When it’s time to spec your next sanitary gravity application, you’ll find a more up-to-date document here.

Let's return to some basic standards.

the Pipeline - Thompson Pipe Group

When engineers specify pipe for a project, there’s a lot to think about and often just a short time to do it. So no surprises when some simply cut-and-paste the specs they’ve used before. 

I’ve found one technical specification that often ends up being used for gravity applications is an old CCFRPM spec. What’s wrong with this? Well CC — centrifugally cast — automatically eliminates a whole family of excellent pipe that’s manufactured using a more state-of-the-art, continuous filament-winding process. FW, if you will.

I may be a little biased here, but it seems to me that this cut-and-paste routine seriously makes some RFPs stink because the issuing authority may not end up getting the best pipe for the job. By limiting competition, sole-source specs simply flush your money down the … well, I’m sure you get the picture. Why don’t we go back to basic standards — and I mean ASTM D3262, D3681, D4161 and D2412 — and let the best pipe and/or bid win the day?

When it’s time to spec your next sanitary gravity application, you’ll find a more up-to-date document here.

You're more than welcome to cut-and-paste it and use it moving forward.

Mike

P.S. If you're not sure why FW is an improvement on CC, check out this website. And if you're getting tired of acronyms, you're not alone. LOL. Or spec FWFRPM.