Total Failure on all pex lines in new construction

Mad Dog_2

PEX, ESPECIALLY, Uponor, is extremely hardy and tough. Me thinks there is more to this story...anyone shootin a wood floor down after? Mad Dog

tls_10

The original question was "who's at fault" correct? A better term would be "responsible". Your heating contractor is responsible. You hired him to provide you with a complete working in floor heating system for your garage. It is his responsibility to provide that. You should not have to do any of this leg work to find out what is wrong and fix it. He should. I assume you have a written contract with him? Even if you don’t , its still his ballgame. I would tell him he doesn’t get paid till this is solved. If, his investigation proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, someone else at "fault" then it may be a gray area as to weather he, or you, has to go after them. If he is unwilling, or otherwise cant, provide you with the working system you are buying, then i suggest you have your lawyer write him a letter stating that he is obligated too. Now no one here, nor myself, likes it when lawyers get into a construction job, its a no win situation, but if he refuses to step up you might, as the song goes, "better call Sal".
if, instead of a contractor, you hired "side job Joe", you may have just learned a very expensive lesson.
As far as moving on , I would Blow out the water, air test. try to find and repair the leaks, if one or two runs need abandoning, fine. Beyond that I would suggest an over pour or a crew of labours with jack hammers and start over. As said above, with an over pour you will get cracking and issues with doors, floor drains etc. , but it will work.






if

icesailor

ME:

"Chairs" to hold up the wire? I don't see any. That's for the guys that do it right. And those buggys hold almost a yard of concrete. Plus the weight of the machine and driver. When I started out, I was a mason's helper. That's how we did it. No bull floats. Just wait until the concrete started to set and float, then trowel smooth. Now, all power trowels.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.thepowerbuggy.com/files/PowerBuggy-brochure2014.pdf

Last Century, you might put 2X's down to wheel on. Today, they pump. Those powered buggies from last century save a man on the job. How much do they weigh? That mesh is laying on the insulation. Without "hooks", you can't lift up the mesh. If you put the mesh on chairs, you can't put plywood on the PEX and mesh because you will drive it down. That plywood is probably 1/2" CDX. 5/8" gets too heavy. As far as concrete mesh hooks, my multitalented son has installed lots of radiant floors, heating and plumbing systems and anything else he can get paid to do. He has also worked for his father in law running his concrete pump truck. All licensed and certified. Kind of like running a crane. They tip over. He had two hooks on the truck for the floor guys to use when they were placing concrete with a pump if the concrete was pushing the mesh down. Show the posted photos of the plywood on top of the PEX and mesh with a gasoline powered Georgia Buggy driving over the mesh and mat.

I don't know about PEX, but with standard PE water service pipes, if you kink it back on itself, and don't cut the kink out, sooner or later, it will split and leak at the kink. From my experience.

I don't know who was running who. The installer of the PEX or the floor installer. There are proper procedures that the PEX installer didn't follow on a floor large enough to require expansion joints, and the concrete floor installer didn't want to follow correct procedures either as far as proper expansion joints. Someone back a ways mentions sleeving the PEX through the expansion joints. Good practice.

Here on HH.com. we deal with the latest technology in construction and comfort evolution. We are trying to improve on centuries old technology and practices.

Here's specs for a powered material buggy. It is rated to carry over 3,000#. I don't know if that includes the weight of the buggy filled with concrete but I personally wouldn't want anyone driving over my PEX floor heat system with a 3,000# powered machine, driving on plywood, set directly on top of my heating elements/PEX. As far as concrete floors, good floor pourers can spread out pumped concrete at a level where you almost don't have to screed it. Just pull it back with a bull float. And they can place it as fast as it can be poured from the Reddy mix truck into the pump truck and through the hoses. The longest and most labor intensive part is disconnecting the hoses and washing them out.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.thepowerbuggy.com/files/PowerBuggy-brochure2014.pdf

In my minority opinion, that method may be fine for a plain old concrete floor. It is early last century technology to do what was done to that floor. If it had been pumped, this discussion wouldn't be going on. Anyone that says that it isn't a problem, doesn't see the big picture.

Show those photos to Uponor with the plywood on top of their PEX tube, on top of the mesh, so a buggy can drive over it and tell them their tubing failed. Comedy club material.

Tinman

At first, I didn't agree with you tls because the heating contractor isn't the only one responsible. BUT, if you're representing yourself as a radiant professional, you better be confident enough to take charge of the job and oversee it all the way through.

The loops and manifolds should have been holding a 60-100# air charge for at least 24 hours before the pour and during the pour.

The heating contractor should have been there during the pour. I would have stopped those concrete contractors in their tracks, literally, before rolling that machine on MY tubing.

I could go on but I'm just getting aggravated at the gross incompetence on this job.

Finally, if anyone who took part in this fiasco is owed any money, they have no right to be paid until it is resolved satisfactorily.

Abracadabra

I zoomed in pretty close to the pics of the concrete being poured. It doesn't look to me like the remesh is being pulled up at all. It looks like you have 6? loops? All of them leak? Has to be sabotage or gross negligence. Have you tried testing each loop individually disconnected from the manifold?

icesailor

@Stephen Minnich:

I have a lot of experience with sensitive people that get all urinating when you tell them that they can't do something they are planning on doing that will mess up my job. They get all pouty and go complain that I'm being mean to them.

The must have a lot of experience doing that. Like my grown children did when they were younger.

Tinman

I've been there too.

I would've have been as diplomatic as possible with the concrete guys. If they were unable to see it my way, some air pressure in the tubing would have identified the culprit immediately.

That's why I like to represent at the pour : )

Ironman

In my limited experience, I've found that most concrete contractors are like Bulls in a china shop. I've almost come to blows with a particular one more than once. In fact, I told the customer on the last jod that he showed up on that I would not warrant the floor if they used him.

That being said, even that clod knew better than to use a Georgia buggy where there was tubing in the floor.

I have to disagree with the comment that all the responsibility lies upon the heating contractor. If he placed the tubing in correctly and the concrete contractor didn't use "ordinary" or "reasonable" care, then the concrete guy is responsible for the damage he did. He can't use the excuse that "this is the way we always do it". It was his responsibility to work with the radiant tubing in such a manner as to not damage it. That's what was expected of him when agreed to do the job and that's how the law would see it. If an electrician drills through a joist and punctures a plumbing line on the other side of it, is that the plumber's responsibility? Certainly not! The electrician didn't exercise "ordinary" and "reasonable" care and he bares the responsibility for the damage he's done. Had the piping been concealed in such a manner that it could not be readily detected, and had the electrician been instructed to drill in the that spot by the owner, then the responsibility would lie upon the owner if the electrician had done everything "reasonable" to know if it was safe to drill there.

The heating contractor MAY bare some responsibility by not having the lines pressurized, but that doesn't prove the concrete man would have stopped once he damaged the first one(s). Nor is it his responsibility to be on site when the pour is done to prevent the concrete contractor from damaging the tubing any more than it would have been the plumber's responsibility to be on site when the electrician damaged the line in the illustration given above. Being able to work with and around other trades is a given in construction. A contractor who can't is irresponsible and barres the burden of his incompetency.

Rich_49

Tis, You must be kidding me . I am a heating contractor and if I break a window is Andersen , the rep or the installer responsible . That tubing is damaged on the bottom from the weight of the cart . Heating contractor should have been there and shares in the responsibility but does not have 100% of it .

Tinman

It may not be the heating guys responsibility to be there for the pour but IF the majority of the concrete contractors are bulls in a china shop, isn't that a small price to pay???

I'm on the fence on that one. On this particular job it probably wouldn't have made a difference if the heating guy was there or not.

But I guarantee you it would have if Gordy, Ice, Harvey, Ironman, Rich, Hot Rod, Mark E., myself, Zman, or tons of other professionals who frequent this website were there.

I'll admit that I haven't been there for all the pours but if I'm not or somebody from my company isn't, I make sure to tell the GC to keep an eye on things, especially the pressure gauge.

Paul Pollets

This seems like a sticky wicket, but the radiant contractor should take charge of the work he installs. That means he specifies the technique and warrants the slab install from defects by pressurizing the manifolds and loops to approved pressure. To leave the manifolds closed and the tubing unpressurized does not mean "It's not my fault". All further issues result from failure to insure the pex was installed properly and free from leaks at time of pour. The blame can be spread around but without a proper pressure test, who did what and when...?

icesailor

Most large concrete pours today are pumped. In New York City, concrete is pumped up many tens of floors. Concrete pumping is what is done today, because it is labor saving. Who wheeling around anymore.

JUGHNE

Someone on the wall had a previous story of air testing, their helper had pressurized the system and when the boss/inspector opened the valve to see the needle move it went down to zero in half a second. Kid had pressurized the tester only.
Now it would seem obvious that it probably took less than 1 second to pressurize that manifold to 60-100 PSI. Usually your hand gets tired holding the filler hose on the Schrader valve while a system of some size pumps up.

Abracadabra

jermann said:

The plumber I used didn't understand how the legend manifold worked.

Hmmm.. he should have used a manifold he knew how to use? Has this "plumber" done other radiant jobs?

tls_10

"If, his investigation proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, someone else at "fault" then it may be a gray area as to weather he, or you, has to go after them." maybe I could have worded this better, but my point is that the contractor should be doing the investigation, the home owner shouldn’t have to. Until it is PROVEN what caused the leaks, he , the contractor should take the lead. Maybe i'm wrong but from what i have read, no one has actually seen the tubing at a leak. Further more it doesn’t appear that a proper air test has yet been put on the system. If it indeed has leaks, Someone has to chop some floor and expose some tubing. I believe that "responsibility"falls to the heating contractor. Once the tube is examined then "fault" can be assigned. This is certainly easer to type and post than it will be to do, but from my point of view it needs doing. Again, maybe i misunderstood but it seems to me that this home owner has been abandoned by the contractor.
The last snow melt i worked on we had 90 psi on when it was poured. we left it on. Two weeks later it was zero. We put another 90 on it and it went right back down. We DID NOT tell the customer to go find what happened , nor did we stand around pointing fingers. We pressurized, we looked we listened and we searched, we found a suspicious spot. we chopped, we exposed the pipe, we showed the customer what we found. We fixed it. We were paid in full for our efforts, because it was not our "fault" .

Ironman

So, the HO's own testimony as well as pics of the concrete man driving a Georgia buggy all over the tubing is not conclusive enough to prove that was the most likely cause of damage. If the tubing does indeed leak on every loop, (still not confirmed) what would you suggest that the plumber could have done that could have possibly caused that? Sorry, but in this country a person does not have to prove himself INNOCENT "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

There seems to be no question that the plumber lacked competency with the radiant manifold, but I find it beyond reason that anyone could have laid the PEX in such an irresponsible way that every loop leaks.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then we have an entire volume as to what damaged the tubing. Take a look at those pics!

As far as the plumber goes, the HO has yet to reveal whether he was an actual contractor who had the responsibility for the entire job or just someone who was hired to help out and had a limited scope of work or was simply being paid by the hour.

If this were my job and this had happened, after I'd seen those pics and heard the HO say they ran a Georgia buggy over the tubing, id be telling him to get the guy that damaged it to fix it. Running that buggy over the tubing was gross negligence.

Gordy

No doubt that the weight of a loaded Georgia buggy makeing multiple runs in the same path cut that tubing. It may have been tedious to do, but blocking should have been layed in the mesh grid to get the plywood up off the tubing, or another method for concrete placement. Concrete pump with hose run in garage would have been a faster option. Cost more yes.

In the end the owner would probably pay for the extra cost of a more expensive concrete placement option, but still would have the tubing to use.

Part of the Responsibility is on the heating contractor to insure the concrete contractors method of installation does not damage the tubing. The concrete contractor shares majority of the responsibility. Does not take much to understand that the tubing is not indistructable.

tls_10

I'm a poor communicator, always have been. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but let me clarify my point.
First, I 100% agree that the way in which the concrete was poured is the "probable" cause of the leaks. I do not, how ever consider the pictures as "proof" and I doubt that the concrete contractor will either.
I also believe that it is highly "unlikely" that the tubing installer left leaks in all 6 runs. But, with out a proper air test prior to and during the pour, we have no "proof" of that either.
This leaves the customer dangling in the wind.
My view that the heating contractor should test the system and expose a leak, is not for him to "prove his innocence" but rather to provide the home owner with something more to take to the concrete contractor. I do believe he is obligated to provide a proper air test, which hasn’t yet been done, but, upon finding that the concrete contractor caused the leaks the heating contractor should be reimbursed for searching for and exposing the leak.
Now, in a perfect world, at this point, the concrete contractor would remove the pad and properly install a new one, at his expense. I don’t see this happening with out a fight on the home owners part.


This is just my opinion as an outsider looking in.

icesailor

At first it seems improbable that "all runs leak". But the fact that the plywood is laid on top of the tube and the tubing and mesh is under it, means that probably every tube set down was run over by the buggy at some time during the pour. In the first photo, there is a length of plywood that runs off to the right side of the pour.

If all the mesh and tubing was on chairs to hold the mesh up off the floor, what would the concrete contractor do? Drive over them? To not want to pump shows a cement head. Load all that plywood on a trailer. Drive it to a job, take it off the trailer and spread it around. As needed, remove it. Wash/scrape concrete off plywood. Stack on trailer and take back to shop. Store. Replace bad plywood from concrete deterioration. Investment in plywood. At least three guys to drive buggy and move plywood around. Plus, investment in buggy.

As opposed to pumping. Three guys to place concrete from pump hose, float and grade concrete. Reddi-Mix supplies the mini-pump. Or else, big pump truck for more money. No investment in pumping. No dead plywood. No damage. Concrete pumping has revolutionized concrete work. If anyone asked around, the difference in cost to have it pumped and placed would be little. Especially not that there is an obvious problem. LESS LABOR FOR THE FLOOR CONTRACTOR!!.

As I said in an earlier post, send that first photo to Uponor and they will laugh at someone if they try to blame the PEX. That was the first PEX radiant floor pour that concrete person has ever done. If he did any that were done like that and they didn't leak, he was lucky.

IMO.

Ironman

Again, look at the pics closely, particularly the first one. The wheels are directly on the tubing. Even if it could be argued that the concrete guy "tried" to protected the tubing with plywood (which would not be effective), the obvious fact that he drove directly on the tubing makes him negligent.

As Ice pointed out, that's about 4000 lbs: it's a 21 cubic foot buggy which itself weighs 1300+ lbs; and 21 cubit feet of concrete is slightly over 3/4 of yard and weighs about 3000 lbs. that's well over 4000 lbs pressing the tubing into an eigth inch steel wire. I would say that's pretty conclusive.

Yes, the plumber is incompetent as far as radiant goes if he doesn't know how to use a manifold. But I see nothing amiss with how the tubing was laid. Is 12" OC enough? Did he do a load calc? Probably not. But that's another issue altogether.

Should he pressurize the tubing to help ID any leaks? I would think so, but again, we don't know his relationship with the HO and what's transpired between them. Maybe the HO fired him and kicked him off the job site. We don't know the details.

RobG

Wow, long thread. I think the GC and the concrete company are at fault. The slab and tubing should be ripped out and the radiant contractor should re-install new tubing at no cost and the GC and the concrete company can work out the new slab cost. If the radiant installer had a pressure test and instructed the GC to monitor it during the pour he would have no liability in my eyes.

icesailor

@ironman:

Not to continue this out but, the concrete guy is totally incompetent and the photos show it. In my long life, I poured or assisted in a lot of concrete placement. The wire goes in the middle of the slab, no matter what or how any one says. Even in places where he has screeded off the concrete, the mesh and tubing is on the poly sheeting. It wasn't even pulled up to the middle of the slab where it belongs. Pulled up with the rebar hooks that ME's friend says he doesn't use or ever heard of using. ME needs to take a copy of that photo and ask his friend his opinion of the pour.

Gordy

Come on Chris how many concrete pours happen where the wire mesh get pulled up to the middle of the slab including the ones you helped on? I can guarantee that even if it were attempted to be done the mesh settles back to the bottom, or close to it with the dumping, and stampeding on the leading edge of the pour. Especially the smaller gauge 6x6'mesh. Your standing on the very thing your trying to pull up. And when it is tried it's just going through the motions.

Using slab bolsters at proper spacing, and on properly prepared sub grade to support the mesh is the only way to make sure the mesh, and the tubing stay where you want it. How often do you see that?

And just so all aware mesh does NOT prevent cracking. What it does do is help prevent to slabs adjacent to a crack from settling, and being uneven. It can do that at the bottom of the slab. Use fiber mesh, or wire pins they have far better results than wire mesh. Eliminates the whole wire mesh step.

SWEI

This is why we prefer rebar on chairs for RFH. It may appear to cost more than mesh does, but by the time you get the job done right, the costs are actually pretty close -- and the rebar requires a lot less QC to get right.

icesailor

Gordy said:

Come on Chris how many concrete pours happen where the wire mesh get pulled up to the middle of the slab including the ones you helped on? I can guarantee that even if it were attempted to be done the mesh settles back to the bottom, or close to it with the dumping, and stampeding on the leading edge of the pour. Especially the smaller gauge 6x6'mesh. Your standing on the very thing your trying to pull up. And when it is tried it's just going through the motions.

Using slab bolsters at proper spacing, and on properly prepared sub grade to support the mesh is the only way to make sure the mesh, and the tubing stay where you want it. How often do you see that?

And just so all aware mesh does NOT prevent cracking. What it does do is help prevent to slabs adjacent to a crack from settling, and being uneven. It can do that at the bottom of the slab. Use fiber mesh, or wire pins they have far better results than wire mesh. Eliminates the whole wire mesh step.

Every one. And you don't pull it up until the concrete is over the wire, You aren't walking all over the already placed concrete. And any floor I ever chopped up had the wire somewhere in the middle. 50 years ago, when pouring a cellar or garage floor with a drum mixer and shoveling sand and a bag of Portland cement into the mixer, the mason hooked the wire with the edge of an iron rake and pulled the mesh up.

Guaranteed, that floor was finished with a power trowel.

The floor was radiant was installed by a "Heater", not a Plumber. He provides a finished product. He is supposed to know all phases of what he does and how everyone else interacts with his product. He NEVER should have allowed what went on, to go on. He either didn't know or didn't care. That floor is so bad that I doubt that much more can be done other than abandon it as a radiant slab if it has as many leaks as described. And any circuits that are tight, will leak sooner or later if the behavior of PE underground water pipe is an example.

Judging on how much water is on the top of the screeded concrete, the mix had too much water in it for a really good strong pour. If a year later, it is all dusty and you can sweep concrete dust up with a corn broom, the concrete "Flash Set" and they had to use water on top to power trowel it. You're really supposed to have a good understanding of construction techniques so when there's water coming down through a ceiling in a rain storm, and they blame it on you because your pipe is leaking, you know enough to look outside and see that the sidewall flashing meets the roof is improper and they need to fix THAT, not your pipes.

Sol Hydronics

i would always pressure test with water so the tube can not float

SWEI

Tubing only floats if it is improperly secured.

Uponor advised us to reduce air pressure before the pour to 1-2x the intended system operation pressure. Apparently they have seen issues with jobs which pressurized to 100+ PSI during the pour. Letting the air out caused the tubing to shrink away from the concrete a bit, compromising thermal conductivity between the tubing and the concrete.

Tim Schram_2

I'm with Hot Rod on this one. Is there a valve on every loop supply AND return??? If not you could be backfeeding out of one bad loop. Many manifold sets out there have individual valves only on one of the manifolds. In order to properly test this you need to COMPLETELY isolate each loop even if you have to disconnect them all from your manifolds and test them one at a time. If you have loop valves on only ONE manifold leave that one connected to your water supply. Then carefully disconnect the loops from your non valved manifold and cap them off. You could do this a number of ways, but one way would be to use a shark bite end cap fitting which is removable later. Home Depot carries these.

Good Luck