Feedback on Manifold Design Requested

[Kevin Rausa]

As a bit a of a hoarder & DIY'er, I've accumulated a fair amount of plumbing parts over the years & also have a number of APEX Flow meters that was going to use for a multi tank display. I've changed directions and will be upsizing my current 90G to 220-260G. I'm still doing my home work on the big tank but have been re-energized to improve / stabilize my 90 G. I have a bunch of equipment running on multiple small pumps and have laid out a design to replace them with a Vectra M1 dedicated manifold. The DT is on 1st floor and all other equipment is in the fish room directly below in the basement. While it may be an overkill for the number of flow meters, I'd like to know if it is fundamentally correct and if I am missing anything. While not to scale, I've included a drawing for feedback.

 

[143MPCo]

How much head height are you going to run?
The M1's max head pressure is reported @ 21.5 feet (6.5 m), if you calculate that along with you filter (GFO, BP, chiller) volume consumption and that of the skimmer, IMO that pump will struggle.

 

[Kevin Rausa]

As a bit a of a hoarder & DIY'er, I've accumulated a fair amount of plumbing parts over the years & also have a number of APEX Flow meters that was going to use for a multi tank display. I've changed directions and will be upsizing my current 90G to 220-260G. I'm still doing my home work on the big tank but have been re-energized to improve / stabilize my 90 G. I have a bunch of equipment running on multiple small pumps and have laid out a design to replace them with a Vectra M1 dedicated manifold. The DT is on 1st floor and all other equipment is in the fish room directly below in the basement. While it may be an overkill for the number of flow meters, I'd like to know if it is fundamentally correct and if I am missing anything. While not to scale, I've included a drawing for feedback.

The intake to the manifold will only be @ 2ft higher than pump. Was concerned about about hence unions and flow meters.

 

[143MPCo]

The intake to the manifold will only be @ 2ft higher than pump. Was concerned about about hence unions and flow meters.

If that's one thing I would place close attention to is the junction point from the PB to Skimmer, if you have any back pressure it might give you a flow issue as resistance will not be equal.

 

[Larry L]

I think you have at least two redundant flow meters, maybe three. I can't see how the flow out of the carbon reactor could be less than the flow into it, likewise for the biopellet reactor. Also not sure why you need a flow meeter downstream of the protein skimmer, since it should be the sum of the upstream meters (unless you're trying to detect if it's overflowing or something). Getting rid of those flow meters, plus the related unions and reducers, could simplify things quite a bit and decrease head loss.

Also be aware a number of people have reported that the Apex flow meters create quite bit of head loss on their own.

 

[Kevin Rausa]

If that's one thing I would place close attention to is the junction point from the PB to Skimmer, if you have any back pressure it might give you a flow issue as resistance will not be equal.

Would increasing that connection to 1" help? Any way to alleviate that back pressure? I was working from the perspective that the output from biopellet should go directly to skimmer to remove waste and not going back to DT.

 

[Kevin Rausa]

I think you have at least two redundant flow meters, maybe three. I can't see how the flow out of the carbon reactor could be less than the flow into it, likewise for the biopellet reactor. Also not sure why you need a flow meeter downstream of the protein skimmer, since it should be the sum of the upstream meters (unless you're trying to detect if it's overflowing or something). Getting rid of those flow meters, plus the related unions and reducers, could simplify things quite a bit and decrease head loss.

Also be aware a number of people have reported that the Apex flow meters create quite bit of head loss on their own.

The flow meters after the carbon reactor was to monitor flow to help see when the carbon needed to be replaced. I was working from the assumption that as carbon is being used that the flow slows it would indicate that it needed to be replaced.
Theoretically, doesn't the use of a manifold in general introduce head loss with the addition of plumbing fittings? My thinking was to use more unions into current config to allow for easier replacement in the future or possible splitting current config into 2 manifolds. The current reactors and skimmer have different outputs and I was trying to use what I have now to delay some of the spending.

 

[Larry L]

The flow meters after the carbon reactor was to monitor flow to help see when the carbon needed to be replaced. I was working from the assumption that as carbon is being used that the flow slows it would indicate that it needed to be replaced.

I'm not sure whether flow through a carbon reactor would slow down or not over time - I'd guess that would only happen if it was accumulating detritus and needed cleaning, and I doubt it would be able to indicate that the media needed changing. But my point was that since the reactors are closed containers, the flow into one of them _has_ to match the flow out of it, so there is no need to measure both flow going in and flow going out - they should be the exact same number.

 

[Kevin Rausa]

The intake to the manifold will only be @ 2ft higher than pump. Was concerned about about hence unions and flow meters.

Any thought about having ball and gate valves for each? My thinking was that combo would provide more control of flow to each specific piece of equipment?

 

[Kevin Rausa]

I'm not sure whether flow through a carbon reactor would slow down or not over time - I'd guess that would only happen if it was accumulating detritus and needed cleaning, and I doubt it would be able to indicate that the media needed changing. But my point was that since the reactors are closed containers, the flow into one of them _has_ to match the flow out of it, so there is no need to measure both flow going in and flow going out - they should be the exact same number.

Good point...Now I understand

 

[Kevin Rausa]

Good point...Now I understand

Thanks

 

[Larry L]

My thinking was to use more unions into current config to allow for easier replacement in the future or possible splitting current config into 2 manifolds. The current reactors and skimmer have different outputs and I was trying to use what I have now to delay some of the spending.

I just realized my previous comment about unions wasn't clear - I only meant that if you got rid of the redundant flow meters, you could get rid of any unions/reducers/connectors you needed right around those. It makes perfect sense to keep the other unions so it's easy to take things apart for maintenance or to upgrade equipment.

 

[Kevin Rausa]

thanks for the feedback...Any thought about using the gate and ball valves? I've heard nothing but good feedback about the George Fischer ball valves but the gate valves are known for more control. My thought process was that the combo for each reactor / equipment would be increase ability to control flow.