(206) 949-5683, Top Rated Plumber, Seattle
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Bathroom- Converting single vanity to double

  1. #16
    In the Trades Master Plumber 101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich H View Post
    I'm no expert, but I live in WI and have read the code. Pretty sure san-tee cannot lie like that, only to be used in vertical applications similar to UPC - IPS says the same I'm assuming? 101 what code are you reading, COMM8X????

    Would figure A work? Probably, the chances of a venuturi effect emptying the left trap are small, esp. with the vent in the right spot now. But, code is code.
    You did not read the code right if at all. 82.31(11)(b) Common vent's for horizontal drains. It's the same as the first fitting downstream of fixture can be a short sweep.If you have a single lav and is on a arm that first 90 is short sweep. First fitting only! If you have a double lav hotizontal common vent the same rule's apply for second sink tie in. How could the drain from one sink empty another on a lav, it's not located at a base of a stack where something like that is more likely to happen. The water running thru drain is not that strong to even cause such effect. Look closer before you try calling me out.
    "Labor create's all wealth and therefore that all wealth belong's to Labor"

  2. #17
    Civil Engineer Rich H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    20

    Default

    ok, simmer down

    I'll be sure to check that out - like I said, I'm no expert on nuances of the code like that one.

    I agree - venturi effect as mentioned above is not likely to happen - esp. with the vent added to prevent vacuum pulling water out of left trap.

    Update - checked code quick, and it does appear that you are right, however 82.31(11)(b) also states that the vent shall be located downstream from BOTH fixtures. So, none of the above illustrations are legal in WI. But, it does appear that you can use the san-tee on it's side to connect the downstream lav to the horizontal branch.
    Last edited by Rich H; 09-04-2008 at 08:22 AM.

  3. #18
    Moderator & Master Plumber hj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cave Creek, Arizona
    Posts
    25,633

    Default union

    MP101, are you really a union plumber. If so that may explain it if you are one of the bench riders who waits for a big construction project before you sign on with a company. That is how I got my first job when I moved to this area. None of those guys wanted the one I got, and then after a couple of years they all were trying to bump me back onto the bench,(because the union was trying to keep me from being able to transfer in).

  4. #19
    Master Plumber Redwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Of course any talk of Wisconsin code in this posting is off subject as New Jersey uses National Standard Code 2006.

    Somehow I believe that may just maybe be closer to UPC or, IPC in it's requirements. Just Maybe!

  5. #20
    Master Plumber Dunbar Plumbing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati Area
    Posts
    2,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewJerseyJC View Post
    Ok. Forget about the picture I posted which shows what this currently looks like. I am attaching 3 figures of some scenarios. Let me know what you think. I think Figure A is what you were getting at. Figure B was just a thought and Figure C I'm thinking is last resort.


    Figure C is the one that NPC allows for your application.



    If you went with your first drawing, "worst case scenario" if you filled sink #2 and dumped it, it would suck trap #1 dry allowing sewer gases to escape. Prime example; Men shaving, women cleaning hair brushes or undergarments, bikinis.


    This is a commonly asked question in my area and the code prevents future problems down the road. Basically to install a non-fouling plumbing system.
    Read what the end of this sentence means.

  6. #21
    In the Trades Master Plumber 101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hj View Post
    MP101, are you really a union plumber. If so that may explain it if you are one of the bench riders who waits for a big construction project before you sign on with a company. That is how I got my first job when I moved to this area. None of those guys wanted the one I got, and then after a couple of years they all were trying to bump me back onto the bench,(because the union was trying to keep me from being able to transfer in).
    hj, ya make no sense at all. By the way I never had to ride the bench.
    "Labor create's all wealth and therefore that all wealth belong's to Labor"

  7. #22
    In the Trades Master Plumber 101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich H View Post
    ok, simmer down

    I'll be sure to check that out - like I said, I'm no expert on nuances of the code like that one.

    I agree - venturi effect as mentioned above is not likely to happen - esp. with the vent added to prevent vacuum pulling water out of left trap.

    Update - checked code quick, and it does appear that you are right, however 82.31(11)(b) also states that the vent shall be located downstream from BOTH fixtures. So, none of the above illustrations are legal in WI. But, it does appear that you can use the san-tee on it's side to connect the downstream lav to the horizontal branch.
    Correct, the drawn's above are not correct except the first pic on original post.
    "Labor create's all wealth and therefore that all wealth belong's to Labor"

  8. #23

    Default add no vent lines?

    Why can't you just go with the original layout (adding only a T and an elbow in the original drain line) and get around the venting issue by adding two Studord vents, one between each sink's trap and its connection to the existing drain?

    Thanks.

  9. #24
    Master Plumber Redwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Trust me Stankor vents are not the way to go!

  10. #25
    In the Trades Master Plumber 101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillDIY View Post
    Why can't you just go with the original layout (adding only a T and an elbow in the original drain line) and get around the venting issue by adding two Studord vents, one between each sink's trap and its connection to the existing drain?

    Thanks.
    I would like to tell you studor vent's are no problem, but they are. One common problem is sewer flies getting caught in the flap of the vent thus keeping it open and emitting sewer gases into your home. I can tell you that the original pic with a san tee and 90 at the end would pass where I live. It is called a horizontal common vent. Only prob is a lot of posters are saying it is illegal per upc standards so I don't know what else to tell you.
    "Labor create's all wealth and therefore that all wealth belong's to Labor"

  11. #26
    Master Plumber Redwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    The 3rd one will pass upc, ipc and wisconsin too!
    I bet it would pass in jersey!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •