You are not logged in.

Reply

Dear visitor, welcome to SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Attention: The last reply to this post was 1110 days ago. The thread may already be out of date. Please consider creating a new thread.

Message information
Message
Settings
Automatically converts internet addresses into links by adding [url] and [/url] around them.
Smiley code in your message such as :) is automatically displayed as image.
You can use BBCode to format your message, if this option is enabled.
Security measure

Please enter the letters that are shown in the picture below (without spaces, and upper or lower case can be used).

The last 10 posts

Sunday, April 10th 2011, 3:50pm

by Wet_Boots

As vacuum breakers are gravity devices, their location (higher than what they feed) is the real issue. Get that right, and you are good to go, unless gravity ceases to exist, at which point no one will be thinking about sprinklers.

Friday, April 8th 2011, 7:53pm

by Mitchgo

My only heat with asv's is they are non testable. Other then that I agree

Friday, April 8th 2011, 2:07pm

by Wet_Boots

...........I disagree with boots and highly recommend you get a backflow preventor into your system , what you choose is your choice and the codes in your area. ( Such as the double check, Reduced pressure back flow, Pressure Vacuum Breaker, Spill Resistant vacuum breaker. Anti-siphon valves are not to code on proper back flow protection. The main reason for this is because they are Non - Testable devices so you never know if it's truly working or not.
He already has antisyphon valves, and if they are properly located, he has protection superior to what a DCVA can provide. If you can feed a mortuary table through a vacuum breaker, that speaks well of its ability to protect a water supply. But, since he has changed the story to now want fertilizer injection, nothing less than an RPZ will do. That goes in no matter what the city wants. If the city demands a DCVA, or else, then you give up on fertilizer injection, or go to the extreme of installing both a DCVA and an RPZ.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 11:04pm

by abishur

Thanks guys, I think that answers all of my question. I know that my City requires a DC valve assembly, but I'm hoping that they'll let me go with a RPBA in lieu of it since I want to use a fertilization system. As for my parents, I'll probably see if they're willing to add a DC valve upstream of the anti-siphon valves, but anti-siphon was all their city required and they work for their setup.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 9:53pm

by Mitchgo

Call your local water district and ask them what codes are to your area regarding proper back flow protection for sprinkler systems.

The DCVA is a great assembly, in my area- 95% of sprinkler systems, and 99% of fire sprinkler systems are DCVA's. Where I live an annual back flow test is required annually. ( My average annual tests are 1,400 back flow devices) . It is true, dcva are rated for low hazard.. However, In MANY area's, irrigation is considered Low Hazard. *This is depended on the department of health and their regulations in your region*

Yes, if you set up a fertigation system... A RPBA ( Reduced pressure back flow assembly) MUST be installed because this assembly is rated for High Hazard protection and has the best protection available.

( As far as the poster who said double checks get fauled up... this is true for any assembly lol)

I disagree with boots and highly recommend you get a backflow preventor into your system , what you choose is your choice and the codes in your area. ( Such as the double check, Reduced pressure back flow, Pressure Vacuum Breaker, Spill Resistant vacuum breaker. Anti-siphon valves are not to code on proper back flow protection. The main reason for this is because they are Non - Testable devices so you never know if it's truly working or not.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 2:07pm

by abishur

As a side note, if I were to want to install a fertilizing system onto the sprinkler system, I would need to upgrade to an reduced pressure backflow, right?

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 2:01pm

by abishur

Thanks for the info (I've used that link a lot, I like the information they provide). I'll have to talk to the City and see if they'll accept Anti-Siphon as an equivalent alternative and if not, I guess I'll put a filter upstream of the DC Valve.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 1:37pm

by HooKooDooKu

DCVAs are considered the low-end of backflow protection because of their potential to get fouled and fail.

Basically (as I understand it) "stuff" that can be in the water (even city water) can cause a check valve to get fouled and not seal properly. Of course you've got two of them, so even if one is fouled, the other one will still provide protection. But frequently, when something comes down the water pipe that can foul a check valve, there isn't just one... usually there are many. So there is the potential for both check valves to get fouled up at the same time.

You can learn more details here at the irrigation tutorials where I learned about back flow preventers when I was installing my own irrigation system.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 1:14pm

by abishur

Thanks! I'm also about to setup a new system where the double check is required by city law. Would it be a good idea to put anti-siphon valves on each of my zones? Your comment makes me thing that DCs aren't all that great.

Thursday, April 7th 2011, 12:57pm

by Wet_Boots

Just leave the current setup as is, and save your money for when any new plumbing rules are enacted, because there is a good chance that a Double Check Valve Assembly will no longer be permitted.