FlowGuard Vs PPR Presentation 2014

Surpass Polypropylene Limitations with
Reliable FlowGuard™ CPVC
© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved. All marks are property of The Lubrizol Corporation, a Berkshire Hathaway Company. 1
© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved. All marks are property of The Lubrizol Corporation, a Berkshire Hathaway Company.
FlowGuard CPVC advantages over PPR
Better Antimicrobial
Excellent Physical Properties
Performance
Superior Installation Eco Friendly
UV Resistant Long Term Performance
Chlorine Resistant Easy Repairs
Fire Resistant Quality Assured
CPVC vs PPR - Physical Properties
CPVC PPR
Tensile Strength 55 30
(Mpa at 23°C)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 0.7 1.5
(x10-4 K-1)
Thermal Conductivity 0.14 0.22
(W/MK)
Oxygen Permeation <1 13
(cm³/m.day.atmosphere) at 70°C insignificant
CPVC: : - Needs less hangers and supports

- No ‘looping’ of the pipe
- Higher pressure bearing capability, same flow rate with smaller pipe size
Sources: Saechtling – Intl. Plastics Handbook, Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, Chemical engineers Handbook, British Gas
CPVC PPR
CPVC: - Straight professional appearance

- Need less hangers and supports
- Less looping
CPVC PPR
CPVC:
- Suitable for vertical risers
CPVC vs PPR - Physical Properties WALL THICKNESS
PN 20 PIPE
Wall thickness (mm)

Outside
Diameter
(mm) CPVC PP PEX PB
20 1.9 3.4 2.8 2.3
25 2.3 4.2 3.5 2.8
32 3.0 5.4 4.4 3.6
PN20, 20mm 40 3.7 6.7 5.5 4.5
Wall thickness:
CPVC : 1.9 mm 50 4.6 8.4 6.9 5.6
PP: 3.4 mm
Source : DIN 8077/8079/16969/16893
CPVC: : Has a higher pressure bearing capability.

This leads to same flow rate with smaller pipe size
Installation Techniques
CPVC: Solvent Welding Only tools required:

 Tools required are simple and cheap.
 Solvent welding process allows for fast

and easy assembly.
 Same procedure for CPVC as for PVC
 Chemically welded joints are the CPVC

SOLVENT
strongest part of the system. CEMENT
 No need for electrical source.
CPVC: Solvent Cement Mechanism
Plastic Fitting
Plastic Fitting
Cement
Plastic Pipe
Plastic Pipe
Cohesive bond formed
Plastic pipe and fittings are composed of large polymer molecules (illustrated by ).
Solvent cement is made by dissolving a polymer in a liquid. When solvent cement is
applied to the plastic part, the liquid penetrates the surface and softens the outer
layer of the plastic part. The polymer chains then interpenetrate with one another to
form a strong cohesive bond.
PPR: Fusion
: - Welding
 Need of expensive welding machine for
each worker on site.
 PPR needs more skilled labour.
 Labour intensive and difficult to install in
tight places
 Single welding machine can weld joints
up to 32mm only.
 Large pipe sizes require an even more
labour intensive process using specialized
and expensive equipment.
 Fusion welding tool heats up to 250°C,
posing a burn hazard and adds time to
installation process.
 Requires an electrical source.
Welding machine/tools for larger sizes
PPR: Fusion Welding

Heat fusion leads to ‘bead formation’
internally and externally
• Increased friction loss at

every joint
• Reduced flow rate
• Ample opportunity for

bacterial growth
• Increased depositions of non

solubles
PPR : Fusion Welding
 Requires additional space to

perform, leading to a need to
pre-fabricate large frames for
subsequent fixing in the wall.
 Not convenient in congested

area.
CPVC vs PPR - UV Resistance
CPVC : : PPR : : -
- The main degradation process is - U.V. acts as a strong catalyst for
dehydrochlorination, not the oxidation process which
oxidation. breaks down polymer chain,
- This dehydrochlorination, whilst leading to weakness in pipe and
slightly accelerated by U.V., does loss of hydrostatic strength.
not break down the polymer
chains to any significant extent
after outdoor exposure, being
mainly limited to a surface
discoloration effect.
- There is a loss of impact
resistance due to impact
modifiers losing efficiency.
This may even result in increased
modulus.
CPVC vs PPR - UV Resistance
CPVC study :
Natural Weathering Effects on some properties of CPVC material
- Samples from locally manufactured CPVC commercial
pipes have been naturally weathered for different periods
in harsh Saudi weather conditions.
- Standard tensile and SEN fracture toughness tests were
performed after natural exposure periods of 1,2,3,6 and
9 months
The tensile test results showed that exposure for periods up to 9
months, including summer season, had limited effects on the
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of the material.
The damage due to weathering is mainly a surface phenomenon.
Source: Study from Mechanical Engineering Dept. - King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals , Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia - 2007
CPVC / PPR and Chlorine
Polymer Chemistry : When chlorine is added to water for disinfection, it
transforms to hypochlorous acid.
Hypochlorous acid is a strong oxidizer which is capable of breaking the
carbon-to-carbon bonds of the polymer chain, effectively disintegrating it.
CPVC: PPR:
 The chlorine atoms  The hydrogen atoms surrounding
surrounding the carbon the carbon chain of polyolefins,
chain of CPVC, however, are such as PPR, PEX and
large atoms which protect polybutylene, are small atoms
the chain from attack by which are incapable of protecting
hypochlorous acid in the the chain from attack by
water. hypochlorous acid in the water.
CPVC: Access to the CPVC carbon chain is restricted by the chlorine on the molecule
Any chlorine which

actually reaches the
backbone, simply
chlorinates it further.
The effect is the same
Chlorine
as the resin
Hydrogen chlorination process.
Carbon ...
...
PPR:
Hypochlorous acid attack Bonds are broken at

on polypropylene tertiary carbon sites
Hydrogen
Chlorine Chlorine
Hydrogen
Oxygen Oxygen
Carbon Carbon
This effect has been seen in practical situations
Temperature/
HOT COLD
OUT IN
Dip Tube -Issue
Pressure  Mid 90’s, in the US, PPR pipe
Relief was used in a non-pressure,
Valve water heater application.
Anode Rod  Device introducing water into a
heater at the bottom of heater.
DIP TUBE
 The tube transits through hot
Steel Tank water of tank experiencing
Electric elevated temperatures in the
Heating Insulation presence of disinfectants.
Elements  PP tubing degraded into powder
Outer Case plugging up components like
valves and pressure relief safety
Thermostat devices.
Drain Valve  Major recall, PP tubes not used
since.
And studied by many leading test labs

 Bodycote Polymer AB, leading pipe test lab in
the world
 Identified the chlorine failure mechanism in
PP, PE-X and PB piping
 A considerable amount of data has been
generated which demonstrates without
doubt that small quantities of chlorine exhibit
a strong oxidizing effect on polyolefin pipes
resulting in a significant reduction of the
expected lifetime
www.bodycote.com
Chlorine resistance testing
Results & experiences from tests on polyolefin pipes exposed to chlorinated water
Material Hoop Stress Chlorine Failure Time Relative Failure
( Specimen ) ( Mpa ) Concentr. ( ppm) ( hours ) Time
PO – A 1.4 3 831 1
PO – A 1.4 1 1428 1.7
PO – A 0.7 3 1334 1
PO – A 0.7 1 2752 2.1
PO – B 1.4 3 837 1
PO – B 1.4 0.5 1161 1.4
PO – B 0.7 3 1435 1
PO – B 0.7 0.5 2111 1.5
PO – C 1.1 3 1007 1
PO – C 1.1 0.5 1451 1.4
PO – C 0.6 3 1086 1
PO - C 0.6 0.5 1848 1.7
Source: Studsvik Polymer AB – Sweden / Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. – Japan

( presented at the Plastic Pipes X Conference 1998 )
NSF P171 Protocol

Two End-Use Conditions:
 Continuous re-circulation (Cl-R)
100% at 60o C

Increasing Testing Severity
4 ppm chlorine, 6.8 pH


Minimum extrapolation is 80 years


with no safety factor

 Traditional domestic (Cl-TD)
25% at 60o C, 75% at 23o C

4 ppm chlorine, 6.8 pH


Minimum extrapolation is 80 years


with no safety factor
PPR testing
PPR Manufacturer A  Tested in general accordance with
PPR Manufacturer A NSF P-171 Protocol for Chlorine
Resistance of Plastic Piping Materials
and ASTM F-2023-04 Test Method
Before After for Evaluating the Oxidative
Resistance of PEX Tubing and
Systems to Hot Chlorinated Water.
 Significant erosion of pipe wall after
testing (up to 50% after 7000 hrs)
using low water flowrate (~0.1
gpm).
 Similar phenomenon as in dip tubes.
PR Manufacturer B
CPVC : Real Life testing
 CPVC plumbing pipe installed in

Baltimore, Mary land in 1960’s.
 No erosion of pipe wall after 23

years of installation.
 No decrease in long term

hydrostatic performance.
 Warning letter from Plastics

Industry Pipe Association in
Australia - premature aging
of polyolefin pipes are
causing concerns!
Classes of PPR damage seen in re-circulating hot water loop in Australia
 Whitening and deposition of powder in pipe

interior that may be either localized or uniform
 Brittle cracking along stress lines in joins,

elbows and other welded-in fittings
 Cracking by prevention of thermal expansion

by incorrect clipping
 Longitudinal brittle crack in pipe

under stress
Fire Related properties
CPVC PPR
Limiting Oxygen Index
(% of Oxygen needed in an 60 17
atmosphere to support
combustion)
Flash Ignition Temperature 480°C 340°C
Heat of combustion of PPR is

about 3x more than CPVC
generating more heat and easy
burning
CPVC:
- Low flame spread and smoke generation
- Self extinguishing
- No flaming drips
CPVC and Fire Resistance Testing
EN 13501-1:2002 – Fire classification of construction products

and building elements
CPVC rating = B s1 d0
Fire behavior B → Low flammability, no contribution to flashover

Smoke development s1 → Low smoke development
Flaming droplets d0 → No burning drops
The best possible rating a non-metal material can receive
CPVC vs PPR: Antimicrobial Performance
Dr. Paul Sturman concludes:

“CPVC consistently
outperforms most other non-
metallic piping materials with
regard to its ability to resist
the formation of biofilms”.
Source: Dr. Paul Sturman, research professor and industrial coordinator for
The Center for Biofilm Engineering at Montana State University based on
his evaluation of Dutch Research and Knowledge Institute for Drinking
Water (KIWA) 1999 study Biofilm Formation Potential of Pipe Materials in Source: Assessment of the Microbial Growth Potential of Materials in
Plumbing Systems, 2006 study Standardizing the Biomass Production Contact with Treated Water Intended for Human Consumption, KIWA, 2007
Potential Method for Determining the Enhancement of Microbial Growth by
Construction Products in Contact With Drinking Water, and 2007 study
Assessment of the Microbial Growth Potential of Materials in Contact with
Treated Water Intended for Human Consumption
CPVC vsPPR: Antimicrobial Performance
 Study conducted by CRECEP in France, confirm the ability of CPVC to resist
biofilm formation
Comparison of BPP (Biomass Production Potential) values*
observed at 30°C and 50°C
1400
BPP at 30°C BPP at 50°C
1200
pg ATP/cm²
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Copper CPVC Inox 304 Inox 316 Polybutene Polypropylene
(Inox 304/316 = Stainless Steel ) * Values measured at 8, 12 and 16 weeks
Source: Study of 6 different materials used for drinking water distribution and their capacity to support bacterial growth conducted by Crecep (Research
and Control of drinking water Centre in Paris) according to a European standard project by means of the Biomass Production Potential test in 2005.
CPVC vs PPR: Antimicrobial Performance
″ In the presence of the

two CPVC materials, the
growth of Legionnella
bacteria in the water was
low ″
Study: Biofilm Formation Potential of Pipe Materials in internal installations by

H.R. Veenendaal / D. van de Kooiy – KIWA - 1999
(KIWA is the approvals agency for potable water piping systems in The Netherlands)
CPVC vs PPR: Environmental Impact
 Total energy
requirements for CPVC
production are lower
than other plastic
materials, due primarily
to the low petroleum
content.
Source: H. Sambele, Kapitel Nachchlorierte Polyvinylchloride Rohre, Technical University Berlin, 1993
CPVC vs PPR: Recycling
CPVC : : PPR
• : : -
• PVC piping can easily be recycled • Cannot meet the strength and
as PVC piping or window profiles performance requirements of
many applications without
• Piping material can be collected fiberglass reinforcement
from the jobsite by a specialized
recycling firm (country specific) • More expensive and not
recyclable due to its fiberglass
• Regrind piping material into layer
pellets and granules
• Mix regrind into applications

such as floor fillings, floor
coatings, cable trays, speed
bumps and car mats.
CPVC vs PPR: Long term performance
Reference curvesLTHS
for Performance at 95°C
expected strength at 95°C
10
CPVC
Hoop Stress (MPa)
PPR
Hydrostatic stress, in Mpa
PPR
CPVC
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (hours)
Time to fracture, in hours
Source: EN ISO 15874-2 / EN ISO 15877-2
CPVC vs PPR: Repairs
CPVC : : PPR
• : : -
• On line repairs - punctures could • On line repairs – In case of
be repaired like a patch made punctures, one has to cut open a
from section of a pipe and solvent pipe line and repairs are done
cemented in situ without with the socket
dismantling the pipe • If any additional fitting of higher
• Similarly, if any additional fitting diameter needs to be added or
needs to be added or replaced, it replaced, the pipe line has to be
is easy. dismantled due to heavy tooling
• Training to plumbers : Lubrizol as needed for heat fusion, or one
raw material supplier and our has to use electro fusion fittings
FlowGuard licensees train the which are expensive
plumbers
CPVC vs PPR: Repairs
Perception of PPR in Mature Markets
India
• Joint blockages lead to heavy losses to

the builders as they had to cut open
tiles and walls to redo and correct the
piping.
• Repairs and reconnections very

cumbersome and time consuming
CPVC: Quality Assurance
CPVC: :
FlowGuard CPVC products:
• Must conform to appropriate
national standards
• And must comply with the
Lubrizol quality of pipe/fitting
program!
• Tested at manufacturing site
and at Lubrizol labs in USA and
Europe: - Dimensions
- Flattening The globally established
- Pressure tests FlowGuard brand
- Impact assures quality!
- Heat reversion
Back-up slides:
1. Thermal expansion and contraction
2. CPVC in walls, concrete
3. Thermal insulation
4. Scale build up
5. Condensation
6. CPVC with chilled water systems
7. Quieter than copper / Water Hammer
© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved. All marks are property of The Lubrizol Corporation, a Berkshire Hathaway Company.
Thermal expansion and Contraction
Table I.
Calculated expansion loop lengths for CPVC Schedule 80 piping with DT of 80°F (44°C)
Length of run in feet (meters)

Nominal
Size 20 (6) 40 (12) 60 (18) 80 (24) 100 (30)
1/2" 18 (46) 25 (63) 31 (79) 36 (91) 40 (101)

3/4" 20 (51) 28 (71) 35 (89) 40 (101) 45 (114)
1" 22 (56) 32 (81) 39 (99) 45 (114) 50 (127)
1¼" 25 (64) 36 (91) 43 (109) 50 (127) 56 (142)
1½" 27 (69) 38 (97) 47 (119) 54 (137) 60 (152)
2" 30 (76) 42 (107) 52 (132) 60 (152) 67 (170)
An example was selected from the guide in Table I to demonstrate the use of these data in
the following three methods of compensating for the thermal expansion.
Example : Pipe size = 1/2 in.

Length of run = 60 ft. (18m)
’L ’ = 31 in. (79 cm) ( from table)
2L/5 L/2 L
(12" or 32 cm) (16" or 40 cm) (31" or 79 cm)
6" min. 6" min. L/4

LOOP OFFSET CHANGE IN DIRECTION
Do not butt up against fixed
structures (joist, stud, wall)
Example of loop allowing thermal expansion
40
Expansion loop requirements
Thermal Expansion = e = Lp . C . D T
½
Length of pipe in expansion loop = L = 3 E Do e
2S
Where: e = Thermal expansion
Lp = Length of pipe in total
C = Coefficient of thermal expansion
DT = Temperature change
L = Length of pipe in expansion loop
E = Young’s modulus, modulus of elasticity
Do = Outside diameter of pipe
S = Hydrostatic design stress
C CPVC is greater than C Cu but ECu is far greater the E CPVC
L and L are similar

CPVC Cu
Expansion loops - CEN proposals
DL = DT . L . a
½
BA (bending arm) = C (Do . DL)
CPVC PP
a 0.07 0.15
C 34 30
e.g for DT = 50° C

L = 20m
Do = 25mm
CPVC PP
DL = 70mm 150mm
BA = 1.42 m 1.84 m
CPVC piping in walls
 Allow to expand freely or embed in

concrete. Concrete should be
homogeneous, without gravel or
stones which risk damaging the pipe.
 Do not embed demountable fittings.
 Pressure testing should be done

before concrete is poured.
CPVC pipe running through

concrete block
CPVC piping in walls
As pipe thermally expands tensile stresses will be developed.
Concrete will contain the CPVC. Other materials may not,
e.g plasterboard.
The developed tensile stress, s , is given by the

equation: s = C . DT . E
C = Coefficient of thermal expansion
DT = Temperature change
E = Youngs modulus
This calculated developed tensile stress may be compared to the

tensile strength of the surrounding material (plasterboard, concrete,
etc.) to give an indication whether material will contain the pipe, or
whether the pipe will crack the wall.
For CPVC : C = 6.1 x 10-5 cm/cm°C

E = 2650 MPa
CPVC Installations in Concrete
FlowGuard™ CPVC pipe and fittings are acceptable for use in embedded
concrete. Direct contact with concrete does not have any adverse effect on
FlowGuard™ materials.
Typical recommended installation practices should be followed.

In addition, particular care must be paid to the following guidelines:
1. As the FlowGuard™ pipe is laid

out be certain that it does not
come in contact with sharp
objects or edges, such as rocks,
metal, or structural members.
2. Straight runs of pipe will minimise

the stress on the pipe.
3. Avoid the contact of FlowGuard™ pipe
and fittings with construction materials
that are incompatible with CPVC. Verify
the suitability of a particular product for
use with CPVC with the manufacturer of
the particular construction material.
4. Steps must be taken to prevent the

wire mesh or reinforcing bars from
causing any abrasion damage to the
FlowGuard™ pipe and fittings. This is
mostly of concern prior to pouring the Example of vertical runs of FlowGuard™
concrete. pipe prior to pouring concrete
5. When there are pipe joints that will
eventually be covered in concrete, the
installation must be pressure tested prior
to pouring the concrete. If there
will be no joints covered by concrete,
there is no need to pressure test prior to
pouring the concrete.
6. Prior to the pouring of the concrete,

the FlowGuard™ pipe should be
intermittently secured to prevent
movement during this process.
Nonabrasive, plastic fasteners are good
choices for this application.
7. Care should be taken so that

the pipe and fittings are not
damaged by the tools and
equipment used to pour and
finish the concrete.
8. As the concrete is poured,

periodically check to see that
the pipe has not moved from its
intended positioning.
FlowGuard pipe while pouring concrete
9. During the concrete pouring process jostle the pipe
periodically to assure that there are no air pockets around the
pipe. The pipe should be fully covered in concrete. There is a
possibility of abrading the pipe if large air pockets are
permitted to form around the pipe.
10. Thermal expansion and contraction is not an issue for

FlowGuard™ pipe and fittings that are embedded in concrete.
Those forces are relieved in a manner that does not affect
the pipe or fittings. However, expansion and contraction
must still be incorporated in the design of those sections
of pipe that are not embedded in concrete.
Failure to adequately allow for stress at these points may
result in damage to the pipe where it enters and exits the
concrete.
11. Pipes may be sleeved at entry and exit points to provide

extra protection, but if care is taken to avoid damage during
application & finishing of the concrete, this should not
normally be necessary.
Thermal Insulation
CPVC has a much lower thermal conductivity than metals used in piping systems
(0.14 W/mK for CPVC versus >400 W/mK for copper).
For this reason in most cases it is not necessary to thermally
insulate CPVC piping. However the equation below can be used to
calculate the approximate heat loss from CPVC pipes per 1 meter length of pipe.
2 . P . l . DT
Q/L = (1)
Ln (do/di)
Where :
Q/L = Heat loss per peter of pipe, W/m
l = Thermal conductivity, (W/mK) for CPVC, l = 0.14 W/mK
P = 3,1416
di = Inside diameter, mm
do = Outside diameter, mm
DT = Temperature differential between inner and outer surface of pipe.
This can be approximated to : T water - T ambient (K)
In fact, the outside pipe surface temperature is significantly different to

T ambient. However, this will be ignored to facilitate comparison between
CPVC and other materials.
Thermal Insulation
Example :
What is the heat loss/meter from a 20 mm outside diameter CPVC pipe,

wall thickness 2.3 mm, with water flowing inside at 80°C and an
ambient air temperature of 25°C?
2 . 3,1416 . 0,14. (80-25)

Q/L = = 185 W/m
Ln (20/15.4)
Equation (1) can be simplified for standard pipe dimensions to :

Q/L = K . DT (2)
where K is a coefficient taking into account the thermal conductivity of

CPVC and the pipe geometry. In the previous example, do = 20 mm,
di = 15.4 mm
2 . 3,1416 . 0,14
K= = 3.37 W/mKs
Ln (20/15.4)
Thermal Insulation
K has been calculated below for ASTM Schedule 80 (F441)
CPVC pipe
ASTM Schedule 80
Nom. diameter K value (W/mKs)
1/2 2.04
3/4 2.54
1 2.77 Example for 1½ " :
1¼ 3.37
1½ 3.72 2 . 3,1416 . 0,14
2 4.33 K=
Ln (48.3/38.14)
2½ 4.12
3 4.68
3½ 5.08 K = 3.72 W/mKs
4 5.42
6 6.30
Example :
What is the heat loss/meter for a 2 inch ASTM Schedule 80 CPVC pipe,
with a temperature differential of 60°C?
Q/L = 4.33 x 60 = 260 W/m
Thermal Insulation
K has been calculated below for DIN 8079 CPVC pipe
(PN 16, 20 and 25)
DIN 8079
Outside K value (W/mKs)

Diameter
PN16 PN20 PN25
(S = 6.25) (S = 5) (S = 4)
SDR 13.5 SDR 11 SDR 9
16 - 160 5.5 4.4 3.5
Scale build up
Function of roughness of pipe, as measured by Hazen-Williams
’C' factor used in Hazen-Williams formula for calculating friction
head losses in piping systems.
Higher value for C - less friction

- less head loss
Material C Factors
New After 4-40 years service
CPVC 150 150

Copper/Steel 130 -140 60 -120 Steel
Once corrosion attack starts (e.g. green colour from copper

reacting with chlorides in water to form copper chloride),
this starts a vicious circle leading to scale build up.
With CPVC, there is no corrosion and hence

scale build up is inhibited. Copper
Condensation
- For a given ambient air temperature
and water temperature in the pipe, the
relative humidity must be 10 to 15 %
higher with CPVC to get the same degree
of condensation .
or
- For the same humidity level and

water temperature, the external air
temperature can be ± 10°C higher than for
copper to get the same degree of CPVC versus Copper
condensation.
CPVC and chilled water systems (1 of 2)
FlowGuard™ CPVC pipe and fittings are acceptable for use with
chilled water provided that the water stays above freezing point.
Particular care must be paid when other fluids or agents
are used or added to the water:
1. Heat transfer fluids : Ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and glycerine:

see Lubrizol published recommendations.
For other products - please ask your Lubrizol representative.
2. Anti-corrosion agents may be used to protect the chiller system from corrosion.
In general, corrosion inhibitors at their ordinary use concentrations are not
detrimental to CPVC but
please ask your Lubrizol representative for confirmation.
CPVC and chilled water systems (2 of 2)
Heat exchanger system:
should be flushed out before connecting to CPVC piping.
(The heat exchanger coil may have on its surface some metal forming oils or
other types of lubricants left over from the manufacturing process. Certain of
these lubricants may be detrimental to CPVC and therefore need removing.)
The refrigerant: is used in combination with an oil component in the compressor

side of the chiller to provide cooling. As long as the heat exchanger coil remains
intact, the refrigerant and associated oil should
not come in contact with the CPVC piping. If the heat exchanger coil ruptures, the
refrigerant and its associated oil may leak into the CPVC recirculating piping.
Some types of refrigerant oils used may lead to failures of the CPVC re-circulating
piping ( e.g. POE oils can be highly detrimental).
Proper operation conditions and preventive maintenance of the chiller system can
prevent such a rupture.
Quieter than copper
Velocity of sound in :
CPVC = 1350 M/S

COPPER = 3600 M/S
WATER = 1473 M/S
Based on classical approach (Newton) using Youngs modulus:

VELOCITY = (YOUNGS MODULUS/DENSITY) 1/2
This means that in a :

Copper System : Sound travels in the copper
CPVC System : Sound travels in the water and system is as
quiet as physically possible.
Water Hammer
Pressure surge resulting from instant change in velocity of the flowing water
Governing equation is a modified version of Newton’s speed of sound equation
(velocity of propagation of elastic vibration)
VELOCITY = (YOUNGS MODULUS / DENSITY) 1/2
" The maximum theoretical shockwave for both CPVC and Polybutylene is much
lower than the values for copper tubing.
This is easily understood when it is recognized that the modulus of elasticity for the
plastic piping material is much lower than the modulus of elasticity for copper."
Source: JB ENGINEERING AND CODE CONSULTING, P.C., Munster, IN,

Water hammer control in small systems , October 18 , 1994

FlowGuard Vs PPR Presentation 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FlowGuard Vs PPR Presentation 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surpass Polypropylene Limitations with

Reliable FlowGuard™ CPVC

Superior Installation Eco Friendly

UV Resistant Long Term Performance

Chlorine Resistant Easy Repairs

Fire Resistant Quality Assured

CPVC: : - Needs less hangers and supports

CPVC: - Straight professional appearance

Wall thickness (mm)

20 1.9 3.4 2.8 2.3

25 2.3 4.2 3.5 2.8

32 3.0 5.4 4.4 3.6

PN20, 20mm 40 3.7 6.7 5.5 4.5

CPVC: : Has a higher pressure bearing capability.

CPVC: Solvent Welding Only tools required:

 Solvent welding process allows for fast

 Same procedure for CPVC as for PVC

 Chemically welded joints are the CPVC

 No need for electrical source.

CPVC: Solvent Cement Mechanism

PPR: Fusion Welding

• Increased friction loss at

• Reduced flow rate

• Ample opportunity for

• Increased depositions of non

PPR : Fusion Welding

 Requires additional space to

 Not convenient in congested

Any chlorine which

Hypochlorous acid attack Bonds are broken at

This effect has been seen in practical situations

And studied by many leading test labs

Source: Studsvik Polymer AB – Sweden / Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. – Japan

NSF P171 Protocol

4 ppm chlorine, 6.8 pH

Minimum extrapolation is 80 years

with no safety factor

4 ppm chlorine, 6.8 pH

Minimum extrapolation is 80 years

with no safety factor

CPVC : Real Life testing

 CPVC plumbing pipe installed in

 No erosion of pipe wall after 23

 No decrease in long term

 Warning letter from Plastics

Classes of PPR damage seen in re-circulating hot water loop in Australia

 Whitening and deposition of powder in pipe

 Brittle cracking along stress lines in joins,

 Cracking by prevention of thermal expansion

 Longitudinal brittle crack in pipe

Heat of combustion of PPR is

EN 13501-1:2002 – Fire classification of construction products

Fire behavior B → Low flammability, no contribution to flashover

The best possible rating a non-metal material can receive

Dr. Paul Sturman concludes:

(Inox 304/316 = Stainless Steel ) * Values measured at 8, 12 and 16 weeks

″ In the presence of the

Study: Biofilm Formation Potential of Pipe Materials in internal installations by

• Mix regrind into applications

Source: EN ISO 15874-2 / EN ISO 15877-2

Perception of PPR in Mature Markets

• Joint blockages lead to heavy losses to

• Repairs and reconnections very