P. 1
Cpvc Versus Ppr

Cpvc Versus Ppr

|Views: 2,555|Likes:
Published by add_sa29

More info:

Published by: add_sa29 on Mar 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CPVC versus PPR

1. 2. 3. 4. Physical properties Installation Techniques U.V. resistance Fire Related properties

5 1.2 0.Saechtling .14 0.day.7 0.7 1.3 0.British Gas .Modern Plastics Encyclopedia .Chemical engineers Handbook .CPVC has excellent properties compared to PPR CPVC PVC PPR PEX PB CU Tensile Strength (MPa at 23°C) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (x10-4 K-1) Thermal Conductivity (W/MK) 55 50 30 25 27 >300 0.CEN proposals for European Standards .22 0.22 0.International Plastics Handbook .14 0.22 >400 LOI 60 45 (not available) similar to CPVC 18 (not available) similar to PB/PEX 17 18 (not available) insignificant Oxygen Permeation (cm /m.5 1.atmosphere) 3 <1 insignificant 13 16 at 70°C Sources: .

loops) PPR has thermal conductivity 40% more than CPVC (more insulation) PPR has 50% working stress of CPVC (thicker pipe wall. lower water flow) .CPVC versus PPR CPVC has better physical properties : • • • PPR has thermal expansion twice that of CPVC (more anchors.

4 4.4 3. 20mm Wall thickness: 40 3.4 6.4 mm 50 4.Wall thickness PN20 pipe WALL THICKNESS PN 20 PIPE Wall thickness (mm) Outside Diameter (mm) CPVC PP PEX PB 20 1.3 25 2.2 3.5 4.4 2. This leads to same flow rate with smaller pipe size for CPVC.7 6.7 5.5 CPVC : 1.5 2.8 32 3.6 PN20.8 2.3 4.6 SOURCE : DIN 8077 / 8079 / 16969 / 16893 CPVC has a higher pressure bearing capability .9 mm PP: 3. .9 5.9 3.0 5.6 8.

CPVC versus PPR  Straight professional appearance  Need less hangers and supports  Less looping .

CPVC versus PPR CPVC PPR  Suitable for vertical risers .

Solvent cement . Pipe cutter  Tools required for CPVC are simple and cheap  No need for electrical source 2. Chamfering tool  Same procedure for CPVC as for PVC 3.CPVC versus PPR easy and cost effective installation All you need is : 1.

more accidents. more sophisticated welding machines which are heavier and bulkier and not easy to carry (needs more man power) and also need a holding device which is another machine.CPVC versus PPR Installation techniques • PPR needs more skilled labour • Single Welding machine can weld joints up to 32mm only. • Not convenient in congested area. more hazardous. • Need for POWER . • More the machines more the labour. For larger diameters.

Increased depositions of non solubles . This leads to ample opportunity for bacteria to grow Increased frictional loss at every joint • • • Reduced flow rate.CPVC versus PPR Installation techniques • Heat fusion leads to ‘bead’ formation internally and externally.

CPVC versus PPR Bead Formation in PP External bead PP socket PP pipe Internal beat .

CPVC versus PPR Bead Formation in PP .

CPVC versus PPR Bead Formation in PP .

U. Exposure Polyethylene. There is a loss of impact resistance due to impact modifiers losing efficiency. not oxidation. Polypropylene U.V. whilst slightly accelerated by U. leading to weakness in pipe and loss of hydrostatic strength. No significant loss in pressure bearing capability 30 years of outside service in Southern California Impact resistance mainly an installation issue (before any UV exposure) . acts as a strong catalyst for the oxidation process which breaks down polymer chain. being mainly limited to a surface discoloration effect.V. This may even result in increased modulus. does not break down the polymer chains to any significant extent after outdoor exposure.. This dehydrochlorination. CPVC The main degradation process is dehydrochlorination.V.

No breakdown of pipe in service .


of PP is about 340°C as compared to 480°C for CPVC • Heat of Combustion of PP is about 3 x more than CPVC (generating more heat and easy burning) Low flame spread Low smoke generation Self extinguishing No flaming drips CPVC PP continues to burn … .CPVC versus PPR Fire related properties • PP has a Limiting Oxygen Index (% of Oxygen needed in an atmosphere to support combustion) of 17 as compared to 60% of CPVC • Flash Ignition Temp.

HEALTH CONCERNS Health Concerns Bacterial growth in water piping at 120 days 120.000 B A C T E R I A (kBE/cm²) 100. Privatdozent am Hygiene-Institut der Universität Bonn.und Rohrleitungen. G. Georg-Joachim Tuschewitzki.10. J. 23.000 20. Tuschewitzki . Dr.000 40.000 CPVC STEEL COPPER POLYETHYLENE MATERIAL CPVC piping "CPVC piping comparedsupports the lowest bacterial growth supports the lowest bacterial with traditional piping materials growth compared with traditional piping materials" Source : Bakterielle Oberflächenbesiedlung in trinkwasserdurchstromten Schlauch.000 80. Dr.1989.000 60.

R. the growth of Legionnella bacteria in the water was low ″ Study: Biofilm Formation Potential of Pipe Materials in internal installations by H. no flow. 12 and 16 weeks . van de Kooiy – KIWA (KIWA is the The Netherlands approvals agency for potable water piping systems) .Health Concerns Number of Legionella bacteria in the test water (average after 8.1999 .) 200 150 cfu/ml 100 50 0 Stainless (*) Average of 2 samples Steel CPVC(*) PEX (*) PB (*) PPR (*) ″ In the presence of the two CPVC materials.static test. Veenendaal / D.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->