Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning Effectiveness and Efficiency

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

I feel that the impeller is just spinning water around in those high PSI 100% cases...nowhere to go. Can the model accurately model that? Its backed up from the manifold output, back through the filter, into the pump.

Do you know how accurate the wattage numbers are supposed to be that I am reading from the Ecostar?

I guess I am not clear about the modelling...I like to use extreme cases...If a pump output is totally blocked there is 0 gpm. Can you increase the RPM in that situation? Does the wattage change? Would those curves still match the model? I guess they could. I am concerned about that type of situation. (not 0 gpm of course but something to that effect, a critically impeded flow).

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

I know you're busy thinking...but, there is also the possibility of checking the 100% pool wall returns (my 2nd post)...that is a free flow situation that I would expect to match your model...of all the numbers, I think I would distrust the Watts display...the motor sounded right (like my feel) as it stepped through various rpms...and the gpm measurement could not possibly be off that much...the only thing remaining is the wattage measurement.

 

[mas985]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Theoretically, all conditions should match the model within a margin of error. But the model is dependent on the Energy Star measurements which could have errors in them although I have used this on other EcoStar pumps before without issues. Also, I have the APSP and CEC measurements which are close to being the same.

Pumps follow predictable curves. The head curve (GPM vs Head) is a parabolic and the watt curves (GPM vs Watts) are fairly linear that vary with the cube of the RPM and have an offset (i.e. efficiency). In most cases where I have used the model, it matches fairly well.

guess I am not clear about the modelling...I like to use extreme cases...If a pump output is totally blocked there is 0 gpm. Can you increase the RPM in that situation? Does the wattage change?

Yes and yes. At 3450 RPM, the wattage is 939 watts and at 1725 RPM, the wattage is 149 watts both of which are the offsets of the power model at specific RPM values. The current draw of the motor is dependent on the load of impeller. Even though there is no flow out of the pump, there is still flow and pressure within the pump both of which contribute the energy use.

This is the best example to envision how the curves look:

I could understand 10% or even 20% error but this is 100% error. I will have to dig deeper.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

I doubt it if this will help but here are the 12PSI numbers from the first test, and why I thought it was initially going to go the other way as far as efficiency. Do you think that the leaves and/or manifold leak could make this sort of difference? I didn't at the time so now I wonder, too. The intersection was at a slightly different point/rpms

1st TEST
	Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
50/50 current	90	3105	1610	91	21	12	3391
100 previous	65	2243	473	31	14.5	12	3932

I might have to rerun a 3rd test if we deem this is an issue.

---------

I am looking closer at the 2nd test data (the tables posted)...I think the 12PSI Watts number for the 100% case is NOT Correct (670)...maybe the motor had not shifted down fully before I read it or something to that effect.

It is definitely not correct...probably 570 was the correct number. Look at the Gallons/kWh above and below it. That makes a difference (the 100% G/kWh would be 3263) but still doesn't flip the efficiency to the 100% side, but it is closer. Obviously I am going to have to rerun again and be extremely careful.

Also...unfortunately I have a shift in the table...a BAD one...the hanging entry for watts at the bottom left of the 100% table should have alerted me...there's a double entry for watts in 80/85 in the 100% table. I'll fix that and I am changing the 670->570 number.

Here are the corrected tables.

	Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter Pressure	Manifold Pressure	G/kWh
	100	3450	2233	100	26	17	2687
	95	3278	1918	94	23.5	15.5	2941
	90	3105	1618	91	21	13.5	3375
50/50 current	85	2933	1342	86	19	12	3845
	80	2760	1126	80	16.5	10.5	4263
	75	2588	921	74	15	9.5	4821
	70	2415	755	68	13	8	5404
	65	2243	609	62	11	7	6108
	60	2070	490	58	9.5	6	7102
	55	1898	391	52	8	5	7980
	50	1725	315	48	6	3	9143
	45	1553
	40	1380
	35	1208
	30	1035
	25	863
	20	690
	ORIGINAL SYSTEM 100% Cleaning System, My Original Configuration
	Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
	100	3450	1645	50	34	30	1824
	95	3278	1412	48	30.5	27	2040
	90	3105	1202	45	27.5	28	2246
	85	2933	1005	42	24.5	21	2507
	80	2760	847	40	22	18	2834
	75	2588	702	38	19	16	3248
	70	2415	570	34	16.5	14	3579
100 previous	65	2243	473	31	14.5	12	3932
	60	2070	391	29	12	10	4450
	55	1898	318	26	10	8.5	4906
	50	1725	260	22	8.5	7	5077
	45	1553	212	20	7	5	5660
	40	1380	173	18	5.5	4.5	6243
	35	1208
	30	1035
	25	863
	20	690

You win! Can't believe I didn't see that earlier. Too excited to get the data out there, haha. It doesn't explain the pump model descrepancies. I will still rerun a 3rd time tomorrow. edit: probably not...I think I understand now.

Right after I posted the data I was trying to graph it...I haven't used EXCEL in so long that I have forgotten how to do it, so asked my wife for help. I stopped the process when I saw your first reply. This morning, my wife asked me if I had graphed it...NO...she chastised me and said that I would have seen the problem immediately had I done that...she is right. HAHA

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Mark, after looking a bit closer at the data, I see that at the same manifold pressure, the energy effectivness is approximately the same for both cases. I now understand why my "simple explanation" using "high cost water" and "low cost water" doesn't make the cut.

At the Jandy valve...where the flow splits into the parallel paths...ALL the water costs the same at that point. Its ALL high cost water. That's why you talked about the pump, filter, drain, etc...everything before that point in the system. Both water flows share that path.

And now I also understand why you want to run the system at the lowest PSI point that the manifold can handle to maximize energy efficiency. That would be the lowest cost water that can still operate the cleaning system. Any "parallel path" should ALWAYS cost the same as water delivered to the manifold/popups.

So, it is possible (via parallel paths) to increase the effectiveness of flow in your system (faster clean time) at the most near the most energy efficient level. But you can never do better than that unless you have a separate pump for the popups, "pulse" the popups, etc.

Wow...Mark, you did it...you finally convinced me, haha. My pipe dream of increasing the energy efficiency level (for a single pump system) is officially dead. But I still want my EFFECTIVEin-floor cleaning system. I still think there might be cases to run at higher than minimum GPM requirements but I am working on that still. I will be updating my "Method" to take out energy efficient claims for single pump systems.

AND, I feel much better about NOT losing the $5K to $7K that I originally estimated that I had. EDIT: I've lost sight of the trees in the forest again...I DID lose this money because my in-floor cleaning system was operating at a very inefficient level. Like probably 90%+ of them are...that's just a made-up number but I imagine it IS a very,very high percentage.

By the way...please let me know what additional conclusions I may have mistakenly jumped to in the above ramblings.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: FlowVis for In-floor Cleaning System Tuning

Without a manifold pressure gauge you can use the filter pressure gauge as a proxy. It is in't as exact because of the head loss between the filter and the manifold but it is much better then a guess although it still disadvantages the 100% case. For each of the three cases, you simply set the RPM such that the filter pressure is about the same for all three cases. This will ensure that the manifold pressure is close to being the same and thus the actual flow rate in the manifold is about the same. Under these operating conditions, I think you will find that the 100% case actually has the highest Energy Factor although it may not be by much.

You can certainly run the skimming at the same time as the in-floors but again, if energy efficiency is important, you may find separating the tasks into two separate run times (each at much lower RPM than the combined) results in lower energy use. Especially once you ensure the in-floors are getting the same pressure/flow rate in both cases.

But filtering the suspended particles takes a lot of run time because you have to filter that large volume of water just once to collect the debris. When debris is on the surface or floor, it is far more efficient to clean it up in those locations. That is why most pools will benefit with idle time to allow the debris to settle to the bottom. Of course as long as the in-floor can clean it up.

Lastly, skimming really shouldn't take much in the way of flow rate. I set my VS to run at about 30 GPM with two skimmers (15 GPM per skimmer) and the weir door is still pulled down and skimming is still pretty effective.

Mark, here is what you told me about 40 posts ago...I didn't understand it (and thus didn't accept it), at the time, but it IS essentially the same conclusion that I have been forced into accepting by seeing the actual data.

In the portion I've highlighted, you correctly predicted that the cost of the water flows is going to be about the same. About the same efficiency. You were right.

Here is where I am going to run-with-it a bit, and hope I am not going on a tangent:

In a single pump system, ALL the water flow costs are the same (roughly). There is no such thing as "high cost water" & "low cost water", terms I made up. And there are no energy efficiency claim improvements that can be made based on terms such as "lower psi" paths and "high psi" paths. Those were pipe dreams, a way I was trying to explain the data that I had collected without understanding the real "physics" behind it, not that I do now.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Here come the tangents:

I know that in-floor cleaning systems are inefficient as compared to other cleaning systems. But given that people have them, use them, and rely upon them (like myself), the goal is to now make them as efficient (run at the proper pressure-manifold PSI) and effective (ability to run at the required volumes) as possible.

Energy efficiency is still a huge concern; probably 90%+ (just a guess) of the in-floor systems out there are NOT run at the proper manifold PSI level...like my system for 25 years. (and now comes the realization that once again I have probably lost $1000s of dollars over that timeframe...still because I didn't change that valve...haha, my system was obviously not being run even close to the optimal energy efficiency level).

"Effectiveness" is still a big concern. At the very least, every in-floor system should have the ability to 1) run at the optimized energy efficiency point for their system and 2) maximize the flow through their system at the optimum energy efficiency point (the process I was trying to guide gvc through in my post to him). In addition, 3) the system should allow running at a higher level than that (less energy efficient) but allow them to choose this option to clean the pool faster (maybe there is a party that day, haha). When they make that choice, the system should run at the highest efficiency level given that flow rate.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: FlowVis for In-floor Cleaning System Tuning

Its pretty clear to me now, that increasing gpm throughput with an in-floor cleaning system (at the appropriate manifold PSI requirement) is much more important (and efficient) than simply increasing pressure in the system overall (by raising your pump RPM to clean better or faster).

But this usage model (upping the pump speed), seems to be the only way that many in-floor cleaning system owners have as an option.

I have been told that many in-floor cleaning systems are being built that have no other returns to the pool other than the cleaning system itself. If this is true, then the ONLY way they can achieve energy efficiency is through pump RPM (they MUST have a variable speed pump), otherwise...they are scr3wed. Are systems really being "designed" like this.

For those systems, if the original design was not perfect, and they don't have a VSP, there is NO WAY for them to achieve optimal efficiency.

 

[mas985]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

I doubt it if this will help but here are the 12PSI numbers from the first test, and why I thought it was initially going to go the other way as far as efficiency. Do you think that the leaves and/or manifold leak could make this sort of difference? I didn't at the time so now I wonder, too. The intersection was at a slightly different point/rpms

1st TEST
	Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
50/50 current	90	3105	1610	91	21	12	3391
100 previous	65	2243	473	31	14.5	12	3932

I might have to rerun a 3rd test if we deem this is an issue.

Actually, the 100 case matches the pump model perfectly. I think I might know what is going on. The in-floor system is a dynamic plumbing system in that the different zones have different head loss (i.e. manifold pressure) and as the zone valve moves around, the pressure changes, flow rates change and motor power will change. So it really depends on when you take the measurement. Since it is impossible to measure everything at the same time and at the same zone location, it might be impossible to get representative measurements in an environment of this sort. You would have to make periodic measurements through the entire zone cycle and then average them. But I would not suggest that you actually do that.

HI know that in-floor cleaning systems are inefficient as compared to other cleaning systems. But given that people have them, use them, and rely upon them (like myself), the goal is to now make them as efficient (run at the proper pressure-manifold PSI) and effective (ability to run at the required volumes) as possible.

But here is the thing, you don't HAVE to use it. You could use it sparingly and use a robot on a day to day basis. The amount of energy saved with a low RPM pool skimming and a low power robot is quite significant and would not only pay for the robot in very short period of time but eventually could pay for the in-floor cleaners too.

 

[Arizonarob]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

But here is the thing, you don't HAVE to use it. You could use it sparingly and use a robot on a day to day basis. The amount of energy saved with a low RPM pool skimming and a low power robot is quite significant and would not only pay for the robot in very short period of time but eventually could pay for the in-floor cleaners too.

^^^Yup.

Sadly with all the fantastic work and thought you guys have put into this thread, in the end, a robot is the most effective way to clean the pool.

I think the whole in floor cleaning system is designed poorly at best. It is simply the equivalent of you walking around your house dusting, by simply blowing puffs of air at your furniture.

Jon, you’re definitely correct in your findings that here (in AZ) you need to filter the water more to remove all the fine dust that gets suspended in the water.

Mark, you’re definitely correct in the fact that outside of the above mentioned parameters (AZ) running a system at 50/50 would render the IFCS ineffective, as it would just be swirling around the heavier debris and not allowing it to end up in the main drain(it’s intended target).

Jon I’ve been following along and thinking about this thread since it was started. I think in the end, simply running the pump at lower speeds for increased filtration & energy savings, and tossing a bot in the pool every couple of days, is IMHO the best way to clean pools here in AZ.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Not quite...

I don’t want to make this a robot vs in-floor cleaning system debate. I want to make existing and future (because they ARE still going to be here) in-floor systems efficient (make sure they CAN hit their target manifold PSI, at least at one point along its curve) and effective (have the ability to clean quickly: ex: turn it on after a dust storm to clean it up).

For me personally, a robot (for efficiency purposes) doesn’t make the cut. I have realized I am running my system probably twice as much as I need to (with these changes) and it works great. Here’s what it costs me currently with my changed setup:

3 hours a day “cleaning” and 8 hours a day “filtering” :

(1126 Watts * 3 + 152 Watts * 8) x 7.5 cents/kWh (off-peak, cheap in Gilbert) * 30 days a month = $10.30 a month…going down to close to $5 a month when I reduce my times.

I’ve had to vacuum my pool 3 times this year after monsoons, and don’t enjoy it. At the next monsoon I am going to clear it with just my in-floor cleaning system. I will use your number of 60% filtering per turnover. I’m pretty confident bottom drain draw would improve this number because most suspended material does tend to collect closer to the floor. With 6 turnovers I can clear 95%+ of the junk, total of 14K*6 gallons=84K gallons.

If I run at my current cleaning system at its current level (2760 rpm, 4800 gpm) I clear that in 17.5 hours at 7.5 cents which will cost me $1.31 to clear the monsoon dust (I don’t run my pool in on-peak hours). That’s worth it for the 5 times a year I might have to do this. If I have a party that day, I might have to vacuum.

However, while I was working AND my pool in-floor cleaning system was operating inefficiently, you can see why it would take a couple of days to clear out a monsoon because my system was only filtering half the volume of water.

I still want to fix this problem for everybody! It’s an uphill climb I know, but those that HAVE and USE in-floor cleaning systems still deserve to know their options.

Mine is an extreme case, if I had realized that turning a valve doubled the effectiveness AND improved the efficiency of my system 25 years ago...I think you'll agree it would have been worth my time to do that (of course assuming I knew what to do, which I didn't). But now I do and along comes with it are all these optimization possibilities and effectiveness possibilties.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

My electricity costs to clean AND filter my pool should be about $70 next year [(12*$5) + (5*$1.30)]. I have free replacements for my popups and valve system for life. I know it’s not a fair challenge, but can any robot + filter system beat that operating/maintenance cost?

I have vacuumed 3 times this year, and about the same last year. I used to brush the sides of my pool (sometimes after a monsoon until I found vacuuming is much easier). I don’t brush anymore. The fact that there is occasionally larger debris in my pool (mostly big leaves) doesn’t bother me 7 months out of the year, most of the time I don’t even bother to fish them out. During swimming season I mostly take them out by hand.

I’ve spent more time discussing this thread’s issue than I have spent actually maintaining my pool for the last couple years combined. That of course doesn’t include projects like my stenner pump, equipment shade, remodel, etc.

When I think about those things it makes me realize, HEY I REALLY LIKE MY IN-FLOOR CLEANING SYSTEM. Oh and by the way, I AM stuck with. Not using it isn’t an option that makes any sense to me at all.

Others’ in-floor cleaning systems may not be able to match mine…but there are definitely things that can be done to improve them. Effectiveness can be improved. Efficiency can be improved. SATISFACTION with these systems can be improved.

If discussion ends on this thread because in general robots ARE more efficient, and the conclusion that owners of pools with in-floor cleaning systems should get a robot, I’m ok with it. But it is NOT true for me, especially now that these discussions on this thread have helped me understand the reasons behind WHY I have seen such improved effectiveness and efficiency with my system, and how they could benefit so many others with in-floor cleaning systems.

While it’s been a blast, it takes a lot of time and energy to engage on boards like this and, truthfully, I am exhausted. I’ll continue to work on and try to understand my system better because I’m a tinkerer.

Mitchellb…it seems like you may have found the optimal settings for your pool (2 hours a day cleaning and it works). Dodger, I have learned a lot through our discussions, I don’t know if you feel the same way, but you definitely seem to be looking for ways to improve your in-floor system. Gvc…congrats on your new pump, hopefully you can get it to work effectively in your system. Runboy…sorry, I haven’t really had the time to engage with you yet…but I saw a comment you made about your waterfall running in parallel to your cleaning system made it “seem” to all work better…you could probably optimize that setting. Rob, as always, thanks for the support and the banter. And finally, Mark, like me…you have had to spend a LOT of time engaging to get me to understand that the optimal operation for energy efficiency IS the point at which the manifold PSI requirements are JUST met…thanks. I now understand that.

To those that have been reading but not participating, I hope you have found some value in these discussions. Let the discussions continue if there is a desire, but I need to get some rest, haha.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

I've enjoyed this thread because I also like to tinker with my in-floor. And like you, a robot is not a likely future member of our household. We have stools and a bar in the pool that complicate robot benefits, and no monsoon-like issues to cause any big messes. Occasional brushing and vacuuming is not a hardship for me.

This thread has inspired me to pull in my re-plumbing job (was going to wait till the off-season). All the PVC is lined up, just awaiting new 3-port valves, a check valve, and... a FlowVis. Jon, at the least, you got me thinking about flow and not just pressure (tinker, tinker ).

The main goal of the replumb is to reduce the rather large head loss between filter and floor manifold, which holds the in-floor back from meeting minimum pressure in most zones. With the replumb, some crazy maze-like plumbing routes will be cleaned up, an old faulty swing(?) check valve will be replaced, and a heater bypass will be added. If I gain a few psi in the floor manifold, then I can start playing with "optimization".

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Dodger, this turned into a much longer post than I expected…since you are re-doing your plumbing, there is at least one suggestion that might help you to decide what you might want to do…

FlowVIS !

Here’s a little more background on mine. My FlowVIS was an impulsive buy, unfortunately just AFTER I had finished the redo of my pool pump equipment. It must have been on sale or something; I don’t exactly remember why I got it.

Next, I started doing some research about how to install it and what to do with it. Most of the posts on this site were by “tinkerers” (my new favorite word) like ourselves who just wanted to know more about their system. Probably about half of those threads (this is certainly an exaggeration, I tend to do that sometimes) ended with various experienced users on this site indicating that you really don’t need to know the GPM through your system. Oh and, by the way, if you HAVE to know it, it can be calculated by using pipe lengths/fittings, psi, rpm, head, xxx, yyy . I had no clue what the heck they were talking about.

The other half of those FlowVIS threads (once again probably an exaggeration) ended with some sort of claim/accusation that the person installing the FlowVIS must be looking for some way to calculate the turnover of their pool , which is a theory of pool cleaning that apparently has been totally debunked by the TFP community.

So…my FlowVIS has sat in my garage for the last four years. Last Sunday, I was in the mood to “tinker” after I finished my Stenner Pump install.

Like FlowVIS, I’m sure you are aware that in-floor cleaning systems are a similar “b@st@rd child” here on the forums (to some extent, Stenner Pumps are as well). People posting problems with their in-floor cleaning systems are many times met with the “get a robot” response when that may not be the best solution for their situation, especially to their immediate problem at hand.

So, when I started this thread a week ago, I KNEW I already had two counts against this (FlowVIS and in-floor-cleaning). After posting all my data (the first four posts), I was stuck at what to do next. The posts had all of (something like) 22 views – probably all of them mine. That’s when I decided to post the pointer to this thread (from the cleaning system thread) with the brazen claim of doubling my effectiveness and improving my power efficiency (both terms I freely admit that I made up). I was dying to get some eyes on this experiment to figure out what was going on. I have zero experience or background with flows, PSI, head (a term I still have no clue on), but obviously that didn’t stop me from theorizing (haha). I was later scolded by a moderator , and rightly so, for starting a double-thread, but he agreed to leave the post in the other forum up temporarily…and thank god for Mitchell, a response!

The process for me to finally get to HERE, to my NEXT steps was messy; I didn’t understand what was happening in my system, but now I do. I’ll be the first to admit that the journey was painful (the 100+ posts) and wasn’t necessarily the best way for me to get here (posting on the fly… using incorrect terms, unclear thoughts, and plain just WRONG assumptions). I won’t do that again.

My “rush” to get HERE was somewhat motivated by conversations with a buddy of mine from Intel, one of the smartest guys I know. He happens to be a tinkerer with one of the most complicated residential pool systems that can be imagined. I think he has 8+ pumps, chlorine system, ozone system, heating capability (that is captured from his cold plunge which is cooled all the time), cooling capability (that is captured from his indoor heated spa which is heated all the time), some interaction with his sauna which I don’t remember, in-floor cleaning, and an automatic pool cover which is one reason he doesn’t have the same problem with monsoons. He is currently busy with other projects but recommended to me that IF I think there are any new ideas in these experiments and discussions, and don’t have any intent to pursue patents on them myself, then I should get declare them in the Public Domain in case it triggers realizations (by someone) who does figure out something patentable. He has many, many patents from his work in the electronics/cryptographic field and we both agreed that on a surface level, there was NO way a valve adjustment is patentable, but extensions/variations of it might be. So, it might have seemed a bit presumptuous for me to make that Public Domain declaration before I understood what was behind my system’s improved effectiveness and efficiency …but, it was "just in case".

Here’s where I am headed and in no rush to do it. Now that I have my PSI gauge and realize how important it is to this process, I am going to:

1. do some PSI curves (various values, holding it constant at the manifold), I have some ideas but I’m not going to throw them out there anymore half-baked, haha
2. Temporarily take off the actuator on my Jandy Valve so I can manually fine tune it for my planned experiments. I may end up permanently putting a new manually operated valve between the filter output and my wall returns based on these experiments (this path is what might be interesting to you for your plumbing redo)
3. Clean up and/or document some of my incoherent/wrong comments that are in this thread…not to cover up my mistakes/misteps, but to ensure that others who might find value in these experiments are not misled.
4. Here is a crazy one…we all agree that judging exactly how our popups are “cleaning” is really hard. My buddy suggested I just throw some dirt in the pool, kind of like the dye test suggested earlier in this thread. No, I am not going to do it now…but the day before I next clean my filter…hey, it’s a possibility, haha.

For me, these next steps would have not been possible without the input on this thread, so when I thank everybody who participated, I really DO mean it. But, I am obviously frustrated with the superior forces of the robot empire, sorry if I offended anyone.

That’s where I am headed, and from your comments, it sounds like I won’t be the only one. I’m not in this to reduce my $70/year cost to keep my pool clean…when I have the time and inclination, this stuff is fun!

 

[runboy]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Jon,

Question for you. Is the FlowVIS really that important if you have a pump that displays both Watts and RPM? I was thinking about installing one, but after Mark mentioned that for every RPM & Wattage there is only one possible GPM for a pump, I figured I would just look up the numbers on the Pump/Pool Spreadsheet.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

runboy, if the pump's GPM number is accurate then there is no problem, my pump doesn't have it to my knowledge, but I will double check. I would imagine that your pump has those "Watts/RPM/GPM tables" built into them (I don't think they really measure the volume) and I would hope they are accurate for that particular pump. Mark did see some discrepancies in his general model when he applied them to my particular pump. All this is surmising, Mark would definitely know better.

 

[runboy]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

runboy, if the pump's GPM number is accurate then there is no problem, my pump doesn't have it to my knowledge, but I will double check. I would imagine that your pump has those "Watts/RPM/GPM tables" built into them (I don't think they really measure the volume) and I would hope they are accurate for that particular pump. Mark did see some discrepancies in his general model when he applied them to my particular pump. All this is surmising, Mark would definitely know better.

My pump doesn't have the GPM output, but I use Marks excel spreadsheet to convert RPM and Watts into GPM

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method for Increasing the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Here is what Mark said...

Actually, the 100 case matches the pump model perfectly. I think I might know what is going on. The in-floor system is a dynamic plumbing system in that the different zones have different head loss (i.e. manifold pressure) and as the zone valve moves around, the pressure changes, flow rates change and motor power will change. So it really depends on when you take the measurement. Since it is impossible to measure everything at the same time and at the same zone location, it might be impossible to get representative measurements in an environment of this sort. You would have to make periodic measurements through the entire zone cycle and then average them. But I would not suggest that you actually do that.

But prior to taking my measurements I mentioned that I discovered the purpose of that little lever on top of my manifold that actually stops the manifold valve from rotating. I used that (after taking 10 minutes to figure out, haha). It was rock steady on a zone that I chose in the middle of the pool (not the closest, not the farthest). No valve movement during all those measurement (1st or 2nd run). The pump reading for watts also settled quickly after each RPM change and didn't move much either.

So....if Mark's tables only work for the 100% case then that makes me wonder...that's about all I can say about that but I am pretty confident in the FlowVIS measurements for comparison purposes.

 

[runboy]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Maybe I'm using his spreadsheet wrong, but I don't see the big discrepancy in your 50/50 numbers. 91 vs 83 GPM is within 10%

Pump Model	EcoStar SP3400VSP
Pump ID	52
Manufacture	Hayward
Nameplate HP	2.00
Service Factor	1.35
Measurements	Calibration
RPM	3105
Watts	1610
BEP Flow Rate (GPM)	161
Actual Flow Rate (GPM)	83
Head Loss (ft)	63
Plumbing Curve	0.0091
Energy Factor (gallows/watt-hr)	3.1

 

[mas985]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Most of the values are within 10%. The model starts to deviate at lower RPM due to measurement tolerances and variances in the plumbing curve. But if you calibrate at full speed and use the estimate column for lower RPM (per the model documentation), the accuracy is a bit better:

Run2	50% In-Floor
Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter Pressure	Manifold Pressure	G/kWh		Model GPM	Error	Estimate GPM	Error
100	3450	2233	100	26	17	2687		95	5%	95	5%
95	3278	1918	94	23.5	15.5	2941		90	4%	91	4%
90	3105	1618	91	21	13.5	3375		84	8%	86	6%
85	2933	1342	86	19	12	3845		76	11%	81	6%
80	2760	1126	80	16.5	10.5	4263		72	10%	76	5%
75	2588	921	74	15	9.5	4821		66	11%	71	3%
70	2415	755	68	13	8	5404		62	9%	67	2%
65	2243	609	62	11	7	6108		57	8%	62	0%
60	2070	490	58	9.5	6	7102		54	7%	57	1%
55	1898	391	52	8	5	7980		52	1%	52	-1%
50	1725	315	48	6	3	9143		52	-8%	48	1%
Run2	100% In-Floor
Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh		Model GPM	Error	Estimate GPM	Error
100	3450	1645	50	34	30	1824		50	0%	50	0%
95	3278	1412	48	30.5	27	2040		47	2%	47	1%
90	3105	1202	45	27.5	28	2246		44	1%	45	0%
85	2933	1005	42	24.5	21	2507		41	3%	42	-1%
80	2760	847	40	22	18	2834		39	3%	40	0%
75	2588	702	38	19	16	3248		36	5%	37	1%
70	2415	570	34	16.5	14	3579		33	3%	35	-3%
65	2243	473	31	14.5	12	3932		32	-5%	32	-5%
60	2070	391	29	12	10	4450		33	-12%	30	-3%
55	1898	318	26	10	8.5	4906		32	-25%	27	-6%
50	1725	260	22	8.5	7	5077		34	-54%	25	-13%
45	1553	212	20	7	5	5660		37	-83%	22	-12%
40	1380	173	18	5.5	4.5	6243		41	-127%	20	-11%

The lower RPM deviation for the 100% case is most likely due to the check valve. Check valves change the plumbing curve characteristics with flow rate so at lower flow rate, they tend to add proportionally more head loss to the plumbing because the flapper is more closed which in turn creates more friction loss. So simple RPM scaling of GPM does not work as well for those cases but it is still fairly close.

However, if you do decide to add a FloVis, I would put it right after the filter on the pressure side of the pump. Having extra head loss on the suction side of the pump is generally not advised unless you really don't have a choice.