Talk:Ductile iron pipe

Comment
Suggestions for municipal asset management user name: A table should be created to dmeonstrate the 76% change in DI pipe wall thickness. also considering there is a great deal of cast iron pipe and DI pipe of various sizes already installed a dicussion of pipe performance based on recent studies and even the possible total length would be more informative. AWWA has published recent articles on these subjects in cluding the impact of corrosion on the pipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underground.pipe.assets (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Material moved from Cement-mortar lined ductile iron pipe
The material for this article is based on a series of edits to Cement-mortar lined ductile iron pipe that changed that article into one focusing more generally on ductile iron pipes. I've created this article under the name "Ductile iron pipe," restored the old material on cement lined pipes, and linked the two pages together. EastTN (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree also with the move. I made the edits to the original article as a I felt the emphasis on the cement mortar lining was unwarranted - all ductile sold these days (at least in my experience in the west) is CM lined - and equally the pipes are perfectly functional, albeit with a more limited lifespan, without the lining. There's a lot more that can be added to this article.--Cphi (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Flange class or wall thickness
In the table of Ductile iron pipe. Is "| Class 40" a wall thickness or a "flange class"?? If I need to make a correction/adjustment I'll do so when I get a definite answer. Peter Horn User talk 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Class 40 is a wall thickness. Saint-Gobain's PAM Natural push-fit pipe is Class 40. Table 15 of EN545_2006 gives the wall thicknesses of Class 40 (along with K9 and K10). --Cphi (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cphi, No correction necessary. Peter Horn User talk 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Side by side
Re: Ductile iron pipe What does it take to move the two columns below side by side? see also User:Peter Horn/Sandbox. I have tried there.

Peter Horn User talk 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro-plastic pipe edits.
Is it just me or do the sections titled Industry Associations and Environmental seem pretty one sided? It looks like a pro-plastic pipe partisan wrote those sections. I'm not an expert and their predictions for ductile iron pipe might even be correct, but this doesn't represent a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusyoder (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Manufacturers form associations to promot their products and the pipe industry is no different. The first sentence appears factual. The second could be softened and the 1/3 cost conclusion is not supported yet. The third has sourcess, so...  Yah, it could be softened.  Cafe Nervosa (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias in this article
Greetings, before I explain the issues of bias in this article, I'd like to disclose that I work with the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association and my presence here is at their behest. My prerogative here is to reduce the bias in this article but will only do so by working with disinterested editors here on this talk page. There may be questions about this, if so, asking on my user talk page would be best, to keep this page for discussing this article.

My read on this article is that advocates of the PVC pipe industry have been active, inserting their criticisms and pro-PVC statements. While I will have other questions about content later, the most immediately obvious instance of this is the content under the "Environmental" heading. Key problems:
 * The way this is written now implies that certain claims are undisputed facts, for instance that the U.S. market believes ductile iron pipe is not environmentally friendly.
 * There is a strong focus on PVC's purported superiority.
 * There are no references to back up any of the claims made.
 * Some information under the heading doesn't relate to "Environmental" issues at all, for instance claims about market share and claims about PE and PVC pipes becoming stronger over time.
 * There's a link to the a Web MD article on e-coli infection, apparently to show some link between ductile iron pipe and e-coli. The Web MD article makes no mention of pipes of any kind.
 * At the end there's a link to the "Walkerton Tragedy" Wikipedia article and it appears this is intended to link use of ductile iron pipe to this incidence of water contamination. Reading the article and sources, the incident was related to general poor management of public water supply and was not linked to ductile iron pipe usage, in fact, ductile iron pipe isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

As you can hopefully see from the points above, in general the content under the "Environmental" heading seems like highly biased writing and all without any references to back it up.

In terms of moving this forward to reduce this bias, I believe the best solution for now is to take out everything under this heading after "Ductile pipe can be recycled." Assuming that this meets with other editors' satisfaction, is anyone willing to remove this content? PiperOne (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new content
Reflecting further on the content under the "Environmental" heading, I realize my ask was primarily to remove content, where it might be preferable to editors to replace with better content. The below is almost entirely new material, with references drawn primarily from peer reviewed journal articles. Aiming for balance, I have detailed a range of findings from comparative studies of pipe materials on the environmental impact of ductile iron pipe.

My request is now for editors to review this content and rather than simply take out the negatively biased information, to replace the entire contents under the "Environmental" heading with the below newly-prepared content. Is anyone willing to review the material below and make this substitution? PiperOne (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ductile iron pipe in the developed world is normally manufactured exclusively from recycled material including scrap steel and recycled iron. The pipe can be recycled after use. In terms of environmental impact, several studies have compared ductile iron pipe's impact on the environment with that of other pipe materials. A study by Jeschar et al in 1995 compared the energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced in manufacturing pipes of various materials including concrete, ductile iron, cast iron and PVC, based on pipes with nominal diameter of 100mm to 500mm. The energy consumed in manufacturing ductile iron pipe was 19.55 MJ per kg and volume of emissions released during manufacture was 1.430 kg CO2 per kg, compared to 68.30 MJ per kg of energy and 4.860 kg CO2 per kg emissions for PVC pipes, and 1.24 MJ per kg and 0.148  kg CO2 per kg for concrete pipes of the same diameter. Another study the following year, by the Forschungsinstitut für Chemie und Umwelt, had similar findings, however it also took the lifetime of pipes into account. This study found improved environmental performance for ductile iron pipe in terms of energy consumed and emissions produced during manufacture due to its longer life span. A more recent study, published August 2012, by Du et al, carried out a life cycle analysis on six types materials used for water and waste water pipes, including ductile iron, PVC, high density polyethylene (HDPE) and concrete. They found that at diameters of ≤ 24 in, ductile iron pipe had the highest "global warming potential" based on emissions from manufacturing, transportation and installation. At larger diameters, ≥ 30 in, ductile iron pipe had a lower "global warming potential", while PVC had the highest. According to a 2008 study by Koo et al, ductile iron pipe had the lowest impact on natural resource depletion, compared to HDPE pipe and PVC pipe.


 * Comment Looking at the page history, it seems that most of the content being addressed here was added by two new users Municipal.asset.management and Underground.pipe.assets, almost all in one day (5/22/12) with the last three edits within the following week. There does not appear to have been any discussion or review of the content at the time. siafu (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That pattern of editing is what was troubling to me and led me to believe that bias may have been intentionally added. I found these additions highly problematic, but also saw it as an opportunity to propose a more balanced version of the content under this heading. On that note, any comments you may have on the new content I propose would be most welcome. PiperOne (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a major improvement and meets the criteria so I have implemented it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, thank you, I am grateful for your review and addition of my proposed content. As I have mentioned above, there are other areas of this article that concern me with regards to bias in the content and I should be in a position to offer new content soon. May I reach out to you again at that point? PiperOne (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. I have added this page to my watchlist so I should see anything new from you.  You seem to know what you are doing so as long as you proceed slowly and carefully I would be surprised if there were major problems.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Industry associations
As you may read above, last year I asked on this page for assistance with addressing the bias in this article. I have returned to pick this up where I left off, aiming to rectify the remaining issues that I see in this page's content. This time, the content in question is that under the "Industry associations" heading.

Key problems:
 * Information is included that does not pertain to ductile iron pipe or to industry associations, such as the claim that "other pipe" is ⅓ the cost of ductile iron.
 * Claims are made regarding current ductile iron "market failures" without any context or dates to show when this was the case.
 * A claim regarding price fixing implies an issue with multiple major ductile iron pipe manufacturers, however there was one case involving McWane, which was focused only on ductile iron pipe fittings.
 * The "Mcwane Legal Problems" link included leads only to a collection of articles about McWane on the New York Times website.
 * Only one reference is included, which is simply a link to the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association website.
 * The heading is misleading as to the content: only one association is mentioned, while information is also provided regarding the ductile pipe market.
 * No information is provided about associations outside of the U.S.

Below is an attempt at more balanced material to replace that currently included on the page. My thought here was to change the heading for this section to "Industry associations and market" in order to better represent the content. The first paragraph lists a few major industry associations, including both DIPRA and NAPF for the U.S. and the European association, European Association for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems. In the second paragraph, an overview of recent market conditions is provided, including mention of the negative impact of the financial crisis in 2008.

My request is once again for editors to review the material I provide below and replace both the heading and content of "Industry associations" with this new content. Will any editors be able to review this and make the replacement? PiperOne (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Industry associations and market
 * In the United States, the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association represents manufacturers of ductile iron pipe. The association provides research on and promotes the use of ductile iron piping in utility projects (water and sewer), focusing on its strength, recyclability and life cycle cost compared with alternative products such as PVC. The U.S. industry is also represented by the National Association of Pipe Fabricators. Outside of the U.S., the ductile iron pipe industry is supported by associations including the European Association for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems.


 * Following the financial crisis of 2008, the pipe industry as a whole, experienced a decrease in sales in the U.S. due to municipalities deferring replacement of water mains and reduction in new home construction. According to a report published by The Freedonia Group in 2011, economic recovery from the 2008 crisis is likely to expand ductile iron's market share in the large diameter pipe market.

Addressing issues with introduction
Greetings again, as described above, I have been asking here for assistance from impartial editors to address bias in this article on behalf of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. The final area of the article that I would like to discuss is the introduction. As currently written this includes a great deal of discussion regarding ductile iron pipe's lifespan, including details regarding corrosion that I believe to be written in a negatively slanted manner.

Key issues:
 * The introduction does not provide a full overview of the article, instead much of its content focuses on corrosion and lifespan.
 * Claims about ductile iron pipe's susceptibility to corrosion and its lifespan are included without any supporting references.
 * Some of the included claims are incorrect and biased against ductile iron pipe, such as "plastic bagging/sleeving have helped only marginally to mitigate true corrosion impacts".
 * The link to "Corrosion" included in the final line does not work.

The solution that I would propose is to create a new section of text that focuses on lifespan of ductile iron pipe, corrosion and corrosion mitigation, and replace the introduction with new content to describe ductile iron pipe and give a summary of the overall article content. Below I have included material for both the introduction and a new section with a heading "Lifespan and corrosion". For the content under the new heading, I have drawn on multiple peer-reviewed sources to provide a discussion of the impact of corrosion on ductile iron pipe and methods of corrosion mitigation.

A second part to this request is for a small addition under the "Environmental" heading, regarding ductile iron pipe's certification as a sustainable product by the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability, which was announced in November. The wording I offer is:
 * In November 2012, ductile iron pipe manufactured in the United States received certification as a sustainable product from the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability.

I'd like to request for editors to review the content below and use this to replace the content for the introduction, add the new heading and material focused on "Lifespan and corrosion" and also make the above suggested addition to "Environmental" noting the IMTS certification. Are any editors available to carry out this review and make these changes? PiperOne (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

General Queries about Ductile (and Cast) Iron Pipes
There are some points which the article does not seem to address. These points will likely vary for different geographical regions (including the UK and the US). Here are some questions. It is not my point to turn Wikipedia into a forum, BUT water infrastructure would clearly be important throughout the world. I note that some of these questions are already dealt with upon the Ductile iron pipe page. The Cast iron pipe page states that Ductile iron pipe was transitioned to during the 1970s and 1980s, but it is not clear which local authorities of which parts of the world would have transitioned to which particular water infrastructure standards at which times. Anyway, here are a few points : 1) How long does Ductile iron pipe last WITH the standards it was typically laid with (this includes whether it was coated in rubber, etc...)? I believe that it is irresponsible to extrapolate and say that Ductile iron pipes can last 100-110 years UNLESS someone has actually seen them last that long.  If extrapolations are used to make such estimates, then those extrapolations should reach the highest levels of rigour given the importance of water infrastructure. 2) To what extent do current water infrastructures rely upon Ductile iron pipes? If the Ductile pipes were only transitioned to in 1970s and 1980s that means that the Ductile iron pipes are still in use for some significant stretches of infrastructure. To what extent do current companies replace the old Cast iron pipes with new Ductile pipes? I am of the opinion that, if such infrastructure is not Nationalised, then the companies whose duty it is to update/maintain the infrastructure should make sure that there records of Water pipe infrastructure are : (a) Backed up in multiple locations so that those working in the future can know how to coordinate maintenance efforts AND (b) More openly disseminated (online) so that people can correct erroneous records and gain confidence that the water (and other!) infrastructures are well-maintained. This could be done by producing publically accessible “Water-Infrastructure-Maps” which provide information on (i) How old pipes are, (ii) What procedures were used to lay them and what they are made of, (iii)

3) Have studies been done (under various typical, and perhaps some extreme) conditions to see what the common causes of failures of these types of pipe would be so as to enable at least some predictive power as to where and when a particular segment of cast iron water infrastructure might fail? Clearly, this depends upon whether coatings for water pipes were used when a particular pipe was laid.  But without such information being public knowledge or placed in a public source, it is difficult for members of the public to gain confidence about there water infrastructure. 4) How do cast iron (and ductile) water pipes respond to underground subsidence? (predicting where underground subsidence is going to occur is, of course, a non-trivial thing to do). It is clearly a VERY GOOD idea to have WATER-INFRASTRUCTURE-MAPS covering relevant geographical regions available to Civil Contingencies Responders (in a Data Integrated Manner) AS WELL as to Members of the Public (via the internet where possible) so that people can be confident that no risks in the name of economic savings are being taken with water supplies, etc... If I think of more, I will add it later and tidy up my queries, when time permits. ASavantDude (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had a further look at the article to see whether some of the issues I have mentioned above are incidentally dealt with by the article. One particular area that I am keenly interested in IS the issue of the Ductile iron water pipes having a 100 year lifetime.  In particular, it is currently not clear to me whether the paper "American Water Works Association (2012). Buried No Longer: Confronting Americas Water Infrastructure Challenge (PDF) (Report). American Water Works Association. p. 8. Retrieved 19 October 2012." is being Conservative in its estimate of a 100 year lifetime for water piping (perhaps the author was cautious when the evidence suggested longer lifetimes for the water pipes?).  Some would argue that, for infrastructure as key and important as water, 100 years might not be enough (even though some of the middle aged to older readers might be glad that they will not have to deal with MAJOR water infrastructure replacement problems in their lifetimes).  The point I would make it that minor increases in expenditure might dramatically increase water infrastructure lifetime.  In particular, (i) Improved coating technologies might improve lifetimes, (ii) Use of stainless steel piping might be economically sensible when one considers the long term utility of water pipes (assuming corrosion is the number one reason that such water pipes have a limited lifetime), (iii) Future advances in technology (such as water pipe robots or internal methods of corrosion resistant coating) COULD enable water pipe infrastructure lifetimes to be improved by enabling internal coatings to be placed within the water pipes.  Ultimately, I feel that future generations (and maybe even those who live longer than others) would be thankful for water infrastructure that lasts longer than 100 years.  Admittedly, however, 100 years is a long time...

ASavantDude (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ductile iron pipe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723102005/http://www.water.org.uk/home/member-services/wis-and-ign/current-documents-plastics-and-rubbers/ign-4-50-03.pdf to http://www.water.org.uk/home/member-services/wis-and-ign/current-documents-plastics-and-rubbers/ign-4-50-03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702200903/http://www.russellcorrosion.com:80/PublicPages/Home.aspx to http://www.russellcorrosion.com/PublicPages/Home.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111011524/http://water.pentair.com/water/products/pipeline_systems/ductile_iron/index.aspx to http://water.pentair.com/water/products/pipeline_systems/ductile_iron/index.aspx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ductile iron pipe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914110710/http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/BuriedNoLongerCompleteFinal.pdf to http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/BuriedNoLongerCompleteFinal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127013915/http://www.napf.com/node/65 to http://www.napf.com/node/65
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121204083745/http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/2/6/insight/what-do-u-s-pipe.html to http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/2/6/insight/what-do-u-s-pipe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512050913/http://www.pscipco.com/ductile_iron_pipe.html to http://www.pscipco.com/ductile_iron_pipe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702200903/http://www.russellcorrosion.com/PublicPages/Home.aspx to http://www.russellcorrosion.com/PublicPages/Home.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112065024/http://pwsquote.com.au/ductile-iron-pipes-fittings.html/ to http://pwsquote.com.au/ductile-iron-pipes-fittings.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Practical limits to Standards of Ductile Iron Pipe including Additional Pipe Coating Layers
It is possible that, in the future, Ductile Iron Pipe infrastructure will have to be replaced. What design modifcations might be warranted/requested/desirable in order to make sure that any future pipes laid last longer than 200 years? This may sound laughable from a practical perspective (and may very well be). It is clear that the more layers of external coating that are placed upon the pipe, the longer it will likely resist *reasonable* rates of corrosion. Of course, this would have all sorts of consequences related to cost, workability and weight of the pipes in the future. However, if planning occurs NOW, then such long term pipe infrastructure might be possible.

Nevertheless, the issue of new pipe infrastructure would clearly be a social, political and economical call. BUT replacing the pipe infrastructure whilst the workforce is young enough to replace it, rather than waiting for an older less capable workforces would seem to be in the survival interests of current and future generations.

Maybe I'm missing the practical limitations of such additional pipe coatings. Also, new materials might enable longer lived pipes.

If you take one thing from this post - MORE PIPE COATING LAYERS SHOULD EQUAL LONGER-LIVED PIPES (if possible). This all assumes that the constraining factor on water distribution would be pipe longevity as opposed to say, water scarcity or water stress. ASavantDude (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)