Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[zakstrong]

I have another variation of the bean animal, i have horizontal runs and there have been zero issues but i would split the two siphons. Its hard to tell if it would cause problems but i imagine if one stopped for some reason it could cause an issue with the other side.

if you could bring the left size siphon straight down and make the right side straight after that last 90. if you do that gravity will take over.

 

[fickle1]

Wheew! Finally go through the entire thread. Great ideas. I want to incorporate this setup in my new 90g build. It will be a standard sized 90g with a 30g sump. I plan on using a Laguna 1500 for the return. 1500g/h @ 0'.

The plan is using 1" plumbing for the siphon and emergency and 1 1/4" for the open channel with 1" bulkheads for all 3. From what I have read, this should be acceptable for my flow.

I plan on doing a 24" internal overflow box, so only half of a c2c on my 48" tank.

My question is in regards to using the beananimal type of system with a single return pump running a manifold system. I plan on running 1" pipe from the Laguna through a manifold which will feed (3) 1/2" lines. 2 will be going to media reactors and the third will feed a small (12" square) frag tank. From there, it will be a 1" return to the tank.

As the media reactors become clogged, the flow will need to be turned up to keep them working correctly. I have read in some other threads that this type of setup doesn't work well with the BeanAnimal drain since the flow will vary over the course of a few weeks.

I know that the system is tolerant of changes in flow. My question is, is this still a viable option? I don't want to have to adjust the valve on the drain every few days if I have to increase the flow through the media.

I would really like to get away with using just 1 return pump if possible. Would this work, or would I need a separate pump to feed the manifold? Thanks!

 

[mr.maroonsalty]

With little info to go on, and strictly from what I see, no it will not work properly--if your intention is a BeanAnimal drain system.

Looking at it, you have two siphons, joined together into a single pipe, of the same size, also horizontal runs. The dry emergency, looks to be a single line, but also has a horizontal run in it. Bean's system does not run two siphons, rather a siphon, an open channel (a durso) and a dry emergency. All three pipes must be used, and all three pipes must discreet, and they must be, or they will interact in the wrong manner, and you will have a mess to sort out. (not a flood, just a headache redoing everything.) Variations, of Bean's system, result in "something else." The "something else" should be in threads of their own, unless your intention is to do a Bean system.

By joining the two siphons, you are taking the combined flow from both, and sending it down a smaller line. If the drain system flows at all (does not air lock due to the horizontal runs,) the flow capacity will be hindered by the join. (larger cross-sectional area--2 pipes > smaller cross-sectional area--1 pipe of same diameter.) Never know, it may work, but it is not a good idea.

If you are planning 2000 gph, you need to do some re-studying of the two siphon systems that have been described, do one or the other--exactly as designed, or you are going to be asking for a flood.

Also that pump with the plumbing you are describing is most likely not going to get close to 2000 gph. (running it into a tee, reduction to 3/4" etc.) I did not do all the math, but just glancing at the description, that needs to be rethought as well.

I'm still failing to see the Physics behind why this won't work, it is in fact a three drain type system:

The two 1" drains should act as one when combined into the 1 1/2" whose area is greater than twice that of 1". I am not an RPI grad, but this looks to me that it should syphon at that of 1"(2). The horizontal run on the open drain #1 actually has a 1" grade on 2', regardless, that pipe is for now up and out of the way for water testing as it may very well feed one of my refugiums which won't be in situ untill after tear down of my other system.

I am also not certain what the friction loss of what is in essence an output manifold; again there is good reason I don't survay my own property even though I can run a transom and good reason to I don't care to do the physic equations to calculate friction losses and velocity...

I do see here I have erred. While reading Sanjay http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature2 He reccommends 1500gph max for 1 1/2" not to exceed a velocity of 4ft/sec. I like the look of what the flow pattern might be as its layed out now with the stock megaflow nozzles; I'm curious how switching out everything to 2" on the supply side of the pump with the same nozzles would perform.

I admit I haven't read this thread for over two years; I remember it was as much about the ideas around larger full syphon systems as it was about the blueprint.

 

[uncleof6]

I'm still failing to see the Physics behind why this won't work, it is in fact a three drain type system:

I did not say it would not work. I said it will not work properly, if your intention is to do a BeanAnimal siphon system. Also, I said it is not a good idea.

The two 1" drains should act as one when combined into the 1 1/2" whose area is greater than twice that of 1". I am not an RPI grad, but this looks to me that it should syphon at that of 1"(2). The horizontal run on the open drain #1 actually has a 1" grade on 2', regardless, that pipe is for now up and out of the way for water testing as it may very well feed one of my refugiums which won't be in situ untill after tear down of my other system.

Theoretically yes. However, real world seldom turns out the way it would ideally be.

Assumes a 24" drop, a longer drop would increase the numbers a bit:

What I see in the photos is two 1" siphons, joining into a single 1" gate valve. The 1" siphons, each capable of flowing ~1200 gph, joining into a single line, with a flow capacity of ~1200 gph. This limits the flow capacity of the two siphons to 1200 gph combined: 600 gph per all things being equal which they are not. The length of pipe from each siphon is different, so the flow rate through each siphon will not be equal--complicating matters--a balance problem. Friction loss. It may be a minor difference, but none-the-less a difference.

Looking closer, the bulkheads are 3/4". This reduces the flow capacity to < 900 gph per siphon, combined < 1800 gph, but more than 1200 gph, which is the limit of the system as shown. You try to put 2000 gph through this system, even with 1" bulkheads, the system will flood. Actually, the dry emergency would kick in, just to handle the "overflow" excess, however that is a poor way to run a system. Any problems would invite, and it would be expected: a flood.

Assuming you could push 2000 gph through the system, the dry emergency would only be able to handle ~1200 gph, so you would be begging for a flood anyway. Even if you increased the gate valve and plumbing to 1.5", past the join, I still would not advise doing this. The dry emergency is limited to 1200 gph. Less if it is also attached to a 3/4" bulkhead.

I am also not certain what the friction loss of what is in essence an output manifold; again there is good reason I don't survay my own property even though I can run a transom and good reason to I don't care to do the physic equations to calculate friction losses and velocity...

Friction loss calculations are very simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, when using friction loss charts. There is really no necessity to get that involved with the formulas. Branches in the line, complicate the matter, as without flow meters, you don't know what the flow is, or how the flow is "splitting."

I do see here I have erred. While reading Sanjay http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature2 He reccommends 1500gph max for 1 1/2" not to exceed a velocity of 4ft/sec. I like the look of what the flow pattern might be as its layed out now with the stock megaflow nozzles; I'm curious how switching out everything to 2" on the supply side of the pump with the same nozzles would perform.

Sanjay, forgot to mention Velocity Head, the head loss due to overcoming inertia. Nor did he mention the the friction loss in the pump intake plumbing. (external pump only--usually) Without those figures you don't have the total dynamic head on the system. (I just glanced through it)

You really don't have much problem at 2100 gph (6f/s) in 1.5" pipe. Friction loss does not become "excessive" till you hit 3000 gph, and if your are pushing 3600 gph, you would be well advised to move up to 2" pipe.

You can use 2" pipe, run it into 3/4" loc-line, and kill your flow. Flow is based on the smallest diameter in the plumbing system, so the flow rate that the loc-line will premit, will be the flow rate for the system. Loc-line jumps the pressure up, and pressure increase causes friction loss increase. You get a low volume jet stream, and what we want is a low pressure, high volume flow. The additional fittings required to run multiple outlets, just adds more friction loss. Really the waste of a good pump.

I find the use of loc-line somewhat juvenile (no offense intended) and we should be using the power heads to move water around the tank, instead of using low volume jet streams from the return pump.

I admit I haven't read this thread for over two years; I remember it was as much about the ideas around larger full syphon systems as it was about the blueprint.

This thread is about one system specifically, not large system siphons in general. It is specifically targeted as a one size fits all, that is simple to implement, without a great deal of involvement with the physics of drain systems. It only becomes complicated when one tries to modify the design. Modifying the "blueprint" results in "unpredictable" performance. It works as designed. Additions, subtractions, modifications, are potentially floods waiting to happen.

 

[mr.maroonsalty]

I do understand that ph's are much better at moving water cheaply, and I said that many times, but I have modified my thinking on this; there is an important thing power heads can only help with. Power heads help suspend and organize particals, but in the end they still need to be efficiently carried down the drain, so attempting to create a flow pattern that organizes detritus and easily sends it away is my goal and requires a little more water from the sump than the ~6 times tv I once thought was about right. The lock line fittings are only one of the layouts I have. Ideally, I wanted to use the double sanitary wye but the parts at my hd aren't stocked to easily cap the middle run. I can't see the usefulness of splitting to 1 1/2" elbows, and I'll hang on to the 1" elbows to compare with during wet testing. As it is the flow restriction isn't 3/4 rather 3/4"(2) regardless, you have me pulling my inch elbows from the return bag of fittings and probably painting them black.

You are not seeing the second 1" gate coming off the wye; I only want my skimmer chamber to receive minimal flow. I do see the complication. Theroretically, it will need to put out up to 1200gph. Looks like i need to upgrade to at least one 1 1/2 valve. Much of this build is from materials I already have.

The bulkheads are standard 1" not 3/4.

Yes, the off center syphon has me curious. I expect the water to be higher in the overflow furthest away. I don't see that being a problem.

I'm curious what you feel the max flow is down through the 1" emergency bulk head with 26-28" of water in a 2" standpipe on top of it? I've always taken two measures to minimize water on the floor. the first is obvious the sump needs to handle the overflow, the second places the pump so it can't put out more water than the tank can hold. With my unstainable stone floors missing by a few gallons only gets me yelled at and a bucket full of salt water soaked towels.

 

[mr.maroonsalty]

Now that I mocked the out feed with 1" elbows I'm curious as the friction loss of (1 1" bushing, 2 1" 90• elbows)2 vs the (3/4" bushing to the double lockline)2 that came with the tank?

 

[Eud]

I can't find the 1.25" slip x 1" slip PVC street elbow for the inside of the box anywhere. BeanAnimal posted earlier that the part is a Lasco 406-168, which is indeed a 1.25" slip x 1" slip, but it's not a street (also called spigot) fitting.

Does he intend to use that 406-168 and then a little stub of 1" PVC to connect it to the bulkhead?

There's also a 409-010 fitting which is a 1" spigot x slip fitting which would allow minimal space between the back wall bulkhead and the front of the fitting to allow a narrower overflow box. Think this one would be a good substitute? I know he went up to 1.25 to avoid a possible vortex...

 

[uncleof6]

I do understand that ph's are much better at moving water cheaply, and I said that many times, but I have modified my thinking on this; there is an important thing power heads can only help with. Power heads help suspend and organize particals, but in the end they still need to be efficiently carried down the drain, so attempting to create a flow pattern that organizes detritus and easily sends it away is my goal and requires a little more water from the sump than the ~6 times tv (I agree--10x is more reasonable for the type of system we run.) I once thought was about right. The lock line fittings are only one of the layouts I have. Ideally, I wanted to use the double sanitary wye but the parts at my hd aren't stocked to easily cap the middle run. I can't see the usefulness of splitting to 1 1/2" elbows, and I'll hang on to the 1" elbows to compare with during wet testing. As it is the flow restriction isn't 3/4 rather 3/4"(2) regardless, you have me pulling my inch elbows from the return bag of fittings and probably painting them black.

You are not seeing the second 1" gate coming off the wye;

You are right I did not connect the 1" valve on the left, to the main drain system. However, the tee is 1", the "Y" is 1", reducing the capacity to a single 1" line. Whatever you do past that branch of the tee, does not mean anything except less friction loss; it will not cause more to flow through the branch from the tee, making the flow capacity for the entire drain system that of the branch of the tee: i.e., 1200 gph, if the drop is 24" (down below am seeing that may not be the case)

I only want my skimmer chamber to receive minimal flow. I do see the complication. Theroretically, it will need to put out up to 1200gph. Looks like i need to upgrade to at least one 1 1/2 valve. Much of this build is from materials I already have.

Why would you want a low flow through the skimmer section? That is really pointless. The notion is based on "bad" science, and the obsession with using a smaller return pump for energy savings.

The bulkheads are standard 1" not 3/4.

Fair enough, but there are adapters attached to the bulkhead, that reduce the pipe size to 3/4" and then back up to 1"? Why not connect 1" pipe directly to the bulkhead?

Yes, the off center syphon has me curious. I expect the water to be higher in the overflow furthest away. I don't see that being a problem.

There is one valve controlling the water level in two overflows. (Two valves that will both affect the water level in the over flows = double the problems.) All things being equal, that would not be a good idea. The valve in a siphon line is to control the water level in the overflow, not control flow rate to various parts of your sump. Like I have said before: the results are going to be unpredictable, and most likely there will be problems.

I'm curious what you feel the max flow is down through the 1" emergency bulk head with 26-28" of water in a 2" standpipe on top of it?

The maximum theoretical flow through a bulkhead, is determined by the size of the bulkhead, and the length of the drop. A simple application of Bernoulli's equation. It is not terribly accurate, as generally the size of the bulkhead is "ball parked" i.e. a 1" bulkhead is run as 1", though the actual smallest diameter in the bulkhead, is probably less than 1". However, it is close enough to work with. The smallest diameter is the one used for flow calcs, and looking at the photo, it looks like that is 3/4"?

So the 2" standpipe on top of the bulkhead is not going to change the maximum theoretical flow capacity. What it will do, is minimize the friction loss in the pipes, which will allow the flow capacity to get closer to the max theoretical flow at the given bulkhead diameter and head height.

So with a 1" bulkhead, and a 24" drop, that max theoretical flow is ~1660 gph. With 1" pipe, 1200 gph is reasonable to expect, with 1.5" pipe 1500 gph is reasonable to expect, but it will not reach 1660 gph. 3/4" is ~ 937 gph, not accounting for friction loss.

A 26" standpipe would indicate you have a bit more than a 24" drop. So what is it? That is the starting point, for figuring this system. Again, I would suggest that you put this in a new thread, as it is far off topic for this thread--more of a modified Herbie system.

I've always taken two measures to minimize water on the floor. the first is obvious the sump needs to handle the overflow, the second places the pump so it can't put out more water than the tank can hold. With my unstainable stone floors missing by a few gallons only gets me yelled at and a bucket full of salt water soaked towels.

However, robbing the return section, to keep the pump from sending more water up to the tank, than the tank can hold, is really bad logic. You need enough water volume in the return section for the pump to run several days without running dry, and burning up, when your ATO fails. Sump volume is the passive fail safe. Without it you are asking for a flood, and/or a burned up pump. Serious damage or not, it is a bad judgement call.

 

[mr.maroonsalty]

I agree this should have been in its own thread; perhaps I'll cut and paste a few posts if you don't mind. The only 3/4" in the system is now only one of the megaflow lockline fittings everything else is 1" and 1 1/2" ( a wee bit of 2") 1" is at the bulk heads which quickly jumps up to 1 1/2" until after the last wye which holds now only one 1" bushing, the other output will remain 1 1/2" w/valve. People pay decent money for recirculating skimmers; cutting the flow through the skimmer section (no evaporative water level changes) down to less than the pumps gph rating recirculates water through the skimmer. All in all the science is not at all bad, at the very least a less turbulent skimmer section will result not only in longer contact time but a more consistent bubble.

Thanks for the your help here it's given me a couple more days of thought that provided a some insight to flaws in the mock up. My goal was and is to combine two inch bulkheads in order to get close to the syphon a 1 1/2 drain provides. I worry the two remaining 1" bulkheads my not be up to the task of providing full back up. I'm becoming more convinced to shoot for around 1500gph and not only save a few watts but the two back up drains should be able to slurp and suck enough to get the job.

 

[BigH2OChief]

Glass cutting fail.

Glass cutting fail.

So my first DIY attempt cutting glass to build a weir was a complete fail. It was just to thick for this novice.

:headwalls:

With one more piece of glass on hand I'll be looking for a shop here in San Diego to do it for me.

Gonna need glass for the sump anyway so I guess its no big deal.

 

[uncleof6]

I did all my own glass fabrication, so unfortunately, I cannot recommend any shops.

 

[adamwheel]

sump turbulence

sump turbulence

I have a couple questions with respect to the bean drains and the skimmer section:

I am designing a simple 2 section sump (42"x20"x16") with baffles between the first section (skimmer)and the larger 2nd section which will lead to an external return pump (dart).

With my setup, I'll be upwards of 2500 gal/hr.

1. Will the flow/turbulence from the drains impact my skimmer performance at all or is it not an issue?

2. If it will be, what is the best solution?


This topic is related to the silent overflow, so I thought it best to post here.

Cheers and as always thank you,

Adam

 

[Kawi9_cf]

I have a couple questions with respect to the bean drains and the skimmer section:

I am designing a simple 2 section sump (42"x20"x16") with baffles between the first section (skimmer)and the larger 2nd section which will lead to an external return pump (dart).

With my setup, I'll be upwards of 2500 gal/hr.

1. Will the flow/turbulence from the drains impact my skimmer performance at all or is it not an issue?

2. If it will be, what is the best solution?


This topic is related to the silent overflow, so I thought it best to post here.

Cheers and as always thank you,

Adam

I have been curious as to whether or not this causes any issues as well as I will be implementing this overflow system on my build.

 

[uncleof6]

I have a couple questions with respect to the bean drains and the skimmer section:

I am designing a simple 2 section sump (42"x20"x16") with baffles between the first section (skimmer)and the larger 2nd section which will lead to an external return pump (dart).

With my setup, I'll be upwards of 2500 gal/hr.

1. Will the flow/turbulence from the drains impact my skimmer performance at all or is it not an issue?

This is a non-issue. The only place turbulence affects a skimmer's performance is inside the skimmer body. There is nothing external to the skimmer that will affect its performance, unless the flow rate past the skimmer is "lower" and the concentration of organics in the in-fluent is lowered (aka matching the flow through the sump to the skimmer flow--pseudo recirculaltion, or recirculating skimmers)

You will find that if the outlets from the plumbing are ~1" below the surface, the turbulence would be unnoticed. It is not like the water level is going to bounce up and down, which would affect the skimmer performance.

This topic is related to the silent overflow, so I thought it best to post here.

Cheers and as always thank you,

Adam

Not really, but what the heck.

 

[adamwheel]

Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to hear.

 

[Docmaffei]

First allow me to applaud all involved for such a profound level of altruism towards your fellow reefers with all the time and energy devoted to this thread. I've been out of the hobby for some time and it looks like I'll be jumping on the BeanAnimal bandwagon and try to utilize this overflow on my next build.

Planning a 48x48x28 rimless cube (260 gal) and need to send specs to manufacturer for drilling and overflow. Spent a significant amount of time going through this thread and I understand the basic fundamentals. My dilemma is that I'm planning a corner overflow for aesthetic purposes rather than a Calfo.

1. Is this feasible?
2. if so, I'm thinking 3x1.5in drains and 1x1in return?
3. how/where do i tell them to drill the holes
4. how big does the internal overflow box need to be to house all of this plumbing
5. What size return pump? Would a 3000gph be overkill?
6. Would a triagular shaped overflow allow less sacrifice of main tank realestate than a conventional box/rectangle and allow for better skimming?
7. also, if i was condering a closed loop in addition to the bean overflow (i.e. an additional 1 inch drain in the overflowbox with 2x1in returns entering bottom of tank from separate pump) sinse it's techically a "closed loop= what enters, returns" will this effect functionality of this overflow (BTW, I have no experience with closed loop-it simply appeals to me and could be left out if need be)

Thanks!

 

[fickle1]

Wheew! Finally go through the entire thread. Great ideas. I want to incorporate this setup in my new 90g build. It will be a standard sized 90g with a 30g sump. I plan on using a Laguna 1500 for the return. 1500g/h @ 0'.

The plan is using 1" plumbing for the siphon and emergency and 1 1/4" for the open channel with 1" bulkheads for all 3. From what I have read, this should be acceptable for my flow.

I plan on doing a 24" internal overflow box, so only half of a c2c on my 48" tank.

My question is in regards to using the beananimal type of system with a single return pump running a manifold system. I plan on running 1" pipe from the Laguna through a manifold which will feed (3) 1/2" lines. 2 will be going to media reactors and the third will feed a small (12" square) frag tank. From there, it will be a 1" return to the tank.

As the media reactors become clogged, the flow will need to be turned up to keep them working correctly. I have read in some other threads that this type of setup doesn't work well with the BeanAnimal drain since the flow will vary over the course of a few weeks.

I know that the system is tolerant of changes in flow. My question is, is this still a viable option? I don't want to have to adjust the valve on the drain every few days if I have to increase the flow through the media.

I would really like to get away with using just 1 return pump if possible. Would this work, or would I need a separate pump to feed the manifold? Thanks!

Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

 

[uncleof6]

Run the main return up to the tank, branch off the main return to run your accessories, "fuge," etc. This will minimize the friction loss in your main flow to just the one "tee" (through the run,) rather than running through several tees, each taking its share of the flow away, before you get to the tank.

Any changes in flow in the branch to your accessories will affect the flow in the main return (it will also in the configuration you described) If flow lowers in the branch, flow will increase in the main line, but with Bean's system, the open channel will handle the extra flow, so it will be seamless (no need for adjustment of the drain system.)

If you increase the flow to your accessories, you will take flow away from the main tank. Ummmmmm--no comment..............on the logic, but the drain system would adapt to the reduced flow as well. The open channel might stop flowing, depending on the amount of decrease.

I don't like the phrase "getting away with." It usually indicates a desire to use sloppy engineering--which usually results in sloppy performance. Probably the thing you are trying to "get away with" is using media that clogs up, and adjusting the system to compensate............when the media affects the flow rate, you don't adjust the flow rate, you change out/clean the media.

 

[Tsmit2909]

Ok so what size piping would you recommend for a 40 gallon breeder with a low flow sump of around 200 gals per hr or so (roughly 5 times the tank). I was considering 3/4 in myself but wasn't sure.

 

[Foreverfishy]

Question,

I have a 27 gallon Marineland Cube tank and would like to set up the Bean Animal overflow. The Dimensions are 27 Cube Glass Aquarium: 20"W x 18"D x 20"H and here is what the tank looks like http://www.petsmart.com/product/zoom/index.jsp?productId=4449731

My question 1. I want an external overflow box as I do not want to drill into the glass
..how well do the external overflows work?

2. I was thinking of either using 1/2" or 3/4" pvc pipes w/ dual returns w/ an Aqua Runner 2500 return pump (roughly 650 gph), or is there a better pipe size?


Will my idea work? After seeing others use this and how clean looking it is I want to give this a shot..plus with the equipment out of plain site it makes everything look a lot better. Does anyone have pictures of a tank my size that use this overflow style??