Pex with joints running through walls

jeanc

I had a new hot water heating system put in. The contractor ran 1/2 inch pex to the radiators on floor 2. I noticed that the contractor ran pex up the walls and there were joints in the pex. Should pex run through walls have any joints? I am concerned about leaks in the future. My husband went ahead and replastered the walls so it wouldn't be an easy fix to redo but I would feel safer if there were no joints. I would like to know if joints in pex behind walls is an issue. Also should pex be somewhat hidden? Without knowing where the pex is, I can see someone hammmering a nail through the tubing at some point.

Tom_133

Jeanc, I understand your concern for sure. Though if you are worried about a nail regardless if it's pex or copper it a nail will penetrate. I would always prefer no fittings in the wall, I have never had a problems with fittings on pex (unless a defect), that doesn't mean it can't happen it's just pretty rare. I am sure someone will chime in about the contractor using 1/2" pex for heating so for our own curiosity how much baseboard is it feeding on the 2nd floor zone?

Bob Bona_4

Concealed pex joints are typical practice, and are less leak prone than a common sweated joint. When done to mfr. Spec.

Just as copper piping, routing should be done with foresight and care, and nail strike plates should be used where damage potential exists.

kcopp

Rest easy. PEX connections rarely fail. Do you have any pictures?

jeanc

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, the walls are buttoned up (at great expense being plaster) so I can't give pictures but I just had that nagging concern. I had considered copper. I had two companies I spoke to who said they only run copper up the walls. But to install copper in a retofit esp old home with plaster walls just seemed like a massive undertaking that would gut the house so pex made much more sense. Honestly, observing the pex install, that wasn't so easy either. It's not like there were straight ways up to the 2nd floor... with windows in the way, other pipes, at least the pex offered some flexibility. I realize the rodent issue but other than that I couldn't find a good reason to incur the hassle and expense of the copper. But again after seeing the install, I just wasn't sure of the durability of pex compared to copper esp with these joints. The nail plates sounds interesting. Not sure what they are but helpful to know.

Bob Bona_4

Nails/screws or chafing will do in either copper or pex if not protected. Typically nail plates are used on bottom and top plates when pipe routes up a stud wall. Nail plates also are used anywhere pipe would be vulnerable to punctures. Fire caulk is used to seal around the penetrations where the piping passes through the plates.

jeanc

There are some supply and return pex running through existing steel abandoned pipes so there is some protection for those but a few them were just routed to get the pex upstairs. Is it typical practice to put in these plates during an install?

I'm amazed at how much information some contractors leave out. I wish I found this forum earlier.

Bob Bona_4

If the walls were bare to studs when pipe was run, yes, nail plates and fire caulk are code required (at least in CT, if not common sense). Was some parts of walls opened up to route the pex? If Balloon framed maybe they pulled the pex up the wall cavity (there would be no horizontal framing except over windows and doors that would obstruct a pull basically from cellar to attic)

How extensive was the demo to run piping?

jeanc

Walls were not stripped to the studs. Basically house was built in 1920. Pex was run up from the basement. Hole was made in the dining room (one example) at the bottom and top of the wall. Pex was pulled up from the basement through the first hole, run up the wall and pulled via the second hole. Then another hole was cut in the ceiling of the first floor to wind into the room of the second floor.

The plumber (referred to me by National Grid) convinced me that hot water was better than steam. He talked about efficiencies and zones but didn't bother to tell me how complex a retrofix is. Technically it all works and I haven't had issues. But when I saw how complicated it was to run the pex, and how exposed it looked in the walls, it looked concerning. If I sell my home then I need to tell the new owner where these runs are.

But my main concern is if running the pex this way is typical. ... so puncture holes in the walls and ceiling and weave in the pex every which way to get it to where it needs to go. If the home were gutted or just being built, the pex runs could be carefully considered. Here it seemed like the only way to do this would be to figure out some way to get from point A to B in an old house. I'm just curious if others would do it this way too. Maybe it's pretty typical and I'm overly concerned.

Bob Bona_4

Having trouble picturing this. Was even a section of wall opened top and bottom; holes drilled, and pex run up inside the walls, or was hole drilled in the floor and ceiling, pipe run up exposed to the room. Post a pic of a typical route.

If the pex is indeed in the walls, you'd want strike protection at least on the floor level (baseboard trim) and the ceiling level (possible crown molding). For the very least protection from drywall fasteners. Let's see a pic!

icesailor

The only way the PEX could have been run the way you describe is if the building was balloon framed. 1920's, is possible.

IMO. no disclosure needed. Sparky runs wires that way all the time.

Ironman

What type of PEX was used? Does it have an O2 barrier. You should be able to tell from the exposed portions in the basement. It's labled. What type of fittings were used? Crimp rings?

Pex may have been the only reasonable method and it will resist breakage from freezing much better than copper. In fact, copper has no resistance to freeze damage; it will break if it freezes completely.

Another concern would be your radiators. Were the old steam rads re-used? If so, they are gonna have substantially less output on hot water than they did with steam. Did the contractor do a heat loss calculation to determine if the decreased output was sufficient to heat your house on the coldest night of the year?

jeanc

definitely it's o2 barrier. I see that on the labels on the pex in the basement. I wish I had taken pictures prior. I attached a sketch so you can see where the wall holes were. Thorough heat loss was done. The old rads were not used. Heating isn't efficient given the age of the home but it works. Definitely wasn't worth the expense. I feel like I was sold a false bill of goods. My bills didn't go down at all. The issue is insulation and windows not zones like this guy sold me on.

Bob Bona_4

Pics are helpful. Did they drill anything in the bottom or top of the wall to get the pipes up? Assuming outside walls. Pipes insulated/walls insulated? Done properly, conversions like this work well.

icesailor

jeanc said:

definitely it's o2 barrier. I see that on the labels on the pex in the basement. I wish I had taken pictures prior. I attached a sketch so you can see where the wall holes were. Thorough heat loss was done. The old rads were not used. Heating isn't efficient given the age of the home but it works. Definitely wasn't worth the expense. I feel like I was sold a false bill of goods. My bills didn't go down at all. The issue is insulation and windows not zones like this guy sold me on.

That's a serious issue IMO. People thinking that their bills will go down when they put in a new more efficient system. Unless you winterize and cut heat loss and heat gain, someone is going to be disappointed.

As I've stated before. My Florida Condo had a 3 ton 10 SEER 1996 Ruud AC system. It worked fine. It was almost 20 years old. I wanted to replace it while I could afford it. I replaced it with a 3 ton 14+ seer system. The building wouldn't cool, and the energy bills went up. That 3 ton unit or one just like it had done fine since 1982, along with all the other 240 units. Some had only 2 1/2 ton units.

Four years agom they replaced the roofs and increased attic ventilation as an energy saving measure. By adding full length ridge vents in addition to the already there roof ventilators. The attics were hotter and more humid. It was already heavily insulated, just moved around over the years. I added R-19 on top of what was there and the building cooled down, and the energy usage went down.

Was the solution (like I was told) was a 4 ton unit? Or adding more insulation?

jeanc

Great point icesailor. It unbelievable to me how much contractors proliferate false info. I know insulation is a big issue. This stupid plumber misguided me. I just thought since National Grid sent him, he must know what he's talking about. Money down the tube! I hate it.

Ironman

This just goes to show what Dan and many of the steam pros here have been saying for years: a properly operating steam system can be just as efficient as a hot water system. And gutting steam to replace it with hot water may not yield much, if any, savings in fuel.

icesailor

Ironman said:

This just goes to show what Dan and many of the steam pros here have been saying for years: a properly operating steam system can be just as efficient as a hot water system. And gutting steam to replace it with hot water may not yield much, if any, savings in fuel.

Especially if you don't make heat loss improvements.

It's kind of like that old definition of "Insanity". Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

icesailor

jeanc said:

Great point icesailor. It unbelievable to me how much contractors proliferate false info. I know insulation is a big issue. This stupid plumber misguided me. I just thought since National Grid sent him, he must know what he's talking about. Money down the tube! I hate it.

Anyone seriously think a gas providing utility has a vested interest in saving a customer money by improving heat loss resistance?

If the IRS/Federal Government offered a 100% tax credit on insulation and other heat loss/gain improvements, and 50% on gas boiler replacements, the gas suppliers would promote the replacement of the boilers. There's be no money left for insulation improvements once the boiler replacement was done.

Follow the money. They just want to pick your pockets.

KC_Jones

jeanc said:

I just thought since National Grid sent him, he must know what he's talking about. Money down the tube! I hate it.

Having worked for a utility company I can tell you one thing. They are required (by the government) to encourage fuel and energy saving, but when it comes down to it the more you use the more they make. Don't believe the hype.

Ironman

The gas company doesn't mind helping you use less energy - as long as they can charge you more for it!

icesailor

And if you want to work for the gas provider that is doing the energy audits, you have to be the low bidder to get the work.