Integrated Shower Head

May 3, 2013 Honors EDSGN 100 The Serene Green Machine

Brandon Fagnano, Caitlin Gibbons, Kunal Patel, Pavara Ranatunga

INTEGRATED SHOWER HEAD

Created by: Brandon Fagnano 1 Caitlin Gibbons 2 Kunal Patel 3 Pavara Ranatunga 4 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 nd the most efcient 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 (sample size of sixteen students) preferred the Niagara to the standard shower head used on campus. After calculating the water usage from showers at current ow rates and the proposed ow 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.
1 http://sites.psu.edu/blf5193/ 2 https://sites.psu.edu/czg5199/ 3 https://sites.google.com/site/kpatelpsu/ 4 https://sites.google.com/site/pavararanatunga/

The implications of the solutions must be economically justiable 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 denition 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.Ofce 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 ow 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 sustainability in housing, energy sources, transportation, food and water systems, recycling, managing human waste, technologies, and sustainable living. Key deliverables for this design include the technical report and a model or prototype of the system of design. Furthermore, the report must include a denition 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 oors for at least one dorm in
5 http://www.opp.psu.edu

each part of campus. (See gure 1). The following steps illustrate how data were found and used: 1. Measure ow 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 ow 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-ow shower heads and their specic design structure (Table 1 - below). Pricing out current low-ow shower head rates helped to formulate a projected nancial 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 ow shower heads, and it has the worst consumer reviews from Amazon. The reviews stated the ow rate was too low, and an extra ve minutes just to make sure you are completely rinsed sort of defeats the purpose (Waterpik ECO 563). 3

Table 1: This table compares the low-ow of shower heads currently on the market.
Model Waterpik ECO 563 Spray Clean Chrome Shower Pro Massage Niagara Earth Massage Cost/Unit ($) 29.98 11.99 18.99 8.40 Flow Rate (GPM) 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.25

2. The Spray Clean shower has a more modest price and a ow rate, but only three out ve 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 ow 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 ve stars, the highest of all the low ow shower heads (Niagara Earth Massage).

IDENTIFYING NEEDS

The primary objective of identifying needs is to nd out how the shower heads in dormitories 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 nally selecting the concept that will lead to success is the ultimate goal. The design team identied 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 ow 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 ow 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, and the head is placed 6.5 ft. up from the oor. 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 replacement in order to reduce project implementation cost. Therefore, the ideal lifetime of the shower head needs to be approximately ten years. 4

4. Cost - This need governs each individual metric. The cost of reducing ow, 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 specications 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 oors they live on, how long their average showers are, how often they shower and their opinion on the shower pressure. Gathering rsthand 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 ow 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 efcient in materials used/unit cost.
Calculating Metrics

To clearly obtain the target specications and to give the proper metrics to those specications, 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 specications of the shower head. Table 2: The Needs-Metrics Matrix relates the qualitative needs to the quantitative metrics.
Flow Rate (<1.6GPM) Hit 9 sq. ft. (3x3) 10-Year Lifetime Cost Keep Same Pressure X Maximize Area of Impact X X Reduce Flow Rate X X X Durability X X Materials Used X X

CONCEPT GENERATION

Concepts were generated using the Idea Trigger method, as seen in Figure 1. This is a group technique for generating as many ideas as possible for solving a specic problem. An Idea Trigger session was held during the original brainstorming stage when the group had to decide which part of Penn State - between energy, transportation, food, waste, and water - to focus on improving. The group rst thought to address energy; namely insulating windows, using less lighting/ more reections in classrooms, and even solar powered dryers. These ideas were rejected as none of the group members had enough background knowledge about these different elds. Ultimately, the design team chose to address water sustainability because there were more specic projects in that topic that they could manage with their talents. The focus turned to implementing a new shower head on campus because it could save on water consumption and on the energy needed to heat the 5

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 ow. After the formal Gallery Method session had taken place, another design 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.

Table 3: The Concept Screening Matrix displays the top two designs that were most applicable in solving the problem of minimizing ow rate.
Niagara Single Nozzle Multi-nozzle / UFO Moon Crator Brush Full Body Jets Jelly Fish Maintain Pressure + + + + Maximize Area + + + + + + Easy Prototype + + + + + + Durability of Product + + + Materials Used + Aesthetically Pleasing + + + Cost Efcient + + Total Sum +5 +1 +5 +1 -3 -5 -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 implementing a more sustainable design. From the Concept Scoring Matrix, the Niagara ranked the higher than the Multi-Nozzle. The group chose to focus primarily on this design because it incorporated 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 specications.
Criteria Flow Rate Maintain Pressure Cost to Replace Durability Coverage Area Total Weight 5 4 2 4 5 20 Niagara 4 4 2 4 4 18 Multi-Nozzle 2 1 0 2 3 8

PROTOTYPE

Before deciding on one design over another, both needed to undergo additional development 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 premanufactured 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 ve days in which eight women and eight men volunteered to take a shower with the new model. All sixteen participants 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 outtted across the whole campus. 7

The other two concepts were brought to life through scrap materials in the shop. The MultiNozzle 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 that ow 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 ow 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 t 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 ow through the central opening which gradually became narrower to increase the water velocity. The water would then ll a shallow pocket before leaving the shower head. The design team sent the le 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 ick 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 ve minutes because it hand tightens onto the shower head mouth.

Figure 3: Shows estimated water usage from showers at the current ow rate and the proposed ow rate per month due to the Niagara.

CALCULATIONS Financial Analysis

Thorough nancial analysis was made based on the nal 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 justiable. 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 elds 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 rst be noted that several assumptions were made when estimating the savings generated by the proposed shower head replacement on campus. Some variable values on efciencies, 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

Table 5: List of variables and assumed values associated with each that were used in subsequent calculations involved in the nancial analysis.
Variable Thermal Efciency Cost of Water (dollars/gallon) Cost of Energy (dollars / million BTU) Number of Showers on Campus OPP Labor Rate (dollars / hour) Shower Head Unit Cost (dollars) Replacement Time (hours) Assumed Value 80% 0.00395 0.000004 2649 16.83 8.40 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 efciency of the boilers of the day, but factoring in transmission and heat exchange in water heaters, the system level efciency is probably much lower. A high efciency 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 we propose 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 sufciently large contracts. A university wide conversion project would more than reach this threshold. The replacement time was derived from repeated replacement of actual shower heads by a member of the research group. Start to nish, the process came out to 7 minutes, or approximately. This was a maximum, and full scale integration may be more efcient. This provides for an overestimation of labor costs involved in shower head replacement. On the subject of efciency, it should be noted that savings will not be xed. Given the wide range of system level efciency, it seemed appropriate to illustrate tradeoffs between this efciency and savings. Savings here includes both water expenditures and energy expenditures. Note that as boiler efciency decreases, savings increase. Our main model centers on an efciency 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 put the shower head replacement regiment into practice. In order to do this, we had to make some accounting measure of savings and costs.

10

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

SAVINGS

Monetary accounting of the savings of the project was conservatively computed on two points. The rst 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 elds 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 water are roughly reected in this amount. The ow 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 ow 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 elds is around 10 degrees Celsius. Measured temperatures of water at the showerheads averaged to 47.2 degrees Celsius. The thermal efciency of the boiler and steam transmission systems are assumed to be 80%, reducing savings on water. The efciency is likely lower, so savings on fuel could be higher 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 conversion, 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

Figure 5: This graph shows the breakeven point of this method and what would happen if no action was taken.

The rst curve offers a scenario in which the university does not act. This is what the costs of water and heat will look like for several months starting in January. The second scenario is one in which the university does nothing, opting not to replace the shower heads. However, also factored into this cost curve is the opportunity cost of the money that would be sunk into the project. For this, it is considered that the money could earn 5% return in some other venue or perhaps another project. The third curve is the cost curve after a shower head replacement. Note by the slope that costs are signicantly reduced. The rst curve intersects the third at two months. Factoring in opportunity cost with the second curve pushes this breakeven point out to the third month of the implementation of the project, in this case, in January.

SUSTAINABILITY

There is signicant environmental savings to be had with the completion of the shower head replacement. The rst one seen is in the use of water. Shower usage is responsible for a very large amount of the water used in residence halls at Penn State. In the projections, one calendar year would see Penn State drawing 46,220,000 fewer gallons of water. This would reduce the impact on the watershed in the valley and prevent further draw down of the water table. The other major method of reducing the impact of Penn State is through the heating. As mentioned, the water for showers is heated in steam heat exchangers, powered in turn by coal red boilers. According to these models, 1,188 fewer tons of coal would be burned at the West Campus Steam Plant. This translates to carbon dioxide emissions reduction of 4,356 tons. This reduction in coal consumption has other implications as well. The mining of Pennsylvania bituminous coal is not the cleanest process in the world, and this would conceivably reduce the share of strip mining, mine drainage, 12

and other mining related impacts. It would also reduce the need to replace the bag-house lter 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 ow showerheads. The key feature of the solution was the reduction in water usage through the use of low ow heads. The reduction in water usage corresponds to a decrease in heating needs. The Niagara shower head fullls these functions impeccably well. In order for this project to be implemented, it needed to be nancially sound. Saving signicant 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

References:
Billing Information. State College Borough Water Authority. State College Borough Water Authority. 2013. Web. April 14, 2013 <http://www.scbwa.org/billing.php>. "Choosing the Right Low-Flow Shower Head." Evolve. ShowerStart: Water Saving Shower Head Technology, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. <http://evolveshowerheads.com/technology.html>. "Niagara Earth Massage 1.25GPM Low-flow Showerhead." Amazon.com. N.p., 4 July 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.amazon.com/Niagara-Earth-Massage-1-25GPMshowerhead/dp/B003UQ17O4/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1367541028&sr=11-spell&keywords=niagara+1.25+earth+massaage>. Penn State by the Numbers: 50 Fun Facts. IMakeNews. Penn State Alumni Association. 2009. Web. April 13, 2012 <http://www.imakenews.com/psaanews/e_article001610908.cfm? x=bht2WJq,bb34p1FC,w>. "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. <http://www.amazon.com/Massage-Showerhead-pressure-compensatingcontroller/dp/B002ABOV1G/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_2>. "Spray Clean Chrome Shower Head 1.5 with pressure compensating flow controller." Amazon.com. N.p., 18 May 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.amazon.com/Chrome-Shower-pressure-compensatingcontroller/dp/B002BBU6GE/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_1>. Steam Services. FactSheet_Moser_2010. Office of Physical Plant. 2010. Web. April 14, 2013 <www.opp.psu.edu/about-opp/divisions/ee/util/Factsheet_Moser_2010.doc>. "Waterpik ECO 563 EcoFlow 5-Mode Water Saving Handheld Shower."Amazon.com. N.p., 11 June 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://www.amazon.com/Waterpik-ECO-563-EcoFlowHandheld/dp/B001AZO6GI/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top#productDetails>.

Appendix A: Concept Generations

l
/If\~.. .I ~
I

u r:o / MuJh -nozt..l e.Figure A1 shows an ordinary shower head that has multiple holes for water output over a given area, as opposed to the current shower head, which has one hole to output the water.

\
\

Figure A2 shows yet another shower head that has multiple holes for water output over a given area. The only difference being that this is shaped more like a bush as opposed to the previous concept's curved shape.

Figure A3 shows a similar design to design 1, but in this scenario, the tubes would be made adjustable to the person's preference, so that his/her entire body would be covered simultaneously.

r-- -------- - - -----

~,,r

~~

;a
~

?)<:J

Figure A4 shows a rather luxury approach, where shower jets are attached to the walls and would be aimed at the person showering. These would be adjustable so that height does not become a factor in showering.

fJ1 oo n cra:rvr I1ets

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

I
-

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.

Appendix C - CAD Drawing

12.70 52.38 31.75 60 26.03 40.64 2.54 13.97

R5

.08

10.16

24.00

6.74 15

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS SURFACE FINISH: TOLERANCES: LINEAR: ANGULAR: NAME DRAWN CHK'D APPV'D MFG Q.A

FINISH:

DEBUR AND BREAK SHARP EDGES

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

2.54
REVISION SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

Shower Head 1
MATERIAL: DWG NO.

1
SHEET 1 OF 1

6.35

A4

WEIGHT:

SCALE:1:2