0.082 0.101 106 0.751 85 1.25
9 3.8 3.9 82.0 2.8 0.110 0.150 157 0.822 130 1.21
10 5.6 4.1 81.9 2.9 0.148 0.137 143 0.754 121 1.18
11 4.8 3.9 83.1 2.7 0.136 0.147 154 0.773 120 1.29
12 4.0 4.4 83.0 2.2 0.094 0.122 128 0.668 92 1.40

ods. Measurements were made shortly before and after swim- the adjusted water-loss rates, divided by the rates computed by
mers were in the water, thereby avoiding effects of surface the use of Equation 2, for an unoccupied pool at the same
disturbances on water levels. Water disappearance other than temperatures, humidity, and air speed as measured. Wind
by evaporation is limited to splashing onto deck areas and velocity varied over a wide range, but its use in Equation 2
removal on skins of swimmers leaving the pool. It is estimated yields results showing the specific effect of pool activity only.
that these physical water losses are less than 5 gal/h, equiva- It is evident that the data points in Figure 7 for the outdoor
lent to about 5% of the total measured disappearance. No pool are more widely scattered than those for the indoor pool
correction for this estimated loss has been made, so evapora- in Figure 5. The “R” value for the outdoor pool data, 0.6448,
tion rates from the outdoor pool may be overstated by an is considerably lower than the 0.9681 value for the indoor
amount approaching 5%. pool. But it is seen that the equations for the best linear fit to
The effects of wind speed and pool activity on evapora- the two sets of data are in good agreement. The principal
tion rate are shown graphically in Figures
6, 7, and 8. The data points in Figure 6
show that in active pools, regardless of the
number of swimmers, evaporation rates
are substantially higher than those in an
unoccupied pool, shown by the “no activ-
ity” line based on the results of previous
tests by Smith et al. (1993). The rates
increase rapidly with wind speed. To
compensate for differences in tempera-
tures and humidity, the data are presented
as evaporation rates per unit difference in
water vapor pressure. The scatter of points
is due to the wide variation in pool occu-
pancy and the resulting influence on evap-
oration.
In Figure 7, relative evaporation from
the outdoor pool is correlated with the
number of swimmers. Ordinate values are Figure 6 Effect of wind speed on evaporation from active pool.

520 ASHRAE Transactions: Research

 and outdoor pools are in close agreement at very
low outdoor wind velocity. In the present study
of pools in active use, evaporation ratios (evap-
oration rates compared with those from inactive
pools at the same conditions) are also compara-
ble, slight differences probably resulting from
unmeasured water losses. It is concluded that the
higher consistency and quality of the indoor
measurements support use of those results for the
correlation equation, ER=1.04 + 0.046C.

CONCLUSIONS
Rates of evaporation from indoor and
outdoor pools in active use have been determined
by measuring rates of heat loss and water level
change. These results are consistently higher
than those previously obtained in quiet pools, the
Figure 7 Outdoor pool evaporation as affected by activity level departure being proportional to the pool activity
(swimmers/100 ft2). as represented by the number of users per unit
area of pool surface.
reasons for the scatter of data on the outdoor pool are the vari- In indoor pools, disturbance and motion of the water
ation in wind velocity, fluctuation in number of swimmers surface caused by typical swimming activity increase evapo-
during a test period, and variable splashing losses. With fewer ration rates to levels approximately 70% higher than those
than about 5 swimmers/100 ft2, the outdoor water-loss rate
was found to be slightly higher than the indoor rate (possibly TABLE 3
because splashing influenced the outdoor measurements). Evaporation Relative to Rate in
With ten swimmers, the highest use of the outdoor pool, the Unoccupied Pool and Zero Air Speed
two pools show approximately equal water-loss rates.
WIND SPEED - MPH
Combination of Indoor and Outdoor Results 2
Persons /1000 ft 0 0.5 1 2 3
Figure 8 is a summary of pool testing results: inactive 0 1.00 1.23 1.46 1.93 2.40
outdoor pool (line for zero swimmers), active indoor (four
5 1.28 1.57 1.87 2.47 3.07
intercepts on the zero wind speed ordinate), and active outdoor
(three lines for 5, 10, and 15 swimmers /1,000 ft2 of pool area). 10 1.47 1.81 2.16 2.86 3.55
Figure 8 also shows the range of conditions that were not 15 1.665 2.06 2.45 3.24 4.03
tested (dotted lines). In indoor pools, where air speeds are
negligible, evaporation rates depend only
on water and air conditions and the turbu-
lence of the water as indicated by the
number of swimmers. Air movement over
outdoor pools, even at a comparatively low
3 mph (4.4 ft/sec) velocity has a strong
additional effect, roughly doubling the rate
of evaporation that occurs in an indoor
pool. The combined effect of wind speed
and pool activity is indicated in Table 3.
The values at zero wind speed are for the
indoor pool and at other wind speeds for
the outdoor pool.

Difference in Indoor and Outdoor

Evaporation Rates
Previously published results by Smith
et al. (1993) and Jones et al. (1994) of evap-
Figure 8 Relative evaporation as affected by wind speed and activity level.
oration measurements in inactive indoor

ASHRAE Transactions: Research 521

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 are typically twice the rates from pools in still air.
The activity of 15 people/1000 ft2 area of pool over which
there is a 3 mph wind results in evaporation rates nearly four
times those from an unoccupied pool in still air.
Constant humidity can be maintained in an indoor pool
being used by 15 to 20 persons/1000 ft2 if the design of heating
and ventilation facilities is based on evaporation rates
computed by use of the traditional ASHRAE equation, Equa-
tion 1, W = (95 + 0.425 v) (pw − pa)/Y, to which a 1.26 multiplier
is applied. Use of the equation with a multiplier of 0.74
provides 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,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASHRAE. 1991. 1991 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Appli-
cations, 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.
Biasin, Von K., and W. Krumme. 1974. Evaporation in an
indoor swimming pool. Electrowarme International, pp.
a115-a129. May (Germany).
Carrier, W.H. 1918. The temperature of evaporation.
ASHRAE Transactions 24: 25.
Jones, R., C. Smith, and G. Löf. 1994. Measurement and
analysis of evaporation from an inactive outdoor swim-
ming pool, Solar Energy 53(1): 3.
Labohm, G. 1971. Heating and air conditioning of swimming
pools. Gesundheits Ingenieur, pp. 72-80. March (Ger-
many).
Molinaux, B., B. Lachal, and O. Guisan. 1994. Thermal
analysis of five outdoor swimming pools heated by
unglazed solar collectors. Solar Energy 53(1): 21.
Reeker, J. 1978. Water evaporation in indoor swimming
pools. Klima & Kalte Ingenieur, 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. Löf. 1993. Energy Require-
ments and Potential Savings for Heated Indoor Swim-
ming Pools. ASHRAE Transactions 99(2): 864.
DISCUSSION
Reinhold Kittler, Chairman, Dectron, Inc., Montreal,
Quebec: The scientific value of this study would be enhanced
with the following:
522
1. Study more than one indoor pool and use the most direct
method of measurement possible, such as the use of a
mechanical dehumidifier. the condensate can then directly
be measured.
2. Energy losses to the ground must be account for. They can
very between 3% and 15% of the heat lost by the pool water.
Ground heat losses depend on:
• soil condition
• ground water table
• pool insulation
• existing crawl space around pool
• impermeability of inside pool finishing
• pool water temperature
3. Number of bathers or swimmers and pool activity are not
synonymous. Aquafit sessions have a high number of bath-
ers and little or no activity. Water polo has only a few swim-
mers but a very high activity level.
4. The condition of the deck area affects greatly the evapora-
tion rate of an indoor pool. Wet deck areas that retain water
add considerably to the evaporation rate, that does not
reflect in the heating requirement of the pool water.
5. Do the authors of this publication make recommendations
for sizing dehumidifier-heat pumps for indoor pools?
Randall Jones:
1. The scientific value of this study can be best assessed
in the context of the whole series of pool evaporation rate
experiments conducted by the authors. The series investigated
evaporation rates in indoor and outdoor pools, under quiet and
active conditions. Quiet indoor and outdoor pool results have
been reported in ASHRAE Transactions DE-93-12-3 and
Solar Energy Journal, July 1994, respectively. The purpose
was to aid engineering professionals in sizing and designing
pool HVAC equipment, estimating pool energy use, and
predicting savings from pool energy conservation measures.
In all, 2 indoor and 1 outdoor facilities were used. One of
the indoor facilities contained 3 separate pools, so a total of 5
pools were investigated. For the quiet pool studies, evapora-
tion rate measurement was determined by the most direct
method possible, measurement of volume loss by high preci-
sion measure of water level change. Secondary measure-
ments of pool energy inputs from the heating system and
losses by measurement of temperature drop and radiation and
calculation losses for the outdoor pool were used to confirm
water level measurements. Our confidence in this method
was aided by the following results:
• Quiet pool evaporation rates determined by water level
change from all 5 pools were virtually the same, i.e., 74% of
that predicted by the equation in ASHRAE Applications.
• Energy balance measurements and calculations were
consistent and correlated with the water level change
measurements.
ASHRAE Transactions: Research
• The possibility of water loss from leakage was investigated
in the first quiet pool experiment by measuring water level
before and after a pool cover was applied over night to elim-
inate evaporation. Water level was unchanged, indicating
no leakage.
For the active indoor and outdoor pools, loss of water by
splashing and exiting swimmers made water level change a
less accurate measurement of evaporation rate. For active
pools, energy balance measurements and calculations were
the primary methods of assessing evaporation rate, with water
level change used to check the results.
Evaporation can not be directly or accurately measured
from dehumidification system condensate recovery. The
accuracy of this approach would depend on an assumption
that all moisture evaporated from the pool would wind up in
the system condensate. This does not account for loss of evap-
orated moisture through building surface condensation, trans-
port through building materials, and infiltration and exhaust
ventilation either directly outdoors or to other parts of the
building. It would be interesting, however, to conduct evapo-
ration experiments on a pool with a dehumidification system
and correlate results.
2. Most references we have found indicate a loss of 1-5%
to the ground, but there seems to be a lack of corroborating
data. In our studies, ground losses were assumed to be negli-
gible compared to the magnitude of other losses. Results bore
out this assumption.
There are several mechanisms that we recognized in this
study as potential causes of heat and water loss other than by
evaporation (including and in addition to this list). Two meth-
ods were used to resolve these questions: for example, the
calculation of the radiation exchange between the pool surface
and natatorium walls. Secondly, background measurements
were taken as in the case of potential ground losses (addressed
ASHRAE Transactions: Research
in the question). The quiet pool in this study was monitored
with a pool cover in place resulting in negligible loss relative
to the evaporation quantities. The active pool could not be
covered, however it agreed with the first pool while in the
quiet state.
3. We agree that the type of activity as well as other
factors such as water attractions impact evaporation. In this
study, number of swimmers was used as the measurement of
activity because it is the only parameter that was reasonably
measurable and repeatable.
4. We agree that wet deck areas are a source of additional
evaporation, but not to an extent comparable with that from
water in the pool. Lack of a heat supply to water on the deck
results in rapid cooling of these comparatively thin water
layers toward the wet-bulb temperature, at which evaporation
is substantially reduced. This is one of the factors which the
authors considered in choosing to base evaporation loss from
active pools on energy balance measurements on the pool
water alone.
5. The information is presented to aid engineering profes-
sionals in sizing and design pool HVAC equipment, estimat-
ing pool energy use, and predicting savings from pool energy
conservation measures. To maintain natatorium humidity
levels at design conditions, the authors recommend that sizing
of heating, ventilation, and dehumidification equipment be
based on use of the evaporation equation in ASHRAE Appli-
cations, increased by a factor of 1.1 to 1.25, representing
expected maximum or near maximum pool occupancy and
use. For calculating evaporation heat losses in a quiet pool the
authors recommend use of the evaporation equation in
ASHRAE Applications, decreased by multiplication of a
factor of.74.
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr.
Kittler and others for their comments and suggestions.
523