Plumbing a remodel

[Blowout]

Ready to pull the trigger on a remodel of the pool. The equipment pad will be a good 40+ feet from the pool/spa. Sorry upfront for the long winded list of questions...most likely they are covered somewhere in the forum, but I haven't found them yet.

Pool/spa is going to be replumbed and I would like to maximize flow rate by using long sweeps for any 90* turns whenever possible. Looks like Waterway has these for pool construction use.
(socket x socket) and (street x socket) for valve connections. Has anyone used these before? I haven't been able to find anything using the search function. Our contractor said they heat the pipes and bend them to minimize 90* joints, but they use standard 90* fittings to the wall.

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/MUELLE ... lbow-1WJZ1
http://www.h2opoolproducts.com/waterway ... sc5qj9jsg0
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/MUELLE ... lbow-3GUT5

Currently talking about 2" drain lines and returns. Any thoughts if the size will be adequate for the run length of 40+ feet? One drain in the pool and a double drain in the spa.

We currently have 3 return lines to the pool...2 in the shallow end and one opposite side of the skimmer in the deep end. Some PB's we spoke to thought the more returns the better. The PB we expect to use suggests only 3 and one in the SPA. What does the current wisdom recommend? The pool is rectangular 38x16 with attached SPA (same level as pool) at the shallow end with a spillway.

Our PB also said their are only 1 1/2 fittings to the returns available so they have to neck down the 2" to 1 1/2" at the wall. I haven't found any 2" return fittings either... Any thoughts on return fitting sizes?

I'm also thinking of having the pool plumbed for a Polaris even though I have a Aquabot now. I had a Polaris prior and installed a shutoff valve on the line since I stopped using it to prevent any backflow. My thought is that it would be costly to try and retrofit later if for some reason I wanted to go back to a Polaris type. I went to the Aquabot to reduce the electric bill. Any thoughts with this line of reasoning?

thanks in advance for any helpful advice

 

[Bama Rambler]

You should minimize the number of 90's in the system but I wouldn't go to the extra work or expense of special ordering long sweeps. the head loss difference is minimal.

I'd suggest 2" ran individually back to the pad. Each return and skimmer and main drain should have it's own pipe ran all the way back to the pad. The pool and spa should have double drains. That's the easiest and best way to comply with the VGB act.

Three returns are fine but more would be better. I'd definitely want more than one in the spa.

They're right about the 1½" returns and it's fine to reduce right at the return.

If you think you ever want to have a normal cleaner I'd have the piping installed now. It's much easier to install it now than in the future. You can just run it back to the pad and cap it off. That way you can decide later if you want a pressure or suction cleaner.

 

[DBfan187]

just increase the pipe size and use the 90's lol

or you could let your PB get creative with his heat bending like so

 

[Blowout]

You should minimize the number of 90's in the system but I wouldn't go to the extra work or expense of special ordering long sweeps. the head loss difference is minimal.

I'd suggest 2" ran individually back to the pad. Each return and skimmer and main drain should have it's own pipe ran all the way back to the pad. The pool and spa should have double drains. That's the easiest and best way to comply with the VGB act.

Three returns are fine but more would be better. I'd definitely want more than one in the spa.

They're right about the 1½" returns and it's fine to reduce right at the return.

If you think you ever want to have a normal cleaner I'd have the piping installed now. It's much easier to install it now than in the future. You can just run it back to the pad and cap it off. That way you can decide later if you want a pressure or suction cleaner.

I think the sweep 90's are only a $1 more than the std 90. Would you suggest a Jandy valve for each of the return lines or just T them together?

thanks for the input!

 

[Blowout]

just increase the pipe size and use the 90's lol

or you could let your PB get creative with his heat bending like so

Those are some real long sweeps!

 

[Bama Rambler]

I'd put a valve on each line and manifold them together. That gives you so much versatility in valving.

 

[Blowout]

Would you consider putting in a bypass on the heater a good idea? I would think the heater would be a factor on flow rates. Would I need to add valve controllers to auto switch when the heater is turned on? I would hate to melt down the heater w/o water flowing. Perhaps they have safety switches built in now.

 

[JasonLion]

Heaters always have safety switches, but they don't always work.

 

[Blowout]

Any thoughts about a bypass on the heater?

 

[jblizzle]

Certainly can help lower head loss if you can divert at least some of the water to bypass the heater.

Posted with Tapatalk ... sorry if I sound short ... hate typing on phone

 

[Blowout]

We don't use the heater much...just for the SPA. The solar cover brings it up to 90+ in the summer. It's rectangular so the cover is fairly easy to put on and off.

Seems the heat exchanger does influence head loss after doing some reading by Pentair.

 

[Blowout]

Doing some research on the effectiveness of sweeps and found the following information. The information indicates sweeps cause friction loss about 50% less than std elbows in 2" pipe. A sweep has about the same friction as a 45. Sweeps seem to be worth it if they reduce the friction of the 90 in half.

http://www.wlimproducts.com/index.php?o ... 9&Itemid=4

 

[jblizzle]

There was just another post where Mark did the head loss calcs using sweep vs regular 90s and the difference was in the tenths of feet of head loss out of around 50. So the effect was less than 1%. There are other things in the system that have way higher losses that make the sweeps just not to seem worth it.

Posted with Tapatalk ... sorry if I sound short ... hate typing on phone

 

[TheGoose]

Those sweeps look like they are for DWV, not pressure. DWV = Drain, Waste, Vent. Might check the specs.

 

[Blowout]

There was just another post where Mark did the head loss calcs using sweep vs regular 90s and the difference was in the tenths of feet of head loss out of around 50. So the effect was less than 1%. There are other things in the system that have way higher losses that make the sweeps just not to seem worth it.

Posted with Tapatalk ... sorry if I sound short ... hate typing on phone

Understood there are other influences in the system that have a greater effect on flow rate...ie, the filter and heater. The difference in price of only $1 per turn to add sweeps seems to make the decision whether to add them fairly easy IMHO.

I could only find Mark's post back in 2009 that indicates he did a calc with and only came up with a 1% advantage to the sweeps. To use 10 sweeps it would only cost $10 more as long as you were already planning on replacing the pipes.

As for #3, the impact of 90s vs swept 90s isn't all that significant compared to the rest of the plumbing. I once calculated for my plumbing if I had replaced 10 90s with 10 swept 90s, the flow rate would increase by only 1%. However, if I had upsized the pipe by one size, the flow rate would have gone up by 15%. The point is that pipe diameter is much more important than what type of fittings you use so you may want to consider that instead. BTW, what size pipe were you planning on using and how many runs? Also, what size pump do you have?

Those sweeps look like they are for DWV, not pressure. DWV = Drain, Waste, Vent. Might check the specs.

These are made by Waterway and are Sch 40
http://www.aqua-man.com/itemMatrix_all. ... Code=M5790

Anyone know which heater and filter provides the least backpressure?

My thoughts are to go with a Jandy CV 580 cartridge for the best flow rate (vs DE or sand).
Raypak states they have a built in bypass on their heater, but I haven't found the details on that claim yet.

 

[TheGoose]

Both the ones you listed from Grainger were schedule "DWV" .

If it was me, I would go with regular 90's and spend my money making them sch 80. If I ever re-plumb my pool all fittings will be sch 80. I think you're splitting hairs with the long radius sweeps.

Not to mention I would think the long radius sweeps would be more prone to cracking/failure. I have had to replace several fittings under the deck through the years and I would do anything I could to avoid having to fix failed fittings.

 

[jblizzle]

I think Sch 80 fittings are also not needed ... we are no where near the pressure rating of Sch 40 so why spend the $ to raise the rating even more with Sch 80?

 

[TheGoose]

When you've had to bust your deck up a time or two you'll know why.

It's not the increased pressure rating, it's the increased strenght and resistance to breaking due to soil movement like we have here in S. Tx.

 

[jblizzle]

When you've had to bust your deck up a time or two you'll know why.

Granted I am not expert, but now I am curious.
Did the fittings split or was the joint done incorrectly? Still could have the same solvent issues with Sch 80 fittings.

 

[TheGoose]

I edited my post above. Basially here in S. Tx we have soil movement due to our shrink-swell soil. In dry summertime, the soil contracts as it dries out, and then in wet times it expands. My decks can move as much as an inch either way (extreme drought). When the water comes back, it moves again. I've had to repair 3 leaks under the decks, it's not fun. It always breaks at the joint, the plastic itself gives, never the glue or the straight pipe.