# Pipe  Sleeves



## globe trekker

From Section 305.5 in the 2006 IPC  & P2603.5 in the 2006 IRC:

*Pipes through or under footings or foundation walls.* 

Any pipe that passes under a footing or through a foundation wall shall be

provided with a relieving arch, or a pipe sleeve pipe shall be built into the

foundation wall. The sleeve shall be two pipe sizes greater than the pipe

passing through the wall.

*QUESTION # 1:*  Do any of you actually require this on the Residential or

Commercial projects?

*QUESTION # 2:*  How much "under" a foundation wall do you, or would

you require the piping to be located to not require a pipe sleeve?  1 inch,

..2 inches, ..4 inches, ..6 inches, ..1 foot, ????

As always, please cite the applicable code sections.   Thanks!   

One example from the City of Dallas, TX:

*http://www.dallascityhall.com/pdf/Building/PipesThrough.pdf*

.


----------



## docgj

#1 ALWAYS

#2 Refer to #1


----------



## globe trekker

Thanks docgj!

Let me clarify my *QUESTION # 2.*   A sewer or water pipe is passing underneath

a footing, ..either a perimeter footing or an interior footing / grade beam.   When

the pipe is passing underneath it, at what point / measured dimension would

you ( and others ) not require a pipe sleeve, or relieving arch?

Example:  A Commercial project has a perimeter footing designed at 24 inches

wide  by  30 inches deep.   The sewer pipe will be passing underneath the perimeter

footing approx. 1 foot, ..2 foot, ..6 inches, ..2.5 feet or  *** **insert  your*

*measurement  here** *** below the bottom of the footing.

How far below the bottom of the footing will a pipe sleeve "not" be required?

Thanks ya'll!    

.


----------



## GHRoberts

Let's work backward...

Take the difference between the sleeve and pipe size. That is the max the foundation could sink before damaging the pipe.

I would suggest that dimension would be sufficient below the footing without a sleeve.


----------



## Mark K

I would defer to the geotechnical engineer for the project to determine how far below the footing the pipe should be.

In spite of any requirement I am dubious about the ability of the oversized sleeve to accomodate movement.  If the space ibetween the sleeve and the pipe is filld with caulking or waterproofing material the pipe will likely be tied to the settlement of the wall.  Thus why put in a sleeve.  We all do this because it is "common sense" but the question is it based on good science?


----------



## docgj

As Mark stated I would refer them to the DP as this is a commercial project.

docgj


----------



## mtlogcabin

When the pipe is installed there usually are minimal loads on the footing. As the building is erected the loads will increase, if the design is correct there should be minimal setteling I don't see this as problem where there are DP's on the project for soils and foundations. Now a house I always require the arch. As for the foundation wall I was taught the annular space was required to keep the concrete from shrinking against the pipe and allow for expansion and contraction of the pipe throughout the life of the pipe.


----------



## Mule

#1. Always However we allow carpet pad along with a pipe surrounding the pipe.

#2. If it's not showing in the footing I don't worry about it!


----------



## Jobsaver

We require the oversized pipe sleeves for any pipe passing under a footing, and a plastic pipe sleeve (anti-corrosion) for metal pipes passing through a foundation wall.

For water services, we require a pipe sleeve that is either underneath the footing, or placed in the footing in such manner that the sleeve exits the structure at or below the frostline. Exceptions are granted in cases where the service will obviously be covered deep enough at final grading.


----------



## FredK

FWIW we are still under the 94 UPC since it was state law when we went to the 06 codes.

If it is in concrete it needs a sleeve.

If it is in a commercial project the engineer's here have a detail called for sleeving of being a certain depth below the footing for all pipe penetrations (includes electric, etc...).


----------



## Yikes

globe trekker said:
			
		

> From Section 305.5 in the 2006 IPC  & P2603.5 in the 2006 IRC:The sleeve shall be two pipe sizes greater than the pipe
> 
> passing through the wall.


This is a slightly confusing way to describe the requirement: "two pipe sizes greater".  Is this a mathmatical statement, or an NPS reference? IOW, does this mean a 2" pipe requires: 

(A) a (2" x 2) = 4" sleeve, which leaves a 1 5/8" gap?  *OR *

(B) 2" < 2 1/2" < 3" = 2 sizes greater, therefore use a 3" nominal size pipe sleeve, which leaves a 5/8" gap?


----------



## globe trekker

Thanks for all of the input!  

Yikes,

As I understand the code sections, it would be "trade sized pipe", 2 sizes larger.

*EX:* 2" pipe would require a [ minimum ] 3" pipe sleeve. 3/4" pipe / tubing

would require would require a [ minimum ] 1.25" sized pipe sleeve.

" FredK " brought up another excellent point of discussion, ..." the electrical

pipe / conduit". How may of you are requiring a sleeve for the schedule 80

conduit underneath or through the foundations? Maybe we can lure the

electrical forum members in on this aspect, ..to get their input.

What say ye Jeff, Chris, Chris, and others?  

.

.


----------



## Mule

I don't worry about the electrical conduits beacuse the wires are already protected by the conduit. Isn't that the whole purpose is to protect what is running through the beam? The wires are protected with the conduit.


----------



## Jobsaver

Mule said:
			
		

> I don't worry about the electrical conduits beacuse the wires are already protected by the conduit. Isn't that the whole purpose is to protect what is running through the beam? The wires are protected with the conduit.


I am with Mule on this one. Otherwise, we are going to start requiring sleeves to protect sleeves to protect sleeves . . .


----------



## FredK

Mule said:
			
		

> I don't worry about the electrical conduits beacuse the wires are already protected by the conduit. Isn't that the whole purpose is to protect what is running through the beam? The wires are protected with the conduit.


It wasn't the conduit that the engineer's wanted protected it was the earth under or concrete footing.  They detail out a 45 slope from point of entry and that's required to be sleeved and slurry filled or a sleeve through the footing.  Either way it's a "B" when the electrican shows up with an elbow in that location.


----------



## skipharper

Let me clarify my *QUESTION # 2.* A sewer or water pipe is passing underneath

a footing, ..either a perimeter footing or an interior footing / grade beam. When

the pipe is passing underneath it, at what point / measured dimension would

you ( and others ) not require a pipe sleeve, or relieving arch?

Example: A Commercial project has a perimeter footing designed at 24 inches

wide by 30 inches deep. The sewer pipe will be passing underneath the perimeter

footing approx. 1 foot, ..2 foot, ..6 inches, ..2.5 feet or *** **insert your*

*measurement here** *** below the bottom of the footing.

1) In my opinion the footer is as "relieving" as it can get and if the pipe is not touching the underside of the footer it is good. If the entire footer is sinking then bigger problems exist.

2) PVC & ABS thru masonry walls, bust out one cell and the block above if laid correctly is the arch (I know what the definition of an arch is) The worst thing you can do is require a 4" waste pipe passing thru a foundation wall to go thru a 6" sleeve, now what have you done to the wall?

3) Water line under footer see #1, water lines thru foundation walls gets a sleeve 2 pipe sizes larger. 1" water line requires a 1 1/2" sleeve patched around exterior, caulked around the interior of the sleeve.


----------



## Mark K

While concrete does shrink and pipe does expand and contract due to temperature changes I will suggest that these effects are not significant even to an obsessive engineer.

Any pipe in the ground will deflect as the surrounding soil settles.  This is true whether the pipe is near a foundation, out in a field, or under a road.  Failure in the pipe can occur if the curvature of the pipe in the soil is excessive.  This will only occur if either the soil is extremely soft or if the foundation loads are high enough to result in significant settlement in the soil.  This will be less of a concern the smaller the pipe.  When the pipe is even a short distance below the footing the curvature in the pipe will be greatly reduced.

When you crunch the numbers I will suggest that unless very unusual conditions occur that there is no problem.

Given that contractors do not always comply with the code it would be reasonable to expect that a significant number of pipes not installed with sleeves.  If there is a need for sleeves I would then expect to see a number of failures.  What is your observation?  Is there a problem?  When there was a problem with pipes due to foundation settlement I would suggest there were bigger problems than failed pipes..

Because all the electrical conduit does is to protect the flexible wires I suggest that there is even less concern for conduit.

The 45 degree slope shown on the drawings applies to pipe parallel to the footing and not pipes perpendicular to the footing.  Pipes within this 45 degree slope would be acceptable if the project geotechnical engineer has no problem.

If you are even one foot below the footing I would suggest that there is no problem.  If the pipe is below the footing I would defer to the project geotechnical engineer.

When installing pipes through footings with or without sleeves I would be more concerned about the effects of the holes on the concrete footing and reinforcing.  Of particular concern are the effects of multiple pipes or conduits close by.  Electrical contractors will often run multiple conduits close together.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

I failed a job when the PVC sewer line undercut the footing bearing along its length, an engineer had it slurry fill.  This made the relieving arc pointless IMHO.  

I’ve heard of Styrofoam board being used over the pipes as a relieving arch.


----------



## RJJ

Can't use Styrofoam for an arch.


----------



## Mark K

If the pipe is perpendicular to the footing and the styrofoam is between the pipe and the footing the  footing will span over the pipe.  The styrofoam is intended to crush before the pipe is overloaded thus protecting the pipe.

If the pipe is parallel to the footing and close to the footing the best approach is probably to use a slurry mix or engineered fill.  You could also lower the bottom of the footing.


----------



## peach

Yes.. if the penetraion is within the 45 degree area of influence of the building gravity forces..  deep enough, it doesn't matter


----------



## RJJ

Ok Mark I buy your explanation! So what is the thickness of foam you allow? would you allow spay foam?


----------



## Mark K

First personally I am inclined to believe that we have a solution in search of a problem.  I am not convinced we would have a problem even if is there was no sleeve.

From a regulatory position I have yet to see a requirement in the model codes that requires anything be done if the pipe is below the footing.  If this is the case there is no basis to require anything other than the soil upon which the footing is placed is not negatively impacted.

When the pipe is parallel to the footing footing the foam would add nothing and could have a negative impact.

When the pipe passes through the footing the foam would be used as an alternate means of compliance (IBC Section 104.11).  In this case I would suggest that a thickness of foam twice the gap in the sleeve required by the code.


----------



## RJJ

Statement 1. I agree

               2. Not sure I agree and don't have code section at hand

               3. I agree and believe it could cause a larger problem

               4. I would agree


----------



## globe trekker

Great discussion and replys!

Now, what about fire sprinkler piping underneath a footing?  Do you, or would

require a pipe sleeve for these type of " pipes "?

.


----------



## Mark K

I see no difference with fire sprinkler piping.  The physics is the same.


----------



## RJJ

I would require a sleeve or relieving arch. I do buy Mark's explanation for use of foam.


----------



## peach

Does a sprinkler pipe know it needs to behave differently than a storm, sanitary or domestic water line?  I think not...  It's an underground pipe with all the pressures (hydraulic from the soil, whatever pressure is left in the pipe (maybe nothing if it's a drain line.. maybe 200 if it's a fire line)..  I could make an argument out of many codes that the line needs to have a relieving arch to protect it.


----------



## JBI

On the OP,

1 - Yes, it's required by code. Unless given an Engineered design based on sound engineering priciples.

2 - The quoted code provision does not address sleeves under footings. It adresses relieving arches under footings and sleeves through foundation walls. The depth at which a relieving arch is no longer required is a design consideration for the DPR, not the Code Official.

On the sprinkler pipe, 'any pipe' is any pipe.


----------



## globe trekker

Big John,

Thanks for the input and clarification on the "pipes sleeves" underneath the

foundation. I should have stated "relieving arch" instead!

My purpose for this topic was to identify another gray area in the IPC, and

to see what others are doing regarding this type of installation. BTW, on

the project in mind, there were no dimensions provided for the piping

underneath the footings. When I asked the project mechanical contractor

about it ( on the telephone ), I got that "short silence thing", similar to

the "deer in the head lights" look. It's atypical here for the RDP's to provide

this information, and when I request it, I'm the %#^&$# inspector who

is holding the project up!

FWIW, the fire sprinkler piping protection underneath footings is also

listed in NFPA 13, Ch. 10, Section 10.6.

Thanks ya'll for your input! Time to go spread some more sunshine...  

John,

How are things going in Albany?

.


----------



## Keystone

Reviving & expanding this topic;

Ran into this, re-issued permit for new home, previous permit expired and worked stopped few years back when housing crashed, rough plumb and lateral inspection. House trap required by ordinance in this municipality on exterior, interior is a drop then wye thru foundation - no sleeve. I always call this out, I get told often I am the only one and same with the csst nailplates but anyhow the fitting arrangement is tight so a sleeve at this point will require removal of a significant portion of piping. Does anyone know of a code approved product that can be inserted into the foundation without removing the pipe assembly?


----------



## north star

*$ - $*



Keystone,

I do not know of a code approved project off-hand.......From your

description, it sounds as though this will be one of those custom

made applications.

I'm thinking along the lines of something similar to a large diameter

steel pipe; similar to a casing used when drilling underneath interstate

highways, ...saaaaaaaay an 18" diameter, or larger steel pipe that can

be inserted around your drainage piping thru the existing foundation

wall, and then fill in the voids around the pipe casing.

To me, it's either remove the existing piping and re-pipe thru a smaller

sleeve, or use a much larger sleeve and insert around the existing

piping.

Guess they should have used an approved sleeve originally huh ?



*$ - $*


----------



## ICE

I recommend slicing a pipe in half lengthwise and placed around the pipe. The pipe is first wrapped with styrofoam at both ends of the sleeve so that the pipe will be centered in the sleeve. Then the two halves of the sleeve are taped together.

I have seen this many times. They always ask how big the sleeve must be and I recommend a 2" gap around the pipe.

I have been criticized for that.  The complaint is that the styrofoam will impart force on the pipe and it is a poor seal between the pipe and the sleeve.  I reply,"Give me a better solution".  Remember that this is done after the formwork is in.


----------



## ICE

This is a hot topic with 16,742 views.


----------



## chris kennedy

Grade beams are always poured around here before we install conduit.


----------



## Keystone

Ice, no suprise this is has 16K hits, when I used google to seek solutions the forum link for the original posting is the 4th item that comes up..

I see both sides of the coin on the split sleeve, personally I am not a big fan but.....

I have been struggling with these situations now for some time but atleast I know I am far from the only one.


----------



## steveray

Keystone....."Linkseal" is what I see used commercially if I understand what you are looking for....http://www.linkseal.com/

I had a school project where I asked them for a detail for pipes passing under the footing, DP in charge said they weren't going to have any, I said it looked like they were....Gave my plan review to the super when he got on site, next thing I knew they had a change for stepping the footing 8' to get the pipe in the wall and above the footing....


----------



## north star

** & **

IMO, ...in this "neck of the woods", there would be far less problems with

this type of application if [ some ] DP's would actually read the applicable

codes sections and state this on their plans.......I have run in to this

problem numerous times, both in reviewing plans and out in the field.

Once you get out in to the field, and the requirement has not been

stated on the Approved Set of Plans, then realistically one could not

expect the plumbing contractor to retro-fit without being reimbursed

for his costs.........The Approved Set of Plans should have the

governing language AND, this particular issue should be addressed

at the initial foundation forming stage.

** & **


----------



## ICE

north star said:
			
		

> ** & **
> 
> Once you get out in to the field, and the requirement has not been
> 
> stated on the Approved Set of Plans, then realistically one could not
> 
> expect the plumbing contractor to retro-fit without being reimbursed
> 
> for his costs.........The Approved Set of Plans should have the
> 
> governing language AND, this particular issue should be addressed
> 
> at the initial foundation forming stage.
> 
> ** & **


I don't agree.  This is a mundane requirement to protect the pipe.  If the plumber doesn't know that, he'll learn a lesson.


----------



## Keystone

Linkseal looks like a reasonable option..

This project was started by a Third Party Inspection Agengy that is no longer in the picture, I do not fault them cause the project was left weather tight at frame inspection but thats not to say this shouldn't have been addressed during foundation inspection. Who knows if there was an understanding between the contractor and inspector at that time.

As far as plan review, I can say it is rarity to see foundation sleeve notes. Is anyone else seeing or requiring this for residential projects


----------

