If I use a manifold system, can I eliminate individual shut off valves, like
under the sink or at the toilet? Is the code man ok with that?
What if I use the manifold for an area like one bathroom?
Let say I have a typical bathroom on one manifold. If the pex is 1/2" I
assume that is adequate for the toilet and sink, but I'm wondering if a tub
or shower should have their own dedicated hot and cold back to the manifold?
On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:17:39 +0000 (UTC), "Robert Olin"
Bob, nothing beats asking the local building inspector! Really, we all
can (and will, it is a requirement to post here...) give you different
answers, and who knows one or more of us may be right. But the local
inspector(s) are who you have to appease and they are the final say-so
in matters like this. After all, you can't say (when they reject your
work) "But the guy on ABC told me I could do it..." <bg>
As I have often posted..... all codes are minimum standards agreed to
by a motley crew of building officials, industry & mfr reps, the
majority of whom are not engineers or technical experts.
Gotta l love the quote "the local inspector(s) are who you have to
So its a matter of appeasement & not a matter of science?
Yes, codes are a general rule set to try to insure that folks who may
not understand why get a safe installation. But I don't agree with the
idea that appeasing an inspector trumps science. For example I helped a
relative install a replacement electrical service in their house. At
that time the basement was earthen so we drove an 8' ground rod as a
supplemental grounding electrode right underneath the breaker box. It
was 7' further in the ground than it would be outside.
The inspector declared that the rod had to be outside. I asked for a
citation of governing code and he just kept on telling me that it had to
be outside. We decided not to back down and asked for a written
statement. I called to follow up and he said he was going to approve the
installation because he researched the idea and found it was actually
better for the reasons I described.
Yep, that's it... Anyone who says it is not the money, but a matter of
pricipal is really saying "it's the money"... We all know that there
is great variation between building inspectors (who train at the IRS)
but in the end if the inspector says OK you are good, and if the
inspector says "no" you are doing the work over. Fighting the
inspector is not cost effective in most cases.
That does happen, but way too many inspectors (and other people, it is
human nature) will dig in their heels and fight to the bitter end. If
one's objective is to get the job done, then work towards that goal,
not fighting the inspectors. If one's job is fighting the inspectors,
then a future in law may be more profitable!
Not all building inspectors are idiots. Most are not, in fact. I've
gotten very good advice from inspectors before starting the project by
just asking--and they respect me for asking.
My point exactly.......
If you had appeased the guy, the installation would have been inferior
to the one you wound up with.
A situation where the inspector didn't know best & actually wound up
learning something...... who woulda thunk?
Building codes are generally the "minimum" standards allowed. For example,
just because code allows a certain floor joist size doesn't mean the floor
won't be bouncy. It just means the floor won't cave in under normal use.
There's certainly no reason you can't go beyond code and use larger joists
to stiffen up the floor.
I only say this because in the case you mention I would have installed a
ground rod outside as well as the one you already installed inside. It
would make the inspector happy, and would improve ground contact. You
generally need to install at least two ground rods anyway, as well as bond
to any metal water piping in the earth. The more the merrier, I say... :)
When we were building our house, I asked our inspectors many questions each
time they came out. I learned a lot, and implemented items I wouldn't have
thought of otherwise. There were a few suggestions I'm not sure were based
on code, but they were still good ideas. They did no harm, and only helped
improve our home. On a few occasions, I think the inspector even learned a
new thing or two as he saw ideas I came up with along the way.
No idea about the code, but it would be a good idea to install shut off
valves too, because when you need eg to repair the flush, you won't have to
unscrew the manifold cover, and search for the right manifold valve (between
all identical ones). You switch off the valve-ready.
Usually, they install one for each floor-if the kitchen is near to the
bathroom. I'm no expert, of course, since I am an electrician and no
Yes, they should have their own dedicated hot and cold back-for safety and
major in electrical engineering
I don't know what the code or usual practice is with PEX and manifolds, but
from a practical standpoint I would still install shutoffs at each fixture.
For example, if you accidently cut the pipe running to the toilet (how?
Don't know, but accidents happen) you could shut the water off immediately.
Otherwise you would have water spewing all over the place while you go find
the manifold in the mechanical room or behind an access panel somewhere.
In the grand scheme of things, the cost of a few extra valves is minimal. I
like redundancy. I have shutoff valves at each fixture, then a main
shutoff valve in the house, and a second main valve in our pump house (with
I agree totally with that, and would also highy recommend the 1/4 ball
shut-offs. These are hands down winners -vs- the packed stem variety which
invaliabley corrode over time and not shut off when you need them.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.