cpvc versus ppr

CPVC versus PPRCPVC versus PPR

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

CPVC PVC PPR PEX PB CU

Tensile Strength(MPa at 23°C)

55 50 30 25 27 >300

Coefficient ofThermal Expansion(x10-4 K-1)

0.7 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.2

Thermal Conductivity(W/MK)

0.14 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.22 >400

LOI 60 45 18 17 18

Oxygen Permeation(cm3/m.day.atmosphere) at 70°C

<1insignificant

(notavailable)similar to

CPVC

(notavailable)similar toPB/PEX

13 16 (notavailable)insignificant

Sources: - Saechtling - International Plastics Handbook - Modern Plastics Encyclopedia

- Chemical engineers Handbook- CEN proposals for European Standards- British Gas

CPVC has excellent properties CPVC has excellent properties compared to PPRcompared to PPR


CPVC has better physical properties :CPVC has better physical properties :

• PPR has thermal expansion twice that of CPVC(more anchors, loops)

• PPR has thermal conductivity 40% more than CPVC (more insulation)

• PPR has 50% working stress of CPVC(thicker pipe wall, lower water flow)

WALL THICKNESSPN 20 PIPE

OutsideWall thickness (mm)

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

40 3.7 6.7 5.5 4.5

50 4.6 8.4 6.9 5.6

SOURCE : DIN 8077 / 8079 / 16969 / 16893

PN20, 20mm Wall thickness:CPVC : 1.9 mmPP: 3.4 mm

Wall thickness PN20 pipeWall thickness PN20 pipe

CPVC has a higher pressure bearing capability . This leads to same flow rate with smaller pipe size for CPVC.


Straight professional appearance Need less hangers and supports Less looping

CPVC PPR


Suitable for vertical risers

CPVC versus PPR CPVC versus PPR easy and cost effective installation easy and cost effective installation

1. Pipe cutter

2. Chamfering tool

3. Solvent cement

All you need is :

Tools required for CPVC are simple and cheap

No need for electrical source

Same procedure for CPVC as for PVC

CPVC versus PPR CPVC versus PPR Installation techniques Installation techniques

• PPR needs more skilled labour

• Single Welding machine can weld jointsup to 32mm only. For larger diameters,more sophisticated welding machines which are heavier and bulkier and not easy to carry(needs more man power) and also needa holding device which is another machine.

• More the machines more the labour.

• Not convenient in congested area, more accidents, more hazardous.

• Need for POWER

CPVC versus PPRCPVC versus PPRInstallation techniques Installation techniques

• Heat fusion leads to ‘bead’ formationinternally and externally. This leads to ample opportunity for bacteria to grow

• Increased frictional loss at every joint

• Reduced flow rate.

• Increased depositions of non solubles

CPVC versus PPRCPVC versus PPRBead Formation in PP Bead Formation in PP

External bead PP socket

PP pipe

Internal beat

CPVC versus PPRCPVC versus PPRBead Formation in PP Bead Formation in PP

U.V. ExposureU.V. Exposure

Polyethylene, PolypropyleneU.V. acts as a strong catalyst for the oxidation process which breaks down polymer chain, leading to weakness in pipe and loss of hydrostatic strength.

CPVCThe main degradation process is dehydrochlorination, not oxidation. This dehydrochlorination, whilst slightly accelerated by U.V., does 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.

No significant loss in pressure bearing capability30 years of outside service in Southern CaliforniaImpact resistance mainly an installation issue (before any UV exposure)

No breakdown of pipe in service

CPVC versus PPRCPVC versus PPRFire related properties 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. of PP is about 340°C ascompared to 480°C for CPVC

• Heat of Combustion of PP is about 3 x more thanCPVC (generating more heat and easy burning)

Low flame spreadLow smoke generationSelf extinguishingNo flaming drips CPVC PP

continues to burn …

HEALTH CONCERNS

Bacterial growth in water piping at 120 days

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

CPVC STEEL COPPER POLYETHYLENE

MATERIAL

CPVC piping supports the lowest bacterial growthcompared with traditional piping materials

Source : Bakterielle Oberflächenbesiedlung in trinkwasserdurchstromtenSchlauch- und Rohrleitungen;Dr. Georg-Joachim Tuschewitzki;Privatdozent am Hygiene-Institut der Universität Bonn;23.10.1989.

BACTERIA

(kBE/cm²)

Dr. G. J. Tuschewitzki

"CPVC piping supports the lowest bacterialgrowth compared with traditional piping materials"

Health ConcernsHealth Concerns

Study: Biofilm Formation Potential of Pipe Materials in internal installations by H.R. Veenendaal / D. van de Kooiy – KIWA(KIWA is the The Netherlands approvals agency for potable water piping systems) - 1999

Number of Legionella bacteria in the test water (average after 8, 12 and 16 weeks - static test, no flow.)

0

50

100

150

200

CPVC(*) StainlessSteel

PEX (*) PB (*) PPR (*)

cfu

/ml

(*) Average of 2 samples

Health Health ConcernsConcerns

″ In the presence of the two CPVC materials, the growth of Legionnella bacteria in the water was low ″

cpvc versus ppr

Documents

cpvc

gt

similar