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 572 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 The thread may already be out of date.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

Tuesday, March 26th 2013, 12:17pm

by Wet_Boots

Computer programs that design sprinkler systems cost large dollars. No freebies out there. What is out there for free are charts that show friction losses in pipe. You already drew a decent design, so turn it into numbers, that total up all the pressure losses from source to sprinkler heads.

Tuesday, March 26th 2013, 8:18am

by 69_Mustang_Man

Thank you very much for the information.

I am curious as to the method used to determine the adequacy of the system. Being that I do not know anything about sprinklers and I have not been able to find anything on line, I do not know the math involved in designing the system. If that makes any sense??

Is there a computer program involved?

Otherwise, This helps me out greatly! Thanks again!

:)

Friday, March 22nd 2013, 3:34pm

by Wet_Boots

45 heads will work fine, even with the 3 gpm nozzle already installed in the Maxipaw, as that will give you about 135 gpm total flow. The 6 gpm nozzles might be too much flow. An in-between nozzle size exists, so that would get you closer to the 200 gpm total flow.

The diagram you posted (I fixed the link {not your fault}) splits into 6 lines, so that works with 2-inch pipe. It doesn't have to be 2-inch all the way to the ends of each line. That's where the friction-loss tables come in.

One more caution to your proposed setup is dealing with inrush flow. Since water seeks its own level, you will have hundreds of feet of empty 4-inch pipe when this starts up. What can sometimes happen is that the air rushes out of of the sprinkler heads far more rapidly than the equal volume of water would, setting up a situation where the water will smash into the system at the speed of the air movement. On the small scale of residential sprinkler systems, this isn't a big concern. On a golf course, it's a different story. One simple way to work with this phenomenon is to have more than one shutoff valve set up in a parallel array, and to open only one valve at a time, until you have full flow. While this complicates the plumbing at the source, it saves you the expense of a 4-inch shutoff valve, and you can go with 1-1/2 inch valves, or maybe 2-inch valves. Smaller valves are easier to operate, too.

{I edited the previous paragraph to remove a reference to a downstream pressure gauge next to the valves, because that wouldn't help with the shutoff valve(s) located way uphill from the sprinklers. (Downstream pressure is a part of the function of the very-expensive specialty valves a golf course would employ to avoid the previously-described damage)}

Friday, March 22nd 2013, 12:15pm

by 69_Mustang_Man

Hi,
Yes. Thanks again.

I have it configured with a screen at the intake, a valve just outside the pond embankment, at the top of the slope to protect the system from hammer action. The permit requires the valve anyway due to the high quality watershed. I had planned for the 4" PCV pipe to enter into the center of the field and then branch off in both directions into a series of three parallel pipes approx 300 feet long each and spaced at approximately 20 feet between each pipe. The sprinklers would be evenly spaced along these pipes. The picture is posted at the below link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9977705@N05…/in/photostream

I am just confused at how to determine just many sprinklers I am able to use before I do not have enough pressure to operate the system. I would prefer it to be self sufficient, however if I am forced to pump, so be it. I have what I am thinking pictured below. I currently have it pictured using 45 nozzle heads.

So, at this point, how do I determine how many nozzles I can use?

Thanks.

Friday, March 22nd 2013, 11:00am

by Wet_Boots

Simple economics has you using the largest nozzles. Even at 200 GPM, the long run between pond and drainage field won't sap the operating pressure more than 2 psi. It becomes up to you to arrange the heads and piping in the field so that pressure is maintained. If the 4-inch pipe enters the field at a central location, you might be able to branch out immediately to 4 or 5 or 6 pipes feeding different sections, using 2-inch PVC

See this pressure-loss chart for more detail.

The valve that feeds this might be best located near the pond, so that it isn't receiving the force of the flow through the hundreds of feet of 4-inch pipe.

Friday, March 22nd 2013, 7:10am

by 69_Mustang_Man

Hi again!

Thanks again for the info.

How many sprinklers could I expect to run, without pumping? I'm looking at a range of ~200 gpm to dewater the pond in 5 days to ~130 gpm to dewater it in 8 days. Therefore, at the 130 gpm, I am looking at 44 of the 3gpm nozzles or 22 of the 6 gpm. Is that too many? I could possibly go to 9 days at ~117gpm. That would be ~39 3gpm or 19 6gpm sprinklers.

Screening the intake is no problem.

Thanks,

Thursday, March 21st 2013, 9:23pm

by Wet_Boots

Running sprinkler heads from pond water requires that you screen the water intake, so that the sprinklers don't clog up. An impact head will pass a particle smaller than the nozzle diameter. You could cover the inlet with something akin to window screening. The Maxipaw heads may not use anywhere near as much water as the big brass heads that often are used in distributing water over a drainage field, but they will work at the pressures you have. They will throw about 35 feet, and use 3 gpm with the standard nozzle, and up to 6 gpm with optional larger nozzles.

If you need to move several hundred gallons per minute, you might have to spend money for a pump and big sprinklers.

Thursday, March 21st 2013, 2:18pm

by 69_Mustang_Man

Yes, the "de-watering" structure is a 4" diam PVC stand-pipe that has a series of three holes drilled into it. It has ~5 rows of three holes, between the sediment storage elev and the top of water elev. If the dewatering holed affect the PSI needed, this pipe can be changed and the holes eliminated.

Thursday, March 21st 2013, 1:50pm

by Wet_Boots

Your elevation difference works out to about 35 psi. That greatly limits what you can achieve. A conventional system with an electric valve feeding pop-up sprinkler heads is probably out of reach, because about 10 psi gets lost from source to heads.

What you can count on operating from a 35 psi supply are impact heads, especially the Rainbird Maxipaw heads, because they can be adjusted for lower operating pressures. That they also function on "dirty" water is a bonus.

I don't 'get' the "1-1/2 inch holes" - is this describing the inlet pipe?

Thursday, March 21st 2013, 7:29am

by 69_Mustang_Man

Hi
Yes, the pond discharge will be through the sprinklers. The elevations are as follows:

Top of water in pond: 1782.0'
Discharge Pipe inlet elevation: 1773.1'
Discharge Pipe outlet elevation (at spray field): 1698.0'

Hope this helps! Thanks again!