Post Your Piping Diagrams

Sid said:

It seems there isn't really a central place for people to post piping diagrams of their system.

As a new member working on an a wood gasser installation of my own (here), it would be great to look through a few.

Plumbing schematics, pictures, or even rough drawn stick figures, anything that shows how the darn thing is piped. Not only would I find it helpful but others may have similar setups to one another which could start some good talks about performance/results.

Myself, I plan to got the Nofossil route, since it closely resemble what I have already set up, bit maybe there are others/variations...

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what is going on in NoFossil's system ( https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/pressurized-storage-solution-for-biomass-boilers/ ) but I see some issues that are possibly questionable. First off, it's one system, shouldn't their be only one expansion tank? Second, the expansion tank should usually if not always be placed before the circulator. (Gil Carlson) Third their should be some thermostatic mixing valve also on the oil boiler unless of course it a mod/con oil boiler. A cast iron oil boiler might not like the potential of a lot of water coming back at 135ish. In my opinion the NoFossil plumbing layout will work. He's got flow, hot water, and emitters. That will heat up a room. There is just better ways to plumb it in my opinion.

EdisonBurn said:

I'm not exactly sure what is going on in NoFossil's system ( https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/pressurized-storage-solution-for-biomass-boilers/ ) but I see some issues that are possibly questionable. First off, it's one system, shouldn't their be only one expansion tank? Second, the expansion tank should usually if not always be placed before the circulator. (Gil Carlson) Third their should be some thermostatic mixing valve also on the oil boiler unless of course it a mod/con oil boiler. A cast iron oil boiler might not like the potential of a lot of water coming back at 135ish. In my opinion the NoFossil plumbing layout will work. He's got flow, hot water, and emitters. That will heat up a room. There is just better ways to plumb it in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Apparently nobody at hearth.com is interested in analysis or improvements concerning the Simplest Pressurized Storage System Design. The thread is closed for replies and anything you may have to say here will be viewed a few times, then will be lost among the other 131,385 [and counting] threads, and is therefore not needed. Welcome to hearth.com!

I will work on showing what I have in terms of piping, I was planning on doing a diagram of existing, and future changes....

Here's a quick & dirty 5 minute sketch of mine, if this works:

EdisonBurn said:

I'm not exactly sure what is going on in NoFossil's system ( https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/pressurized-storage-solution-for-biomass-boilers/ ) but I see some issues that are possibly questionable. First off, it's one system, shouldn't their be only one expansion tank? Second, the expansion tank should usually if not always be placed before the circulator. (Gil Carlson) Third their should be some thermostatic mixing valve also on the oil boiler unless of course it a mod/con oil boiler. A cast iron oil boiler might not like the potential of a lot of water coming back at 135ish. In my opinion the NoFossil plumbing layout will work. He's got flow, hot water, and emitters. That will heat up a room. There is just better ways to plumb it in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't think the diagram was ever meant to be an all-inclusive diagram on how to plumb a multi-source system. How would I know how to plumb it without someone telling me where to put the ball valves and elbows? Ha.

I can only assume Nofossil's existing oil boiler was plumbed correctly since he appears to be a very meticulous person when it comes to these kinds of things. Assuming he ignored return protection for the oil boiler would be a stretch for me.

In terms of expansion tanks if your intent is to ever be able to isolate your two heat sources (in this case an oil boiler and a wood boiler) you'd want expansion tanks on both sides so you can run the system with one of the sources shut off, say for maintenance or repair.

Shoot, I have three expansion tanks on my system! Shhh...don't tell Gil Carlson.

Thanks Maple1.

stee6043 said:

I don't think the diagram was ever meant to be an all-inclusive diagram on how to plumb a multi-source system. How would I know how to plumb it without someone telling me where to put the ball valves and elbows? Ha.

I can only assume Nofossil's existing oil boiler was plumbed correctly since he appears to be a very meticulous person when it comes to these kinds of things. Assuming he ignored return protection for the oil boiler would be a stretch for me.

In terms of expansion tanks if your intent is to ever be able to isolate your two heat sources (in this case an oil boiler and a wood boiler) you'd want expansion tanks on both sides so you can run the system with one of the sources shut off, say for maintenance or repair.

Shoot, I have three expansion tanks on my system! Shhh...don't tell Gil Carlson.

Click to expand...

In a system that has only one tank the tank connection becomes the 'point of no pressure change' because the pump can neither add water to the tank nor remove water from the tank, respectively because there is no place to take it from and no place to put it. This changes when there is more than one tank. Operation of the pump can now take water from a tank on the inlet side of the pump and put it into a tank on the discharge of the pump. There will be no predictable 'point of no pressure change'.

This is not recommended. If there is more than one tank they should all be connected at the same place, close to the inlet of the pump. (Jerry Boulanger)

GENECOP said:

I will work on showing what I have in terms of piping, I was planning on doing a diagram of existing, and future changes....

Click to expand...

Thanks Genecop, the more the better

I also have two expansion tanks. I just left the existing cushion tank that was in the joists above the old boiler in place, and tied it to the top of the boiler same as the old one was. The bigger one (also cushion) I added for expansion volume for the added storage tanks is tied in just upstream from my main load circ. I might even be adding another cushion tank above my storage tanks next year, when I replace my big cushion tank with a bladder tank.

Might not be 'proper', but it works - which I thought was the purpose of this thread. Otherwise there are likely quite a few pro piping diagrams in the stickies above that would suit. You likely won't get many more offering up diagrams of what they did and is working for them, if they will then get picked apart for being a little bit 'improper' in places.

EdisonBurn said:

In a system that has only one tank the tank connection becomes the 'point of no pressure change' because the pump can neither add water to the tank nor remove water from the tank, respectively because there is no place to take it from and no place to put it. This changes when there is more than one tank. Operation of the pump can now take water from a tank on the inlet side of the pump and put it into a tank on the discharge of the pump. There will be no predictable 'point of no pressure change'.

This is not recommended. If there is more than one tank they should all be connected at the same place, close to the inlet of the pump. (Jerry Boulanger)

Click to expand...

I suppose with sufficient time we could all prove to ourselves that not a single one of our systems meets all of the textbook requirements according to one or more of the acclaimed authors we've heard about or studied.

Sid, I posted a link to my original install in one of your other threads. Perhaps you will find it useful. Don't tell Edison but I primarily copied the Nofossil diagram with a few changes required to make my system work the way I needed it to work.

EdisonBurn said:

I'm not exactly sure what is going on in NoFossil's system ( https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/pressurized-storage-solution-for-biomass-boilers/ ) but I see some issues that are possibly questionable. First off, it's one system, shouldn't their be only one expansion tank? Second, the expansion tank should usually if not always be placed before the circulator. (Gil Carlson) Third their should be some thermostatic mixing valve also on the oil boiler unless of course it a mod/con oil boiler. A cast iron oil boiler might not like the potential of a lot of water coming back at 135ish. In my opinion the NoFossil plumbing layout will work. He's got flow, hot water, and emitters. That will heat up a room. There is just better ways to plumb it in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Why don't you post your better way to plumb it. So we can all learn how to do it right!

Are we not here to discuss the pros and cons of other install designs? Im starting to wonder why their is so much hate in following the design recommendations from manufacturers like Callefi, Tarm, and Taco and especially on this thread. These are multi million dollar companys that spend tons of time and money on the R&D of hydronic systems. Fireplaces once heated houses also. Taco even has free cad software to help lay it all out and gives real time stats of the current design system such as flow rates and load drop calcs. I understand the reasoning behind a custom system design to help with the retro fitting of older systems but I believe that SID is essentially installing a full new system and I dont see the reason to not plumb according to industry standards. I do not see any real cost difference between making it "work" and making it "right" . Not wanting to discuss pros and cons of other systems doesn't help anyone progress. Im a firm believer in the KISS approach but one does need to know the fundamentals first.

BoilerBob said:

Why don't you post your better way to plumb it. So we can all learn how to do it right!

Click to expand...

I plan on it! Waiting on SID to get the cad drawings of the tanks and I will go from their. I am not designing anything new...i'm coping standard ASME mech layouts. The hard part has already been done by a PE. Once you find the right design its like playing with legos.

Not throwing stones here, but there is a right way and then a practical way for people on a budget.

My install works, and thats ok. It can be improved, and I intend to do that as well. But to do it "right" would have been several thousand more dollars.

I have multiple expansion tanks, but only because I was too cheap to pull the others out. And when you have multiple pumped loops its hard to find a point of no pressure change.

Even a PE makes mistakes, and ASME layouts might not suit what you really need. ( maybe extra elbows here, fittings there, etc.)

I'll be happy to post my diagram as soon as I can get around to putting it in CAD.

EdisonBurn said:

Are we not here to discuss the pros and cons of other install designs? Im starting to wonder why their is so much hate in following the design recommendations from manufacturers like Callefi, Tarm, and Taco and especially on this thread. These are multi million dollar companys that spend tons of time and money on the R&D of hydronic systems. Fireplaces once heated houses also. Taco even has free cad software to help lay it all out and gives real time stats of the current design system such as flow rates and load drop calcs. I understand the reasoning behind a custom system design to help with the retro fitting of older systems but I believe that SID is essentially installing a full new system and I dont see the reason to not plumb according to industry standards. I do not see any real cost difference between making it "work" and making it "right" . Not wanting to discuss pros and cons of other systems doesn't help anyone progress. Im a firm believer in the KISS approach but one does need to know the fundamentals first.

Click to expand...

What hate? I don't see it? I think everyone here is quite appreciative of any help that comes from the pros.

You kind of answered/addressed things yourself in your post - most likely people on here who did their systems themselves, adapted it to something that was already in place, or to meet their own situation (the custom design aspect you mention) & circumstances. That was certainly the case for me. So in Sids case, or someone else starting from a clean slate - certainly, go with a pro diagram. That's what they're there for. And to learn from. You could likely find some differences between the manufacturers designs & principles also - but it doesn't mean one is right & the other is wrong, or they hate each other.

I'll be happy to post my diagram as soon as I can get around to putting it in CAD.

I've been meaning to CAD mine up since I installed it. Or I should say, revise the one I had going before I started, and do an As-Built. Hasn't happened yet in 2+ years.

Sometimes the napkin approach is quite efficient.

Clarkbug said:

Not throwing stones here, but there is a right way and then a practical way for people on a budget.

My install works, and thats ok. It can be improved, and I intend to do that as well. But to do it "right" would have been several thousand more dollars.

I have multiple expansion tanks, but only because I was too cheap to pull the others out. And when you have multiple pumped loops its hard to find a point of no pressure change.

Even a PE makes mistakes, and ASME layouts might not suit what you really need. ( maybe extra elbows here, fittings there, etc.)

I'll be happy to post my diagram as soon as I can get around to putting it in CAD.

Click to expand...

Multiple expansion tanks are fine in a system as long as they are all connected to one single header. Again, a system with flow, heat and emitter will work. SID, are you designing around a budget or are you having the design create the budget. I say we look at the pros and cons of all piping systems and price out the difference between each. I agree completely that PE's make mistakes, but they usually don't publish the mistakes in journals and standards posted for the world to see.

EdisonBurn said:

Are we not here to discuss the pros and cons of other install designs? Im starting to wonder why their is so much hate in following the design recommendations from manufacturers like Callefi, Tarm, and Taco and especially on this thread. These are multi million dollar companys that spend tons of time and money on the R&D of hydronic systems. Fireplaces once heated houses also. Taco even has free cad software to help lay it all out and gives real time stats of the current design system such as flow rates and load drop calcs. I understand the reasoning behind a custom system design to help with the retro fitting of older systems but I believe that SID is essentially installing a full new system and I dont see the reason to not plumb according to industry standards. I do not see any real cost difference between making it "work" and making it "right" . Not wanting to discuss pros and cons of other systems doesn't help anyone progress. Im a firm believer in the KISS approach but one does need to know the fundamentals first.

Click to expand...

I think you're right and yes, we are here to debate the good and the bad. I just think your approach has been a bit off-putting. Instead of simply saying "you're doing it wrong and here is how I know" you could provide some guidance or specific suggestions if possible. That's what these boards are really about as far as I can tell.

Sorry if you feel like you're being ganged up on. That surely wasn't my intent. But outlining problems and referencing textbook authors to support your claims isn't particularly helpful to the average Joe DIY Plumber/Installer.

So far, 1 diagram, lol.
I hear the as-built procrastination. For me it's the 'controls' too. A year from now I'll never remember what I did or meant to do!

Uh yeah, another thing on my to-do list - compose a manual for my system.

Don't wait for the press release on that one.

Here's the load side of my system. Buffer tank is 30 gallons.

Note how the in-floor PEX loads pull from the bottom of the buffer tank.

In this design DHW and hot tub heat exchangers are tankless coils in the top of the buffer tank in reverse-indirect configuration. An alternative would be to draw from the top of the buffer tank to supply an indirect water heater. The design goal is the same in either configuration: to provide a separate zone at the top of the buffer tank with its own aquastat (labeled "DHW MIN" here) to maintain a layer of hot water to supply heat for DHW.

The aquastat labeled "RAD MIN" sets the minimum return temperature for the baseboard and radiator zones. Baseboard and radiator zones pull from middle of buffer, below the DHW zone.

The transfer pump (drawn but not labeled) that pulls from the bottom of the buffer tank is activated if either aquastat DHW_MIN or RAD_MIN is calling for heat and the temperature at the top of storage is at least a little hotter than the bottom of the buffer tank.

If there were only one right way to pipe these systems this would be a boring list.

There are a handful of basic rules and thermodynamic laws that cannot be broken, or will not be forgiving while trying to. Hot goes to cold, regardless of what the lines on paper show. You can only fool a circ pump for so long. Horsepower does not always = comfort.

Safety should be first and foremost, after that pipe away. The bad designs and mis-piped systems will become evident quickly.

Understanding this is a predominantly DIYer site, $$ is a huge motivator.

Trust me manufacturers are not out to rip you off, it's a small industry, low margins. I've been on both sides.

Qualified, experienced contractors and installers will not, and should not be cheap to hire, it's an expensive business to run. Prices I see and hear commonly range from 100- 300 bucks an hour.
The DC area being at the high end, politicians have boatloads of PAC money to spend on their pads these days. my contractor friends in that area have a waiting list, $100K mechanical systems are not uncommon.

If you don't want to, or don't have the budget to hire a pro, or buy a quality hydronic component don't disparage them, they spend millions educating the industry, and it doesn't cost you a penny to get access to that info these days. All boats rise when education is made available on sites like this, and from the industry.

My system changes every year or so, depends on what products fall into my lap.
I'm happy with this blend of RE and fossil fueled system. Wood and solar can carry the entire load. The HTP solar Phoenix has a burner mid tank, so at worse I heat 40 gallons with LP.
Unique is the same water is in every part of the system. DHW is generated via a low flow switch and small plate HX. Shower-able temperature down to 110F in the tank.

A few off the shelf solar controllers do the controlling.

Thank you sir Dudley for the piping layout and explanation. Question 1 ...are you heating another tank for dhw using the coil hx or is the dhw coil hx in the buffer tank acting as a hot water on demand setup? Question 2 can wait to be answered whenever but would a buffer tank be considered a storage tank or are they considered different types of equipment for different purposes?

EdisonBurn said:

Question 1 ...are you heating another tank for dhw using the coil hx or is the dhw coil hx in the buffer tank acting as a hot water on demand setup? Question 2 can wait to be answered whenever but would a buffer tank be considered a storage tank or are they considered different types of equipment for different purposes?

Click to expand...

1. The DHW coil is a fairly large indirect coil like you would find in a boiler and is big enough to supply hot water for laundry and a shower simultaneously. But I take the output of the DHW coil through a Taco 5000 series mixing valve configured as a diverter valve where the output goes to the bottom of an electric water heater if it is below 135 degF and goes directly to the DHW demand (through a tempering mixing valve) if it is hot enough already. (I only heat up the main storage a little once in a while during the summer so there isn't necessarily wood heat for DHW all the time.)

2. Buffer tanks serve a few different purposes.

When I'm burning oil the buffer lets the oil burner run for longer stints so there's no short-cycling.

(Also the pump that runs the loop from the buffer to the oil boiler is just a 007, but it flows close to 20 gpm, which mixes in cold slugs of return water so it is possible to maintain hot enough return temperature to the oil boiler if you set it up right. However the controls and relay logic to make this work in all cases was a nightmare so I would just use a mixing valve and be done with it if I had to do it again!)

In my system the buffer serves four other purposes.

One is to make it simple and convenient to supply heat for all the loads regardless of where the heat is coming from. Any heat source can be on-line or off-line and the heat distribution works the same seamlessly.

Another is to separate cooler return water from hotter return water depending on the zone it's coming from. The cooler return water settles in the bottom of the buffer tank and the hotter water rises, so when the buffer is recharged the water returned to storage is the coolest possible, which increases the heat capacity of storage.

When heating from storage the buffer keeps the heated water for DHW and hot tub separate from the heated water for the baseboard and radiator loads.

And finally the buffer serves as a reservoir of 'spent' water from baseboard and radiator loads that is too cool for those loads but is plenty warm for the in-floor PEX circuits. This way the in-floor loads have an opportunity to lower the return temperature to storage even further, which helps to increase the heat capacity of storage even more.

(Here's a picture of my DIY buffer tank that many have seen plenty of times already.)