Head spacing advice

Frankis843

LawnSite Member
Location
Iowa
I have 42' x 48' rectangle that has heads on all corners and one in the middle of each side, all shooting towards the middle. Heads cover roughly 27'. Everything I have found says head to head coverage is what you need. In a large area like mine, it seems as if a middle head is missing from the layout. I get a bit of spray overlap in the middle of the yard, but nowhere near head to head coverage. The middle area looks more dry compared to the rest of the yard and I feel like it is missing one 360 degree head in the middle of the yard.

I got together with the installer yesterday and he was not agreeing with my theory that head to head coverage is needed. He claimed there is another method called "row coverage". Google has never heard of this term.

The installers recommendation is to just run the two zones covering the area for a longer time period. I feel like he just doesn't want to add another head and is looking for the easy way out.

Any thoughts?
 

magna111

LawnSite Senior Member
Location
NJ
Assuming you spoke with more than the one contractor prior to installation, I’d think someone must have mentioned head to head coverage. When we go to estimates and the HO mentions someone else quoted them 1/3 less with half as many heads, we try to educate proper coverage but most people are only worried about $$$. Usually it’s not as easy as adding 1 head to fix the mess you didn’t want to pay for originally.
 
I have 42' x 48' rectangle that has heads on all corners and one in the middle of each side, all shooting towards the middle. Heads cover roughly 27'. Everything I have found says head to head coverage is what you need. In a large area like mine, it seems as if a middle head is missing from the layout. I get a bit of spray overlap in the middle of the yard, but nowhere near head to head coverage. The middle area looks more dry compared to the rest of the yard and I feel like it is missing one 360 degree head in the middle of the yard.

I got together with the installer yesterday and he was not agreeing with my theory that head to head coverage is needed. He claimed there is another method called "row coverage". Google has never heard of this term.

The installers recommendation is to just run the two zones covering the area for a longer time period. I feel like he just doesn't want to add another head and is looking for the easy way out.

Any thoughts?
Your instincts are correct. Running the existing layout longer is the definition of water waste. In order to get the center enough water, all other areas are flooded.
 

Joetee

LawnSite Member
Location
Kentucky
Head to head coverage is important unless you want to waist a lot of water by over watering some areas to get the dry areas watered.
I used to design irragation systems. Sprinklers are designed for head to head coverage to get even distribution of water. The only way around this is to over water areas or under water areas.
Rotors are nice but not as effecient as spray heads. Spray heads are nice because the have different spray patterns.
Ideally, all heads on one zone should have the same gpm but this isn't always possible.
So head to head coverage is next important.

I would prefer 3 rows of 12 ft spray heads no further than 12 feet apart depending on water pressure and gpm water available.
 

ArTurf

LawnSite Fanatic
Location
Ark
I have 42' x 48' rectangle that has heads on all corners and one in the middle of each side, all shooting towards the middle. Heads cover roughly 27'. Everything I have found says head to head coverage is what you need. In a large area like mine, it seems as if a middle head is missing from the layout. I get a bit of spray overlap in the middle of the yard, but nowhere near head to head coverage. The middle area looks more dry compared to the rest of the yard and I feel like it is missing one 360 degree head in the middle of the yard.

I got together with the installer yesterday and he was not agreeing with my theory that head to head coverage is needed. He claimed there is another method called "row coverage". Google has never heard of this term.

The installers recommendation is to just run the two zones covering the area for a longer time period. I feel like he just doesn't want to add another head and is looking for the easy way out.

Any thoughts?
To answer your question simply, yes there should be one in the middle. However there are many other factors that affect coverage.

Ditto what others have said (except one, no names)

Unfortunately there are many in the irrigation business that really don't know the basics.
 

ArTurf

LawnSite Fanatic
Location
Ark
Head to head coverage is important unless you want to waist a lot of water by over watering some areas to get the dry areas watered.
I used to design irragation systems. Sprinklers are designed for head to head coverage to get even distribution of water. The only way around this is to over water areas or under water areas.
Rotors are nice but not as effecient as spray heads. Spray heads are nice because the have different spray patterns.
Ideally, all heads on one zone should have the same gpm but this isn't always possible.
So head to head coverage is next important.

I would prefer 3 rows of 12 ft spray heads no further than 12 feet apart depending on water pressure and gpm water available.
Ehhhh WTF
 

magna111

LawnSite Senior Member
Location
NJ
Ditto what others have said (except one, no names)
If you’re referring to me, if he paid for 6 heads and got 6 heads then he got what he paid for. You can’t buy a Hyundai and then complain it’s not a Mercedes.
 

Hayduke

LawnSite Senior Member
Location
Oregon
all heads on one zone should have the same gpm but this isn't always possible.
Seems like you might know your stuff Joetee-but this statement is wrong. All heads on the same zone should ideally have the same precipitation rate, not the same GPM..Maybe it was just a typing mistake
 

Joetee

LawnSite Member
Location
Kentucky
Yes sorry. My fingers are faster than my brain at times. LOL

It's been years since I've done any sprinkler work. Getting old and probably a little forgetful.
 

Top