ASPE Open Forum

Expand all | Collapse all

Appendix M - UPC 2018

  • 1.  Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago

    For those of you that work in areas governed by the UPC, is there talk of Appendix M in the 2018 UPC and whether your municipalities think they'll adopt it?  I'm curious about everywhere, but especially curious if anyone in California is talking about it yet.

     

    For those that don't know, Appendix M is for multifamily residential buildings, throws out Hunter's Curve, and calculates a GPM based on the actual flow rates of the fixtures being put into the building.  A spreadsheet is provided, you put in your fixture numbers and flow rates, and it spits out a GPM.  I've been able to take a 6" water connection to a building to a 4" or even a 3" with this method.

     

    In Seattle where I am, our plumbing plans reviewer is encouraging people to start using it now, even though we're not officially moved from 2015 onto the 2018 UPC yet, which means Seattle and all unincorporated areas in our county; however some officials in other cities don't want to adopt it yet until they see that buildings being built elsewhere using it don't have problems.

     

    I know less water worries a lot of people.  We tend to put meters into our buildings so we can see their real-world flows and energy usage, and they pretty much always flow only a fraction of the flow rates Hunter's curve says we would need to design for.  Hunter's might say we need 150 GPM out of a hot water plant and we'll only see like 45-60 gpm even during peak usages.  Appendix M is giving us flow rates closer to the numbers we're seeing buildings use in real life.

     

    -Susanne Brown

     

     

     

    Susanne Brown, CPD  | Lead Plumbing Designer

    Ecotope, Inc. | 1917 First Avenue, Suite 300 | Seattle, WA 98101
    206.322.3753| Direct 206.596.4724
    www.ecotope.com

     

     



  • 2.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    This is good to see! I've been working on a renovation of a central hot water plant for large 900 room hotel, 2200 HWFU, and Hunter's Curve indicates 175gpm. We put flow meter on the main hot water line and found 80-100gpm peak flow at full occupancy. Very interesting data!





  • 3.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 25 days ago

    BeaconMed

     

    Richard F Snow, CPD, LEED© AP,

    Associate

    Engineering Operations Sr. Mgr.

    Plumbing and Fire Protection

    STV Incorporated

    205 West Welsh Dr

    Douglassville, PA 19518

    Office: 610-385-8307

    Cell: 610-698-4833

     

     

     

     

     




    Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


    Redesigned and rebuilt: visit our new website at www.stvinc.com

    STV Ink App

    Twitter
    Facebook
    LinkedIn

    The information contained in this electronic message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are informed that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify STV and purge this message.






  • 4.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Susanne, you have touched on one of the biggest problems we have in booster system application - overdesign.  The 2018-2019 ASPE Data Book, Volume Two, Chapter 5 - Cold Water Systems, page 67, describes the 80/20 rule for boosters, "80 percent of the time, typical booster systems are at 20 percent capacity or less".  I imagine this is not the only area impacted by the "just in case" factor.

    We have developed an award-winning software selection program for booster systems that utilizes Hunter's Curves without overdesigning the system.  We have thousands of systems in operation that have been designed using this software, and we guarantee the performance of the boosters selected using this program!

    Design professionals are encouraged to register for the software by visiting Intelligent Pump System Designs -and clicking the orange "calQflo" button.

    Best regards,


    ------------------------------
    RoseAnn Di Giovanni
    Regional Manager
    QuantumFlo, Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Hi RoseAnn, can you tell me a little bit on how the software uses Hunter's Curve without overdesigning? Does it just take a percentage reduction of what Hunter's curve would estimate?

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Susan, Thanks for recommending the WDC in this blog. I initiated this research on my own 8-9 years ago, and solicited ASPE for members. So our research team comprised of three ASPE members (including myself) and two members from the University of Cincinnati who played a major role in creating the WDC in Excel. Currently, the WDC is designed for Single- and Multi-family dwellings; from a small residential home to a large apartment complex or large condominiums. We do have a beta model that may soon be released for multi-family dwellings. The beta version allows the User to select the number of dwelling units in a building. What will then change in the WDC are the p-values. The p-values have a descending scale based on the number of dwelling units. The result will be even a lower estimate than what the current version will put out. 
    A research report from the Water Research Foundation will soon be released that validates the low flow estimates that the WDC shows using the descending p-values. The research was taken in Denver, Scottsdale, and Westminster CO. The title of the report is, Assessing Water Demand Patterns to Improve Sizing of Water Meters and Service Lines". 
    I am also on the AWWA M22 committee and we are currently working on the new edition. The WDC will be in the new edition for sizing water services and water meters. This will be a HUGE cost savings on reduced connection fees, water meter costs, and cost of material. We published a cost analysis when using the WDC compared to the current Hunter method. Even in a residence as small as a 3-bath single family dwelling, the estimated peak demand was reduced by 56% resulting in a 11% cost reduction (pipe and fitting material only). Larger dwellings such as a 15-bath dwelling or 31-unit Hotel had a 75% -76% reduction in peak demand estimate with a cost savings as high as 53%! 
    The WDC is functional for commercial use IF we had data to support fixture p-values in different types of commercial buildings. We had such data for single family homes. We need the data for commercial probability of use of plumbing fixtures. If anyone has data of fixture use frequency in commercial buildings, please contact me! 
    The City of Vancouver, Canada is using the WDC for rainwater systems. The National Construction Code (NCC) in Australia is considering the WDC. It will also be published in the 2021 National Standard Plumbing Code. It is gaining national and international traction. 
    If anyone is using it or has used it on any of your projects, we would be interested in using it as a case study. Please contact me.

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Daniel,
    as I said, King County / Seattle's plumbing plans reviewer is encouraging designers to use it now, so there are buildings going up in Seattle using the Appendix M method.  If you're looking for information on which, maybe try Steven Hart the plans reviewer for King County, he should know which buildings are going up using that method.

    My main reason for bringing this up is because we're getting some work related to hot water design in California.  We want to show sizing per Appendix M, but realize that being an Appendix each municipality gets to choose for itself if they'll allow it or not.  So I'm wondering if others, especially in California, have heard any conversations about their municipalities liking it and wanting to use it now or in the future.

    Susanne

    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Thanks Susan. I know Steve and he is I believe at IAPMO's Annual Conference doing his training with his model fittings (he discussed his idea with me years ago. Now that the WDC is in the 2019 CA Plumbing Code, we are just as curious to know if any municipalities will be adopting it. Thanks for raising the question!

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Our September ASPE chapter meeting topic was on oversizing, and appendix M was discussed.
    One of our ASPE members is a plan checker for the city of Los Angeles. Formed us that the city of Los Angeles will not adopt appendix M at this time. 
    As for the rest of the state, no word was given.
    Like with any project, check with your authority having jurisdiction before starting your design.

    ------------------------------
    Troy Dawes
    Plumbing Designer
    SCEG
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 26 days ago
    Great to hear Seattle is already adopting this (hopefully, Portland will soon too). I know that Appendix M is featured in the 2019 California Plumbing Code, so we are using the calculator on our projects there.

    ------------------------------
    John Lansing
    Plumbing Designer
    Interface Engineering
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 25 days ago
    See below for City of Los Angeles comments:

    "In regards to the adoption of Appendix M:

    No State Agency adopted this appendix into the 2019 CA Plumbing Code (as shown in the matrix below) and as such it will not be adopted into the 2020 LA Plumbing Code either."



    ------------------------------
    Scott Steindler
    Western Regional Manager
    Watts Water Technologies
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 25 days ago
    Scott, do you know the reason for this decision?

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 22 days ago
    Although I have no direct source for this information, my belief is that the reduction of water consumption has a negative affect on drain line carry which creates problems of it's own. I see it all day!

    You can refer to the PERC study for more information on the subject.

    Scott

    ------------------------------
    Scott Steindler
    Western Regional Manager
    Watts Water Technologies
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 22 days ago

    But, lower consumption would be a function of the flow rates of the fixtures, as well as habits of the consumer, not the sizing of the water piping, no?  



    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 22 days ago
    Correct. I believe that it was rejected not because of actual fixture consumption, but was instead rejected based upon waste systems.

    ------------------------------
    Scott Steindler
    Western Regional Manager
    Watts Water Technologies
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 25 days ago
    Edited by Timothy Wolfe 25 days ago
    Susanne, I worked with Dan Cole and the task group in developing the WDC and the UPC 2018 Appendix M.  I'm glad to hear that Seattle is encouraging its use.  As you have found, we believe it will make a notable and welcome change to our industry.

    To you question, while some cities may not be adopting Appendix M, I would encourage you to reach out to the local AHJ (building/plumbing inspector) responsible for reviewing your project.  Speak with them in person.  If possible, partner with your client and bring them to the meeting as well.

    It very well could be that a state/city is not ready to take the step in broadly adopting a new code, but they may be willing to consider a case-by-case variance.  Having both the design team and client on board in pursuit of such a variance may be just the opportunity an inspector needs to take those first steps.  If granted, a positive experience with your project may lead to an official change in the next code cycle.

    Best of luck.

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Wolfe, PE
    Director, Plumbing Engineering
    TRC Worldwide MEP, LLC.
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 24 days ago
    Susanne,

    Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention! We plan on proposing this to our AHJ in accordance with 301.4 Alternate Engineered Design (2006 UPC which is currently used here). We do this frequently for single stack (Sovent) systems.

    Aloha

    Rick

    ------------------------------
    Richard Beall
    Beall & Associates Inc.
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 12 days ago
    Hey Susanne! We haven't had the best luck getting the Seattle officials to give us written approval to use the appendix M. Who have you been in contact with?

    ------------------------------
    Jude Homola
    Owner
    Windsor MEP Engineers LLC
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 12 days ago
    Jude,
     
    This is who we've been talking to, who you can also find at pretty much any IAPMO Seattle chapter meeting:

    Steven Hart

    Public Health

    Seattle-King County

    Plumbing Plans Examiner

    401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100

    Seattle WA, 98104-1818

    Ph: 206-263-9548

    Fax: 206-296-0189

    steven.hart@kingcounty.gov



    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 11 days ago
    Susanne,

    The spreadsheet that you mentioned in your post, is that automated like an excel spread sheet or is this only in UPC appendix M? I am really interested in this and would like to learn more. We put a water meter on the domestic hot water side of a multi family housing unit recently and found the flow rates indicated GPM's way below hunters curve. Also, the water heaters were quite over sized compared to the buildings actual consumption of hot water. Outside of buying the latest UPC, do you know where I can find more information about this appendix? I would like to learn more about it and possibly present in to the Vermont state plumbing board and possibly introduce it into Vermont State Plumbing Rules as an accepted design option.

    ------------------------------
    Chad Hill
    Plumbing Designer
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 11 days ago
    Chad, 
    It's an automated excel spread sheet.  I'm attaching a copy, and Appendix M from the early pre-approved commented version that I was sent.

    The one thing I've learned about using it that I'll mention has to do with the separate bath and shower rows vs. the combo shower/bath row.
    If you look at the frequency multiplier used for the separate shower (4.5) and separate bath (1.0) you'll see that they add up to the same 5.5 that is used for the frequency of use number for the combo bath/shower, which makes sense.  However, if you then look at the flow rates for each, the bath tub uses the (coincidentally the same number) 5.5 GPM flow rate of a tub spout, and the shower uses the 1.5 (or whatever lower flow rate you're using) GPM flow rate - which also makes sense. 
    HOWEVER, if you look at the flow rate for the combo bath/shower, it's flow rate is the 5.5 GPM flow rate of the tub spout, and doesn't represent the lower flow of the showerhead when it is used.  Which means if you use the combo bath/shower row in the spreadsheet instead of the separate bath and shower lines, you do not get the flow savings of your low flow showerhead, it calcs it as though even your showers are running at 5.5 GPM.

    SO.  When I put fixture information into this spreadsheet, I don't ever use the combo shower/bath line even when they are combo units - I always put the same number in both the separate bath and separate shower lines as if they were separate fixtures, because their frequency of use adds up to the same as the combo line, but I get the flow savings of the much lower flow shower head.

    As for the oversizing, yes we find the exact same thing.  We put in meters and were blown away at how much less water these buildings use than the code makes us design for.  We also do specialized hot water plants for the multifamily buildings and always end up wanting to send a 3" pipe out to the building, knowing that's all they will really need, and there is the plumber wanting a 6" pipe because that's what hunter's curve says they'll need.

    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)



  • 22.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 9 days ago
    Hi Susan,
    Great observations and analysis of tub/shower values. Let me help to clarify your comment about the T/S flow rate. First, consider these are "design" flow rates. The tub and shower operations are considered mutually exclusive, i.e. either one or the other function will be on, but not both at the same time. When designing a flow rate for the T/S combination, you have to consider that either the tub valve will be operating or the shower head. If you design for the flow rate of the shower head only than the flow rate of the tub spout will only be 2.0gpm. Therefore, we defaulted the flow rate of the T/S fixture to meet the demand of the tub spout.  

    Also, you will receive a false result if you input the values for the T/S combination fixture as a separate tub and a separate shower. You will get a 99th percentile result lower (when the number of fixtures is greater than 1), but it's false because now the WDC is calculating two separate 99th percentiles assuming a mixed fixture use that is no longer considered mutually exclusive. The stand alone tub drives the 99th percentile down because it has such a low frequency of use  whereas the T/S combination fixture is used with a greater frequency. We strongly recommend that you do not use this practice.

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 9 days ago
    So how do I accurately get 1.5 gpm flow rate for the shower uses and 5.5 gpm flow rate for tub uses?   Am I supposed to pick some flow rate between the two to plug in for the combo tub/shower?  Or can I simply not get the 1.5 gpm savings for the shower head via this WDC?

    Also, I'm confused how the stand alone tub use drives things down when the shower is being used more - isn't that what the frequency of use number is there to help with - the 1.0 for the tub and the 4.5 for the shower?

    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 9 days ago
      |   view attached
    For the first question: The combination T/S is a different fixture than a stand alone tub or a stand alone shower. The stand alones only have one outlet flowrate to design for. The stand alone shower only has a 2.0 gpm for the shower head. Nothing else. So you design the piping system to deliver 2.0gpm to that fixture. The stand alone tub has only one supply outlet so you design for the flow rate of the one outlet, typically 5.5gpm (you can go lower, but you may get customer complaint that it takes too long to fill the tub). However, the combination T/S is different in that it has two optional flow rates: either 2.0 gpm or 5.5 gpm but not both. When designing for the flow rate to the combination T/S valve you have to design for the higher flow rate, not a combination of the two or a medium flow rate between the two. If the user chooses the tub option, then the user should expect the 5.5gpm flow rate from the tub spout. The shower head option will limit the flow rate to 2.0gpm. The WDC is for the "design" flow rate of the fixture. The T/S combo is unique since it is the only fixture with a dual flow rate option.

    For your second question: I am attaching a pdf that gives you a visual to the inner workings of the WDC. The WDC uses 3 algorithms based on what we call the Hunter number. You can download the Executive summary to explain that. I present two Case examples for 3 combination T/S fixtures. Case 1 is the scenario you chose in splitting up 3 T/S fixtures into 6 fixtures (3 showers and 3 tubs). The algorithm shown in the attachment uses Exhaustive Enumeration (again refer to the Executive Summary). Since you split the 3 T/S fixtures into 6, there are now 64 possible combinations (2 to the 6 power) of busy fixtures to derive the 99th percentile (see the graph in the attached). The 99th percentile of the 64 possible combinations ranked in order of flow rate is 7.5gpm. 

    Case 2 shows 3 T/S combination fixtures. Using Exhaustive Enumeration there are now only 8 possible combinations of busy fixtures instead of 64. The 99th percentile of the 8 possible combinations is 11gpm. It is higher because in the Case 1 scenario, the many increased possible combinations with a tub fixture with only a 1% probability of use, lowers the cumulative probability significantly causing a false result.

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)



  • 25.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 7 days ago
    Dan, thanks for being willing to write all that out for me.  Somewhere in there the lightbulb went on that I was overlapping ideas on total water consumption / water efficiency with ideas on in-the-moment volume delivery, which is of course what we're talking about here.

    ------------------------------
    Susanne Brown
    Plumbing Designer
    Ecotope
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: Appendix M - UPC 2018

    Posted 7 days ago
    My pleasure Susanne! I love when the light bulb effect happens! Feel free to reach out to me with any other questions you may have.

    ------------------------------
    Dan Cole
    Sr. Director of Technical Services
    IAPMO
    dan.cole@iapmo.org
    ------------------------------