final report to submit

8/12/2019 Final Report to Submit

1/22


2/22

INTEGRATED SHOWERHEAD

Created by:

Brandon Fagnano 1

Caitlin Gibbons 2

Kunal Patel3

Pavara Ranatunga4

3 May 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this project was to reduce the student water usage with a technology or

process that is non-intrusive to make the University Park campus of The Penn State University more

sustainable. The largest area in need of improvement was the water used by dorms on campus.

Conducting research showed that most water is used by the students when showering. The design

team worked to find the most efficient shower heads, which will reduce the water intake, to be

installed on campus bathrooms.

The ideal shower head on the market is the Niagara Earth Massage - 1.25 gallons per minute

(GPM). The group then obtained the shower head and installed it on one of the shower booths to

conduct customer satisfaction tests. During the testing process, 100% of the customers (samplesize of sixteen students) preferred the Niagara to the standard shower head used on campus.

After calculating the water usage from showers at current flow rates and the proposed flow

rates, it can be calculated that if these showers were installed on campus, the installation costs

would be met after six months. Furthermore, it can be deduced that over 46 million gallons of

water and over $182,000.00 would be conserved as well.

DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability balances the rate at which resources are used and renewed. Sustainability

is the conscious and conservative use of resources. It ensures cost effectiveness while actively

engaging society in the process. Solutions should promote accountability and global stewardship.

1http://sites.psu.edu/blf5193/2https://sites.psu.edu/czg5199/3https://sites.google.com/site/kpatelpsu/4https://sites.google.com/site/pavararanatunga/

1


3/22

The implications of the solutions must be economically justifiable while considering present and

future societal needs. Employing these standards will enable future generations to have the same

or increased opportunities with less environmental impact.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

The Pennsylvania State University is actively working to create a more sustainable campus.

As stated in the definition of sustainability, conserving what resources are available may be the

best way to increase the sustainability at Penn State. Although it ranks among the most sustainable

universities in the country, there is always room for improving. One particular area to improve

is water conservation. Too much water is being used and wasted here on campus, especially at

the dining and residence halls.Office of Physical Plant (OPP) at Penn State reported that over 184

million gallons of water are being used annually in residence halls alone. This statistic accounts

for approximately twenty-eight-percent of water usage of the entire university. 5 The design team

hopes to reduce and standardize the flow rate of showers to 1.25 GPM in all of the residence halls

by the conclusion of this project.

INTRODUCTION

By considering the University Park campus of The Pennsylvania State University as a

small city, the purpose of the project is to develop a way to create a more sustainable campus.

In order to do so, the design should demonstrate how technology, paired with human behavior,

can be used to achieve a more sustainable campus. The systems to consider can involve sus-

tainability in housing, energy sources, transportation, food and water systems, recycling, manag-

ing human waste, technologies, and sustainable living. Key deliverables for this design includethe technical report and a model or prototype of the system of design. Furthermore, the report

must include a definition of sustainability, description of alternate concepts and their evaluations,

equipment/installation/maintenance cost estimates, economic return on investment analysis and an

implementation plan.

PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

Two surveys were conducted - one via Facebook and the other face to face - to understand

water usage at the University Park campus. The Facebook survey gathered data on the frequency,duration and the temperature preference of showers. These questions were sent out to individuals

through personal chat boxes to ensure receiving responses; there was not a single survey posted on

a board to a particular group. The face to face survey gathered data on the location of a student

on campus, perception on age of showers, and duration/frequency of showers. Data were collected

from various showers around campus; one shower on two separate floors for at least one dorm in

5http://www.opp.psu.edu

2


4/22

each part of campus. (See figure 1). The following steps illustrate how data were found and used:

1. Measure flow rate in half gallons per second (GPS)

2. Convert to gallons per minute (GPM)

3. Measure water temperature (Degrees Celsius)

4. Find average across the campus, which would be the base line.

Figure 1: A correlation between flow rates and shower water usage per day on University Park

Campus, found by experimental data.

Research was conducted on the state of the art, low-flow shower heads and their specific

design structure (Table 1 - below). Pricing out current low-flow shower head rates helped to for-

mulate a projected financial analysis. Behavioral research behind showering demonstrated that

consciousness of water conservation positively changed behavior.

1. The Waterpik shower head cost the most compared to the other low flow shower heads, and

it has the worst consumer reviews from Amazon. The reviews stated the flow rate was too

low, and an extra five minutes just to make sure you are completely rinsed sort of defeats the

purpose (Waterpik ECO 563).

3


5/22

Table 1: This table compares the low-flow of shower heads currently on the market.

Model Cost/Unit ($) Flow Rate (GPM)

Waterpik ECO 563 29.98 0.5

Spray Clean Chrome 11.99 1.5

Shower Pro Massage 18.99 2.0

Niagara Earth Massage 8.40 1.25

2. The Spray Clean shower has a more modest price and a flow rate, but only three out five stars

on Amazon. Consumers liked the shower head, although one of the consumers never got the

shower head they ordered (Spray Clean Chrome Shower Head).

3. The Shower Pro Massage had a price in the middle, but no reviews at all on Amazon (Shower

Pro Massage).

4. Niagara Earth Massage had the lowest price on Amazon, as well as the most consumer

reviews. The flow rate of 1.25GPM is low but not too low to hinder pressure too much. The

Niagara Earth Massage has a consumer rating of four and a half out five stars, the highest of

all the low flow shower heads (Niagara Earth Massage).

IDENTIFYING NEEDS

The primary objective of identifying needs is to find out how the shower heads in dormi-

tories can be improved, as it is an essential part of the concept development phase in the Product

Development Plan. Doing so allows for the group to have a general idea of what the customers want

in a certain product. Generating product concepts and finally selectingtheconcept that will lead tosuccess is the ultimate goal. The design team identified what the customers need in a shower head

with the use of social media by posting a survey asking the audience about their shower habits.

1. Flow rate less than 1.6 GPM - The current flow rate of installed shower heads on campus is

roughly 2.2 GPM. This average excluding one outlying rate of 5.3 GPM, if it were included

the average would be about 2.5 GPM. The group wishes to reduce the flow rate to below 1.6

GPM, as 1.6 GPM is considered to be the eco-friendly limit (Choosing the Right Low-Flow

Shower Head).

2. Hit 9 sq. ft. (3x3) - he standard shower in the dorms is roughly three feet by three feet, andthe head is placed 6.5 ft. up from the floor. Current showers cover this area well, so even

after implementing a new shower head, the water needs to hit this area of at least a circle

with diameter of three feet.

3. 10-Year Lifetime - Need to have a relative long time till the shower head requires a replace-

ment in order to reduce project implementation cost. Therefore, the ideal lifetime of the

shower head needs to be approximately ten years.

4


6/22

4. Cost - This need governs each individual metric. The cost of reducing flow, durability, and

the materials used will all run up the price of the item. Therefore, the price needs to be kept

at a minimum.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

Product specifications were determined by customer (the students) responses to the surveys

and taking measurements of the current showers around campus. Responses of students on campus

were used to gather data about which residence halls and floors they live on, how long their average

showers are, how often they shower and their opinion on the shower pressure. Gathering firsthand

data gave the group an opportunity to develop a matrix that organized necessary qualitative and

quantitative information. The design team deduced that the new shower heads must have a flow

rate less than 1.6 GPM, maintain the same pressure, maximize area of impact, be durable for at

least a 10-year lifespan, maintain a comfortable temperature, and be cost efficient in materials

used/unit cost.

Calculating Metrics

To clearly obtain the target specifications and to give the proper metrics to those specifi-

cations, the group evaluated the different options for each component for the shower head. These

implementations were both qualitative and quantitative. Table 2 below demonstrates the Needs

Metrics Matrix that was created in response to the target specifications of the shower head.

Table 2: The Needs-Metrics Matrix relates the qualitative needs to the quantitative metrics.Keep Maximize Area Reduce Flow Durability Materials

Same Pressure of Impact Rate UsedFlow Rate (


7/22

water.

Figure 2: This shows the process of using the Idea Trigger method as a way of Concept Generation.

Concepts were developed using the Gallery Method. Each individual on the design team

drew a design that the group discussed to better visualize different shower head design ideas. Five

designs were drawn up and posted to a wall for discussion on how to develop each one. The

designs produced were the Multi-Nozzle / UFO, Moon Crater, Brush, Full-Body Jets, and the Jelly

Fish (see Appendix A). The main criteria that these designs revolved around were that they needed

to maximize the area of flow. After the formal Gallery Method session had taken place, anotherdesign similar to the current shower heads, called the Single-Nozzle, was proposed for prototype

development.

CONCEPT SELECTION

Concept Screening Matrix

In addition to the six designs proposed for development, the group decided to include a

shower head that they found through conducting market research. These concepts were evaluated

and assessed through producing a Concept Screening Matrix (Table 3). Selection criteria and

requirements for the shower heads were determined by the customer needs and what the group

thought was necessary to convince OPP to switch to a new shower head. Evaluating the screening

matrix narrowed the number of designs to two: the Niagara Earth Massage 1.25 GPM (the product

from market research) and the Multi-Nozzle shower head. These two designs advanced to the next

stage for additional development.

6


8/22

Table 3: The Concept Screening Matrix displays the top two designs that were most applicable in

solving the problem of minimizing flow rate.Maintain Maximize Easy Durability Materials Aesthetically Cost Total

Pressure Area Prototype of Product Used Pleasing Efficient Sum

Niagara + + + + - + + +5

Single Nozzle + - + - + + - +1

Multi-nozzle / UFO + + + + - + + +5

Moon Crator + + + + - - - +1

Brush - + + - - - - -3

Full Body Jets - + - - - - - -5

Jelly Fish - + + - - - - -3

Concept Scoring Matrix

The two concepts were then evaluated in a Concept Scoring Matrix (Table 4), with Flow

Rate and the Coverage Area being weighed heaviest as these were the most important to imple-

menting a more sustainable design. From the Concept Scoring Matrix, the Niagara ranked thehigher than the Multi-Nozzle. The group chose to focus primarily on this design because it incor-

porated and improved upon the concepts from the Multi-Nozzle design. The Niagara model was

also a pre-manufactured showerhead that the design team could purchase and conduct comparison

tests to the current shower heads.

Table 4: The Concept Scoring Matrix evaluates the top two designs on a scale according to speci-

fications.Criteria Niagara Multi-Nozzle

Weight

Flow Rate 5 4 2

Maintain Pressure 4 4 1

Cost to Replace 2 2 0

Durability 4 4 2

Coverage Area 5 4 3

Total 20 18 8

PROTOTYPE

Before deciding on one design over another, both needed to undergo additional devel-

opment through prototyping. The design team chose to prototype the Single-Nozzle alongside

of the Multi-Nozzle and Niagara to experimentally compare the designs. The Niagara is a pre-manufactured model currently available on the market; so the design team purchased one unit for

$8.40 from Amazon. The design team received permission from the head of housing to test in the

Globe bathroom shower stalls. The Niagara was tested for a period of about five days in which

eight women and eight men volunteered to take a shower with the new model. All sixteen partici-

pants thought that the Niagara was better than the current shower heads used in dorms. One student

named Aaron Dennis stated that he would absolutely prefer the eco-showerhead over the old one.

Other students said that they hope to see this new model outfitted across the whole campus.

7


9/22

The other two concepts were brought to life through scrap materials in the shop. The Multi-

Nozzle was developed from recycled water bottles (see Appendix B). The holes for the nozzles are

punched through at multiple-splaying angles to maximize the area that model could cover. Near

the bottom of the model, close to the holes, the design team made a pie cutter-looking aerator.

Aerators help spread the stream of water in little droplets, which helps save water and increase the

perceived water pressure. From research of current shower head models the design team knew thatflow restriction was crucial to increasing internal water pressure. Therefore, a curved cone-like

structure was inserted near where the mouth of the shower head would be connected to act as a

flow restricting device. Because the model was made out of a water bottle, the mouth was not

big enough to attach to the shower spigots for testing. The model was held up to sink faucets to

demonstrate its functionality.

The Single-Nozzle was made from two wooden parts held strongly together with wood

glue. The upper part was milled out to fit around a shower mouth, and the other was milled to have

a very small hole/nozzle to increase output water pressure (see Appendix B). This model was also

tested under a sink faucet, where it did not show very good pressure or area coverage.

CAD MODEL

A prototype of the shower head was designed in SolidWorks. The design followed standard

shower head features such as the half inch threaded connection. The water would flow through the

central opening which gradually became narrower to increase the water velocity. The water would

then fill a shallow pocket before leaving the shower head. The design team sent the file to the

RepRap team, who created a 3D prototype. To see a detailed view of the CAD model, refer to

Appendix C.

FINAL CONCEPT SELECTION

From the concept scoring matrix, it was found that the Niagara shower was the best design.

Designed with nine turbo jets that are adjustable from a gentle needle spray to a forceful jet with

a flick of a wrist, this shower head uses a maximum of 1.2 GPM at 80 psi. As the group went

onto conduct further research on this shower head, it was found that this shower head does not

have an aerator. This reduces the amount of temperature lost and increases the energy savings. It

maximizes water and energy conservation. (See Figure 3) Furthermore, it is easy to adjust, courtesy

of the ball bearing (similar to the Dyson Ball vacuum cleaner) located near the joint connector. It

is easy to install in about five minutes because it hand tightens onto the shower head mouth.

8


10/22

Figure 3: Shows estimated water usage from showers at the current flow rate and the proposed

flow rate per month due to the Niagara.

CALCULATIONS

Financial Analysis

Thorough financial analysis was made based on the final concept selected to increase water

sustainability at Penn State, the Niagara Earth Massage 1.25 GPM shower head. The integration

of the Niagara shower head was analyzed for its effectiveness in reducing water and heating usage,

while at the same time being economically justifiable. Two areas are being considered for the

prospective cost savings of this project: Firstly, there are the costs incurred by extracting water

from the well fields and treating it. Secondly, it takes energy to heat water for use in showers. This

is accounted for in terms of the cost of coal, currently almost 100% of the heating needs of the

university are supplied by coal. It should first be noted that several assumptions were made when

estimating the savings generated by the proposed shower head replacement on campus. Some

variable values on efficiencies, prices, and times were approximated made in order to get a handle

on the costs and savings associated with the proposed shower head replacement project (depicted

in Table 5). Such assumptions were made with moderation in mind when estimating savings, and

generosity in mind when predicting costs.

The steam used for almost all heating purposes on campus is generated by four boilers in the

West Campus Steam Plant. Pennsylvania bituminous coal is burned to generate steam needed for

9


11/22

Table 5: List of variables and assumed values associated with each that were used in subsequent

calculations involved in the financial analysis.Variable Assumed Value

Thermal Efficiency 80%

Cost of Water (dollars/gallon) 0.00395

Cost of Energy (dollars / million BTU) 0.000004

Number of Showers on Campus 2649

OPP Labor Rate (dollars / hour) 16.83

Shower Head Unit Cost (dollars) 8.40

Replacement Time (hours) 0.12

heating buildings, heating water, sterilization in some labs, and driving emergency power supply

turbine generators. The current installation dates to the early 1960s. Eighty percent is a reasonable

estimate for efficiency of the boilers of the day, but factoring in transmission and heat exchange in

water heaters, the system level efficiency is probably much lower. A high efficiency value allows

for a conservative means of predicting cost savings on heating water. The cost of water is an exact

value drawn from the State College Water Authority. It is the best estimate accessible, and wepropose that the costs associated with treating and preparing potable water by the borough are

similar to the costs incurred by the Penn State water works. A price of $3.95 per 1,000 gallons was

used in our calculations (Billing Information). The cost of energy is quite reliable. Provided by an

OPP report, the cost of coal was reported to be four dollars per million BTU (Steam Services). The

number of shower heads on campus was calculated utilizing an observed ratio of about one shower

for every seven people living on campus. The number of people living on campus is about 13,000

students according to a 2009 edition of Penn State AlumnInsider(Penn State by the Numbers).

The labor rate is derived from an OPP salary for the maintenance position is $35,000 per year.

Working a 40 hour workweek, this translates to 16.83 dollars per hour. The unit cost of shower

head is is $8.40 dollars for sufficiently large contracts. A university wide conversion project would

more than reach this threshold. The replacement time was derived from repeated replacement ofactual shower heads by a member of the research group. Start to finish, the process came out to 7

minutes, or approximately. This was a maximum, and full scale integration may be more efficient.

This provides for an overestimation of labor costs involved in shower head replacement. On the

subject of efficiency, it should be noted that savings will not be fixed. Given the wide range of

system level efficiency, it seemed appropriate to illustrate tradeoffs between this efficiency and

savings. Savings here includes both water expenditures and energy expenditures. Note that as

boiler efficiency decreases, savings increase. Our main model centers on an efficiency of 80%. It

is very likely lower, which introduces the prospect for additional savings.

The design team ultimately had to decide whether it would be economically feasible to putthe shower head replacement regiment into practice. In order to do this, we had to make some

accounting measure of savings and costs.

10


12/22

Figure 4: The graph shows the per-year savings vs. boiler efficiency trade off curve.

SAVINGS

Monetary accounting of the savings of the project was conservatively computed on two

points. The first point was on the usage of water. According to the Water Authority of State

College, the price of water in the area is the equivalent of $0.0035 per gallon. Penn State does not

receive its water from the mains of the city, however. The water on campus is drawn from well

fields near the Arboretum and is treated and stored on campus. Realizing that the pricing may not

be equal, it is still reasonable to assume that the costs associated with treating and distributing waterare roughly reflected in this amount. The flow rates are the results of utilizing an average shower

time and an average number of showers per day, both derived from surveys. This is extrapolated

to the number of students on campus, reported most recently by the university as being 13,229.

Prices of water used are then calculated.

The other cost is associated with the expense of heating the water used in the showers. The

flow rates for the campus showers. According to observations, a large portion of the water used in

showers is indeed hot water. The average temperature for water coming in from the well fields is

around 10 degrees Celsius. Measured temperatures of water at the showerheads averaged to 47.2

degrees Celsius. The thermal efficiency of the boiler and steam transmission systems are assumed

to be 80%, reducing savings on water. The efficiency is likely lower, so savings on fuel could behigher than projected. The price on the fuel is 4 per million BTU. Using amounts of water used in

calculating expenditures on the water, it is then possible to estimate the cost of heating the water.

In order to assess the economic feasibility of implementing the proposed shower head con-

version, it was appropriate to consider what the cost curves associated with shower water usage

would look like with and without a replacement of shower heads.

11


13/22


14/22

and other mining related impacts. It would also reduce the need to replace the bag-house filter

elements, further reducing impact.

CONCLUSION

In hindsight, all of the goals of this project were met. The task was to design a project

on the sustainability for use on the campus of The Pennsylvania State University. The solution

was to reduce ecological impact through the use of low flow showerheads. The key feature of the

solution was the reduction in water usage through the use of low flow heads. The reduction in

water usage corresponds to a decrease in heating needs. The Niagara shower head fulfills these

functions impeccably well. In order for this project to be implemented, it needed to be financially

sound. Saving significant amounts of water and energy initiated savings in the areas of water

treatment and coal expenses. Even the most pessimistic estimates put breakeven at 3 months from

a January implementation. The proposed shower head switch to the Niagara head design exceeds

in these categories. Reductions in environmental impact are directly related to reductions in costs

associated with showering on campus. In light of this information, it is recommended that the

university consider a shower overhaul involving the installation of Niagara 1.25 gallon per minute

shower heads.

13


15/22

References:

Billing Information. State College Borough Water Authority. State College Borough Water

Authority.

2013. Web. April 14, 2013 .

"Choosing the Right Low-Flow Shower Head." Evolve. ShowerStart: Water Saving Shower

Head Technology, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

.

"Niagara Earth Massage 1.25GPM Low-flow Showerhead." Amazon.com. N.p., 4 July 2010.

Web. 10 Apr. 2013. .

Penn State by the Numbers: 50 Fun Facts. IMakeNews. Penn State Alumni Association. 2009.

Web. April 13, 2012 .

"Shower Pro Massage ON/OFF Showerhead with pressure compensating flow controller, low

flow 2.0gpm."Amazon.com. N.p., 18 May 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

.

"Spray Clean Chrome Shower Head 1.5 with pressure compensating flow

controller." Amazon.com. N.p., 18 May 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2013..

Steam Services. FactSheet_Moser_2010. Office of Physical Plant. 2010. Web. April 14, 2013.

"Waterpik ECO 563 EcoFlow 5-Mode Water Saving Handheld Shower."Amazon.com. N.p., 11June 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. .


16/22

l/ I f \ ~

u o / Mu h nozt..l eFigure A1 shows an ordinary shower head that has multiple

holes for water output over a given area, as opposed to thecurrent shower head, which has one hole to output the water.

Appendix A: Concept Generations


17/22

Figure A2 shows yet another shower head that has multipleholes for water output over a given area. The only differencebeing that this is shaped more like a bush as opposed to theprevious concept's curved shape.


18/22

Figure A3 shows a similar design to design 1, but in thisscenario, the tubes would be made adjustable to the person'spreference, so that his/her entire body would be coveredsimultaneously.


19/22

~ rp a

? < :J

Figure A4 shows a rather luxury approach, where shower jetsare attached to the walls and would be aimed at the personshowering. These would be adjustable so that height does notbecome a factor in showering.


20/22

fJ oon c a rvr ets

Figure A5 displays a very similar approach to concept 1, withthe only minor adjustment being that the water outputs comeout of the actual shower head itself.


21/22

Appendix B : Prototypes

Figure A6 (top, left) shows the Niagara Shower Head obtained to install at the showers on

campus.

Figure A7 (top, right) shows a model shower head made out of a plastic bottle. This allowed for

the group to get an understanding of how a shower head functions, especially what happens if the

water input is greater than that of the output.

Figure A8 (top, left) shows the rapid prototype developed at Penn States engineering facilities

after submitting a CAD model of what the group thought would most resemble a shower head.

Figure A9 (top, right) shows another prototype developed in class.


22/22

26.03

13.

97

15

R5.08

6.

35

24.00

10.

16

40.

64

2.5

4

2.

54

6.74

60

5

2.

38

3

1.

75 1

2.

70

Shower Head 1

DWG NO

TITLE:

REVISIONDO NOT SCALE DRAWING

MATERIAL:

DATESIGNATURENAME

DEBUR AND

BREAK SHARP

EDGES

FINISH:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS

SURFACE FINISH:

TOLERANCES:

LINEAR:

ANGULAR:

Q A

MFG

APPV'D

CHK'D

DRAWN

Appendix C- CAD Drawing

final report to submit

Documents