Our office is trying to figure out how to design drip irrigation with Irrigation FX in a way that provides adequate graphic information to the contractor for construction.
One recurring point of discomfort in our office is graphically showing drip irrigation hatches oriented other than how they should be installed. For example, we represent a drip area in an L shaped planting bed with a hatch with all lines are going the same direction, whereas in built reality, the drip lines would not all be going the same direction. Our details do say that drip lines should be oriented parallel to the long side of the planting area and along contours, but showing it graphically on our plans causes discomfort nonetheless.
The other sticking point is how to graphically differentiate one drip zone from another. What we are showing right now is a lateral that ends with a little tail inside a drip hatch. This works great in terms of calculation, but it's not visually clear that we're trying to tell them that this particular lateral is feeding the drip lines in that area. This is a particular issue in large/long planting beds that are broken up into multiple abutting drip zones.
Do you have examples of how others have used Irrigation FX for construction documents? If we could see how others are approaching these points, it would be very helpful.
One recurring point of discomfort in our office is graphically showing drip irrigation hatches oriented other than how they should be installed. For example, we represent a drip area in an L shaped planting bed with a hatch with all lines are going the same direction, whereas in built reality, the drip lines would not all be going the same direction. Our details do say that drip lines should be oriented parallel to the long side of the planting area and along contours, but showing it graphically on our plans causes discomfort nonetheless.
The other sticking point is how to graphically differentiate one drip zone from another. What we are showing right now is a lateral that ends with a little tail inside a drip hatch. This works great in terms of calculation, but it's not visually clear that we're trying to tell them that this particular lateral is feeding the drip lines in that area. This is a particular issue in large/long planting beds that are broken up into multiple abutting drip zones.
Do you have examples of how others have used Irrigation FX for construction documents? If we could see how others are approaching these points, it would be very helpful.
Katherine,
For the L-shaped areas, one option is to break that up into two rectangular areas. A more extreme solution is to set the dripline hatch layer as a non-plot layer, and then manually offset representative lines as desired, however you wish.
For the clarify of identifying zones, we definitely recommend the Colorize Zones option in the Valve Schedule.
Further, you are welcome to mock something up yourself. How did you show L shaped dripline areas before using Land F/X? How would you like to differentiate the different zones more clearly?
We are fundamentally constrained by what AutoCAD is capable of. As I'm sure you are well aware, a hatch pattern cannot bend around an L-shaped area. So to create that would have to be individual polylines, which are then assembled into a one-off Block. And then resizing the boundary becomes an issue, as there would need to be an ability to toggle this L-shaped blob back and forth between a single hatch, and a custom L shaped thing.
So most users do rely on the Detail (and obvious Contractor know-how) to explain how the dripline is to be run. But again, if you have ideas on better ways to it, then by all means please send some examples in.
--J
For the L-shaped areas, one option is to break that up into two rectangular areas. A more extreme solution is to set the dripline hatch layer as a non-plot layer, and then manually offset representative lines as desired, however you wish.
For the clarify of identifying zones, we definitely recommend the Colorize Zones option in the Valve Schedule.
Further, you are welcome to mock something up yourself. How did you show L shaped dripline areas before using Land F/X? How would you like to differentiate the different zones more clearly?
We are fundamentally constrained by what AutoCAD is capable of. As I'm sure you are well aware, a hatch pattern cannot bend around an L-shaped area. So to create that would have to be individual polylines, which are then assembled into a one-off Block. And then resizing the boundary becomes an issue, as there would need to be an ability to toggle this L-shaped blob back and forth between a single hatch, and a custom L shaped thing.
So most users do rely on the Detail (and obvious Contractor know-how) to explain how the dripline is to be run. But again, if you have ideas on better ways to it, then by all means please send some examples in.
--J
Hi Jeremiah,
As far as I know, it's typically assumed that contractors are going to print construction documents in black and white. If that's true, colorizing zones is unfortunately not a great solution. Are other firms really using color on construction documents?
Prior to implementing LandFX, our firm would draw drip lines either as polylines or with hatches, and they would draw in headers. Graphically, you would see the lateral connect to a header and drip lines coming out of the header, so it was clear that those drip lines were connected to each other through the header and back to the valve through the lateral. If you had two adjacent drip areas that were on different zones, you would see that the headers were connected to different laterals, going back to different valves. This was all very labor intensive and I am not advocating that we go back to doing it that way, but we need to figure out some way to make the extents of our drip areas and what valves they connect to visually evident.
I know there are tons of firms out there using Irrigation FX. What do other people do?
As far as I know, it's typically assumed that contractors are going to print construction documents in black and white. If that's true, colorizing zones is unfortunately not a great solution. Are other firms really using color on construction documents?
Prior to implementing LandFX, our firm would draw drip lines either as polylines or with hatches, and they would draw in headers. Graphically, you would see the lateral connect to a header and drip lines coming out of the header, so it was clear that those drip lines were connected to each other through the header and back to the valve through the lateral. If you had two adjacent drip areas that were on different zones, you would see that the headers were connected to different laterals, going back to different valves. This was all very labor intensive and I am not advocating that we go back to doing it that way, but we need to figure out some way to make the extents of our drip areas and what valves they connect to visually evident.
I know there are tons of firms out there using Irrigation FX. What do other people do?
Katherine,
You are welcome to draw an additional segment of lateral line as the header, which many firms do. Some firms customize the dripline hatch to just be a solid grey.
Again, this is a difficult conversation without a graphical example -- if you could send an example that you feel is not visually clear, we can help to brainstorm ways to improve it.
--J
You are welcome to draw an additional segment of lateral line as the header, which many firms do. Some firms customize the dripline hatch to just be a solid grey.
Again, this is a difficult conversation without a graphical example -- if you could send an example that you feel is not visually clear, we can help to brainstorm ways to improve it.
--J
Oh, I didn't realize you had asked to see an example. Sorry about that! Here you go.
Katherine,
Thanks for sending that.
I would say the primary thing you could do, is to draw a representative header pipe. For instance in that little parking island just under the Storage Building. Yes, it is not entirely clear what is going on there with just the pipe dead-end. So you can either draw a cross-wise segment, looking like a header pipe, or you could consider using a Pipe Transition Point symbol.
Another thing you could do, is to use a different class of lateral pipe for the emitters vs. the dripline. This would give them different linetypes, which would help to differentiate them.
And again, the Colorize Zones can be very helpful, even if you only provide it to the contractor as a PDF.
--J
Thanks for sending that.
I would say the primary thing you could do, is to draw a representative header pipe. For instance in that little parking island just under the Storage Building. Yes, it is not entirely clear what is going on there with just the pipe dead-end. So you can either draw a cross-wise segment, looking like a header pipe, or you could consider using a Pipe Transition Point symbol.
Another thing you could do, is to use a different class of lateral pipe for the emitters vs. the dripline. This would give them different linetypes, which would help to differentiate them.
And again, the Colorize Zones can be very helpful, even if you only provide it to the contractor as a PDF.
--J
Katherine,
Like Jeremiah mentioned a few days ago, we have the contractors rely heavily on the irrigation details to install the dripline for our irrigation designs. The reasons we went in this direction are, first, the 'old' way of drawing every single dripline and header 'exactly' how we wanted it installed is very labor intensive to draw and modify, second, irrigation plans are inherently schematic/diagrammatic so things like valves and mainline are exaggerated for design clarity, and third, even after taking the time to draw up the individual driplines and headers, the site conditions will always differ from the 'plan' conditions and the driplines seldom get installed the way we draw them in cad.
So we use dripline hatches and pipe trasition points for the ease and speed. To show the separation between two adjacent dripline hatch areas we show the hatches at different angles and make the dripline areas hatch polyline/border print so there is a visible border between the two areas (see attached). In the instances where local water purveyors require the headers to be shown, we draw dummy header lines and transition points at these locations to 'comply' with their requirements (and get approved). In one extreme example; we've only done this for one project, we created a custom dripline line that is a land FX object and drew every single supply header and dripline (see attached). The 'exhaust headers' were again dummy lines in order to avoid 'circular piping' errors when sizing laterals. I've attached some examples of the dripline details that we use in our plans as well as screenshots of some of our irrigation plans.
In addition to having various dripline details (see attached), we also have pre-construction meeting with the installing contractor to answer their questions and have them build a mock-up of a dripline area for our approval.
Hope you all can come up with a method that works for your office.
Kindly,
Luis
Like Jeremiah mentioned a few days ago, we have the contractors rely heavily on the irrigation details to install the dripline for our irrigation designs. The reasons we went in this direction are, first, the 'old' way of drawing every single dripline and header 'exactly' how we wanted it installed is very labor intensive to draw and modify, second, irrigation plans are inherently schematic/diagrammatic so things like valves and mainline are exaggerated for design clarity, and third, even after taking the time to draw up the individual driplines and headers, the site conditions will always differ from the 'plan' conditions and the driplines seldom get installed the way we draw them in cad.
So we use dripline hatches and pipe trasition points for the ease and speed. To show the separation between two adjacent dripline hatch areas we show the hatches at different angles and make the dripline areas hatch polyline/border print so there is a visible border between the two areas (see attached). In the instances where local water purveyors require the headers to be shown, we draw dummy header lines and transition points at these locations to 'comply' with their requirements (and get approved). In one extreme example; we've only done this for one project, we created a custom dripline line that is a land FX object and drew every single supply header and dripline (see attached). The 'exhaust headers' were again dummy lines in order to avoid 'circular piping' errors when sizing laterals. I've attached some examples of the dripline details that we use in our plans as well as screenshots of some of our irrigation plans.
In addition to having various dripline details (see attached), we also have pre-construction meeting with the installing contractor to answer their questions and have them build a mock-up of a dripline area for our approval.
Hope you all can come up with a method that works for your office.
Kindly,
Luis
Irrigation Project Manager, CLIA
Glasir Design Irrigation Consulting
Glasir Design Irrigation Consulting
Thank you so much, Luis! Seeing a real graphic example of how this could work is exactly what I was hoping for. Being able to see how your firm gets all the parts to relate to one another visually is extremely informative.
If anyone else out there would be willing to share examples of how they show drip irrigation, I would love to see them!
If anyone else out there would be willing to share examples of how they show drip irrigation, I would love to see them!
Katherine,
Our methods are very similar to Luis's method. See the attached. We use the direction of the hatch to define the separate areas supplied by pipe transition points. We limit the areas supplied bu a transition point to 1" max., but mostly try to keep them to 3/4". Especially in long slender areas like parkways. To define what type of feed it is (center, end, etc,) we locate the pipe transition point and flush valves (FV) (and air relief valves (ARV) if not using the new NetafimHCVXR) to best depict the intended header and exhaust lines. For instance, in the attached example a contractor should be able to know that the area defined as "1" is a center feed since the transition point is located in the center of the area and ther are ARV's and FV's at both ends of the areas. Area "2" is an End Feed since the transition point is located on one end and there is only one ARV and FV located on the opposite side of the pattern. Area "3" is again a center feed and is configured as area 1.
I've been to the field more than once only to find that the installation was not what was intended (not our office's plans.. But the methods noted above (both ours and KadMonkey's) are dependable. recently we've gone to specifying drip indicators at the ends of all ines too. Right at the flush valve locations. These have been great. The contractor now knows that if it's installed incorrectly the indicator does not pop up (or flag) properly. Also, when doing observations we don't need to whip out our pressure gauge to prove that the system was designed improperly. They know before we get there.
I hope that this helps.
-Steve (aka Seaweed)
Our methods are very similar to Luis's method. See the attached. We use the direction of the hatch to define the separate areas supplied by pipe transition points. We limit the areas supplied bu a transition point to 1" max., but mostly try to keep them to 3/4". Especially in long slender areas like parkways. To define what type of feed it is (center, end, etc,) we locate the pipe transition point and flush valves (FV) (and air relief valves (ARV) if not using the new NetafimHCVXR) to best depict the intended header and exhaust lines. For instance, in the attached example a contractor should be able to know that the area defined as "1" is a center feed since the transition point is located in the center of the area and ther are ARV's and FV's at both ends of the areas. Area "2" is an End Feed since the transition point is located on one end and there is only one ARV and FV located on the opposite side of the pattern. Area "3" is again a center feed and is configured as area 1.
I've been to the field more than once only to find that the installation was not what was intended (not our office's plans.. But the methods noted above (both ours and KadMonkey's) are dependable. recently we've gone to specifying drip indicators at the ends of all ines too. Right at the flush valve locations. These have been great. The contractor now knows that if it's installed incorrectly the indicator does not pop up (or flag) properly. Also, when doing observations we don't need to whip out our pressure gauge to prove that the system was designed improperly. They know before we get there.
I hope that this helps.
-Steve (aka Seaweed)
Thank you, Steve! It's interesting to see that your office's conventions are really very similar to what Luis' office does.
Why wouldn't you leave it up to the contractor to decide whether they want to do a center feed or end feed layout? We have been leaving that undefined and showing the flush valves (and ARVs when necessary) in a drip line layout detail. As far as I know, this ambiguity hasn't caused any problems, but maybe we should reconsider this.
Why wouldn't you leave it up to the contractor to decide whether they want to do a center feed or end feed layout? We have been leaving that undefined and showing the flush valves (and ARVs when necessary) in a drip line layout detail. As far as I know, this ambiguity hasn't caused any problems, but maybe we should reconsider this.
As soon as you are responsible for what gets installed (as the designer your instructions are critical to the installation) and you cannot defend your design due to ambiguity, you will decide to provide more detail over ending up with a constructed system that is less than sufficient. Contractors do not like to rip out a system, and may not have the time to do so, just to make it work properly. If you give them enough information in the beginning, your chances of getting a design that matches your intent is much better. Also, if the Contractor installs it differently than shown on the plan, without notifying you in advance, you can instruct that the installation meets the design if you have indeed provided enough direction. If you haven't, you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't defend your request to "fix" the installation. - Not all Contractors are equal. I'm also a California Licensed Landscape Contractor, but as a contractor, and I've installed so many irrigation systems, I didn't have all the design techniques and knowledge that I do as a Landscape Architect and a IA Certified Irrigation Water Auditor. I consider it my responsibility to provide a design that can be installed the same by any number of contractors. Their responsibility is to install the landscape as it is shown on the plans. It's our job to show it on the plans. - So how do I fee about irrigation "designers" showing drip areas as vague blobs and expecting the Contractor to install it the way that they intend it to be installed by referring to detail? Enough said...
Wow, I am awed by how much you must know about irrigation design! I am only beginning to learn about this particular subject... there's so much to know.
I definitely appreciate that it's our job as designers to provide adequate information on the plans to direct the contractor to build a properly functioning system, and be able to defend our request for them to modify the system if it isn't working properly. Since I'm still new at this, I don't have a good sense of what types of information are important for us to convey on plans and what is best to leave to the contractor to determine based on field conditions and directions we provide in details and specs. For example, you seem comfortable with directing the contractor on what direction drip lines should be installed in specifications or details rather than showing it graphically on the plan. I see that this ambiguity could be a good thing, because it gives them the information they need as well as the freedom to respond to field conditions. I'm sure you're right about the center feed/end feed decision, but I'm not clear yet on why it would be different.
I definitely appreciate that it's our job as designers to provide adequate information on the plans to direct the contractor to build a properly functioning system, and be able to defend our request for them to modify the system if it isn't working properly. Since I'm still new at this, I don't have a good sense of what types of information are important for us to convey on plans and what is best to leave to the contractor to determine based on field conditions and directions we provide in details and specs. For example, you seem comfortable with directing the contractor on what direction drip lines should be installed in specifications or details rather than showing it graphically on the plan. I see that this ambiguity could be a good thing, because it gives them the information they need as well as the freedom to respond to field conditions. I'm sure you're right about the center feed/end feed decision, but I'm not clear yet on why it would be different.
- 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.