I.2 Fixture units at choices of reference design

flow rates for simultaneous demand problems
of larger water supply systems of Hong Kong

L. T. Wong1, K. W. Mui

Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,

Hong Kong, China

1
Tel: (852) 2766 7783; 1Email: beltw@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract
Fixture unit approach used for estimating the probable maximum simultaneous demands
in building water supply systems is based on a fact that a given simultaneous reference
design flow rate may be produced by different numbers of identical appliances
characterized by the appliances’ discharging flow rates and discharge probabilities.
Each appliance is represented by a fixture unit value, which indicates the appliance
associated with the same simultaneous demand of a number of base case appliances
characterized by the base case discharging flow rate and discharge probability. The
validity of the selected reference design flow rate and its sensitivity to the probable
maximum simultaneous demand for water systems in high-rise residential buildings are
examined in this paper. In particular, fixture units and the estimated probable maximum
simultaneous demands due to appliances attributed by discharge probabilities and
discharging flow rates ranged from 1/8 to 8 times the based case attributes are
considered. Estimated demands from the fixture unit approach are compared with
computational results for an example water supply installation by Monte-Carlo
simulations. The results showed that the existing choice of a reference flow rate at 10
Ls−1 for the fixture unit approach would be sufficient in determining the probable
maximum simultaneous demands not to exceed a probable failure rate of 1% for 900

26 
 
pairs of WC-and-washbasin installations in residential buildings. An increased reference
design flow rate would be required for the applications of the fixture unit approach in
demand analysis of larger water installations in similar densely built environment.

Keywords
Demand analysis, water supply system, fixture unit approach, reference design flow rate

Introduction
Probabilistic approaches for estimating the usage patterns of water appliances and their
associated instant demands at any points of a water supply system have been adopted in
many practical building installations [1]. The simultaneous demand problems of a water
supply system were addressed from the binomial theory for frequency analyses of
usages [2]. Actuations of an appliance in the installation occur randomly and
intermittently with variable magnitudes and they can be described by the probability for
appliance discharging events. The analysis provided a means for quantifying a probable
‘not to exceed’ failure rate in fulfilling certain instant demands. The design approach is
practical because water supply main is very unlikely to address the simultaneous
demands of all installed appliances. The installations may be ‘overloaded’ with certain
number of appliances operating simultaneously where a small failure probability to the
theoretically maximum demand is allowed [3]. The validity of the allowable maximum
failure rate can be investigated through field measurements of in-use installations. It
was reported that the observed maximum demands in some water supply systems did
not exceed a failure rate of 1% derived from geometric demand patterns of observed
demands in a study [4].

A fixture unit approach was used to evaluate the probable maximum simultaneous
demand problems in building water supply systems. This approach is based on the fact
that a given simultaneous reference design flow rate can be produced by different
numbers of identical appliances characterized by the appliances’ discharge flow rates
and discharge probabilities [5]. The probable discharge flow rate of an appliance can be
equivalent to a number of base case appliances and assigned appliances with fixture
units. The choice of this reference design flow rate is an assumption needed to be
studied in detail for large water supply systems.

Apart from solving the problem with the fixture unit approach, Monte-Carlo simulations
can also be used to determine the probability density function of system failures to meet
the instant water demands [6]. A stochastic model for estimating the instant water
demands in a water supply system was developed where modelling parameters were

27 
 
obtained by Monte-Carlo sampling technique without an assumption of the reference
design flow rate [7]. However, the fixture unit approach is simple to use and many
designs employed the Hunter’s probabilistic method for practical water pipe and plant
sizing [8]. From the actual building usage patterns, data, and extended laboratory
research results, the piping requirements using the probabilistic approach can be applied
for both water supply and discharge systems in buildings with tabulations and design
curves as specified in some design guides [9]. Codification was resulted from fixture
units for probable instances in building water pipe/plant sizing. Water supply loading
tables in plumbing design applications were based upon loads in fixture units for
practical applications.

In this study, the variability of the probable maximum simultaneous demands in water
supply installations due to the choice of various reference design flow rates is
investigated. Estimated demands from the fixture unit approach are compared with the
computational results by Monte-Carlo simulations. Appropriate choices of water supply
systems in high-rise buildings of Hong Kong are recommended.

Simultaneous demands and fixture unit approach

For a base case appliance having repeated cycles of discharge operation with a mean
discharge period d (s) and the mean time interval between discharges w (s), the
probability of the appliance discharge p at any time is [2],
d
p  … (1)
w

Assume the appliance operations are binomially distributed, and the probability p of N
base case appliances operating out of M identical base case appliances installed in the
installation, M pN is given by, where, (1p) is the probability of the appliance not
operating and C MN is the binomial coefficient,

M!
N p 1  p 
MN
pN  CM N
N 
; CM … (2)
N ! M  N  !
M

In some water supply system designs, piping systems are designed for a maximum
acceptable risk of failure in order to minimize the cost of the system with design
number of N (out of M installed, say, M>30) base case appliances operating
simultaneously. This design implies that the plants and piping systems might be
‘overloaded’ when serving all the M appliances operating simultaneously, i.e., the
theoretical maximum simultaneous flow rate. When more than N appliances are
operating, the acceptable level of the system in terms of reliability is defined as

28 
 
‘engineering unsatisfactory’ (i.e., the occurrence of ‘failure’). The failure rate  is
determined by the sum of the probabilities that more than N appliances are operating
simultaneously,
M
  p N  1  p N  2   ...  p M  1  p M    pi ; N < M … (3)
i  N 1

The number of appliances N that are operating simultaneously can be determined by the
probability p at an acceptable failure rate , which would be approximated by the
Sterling’s formula for an ‘engineering acceptable’ limiting failure rate. The probable
number of appliances operating simultaneously can be expressed by Equation (4) with z
= 1.82255 [10] for  = 1%, which is recommended in some designs,
N  Mp  z 2 Mp 1  p  … (4)

The corresponding probable maximum simultaneous demand qd (Ls−1) due to the

installations of M appliances is then determined by Equation (5), where q (Ls−1) is the
discharging flow rate of the base case appliance,


q d  Nq  q Mp  z 2Mp 1  p   … (5)

Equation (5) can be used to determine the design flow rate of an installation consisted of
2 or more appliance types using the fixture unit approach. The fixture unit approach is
established for estimations of the probable maximum simultaneous demands in
plumbing and drainage systems in buildings [9]. Specifically, the reference
simultaneous flow rate of an installation due to a number of installed identical
appliances, say qref = 10 Ls−1, would be produced by a number of the base case
appliances with the base case usage characteristics. Each appliance is then determined
with a fixture unit value, which indicates the appliances associated with the same
simultaneous demand of base case appliances. The level of reference design flow rate
qref (Ls−1) was determined by professional judgement and its sensitivity to the probable
maximum simultaneous demand is evaluated in this study.

It is noted that each appliance is attributed by the discharge probability and the
discharging flow rate, i.e. Ab(pb,qb) and Ai(pi,qi). The same reference design flow rate
qref (Ls−1) would be produced by an installation of Mi number of appliances Ai or Mb
number of the base case appliances Ab. The fixture unit Ui at the choice of the reference
design flow rate qref (Ls−1) for the appliance type Ai is given by, taking the fixture unit
of the base case appliance Ub=1,

Mi
Ui  … (6)
Mb q ref

29 
 
Figure 1 illustrates the idea of using a base case appliance characteristics Ab(pb,qb) with
the base case discharge probability pb and the base case discharging flow rate qb (Ls−1)
as shown in Figure 1(i) to approximate an appliance Ai with the discharge probability
and the discharging flow rate Ai(pi=2pd,qi=qd) or Ai(pi=pd,qi=2qb). Ideally, the 2 base
case appliances should be operated without simultaneous discharging or simultaneous
discharging exactly in phase in order to approximate a single operation of the appliance
Ai as shown in Figure 1(ii), i.e. the ideal cases of approximation. However, probable
cases in random discharge patterns of a number of base case appliances were not
excluded in the fixture unit approach as shown in Figure 1(iii), i.e. the non-ideal cases
of approximation. Indeed, the fixture unit was not only dependent on the attributes (pi
and qi) of an appliance Ai but also the choice of reference design flow rate qref.

pb 
Preferred approximation 
qb  +  qb 
Other possibilities  

pb 
2qb 
2qb 

pb 
<2pb 
qb 

>2pb 
2pb 
<2qb 
qb 

(i) Base case  (ii) Appliance i 
pb  +  pb 
qb 

(iii) Model cases
pb: base case discharge probability 

Figure 1: Models of discharging appliance Ai(pi,qi) using a base case appliance

Ab(pb,qb)

30 
 
Results and discussions
A base case appliance in an existing design guide attributed by the discharge probability
pb=0.0282 and the discharging flow rate qb=0.15 Ls−1 was used for discussion, i.e.
Ab(pb,qb)~[0.0282, 0.15]; and the corresponding base case fixture unit was Ub=1 at the
base case reference design flow rate qref=10 Ls−1 [5]. In order to illustrate the sensitivity
of the fixture units due to the choice of the reference design flow rate qref (Ls−1),
appliances attributed by discharge probabilities and discharging flow rates ranged from
1/8 to 8 times the based case attributes were considered, i.e. Ai=Ai(pi,qi), where pi=kpb,
qi=kqb and k[0.125, 8] respectively. Values of the fixture units were evaluated at
various reference design flow rates qref (Ls−1).

1000
pi=kpb; qi=kqb 
100 k=8 
4 
Fixture unit Ui 

10 2
1 1 
0.5  
0.1 0.25  
0.125  
0.01
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Reference design flow rate qref (Ls−1) 

Figure 2: Fixture units of appliances references to a base case appliance of

discharge probability of 0.0282 and discharge flow rate of 0.15 Ls−1

Figure 2 shows the fixture units Ui of appliance Ai with reference to Ab at reference

design flow rates qref between 1 Ls−1 and 1000 Ls−1. It was noted that a unity based case
fixture unit Ub was defined for all reference design flow rates. Fixture units Ui of
appliances Ai(kpi,kqi) at k=0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 were 0.009, 0.04, 0.193, 1, 5.6, 33,
200 at a reference design flow rate qref=1 Ls−1; Ui=0.013, 0.054, 0.229, 1, 4.5, 21, 101 at
qref=10 Ls−1; and Ui=0.015, 0.06, 0.243, 1, 4.2, 18, 74 at qref=100 Ls−1, respectively. It
was observed that the reference design flow rates qref had some influences on the fixture
units of Ai.

The fixture unit ratio  i , q ref

indicates the variations of the values of fixture units Ui of an
appliance i at a selected reference design flow rate qref as compared with the base case
reference design flow rate qref=10 Ls−1 and is expressed by an equation below. Ideally,

31 
 
the fixture unit ratio  i , q ref
of an appliance is ideally close to ‘unity’ over a range of qref
−1
(Ls ), which the selected reference design flow rate is insensitive to the fixture units.
U i , q ref
i , q ref  … (7)
U i ,10

The results showed that the fixture unit ratio of appliances of k=0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4,
8 times the base case attributes were  i ,q 1 =0.67, 0.74, 0.84, 1, 1.24, 1.57, 1.98 at a
ref

−1
reference design flow rate qref=1 Ls ; and  i ,q ref 100
=1.14, 1.11, 1.06, 1, 0.92, 0.83, 0.74
at qref=100 Ls−1, respectively. Apparently, the choice of a smaller reference design flow
rate, e.g. at qref =1 Ls−1, resulted a larger variation of i.

max  pi=kpb; qi=kqb 
2 k=8 
Fixture unit ratio i

4  
2  0.125 
1  
1

8  min 
0.125 
0
1 10 100 1000
Reference design flow rate qref (Ls−1) 
(a)

pi=kpb; qi=qb 
Fixture unit ratio i

1
k[0.125, 8] 

0
1 10 100 1000
Reference design flow rate qref (Ls−1) 
(b)

32 
 
 pi=pb; qi=kqb 
2

Fixture unit ratio i
k=8  
4  
0.125 

0.125   8  
0
1 10 100 1000
Reference design flow rate qref (Ls−1) 
(c)

Figure 3: Fixture unit ratios i for appliances Ai(kpi,kqi), k[0.125, 8]

Figure 3 shows the fixture unit ratios  for appliances Ai=Ai(pi,qi), pi=kpb, qi=kqb,
k[0.125, 8], grouped into 3 cases in (a), (b) and (c). It was noted that the maximum
and minimum fixture unit ratios max, min and ranges of pi and qi were shown in the
figure. Fixture unit ratios determined from the results presented in Figure 2 were
showed in Figure 3(a) for pi=kpb, qi=kqb. It confirmed that a smaller variation of  was
found when a larger reference design flow rate (e.g. qref100 Ls−1) was selected as
compared with a smaller reference design flow rate.

Figure 3(b) showed that the fixture unit ratios were less sensitive to the discharge
probability range pi=kpb for an appliance at the base case discharging flow rate qi=qb;
the corresponding discharge unit ratios i were between 0.94 and 1.03. However, the
ratios were sensitive to the discharging flow rates qi=kqb for an appliance operating at
the base case discharge probability pi=pb as shown in Figure 3(c); the corresponding
discharge unit ratios were from i=0.67 to 2.17 at qref=1 Ls−1, i=0.69 to 1.15 at qref=100
Ls−1 and i=0.61 to 1.20 at qref=1000 Ls−1.

Comparison with a stochastic model

The probable maximum simultaneous demand of an installation with the number of
appliances can be evaluated by a stochastic model [7]. This model was applied to
evaluate the probable maximum simultaneous water demands of domestic washrooms at
complex usage patterns, where the appliances in the same washroom would or would
not operate simultaneously. The model parameter can be identified from some
descriptive distribution functions.

33 
 
In order to compare the influences due to the choice of the reference design flow rate in
the fixture unit approach on the probable maximum simultaneous demand of an
installation, the stochastic model takes a constant discharge probability pi and a constant
discharging flow rate qi (Ls−1) for a number of appliances Ai=Ai(pi,qi) of the same type;
i=1…ni in the installation. The discharge operation is described by a random number
p*[0,1].

 0 ; p  pi
*

qi   … (8)
qi ; p  pi
*

In each simulation j, the simultaneous discharging flow rate qd,j (Ls−1) is determined by,
ni
q d , j   q i ; i=1…ni; … (9)
i 1

The probable maximum simultaneous demand q *d (Ls−1) is determined by the

distributions of all simulated simultaneously discharge flow rates ~
q (Ls−1) from all
d

simulations j=1…ns, where the allowable failure rate  of 1% taken in some practices
adopting the fixture unit approach,
q*d
~
q  F   ;   1  qd dqd
*
d 
0
… (10)

The required number of simulations ns can be determined with reference to the

improvement on errors by further simulation steps. Two expressions of errors are used;
the absolute modelling error a is determined by the modelled number of simultaneous
discharging appliances for 99% cases N*, corresponding to =0.01 in Equation (4),

N*  N
a  ; N  Mp  z 2 Mp 1  p  … (11)
N*

And the relative modelling error at ns simulations expressed by the change of model
output due to an increment of 1 simulation and is given by,

N*ns 1
r  1  … (12)
N*ns

Regarding a discharge probability p[0.01,0.05], it was reported that the maximum

absolute modelling error a would remain unchanged for simulations ns>10000, the
corresponding relative modelling error r was 0.00810−3.

34 
 
The fixture unit approach at the reference design flow rate qref[1,1000] was used to
determine the probable maximum simultaneous demands of installations which
composed of 2 different appliance types A1 and A2, operating at a residential discharge
pattern as shown in Table 1. The probable maximum simultaneous demands determined
by the fixture unit approach at a reference design flow rate q d ,ref (Ls−1) were then
compared with those q *d (Ls−1) determined by the stochastic model. The percentage
deviation between the probable maximum simultaneous demands  f ,ref is given by,

q 
f ,ref   d ,*ref  1 100% … (13)
 qd 

Table 1: Example fixtures

Appliances Discharge Discharging Fixture unit at Fixture unit at

probability, p flow rate, q qref=10 Ls−1 qref=250 Ls−1
(Ls−1)

Washbasin 0.028 0.15 1 1

WC 0.050 0.10 1.12 1.17

Figure 4 shows the percentage deviations of the fixture unit approach for an installation
size from 100 to 10000 washbasin-and-WC pairs in residential buildings. In the figure, a
positive value indicates an over-estimate by the fixture unit approach, this over-
estimation of the probable maximum simultaneous demands would be considered as
satisfactory that the design of not-to-exceed the maximum allowable failure rate =1%.
The results showed that the choice of reference design flow rates had significant
influence on the predicted probable maximum simultaneous demands and hence a wide
range of deviations f,ref (Ls−1) were reported. The deviations varied between −7% to
5%.

Taking the existing practice of using a reference design flow rate of 10 Ls−1 as an
example, the results showed that the fixture unit approach would give satisfactory
predictions of the probable maximum simultaneous discharge flow rates for installation
sizes of 900 residential washbasin-and-WC pairs. Within these range limits, an over-
estimate by the fixture unit approach at a reference design flow rate of 10 Ls−1 would
not be more than 3% as compared with the ones determined by the stochastic model. It
is noted that the installation sizes for an 80-storey high-rise residential building in Hong
Kong and a housing estate of 40 high-rise residential buildings are about 1200 and
10,000 respectively. An increased reference design flow rate would be required for the

35 
 
design criterion of 1% failure probability allowed for water supply systems in buildings.
This study showed the reference design flow rates qref=100 Ls−1 would be adequate for a
residential installation of size up to 10,000. Table 1 gives the example fixture units for
appliances at a reference flow rate of 100Ls−1. The existing fixture units used for some
buildings are shown for comparison. The results suggested that fixture units can be used
for some appliances in high-rise buildings.

6%
Percentage deviation f,ref 

1000
2%
25
-2%

-6% 10
5 
qref=1 Ls−1 
-10% 2.5

-14%
100 1000 10000
Installation appliances M 

Figure 4: Percentage deviations f,ref of the design flow rates by the fixture unit
approach at reference flow rates qref

Conclusion

Fixture unit approach has been used for estimating the probable maximum simultaneous
demands in water systems for a lot of buildings for many years based on a reference
design flow rate of 10 Ls−1. This paper reported that the selection of the reference
design flow rate would have significant influence on the estimated probable maximum
simultaneous demand. The existing choice of the reference design flow rate would
underestimate the demands of water supply systems in some high-rise buildings, i.e.
more than 1% probability for the demands to exceed the estimated probable maximum
simultaneous demands. The existing assumption of the reference design flow rate
adopted in fixture unit approach would give good estimation for an installation up to
900 WC-and-washbasin pairs in residential buildings. The reference design flow rate
would be increased for larger installations in high-rise buildings so that a good estimate
can be made. This paper presents useful information in for the application of fixture unit
approach in estimating the probable maximum simultaneous demands in water systems

36 
 
of high-rise buildings and enables further studies on water supply system designs for
similar built environment having a high population density.

Acknowledgment

The work described in this paper was partially supported by a grant from the Research
Grant Council of the HKSAR, China (PolyU5305/06E and 533709) and by a grant from
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (GU551, GYG53).

References

1. Konen T.P. and Goncalves O.M. (1993). Summary of mathematical models for the
design of water distribution systems within buildings. Proceedings of CIBW062
International Symposium of Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings.
2. Hunter R.B. (1940). Methods of estimating loads in plumbing systems, Report
BMS65. National Bureau of Standards, Washington.
3. Oliveira L.H., Goncalves O.M. and Uchida C. (2009). Performance evaluation of
dual-flush WC cistern in a multifamily building in Brazil. Building Services
Engineering Research and Technology, February, 27-36.
4. Mui K.W., Wong L.T. and Yeung M.K. (2008). Epistemic demand analysis for fresh
water supply of Chinese restaurants. Building Services Engineering Research and
Technology, May, 183-189.
5. Wise A.F.E. and Swaffield J.A. (2002). Water, sanitary and waste services for
buildings (5th ed.). London: Butterworth Heinemann.
6. Courtney R.G. (1972). A Monte-Carlo method for investigating the performance of a
domestic water system. Proceedings – 1st International Symposium on Water Supply
and Drainage for Buildings CIBW062 (pp.97-104). 19-20 September, BRE, UK.
7. Wong L.T. and Mui K.W. (2008). Stochastic modelling of water demand by domestic
washrooms in residential tower blocks. Water and Environment Journal, June, 125-130.
8. Plumbing services design guide (2002). The Institute of Plumbing, Essex, UK.
9. Galowin L.S. (2008). “Hunter” fixture units development. Proceedings - 34th
International Symposium on Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings CIBW062
(pp.58-80). 8-10 September, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
10. Wong L.T. and Mui K.W. (2007). Modeling water consumption and flow rates for
flushing water systems in high-rise residential buildings in Hong Kong. Building and
Environment, May, 2024-2034

37 
 
Presentation of Authors

Dr. L. T. Wong is an associate professor at the Department of

Building Services Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.

Dr. K. W. Mui is an assistant professor at the Department of

Building Services Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.

38