The PVC family: uPVC , mPVC and Biax

Introduction
A short summary is given about different PVC types. These types are also compared
with each other on certain important aspects. Furthermore a comparison with PE is
made as well. On most aspect mentioned, further elaboration is possible if required.

Definitions
uPVC or PVC-U unplasticed Polyvinylchloride

mPVC or PVC-M modified Polyvinylchloride

PVC-A Polyvinylchloride –Alloy
Polyvinylchloride – Acrylic
PVC/CPE Polyvinylchloride – Chlorinated PE

oPVC or PVC-O Oriented PVC

General
PVC is a polymer based on a hydrocarbon chain (polymer) with a chlorine molecule.
The molecular structure is very stable and hardly needs further stabilisation.
Especially during processing, the material requires some kind of stabilisation in order
to avoid the chlorine molecule to break away from the chain. The stabilisation has
been discussed by Tersellius, who showed that the total breakdown of the material
would last about 4000 years, whereas Polyolefin’s would breakdown within 250
years.

Traditional materials like steel and iron, prone to corrosion, are not predicted for this,
but will corrode in the course of time. Corrosion may be quick, as the experience with
iron water mains has shown in several countries.

UPVC is a well-known and established material used in both water supply and
sewage discharge for a long period of time. Studies into the durability of PVC as such
showed that it is an excellent material for buried conditions for both water and
wastewater. Also the application of PVC for low pressure gas distribution shows an
excellent record. In the Dutch network about 56,0000 km PVC is used, from which
20,000 km is uPVC.

UPVC has a relatively brittle behaviour, especially at low temperatures. Also the
development of crazes when exposed simultaneously to sufficient mechanical stress
and chemicals, like aromatic hydrocarbons, which could finally lead to fracture, was
considered as a negative property.

For reasons of improving the properties for use in gas systems, several
developments have taken place. One was to add modifiers to the UPVC resulting in
considerable better properties. This is called mPVC. Now the Dutch gas network
exists for 36,000 km of mPVC.

As said the pipes are used for low-pressure applications and designed more for
stiffness, resistance to aromatic hydrocarbons and improved impact resistance
instead for strength.
In the UK mPVC was developed for another reason. There they were building a poor
record with uPVC. The reason for that poor record is caused by a different production
approach. Where in the rest of Europe production was focussing on getting a good
gelation (building a good and strong molecular network), in the UK they focussed on
getting visually very smooth and shiny pipes. The latter focus jeopardised the good
gelation and hence poor mechanical properties were obtained with as a result a
relatively high failure rate. In some presentations, of especially the PE lobby, a failure
rate for uPVC of 0.26 is shown. If however the failure rate of the UK is subtracted
from them then only 0.01 – 0.03 as failure rate is found. In the UK and in areas
traditionally linked with the UK, like Australia, mPVC is used for pressure
applications. Although the material is more ductile, still the material requires a good
gelation. Poor fused (gelation level) mPVC pipe remains a poor pipe.

Different types of modifier can be used. Within Wavin we use acrylic.

The latest development is the development of Bi-axial PVC. Pipes are made from
normal PVC, but after that they are stretched in uni-axial or bi-axial direction.
Sometimes this is done in a batch process (uni-axial) or in an in-line process (bi-
axial). In the latter case a better process control is possible and a more constant
quality is obtained.

Polva Pipelife produced so-called polycall pipes in the eighties. These pipes were
made out of PVC/CPE and stretched in a batch process to further improve the
resistance against aromatic hydrocarbons. The batch process however showed to
give difficulties in wall thickness control and was stopped after a few years.

Production
The production of mPVC is similar to that of uPVC. The main difference is found in
the recipe of the material.

As far as recipes are concerned it is noted that the New Zealand / Australian
standard (AS/NZ 4765(int): 2000, requires that at least 83% is PVC, and 1.5 parts
from 100 of TiO2 shall be present. Within Wavin we use about 4% CPE and when
using acrylics we use about 3% of it in order to obtain a good quality pipe. In Wavin,
PVC-M or mPVC is mainly used for low-pressure gas applications. Improved ductility
and resistance to gas constituents is the only reason to produce these pipes.

The British standard BSI/PAS 27:1999 does not require a certain composition.
PVC can be modified using CPE and / or acrylic as the modifier. In all cases the
modifier improves the ductility of the material, but at the same time it lowers the
strength as well.

From the processing experience it is known that the processing window becomes
wider when using acrylic compared to CPE.
For instance Hepworth uses CPE as the main modifier and added with a bit of
acrylics. They call it PVC-A with the A from alloy.
 Commonly used design values

Issue UPVC MPVC Bi-axial

Design stress [Mpa] 25 24.5 31.5;
33.5;40;45;50
Overall design 2 – 2.5 1.4 ISO =>1.6
coefficient 1.4
ASTM => 2.0
Young’s modulus 3300 2400 3300
Coefficient of linear 6 x 10-5 m/m.K 7 x 10-6 m/m.K 8 x 10-5 m/m.K
expansion

A brief comparison on standards

ISO, BS, EN and many other international standards can be compared rather well,
because they all use the same philosophy. The ASTM standards are not easy
comparable to the other standards, therefore for the time being left open. There is
something to say about the standards first. ASTM standards are very much product
standards and quite often dedicated to a particular product(s) a manufacturer
produces. The users-input is very low.

National standards vary from country to country. The WIS standard for instance is
made by a company together with Prof. Marshall. Users, designers and
manufacturers make the EN standards all together. The standards have to go
through a rigorous process of evaluation and voting. More or less the same happens
with the ISO standard. This standard however is more open and allows people to
choose several options. It is recommended to concentrate on the ISO and EN
standards.

PVC

Issue ISO 4422-2 WIS 4-31-06 EN1452

Effect on water To be tested To be tested To be tested
quality
Minimum required 25.0 25.0 25.0
strength
Hydrostatic design 10.0 (d≤90mm) 10.0 (d≤90mm) 10.0 (d≤90mm)
stress / overall 12.5 (d≥110 mm) 12.5 (d≥110 mm) 12.5 (d≥110 mm)
design factor
Impact 0 C / Example O C / example O C / example
d=200mm;2 kg at 4 m D=200 mm, 4 kg, 2m D=200 mm, 4 kg, 2m

Pressure test 1000 hr, s=12.5 Mpa;

T=60 C
Resistance to 20 C/42 MPa/1hr 20 C/ 42 MPa / 1hr 20 C/42 MPa/1hr
internal pressure 20 C/35 MPa/ 100 hr 20 C/35 MPa/ 100 hr
60 C/12.5 MPa/1000 60 C/12.5 MPa/1000 hr
hr
Pipe reversion 150 C reversion less 150 C reversion less 150 C reversion less
than 5% than 5% than 5%
Vicat softening >80 C > 80 C
Di-chloor methane Yes No Yes
test , gelation
Kic value No Yes No
MPVC
Issue AS/NZS 4765 BSI/PAS 27:1999 ASTM
Effect on water To be tested To be tested
quality
Minimum required 24.5 24.5
strength
Hydrostatic design 17.5 /1.4 17.5 / 1.4
stress / overall
design factor
Impact 22 C / Example 0 C/ Example
d=200mm;20 kg at d=200 mm; 4 kg at
2m 2m
Pressure test 1000 hr, s=12.5
Mpa; T=60 C
Resistance to 38 Mpa, for 1 hr 36 Mpa, for 1hr
internal pressure at
20 deg C
Long-term 20 deg C 23 deg C
toughness
High temperature 150 C, no split or 150 C, no split or
test holes/damages damage,
longitudinal
reversion<5%
Pipe reversion 150 C reversion Reversion and high
less than 5% temp in one test.
Vicat softening >80 C > 80 C

PVC-O
PVC-O is created by using normal PVC and by orientation of the molecular structure.
This results in a significant improvement of the strength and the impact resistance.
The pipe is also less vulnerable for fatigue loading then normal PVC and mPVC.
Another difference between PVC-u and PVC-O is that PVC-O when produced in an
inline process, as is the case when using the Wavin process, is always well fused. It
is impossible to make such a PVC-O pipe when the starting pipe has a poor gelation.
In other words, making a poor product is very difficult.

Alternatives for PVC

PE is used in several countries in Europe mostly for gas supply, but over the last
decennia also for water supply. Especially the poor quality PVC pipes produced in
the UK in the seventies has boosted the use of PE pipes a lot. See also the
introduction.

In the nineties the marketing campaign of Greenpeace using the vehicle of chlorine
further boosted the use of PE in several countries in Europe, especially in the Nordic
countries and Germany. Further to this, a few leading PE raw material suppliers are
located in Sweden and Finland, partly the result of their trading tradition with Russia
in the past (Russian oil against western technology). This resulted in availability and
pressure to use PE. Also the fact that PVC was conceived as a brittle material when
installed at temperatures below zero, had an effect of the sales of PE vs. PVC.
It was however shown in 1992 by Wavin, that there is no problem installing PVC
pipes even down to –21 ºC. In Indonesia however, this issue of very low
temperatures is not an issue at all.
Also the very direct marketing of the PE raw material suppliers (passing the
converters and addressing water companies straight away has resulted in a further
increase of PE in the market for water supply)

Nowadays PVC is still strong in many European markets, except in the Scandinavian
countries and Germany, although also in these areas PVC is still the major installed
pipe material within the water network. Also the prediction for the future looks very
good for plastics in general and PVC in particular. (See picture below)
A technical evaluation is summarised below.

Some technical facts on use of PVC, PVC-O and PE

Aspect PE PVC PVCO

 Weld-able Yes No No

 Robust rubber seal joints No Yes Yes

 Permeable )1 Yes Nil Nil

 Bore diam. / P-nominal Lowest Medium Optimal

 Impact on water quality Low Nil Nil

)1
depends on chemical present

It shall be mentioned that both PE and PVC are very well usable, but that PVC type
of materials has a preference over PE for water supply in South-America.

Overview of recommended material depending on application

 Chlorinated water  all PVC’s

 Polluted soils / risk of permeation  all PVC’s

 Directional drilling  PE, Wavin TS

 Close fit lining  PE, Compact Pipe

 In urban areas, dense underground  all PVC’s

 Robust solutions, slip lining, uncontrolled

Installations  PVC-O; Wavin TS

The Dutch organisation KIWA has published information and guidelines regarding the
use of pipe materials in polluted soils. They recommend that all pipe materials may
be used in case of class A pollution (low concentrations). At medium to high
concentrations PE is not allowed anymore. In such cases PVC is still a feasible
material.
This means that the window of application is bigger for PVC pipes than for PE.

Commercially
From the commercial point of view it shall be mentioned that PVC provides more
degrees of freedom to gain margin. Where PE extrusion is simple and easy to be
performed by “anyone”. PVC extrusion involves know-how and is not easy to do by
just “anyone”. Knowledge and experience pays of because with that knowledge and
experience one can create better pipes with cheaper recipes etc.
Robust solutions
Contractors who sometimes are not very careful install pipes and sometimes they
suffer circumstances that do not allow a good installation.
For that reason two robust solutions have been developed. In PE it is called Wavin
TS and in PVC it is bi-axial oriented PVC.

Overview of comparison between uPVC, mPVC and Biaxial

Issue UPVC MPVC Bi-axial

Design stress [Mpa] 25 24.5 31.5;
33.5;
40;
45;
50;
Overall design 2 – 2.5 1.4 1.4-1.6;
coefficient, C ASTM 2
Impact resistance ISO 40 and 80 J BSI 44 J ISO 220 J
0 C, d=200 mm [ASTM=271 J
Falling height = 2 m for 8”]
Young’s modulus 3300 2400 3300
Coefficient of linear 6 x 10-5 m/m.K 7 x 10-6 m/m.K 8 x 10-5 m/m.K
expansion
Remaining bore C=2.0 C=1.4 Sigma 45 MPa,
diameter for a PN16 Di = 175 mm 181 mm C=1.6
DN=200 mm 189 mm

The table above shows a summary of the design aspects and when using those
design aspects than it can be calculated what the remaining internal bore of for
instance a 200 mm pipe is. What is shown that the bore is bigger when going from
uPVC to mPVC. The reason for this is the significant lower overall design coefficient
used for mPVC, even though the strength is lower. A value of 1.4 is used. It shall also
be mentioned that the strength is classified, so rounded to certain fixed numbers. The
safety factor of 1.4 for mPVC has been motivated by the fact that the material has a
higher toughness.

PVC-O results in the highest bore size. The safety factor is 1.6 although in some
countries like France a factor of 1.4 is used as well. In the above table a factor of 1.6
is used.

Realise that with pressure testing using 1.5*PN, the wall stress is higher than the
MRS value in case a safety factor lower than 1.5 is used. This does not have to lead
to problems, but it might do in case the regression curve is very flat.

On Surge & Fatigue

Pipes used in water and waste water pumping mains may be exposed to surge as a
result of water hammer caused by starting and stopping of pumps or by opening and
closing of valves. Before the surge there is a pressure peak. According to the
European norm, pipes need to be able to withstand the surge pressure and a
vacuum of 0.8 bar needs to be considered in the design.
When the surge happens very frequently, then also fatigue may start to play an
important role. The designer of a pipe system needs to keep an eye on these effects,
and when well designed, water hammer should not occur on a daily basis, but only in
incidental cases. It shall be emphasised that water hammer does not only cause
problems for the pipe material, but especially causes problems with the seal, gaskets
etc in flanges and valves etc.
In the UK they have given out some guidance note on surge and fatigue.

There it is shown that the uPVC and mPVC ( PVC-A) have a similar resistance
against fatigue. PVC-A however requires a more severe de-rating than uPVC.
PVC-O performs superior when compared to uPVC and mPVC in case of water
hammer.

Fusible PVC
In the US fusible PVC is promoted. It is possible to weld PVC, but to make a good
quality weld in the field seems to be difficult. Also here the fact that not a lot
experience has been gained so far, and not a real standard has been launched, does
not give confidence to believe that within reasonable time this will be a serious
material for water supply. It may however have a role to play in niches like trench
fewer installations.

Overall conclusion
PVC is by far the better material for water supply.

The development of O-PVC creates the position to be able to improve the properties
like Impact strength and hydrostatic strength considerably.

MPVC is a ductile pipe, more ductile than uPVC. It can however not be considered to
be a great improvement, as its strength is even lower than uPVC.

Using safety factors below 1.5 is a bit sensitive, because when pressure testing is
done at 1.5 times the nominal pressure than the actual wall stress is bigger then the
MRS value. This could give problems with the pipe.