Is Schedule 80 PVC pipe suitable for water main connections?
I'm helping a neighbor who is out of town. As luck would have it, the water main pipe they just had installed less than 4 days ago cracked and started leaking. When I checked it out I discovered that the line on the home side of the meter is some grade of gray schedule 80 PVC. It cracked a short nipple right where it entered into the coupling to the brass:.
So my first thought, is this really up to code / commonly used? There is going to be an awful lot of expansion / contraction of the exposed pipes here as the weather in this area (Santa Cruz California) ranges from lows in the high 20's to highs in the triple digits. In my mind, I would never think to use anything but a good grade of copper for this connection.
I want to make sure I'm not off base in my assumptions about the relative strength of copper vs PVC for a connection like this that sits above ground.
Question from user Mark Edington at stackexchange
Answer:
Answering my own question here about "suitability" of PVC Schedule 80:.
This is spelled out in section 604.10 of the California Unified Plumbing code:.
This table lists the ATSM standards which are required:.
It's unlikely anyone can provide an estimate of how frequently each of those materials is actually selected. I would venture to guess that Sch. 80 is fairly common as it is suitable and significantly cheaper than copper.
The company who did the initial work finally sent someone (a different plumber) out the next day to fix it. The connection was re-done with a much longer section of pipe feeding directly into the meter and several angles inserted to allow the pipe room to flex without snapping. The work seems like it should hold up better now. Here is a photo:.
The initial work was not cross threaded as was suggested in the comments. It looked like that was the case because it was cracked and at an angle.
I encouraged the neighbor to seek an inspection from the local building department. It's technically required and was never done by the plumber initially. I will post any follow-up on that.
Answer from user Mark Edington at stackexchange
I'm helping a neighbor who is out of town. As luck would have it, the water main pipe they just had installed less than 4 days ago cracked and started leaking. When I checked it out I discovered that the line on the home side of the meter is some grade of gray schedule 80 PVC. It cracked a short nipple right where it entered into the coupling to the brass:.
So my first thought, is this really up to code / commonly used? There is going to be an awful lot of expansion / contraction of the exposed pipes here as the weather in this area (Santa Cruz California) ranges from lows in the high 20's to highs in the triple digits. In my mind, I would never think to use anything but a good grade of copper for this connection.
I want to make sure I'm not off base in my assumptions about the relative strength of copper vs PVC for a connection like this that sits above ground.
Question from user Mark Edington at stackexchange
Answer:
Answering my own question here about "suitability" of PVC Schedule 80:.
This is spelled out in section 604.10 of the California Unified Plumbing code:.
This table lists the ATSM standards which are required:.
It's unlikely anyone can provide an estimate of how frequently each of those materials is actually selected. I would venture to guess that Sch. 80 is fairly common as it is suitable and significantly cheaper than copper.
The company who did the initial work finally sent someone (a different plumber) out the next day to fix it. The connection was re-done with a much longer section of pipe feeding directly into the meter and several angles inserted to allow the pipe room to flex without snapping. The work seems like it should hold up better now. Here is a photo:.
The initial work was not cross threaded as was suggested in the comments. It looked like that was the case because it was cracked and at an angle.
I encouraged the neighbor to seek an inspection from the local building department. It's technically required and was never done by the plumber initially. I will post any follow-up on that.
Answer from user Mark Edington at stackexchange