PDA

View Full Version : Critique my Rudimentary plumbing drawup


Overgrown
01/08/2017, 02:34 PM
Indeed, a very crude drawup. I prostrate myself before you all with the disclaimer that I'm even worse at math along with the skill of deciphering the physics of head loss etc etc; than I am at using a CAD program..

Nevertheless, the project is as follows. I need to plumb my 240 to my 200 that is approx 25 feet away. Both are equipped with Bean overflows(of which I'm very familiar and have run for years) but have never had to plumb two large tanks together with what I consider to be somewhat of a significant distance.

The goal is to have one pseudo sump under each set of standpipes, essentially, just to act as a catch basin for the standpipes on both tanks, respectively so as to allow for a straight drop from the overflow. From there,send the pipes to a common shared sump, and then from there a tee after the main sump return pipe which will split to two return pumps back to each tank. Both tanks are drilled for dual returns on either side of my coast to coast weir which are both almost full length.

My return pumps are Reeflo Gold Dart/Hybrids.

Indeed, I am likely leaving out many potentially pertinent details but hopefully the drawing will sort out most of the questions in regards to length of the runs etc, and hopefully the drawing is not too confusing.
I attempted the calculator on the main page and utterly failed to comprehend the data.

Thanks in advance.

Overgrown
01/08/2017, 02:41 PM
One of the main questions I have with this build: is utilizing those two return pumps, stemming from a single bulkhead in the main sump and Tee'd off after it exits the sump an efficient way to run this system. Or would a single pump be sufficient? Forgot to mention that all plumbing and bulkheads are 1.5", minus the two inch pump inlet.

ericarenee
01/08/2017, 03:21 PM
One of the main questions I have with this build: is utilizing those two return pumps, stemming from a single bulkhead in the main sump and Tee'd off after it exits the sump an efficient way to run this system. Or would a single pump be sufficient? Forgot to mention that all plumbing and bulkheads are 1.5", minus the two inch pump inlet.



I would do 1 return pump of a larger volume or two bulkheads. two bulkheads and seperate pumps would allow you to shut one take down without disrupting the whole system.. You cant really do that with one pump even if you used gate valves because it would just push more water into the non shut off tank.. Causing it to over flow its drains.. unless you fiddled with valves to slow it..


SO TWO RETURN pumps on there own return lines but shared sump :thumbsup:..:thumbsup:

Overgrown
01/08/2017, 03:59 PM
Also forgot to mention i had considered running them in series. Just found this thread which is interesting..

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1874618

So basically what Bean and Jim appear to be saying, is that dual returns in series is an option only if the booster pump, located second in line, possess(ideally) approx/minimum of 10% higher capacity so as to prevent cavitation.

I have dual Gold Super Dart/Snappers with the Baldor motor. Reeflo specifically states that valving down the outlet is fine, but that valving down the intake is strictly prohibited.(common knowledge) Would be nice to achieve that 10% higher capacity by simply valving down the first pump in series.. But would this be considered restricting the intake of the second?

Obviously a single return capable of handling both tanks would be ideal, and while running my Dart/Snapper in my 240 it was necessary to valve it way down, even with 1.5 standpipes and a full length smooth weir. Perhaps one of these pumps is sufficient for the attached plumbing layout with both tanks? Any other thoughts appreciated. Oh, and thanks Erica for the thoughts.

ericarenee
01/08/2017, 04:09 PM
Also forgot to mention i had considered running them in series. Just found this thread which is interesting..

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1874618

So basically what Bean and Jim appear to be saying, is that dual returns in series is an option only if the booster pump, located second in line, possess(ideally) approx/minimum of 10% higher capacity so as to prevent cavitation.

I have dual Gold Super Dart/Snappers with the Baldor motor. Reeflo specifically states that valving down the outlet is fine, but that valving down the intake is strictly prohibited.(common knowledge) Would be nice to achieve that 10% higher capacity by simply valving down the first pump in series.. But would this be considered restricting the intake of the second?

Obviously a single return capable of handling both tanks would be ideal, and while running my Dart/Snapper in my 240 it was necessary to valve it way down, even with 1.5 standpipes and a full length smooth weir. Perhaps one of these pumps is sufficient for the attached plumbing layout with both tanks? Any other thoughts appreciated. Oh, and thanks Erica for the thoughts.

YES one of those pumps will be fine for both tanks. I had a reeflo hammerhead in my sump pushing water up 13 feet over 20 feet until reworked my setup to a dual sump system and put the lowest tank with the return pump right under then Big Display tank in the basement..

Gorgok
01/08/2017, 10:55 PM
Your main sump would be at the same level as the others? And 18+ feet away? That would be one big pipe... You would see horrible flow rates and significant level differences with anything reasonable (things that fit in walls). With unreasonable pipes you would basically just have a big sump though...

Overgrown
01/09/2017, 09:31 AM
Interesting take, Gorgok... Please do elaborate.

But in response: Yes. The common/main sump will be ground level. Same as the other two(which are just Rubbermaid containers underneath the standpipes)
And Yes: the common sump will be a straight 18' run from one of the tanks. From the other it's roughly a 6' run.

As for the rest of your post, please: Go on!
Explanation of why you think the system requires "one big pipe" that wouldn't adhere to the design criteria of "things that fit in walls?"
Can you elaborate on the physics of your forecasted "horrible flow rates" as they relate to the centrifugal pumps I've mentioned I have in my possession?
At your convenience of course

ca1ore
01/09/2017, 10:12 AM
Not sure I entirely understand the drawing. The main sump should be lower than both displays, and not just by a tiny bit. I would not personally share the suction side. If you are going to run dual pumps, I'd give each a dedicated pipe from the sump. You can certainly run a single pump to service both tanks. I do that, using a panworld 200 to feed both my main 265 display and a 120 refugium. Why would you need those intermediary sumps, and not just run the drains to the main sump? If you do use intermediary sumps, then make sure that the pipes connecting the sumps are large since there will be very little level differences to drive flow.

Gorgok
01/09/2017, 07:51 PM
Can you elaborate on the physics of your forecasted "horrible flow rates" as they relate to the centrifugal pumps I've mentioned I have in my possession?
At your convenience of course

It has nothing to do with your pumps, its the sumps that are the problem. You can pump the main sump dry at whatever flow rate they combine to, then have to wait for it to fill again from the satellite sumps at whatever flow rate you are limited to by design. In the end, that will be your system flow rate and your pumps will suffer for it. If your horizontals are big enough (with two hammerheads that would be ~10000 gph) then its fine. But 2" pipe will not flow that unless under pressure or with quite a bit of head.

2" pipe, 20 feet, 4" drop will flow 1560 gph based on this:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g

Little short of ideal for those pumps...

Overgrown
01/09/2017, 10:30 PM
Not sure I entirely understand the drawing. The main sump should be lower than both displays, and not just by a tiny bit. I would not personally share the suction side. If you are going to run dual pumps, I'd give each a dedicated pipe from the sump. You can certainly run a single pump to service both tanks. I do that, using a panworld 200 to feed both my main 265 display and a 120 refugium. Why would you need those intermediary sumps, and not just run the drains to the main sump? If you do use intermediary sumps, then make sure that the pipes connecting the sumps are large since there will be very little level differences to drive flow.

Thanks for the reply, but based on your response, I'm guessing you haven't run a Bean Overflow before? A straight drop into the sump is a critical design variable. Since I have two tanks roughly 20' apart, they both require a straight drop into their respective "pseudo sumps", as mentioned in the first post. That is why I need "intermediary sumps."
And yes: the tanks are on welded steel tube stands so all sumps are at ground level. Approx 4/5' beneath the bulkheads of the standpipes.

Overgrown
01/10/2017, 09:54 AM
It has nothing to do with your pumps, its the sumps that are the problem. You can pump the main sump dry at whatever flow rate they combine to, then have to wait for it to fill again from the satellite sumps at whatever flow rate you are limited to by design. In the end, that will be your system flow rate and your pumps will suffer for it. If your horizontals are big enough (with two hammerheads that would be ~10000 gph) then its fine. But 2" pipe will not flow that unless under pressure or with quite a bit of head.

2" pipe, 20 feet, 4" drop will flow 1560 gph based on this:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g

Little short of ideal for those pumps...

Again, if you've never operated a Bean, I'm not sure if you're going to able to grasp or comprehend the purpose of the sumps underneath each set of standpipes per respective tank. Perhaps I should have just referred to them as "catch basins." (As an aside, my plumbing is 1.5" not 2". The inlet on the return pump(s) are 2".
The purpose of what you referred to as the satellite sumps are to simply allow a straight drop from the standpipes so the Bean operates flawlessly and at its full potential. Perhaps the longest and greatest thread in reef forum history is right here at RC with hundreds of pages highlighting the physics of this design and this particular design variable. I'm definitely not the first dude to plumb two tanks with Bean overflows together.
I'm not concerned with the variables you highlight but appreciate your thoughts nevertheless.
Before I had stumbled upon this thread, http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1874618 my main concerns were return pump location, whether I should run them inline, Tee'd off from the same inlet from the sump, or dedicate a pipe to each one from the sump(which Erica suggested⬆️), or even explore the option of a single larger pump.

Fast forward to now, and my only concern is whether a single Reeflo Gold Dart/Snapper is likely to operate both systems.

woodnaquanut
01/10/2017, 12:23 PM
The problem with your 'catch basins' is there seems to be no head between them and the sump. So how will water flow if there is no/little head? To get any flow there has to be an elevation difference. Since it won't be anything like the difference from tank to catch basin, it'll need to be large pipe. Is that possible?

It seems like it would be simpler to just run the pipes directly to the one sump. After a short drop from the tank they should slope down to the sump.

And yes, I understand BA. I run BA on my tank. I'd upsize the pipe a bit to account for the long run. You probably won't get the full flow possible because of the long run but there is no solution to that other that two separate systems with sumps close to the tanks.

Overgrown
01/10/2017, 12:47 PM
Since you run a Bean, I'm guessing you realize why I can't just drop or slope my standpipes into the same sump. I've had no issues plumbing Beans with 45's, but I've seen many a nightmare from other people trying to plumb their standpipes with 90's. As mentioned, the two tanks are located approx 20' apart( one is located in my garage)

As for flow from the "sump" collecting the water from the BA standpipes, I suppose I'm failing to see where the issue lies in there being a run of pipe between the standpipe sumps(catch basins) and the common sump, if there is a return pump pulling water away from the main sump. Will not the water from the two "sumps" under each respective set of Bean standpipes simply follow the flow dictated by the return pump, which will be located after the main/common sump?

lmm1967
01/10/2017, 01:06 PM
Since you run a Bean, I'm guessing you realize why I can't just drop or slope my standpipes into the same sump. I've had no issues plumbing Beans with 45's, but I've seen many a nightmare from other people trying to plumb their standpipes with 90's. As mentioned, the two tanks are located approx 20' apart( one is located in my garage)

As for flow from the "sump" collecting the water from the BA standpipes, I suppose I'm failing to see where the issue lies in there being a run of pipe between the standpipe sumps(catch basins) and the common sump, if there is a return pump pulling water away from the main sump. Will not the water from the two "sumps" under each respective set of Bean standpipes simply follow the flow dictated by the return pump, which will be located after the main/common sump?

I'm currently running 2 bean overflows - 1 from a 60 and 1 from a 30 - into a common sump that sits between them using all 90's and 1" pipe - with zero problems for over a year. The horizontal runs are only about 4' in my instance but IMO proper placement of the gate valves allows my setup to run flawlessly.

I'm also using a single return pump that goes into a T and provides the return for both tanks. My sump is setup so that each tank dumps into one end of the sump and my return pump is in the middle section.

This setup has worked well enough that I am building the exact same setup with a 120g & 40g in the coming weeks.

Gorgok
01/10/2017, 04:19 PM
As for flow from the "sump" collecting the water from the BA standpipes, I suppose I'm failing to see where the issue lies in there being a run of pipe between the standpipe sumps(catch basins) and the common sump, if there is a return pump pulling water away from the main sump. Will not the water from the two "sumps" under each respective set of Bean standpipes simply follow the flow dictated by the return pump, which will be located after the main/common sump?

It will try, but be limited by physics. To get flow in a pipe with gravity you need some head. As per the calculator and figures i posted earlier, if you see a 4" height difference from the main to satellite sump because of the pump pulling water out of the main sump/drains filling the satellite you will produce ~1500 gph of flow in the long cross pipe.

The more height difference the more flow you can expect, but the max difference will be dictated by how high you can get water in the satellite tanks before you flood them...

If you could run 3" pipe, and lift the satellite sumps a foot, you would be in much better shape. Then all you need to make sure of is that your main sump can handle all the water that will empty out of the satellite sumps.

Overgrown
01/11/2017, 11:13 AM
I'm currently running 2 bean overflows - 1 from a 60 and 1 from a 30 - into a common sump that sits between them using all 90's and 1" pipe - with zero problems for over a year. The horizontal runs are only about 4' in my instance but IMO proper placement of the gate valves allows my setup to run flawlessly.

I'm also using a single return pump that goes into a T and provides the return for both tanks. My sump is setup so that each tank dumps into one end of the sump and my return pump is in the middle section.

This setup has worked well enough that I am building the exact same setup with a 120g & 40g in the coming weeks.

Thanks, and I'm glad that's working for you. It is of course not ideal, and there are tons of guys reporting the same results as yourself. Not claiming that it's harming your application but I personally prefer to adhere to the ideal original design criteria of straight drops into the sump and I definitely wouldn't attempt 90'ing off into a 20' run. 4' is another story and I've seen guys do it with no issues such as yourself.

Overgrown
01/11/2017, 11:19 AM
It will try, but be limited by physics. To get flow in a pipe with gravity you need some head. As per the calculator and figures i posted earlier, if you see a 4" height difference from the main to satellite sump because of the pump pulling water out of the main sump/drains filling the satellite you will produce ~1500 gph of flow in the long cross pipe.

The more height difference the more flow you can expect, but the max difference will be dictated by how high you can get water in the satellite tanks before you flood them...

If you could run 3" pipe, and lift the satellite sumps a foot, you would be in much better shape. Then all you need to make sure of is that your main sump can handle all the water that will empty out of the satellite sumps.

I'm not limited to pipe size in regards to the outlet of the return. It can be 3" or even 4". If that is indeed what I need to do the only concern at that point would be my existing bulkheads on the returns drilled in the back of the tanks. They're sized at 1.5" so I'd obviously have to bush down the plumbing at the dual returns into the display. Would this render the benefit of upsizing the pipe obsolete since I'm bushing it down at the returns? Raising the "satellite sumps" underneath each respective set of Bean standpipes is not an issue.

uncleof6
03/05/2017, 03:49 PM
I'm not limited to pipe size in regards to the outlet of the return. It can be 3" or even 4". If that is indeed what I need to do the only concern at that point would be my existing bulkheads on the returns drilled in the back of the tanks. They're sized at 1.5" so I'd obviously have to bush down the plumbing at the dual returns into the display. Would this render the benefit of upsizing the pipe obsolete since I'm bushing it down at the returns? Raising the "satellite sumps" underneath each respective set of Bean standpipes is not an issue.

Yes it would as the flow rate is determined by the smallest diameter (translating to cross-sectional area) of the plumbing from the point of origin, to the point where it leaves the plumbing. The only thing that changes is the pressure at various points along the path; the flow rate remains constant, limited as I said by the smallest diameter in the system.

In response to a question elsewhere, there is no reasonable way to plumb two discreet sumps together and maintain any flow balance, or consistency. One would be tempted on the basis of that, to place the sumps on different levels, however, this would create a "double gravity feed" which would also present balance problems with consistency. The only reasonable way to combine two aquariums together is to plumb them both to a common sump, using a split return. This will require the use of a larger pump, quite possibly larger than than a combination of discreet pumps serving each tank individually combined.

My advice is plumb them discreet from tank to sump, with nothing between the overflow box and its respective sump, other than the drain lines. It is the least problematic, and best way to avoid problems.