Copper Line Pressure Reg Replacement

[Charles Bishop]

Previously, I installed a pressure regulator in a copper water line. The PR is giving me problems and I need to take it out and fix or replace it. I undid the union and prepared to remove the body of the PR when it occured to me that the isn't room to do so.

In order to remove the body, I have to unscrew it from the connection, and in order for this to happen the PR has to move about 3/8 of an inch away from the connection. Of course it can't because the union end is right up against (1/16") the rest of the water line.

Did I make a mistake in installation? Is there a way to get the PR off without stressing the rest of the copper line? Would it be too much stress on the line to just unscrew it? Both ends are secured and there is a 90 degree 1' from one end and 2 feet from the other which, I assume, gives me less play than I need.

What to do?

[WW]

I would cut the line a few inches away from the PR and then to reinstall use a slide through coupling ( one without the ridge in the center) and resolder. WW

[Stormin Mormon]

Please consider a copper union -- in case this needs to be done again.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

I would cut the line a few inches away from the PR and then to reinstall use a slide through coupling ( one without the ridge in the center) and resolder. WW

[DD_BobK]

On May 1, 3:39=A0pm, [e-mail] (Charles Bishop) wrote: SNIP

Provide some photos?

Cut the line in an appropiate location, replace or repair PR and re- install with an additional union.

cheers Bob

[Charles Bishop]

The union is part of the PR, built in so to speak. It's brasss, as is the PR.

The PRs are made to be installed in line so I did that OK, but can't figure out how the disassembly should work, or if I should have installed it differently so that there is some "give" in the copper line.

[Charles Bishop]

Ah, maybe that's what Stormin meant: install a 2nd union in addition to the union that is in the PR. This seems odd, but is probably the best solution.

I think I'll try a Google to see if there is a standard way.

[Charles Bishop]

OK, this seems to be the standard. It didn't occur to me since I assumed the built in union would be all that is needed. Of course, if the PR needs to be replaced again, the 2nd union will need to be cut out and a new one installed.

Still, good for 25+ years, I'd guess.

[Charles Bishop]

Don't need the slide through since I have the union on the PR. I was wondering what I did wrong to make the removal difficult. It seems to me that resoldering shouldn't be necessary, what with the union on the PR, but it's possible, I suppose.

If the line the PR is in was several feet long, there might be enough give between the ends to allow the 3/8" I need.

[trader4]

Cutting the pipe and using a repair coupling is one option. Also, we don't know if moving the copper pipe the 3/8" so that cutting isn't required is possible or not since we don't know how long it is, what's holding it etc. Apparently the PR has only one union? An install that would have avoided this problem would be to use two unions. Then the PR will drop out with only a slight movement of the pipe.

[Stormin Mormon]

Open the union, and then use a torch to loosen the slip coupler. No need to cut the tubing again when you've got a slip coupler you can melt loose.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

The point of the slide through repair coupling is so that you can make a single cut on one side of the PR, remove it via the union and then use the slide through repair coupling to re-connect the pipes at the cut.

That's how I did mine. Sure, if it needs to be replaced again (hopefully in no less than 25 years) I'll need to cut the pipe again and use another slide through repair coupling, but that's no big deal.

[Stormin Mormon]

Well, you never know. Might be what he meant. Hey, on the other hand, maybe he's all confused?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

Ah, maybe that's what Stormin meant: install a 2nd union in addition to the union that is in the PR. This seems odd, but is probably the best solution.

I think I'll try a Google to see if there is a standard way.

[trader4]

I guess it also depends on what the ultimate objective is. If he's going to replace it with a different PR that is larger, then your approach sounds good. If he's going to replace it with the exact same one that will just mate with the half of the coupling already there, then I would not unsolder it and re-solder. It would be easier to cut the pipe 6" over and use a repair coupling on a clean section.

[Stormin Mormon]

You mean that doing a whole new sweat coupler is easier than melting one loose, and redoing it? That doesn't compute, with my plumbing skills.

That is, if the pipe is horizontal. If the pipe is vertical, I don't have much skill with sweat solder. I'd use a union for sure, if the pipe were vertical. Much less soldering.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

I guess it also depends on what the ultimate objective is. If he's going to replace it with a different PR that is larger, then your approach sounds good. If he's going to replace it with the exact same one that will just mate with the half of the coupling already there, then I would not unsolder it and re-solder. It would be easier to cut the pipe 6" over and use a repair coupling on a clean section.

[trader4]

In general, the answer to that is yes. I'd always rather solder a new fitting on a new pipe rather than solder a new fitting on a piece of previously soldered pipe. Or worse yet, try to re-use a fitting and get it back on a pipe. With pipe that has solder on it already, you often have to heat the pipe and work the fitting on it, then solder it. It's also more likely to leak and need to be re-done. All shiney new copper works best.

Vertical works just like horizontal. You heat the fitting and when it's hot enough apply the solder. The solder gets wicked in by capillary action.

What would you do if you were plumbing a house and had lots of verticals to deal with? Use unions there too?