Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[sleepydoc]

They all feed into the one 1.5" pipe, and go down to the basement. In other words, I have only two 1.5" pipes through the floor...one supply and one return. The siphon line had to be looped outwards to accommodate the trap, while keeping the spacing needed to go up into the overflow box.

One 1.5" pipe will flow more than twice what a 1" pipe will....and it'much harder to clog it than it is to clog two 1" pipes, because it would take a larger plug to do it.

True, the tubing isn't necessary at all. Actually, having the U pipe on it is really only there to help keep things quiet. Functionally speaking, all three pipes could be just straight up and open with no fittings on it and it will work the same....but may make more noise.

I see you have a pretty good understanding of how these work. :beer:
That said, I think the possibility of a vortex forming would be greater as the "inlet" point gets closer to the top of the water. I think that is the point you're making, correct?
I agree. once I got the pump going, I figured that, worse case, I could just pull one of the pipes out and it would drain down to the sump and not overflow the tank.

I really like this setup and would do it exactly the same if I had it to do over again. My last setup was a hang on style with siphon over the tank lip....never again will I do that. I had too many mishaps that resulted in a lot of shop-vac time. :headwalls:

I agree you'll probably never have a problem, especially with the size difference in the pipes, but again, you leave yourself open for a single point of failure, and given your setup, it doesn't have to clog completely, just enough to reduce the flow to less than the return pump's flow. I've had snails crawl down pipes and partially block them on several occasions and plenty of other people have had bigger critters like anemones make it down. 1 snail + 1 anemone = 1 flood. Again, how much this actually increases the risk is difficult to quantify and something everyone needs to decide for themselves. My main point is that people understand the potential methods of failure so they make an informed decision. Regardless, it's safe to say that you're doing a lot better than a HOB overflow!

Where do you have your gate valve relative to the trap? I'm having a hard time understanding how it runs silently since there must be air in the 1.5" section of pipe. Or is the total flow just low enough that the 1.5" pipe can still run quietly, even with the air? The trap is a neat solution, but not one that I would expect to work reliably across different systems, but again I can't totally picture your setup.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say about vortices. The likelihood of one forming depends on the size of the hole, the total flow, and the relative depth. I have a coast to coast overflow with downturned 1.25" elbows running about 1000 GPH. If the water level in the overflow is less than about ¾~1" above the bottom of the ells I start to get vortices and air entrainment.

 

[BlueRoofTang]

Where do you have your gate valve relative to the trap? I'm having a hard time understanding how it runs silently since there must be air in the 1.5" section of pipe. Or is the total flow just low enough that the 1.5" pipe can still run quietly, even with the air? The trap is a neat solution, but not one that I would expect to work reliably across different systems, but again I can't totally picture your setup.

I'm sure there's air in the horizontal 1.5" pipe, but I made the trap all in 1" so that it would push all the air into the 1.5" section, where velocity will be slower and there's not a vertical drop to increase the noise level. I thought that if I didn't make the entire trap out of the same diameter as the vertical part of the siphon line, it wouldn't push air beyond it.

If I put my ear up really close to the emergency line, I can hear some air movement, but that's with the top off the box also. My return discharge makes more noise than the overflow, and that's because I have them just slightly above the water level. By doing that, it creates surface movement for a nice shimmering of light, and it also makes sure I don't siphon back out of it when power is off. I know there's other methods to do that, but I wanted to limit the amount of water that goes back to the sump (with powr off) as much as possible.

 

[fishbox]

No, it's not the open channel that needs a valve. Its the siphon line. :beer:

Good catch
Also I know it's been *** somewhere in here but does it matter if the gate valve is closer to the Overflow or closer to the sump?

 

[Rybren]

Good catch
Also I know it's been *** somewhere in here but does it matter if the gate valve is closer to the Overflow or closer to the sump?

Most folks have the valve closer to the sump.

 

[fishbox]

Most folks have the valve closer to the sump.

Thanks for the Speedy response. For my own knowledge can you please tell me why one is more beneficial than the other?

 

[adeebm]

Hey guys, I'm going with a bean setup on my new build. Wanted to run post my plans here in case there are any errors or improvements. Tank is 50G with internal overflow and 3x 1" holes. I'm aiming for about 500gph flow, so 1" should be fine. Return will be over the top. Here are some sketches:

Tank view

Sump view

I haven't seen too many examples of internal overflow beananimals, is there a reason for that? Also, is there any reason to have a cap on each standpipe instead of just the U? For cleaning?

 

[uncleof6]

Thanks for the Speedy response. For my own knowledge can you please tell me why one is more beneficial than the other?

There is not really any pat reason one would be preferable to another... however it depends on the height of the drop. A long drop into a basement will most likely be quieter with the valve as close to the sump as possible (pressure drop across the valve.) With a normal under stand drop, it won't make any difference. The preferred placement would be whatever is most accessible.

 

[uncleof6]

Yes, it is. It took me a few tries of using different length tubes to really figure out exactly how this setup works...the logic behind it.

The holes are there to allow the U pipes to completely fill with water. If you didn't have the holes, water is trapped in the top of them, and it would take a HUGE amount of flow to push it down to the sump. If you've ever used one of the HOB overflows with the upside down U pipe, you know how air gets trapped inside it and then you can't get the same flow through the pipe. In this type of overflow (Bean animal), you are submerging the U, so you can drill a hole in it. In all reality, you can actually remove the elbow from the siphon line if you want, adjust height accordingly, and achieve the exact same results.

These holes have never been required or even desirable in a BA system that has been setup properly. The issue you address is not a valid issue. Synergy Systems (where the holes idea came from) found it necessary to put holes in because their system would consistently fail, because they did not have sufficient knowledge of how the system works, but went ahead and modified it, to the point that it would no longer work, based on aesthetics, rather than proper function.

One 1.5" pipe will flow more than twice what a 1" pipe will....and it'much harder to clog it than it is to clog two 1" pipes, because it would take a larger plug to do it.

Your logic is not necessarily flawed, as the first point of failure will be in the 1" pipe, not the 1.5" "manifold" thing. On the other hand, a single point of failure in this system is not wise, and it as not safe to assume the 1.5" pipe will not occlude or be hard to occlude than the 1". There are many reasons a pipe may occlude, and it is a combination of these things that make a single failure point a poor practice.

The flow capacity of a piping system is dependent on the SMALLEST diameter. Therefore the flow capacity of the 1.5" pipe is pretty much irrelevant, for anything more than friction loss calculations.

But let's look at the basic functionality of BA's design. Three discreet pipes, each with a unique function. What you actually have is an over-engineered Herbie type setup, because in the end, you only have two discreet pipes, the double top on one is irrelevant. When people tell you it "won't work" they are right: it will not work as a BA system is supposed to, because it is not a BA system, rather a two pipe system, more inline with Herbie... in the context of this thread, a BA has 3 discreet pipes; redundant statements to make it more clear what "It won't work" means...

The basic safety features of the system rely on each pipe in and of itself being capable of "siphon" mode. Scenario: Siphon plugs. Dry emergency takes flow (which it normally should not.) Water level rises, Dry emergency goes through spasms as air purges, ultimately should achieve "siphon mode," e.g no air in the line. With the system you describe, that is not going to happen. Air will continue to be drawn in through the open channel. The air intake will increase, due to increased water flow down line, and make the system more unstable: more air = less water.

The system will continue to be unstable until the open channel allows no more air to enter. This is basically defeating the whole concept of Bean's system, and you may as well be running an improper Herbie (a siphon with a trickle drain.)

Instability is not necessarily a bad thing, as it alerts to a problem, but that really isn't the point here.

 

[uncleof6]

Hey guys, I'm going with a bean setup on my new build. Wanted to run post my plans here in case there are any errors or improvements. Tank is 50G with internal overflow and 3x 1" holes. I'm aiming for about 500gph flow, so 1" should be fine. Return will be over the top. Here are some sketches:

Tank view

Sump view

I haven't seen too many examples of internal overflow beananimals, is there a reason for that? Also, is there any reason to have a cap on each standpipe instead of just the U? For cleaning?

I have many examples of this systems set up as designed, as well as examples that have been modified (within limitations of the design.) I simply do not wish to get deeply involved with show and tell. I am not the only one that follows directions, and does not have a need to try to re-invent the wheel. Thousands of these systems built as designed are in use. You don't see them because they do not draw views, hits, likes, oooosss and ahhhhhssss because they work out of the box as promised... some have stepped up and said so, mostly what is seen however, is the desire to change this or that because of this or that... and it don't work because of both this and that...

The reason is real estate inside the tank. I find that to be invalid as it is only several inches at the top of the tank, unusable real estate. Some worry about light loss, but there is plenty of light as the physics of light in a liquid are different than in the atmosphere...(well not exactly) pretty much a lot of do about nothing. Shoving the system into small external boxes, and small internal overflows, simply defeats the efficiency. IT is a complete system. These modifications take the technology backwards. E.G. long flat weirs back to small toothed weirs. For the most part I suspect it is just misunderstanding how it all works together, and why.

The system is fine as designed, and also when "modified within certain limitations" functions as it should. Problems occur, when aesthetics, or convenience overrule the basic design criteria. Hence a 1000 opinions about a system that is very simple and straightforward... and the seemingly unending revisiting of the same mods/problems/solutions time and again...

 

[GQsmooth]

Alright. I got my system plumbing setup, I am having a hard time dialing in the siphon line, as its expelling bubbles, I pinched the valve back a bit to raise the water level in the overflow as it was kind of low, it helped but then I went to much and the open channel started taking the brunt of the load of the water.

Also my level in the tank is a bit below the black trim which is an eyesore =( Anyway to raise it up? I noticed if I increase the pump output it helps a bit.

How are you guys dialing your return pump/ siphon line?

 

[adeebm]

I have many examples of this systems set up as designed, as well as examples that have been modified (within limitations of the design.) I simply do not wish to get deeply involved with show and tell. I am not the only one that follows directions, and does not have a need to try to re-invent the wheel. Thousands of these systems built as designed are in use. You don't see them because they do not draw views, hits, likes, oooosss and ahhhhhssss because they work out of the box as promised... some have stepped up and said so, mostly what is seen however, is the desire to change this or that because of this or that... and it don't work because of both this and that...

The reason is real estate inside the tank. I find that to be invalid as it is only several inches at the top of the tank, unusable real estate. Some worry about light loss, but there is plenty of light as the physics of light in a liquid are different than in the atmosphere...(well not exactly) pretty much a lot of do about nothing. Shoving the system into small external boxes, and small internal overflows, simply defeats the efficiency. IT is a complete system. These modifications take the technology backwards. E.G. long flat weirs back to small toothed weirs. For the most part I suspect it is just misunderstanding how it all works together, and why.

The system is fine as designed, and also when "modified within certain limitations" functions as it should. Problems occur, when aesthetics, or convenience overrule the basic design criteria. Hence a 1000 opinions about a system that is very simple and straightforward... and the seemingly unending revisiting of the same mods/problems/solutions time and again...

You know, I'm not really following what you said there :spin2: Just wanna know if there's any technical reason it won't work.

 

[uncleof6]

You know, I'm not really following what you said there :spin2: Just wanna know if there's any technical reason it won't work.

"It works..."

 

[Cam080]

Hi guys,

Does anyone have any plans or measurements for a 5x2x2 using a coast to coast external overflow with BA to sump. Specifically the overflow and BA specs.

I am getting a custom tank built soon and no one in my local area knows what a BA is, whenever I ask all I get is a blank look with a really confused look on their faces and they think I'm insane! Then they just try to sell me an off the shelf tank.

So I really need to give a tank builder plans of exactly what I need so they can build the tank.

Is there anything around that I can use to give my tank builder?

 

[BlueRoofTang]

These holes have never been required or even desirable in a BA system that has been setup properly. The issue you address is not a valid issue. Synergy Systems (where the holes idea came from) found it necessary to put holes in because their system would consistently fail, because they did not have sufficient knowledge of how the system works, but went ahead and modified it, to the point that it would no longer work, based on aesthetics, rather than proper function.

It's going to be impossible to get full flow through a pipe with air trapped up in the top of it.

Your logic is not necessarily flawed, as the first point of failure will be in the 1" pipe, not the 1.5" "manifold" thing. On the other hand, a single point of failure in this system is not wise, and it as not safe to assume the 1.5" pipe will not occlude or be hard to occlude than the 1". There are many reasons a pipe may occlude, and it is a combination of these things that make a single failure point a poor practice.

Which is greater, the odds of a 1.5" blockage or of a 1? blockage?
When the cross sectional area of a 1.5" pipe is more than double that of a 1" pipe, I'm more than doubling the amount of blockage it would take to have a problem. You're counting number of pipes, instead of figuring how much area would have to be blocked. More isn't necessarily better.

But let's look at the basic functionality of BA's design. Three discreet pipes, each with a unique function. What you actually have is an over-engineered Herbie type setup, because in the end, you only have two discreet pipes, the double top on one is irrelevant. When people tell you it "won't work" they are right: it will not work as a BA system is supposed to, because it is not a BA system, rather a two pipe system, more inline with Herbie... in the context of this thread, a BA has 3 discreet pipes; redundant statements to make it more clear what "It won't work" means...

It has three pipes. I don't know what "discreet pipes" are though. It is based on the principles of a Bean Animal. A copy? No. :deadhorse: It DOES work, and it works well.

The basic safety features of the system rely on each pipe in and of itself being capable of "siphon" mode. Scenario: Siphon plugs. Dry emergency takes flow (which it normally should not.) Water level rises, Dry emergency goes through spasms as air purges, ultimately should achieve "siphon mode," e.g no air in the line. With the system you describe, that is not going to happen. Air will continue to be drawn in through the open channel. The air intake will increase, due to increased water flow down line, and make the system more unstable: more air = less water.

The original post by Bean Animal says:

"The design criteria:

1) Dead Silent
2) Set and Forget
3) Limit Bubbles in Sump
4) Failsafe to Prevent Floods
5) Easy to Clean if Needed"

I have achieved all of these. Testing of my setup has proven it works. It works silently. My intent was never to mimic somebody else, but make something that worked the way *I* wanted it to, and for my needs.

BTW, if you completely closed your siphon line (simulating a 100% blockage), and the open channel took all the flow, it wouldn't keep a siphon for long. If it did, we'd not need a valve in the siphon line to keep it full.

 

[HarrisMD]

BeanAnimal drain with long horizontal run

BeanAnimal drain with long horizontal run

Just checking to see if anyone has experience with a BeanAnimal drain to basement sump with a long horizontal run.

I am shooting for 1400-1500 GPH flow with 12' vertical drop and 27' horizontal. Total of 3-90's (using sweeps) to get from overflow to sump. I am planning on using 1-1/2" pipe, about a 3-4" slope towards the sump on the horizontal section and gate valve at the sump.

Any thoughts or experiences out there with a setup close to this?

Thanks

 

[uncleof6]

Just checking to see if anyone has experience with a BeanAnimal drain to basement sump with a long horizontal run.

I am shooting for 1400-1500 GPH flow with 12' vertical drop and 27' horizontal. Total of 3-90's (using sweeps) to get from overflow to sump. I am planning on using 1-1/2" pipe, about a 3-4" slope towards the sump on the horizontal section and gate valve at the sump.

Any thoughts or experiences out there with a setup close to this?

Thanks

If the "horizontal run" is angled down, there is little likelihood that there would be a problem. However, the friction losses in such a long run, will reduce the flow capacity of the drain line significantly.

 

[acesq]

Just checking to see if anyone has experience with a BeanAnimal drain to basement sump with a long horizontal run.



I am shooting for 1400-1500 GPH flow with 12' vertical drop and 27' horizontal. Total of 3-90's (using sweeps) to get from overflow to sump. I am planning on using 1-1/2" pipe, about a 3-4" slope towards the sump on the horizontal section and gate valve at the sump.



Any thoughts or experiences out there with a setup close to this?



Thanks

You can get the flow you want with that setup, but if you can increase the size of the drain pipe to 2", you'll be better off in the long run since biofouling will slow it down a bit over time. I have a 30' horizontal run with 5' of drop. Using 2" drain pipe with 6 sweep els. I have plenty of flow to support 1500 gph +. I run 1300 gph (measured with the apex flow meter) and have the drain valve closed more than 1/4 of the way.

When I first set up my tank I ran 1.5" drain pipe and within a year it was having a hard time keeping up with the return pump. My guess is that it was draining around 1200 gph max.

Your 12' of drop will help substantially and you probably will get away with 1.5" pipe, but I'd go with the 2" for the extra headroom.

 

[uncleof6]

It's going to be impossible to get full flow through a pipe with air trapped up in the top of it."

I do not recall mentioning anything concerning "full flow" in the discussion of the holes in the top of the siphon. My post stated they are unnecessary for the system to function properly, when the system is constructed properly.

It has three pipes. I don't know what "discreet pipes" are though.

I don't either. Typos cause confusion quite often. The correct spelling is

"discrete"
<header class="luna-data-header"> adjective:

</header> 1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.

It is based on the principles of a Bean Animal. A copy? No. :deadhorse: It DOES work, and it works well.

No, it is not based on the principles of Bean's system that consists of three discrete drain lines. Your system has only two discrete drain lines, therefore the design principle is based on what is termed the Herbie drain system. Despite the fact that the top end of one of the pipes splits in two, the discrete function of those joined pipes cancel each other out, and do not follow the BA design.

The original post by Bean Animal says:

"The design criteria:

1) Dead Silent
2) Set and Forget
3) Limit Bubbles in Sump
4) Failsafe to Prevent Floods
5) Easy to Clean if Needed"

Context. You are using information that is out of context with the nature of my post.

I have achieved all of these. Testing of my setup has proven it works. It works silently. My intent was never to mimic somebody else, but make something that worked the way *I* wanted it to, and for my needs.

That is fine, but indeed you did mimic countless people that have tried this before. However, this thread is dedicated to one system, and one system only. That is the design published by Bean Animal. There are probably at least a 1000 ways to construct a drain system that "work." A claim that this is the only way to build a drain system has never been made. That is not the point. What you built, is related to the Herbie, (only two discrete pipes.) Your "want" was to only run two pipes to the basement, rather than the three pipes required with a BA. OK, fine. But this is not the first time the joining of the standpipes (whether it is all of them or only two of them) has been brought up. Nor is it the first time, it was criticized.

BTW, if you completely closed your siphon line (simulating a 100% blockage), and the open channel took all the flow, it wouldn't keep a siphon for long. If it did, we'd not need a valve in the siphon line to keep it full.

Well first off, if the siphon becomes 100% occluded, the dry emergency takes the flow. If subsequently the dry emergency plugs, the water level rises, and trips the open channel to siphon mode, by occluding the air vent line. At that point the water level would be sufficiently high for the open channel to maintain "siphon" long enough to lower the water level (often pretty quickly due to the head height.) After that, it can only be expected to behave as a Durso that has too much flow in it, because that is exactly what it is.

Again, your system short-circuits the first safety feature, because the dry emergency can only function as an open channel, until water level is high enough to stop the flow of air into both the dry emergency and open channel. It violates the basic safety rule for running siphons: never run a siphon without a dry emergency, exactly in the same way a Herbie with a so called "trickle drain" does. In the end that is all you really have.

As for your dismissal of the single failure point in your system: they said the Titanic could not sink. What were the odds? The engineering was not well thought out enough, and the Titanic is sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean with 1200 souls aboard, 300 pulled from the water the next day. What were the odds of the Challenger exploding shortly after launch, considering the multitude of redundant fail safe/backup systems used?

It is great it works for you; and it is great that it meets your specifications. However, for this thread, it does not meet the specifications; and I have explained why twice now. Bean, myself, and a couple others, have explained it at least a hundred times prior to this. This thread is too assist those wishing to set up a BA system the correct way, and such discussions of system that deviate far from the BA system, only serve to complicate the topic for those that are unfamiliar, and those that know just enough to be "dangerous."

 

[Cam080]

So i've come up with a rough design for my new build.

Can one of the experts here that has done this before take a quick look and see if it looks OK or if something is wrong with it. I'm open to ideas and improvements. I'd rather get it right the first time as it can be expensive making changes after.

Thanks in advance!
[URL=http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/cam080/media/20170809_182923_zpsuf2jdec0.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Cam080]

Sorry for the sideways picture, for some reason it shows up portrait in photobucket but when I post here it ends up sideways!