New Construction Started - Willis, TX (north of Houston)

Question on this. Were you referring to the valve PN? If yes, I was upsizing the Jandy valve (2.5"-3") to utilize the larger port.

1655917690453.png
 
I thought that both filters were going to be 520?
No, only the main filter will utilize a 520. The basin will use a 320 mainly due to not having enough room on the pad but also that is what the PB recommended. I believe it was mentioned early in the string but it is in my signature.
Why the Rainbow 320 tab feeder?
I wondered myself. It must've been sent by mistake because I certainly didn't specify it in the proposal.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
The basin will use a 320 mainly due to not having enough room on the pad
It's the same amount of space either way.

The 520 is taller but the footprint is the same.

I recommend the 520 due to the flow requirements.

1655918500685.png

 
It's the same amount of space either way.

The 520 is taller but the footprint is the same.

I recommend the 520 due to the flow requirements.
I believe I remember you mentioning this. It seems like a lifetime ago. Furthermore if your calcs were done based on a 520, I failed to catch that and it also went over my head.

After factoring in the Flow Switch, Spring CV, XF Valves, XF Pumps and increasing the negative edge/water feature suction pipe size, I hate to take another price increase hit (which looks to be about $400.00). If I run the negative edge on the bypass, it doesn't matter what size filter, I'll get maximum flow, right? I guess my question is, do I really need a maximum flow rate when filtering the basin and will the 320 be sufficient?
 
If I run the negative edge on the bypass, it doesn't matter what size filter, I'll get maximum flow, right?
With the bypass, you should get full flow.
I guess my question is, do I really need a maximum flow rate when filtering the basin and will the 320 be sufficient?
The 320 is good to 120, which is fine for filtering at up to 120 gpm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffatola
This is what I sent to the PB so they could start ordering for long plumb. I hope I don't get any pushback on the 4".

Main Filter Pump
Returns – 2” (Two separate lines branching into three inlets each)
Skimmers – 2.5” (Two separate lines)
Main Drain – 2.5” (Reduced from 3”)
Spa Return – 2”
Spa Jet – 2.5”
Spa Drain – 3”

Water Feature Pump
Sheers – 2” (Three separate lines)
Bubblers – 2” (Two separate lines)
Suction – 4” (Increased from 2.5” - Secondary on Main Drain)

Negative Edge Pump
Returns – 2.5” (Three separate lines)
Basin Drain – 4” (Increased from 3”)

Sweep 90° elbows and 45° shall be used where possible in lieu of 90° elbows.

The sent a box full of valves. I told the PM I would spec them but I guess someone didn't get the word. They all are 2"-2.5 (slip outside) and the check valves are "SuperPro/Magic Plastics"? Will need to get this straightened out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesW
I would put one check valve between the pump and filter and one after the filter.

For the bypass, I would just put a 2-way valve on the bypass.

You can add an actuator if you want or do it manually.

There's no reason to block flow to the filter when the bypass is open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffatola
The main drains have 3 ports.

I think that the ports take 2.5".

So, I would use (2) 2.5" lines to connect to a 4" T near the main drain so that you are not trying to connect a 4" line to a single port.
 
There's no reason to block flow to the filter when the bypass is open.
In that case, isn't at least partial flow still running through the filter, therefore the bypass is operating at less than 100% capacity/flow (whatever's not running through the filter)?
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.