Hi Team!
Working on a golf job and sometime in the last week's worth of pipe sizing (I think I need a better computer...) I recall there was at least one zone that showed a negative PSI but for the life of me I can't find it. I'm in the process of valve callouts now, but even when I run the valve schedule without them it shows all blank in the psi columns. What am I missing?
I did do pipe sizing one flow zone at a time. My computer can't handle any more than that it seems.
Thanks,
Julie
Working on a golf job and sometime in the last week's worth of pipe sizing (I think I need a better computer...) I recall there was at least one zone that showed a negative PSI but for the life of me I can't find it. I'm in the process of valve callouts now, but even when I run the valve schedule without them it shows all blank in the psi columns. What am I missing?
I did do pipe sizing one flow zone at a time. My computer can't handle any more than that it seems.
Thanks,
Julie
Julie,
My guess is the negative pressure and smaller pipe sizes are a result of you closing things off and trying to isolate and size each section. The system couldn't see the big picture so it just sized portions based on the flows it saw in each section.
This is definitely a large site, and very complex to boot. I see nothing wrong with how things are setup only to say with as many Valve-in-head rotors you have, with so many main and sub loops, this would tax any system. I actually loaded up and started sizing things yesterday and let the system chug over night to see how it went with everything open. I am still on preparing 555 valves of 1393! So yes, I might suggest a few things here.
Primarily I would break this down into a much simpler shell, and try splitting things into different files (same project). I would start with a file that held the overall mainline loops, and where you tee into each of the sub-loops (after each of the shut-off valves) I would place a system monitor (if you would like to see what you have available at each of these points) or a Cap (if you know the demand you would like to have at each of these points). Doing this will drastically reduce the amount of path calculations currently happening for every single VIH rotor. I am positive you would see differences in sizing and pressures since you will be able to do the entire system, not just portions.
The second file could be your VIH placements with all sub-loops piped. But instead of going back out through the main loops and back to the POC, you could create separate POC's that started at each of the Caps/System Monitors you placed. The performance data you would tie to each POC would be the corresponding data that you put to that locations Cap/System Monitor, which would essentially be like a continuation of what you did in your first file, allowing you to size each POC from there. You could then XREF your first file into the second so they looked connected.
I would definitely try that, as I think you will get quicker results, allowing you to play with different setups until you get the outcome you are looking for. I would also love to hear from the masses about anything else they are doing on such large jobs!
I hope this helps, but feel free to reach out for anything else.
My guess is the negative pressure and smaller pipe sizes are a result of you closing things off and trying to isolate and size each section. The system couldn't see the big picture so it just sized portions based on the flows it saw in each section.
This is definitely a large site, and very complex to boot. I see nothing wrong with how things are setup only to say with as many Valve-in-head rotors you have, with so many main and sub loops, this would tax any system. I actually loaded up and started sizing things yesterday and let the system chug over night to see how it went with everything open. I am still on preparing 555 valves of 1393! So yes, I might suggest a few things here.
Primarily I would break this down into a much simpler shell, and try splitting things into different files (same project). I would start with a file that held the overall mainline loops, and where you tee into each of the sub-loops (after each of the shut-off valves) I would place a system monitor (if you would like to see what you have available at each of these points) or a Cap (if you know the demand you would like to have at each of these points). Doing this will drastically reduce the amount of path calculations currently happening for every single VIH rotor. I am positive you would see differences in sizing and pressures since you will be able to do the entire system, not just portions.
The second file could be your VIH placements with all sub-loops piped. But instead of going back out through the main loops and back to the POC, you could create separate POC's that started at each of the Caps/System Monitors you placed. The performance data you would tie to each POC would be the corresponding data that you put to that locations Cap/System Monitor, which would essentially be like a continuation of what you did in your first file, allowing you to size each POC from there. You could then XREF your first file into the second so they looked connected.
I would definitely try that, as I think you will get quicker results, allowing you to play with different setups until you get the outcome you are looking for. I would also love to hear from the masses about anything else they are doing on such large jobs!
I hope this helps, but feel free to reach out for anything else.
Julie Riddle
set the type of the post as
Issue — 10 months ago
Also, looks like I have a big issue with my mainline pipe sizing too - I had expected some values in the 16"+ size and am a bit shocked to see 8" as largest. Hoping you could enlighten me there as well...
Julie,
My guess is the negative pressure and smaller pipe sizes are a result of you closing things off and trying to isolate and size each section. The system couldn't see the big picture so it just sized portions based on the flows it saw in each section.
This is definitely a large site, and very complex to boot. I see nothing wrong with how things are setup only to say with as many Valve-in-head rotors you have, with so many main and sub loops, this would tax any system. I actually loaded up and started sizing things yesterday and let the system chug over night to see how it went with everything open. I am still on preparing 555 valves of 1393! So yes, I might suggest a few things here.
Primarily I would break this down into a much simpler shell, and try splitting things into different files (same project). I would start with a file that held the overall mainline loops, and where you tee into each of the sub-loops (after each of the shut-off valves) I would place a system monitor (if you would like to see what you have available at each of these points) or a Cap (if you know the demand you would like to have at each of these points). Doing this will drastically reduce the amount of path calculations currently happening for every single VIH rotor. I am positive you would see differences in sizing and pressures since you will be able to do the entire system, not just portions.
The second file could be your VIH placements with all sub-loops piped. But instead of going back out through the main loops and back to the POC, you could create separate POC's that started at each of the Caps/System Monitors you placed. The performance data you would tie to each POC would be the corresponding data that you put to that locations Cap/System Monitor, which would essentially be like a continuation of what you did in your first file, allowing you to size each POC from there. You could then XREF your first file into the second so they looked connected.
I would definitely try that, as I think you will get quicker results, allowing you to play with different setups until you get the outcome you are looking for. I would also love to hear from the masses about anything else they are doing on such large jobs!
I hope this helps, but feel free to reach out for anything else.
My guess is the negative pressure and smaller pipe sizes are a result of you closing things off and trying to isolate and size each section. The system couldn't see the big picture so it just sized portions based on the flows it saw in each section.
This is definitely a large site, and very complex to boot. I see nothing wrong with how things are setup only to say with as many Valve-in-head rotors you have, with so many main and sub loops, this would tax any system. I actually loaded up and started sizing things yesterday and let the system chug over night to see how it went with everything open. I am still on preparing 555 valves of 1393! So yes, I might suggest a few things here.
Primarily I would break this down into a much simpler shell, and try splitting things into different files (same project). I would start with a file that held the overall mainline loops, and where you tee into each of the sub-loops (after each of the shut-off valves) I would place a system monitor (if you would like to see what you have available at each of these points) or a Cap (if you know the demand you would like to have at each of these points). Doing this will drastically reduce the amount of path calculations currently happening for every single VIH rotor. I am positive you would see differences in sizing and pressures since you will be able to do the entire system, not just portions.
The second file could be your VIH placements with all sub-loops piped. But instead of going back out through the main loops and back to the POC, you could create separate POC's that started at each of the Caps/System Monitors you placed. The performance data you would tie to each POC would be the corresponding data that you put to that locations Cap/System Monitor, which would essentially be like a continuation of what you did in your first file, allowing you to size each POC from there. You could then XREF your first file into the second so they looked connected.
I would definitely try that, as I think you will get quicker results, allowing you to play with different setups until you get the outcome you are looking for. I would also love to hear from the masses about anything else they are doing on such large jobs!
I hope this helps, but feel free to reach out for anything else.
Thank you as always Jake for your detailed response! I have started by figuring out each gpm demand for each Flow Zone.
I understand totally what you've proposed with the Caps and secondary POCs. Just one problem - I can't connect lateral line to a POC. I'm stuck with this gap in attached photo... I can get from iso valve to POC via mainline, but can't bridge the distance between POC2 and the lateral line of the flow zone. All I can figure is to add a second iso valve, but would prefer not. Other options? Note, I haven't yet split this into two files, obviously.
Thank you!
Julie
I understand totally what you've proposed with the Caps and secondary POCs. Just one problem - I can't connect lateral line to a POC. I'm stuck with this gap in attached photo... I can get from iso valve to POC via mainline, but can't bridge the distance between POC2 and the lateral line of the flow zone. All I can figure is to add a second iso valve, but would prefer not. Other options? Note, I haven't yet split this into two files, obviously.
Thank you!
Julie
That worked! Took me a bit to wrap my head around it - I interpreted your comments as to put the cap downstream of the gate valve but it worked upstream. I had as-expected results when sizing the "zone" using the sub-point of connection and hit 14" mainline pipe when using the official site point of connection which was significantly closer to what I expected. The zone I used to test was not furthest away from the POC so 16" mainline should show up at some point in the process.
Off to make 97 more caps and sub-POCs! *groan* Maybe a future enhancement would be an all-in-one connection to handle this kind of thing.
Thanks!
Off to make 97 more caps and sub-POCs! *groan* Maybe a future enhancement would be an all-in-one connection to handle this kind of thing.
Thanks!
Julie Riddle
selected the reply #5544 as the answer for this post — 10 months ago
Jake, in case you want to see what it took attached is the final. If I could propose the following enhancement ideas:
Anyways, thanks for all your help!
Julie
- A way to turn all iso valves by type on or off in one shot. Pipe sizing took longer because I had some isolation valves that I missed turning OFF here and there. In hindsight, maybe I could have done select similar and then MO? Not sure.
- Pipe sizing of flow zones served by two POCs. Golf likes loops and sizing those flow zones with two taps off the mainline instead of one tap didn't work; I was required to pick one. Quite possible I simply did it wrong. Instead I picked the furthest away tap from the POC and used that one as my dominant for sizing purposes. Got lucky and didn't have PSI issues from my main POC in the end, but could have. The only way I could figure it possible to size from two is to put each flow zone into its own drawing so that you could size ALL and ALL=only the two POCs on that flow zone. Could you instead make a feature that allows for sizing only POCs within a certain flow zone, or within a work area, or within a circuit? I have both circuit and flow zones for every single area in this plan already in place so that would have been nice and easy. BONUS: combo circuit and flow zone feature?
- A combo TAP+CAP to both set demand at a location and act as a sub-POC for flow zone sizing. Bonus: have it size your sub zone and then automatically apply that data towards sizing for the mainline. BONUS BONUS: have it ID the worst one as critical path - my critical path data is showing null right now. BONUS BONUS BONUS: have it not show up in the irrigation legend (I deleted all my extra POCs manually, which I might have been able to avoid had I set the drawing up like you suggested and XREFd in). I put these on a non-plot layer but in model space they sure clutter things up.
- A way to automatically ignore unconnected valves. I have quick couplers on lateral lines in this project but they're not really ON them. The symbol is just floating on top. I ran my Verify before I started sizing and ensured that everything else was connected as it should be. The popup box when sizing was just mildly annoying lol.
Anyways, thanks for all your help!
Julie
Julie,
Let's see if we can answer some of these for what you can achieve right now.
A way to turn all iso valves by type on or off in one shot- You can do this with our Mimic Equipment and "window" option. Select a closed SOV as your source, and an open SOV as destination, then window across the plan. See the link below for how this would function.
Mimic Equipment
Pipe sizing of flow zones served by two POCs. - Sizing 2 POC at the same time isn't possible. You can see how we address this in the following link. (Circuiting and Flow zones serve two completely different purposes, so I don't think those would ever be a combo function.)
Accounting for Multiple Water Sources or Points of Connection (POCs)
A combo TAP+CAP - We actually have a few pending ideas on this, where you could xref the POC plan into a cap plan, or vice versa, and have the ability to pipe to something in an xref and have it read in the information so you don't need to place a cap in the place you had the POC. Assuming we are on the same page with the benefit of what that would offer.
A way to automatically ignore unconnected valves- You are welcome to set those on a unique layer and freeze that layer so the system doesn't see them at all, then after verifying, turn on so they show up in the schedule. Otherwise, you will have to painfully click "yes" continue anyway.
Let's see if we can answer some of these for what you can achieve right now.
A way to turn all iso valves by type on or off in one shot- You can do this with our Mimic Equipment and "window" option. Select a closed SOV as your source, and an open SOV as destination, then window across the plan. See the link below for how this would function.
Mimic Equipment
Pipe sizing of flow zones served by two POCs. - Sizing 2 POC at the same time isn't possible. You can see how we address this in the following link. (Circuiting and Flow zones serve two completely different purposes, so I don't think those would ever be a combo function.)
Accounting for Multiple Water Sources or Points of Connection (POCs)
A combo TAP+CAP - We actually have a few pending ideas on this, where you could xref the POC plan into a cap plan, or vice versa, and have the ability to pipe to something in an xref and have it read in the information so you don't need to place a cap in the place you had the POC. Assuming we are on the same page with the benefit of what that would offer.
A way to automatically ignore unconnected valves- You are welcome to set those on a unique layer and freeze that layer so the system doesn't see them at all, then after verifying, turn on so they show up in the schedule. Otherwise, you will have to painfully click "yes" continue anyway.
Forrestt Williams
changed the title from Negative pressure somewhere, but where? to Negative pressure somewhere but where? — 10 months ago
Wow! This is my favorite Forum contribution for the year. It looks like an exciting project Julie. And one that you cant wait to be over. I hope that you are well compensated. Impressive!
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Contact
- Land F/X
Our software tailors AutoCAD® to the needs of landscape architects, irrigation designers, and other professionals. We automate your most tedious tasks and ensure accuracy, giving you more time to design.