CH-15-C023

Estimating Water Savings from an Auxiliary

Water Collection System, as Part of an
Integrated Thermal Energy and Water
Storage System for Residential Buildings
Charles R. Upshaw Joshua D. Rhodes, PhD Michael E. Webber, PhD
Student Member ASHRAE Student Member ASHRAE

ABSTRACT
This paper provides an overview of rainwater, graywater, and AC condensate collection (collectively referred to as auxiliary water) using a model of
integrated systems in residential buildings. The model incorporates basic house geometry and characteristics, local meteorological data, and
consumption information to estimate the potential for water collection. The model is then used to calculate the water savings from the collection
system(s) for a range of configurations. A single family residential building in Austin, Texas and 2011 historical weather data was used as an
example to illustrate the model’s capabilities. This analysis was limited to analyzing water consumption and savings from irrigation only. The
analysis estimated significant annual water savings (74%) with a storage tank size of 1,500 gallons (5,678 L). For tank sizes larger than
1,500 gallons, the savings had diminishing returns, with a 12,000 gallon (45,425 L) tank needed to meet the annual irrigation demand.

MOTIVATION AND INTRODUCTION

Many parts of the Western and Southern US (and other regions around the world) are suffering from serious
drought and extreme weather. At the same time, many areas are also suffering from electric grid strain. These areas of
water stress and grid strain often overlap. As a result, cities and consumers are looking for ways to reduce their water
consumption and stress on local water supplies, as well as reduce their on-peak electricity consumption. To reduce
municipal water consumption, there are two methods: 1) decrease water use through increased efficiency, and 2) capture (or
make use of) auxiliary water sources such as rainwater, gray water, and/or air conditioner condensate to supplement or
displace municipal water supplies. In areas with stressed water supplies, both methods could be pursued for maximum
water savings and increased drought resiliency. While rainwater collection and gray water re-use systems are relatively
simple, their adoption and integration into residential buildings in the United States has been slow, partially due to policy
barriers and lack of familiarity with how to properly size and design the systems. Since peak electricity demand is driven by
air conditioning (AC) systems in most stressed areas, reducing on-peak cooling energy is an important area for efficiency
efforts. One method to reduce on-peak AC system demand and energy consumption is to use thermal storage. Thermal
storage has been successfully implemented in many larger commercial applications, but has not found success on the
smaller scale of the residential sector for a number of reasons, with costs being a primary factor. This paper is part of a
broader research effort aimed at reducing both water consumption and on-peak electricity load using integrated thermal
energy and water storage systems. Prior research (discussed in the following section) has already explored the feasibility of
the thermal storage aspects of integrated storage, so this paper will focus on the water savings potential for the systems.

Charles Upshaw is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin. Joshua Rhodes is a
postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin. Michael Webber is an Associate
Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 1

CH-15-C023

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PRIOR WORK

The concept for an integrated thermal energy and rainwater storage (ITHERST) system for on-peak air
conditioning load shifting and auxiliary water collection has been published before (Upshaw 2013; Upshaw 2014) (currently
under review), with an emphasis on peak energy avoidance. A more detailed description of the modeling methodology and
analysis performed for the thermal storage portion of the system is available in prior work (Upshaw 2014). .This paper
builds on that prior work to analyze water avoidance. This section briefly summarizes the system design and operation, as
well as initial modeling results from those two papers.

ITHERST System Description

The ITHERST system concept couples a typical direct expansion AC system to an auxiliary water collection system to
provide both condenser-side thermal storage and auxiliary water capture and re-use capabilities. Figure 1 provides idealized
schematic of the HVAC side of the system with corresponding refrigerant flow paths during each of the three modes of
operation (Upshaw, 2014). For simplicity and display clarity, the schematic omits sensors, auxiliary valves, and other
components, but does demonstrate natural convection-driven (top tank) and pump-driven (bottom tank) water/refrigerant
heat exchanger configurations. For each mode of operation, the refrigerant flow paths are depicted by the arrows; the blue
arrow signifies condensed refrigerant, and the red signifies evaporated refrigerant (Upshaw 2014). The first mode is
operation with the typical air-cooled condenser, during which the refrigerant follows the solid arrow flow path. The second
mode is thermal storage discharge via the low-temperature water-cooled condenser, represented by the dashed arrow flow
path. The third mode of operation involves recharging the thermal storage by operating the water-refrigerant heat
exchanger as the AC system’s evaporator (dotted arrow flow path). The system only discharges the thermal storage to cool
the AC during a period of time in the afternoon, and waits to recharge it until late at night; during all other times, the
system operates in air-cooled mode.

 
"$
 

*$%
%

##%
 (
#

 #
%#%
#
#*


(%#

% #
*$%
$


 #
 "

 






" !

##%
 &%

 !#$$ # #



 $# %



 
"$

! 

$$'
%####%
##%


%
)#
 &#%  % # 

(%#
%

 
"$
 
 )#
)!$ 
 

 !
# 
&$


'

 $# '! #% #

)#






%

##%

 &%



 

#
 

  


%#


&! # 
#
% # #
% #
! #

 
"$

 $#
 $#
 #


!  "&
%'
%###% %
)%&#

%
)#
 &#% 


"

Figure 1: This is a system schematic of the HVAC portion of an integrated thermal energy and rainwater storage (ITHERST) system.
The arrows trace the refrigerant flow during the three modes of operation; blue and red represent condensed and evaporated
refrigerant, respectively. The two tanks represent passive (top) and active (bottom) configurations (Upshaw 2014).

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 2

CH-15-C023

Prior Analyses of ITHERST System

Analysis of the thermal storage capacity of the ITHERST system, using summer 2011 historical data, suggested on-
peak AC compressor load reduction could be on the order of approximately 40-45% of the reference AC compressor
power demand, with total energy conumption from the compressor increasing 6.5-8.1% over the measurement period from
the no-storage case (Upshaw 2014). These numbers represent a rough upper-bound on performance because 2011 was the
hottest summer on record. Analysis with typical meterologial year (TMY) data estimated demand reduction on the order of
37-40% and an energy penalty range of 11-12%. These results were based on thermal storage water tank volume ranges of
1,000-5,000 gallons (3,785-18,927 Liters), using empirical compressor models to estimate power demand and energy
conumption (Upshaw 2014). To compare with this estimate for tank volume needed for adaquate thermal storage, this
paper takes the next step by developing a model for auxiliary water collection and consumption to be calculated for a range
of storage tank volumes.

AUXILIARY WATER (RAINWATER, GRAYWATER, AND AIR CONDITIONER CONDENSATE) SYSTEMS

Collectively rainwater, graywater, and AC condensate are often referred to as ‘auxiliary water sources’. While the
ITHERST concept was originally named for its compatibility with rainwater collection, the system concept could use any
combination of sources of auxiliary water, and as such this paper considers all three. Auxiliary water is often collected and
used for similar purposes, including irrigation, toilet flushing, and other non-potable uses. Since there are plumbing code
restrictions against direct mixing, storage, and use of untreated gray water and rainwater, it is assumed that these three
sources feed into a common on-site water treatment system, which treats water to the requisite standard, before storing it in
a common tank for later use (UPC 2012). Rainwater, graywater, and AC condensate are briefly described below.

Rainwater Collection Systems

Rainwater collection is the capture of rainwater from a catchment surface for storage and later use. A rainwater
collection system typically consists of the following primary components: collection surface (such as a roof), gutters and
downspouts, first flush diverters and/or other means of debris diversion and pre-filtration before water enters the tank,
conveyance piping, one or more storage tank(s) (TWDB 2005). From the collection system, the rainwater water can then
be utilized in a number of ways. For small collection systems for irrigation, a direct gravity-fed hose or spigot suffices.
Larger more elaborate irrigation systems, and/or systems used for potable water will typically have a pump-driven delivery
system, with water filtration/treatment incorporated. Rainwater collection differs from stormwater diversion, in that the
latter catches rain from the ground (such as parking lots) rather than an elevated roof structure. Rainwater captured from
roofs and elevated structures is typically much cleaner than stormwater, and as such there are less concerns with rainwater
storage, treatment and re-use. The laws and codes surrounding rainwater collection vary significantly locally and state-to-
state, which might inhibit the ability to install a rainwater collection system

Graywater Collection Systems

According to the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), “Graywater is defined as untreated wastewater that has not
come into contact with toilet waste, kitchen sink waste, dishwasher waste, or similarly contaminated sources. Graywater
includes wastewater from bathtubs, showers, [bathroom sinks], clothes washers, and laundry tubs” (UPC 2012). Approved
graywater sources can have their drains feed into a graywater system rather than flow directly to the sanitary sewer. The
graywater collection system includes a small surge tank to capture incoming graywater, and an overflow to the sewer in case
the tank is full. Since graywater systems (by code) are required to empty daily, the graywater in the surge tank can either
feed into a continuous drip irrigation system, or feed into a water treatment system which brings the water to ‘treated, non-
potable’ standard, for storage and later use (UPC 2012)

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 3

CH-15-C023

AC Condensate Collection Systems

AC condensate collection is a simple, and often over-looked source of auxiliary water. Cooling load in a building is
a mix of sensible and latent load. Sensible load has to do with cooling the air temperature; latent load has to do with
humidity and condensing water vapor out of the air. The exact mix of sensible and latent depends on a variety of factors,
including outdoor air temperature and relative humidity, infiltration rates, internal heat and moisture sources, and cooling
temperature setpoint. AC condensate production is high in areas with high outdoor temperatures and relative humidity,
and in buildings with high internal moisture generation. AC condensate production is not as large of a source of auxiliary
water as gray water or rainwater, but it can provide a small but steady source during summer months when rainfall is sparse.

MODELING AUXILIARY WATER COLLECTION AND CONSUMPTION

A simplified mass-balance collection model was developed to better understand the correlation between water
savings and auxiliary water collection system size for a residential house. This simplified ‘mass-balance’ type model is based
on the standard ‘rule-of-thumb’ often used in the rainwater collection industry (TWDB 2005). However, the resolution of
the model has been increased from ‘average monthly’ to a historical, daily time-scale to better capture the impact of rainfall
intermittency and variability on collection values, as well as better account for variability in AC condensate collection.
Additionally, while not explicitly modeled, it is assumed that the captured water is collected and adequately filtered and/or
treated before use.

Rainwater Collection Model

The model consists of a series of mass balances that account for water entering and exiting the home/collection
system. The rainwater collection mass balance calculation is based on the Texas AgriLife Extension Service Rainwater
Harvesting Calculator produced by the Texas AgriLife Extension Service for the Texas Water Development Board
(TWDB) as part of their Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting (TWDB 2005). The TWDB calculator takes monthly
rainfall, roof collection area, system collection efficiency, tank volume, and demand information to perform a monthly mass
balance on the tank. The downside of this method of estimating water capture/savings based on tank size is that the model
does not account for frequency (or lack there-of) of rainfall events. Nor does the TWDB method account for the timing of
consumption relative to when the rainfall is occurring, and these ‘net-use’ calculations can lead to over-estimation of water
savings. Since the thermal storage model of the ITHERST system has hourly resolution, and the thermal storage action
takes place on a daily cycle, it was important to improve the resolution of the water model to at least a daily level. For this
model, the rainwater mass balance and logic is:




















(1)
































where



is the volume of rainwater collected during timestep

,

 is a conversion factor for in3 to gallons,

is the
rainfall during timestep

in inches,

is the area of the roof collecting rainwater in square inches,

 is the rainwater
collection system efficiency (gallons actually captured/gallons available), and

is the volume of the first-flush diverter.
Equation 1 is generalizable for any timestep desired, but
will equal 1 day for this analysis.

The

 term accounts for water losses along the collection path, including things like: splashing off of roof
surface, evaporation, absorption by roofing material, leaky or overflowing gutters and downspouts, collection filter losses,
etc. Typical collection efficiencies range from 0.7 (asphalt and clay tile roofs) to 0.9 (metal roofs), but is heavily dependent

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 4

CH-15-C023

on the state of the house roof and collection system (TWDB 2005) and the rate of rainfall. For this analysis, we assume 0.8.
First flush diverters are small collection tanks (or more often, a capped length of large-diameter pipe) that catch the roof
runoff from the first few minutes of rain. Roofs often collect leaves, dust, pollen, bird and animal waste, among other
things, and these contaminants are often washed down the gutters during rainfall events. First flush diverters are often
sized for approximately 0.1-0.25 inches (2.54-6.35 mm) of rain (which is drained between rainfall events) (TWDB 2005),
and the total volume needed is sized calculated by setting



in Equation 1 equal zero, and solving for

based on
the desired first-flush rainfall amount. The volume of rainfall captured is calculated for each timestep; obviously, if there is
not sufficient rainfall to fill the first flush diverter, then no rainfall is captured.

Graywater Collection Model

Graywater collection volume and frequency is dependent on which graywater sources are collected from the house.
For this analysis, average daily consumption volume and frequency values for bathroom sink and showers are used to
estimate gray water production. Clothes washing is assumed to take place once per week on ‘laundry day’. The model used
to estimate graywater collection volume is:































 (2)










































where



is the volume of gray water collected during timestep
,

is the number of people in the household;


and


are the average gray water volumes produced during bathroom sink use and showering, respectively;

 and



are the frequency (per person) of bathroom sink and shower use per day, respectively;

is a logic binary (0 or 1) only equal
to 1 on laundry day;

 is the number of loads of laundry done per week; and

 is the volume of water used per
load of laundry.

AC Condensate Collection Model

The AC condensate model relies on latent cooling load data, from which the condensed volume of water is
calculated. Equation 3 demonstrates the calculation of AC condensate collection volume per timestep.
















 (3)






is the volume of AC condensate collected per timestep
,



is the total latent cooling load per timestep
,


is the heat of vaporization/condensation for water,

 is a mass-to-volume conversion factor, and

 is the efficiency
of condensate collection. The house energy model was run using historical weather data covering the same span as the
rainfall data, and the simulated hourly latent load was generated and then summed up to a daily total latent load value for
inclusion in this analysis.

Auxiliary Water Consumption Model

While auxiliary water can often be used for a number of non-potable uses, this analysis was limited to weekly
irrigation loads. Based on Stage 2 drought restrictions in Austin, TX, watering was assumed to take place on a single

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 5

CH-15-C023

‘watering day’ per week. For this analysis, it was also assumed that weekly irrigation did not take place during fall/winter, as
plants would either get enough water from rainfall, or would be dormant for the winter. Weekly irrigation took place from
day 75 (March 15th assuming non-leap year) to day 294 (October 21st assuming non-leap year). The equation for the water
consumed is given in Equation 4 as:



















(4)










































where



is the volume of water consumed,

is the logical operator to limit consumption to once per week,
and











is the sum of all the various landscape water needs based on landscape area (per landscape
type
) and water demand per week per unit area (per landscape type
). While not part of this analysis, this equation could
easily be expanded to include other consumptive loads (such as toilet flushing).

Aggregated Auxiliary Water Collection and Consumption Model Logic

The aggregated auxiliary water collection and consumption model marches through a year of historical weather and
latent cooling load data, calculating auxiliary water production, tank storage and spill-over, and consumption. The model
logic is as follows:

1. Calculate auxiliary water collected (checking respective collection logic requirements)

2. Check volume capacity in tank; tank stores auxiliary water for which it has room, spills the rest
3. Check day of week, IF watering season, AND day, THEN water required amount from water tank
4. Check volume of water tank; IF less than or equal to zero, THEN the negative volume is assumed to have been
city water, and the volume is reset to zero
5. Increment the timestep and the day of the week; IF day-of-week = 8, THEN reset to 1

The aggregated model tracks auxiliary water collected, auxiliary water ‘spilled’ or lost (due to lack of excess capacity), and
city water consumed. These metrics can then be used to assess the water savings aspects of the collection system.

ANALYSIS OF WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL FOR AUXLIARY WATER SYSTEMS BASED ON TANK SIZE

Method of Analysis

For better comparison with the ITHERST thermal storage sizing analysis, the same typical Austin house size (1800
ft2, or 167.23 m2) and location (Rhodes 2014) was used as the basis for this analysis, but this model is easily applied for
other locations for which there are data. The rainwater collection area was assumed to be the same projected area as the
house floor area. The rainwater collection system efficiency was assumed to be 0.8, and the first-flush was assumed to be
sized such that the first 0.1 inches of rainfall (per day) (2.54 mm) would be diverted. For this analysis, AC condensate was
estimated based on latent load data from the same house energy model used for the ITHERST thermal storage analysis
(Upshaw 2014).
As a conservative estimate for graywater production, the graywater production variables are based on the lead
author’s own household. The model was executed assuming 2 people in the household, with sink and shower graywater

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 6

CH-15-C023

production volumes of 0.5 and 20 gal. (1.89-75.7 L), respectively, per use per person. Sink and shower daily use frequencies
were estimated as 5 and 1, respectively. Laundry graywater volume was estimated as 40 gal. (151.4 L) per load, and assumed
one load per week.
To provide illustrative data, irrigation water data were collected from the same household. This analysis assumes a
weekly irrigation water demand of 2,000 gal. (7,571 L), which is based on a nominal lawn area of 2000 ft2 (185.9 m2). This
lawn size/irrigation estimate is quite modest for many in Texas, but could be considered reasonable for a typical urban
single family house in a central residential neighborhood in Austin, TX.
To estimate auxiliary water system collection performance in a ‘worst case scenario’, weather data from 2011 was
used for this analysis. 2011 was the hottest year on record in Texas, and the worst one-year of drought on record for the
state. The auxiliary water collection and consumption model was run using tank sizes ranging from 100 gal. (378.5 L), up to
20,000 gal. (37,854 L). Additionally, the model was run seven times, cycling the watering day through each day of the week,
and then averaged.

Discussion of Results

Figure 2 contains a plot of the auxiliary water captured (blue line), excess auxiliary water not captured (red line),
and city water bought to make up any deficit between watering demand and auxiliary water availability on watering day
(green line).

Auxiliary Water Captured and Spilled, and City

Water Bought, vs. Tank Size

Tank Size (Liters)

0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000

100,000

90,000
350,000

Gallons of Water (per year)

Liters of Water (per year)

80,000
300,000

70,000

250,000

60,000
Water Captured (gal)

50,000
Water Spilled (gal)
200,000

40,000
Water Bought (gal)
150,000

30,000

100,000

20,000

50,000

10,000

0
0

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000

Tank Size (gallons)

Figure 2: This plot compares the auxiliary water captured (blue line), excess auxiliary water not captured (red line), and city water bought
to make up any deficit between watering demand and auxiliary water availability on watering day (green line). These values
were calculated for an 1,800 ft2 (167.23 m2) house, using tank volumes ranging 100 to 20,000 gal. (378.5-37,854 L),
with rainfall and condensate calculations based on 2011 historical weather conditions in Austin, TX.

As shown in Figure 2 the model suggests that there are significant gains in water savings with increasing tank size, up to the
1,500 gal. (5,678 L) tank size, which meets approximately 74% of the irrigation demand. After about 1,500 gal. (5,678 L),
the water savings become significantly less with increasing tank size, up until approximately 12,000 gal. (45,425 L) where the
water bought for irrigation goes to zero. The initial steep slope is likely due to increasing capacity of the tank capturing
more and more of the gray water produced during the week between watering events, plus any AC condensate or rainwater
that might be collected during that span. The longer, shallower slope after approximately 1,500 gal. (5,678 L) points
toward an increasing (though not as drastic) gain in water savings due to longer-term storage of water from large rain events

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 7

CH-15-C023

and from Spring months for consumption in the summer and fall. Beyond 12,000 gallons (45,425 L), there are no more
water savings because all of the water demand is met through captured auxiliary water.
Since this analysis is based on many specific and assumed values, these numbers are not meant to be taken as
exact, quantitative sizing estimates. Rather, these results are meant to demonstrate the method for estimating auxiliary water
system sizing, as well as demonstrate the general trends in system performance.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

This paper described the concept of an integrated thermal energy and water storage system, and the motivation to
estimating the water savings capability of auxiliary water systems. This analysis, based on a typical Austin, TX home during
calendar year 2011 and assuming a water consumption load from weekly summer irrigation, suggested that there are
significant water savings benefits gained form auxiliary water collection. There were significant water savings increases with
increasing tank size, up to 1,500 gallons (5,678 L), which could save an estimated 74%. For tank sizes larger than 1,500
gallons, the water savings increases saw diminishing returns, and ultimately, all irrigation loads could have been met with a
12,000 gallon (45,425 L) tank. This analysis assumes that these systems (and their operation in this design) is compliant
with local and state plumbing code and environmental laws.
The next step for this analysis includes conducting a more temporally-resolved assessment, analyzing the individual
water sources’ impact on water consumption, as well as calculating the energy requirements for the water treatment and
pumping systems. Other future work for this research is to incorporate the thermal storage and auxiliary water collection
and consumption models, along with system capital costs and utility rates, for a whole-system economic optimization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Charles Upshaw, a 2014-2015 recipient of the ASHRAE Grant-in-Aid Fellowship, would like to thank ASHRAE
for their support. This research was made possible through funding provided by Pecan Street Inc. as part of the Pecan
Street Smart Grid Demonstration Project Grant from the Department of Energy.

DISCLOSURE OF AFFILIATION

In addition to research work on topics generally related to energy and water systems at the University of Texas at
Austin, the authors are equity partners in IdeaSmiths LLC, which consults on topics in the same areas of interest. The
terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Texas at Austin in accordance with its
policy on objectivity in research.

REFERENCES

TWDB. 2005. Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting, 3rd Ed. Austin: Texas Water Development Board
(http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/innovativewater/rainwater/resources.asp, Last Accessed: July 2, 2014)
UPC. 2012. Uniform Plumbing Code, Chapter 16: Alternate Water Sources for Non-potable Applications. Ontario, CA:
International Association of Plumbers and Mechanical Officials
Upshaw, C.R, Rhodes, J. D., Webber, M. E. 2013. Modeling A Combined Energy-Water Storage System For Residential
Homes And Analyzing Water Storage Tank Size. ASME-IMECE 2013. Paper number: IMECE2013-63967
Upshaw, C.R, Rhodes, J. D., Webber, M. E. 2014. Modeling Peak Load Reduction and Energy Consumption Enabled by an
Integrated Thermal Energy and Water Storage System for Residential Air Conditioning Systems in Austin, Texas.
Energy and Buildings <Under Review>
Rhodes, J.D., Upshaw, C.R., Harris, C.B., Meehan, C.M., Walling, D.A., Navrátil, P.A., Beck, A.L., Nagasawa, K., Fares,
R.L., Cole, W.J., Kumar, H., Duncan, R.D., Holcomb, C.L., Edgar, T.F., Kwasinski, A., and Webber, M.E. 2014.
Experimental and data collection methods for a large-scale smart grid deployment: Methods and first results. Energy,
(65) 1: 462–471

2015 ASHRAE Winter Conference—Papers 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.