• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

PEX and Water Hammer Arrestors

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,975
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
Is there an exception that precludes the use of hammer arrestors when using PEX or other similar tubing for water supply to quick close valves?
 
There is no exception, that I can find, in the Code. But both the California and International plumbing codes say the Water-hammer arrestors shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

IMHO, there is no need due to the expansion capabilities of PEX. But that is not Code.
 
I agree. We have had some plumbing inspectors that won't enforce water hammer with PEX due to the very reason you point out but that is not consistent with the code. If this was a non-issue I assume there would have been an exception by now.
 
Excess velocity of the water and loose strapping can also cause water hammer along with quick closing valves and loose washers on faucets.
 
There is no exception, that I can find, in the Code. But both the California and International plumbing codes say the Water-hammer arrestors shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

IMHO, there is no need due to the expansion capabilities of PEX. But that is not Code.
A water hammer arrestor is not for expansion. It is to stop velocity. The PEX would not expand to absorb that force.
 
A water hammer arrestor is not for expansion. It is to stop velocity. The PEX would not expand to absorb that force.
When a valve closes quickly and stops the flow, that momentum shakes and pounds pipes, through pressure. The PEX will absorb that force.
 
When a valve closes quickly and stops the flow, that momentum shakes and pounds pipes, through pressure. The PEX will absorb that force.
I'm not arguing that a flexible pipe can't handle the movement from water hammer. I'm arguing that the expansion capabilities of PEX will not stop water hammer from happening. Different discussions. Stopping water hammer from occurring or tolerating the movement from water hammer.
 
PEX can absolutely handle the water hammer, it can even withstand the line freezing solid.

The problem is that water hammer can cause extensive damage to valves and end-point systems, even if the supply line is PEX.
 
Most homes in my area have wells. Is there an exception that precludes the use of hammer arrestors when using a pressure tank when you have quick closing valves?
 
Most homes in my area have wells. Is there an exception that precludes the use of hammer arrestors when using a pressure tank when you have quick closing valves?
Still best to have the arrestor at the quick acting valve; after all, water hammer is caused by the sudden change in velocity of the water. A pressure tank will often be a significant distance from the quick acting valve, so it will provide limited, if any, benefit.
 
3-19-20: California Plumbing Code section 609.10 is not adopted by the state agency, HCD1 and 2, which is the code of the hammer arrestor. See the Division I administrative section,1.8.2.1.1 in the code for that language as to who adopts or does not adopt certain sections. For those who want the short answer, not required in residential units containing sleeping accommodations, unless your jurisdiction has adopted it and registered that with the state.
 
3-19-20: California Plumbing Code section 609.10 is not adopted by the state agency, HCD1 and 2, which is the code of the hammer arrestor. See the Division I administrative section,1.8.2.1.1 in the code for that language as to who adopts or does not adopt certain sections. For those who want the short answer, not required in residential units containing sleeping accommodations, unless your jurisdiction has adopted it and registered that with the state.
Might be so in Cali.....but good luck with that elsewhere.
 
I'm not aware of that exception.
Exspansion tanks nor pressure tanks a designed to control the absorbtion of the velocity of the water. Hammer arestors are of a specific designe to absorb the shock and are location specific to function correctly.
 
Top