1

Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................1
Summary.................................................................................................................................2
Time Management..................................................................................................................3
Weekly plans.......................................................................................................................3
Introduction.............................................................................................................................4
Our Company Pera...........................................................................................................4
Our School and Team..........................................................................................................4
Situation..............................................................................................................................4
Brief....................................................................................................................................5
Research..................................................................................................................................6
Analysis of current products...............................................................................................6
Showers...............................................................................................................................6
Domestic Plumbing.............................................................................................................7
Plan.........................................................................................................................................8
Implementation.......................................................................................................................9
Creating our testing rig.......................................................................................................9
Results...............................................................................................................................11
Display Model.......................................................................................................................17
Conclusions...........................................................................................................................18
Recommendations.............................................................................................................19
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................20
Appendices............................................................................................................................21

Acknowledgements
Manilka Abeysuriya for expert advice on flow calculations
William Dowell for help in our planning stages and various figures aiding our calculations
Christopher Edwards for sourcing components and tutoring us in creating our PIC
Hannah Williams for mentoring us from the start, providing advice (and common sense!) throughout
and critiquing this report

Summary

Time Management
Weekly plans
Mark Pollock creates a weekly plan detailing the exact objectives of each member of the team for each
session we have. See Appendix A for an example.

Gantt Chart
See Appendix B

Introduction
Our Company Pera
Pera is a company with three main branches, these being Pera Technologies, Pera Consulting and Pera
Training, offering, respectively, Product Development, Government Services and Workplace Training.
It was Pera Technologies that provided us with our task and their support. They are a leading product
development contractor and work with companies across Europe, of all sizes. Furthermore, they work
on a huge range of products and have specialised engineers covering many areas of physics and
mechanics. Once a product is designed, tested and approved, Pera Technologies can also construct
supply chains of partners to get the product onto the market, from manufacturing through to the
consumer.
Pera Technologies has many groups of staff to tackle their extremely varied work.
Our link engineer, Manilka Abeysuriya, works in their Informatics and PMM groups and so covers
With informatics: control systems, GUI design, desktop/web applications, databases
With PPM: Modelling (structural, thermal, fluids) and microwave work (heating/drying, material
processing, communications, radar)

Our School and Team

Oakham School is a coeducational boarding and day school for ages 10-18 that offers both the
International Baccalaureate and A-Levels in its Upper School. It is located in Oakham, Rutland.
The team is made up of four students, all currently studying AS level physics:
Harry Smith, Mark Pollock, Will Alexander and Max Jones.
Our supporting teacher is physicist Miss Hannah Williams.

Situation
Note: Bracketed numbers indicate the source used, details of which are found in the bibliography.
15 20% of domestic energy is used for heating water for ablution processes. This is due to the large
volumes heated and because water has a high specific heat capacity, meaning a lot of energy is
required to raise its temperature. (Around 4.18J is needed to heat 1 gram (and thus 1cm) of water by
1C.) In showers, this heat is experienced briefly and some is imparted on the air and the user, but the
majority remains in the waste water and is lost down the drain.
A heat exchanger can be used to recycle some of this heat. A heat exchanger runs two pipes made of a
good thermal conductor alongside each other. When a hot fluid flows in one pipe and a cold fluid
flows in the other, heat is transferred by conduction to the colder fluid. To increase the efficiency of a

shower (from 0% - usually no heat is recycled), the hot waste water is run in
one pipe while cold, mains water is run through the other, becoming slightly
heated. This warmer water is directed to the shower and mixed with the hot input. This reduces the
amount of hot, boiler water required per shower, thereby reducing the energy used.
Pera had already been experimenting with this idea using different configurations to determine
whether this is a viable option for domestic use. They wanted us to take up the project and - as
hopefully we would look at it from a different point of view - find potential improvements to their
initial concept.
The end product is desirable as it provides a way to reduce the large cost of showering; the typical UK
home spends 416 per year on showers, shooting to 918 if a power shower is used. On a larger scale,
5.3% of the UKs energy is used to heat water and any reduction in this could have huge positive
environmental impacts, namely, reduction in CO2 emissions, as fossil fuels are burnt to either directly
heat water or to create the electricity used to heat water. (1)

Brief
We have been tasked with testing the viability of the method of re-using the hot water from showers
using heat exchangers. We must find out if the energy recouped is too small to warrant the cost of a
heat recovery system. Two separate costs need to be considered:
1) The cost of the system on its own, to be fitted when new showers are installed
2) The cost of the system plus the cost of retrofitting it to existing showers
Ideally, we want a system where this second set of costs is outweighed by the savings of the system.
To do this, we must design a heat recovery system (that should be retrofit-able) and then create a
method of testing its energy savings.

Research
How a heat exchanger works
We started out, presumably like the majority of the public, unaware of what exactly a heat
exchanger is or how it works.

Analysis of current products

Recoh-Tray, RT-1 by Shower Save:
A large, circular heat exchanger system. They propose three systems for their heat exchanger:
A) Mains water, having been warmed by the heat exchanger travels to both the shower and the boiler
with a claimed 47% efficiency.
B) Warmed water travels just to the shower with a claimed 39%
C) Warmed water travels just to boiler with a claimed 41% efficiency.
See Appendix C for flow diagrams of their three systems.
However, system A involves removing a mains water feed from one of the shower or boiler and
directing one feed into both appliances, on top of inserting the heat exchanger into the system. This is
much more labour intensive than either B or C and will raise the installation price, increasing the pay
back time, for a reasonably small increase in efficiency. This reduces the appeal of the product as its
peak ability may not be seen by many users who, for cost reasons, use systems B or C.
Furthermore, the statistics provided by the Standard Assessment Procedure quoted on the Shower Save
website (and included above) are questioned by Which? who give far lower figures for the systems
efficiencies. FIGURES???
Doubt as to their claimed sales figures is furthered on this site:
http://www.wholebuild.co.uk/microsite/shower-heat-exchange-and-recovery-system
Who claim that using a string of another of Shower Saves products, the Recoh Vert RV-3 they have
created a 45-50% efficient system, while Shower Save claim a rating of 66% efficiency for one of
these. This is improbable, given the nature of heat exchangers: they divide heat between two water
feeds, so the output feeds should each have 50% of the heat at best.
Cost: 680.00 (not including labour) (plus 216.89 - 294.03 for a BETTE shower tray if your own
does not accommodate the Recoh Tray.)
Also on the market are various

Showers
Types:
As mentioned in the situation section, regular and power showers use very different amounts of water.
A typical shower (8 minutes long) using a regular shower uses 62 litres (1), while a power shower uses
136 litres (this second figure is almost twice as much a bath) (1).
Use:
Daily usage The average shower length is 8 minutes. Total usage depends on the number of people
using the shower and the number of showers they have per day. Greatest savings will come with the
greatest use of a shower. (1)
Average shower temperatures Between 35 and 40C (based on internet research (4) and the teams
own recordings). We will test a range of temperatures and record the efficiency of the system at each.
Average mains cold temperature 15C (varying through the year around this point) (2) (and our own
measurements using temperature sensors and a data logger are another source)
Average boiler water temperature - 60C (2)
Parameters:
Shower tray depth 100/90/6 cm (2) Therefore we have very limited space with which to work with.
Quite possibly, for an eventual product, a custom built heat exchanger may need to be developed.
Waste pipe diameter 40mm diameter pipe (Various plug diameters, 40, 50 or 90, but almost all lead
to a 40mm waste pipe) (2)

Domestic Plumbing
Pressure:
1 bar gauge pressure is certified by the nations water companies. However, pressures in excess of 4
bar are usual. (2) However, the 1 bar minimum is not assured for apartment blocks as the height water
is required to be raised diminishes the pressure. Our final solution may need to be adapted for use in
such circumstances. (5)
Fittings:

As there is a plethora of different types of domestic plumbing fittings, we were quite lucky
that local supply dictated that only 'Yorkshire joint' style, or Conex Compression fit were
available. As the laboratory that we were in for the majority of the plumbing did not have
blowtorch facilities, then we were restricted to compression fit fittings. A diagram of a
Yorkshire joint versus a Compression fitting is below:
(PICTURES TO BE TAKEN)

Plan
The initial flow diagram for the system Pera have provided
is seen in Figure 1.1.
The mixing valve was already included in the shower
assembly so we were tasked with finding a suitable pump
and heat exchanger combination to make this system an
improvement over a normal shower. Our engineer decided a
pump was necessary to ensure the flow rate and pressure are
great enough to reach the mixing valve and be powerful enough
shower.
However, we have found a number of problems with the
original ideas.

us

for a
companys
Figure 1.1

Firstly, it appears to lack a mains hot water input, and while probably
created assuming that mains water supply covers both hot and cold,
we feel this is an
over-simplification of the diagram. If Figure 1 was followed blindly, the shower would only ever use
cold water, meaning no heat can be recovered by the heat exchanger and the
proposed hot
input remains cold. (Mains cold water, on average, has a
temperature of 15C, creating one very cold and undesirable
shower!)
Our initial solution was to have a hot input straight from
mains to the mixing valve, and a cold input that travels
through the heat exchanger, gaining heat in the process that
joins the hot input pipe before the mixing valve. See Figure 1.2.
the cold Figure 1.2
is already warmed slightly and as a
hot water
has to be used. However, there is
flaw to
this layout. Due to all cold water passing
exchanger, the longer the shower runs, the hotter the cold input gets as a
increasingly hot shower output, due to increased cold input temperature.
temperature of the cold input will equal roughly half that of the hot input. No
can be mixed with this as it has already been used, creating an
adjustable, scalding hot shower up to 60 degrees Celsius.
Also, the lack of a cold input causes the shower pump to
work too hard to draw in water that isnt there, potentially
damaging some models of shower.

Therefore
result less
one major
through the heat
result of
Eventually, the
cold water
un-

Our solution is similar to Harrys; a hot input straight from

mains to the mixing valve, and a cold input that travels
through the
heat exchanger, gaining heat in the process. See Figure 1.3.
Therefore
the cold is already warmed slightly and as a result less hot water
has to be
Figure meaning
1.3
mixed in to provide normal shower temperature. This means less heat is
wasted,
less energy is wasted and the shower is more efficient.
Our other problem with the Pera diagram is the presence of an additional
pump after the heat
exchanger. In fact, at first we hadnt thought about this, assuming that
the Peras testing
had shown this to be the correct layout. It wasnt until we tested the flow rate of water through our
heat exchanger that we realised a pump wasnt necessary. Using a simple siphoning process, we have
established that flow through the heat exchanger is almost unrestricted. This also worked (despite the
manufacturers instructions) regardless of what orientation the heat exchanger was in. Mains water

pressure is, at minimum, 1 bar (see research). This is easily

in an eventual saleable product, to ensure the cold mains
travels through the heat exchanger and up to the mixing valve.
The removal of the pump means that any recovery of energy
by the heat exchanger is 100% energy saved our system
does not use any electrical energy to recover the thermal
energy. It removes the possibility that our system will
INCREASE energy usage per shower i.e. the pump uses
more energy getting warmed water back to the shower than
the energy saved. Thus the foreseen viability of our solution
has increased dramatically. (See Figure 1.4)

enough,
water

For testing and display purposes, where we do not have mains

pressure and rely on gravity, we plan to use a pump, to provide
sufficient pressure.
Figure 1.4

In conclusion, our final shower layout is this: Cold mains water travels
through the heat exchanger and increases in temperature. It reaches the
mixing valve/ shower and is mixed with mains hot water. Simple testing has shown a secondary pump
is not necessary mains pressure will be sufficient for the circuit to flow.

10

Implementation
Creating our testing rig
We began our implementation by gathering
materials for creating a shower setup to
test the efficiency of our recovery system.
The team started with, courtesy of Marks
parents engineering work, two shower
units attached to a frame that had been
used for comparing brushed to brushless motors in showers. See Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1
We used this pre-made set up to measure the flow rate produced by the shower,
it was found to be equal to the flow rate from regular mains. (Later, due to the
limitations of our test rig, this same flow was not achieved.)
The group visited a builders merchant store and acquired 3m of 15mm copper pipe and
various fittings for the plumbing of our own test rig. The fittings included: taps, 3 way
elbows, 90 degree elbows, end stops (to act as tank drain cocks), 22-15mm reducers,
compression-female thread tap connectors and tank flanges.
We also bought, at a later date, a sink fitting for our shower tray.
We removed one unit from the frame and began to create our own specialised testing rig. We
built a frame from wood (See Appendix D) over many hours that would be strong enough to
hold up our water tanks and attached our shower unit and two 36L storage containers to it.
During our time at Loughborough University, we worked on the plumbing of the rig. This
involved:
Connecting the left hand storage container (designated our hot water source) to the hot
water input of the shower using 15mm copper piping and associated fittings.
Drilling a hole in our shower tray (another storage container) and inserting (without
creating leaks!) the sink fitting. We had to hand craft a reducer so that we were able to
connect the sink to flexible hose.
Connecting our shower tray (and thus our waste water) to one end of the heat exchanger
and then out to a waste bucket, using flexible hoses.
Connecting the right hand storage container (designated our cold water source) to first the
pump, then to the other end of the heat exchanger (so that we get efficient counter-current
exchange) then out to the cold water input of the shower, using a mixture of 15mm copper
piping and associated fittings and flexible hoses.
Running water through the above assembly to detect leaks and then reassembling those
parts of our plumbing, making fittings tighter and using PTFE tape as a sealant.
The completed test rig is shown below in Figure 2.2

11

Figure 2.2

Hot water source

Cold water source

Shower unit

Shower tray with waste pipe

Note: The heat exchanger and the pump are located behind the shower unit

12

Results
The quantities we had to measure throughout the experiment were:
Temperature At various points. We have used thermal probes connected to a data logger to
measure the temperatures of water in the exposed areas: The hot and cold water sources and
the waste water in the shower tray. To measure the temperatures of the water inside sections
of copper piping (in the supply of cold water to the heat exchanger and, our most important
measurement, in the warmed water coming from the heat exchanger towards the shower unit)
we inserted, using epoxy, thermocouples into modified TRV valves. These were connected to
a homemade PIC microcontroller for display. (PIC stands for programmable/peripheral
interface controller.)
Flow rate Between the heat exchanger and the cold water input to the shower unit. Using a
flow rate meter connected to the same PIC
Time Using a lab stop-clock
Table 1: Flow rate measurements

Pum
p
N/A
N/A

Waste Feed*
Heat
Washing Machine
Exchanger
hose
yes
yes
no
N/A

Pum
p
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no

Cold Feed*
Heat
Washing Machine
Exchanger
hose
yes
no
no
N/A
yes
yes
yes
no
no
N/A
yes
yes

Flow Rate (litres/minute)

1
2
3
4 Averag
e
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.5

1
7.0
6.9
5.7
2.2
2.3
1.9

Flow Rate (litres/minute)

2
3
4 Average
6.9
7.0
5.9
2.1
2.3
1.9

7.1
6.9
6.0
2.2
2.3
1.9

7.0
6.9
5.9
2.1
2.3
1.9

7.0
6.9
5.9
2.2
2.3
1.9

*all tests were completed with the washing machine hose at the same level as the heat exchanger.
Table 2: Temperature measurements (all in C)
These measurements are our core data. These show the efficiency of our heat exchanger. They are all
average values taken from at least three repeats. These measurements are focused around a
temperature for shower water of 35C. After some research we found that while this is not the normal
quoted shower temperature this is actually the normal temperature of the shower water going down
the drain. The water that leaves the shower head is typically at 45C (4) but there is a 10C loss in
temperature before the water reaches the drain.

13

Shower
water
25
30
35
40
45

Cold
water source
before HE
18
18
18
18
18

Warmed
water after
HE
24
27
29
31
33

Waste water
after HE

Increase in
temperature
on cold feed
6
9
11
13
15

Decrease in
temperature
on waste feed

Table 3: Change in temperature recovery over time

At the start of a shower, only cold water flows so recovery of heat is zero. These measurements were
taken to time how long it takes for our system to reach maximum efficiency. They are the average of
several measurements. The temperature of shower water would change as the experiment progressed,
so these should be considered accurate with an uncertainty of 3C.

For 25C shower water

Time (s)
Average temp. of
warmed water (C)
10
20
20
21
30
21
40
21
50
22
60
22
70
23
80
23
90
24
100
24
110
24
120
24
130
24
140
24
150
24
160
24
(onwards)

For 35C shower water

Time (s)
Average temp of
warmed water (C)
10
16
20
16
30
18
40
20
50
21
60
23
70
24
80
25
90
25
100
25
110
26
120
26
130
27
140
27
150
28
160
28
(onwards)

For 45C shower water

Time (s)
Average temp of
warmed water (C)
10
22
20
23
30
23
40
24
50
25
60
27
70
30
80
32
90
33
100
34
110
35
120
35
130
35
140
35
150
35
160
35
(onwards)

Temp. of 20
cold (C)
Time to
90
full
efficiency

Temp. of
cold (C)
Time to
full
efficiency

Temp. of
cold (C)
Time to
full
efficiency

16
150

18
110

Mathematical analysis of the empirical results (Table 1)

14

We are trying to work out whether there is a pressure drop across the heat
exchanger or washing machine hose and if so what its value is. We will use two equations: Bernoullis
Equation and the continuity equation both of which are given below. These are both simplified
versions of the true equations.
2

v p
+ + gh=constant
2
p1 A 1=p 2 A2
Where: v = velocity, p = pressure, = density, g = gravitational field strength, h = height lost/gained, A
= cross-sectional area.
Since h was limited to 0 (we tried as much as possible to do so), we can remove the gh value. We also
know that since the Bernoulli Equation is equal to a constant, we can put it in a similar form to the
continuity equation.

v 21 p1 v 22 p 2
+ = +
2 1 2 2
2

v 1 1 2+2 p1 2=v 2 1 2+2 p2 1

We know that rho = 1000kg/m3 for water, we can then assume that the density does not change across
the heat exchanger/ washing machine pipe. This is a reasonable assumption to make temperature
does not influence it greatly. By rearranging and cancelling out some of the rho values, we get:

p
( 2 p1 )
2
2
500 ( v 1 v 2 ) =
We can then calculate that the pressure across the following components is:
Heat Exchanger:
Washing machine hose input:
Washing machine hose output:
Washing machine hose total:

Negligible pressure drop

0.31mbar
0.37mbar
0.68mbar

Therefore we can come to the conclusion that we do not need a pump in our system even if our
prototype implies that we do because it is not our heat exchanger that is causing a large decrease in
pressure it is in fact our pipes and their fittings. These are often flexible hoses that are narrowed in
places and are far longer than necessary. The pipes can easily be changed so it is not a concern.
Knowing that a depth of water of 10cm (the height under the shower tray) produces 0.01 bar, we can
calculate that we are losing about 15% of the pressure we would theoretically have just through the
use of two washing machine hoses.
Mathematical analysis of the empirical results (tables 2 and 3):

15

We now wish to calculate:

1. The efficiency of our heat exchanger
2. The time taken for the heat exchanger to reach maximum efficiency
3. The cost benefit to the consumer of having a heat exchanger in place
4. Therefore the payback time of the heat exchanger system
The main equation we will use for efficiency:

q=mc T
Where: m = mass of water (g), c = specific heat capacity (4.18kJ -1g-1 for water), q = energy change (J),
T = change in temperature (C). Since we know the flow rate (l/m) we can simply say this is equal to
kg/m and then be able to calculate energy transferred per minute.
The energy required to heat the water on the cold feed to the measured increase in temperature (see
table 2) at different shower temperatures and the energy lost by the waste water at different shower
temperatures are shown below.
Cold feed energy in (kJm-1)
Waste water energy out (kJm-1)
Efficiency* (%)

25C
150

30C
220

35C
270

40C
320

45C
370

100
Waste water energy out
Efficiency=

Cold feed energy

Therefore the average efficiency of the heat exchanger is: ____ MEASUREMENTS ARE NEEDED

The average time taken for the heat exchanger to reach maximum efficiency is (taken from
table 3): 120s or 2 minutes.
Assuming a 35C shower run for 7 minutes, 4 times a day by a family of 4, the total energy
saved in a year becomes**:
Total energy saved =270 J 103 6 4 365
Total energy saved =2365200000 J 2.4 109 J
Total energy saved =

2.4 109
=670 kWh
3.6 106

Utility prices state that for the first 500 kWh they cost 12p each. Therefore the conversion
from kWh saved to money saved is as follows:
Total money saved=

670 12 p
= 80.00( 2 sig . fig .)
100
16

Given that our heat exchanger cost about 34.90, then the payback time
for the heat exchanger system is: 5 months 1 week, 1 hour and 12 minutes.
To put our savings into context, below is the normal energy requirements for using a shower
per minute.
Cold water from mains (18C)

Shower Temperature (35C)

Heating therefore requires 420kJmin-1, at a flow rate of 5.9lmin-1.

**Due to the time taken for the heat exchanger to reach maximum efficiency being 2 minutes,
you have to take away two minutes from the time the shower is running because the heat
exchanger is not recovering all the energy at this point, leaving you with a 5 minute shower.
However we can assume that efficiency increases at a linear rate and hence taking the average
of this we can say that the heat exchanger runs for 2 minutes at half the efficiency. The energy
saved in that is equal to one minute at full efficiency, thus we can add 1 minute to 5 minutes
giving us the value shown above for a 6 minute shower.

So, our system saves a considerable amount of energy. How much energy saved is shown
below.
Cold water from mains (18C)

After HE temperature (29C)

Shower Temperature (35C)

Energy saved by HE: 270kJmin-1 at a flow rate ofEnergy

5.9lmin-1.
still needed to heat water: 150kJmin-1 at a flow rate of 5.9lmin-1

Therefore using these calculations we come up with a rudimentary calculation for the
efficiency of our entire system:
Energy saved by HE
100 = Efficiency for whole system
Total energy used by a normal shower
This equation means that if the efficiency were 100%, then we would never need to heat any
water for a running shower.

17

Efficiency for whole system=

270 kJ min1
100 =64
420 kJ min1

This value takes into account all loses in the shower, in the pipes, in the heat exchanger and in
any pumping systems. This shows that our system compared to other energy saving systems is
very efficient.

18

Display Model
We decided to develop our test rig before it goes on display, making it more compact and
improving its aesthetics. With access to only our own resources, we:
Disassembled the plumbing completely, leaving the wooden frame bare.
This enabled us to measure out and affix three plywood boards to the sides and front of
the frame.
We then, using a power drill, cut a hole large enough for the hot and cold feed pipes of the
shower to fit through. See Appendix E (1)
We tiled the plywood surfaces and the top of the frame using spare bathroom tiles and tile
adhesive from a property renovation, cutting tiles to the appropriate dimensions (see
Appendix E (2)), including a trim of smaller tiles and grouting all of this. See Figure 3.1
Meanwhile, a box for shower tray simulation was being created. The shower tray storage
container rests on top of a rectangle of interlocking plywood pieces, this frame simulating
the space under a shower tray required to house piping and our heat exchanger. (The pump
needed only for the display, remember will sit outside this frame.) Holes were drilled
in the sides to allow piping to enter and leave. The plywood was first painted white. See
Appendix E (3)

Tiled display model after grouting. It was later

wiped down to remove excess grout.

Figure 3.1

19

Conclusions
Will/max remember to write about limitations of our prototype system, for example: A major
limitation of these calculations is that the flow rate of our shower is about half that of a
normal shower. Normally one would expect the flow rate to be closer to 10lmin-1

20

Recommendations
Use a larger drainage pipe for shower tray. We used a sink fitting. In

addition, our waste pipes were 32mm or 20mm, not wide enough to remove water from the
shower tray as needed to prevent pooling. However, this will not have affected our results.
Use a more powerful pump to better simulate the mains pressure that would, in reality, be
pumping cold water through the heat exchanger.

Bibliography
(1) http://www.unilever.co.uk/media-centre/pressreleases/2011/sustainableshowerstudy.aspx
A study of 2,600 showers by Unilever. This study has been cited by BBC news and Which?,
lending it reliability.
(2) John Cox, plumber

21

(3) http://www.showersave.net/recoh-tray-rt-1/
(4) Average temperature statistic????
(5) William Dowell, physics technician at Oakham School

Appendices
Appendix A: An example of a weekly time plan. Week 5 Spring Term refers to 02/02/15 to
09/01/15

22

Appendix B: Insert Gantt Chart

23

Appendix C: Diagrams to show the three systems Shower Save propose for the use of the RecohTray RT-1

24

Appendix D: A CAD model of the wooden frame used as the skeleton for our testing rig

Appendix E: Display model photos

1)

25

The hole bored in the plywood to allow for plumbing. The tiles were cut so that the
hole was not covered.

2)

2)

26

2)

3)

The whole team worked on tiling

it required many man hours.

Painting parts of the plywood

shower tray frame

27