Polypropylene (PP) - A Carbon Footprint

Proceedings of the 21st Plastic Pipes Conference, PPXXI
September 25-27, 2023, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA
POLYPROPYLENE (PP) – A CARBON FOOTPRINT

ASSESSMENT
Chris Ziu Deanne Hughes, PE Steve Sandstrum

Nupi Americas, Inc McElroy Manufacturing, Inc. Borealis Compounds, Inc.
SHORT SUMMARY
This paper revisits a PP (polypropylene) pressure pipe project that was presented at
Plastics Pipes XX in 2021. The original paper investigated the various technical
innovations associated with the design and installation of this project. This discussion will
focus on the carbon footprint aspects of the dual-wall, pre-insulated PP-RCT
(polypropylene with modified crystallinity and raised temperature resistance) pipe that was
installed in this project as compared to the steel pipe that was originally specified.
KEYWORDS
Polypropylene, pipe, PP, PP-RCT, embodied carbon, carbon footprint
ABSTRACT
Plastic pipe is an environmentally responsible choice for a broad array of piping
applications. The exceptional chemical/corrosion resistance, superior joining techniques
and overall durability of these piping products have resulted in industry-leading life-cycle
analyses (LCA’s) in the applications for which they are intended. In this paper we
investigate one specific environmental aspect of plastic pipe, specifically the estimated
comparative carbon footprint for polypropylene (PP-RCT) pipe installed in one specific
project.
A case study involving the installation of dual-wall, pre-insulated PP-RCT pipe at the
University of Illinois in the United States was presented during Plastic Pipes XX 2021 in
Amsterdam. The case study provided insights into a number of innovations that were
associated with the University of Illinois hydronic heating project. Included within these
innovations were: a) dual-wall, pre-insulated PP-RCT pipe, b) simultaneous dual-wall heat
fusion of the PP-RCT pipe, and c) both direct burial and horizontally directionally drilled
(HDD) installation techniques.
In this paper, we re-visit the same project from a different perspective, specifically from
the viewpoint of the carbon footprint associated with this unique installation. As indicated
in the original paper, the hydronic heating project at the University of Illinois was originally
specified for steel pipe. As such, we will attempt to provide a comparative carbon footprint
assessment for this project on the basis of the PP-RCT pipe that was installed versus the
carbon steel pipe that was originally specified. While a detailed carbon footprint analysis
Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 1

of this project is beyond the scope of this writing, we will utilize industry accepted criteria
and resources in constructing a reasonable comparative carbon assessment. From an
assessment such as this, the reader will gather an understanding of the intrinsic benefits
of plastic pipe, specifically PP-RCT pipe, as a responsible approach from an engineering,
environmental and social perspective based on a comparison to a more traditional piping
material such as steel.
INTRODUCTION
Carbon neutrality is a goal that transcends all industries. Carbon neutrality as it relates to
construction projects is a complex and challenging goal. While carbon neutrality may
remain elusive for some years, industry can minimize the embodied carbon of construction
projects through the responsible selection and specification of construction materials and
the procedures and equipment used in the construction process.
This paper re-visits a project that was documented in Plastics Pipe XX (PPXX) in 2021.
[1] In this discussion, the project is reviewed from the perspective of the carbon footprint
or, more specifically, embodied carbon associated with the piping material selection, and
the carbon emissions associated with joining and installing the pipe.
It should be noted that this is not a detailed carbon footprint investigation of this relatively
small project. Rather, the approach taken here is to view essential aspects of this
installation using industry recognized resources to construct a comparative carbon
footprint assessment based on embodied carbon. An assessment such as this will provide
the reader an understanding of the intrinsic benefits of PP-RCT pipe as a responsible
approach from an engineering, environmental and social perspective based on a
comparison to what many would consider a more traditional piping material such as steel.
Background:
The hydronic heating project at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign was not a
particularly large project. However, it was and remains a significant project in that it
allowed for extension of the university’s hydronic heating system to establish the
Sustainability Technology Center (STC) as part of its Institute for Sustainability, Energy
and Environment (ISEE). This project allowed the institute to operationalize the STC by
leveraging the university’s existing hydronic heating system to meet the institute’s goal of
sustainability and the university’s strategic drive to carbon neutrality by 2050.
This project was originally specified for 6” Schedule 40 steel pipe with 2 inches of
fiberglass insulation and an HDPE jacket. Polypropylene pipe was a specified alternate.
The project entailed two lines (one supply and one return) between the Natural Resources
Studies Annex building and the STC.
The original project plan called for direct burial of insulated steel pipe along the Natural
Resources Studies Annex access road and crossing under Hazelwood Drive. The pipe
system routing then progressed under a parking lot and terminated with connection to the
mechanical room in the STC. A project diagram is provided in Figure 1.

Photos of the construction site for the STC hydronic heating project and prevailing terrain
are shown in Figure 2. The University wanted the abundant mature trees and landscaping
to be maintained intact with minimal damage. Hazelwood Drive is the roadway through
the mid-point of these photos and the parking lot for the STC building can be seen in the
background through the trees.
Figure 1: Overview of Sustainable Technology Center (STC) Hydronic Heating

Project Green solid line indicates HDD/direct burial path with PP-RCT
Red dashed line indicates direct burial path with steel
Figure 2: Prevailing Terrain for STC Hydronic Heating Systems Routing
As planning for the project progressed, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) was identified
as a very strong alternative installation method for a significant portion of the project.

Routing with HDD would potentially reduce overall cost by using less linear feet of pipeline
and fewer fittings, reducing site remediation requirements, and minimizing damage to
trees and landscape. Direct burial would require more overall footage of piping as well as
excavation of Hazelwood Drive and the parking lot for the STC both of which were asphalt.
Using HDD and a re-routing of the pipe system meant that excavation of the street and
parking lot could be avoided altogether.
HDD of both the pre-insulated PP-RCT and the pre-insulated steel pipe was considered.
However, concerns over shearing damage to the steel pipe’s HDPE jacket and the
subsequent abrasion or removal of the insulation on the underlying steel pipe during the
HDD procedure eliminated HDD installation of a steel system. The two construction
options became: 1) hybrid HDD and direct burial of the pre-insulated PP-RCT composite
pipe, and 2) direct burial of the pre-insulated steel composite pipe.
The final linear totals for the two piping construction options are summarized in Table 1.
These totals are approximate running pipeline lengths from the origin at the outside of the
Natural Resources Studies Annex to termination immediately outside of the STC. The
totals do not include various pipe segments and fittings to make transition connections at
each of the buildings.
Table 1: Linear Footage for STC Hydronic Project, ft (m)

Line Direct Burial HDD Total
PP-RCT HDD-Direct Burial Option
Supply line – PP-RCT 380 (116) 320 (97.5) 700 (213.5)
Return line – PP-RCT 380 (116) 320 (97.5) 700 (213.5)
Combined total – PP-RCT 760 (232) 640 (195) 1400 (427)
Steel Direct Burial Option
Supply line – Steel 840 (256) - 840 (256)
Return line – Steel 840 (256) - 840 (256)
Combined total - Steel 1680 (512) - 1680 (512)
Carbon Footprint:
Carbon footprint refers to the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) generated by a product,
an activity, an organization, a plant or building, etc over its service life. There are
essentially seven classes of GHG’s.[2] Tracking the full spectrum of these GHG’s is
challenging and tedious and can make comparative assessments across industries
difficult. Industry practice is to express carbon footprint in terms of “carbon dioxide
equivalents” or “CO2-e’s” or “CO2-eq’s”. The process involves determining the amount of
each individual GHG generated and multiplying that by its global warming potential (GWP)
to determine a carbon dioxide equivalent. The CO2 equivalents are then summed to
determine the carbon footprint. [3] The term “embodied carbon” (EC) is synonymous with
the carbon footprint for a construction project. [4,5]

Scope of Carbon Footprint Comparison:
As previously noted, this study is not a comprehensive carbon footprint comparison of the
two pipe materials specified for this hydronic heating project. This is a relatively small
project, the scale of which would not justify a detailed carbon footprint analysis.
Similarly, this comparison should not be mistaken for a life-cycle analysis of the two piping
materials specified for this project. Again, such a study would require detailed analysis of
not only the piping materials themselves from cradle to installation, but also numerous
other factors such as maintenance and operational aspects of the pipe systems, end-of-
life remediation assumptions and other aspects of the project. For more specifics
regarding life-cycle cost analysis, the reader is referred to ISO 14040 and 14044. [6,7]
This study is limited to an assessment of the comparative embodied carbon of the

installation only; from origin at the Natural Resources Annex building to its termination at
the STC. No consideration is given to the various mechanical connections required within
each building, the operational aspects of the system in light of construction with either
material, nor to maintenance aspects incumbent to operation of either pipe material, repair
or replacement requirements, end-of-life planning or various other operational factors.
Carbon Footprint Study Attributes – Boundaries of the Comparative Assessment:
Given that the focus of this study is the installation or construction phase only, we can
identify those project attributes of primary interest from a carbon footprint perspective.
These attributes include the following and form the boundary conditions for this
comparative assessment:
1) The production of the two alternative pipe materials, polypropylene versus steel,
along with the insulation materials and outer jackets, as applicable.
2) Transportation of the piping products to the job site.
3) The joining practice used for each pipe material, butt fusion of PP-RCT versus
welded steel
4) The installation practice itself, direct burial versus horizontal directional drilling.
Carbon Footprint Comparative Assessment:
Pipe Production: As noted in the previous paper presented during PPXX in Amsterdam,
this project was specified with two alternative pipe materials; welded carbon steel and
polypropylene. However, an integral part of the specifications for this project was that any
pipe material used for hydronic heating at the University would need to be insulated with
a minimum of one inch (25.4 mm) of insulation in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 90.1
[8] Specifics for the two pipe alternative pipe products that were approved for this project
are shown in Table 2 below.
As can be seen from Table 2, there are notable differences between the composition of
the two composite pipe structures: PP-PU-PP and Steel-FG-HDPE. First, the steel

composite structure is notably heavier than the PP-RCT composite structure. Second, the
R-factor calculated for the two composite pipe structures are essentially the same -- 8.25
for the PP-PU-PP structure and 8.12 for the steel-FG-HDPE structure. This suggests that
the two composite structures have essentially the same resistance to heat transfer despite
the differences in the carrier pipe (PP vs steel), insulation and jacketing materials.
Numerous studies have been undertaken comparing the carbon footprint associated with
production and installation of various metallic and plastic pipes. [9,10,11] However, very
little research exists that provides a direct life-cycle comparison or a carbon footprint of
steel pipe as compared to PP-RCT pressure pipe, particularly as a composite structure.
This study applies industry-recognized embodied carbon (EC) constants for each material
and uses these factors to determine a relative indication of the carbon burden of the PP-
RCT installed in this project as compared to the alternative steel composite structure.
Bath University’s Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) database is one of the mostly
widely recognized and frequently referenced databases for comparison of common
construction materials. [12] The embodied carbon constants presented in Table 3 for PP-
RCT, HDPE, steel, and the insulating materials are the published values for virgin
materials.
Table 2: Specified Piping Products for University of Illinois STC Project

Pipe Composite Pipe Structure
Property PP-RCT Carbon Steel
Inner Pipe Material PP-RCT Carbon Steel
Inner pipe OD, in (mm) 6.30 (160) 6.625 (168.3)
Inner pipe, DR or Schedule 7.3 Schedule 40
Inner pipe, minimum wall, in (mm) 0.863 (21.92) 0.280 (7.11)
Inner pipe approximate ID, in (mm) 4.574 (116.2) 6.065 (154.1)
Inner pipe Weight, lb/ft (kg/m) 6.31 (9.39) 18.97 (28.26)
Inner pipe thermal conductivity, k
BTU/ft-hr-⁰F 0.09 24.8
W/meter-K 0.15 45.0
Insulation material Polyurethane closed cell Fiberglass
Insulation thickness, in (mm) 1.19 (25.4) 2 (50.8)
Insulation density, lb/ft3 2.0 2.0
Insulation weight, lb/ft of pipe (kg/m of pipe) 0.388 (0.577) 0.74 (1.10)
Insulation thermal conductivity
BTU/ft-hr-⁰F 0.017 0.026
W/K-meter 0.03 0.045
Outer jacket material PP-RCT HDPE
Outer jacket OD, in (mm) 9.842 (250) 11.145 (283.08)
Outer jacket, DR or SIDR 17 DR ~41 SIDR
Outer jacket minimum wall, in (mm) 0.579 (14.71) 0.260 (6.60)
Outer jacket, approximate ID, in (mm) 8.684 (220.57) 10.625 (269.87)
Outer jacket weight, lb/ft (kg/m) 7.21 (10.73) 4.15 (6.18)
Outer jacket thermal conductivity
BTU/ft-hr-⁰F 0.09 0.29
W/K-meter 0.15 0.50
Composite pipe structure OD, in (mm) 9.842 (250) 11.145 (283.08)
Composite pipe structure Weight, lb/ft (kg/m) 13.91 23.86
Composite structure R-factor 8.25 8.12
Composite pipe structure, shipping length ft (m) 20 40

Table 3: Embodied Carbon (EC) of Composite Pipe Alternatives

PP-RCT Composite
Material EC Constant (2) Mass/unit length Length Total CO2-eq
lb/lb kg/kg lb/foot kg/m total ft Total m lb kg
PP (1) 4.49 4.49 13.52 20.12 1400 427 84987 38575
Steel Pipe 2.87 2.87 - - - - - -
HDPE 2.52 2.52 - - - - - -
PU Insulation 4.84 4.84 0.388 0.577 1400 427 2629 1192
FG Insulation 1.35 1.35 - - - - - -
Total CO2-eq for PP Composite Pipe 87616 39767
Steel Composite
PP 4.49 4.49 - - - - - -
Steel Pipe 2.87 2.87 18.97 28.26 1680 512 91466 41526
HDPE 2.52 2.52 4.15 6.19 1680 512 17569 77987
PU Insulation 4.84 4.84 - - - - - -
FG Insulation 1.35 1.35 0.74 1.10 1680 512 1678 760
Total CO2-eq for Steel Composite Pipe 110714 50273
1) Total PP includes both inner pipe and outer jacket
2) Embodied Carbon (EC) Constants from Bath University’s ICE V2 in lb CO2-eq/lb of material (kg CO2-eq/kg of material)
Transportation: The GHG emissions associated with transport of the piping products
from their respective production or inventory sites to the job-site in Urbana-Champaign is
an integral part of this carbon footprint assessment. The Environmental Defense Fund in
combination with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Smartway program
provides guidance for determination of GHG emission associated with truckload shipment
of industrial products.[13]
Table 4, provides a comparative assessment for the transport of the two composite pipe
structures using the emission constants from the US EPA and the Environmental Defense
Fund. The point of origin for the PP-RCT based composite pipe structure is Early Branch,
SC with the final destination shown as the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
campus. The point of origin for the steel based composite pipe structure is not known
and, as such, the freight distance is assumed to be equal to that of the PP-RCT based
composite for purposes of comparison.
Table 4: CO2-eq Emissions for Shipment of the Two Pipe Composite Structures
Weight – Emission
Total Total
Composite short Total Factor –
Distance Emissions Emissions
Pipe Origin Destination tons Ton- grams
- Miles CO2-eq -- CO2-eq --
Product (2000 miles per ton-
grams kgs
lbs) mile
University of
PP-RCT Early
Illinois –
Composite Branch, 850 9.73 8270 161.8 1338100 1,338
Urbana-
Pipe SC
Champaign
University of
Steel
Illinois –
Composite Unknown 850 20.0 17000 161.8 2750600 2,750
Urbana-
Pipe
Champaign

As noted, this is a relatively small project and shipment of each of the composite structures
is limited to one truckload shipment. As a result, the overall impact of GHG emissions
associated with shipment of the composite pipe materials to the job-site is relatively small.
It should be noted that shipment of the PP-RCT composite pipe structure does show a
notably lower emissions impact owing to the lower per foot weight of this product and
reduced linear footage as compared to the heavier steel composite pipe product and the
greater footage required for the direct burial approach.
Joining: Polypropylene Composite Structure --The PP-PU-PP composite pipe was heat
fused as described in the Plastic Pipes XX conference paper. The butt fusion process
utilized a Widos 4900 hydraulically operated and electrically-powered heat fusion
machine. The fusion equipment requires electricity for the facing, heating, and
fusing/cooling operations. The fusion process joins the inner and outer walls
simultaneously. The Widos equipment requires 7 kW to operate on 230V service. The
contractor for the project indicated the operators could complete approximately seven
fusions each day. The power consumed per joint is estimated as follows:
Pipe was delivered to the job site in 20 ft (6.1 m) lengths, thus necessitating 70 joints to
complete the supply and return systems within our project boundary. The fusion process
required 200 kWh of energy. eGRID (2021) provides the CO2-eq for electricity consumed
by each state. Illinois electric generation results in 1748 lb CO2-eq/MWh.[14] Thus, the
electric consumption of the fusion machine totals 350 lb CO2-eq (159 kg).
Table 5: KWh per Heat Fusion Joint of PP-RCT Composite Pipe Structure
Equipment Listed kW Estimated time per joint Total kWh
Component (hours)
Facer 1.05 0.0167 0.0175
Heater 2.1 0.5 1.05
Fuse/Cool 3.6 0.5 1.8
TOTAL 2.86 kWh/joint
Steel Composite structure --GHG emissions from welding arise from two primary sources:
the shielding gas for the GMAW and the emissions from the onsite gasoline-powered
generator. For this analysis, the authors assumed the shielding gas is comprised of 75%
Argon and 25% CO2 and utilized at 30 cfh. Each weld is estimated to require 2.7 person-
hours, and 42 welds would be required to accommodate the longer distance as compared
to the PP-PU-PP structure. Emissions from the estimated 113 hours of shielding gas
released during welding of the steel pipe totals 97.4 lb CO2-eq (44.2 kg)
In addition to the CO2 released from the shielding gas, additional CO2 is created from the
engine providing power to the welding unit. A generic 18 hp 4 stroke gasoline-powered
engine with a fuel consumption rate of 1 gal/hour is used for this analysis.[15] The
emissions from the combustion of gasoline are calculated as follows:
113 hours * 1 gal gasoline/hour * 6.25 lbs gasoline/gal gasoline * 20.3 lb CO 2-eq/lb
gasoline = 14,336.8 lbs CO2-eq. (6517 kg)

The GHG emissions attributed to joining on this project are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: CO2-eq Emissions from Joining
System Emissions (lbs CO2-eq) Emissions (kg CO2-eq)

PP-PU-PP 350 159
Steel with Insulation 14434 6561
Installation: The installation scenarios to be compared are: 1) the hybrid HDD and open-
cut/direct burial of the PP-RCT composite pipe structure, and 2) the open-cut/direct burial
of the steel composite pipe structure as specified in the original contract documents. A
detailed carbon footprint for each of each of these installation scenarios is beyond the
scope of this writing. However, the British Columbia chapter of the North American Society
for Trenchless Technologies (NASTT), in cooperation with NYSEARCH, has developed
an interactive spreadsheet that can be used to estimate the carbon footprint for the two
different installation scenarios. [16] The spreadsheet is designed to compare any of the
various trenchless technologies; HDD, pipe-bursting, slip-lining, pipe jacking, micro-
tunnelling, etc.to the direct burial option.
The NASTT-BC spreadsheet can be run in an iterative fashion to estimate the carbon
footprint for the two installation scenarios. The project assumptions for the two installation
scenarios can be broken into three segments. These are:
1a) HDD portion of the PP-RCT composite pipe installation,

1b) Open-cut/direct-bury potion of the PP-RCT composite pipe installation, and
2) The open-cut/direct-bury installation of the steel composite pipe structure.
Where possible, input variables for the NASTT-BC spreadsheet calculator were taken
from the original contract documents or job-site observations. Where data was not known,
default values provided in the spreadsheet calculator have been utilized. The output from
the NASTT-BC Carbon Calculator is summarized in Table 7.
Table 7: Estimated Embodied Carbon for Installation Scenarios
Line Segment Total CO2-eq, kg Total Feet (m) CO2-eq/per ft (per m)

1a) PP- HDD 3,296 640 (195) 5.15 (16.9)
1b) PP- Open-cut/Direct bury 23,278 760 (232) 30.6 (100.3)
Total for PP hybrid installation 26,574 1400 (427) 19.0 (62.2)
2) Steel – Open-cut/direct bury 51,372 1680 (512) 30.6 (100.3)

DISCUSSION
A comparative carbon footprint assessment for this project can be constructed based on
the boundary conditions and the four installation variables identified. Table 8 is a
compilation of the four installation variables for each of the installation alternatives.
From Table 8, the total embodied carbon for the installation of PP-RCT on the STC
hydronic heating project is approximately 67,830 kg CO2-eq (149,226 lb). This compares
to an estimated embodied carbon of 110,956 kg CO2-eq (244,103 lb) if the steel
composite pipe structure had been installed as originally specified. The net difference is
43,126 kg CO2-eq (94877 lb) or an embodied carbon reduction of 38.9% compared to the
carbon steel composite alternative.
Table 8: Embodied CO2-eq per Installation Alternative for STC Project

Embodied CO2-eq, kg
Boundary Condition Table
Installation Variable Reference PP-RCT Carbon Steel
Production 3 39,767 50,273

Transportation 4 1,338 2,750
Joining 6 159 6,561
Installation –
7 23,278 51,372
Open-cut/Direct-bury
Installation – Horizontal Directional
7 3,296 --
Drill
Total Embodied Carbon 67,838 110,956
Embodied Carbon/m 1 158.9 (1) 216.7(2)
1) Based on hybrid installation
2) Based on open-cut/direct bury installation
A portion of the carbon footprint savings for this project can be attributed to the notably
shorter length of the installation when utilizing the hybrid HDD installation of the PP-RCT
composite pipe structure. However, it is also noted that the carbon footprint of the steel
composite pipe would still be higher had this material been installed in a manner similar
to the hybrid installation of the PP-RCT owing principally to the greater embedded carbon
involved in producing the steel composite pipe structure, its transportation to the job site
and its welded joining process. Additionally, had the steel composite pipe been installed
via open-cut/direct-bury, the project would have taken longer and required excavation and
replacement of a significant portion of asphalt roadway and parking lot as well as several
concrete curbs and sidewalk. The additional carbon footprint of these aspects has not
been factored into this comparative assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
This discussion has provided a comparative carbon footprint assessment of the previously
reported installation at the University of Illinois – Urban-Champaign. Using industry-
established criteria, the embodied carbon for the PP-RCT composite pipe structure

installed on this project have been investigated and compared to that of the steel
composite pipe structure originally specified.
This discussion demonstrates that horizontal directional drilling with dual-wall pre-
insulated PP-RCT pipe provided a significant carbon footprint reduction as compared to
the steel composite pipe structure originally specified for the project. The findings show
that the embodied carbon for the PP-RCT composite pipe installation is approximately
67,830 kg CO2-eq (149,226 lb) or roughly 61% of the modelled steel composite structure
at 110,956 kg.CO2-eq (244,103 lb). The overall reduction in embodied carbon is the result
of a reduced length in the pipe system routing attributed to the HDD installation and the
inherently lower embodied carbon of the installed PP-RCT composite pipe as compared
to that for the originally specified steel composite pipe structure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and contributions of the following parties.
• The University of Illinois Mechanical Staff

• A & R Mechanical Contracting of Champaign, IL
• Nupi Americas
• Borealis Group
• McElroy Manufacturing, Inc.
REFERENCES
1) Sandstrum, S., and Chris Ziu, “Polypropylene Pipe in Demanding Hydronic
Heating Applications”, Proceeding of Plastic Pipes XX, Amsterdam, 2021
2) “Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. US Environmental Protection Agency, web-
page - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#f-gases,
Washington DC, 2023
3) Sandstrum, S., “A European Approach to Carbon Footprint Reduction in
Polyolefins’, Proceedings of SPE International Polyolefins Conference, Galveston, TX,
2023
4) ASTM E2114-23, “Standard Terminology for Sustainability”, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2023
5) ISO 6707-3: 2022, “Building and Civil Engineering Works – Vocabulary”,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2022
6) ISO 14040: 2006, “Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Principles and Framework”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
2006
7) ISO 14044: 2006. “Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Requirements and Guidelines”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
2006
8) ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 – “Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings”, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 2019
9) Chilana, Lalit, “Carbon Footprint Analysis of a Large Diameter Water
Transmission Pipeline Installation”, a Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Arlington,
2011
10) Alsadi, A., “Evaluation of Carbon Footprint During the Life Cycle of Four Different
Pipe Materials”, Dissertation 37“, https://digitalcommons, latech.edu/dissertation 37.
11) Kaushal, Vinayak, et al, “Environmental Impacts of Conventional Open-Ct
Installation and Trenchless Technology Methods” State-of-the-art Review”, Journal of
Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA,2020
12) Hammond, G and C Jones, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Version
2.0,www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/, University of Bath, Claverton Down, UK,
2011
13) The Green Freight Book, a publication of the Environmental Defense Fund, New
York, 2019
14) “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)”,
https://www.epa.gov/egrid, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023
Washington, DC, 2021
15) Duromax XP1200EH specifications,
https://www.duromaxpower.com/products/duromax-xp12000eh-dual-fuel-portable-gas-
propane-generator, Ontario, CA, 2023
16) NASTT-BC Carbon Calculator, https://nastt-bc.org/carbon-calculator/, North
American Society for Trenchless Technology – British Columbia Chapter, Delta, BC,
Canada, 2023


Polypropylene (PP) - A Carbon Footprint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Polypropylene (PP) - A Carbon Footprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the 21st Plastic Pipes Conference, PPXXI

September 25-27, 2023, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA

POLYPROPYLENE (PP) – A CARBON FOOTPRINT

Chris Ziu Deanne Hughes, PE Steve Sandstrum

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 1

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 2

Figure 1: Overview of Sustainable Technology Center (STC) Hydronic Heating

Figure 2: Prevailing Terrain for STC Hydronic Heating Systems Routing

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 3

Table 1: Linear Footage for STC Hydronic Project, ft (m)

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 4

Scope of Carbon Footprint Comparison:

This study is limited to an assessment of the comparative embodied carbon of the

Carbon Footprint Study Attributes – Boundaries of the Comparative Assessment:

Carbon Footprint Comparative Assessment:

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 5

Table 2: Specified Piping Products for University of Illinois STC Project

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 6

Table 3: Embodied Carbon (EC) of Composite Pipe Alternatives

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 7

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 8

Table 6: CO2-eq Emissions from Joining

System Emissions (lbs CO2-eq) Emissions (kg CO2-eq)

1a) HDD portion of the PP-RCT composite pipe installation,

Table 7: Estimated Embodied Carbon for Installation Scenarios

Line Segment Total CO2-eq, kg Total Feet (m) CO2-eq/per ft (per m)

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 9

Table 8: Embodied CO2-eq per Installation Alternative for STC Project

Production 3 39,767 50,273

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 10

• The University of Illinois Mechanical Staff

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 12

Copyright © 2023 by (Steve Sandstrum Borealis Compounds, Inc., steven.sandstrum@borealisgroup.com) 13

You might also like