Advertisement

Fire Technology

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 1309–1329 | Cite as

The Impact of Mounting Method on the Flammability Testing of Chlorinated Poly Vinyl Chloride (CPVC) Pipe Type Certification for Maritime Applications

  • Matthew S. Blais
  • Nicholas Middleton
Article

Abstract

A series of tests was performed to elucidate the impact of the mounting methods on the performance of chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe in accordance with International Maritime Organization Fire Test Procedures Annex 1 Part 5. Also assessed, was the determination whether the current practice in type approval for the certification of all CPVC pipe sizes between smallest diameters, thinnest pipe tested and largest diameters, thickest pipe tested is a valid practice. Whole diameter pipe and pipe cut in half longitudinally were tested in the Lateral Ignition and Flame-Spread Test apparatus to determine if the different configurations of the pipe induced variability. A total of 42 tests were performed to look at sizes 12.7-mm copper tube size (CTS) through 38.1-mm Schedule 80 CPVC pipes. The following factors produced statistically different data at the 99% confidence limit: longitudinally half cut, versus whole, of the same pipe size and type, and thickness of the pipe for both total heat release and peak heat release rate (PHRR). Thickness is important with thicker pipe performing better in the testing. Whole pipe of the thinner material, CTS, versus the same pipe produced from longitudinally cut pipe, increased the heat produced significantly by holding the pipe in the combustion zone longer. Thin cut pipe appeared to melt and char, and fall out of the sample holder and the combustion zone, effectively reducing the mass consumed and energy produced. For Schedule 40 pipe of whole smaller pipe diameters, 12.7 mm, performed significantly better for both PHRR and total heat release than the longitudinally cut pipe. For diameters of 19.1 and 38.1-mm Schedule 40, the same trend was noted with the whole pipe performing significantly better. Thicker materials, such as Schedule 80, develop a thick char layer that stayed in place reducing combustion of CPVC.

Keywords

Mounting methods IMO Part 5 CPVC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by George Fischer Harvel LLC and Lubrizol Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Middleton N IMO Part 5 Screening of CPVC Piping. SwRI report number 22381.17.222. Available on request from George Fischer Harvel LLC, Phone 281-488-3366Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler RE (1996) CPVC: the material of choice in metal-finishing plants. Met Finish 94(8):24–28. ISSN 0026-0576,  https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0576(96)82863-7 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026057696828637
  3. 3.
    Mukherjee A (1998) CPVC: a versatile and cost-effective material for metal-finishing applications. Met Finish 96(8):41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williamson RB (1979) Installing ABS and PVC drain waste and vent systems in fire resistant buildings. Fire J 73(2):36–45Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirschler M, Chandler LA (1987) Further chlorination of poly(vinyl chloride): effects on flammability and smoke production tendency. Eur Polym J 23(9):677–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu PK, Bill RG (2003) Laboratory tests for flammability using enhanced oxygen. Fire Saf J 38:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuire JH (1973) Penetration of fire partitions by plastic DWV pipe. Fire Technol 9(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2010) 2010 Fire Test Procedure (FTP) code, IMO 4, Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, ISBN: 978-92-801-1548-2, 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Statistics Portal (2016) Causes of ship losses worldwide in 2016, by type. Statista, [Online] https://www.statista.com/statistics/419055/causes-of-losses-of-ships-worldwide/
  10. 10.
    United States Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security, Nonmetallic materials, 46 CFR 56.60-25, pp 225–226, 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2010 Fire Test Procedure (FTP) code, part V, pp 124, IMO 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, ISBN:978-92-801-1548-2, 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke FB (1983) Toxicity of combustion products: current knowledge. Fire J 77(5): pp 84–108Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Policy File Memorandum on the fire performance requirements for plastic pipe per IMO resolution A.753(18), PFM1-98, 16714, Enclosure (1), p 3, para 6.2, May 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM Standard E1317-12, standard test method for flammability of marine surface finishesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM Standard E1321-12, standard test method for determining material ignition and flame spread propertiesGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Standard, ISO 5658-2, Reaction to fire tests: spread of flame—part 2: lateral spread on building and transportation products in vertical configuration, 2nd edn, 2006-09-15.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Standard, ISO 5658-2, Reaction to fire tests: spread of flame—part 2: lateral spread on building and transportation products in vertical configuration, 2nd edn, 2006-09-15, p 3, Figure 1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Middleton N (2012) Screening testing of CPVC piping in general accordance with IMO FTP Annex 1 Part 5. SwRI fire technology test report, 2012. Available on request from George Fischer Harvel LLC, Phone 281-488-3366.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fire TechnologySouthwest Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations