CPVC versus PPR

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

CPVC has excellent properties compared to PPR

CPVC PVC PPR PEX PB CU

Tensile Strength (MPa at 23C) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (x10-4 K-1) Thermal Conductivity (W/MK)

55

50

30

25

27

>300

0.7

0.7

1.5

1.5

1.3

0.2

0.14

0.14

0.22

0.22

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.day.atmosphere)
3

<1
insignificant

13

16

at 70C
Sources:

- Saechtling - International Plastics Handbook - Modern Plastics Encyclopedia - Chemical engineers Handbook - CEN proposals for European Standards - British Gas

CPVC versus PPR

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 thickness PN20 pipe 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 Wall thickness:

40

3.7

6.7

5.5

4.5

CPVC : 1.9 mm PP: 3.4 mm

50

4.6

8.4

6.9

5.6

SOURCE : DIN 8077 / 8079 / 16969 / 16893

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

CPVC versus PPR

Straight professional appearance Need less hangers and supports Less looping

CPVC versus PPR

CPVC

PPR

Suitable for vertical risers

CPVC versus PPR easy and cost effective installation

All you need is :
1. 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. Solvent cement

CPVC versus PPR Installation techniques PPR needs more skilled labour Single Welding machine can weld joints up 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 need a 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 PPR Installation techniques

Heat fusion leads to bead formation internally 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 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.V. Exposure
Polyethylene, Polypropylene
U.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.

CPVC
The 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 capability 30 years of outside service in Southern California Impact resistance mainly an installation issue (before any UV exposure)

No breakdown of pipe in service

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. of PP is about 340C as compared to 480C 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

HEALTH CONCERNS Health Concerns

Bacterial growth in water piping at 120 days
120.000

B A C T E R I A (kBE/cm)

100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 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 Oberflchenbesiedlung in trinkwasserdurchstromten Schlauch- und Rohrleitungen; Dr. Georg-Joachim Tuschewitzki; Privatdozent am Hygiene-Institut der Universitt Bonn; 23.10.1989.

Dr. G. J. Tuschewitzki

Health Concerns
Number of Legionella bacteria in the test water
(average after 8, 12 and 16 weeks - static test, no flow.) 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, 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 (KIWA is the The Netherlands approvals agency for potable water piping systems) - 1999