Advantages of Ductile Iron Pipes - McWane Poles

Environmental Impact 

Ductile iron poles are made from 96% recycled material and are 100% recyclable. Unlike wood poles, which are frequently treated with pentachlorophenol and can leach into the ground water and affect public safety, McWane’s ceramic-epoxy embedment coating and ductile iron material are certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) to be safe for use in contact with potable water sources. Ductile iron poles also weigh less than wood poles and are much lighter than concrete, requiring less energy and fuel to transport and reducing carbon emissions. Further, our Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) management system allows us to manufacture our products in an environmentally-compliant and eco-friendly way and provide communities with a foundation for life with clean, safe, and dependable drinking water.

MIDAS supply professional and honest service.

Simple Installation 

Installation is as easy as it gets. Ductile iron poles can be pre-drilled, or if you prefer to drill yourself, it’s easy to do so. Many poles can be shipped fully assembled and others in just two pieces. The round, tapered design simplifies orientation for installers, and installation uses most of the same equipment as wood poles, so you don’t need to purchase extra tools. McWane Poles can be assembled by hand with chain hoists, making them easy to install without heavy machinery.

The Science of Ductile Iron

Ductile iron is produced by adding magnesium alloy to a molten iron of low phosphorous and low sulfur content. The magnesium alloy addition produces a remarkable change in the microstructure by causing the carbon in the iron to assume a spheroidal or nodular shape, compared to the flake form of graphite in gray cast iron, and at the same time producing a finer grained iron matrix in the surrounding ferrite structure. As a result of this remarkable change, a far stronger, tougher, and ductile material is obtained.

Want more information on ductile iron pipe price? Feel free to contact us.

[Diagram from current website]

History of Ductile Iron

In the past 400 years, cast iron has been used in every conceivable situation where strength and corrosion resistance were needed. From manhole covers to fire hydrants, water pipe, sewer pipe, bridges, and buildings, cast iron has weathered the elements and has survived the test of time. The oldest operating cast iron water main is in Versailles, France, and was installed in . In North America alone, there are more than 500 municipalities with cast iron pipes that have been in service for more than 100 years. With hundreds of years of underground and above ground service, cast iron is well-known for its longevity and durability.

Ductile iron, which was first used in the s, continues this excellent record of underground and above ground service. Ductile iron is only different from cast iron in its ability to bend without breaking. Ductile iron contains the same ingredients as cast iron. The difference is not the quantity of carbon, but the configuration of the carbon molecules. In cast iron, carbon is in flake form, while in ductile iron, the carbon is in nodular form.

The company is the world’s best All Flange 45° Lateral Tee for Sale supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.

I discovered the linked file I provided in a Google search some time ago when I was looking for comparisons of pipe materials, and I supplied same as I felt it was responding to what the OP requested (and it appeared to enforce to enforce prior good response of others). This is clearly a report from a consulting engineer (whose firm/name is there) to a municipal authority (per URL also there) for a pipeline project. While I frankly do not even know what pipe was selected for this project, but I guess I wouldn't be a bit surprised if responsible selectors chose the one that had the higher installed cost.
In this regard, and while I am otherwise rather thick-skinned, I furthermore do feel that saying selection of pipe material is simply a matter of "personal preference" is at best a gross over-simplification and at worst an affront or insult to those utility folks and consulting Engineers in many countries (and in ours in the USA who frankly have done the best job of supplying the best quality water to the most folks and at the lowest real cost of anywhere in the world, and for a very long time.) While no doubt many have their favorites for piping based on their experience/level and other factors as for any capital etc. asset, a whole lot goes into any arguably rigorous selection process beyond this. While I guess it is true all pipes do indeed have at least a similarly sized hole in both ends, beyond that similarity the most common pipe materials that have been around for a long time are really apples and oranges. A whole lot of factors are involved in achievement of a successful pipe system and life cycle (the cheapest is certainly not always the best), and the linked evaluation touches on at least many of them.
As to historical "error", by multiple accounts I've heard ballyhooed from the pvc pipe industry pvc pipe was actually first produced in Germany in the 's, and before the (bombing etc.) of WWII. While I have seen in the ditty at that "damage" to some of the 's lines (I thought when I read this to explain why many old pipe/line testimonials were hard to come by?) was in fact blamed on the subsequent WWII, while I guess I'm not surprised this thread is the first I have heard of the claim that it was invented because of that bombing! What might be most interesting/revealing is how much pvc pipe (e.g. percentage relative to other pipe materials) was selected by the inventing country with most long-term experience in the decades that followed the 's and 's??
As to the post from I see a newcomer to these forums suggesting a utility apparently wants to "semi-aggressively" pursue replacement of all iron piping in their system. I hope for the benefit of tax/rate payers they proceed cautiously, While there have been some problems with some of huge quantities of particularly relatively brittle and often also unlined gray cast iron piping out there, iron piping has overall been providing (even with the technology of the day) overall pretty good service for hundreds of years, and in some cases continuously! On the other hand, I am aware of a good many relatively young pvc and other plastic pipelines that have been replaced in their veritable infancy over the last 40 years. I suspect those folks that originally bought those pvc lines also thought highly of the promise of the new material. It seems funny to me however that when folks are promoting plastic pipes, they want to exclude from consideration multiple categories of breaks or leaks from considerations of pipe materials (e.g. "those due to original installation error of some kind ("eg. over insertion, dirty joint, etc", tapping explosions blamed on procedures or tools, third-party damages etc. ) In my opinion, and while I agree with as throughrecordsas possible, all these things and others should be "on the table" as differing pipe materials are considered, as when such problems occur it makes little or no difference to the tax/rate payer and/or other inconvenienced public who/what caused same.
I would like to welcome "IronDogg" to these forums. I believe the experiences you presented are indeed atypical (by any chance you are located e.g. in Canada/Alberta? or the very far Northern United States, as I think I have heard some equally strange report from that direction for many years?)

[and p.s. to bimr I have a family member who has a model Toyota Corolla with daylight running lights/DRLs. I guess I have to admit I kinda liked this really safety feature myself in at least some driving conditions, as it is hard to put a price on safety and security. While I have thought this could well wear out bulbs quicker, I never thought about the aggregate power consumption; however, while I guess a cheaper-type car could have been purchased many years ago it still gets more than 30 mpg and has been quite reliable for now approaching 300,000 miles. Everyone have a good weekend ;>)] It appears at least some USA manufacturers of polyethylene pipe are indeed promoting specifications requiring field hydrotesting per ASTM F. You can read at least the overview/entre' to the latest version of this standard,, and certainly purchase same if you wish and are responsible for knowing the details therein, at the portal It appears a historical version of this standard, not controlled as I believe there is a version available, can even be read for at least the time being at A few points to consider in looking at what is meant by field testing of pipelines. The most common basic types of piping used for water service, including polyethylene, pvc and ductile iron all go back to near WWII or thereabouts. However, it is some interesting that while I'm sure various manufacturers and AHJ's have had their own and likely differing opinions concerning same, no sort of widespread utility consensus USA field testing protocols for plastic water pipes e.g. ANSI/AWWA standards have really been available until quite recent years.
1. Note first from the aforementioned first portal that this web page for ASTM F leads off with the statement, "5.1 If required by the authority having jurisdiction, hydrostatic pressure leak testing may be conducted to discover and correct leaks or faults in a newly constructed or modified polyethylene or crosslinked polyethylene pressure piping system before placing the system in service.") While the the very first prepositional phrase of this ad (I believe verbatim from a "Significance and Use" section of the original F standard circa ) appears to indicate that field hydrostatic testing of pipelines is optional, in my opinion a well-run field hydrostatic test on a new pipeline is instead absolutely critical to provide some degree of protection for all parties to any pipe material piping design and installation, and ultimately the tax/rate payers. This language may be contrasted e.g. with that e.g. of ANSI/AWWA C600 for ductile iron piping systems that reads more unequivocally in Sec. 5.1.2 Workmanship, "All pipe and appurtenances shall be installed and joined in conformance with this standard and tested under pressure for defects and leaks in accordance with Sec. 5.2 of this standard..." then per Sec. 5.2.1.2, "...Following the installation of any new pipe or any valved section thereof shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test." [I would particularly note e.g. that per AWWA C906 governing requirements for USA polyethylene pipe manufacture, individual polyethylene pipes are not required to be pressure tested by the manufacturer/at the factory, not even considering all that conceivably can happen to the pipe later/before final installation and burial!]
2. This as well as the criteria from the linked document bimr provides seems quite liberal in the overall scheme of things. Lets say we are going to test a normal new 2,000 feet long 8" diameter underground water distribution pipe line that has been fully installed in the buried position it is intended to serve, and in our first case say it is polyethylene pipe to be field tested say to 160 psi.When I pull up the "Technical Note 802" on the website at the first thing I see are all kinds of caveats with regard to tests and exactly what tests do and do not mean (though I wonder a little bit why, that is another story and I'll not worry about that here). As I know my required test pressure is 1-1/2 times my maximum service pressure, I will choose "Alternate 2", that I see is lead off with, "Immediately following the initial expansion phase, monitor the amount of make-up water required to maintain test pressure for one (1), or two (2), or three (3) hours. If the amount of make-up water needed to maintain test pressure does not exceed the amount in Table 2, no leakage is indicated." I choose 2 hours duration, as I know from my experience that that has long been the MINIMUM required/vetted for many years duration of AWWA C600 (for other material), so I look at their "Table 2 Test Phase – Alternate 2 – Make-Up Water Allowance". I see that for my two hour test the allowable make-up water is 1.0 U.S. gallon for every 100 feet of 8" pipe in my testing extant. For my 2,000 feet long project, I thus run the not too hard calculation (2,000 ft/100 ft)(1.0 Gal.) and come up a full 20 gallons (most of the bottom half of a 55 gal drum) of water they say I should allow the Contractor to pump back into this small hdpe pipeline if necessary to maintain pressure etc. Let’s now look at case two, that I had chosen instead ductile iron pipe for this project. Looking at Table 11-6 of AWWA M41, AWWA C600 (or tables in any number of major utility testing specifications re-created there from on the web) you will find that at 160 psi the testing allowance to maintain pressure is no more than 0.77 U.S. gallons per hour testing duration per 1,000 feet of pipeline involved (meaning I must multiply this amount by (2,000 ft/1,000)(2 hr/1 hr) ft or 4 to get the total testing allowance for such modern ductile iron piping installation that is in fact ~3.1 gallons, or milk jugs, of water). Now before we proceed further, let me add some more information, also from AWWA standards. Unlike ductile iron pipe, some folks may not know plastic pipe manufacturers are not now necessarily required by minimum AWWA standards e.g. AWWA C906 to hydrostatically leak or pressure strength test each piece of pipe at the factory, and I daresay little or no for hdpe water pipe is likely so tested. Also and on the other hand, anyone who has been around field installations of pipes very long understands that reasonable field testing allowances from the practical standpoint are necessary for the real world. It is virtually impossible to make sure all pipelines are laid precisely like profile lines on a CAD drawing, or that air release devices end up located precisely at every high point as shown on drawings (so that no air is trapped in pipelines), said air goes into and out of solution as it will, temperatures heating or cooling over the test duration have an effect on pressure (particularly on trapped air in accordance with Boyles, Charles, and Gay Lussacs etc.), pipes can settle or move at least slightly as they are pressurized (changing test volume some), water can soak at least a little into e.g. cement mortar linings, and indeed particularly for hdpe pipes there is also some rather complex change in test volume due to Poisson as well as Bourdon behaviors of the viscoelastic material (that are frankly more dependent on the pipe embedment and layout, as well as variations in piping, than some numbers in a table!) etc. In other words, pumping 3 gallons of water back into a ductile iron pipeline or seven times that allowable amount back into a polyethylene pipeline (the latter claimed outrageously by the vendors to be "jointless" and "leak-proof")"after the same two hour test doesn't mean either one of them has leaked that amount of water.