Perfect Water Valve
Perfect Water Valve
Commercial Water-Savings Assessments
Testing, review & acceptance

Smart Valve™ Testing, Engineering Review & Regulatory Acceptance.

Smart Valve has documented controlled university test methods and setting-level results, a licensed engineer’s review of actual property utility records, and municipal material acceptance. Together, these sources show how the valve was tested, what was reported at two installed properties, and how one jurisdiction evaluated it as a code alternative.

Perfect Water Valve is the customer-facing sales and installation partner for commercial facilities evaluating Smart Valve, not the study author. Reviewed September 17, 2026.

Read the evidence

Evidence sources

TEES Test Report

August 15, 2019

Controlled university testing evaluating flow, surge, and air behavior.

Read details

Reihl Engineering

April 26, 2019

Professional field-data review of utility records for installed properties.

Read details

NYC DOB OTCR

December 17, 2021

Code acceptance letter for Flow Management Valve material alternative.

Read details

1. Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station (TEES)

Smart Valve Test Report, SV01 v1 · August 15, 2019 · Prepared by Akash Sali

Flow Dynamics was the project owner, John Pappas was the project manager, and the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station performed the work at the Process Engineering Research and Development Center (PERDC) at the Texas A&M RELLIS Campus.

The controlled three-quarter-inch apparatus placed the Smart Valve and a bypass on parallel paths. Pressure gauges, flow meters, a water meter, controlled air supply, and a five-gallon container allowed the team to isolate different questions. The valve was evaluated at minimum (0 clicks), middle (8 clicks), and high (15 clicks) spring settings.

“Smart Valve’s functionality in reducing water flow rate, reducing effect of pressure spikes, and reducing air bubble volume in a piping system is validated.”
TEES, Smart Valve Test Report SV01 v1, August 15, 2019, printed p. 11, §6.1
“The effect of smart valve on each of the above conditions is dependent on its spring setting.”
TEES, Smart Valve Test Report SV01 v1, August 15, 2019, printed p. 11, §6.2
“Volume of air bubbles in the system reduced.”
TEES, Smart Valve Test Report SV01 v1, August 15, 2019, printed p. 10, §5.3

The six questions tested

Flow rate

Municipal supply was tested under different flow conditions. Upstream pressure rose while downstream pressure, flow, and timed meter totals fell, with setting-dependent effects.

Pressure surges

A pump created inlet spikes so upstream and downstream pressure effects could be measured. The minimum setting did not show a downstream spike reduction.

Air bubbles

Controlled air was introduced, then visible bubbles and meter-recorded fluid volume during 60-second runs were compared.

Air only

A separate diagnostic isolated air behavior. It does not represent normal occupied-building water service.

Fixed volume

Five gallons were collected without a time limit, distinguishing a fixed quantity from the report’s timed test effects.

Variable flow

Pump on/off cycles created changing flow over 110 seconds, producing setting-dependent meter-recorded results.

Selected setting-level results

These are controlled outcomes from this apparatus, not predictions for another meter or property. Pressure and flow changes are also why calibration and required building service must be assessed. The fixed-volume findings remain important: total meter-recorded volume changed very little while fill time increased.

Swipe horizontally to see all columns.

Selected TEES results at minimum, middle, and high spring settings
Measured resultMinimum · 0 clicksMiddle · 8 clicksHigh · 15 clicks
Upstream pressure-spike reduction30.7%44.04%63.98%
Downstream pressure-spike reductionNo change observed29.01%28.57%
Air-bubble test: reduction in meter-recorded fluid volume in 60 seconds5.05%12.79%19.26%
Air-bubble observationLarge visible volumeLow visible volumeLow visible volume
Fixed-five-gallon test: change in total meter-recorded volume0.17%0.11%0.05%
Fixed-five-gallon test: fill-time increase4.57%11.12%17.38%
Variable-flow test: reduction in meter-recorded fluid volume over 110 seconds2.82%9.65%14.7%

Source: TEES SV01 v1, printed pp. 9–11, §§5.2–5.6. The air-bubble percentages are not percent air removed, physical water conserved, or customer savings.

Establishes

  • • Tested changes in flow, surge response, and visible bubble behavior in the controlled system
  • • Setting-dependent differences across 0, 8, and 15 clicks

Does not establish

  • • A universal PSI drop or zero downstream effect
  • • Percent air removed or a physical-conservation guarantee
  • • Commercial bill savings at another property

2. REIHL Engineering

Keith Reihl · Texas PE #83377 · April 26, 2019

Reihl Engineering reviewed supplied manufacturer and installation information and City of Houston bills for three valves at two Hartman REIT properties: one four-inch and one six-inch domestic valve serving house-tank plumbing, plus one two-inch city-pressure irrigation valve. The review compared prior-year monthly dollars, gallons, and gallons per day before and after installation. A property engineer affirmed no material occupancy, operating, leak, or drain-down changes.

“performed as predicted and enabled the properties to achieve monetary savings in excess of 20%”
Keith Reihl’s professional opinion, Reihl Engineering, April 26, 2019

Establishes

  • • Professional review of actual bills for two specific properties

Does not establish

  • • Randomized academic research
  • • Independently collected measurements or a universal guarantee

3. NYC Department of Buildings OTCR

OTCR 58-21 Material Acceptance Letter · December 17, 2021 · Printed p. 2

OTCR evaluated the Flow Management Valve as a code alternative for equivalent safety and performance. The review considered TEES functionality testing and drinking-water effects evaluated to NSF/ANSI 61. This adds formal municipal material acceptance—a different question from actual utility-bill research.

“OTCR’s evaluation of the FMV concluded it is an acceptable alternative to the code”
NYC DOB OTCR 58-21, Material Acceptance Letter, December 17, 2021, printed p. 2
“The FMV test demonstrated compliance with NSF 61.”
NYC DOB OTCR 58-21, Material Acceptance Letter, December 17, 2021, printed p. 2

Acceptance remains subject to the letter’s design, installation, required listing, and labeling conditions. It is not blanket jurisdiction or permit approval, certification of savings, or permission to replace required pressure-reducing, backflow, or life-safety protection. The historical NSF 61 sentence is not a current all-model listing claim; review current model-specific documents on Certifications and confirm project requirements. Noncompliance or unresolved failures can require removal.

Establishes

  • • Conditional municipal acceptance as a code alternative
  • • Historic letter finding on NSF 61 compliance

Does not establish

  • • Independent proof of bill savings
  • • Blanket permit approval or replacement of required protections
  • • Verification of every current model’s listing status

Three complementary forms of evidence

Controlled testing asks how the valve behaved in a defined apparatus. Professional review asks what the supplied records showed at actual properties. Municipal acceptance asks whether the reviewed device could be accepted as a code alternative under stated conditions. No one source answers all three questions.

Swipe horizontally to see all columns.

Comparison of the three technical evidence sources and their limitations
SourceEvidence typeWhat was reviewedMain findingLimitation
TEES (2019)Controlled university testingValve versus bypass; three spring settingsSetting-dependent flow, surge, and bubble behaviorNot field bill savings or a physical-conservation guarantee
Reihl Engineering (2019)Professional field-data reviewBills and installation records for two propertiesProfessional opinion of savings >20% at those propertiesNot randomized trial; supplied data only
NYC DOB OTCR (2021)Regulatory acceptance letterSafety, performance, testing, listing, and labelingAccepted as alternative subject to conditionsDoes not prove savings or give blanket approval

Glossary of Terms

Entrained Air
Air pockets or bubbles carried along with water in the supply lines.
Microbubbles
Very small gas bubbles carried in water.
Pressure Surge
A sudden, temporary increase in line pressure.
Flow Management
The process of moderating water velocity and pressure changes.
Utility-Meter Measurement
The recorded volume billed by the local utility.
Regulatory Acceptance
Conditional approval of a material or device as an alternative under municipal codes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Testing and evidence

Is there independent evidence?
Yes, in three distinct forms. TEES conducted controlled apparatus testing, a named licensed engineer reviewed actual utility records for two properties, and NYC DOB made a separate code-alternative determination. Flow Dynamics is identified as the TEES project owner. Each source answers a different question and should be read within its stated method and scope.
What did Texas A&M test?
TEES compared a three-quarter-inch Smart Valve path with a parallel bypass in six controlled tests: flow rate, pressure surges, introduced air bubbles, air only, fixed five-gallon volume, and variable flow. Results were recorded at minimum (0 clicks), middle (8 clicks), and high (15 clicks) spring settings.
Did Texas A&M prove bill savings?
No. TEES recorded engineering measurements in a controlled apparatus, not commercial utility bills.
Why do timed tests and fixed-volume tests show different results?
A timed test compares the volume recorded during equal time intervals, whereas the fixed-volume test compares meter recording and fill time for the same five-gallon quantity. Section 5.5 reports very small fixed-volume meter differences and longer fill times. These are different measurements and cannot be substituted for a customer bill-saving percentage.
What did air-bubble testing show?
With controlled air introduced into the apparatus, the report recorded lower meter-measured fluid volume during 60-second runs and observed lower visible bubble volume at the middle and high settings. The percentages are timed meter-volume changes in that apparatus—not percent air removed, physical water conserved, or customer bill savings.
Did pressure or flow change?
Yes. Effects were setting-dependent. Upstream pressure increased while downstream pressure, flow, and timed meter totals fell under tested conditions. The minimum setting showed no observed downstream pressure-spike reduction. In the fixed-five-gallon test, fill time increased while total meter-recorded volume changed only 0.17%, 0.11%, and 0.05% across the three settings.

Field review and regulatory acceptance

What did Reihl review?
Keith Reihl, Texas PE #83377, reviewed supplied installation information and City of Houston bills for three valves at two Hartman REIT properties. The letter is a professional opinion on those records, not a controlled academic trial or universal result.
What did NYC DOB approve?
NYC DOB accepted the described Flow Management Valve as a code alternative, subject to stated design, installation, listing, and labeling conditions.
Does NYC approval prove savings?
No. Regulatory acceptance does not independently prove bill savings.
Was NSF 61 evaluated or listed?
The 2021 OTCR letter states that the FMV test demonstrated compliance with NSF 61. That is historic letter wording, not a current all-model listing claim. Facilities teams should use the Certifications page to review current model-specific documents and confirm project requirements.

Site fit, adjustment and project review

What about open atmospheric tanks or booster pumps?
They require engineer review of meter, tank, pump, valve positions, and controls. Open tanks separate pressure zones, and pump controls affect downstream demand and pressure. This is site-review guidance, not a finding established by these three originals.
Is every building a fit?
No. Pressure, flow, configuration, billing, and the financial case matter. The manufacturer excludes firefighting-water systems and cautions on low-pressure sites; Smart Valve must not replace a required pressure-reducing valve or protection.
How is the valve adjusted?
Externally adjustable models can be calibrated while water runs to match required pressure and flow. The current PWV process says AWS is willing to perform two follow-up checks on a project-agreed schedule, not at fixed universal times.
Is there a written guarantee?
PWV currently states a 15% minimum only for qualifying projects under a written performance agreement. The actual agreement governs the metric, baseline, period, exclusions, and remedy. These documents do not prove that guarantee, and it does not automatically apply to every bill charge.
What should our facilities team verify before installation?
Confirm the meter and piping layout, tank and booster-pump relationships, required pressure and peak flow at critical fixtures, applicable local approval and listing requirements, and a defensible utility-bill baseline. Verify valve size, placement, adjustment range, and any required pressure-reducing, backflow, or life-safety protection before installation.
Does Smart Valve remove air or conserve the same percentage of physical water?
The manufacturer describes limiting air expansion, not removing air. Dollars, utility-recorded volume, and physical water use are different measures.

Continue the technical review

See how Smart Valve is evaluated for a building, review measured project outcomes separately from controlled testing, and confirm current model-specific documentation.

How It WorksResultsCertifications