# RCP -vs- PVC Pipe



## jeb6294 (Oct 20, 2010)

I've got a contractor who is trying to put in a storm sewer line to drain one of the water treatment plants over here. They've submitted a proposal calling for 300 mm (12-in) PVC pipe. We're asking that they use 600 mm (24-in) RCP instead because we've already got piles of it that has been bought and payed for and is not being used (long story...another part of the contract that was cancelled). Their contention is that, despite the pipe being free, RCP will cost more because of the increased trench required due to the increased diameter. I think the difference would be a lot less than they would like to think since there wouldn't need to be as much bedding or cover with RCP.

I'm trying to find a good, concise sheet that clearly shows the properties for each pipe material, i.e. minimum cover for each, trench width for each, etc. I can find the numbers, but I'd like to see if there's a simple, one page diagram for each one out there to keep it as simple as possible since they have "selective" English speaking abilities if you catch my drift.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2010)

We were just talking about this in the workshop I am attending this week (low volume roads engineering), and someone asked the same question. I can't help you with a one-page summary, but I seem to recall that the concrete pipes required more cover than the PVC pipes. I suppose it depends on the pipe in question. I'm sure there are several folks here that know a lot more about this than me, though.

I'd wonder about the wisdom of running 12" pipe for a storm drain anyway - it's awfully susceptible to plugging with debris. Maybe that can be your focus - you want to make sure the storn drain system doesn't plug up if the site isn't perfectly maintained.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2010)

Oh no - I got that wrong. We were talking about CMP pipe requiring shallower burial depths than concrete (culvert work). We didn't talk about PVC per se, only the corrugated ABS pipe. But we didn't discuss burial depth compared to concrete for ABS pipe. Sorry, I've got nothing for you.


----------



## jeb6294 (Oct 20, 2010)

Dleg said:


> We were just talking about this in the workshop I am attending this week (low volume roads engineering), and someone asked the same question. I can't help you with a one-page summary, but I seem to recall that the concrete pipes required more cover than the PVC pipes. I suppose it depends on the pipe in question. I'm sure there are several folks here that know a lot more about this than me, though.
> I'd wonder about the wisdom of running 12" pipe for a storm drain anyway - it's awfully susceptible to plugging with debris. Maybe that can be your focus - you want to make sure the storn drain system doesn't plug up if the site isn't perfectly maintained.


The "storm" isn't really a storm system. It is basically just to collect and drain the waste water coming from the water treatment plant and once in a very great while, water from the storage tanks if they manage to overflow or need to be drained.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 20, 2010)

RCP is going to be more labor intensive because you have to move it with equipment, seal it with shorter lengths of pipe (8' sections), whereas the PVC you can have two amigo's carry it where you need it. The only diagrams I have are as it relates to traffic being over the pipe, we use RCP under any road and we normally use RCP on longitudinal drainage wherever we can afford it


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2010)

jeb6294 said:


> Dleg said:
> 
> 
> > We were just talking about this in the workshop I am attending this week (low volume roads engineering), and someone asked the same question. I can't help you with a one-page summary, but I seem to recall that the concrete pipes required more cover than the PVC pipes. I suppose it depends on the pipe in question. I'm sure there are several folks here that know a lot more about this than me, though.
> ...


Well, I'd still recommend the RCP if you have a lot of it on hand. The reason being that it "should" last longer. Tougher materials, larger size, both contribute to longer life. You're there to build infrastructure - things that the US builds that last a long time will say a lot about US engineering and, by extension, how much the US "cares" about the people there. Take it from someone who lives in a former US combat zone (circa 1944) where virtually no traces of US construction remain, but Japanese infrastructure pre-dating the invasion is still functioning in many places (culverts and other drainage systems, primarily). Were Japanese engineers better? Clearly, the US had its own priorities at the time, and those did not include building lasting infrastructure - only expedient construction to get B-29s in the air as fast as possible. Still, the impression it leaves on the local people is that the US didn't care about them or their future, only prosecuting the war. Despite all evidence to the contrary, a lot of people (falsely) remember the Japanese as benevolent rulers here, partially on the evidence of their more permanent infrastructure construction.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.


----------

