| Comparison of Various Plumbing Materials | Release: September 1, 2012 | |||||||||||
| Parameter | GI | PPR | cPVIgnore warningC | Compo-site | Copper | SS | Why SS is better | |||||
| Corrosion Resistance | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | Stainless Steel grades 304/316L have better corrosion resistance. Even copper has Green corrosion of Copper Sulphate which is poisonous | |||||
| Hygiene | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | Food Grade, Recommended for Drinking water, Food and Pharma equipment | |||||
| Maintenance Free Life | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Minimum replacement costs | |||||
| Enhances Building Life | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Negligible leakage, hence least damage to building | |||||
| Strength of Pipes | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Stainless steel is the strongest among competing materials | |||||
| Ease of Installation | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | Fast installation with Low Skill worker | |||||
| Earthquake Proof | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | Withstands the vibrations and shocks due to its ductile nature | |||||
| Cleanability | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Lowest deposit buildup due to smooth surface | |||||
| Food Grade | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Meets all food grade standards | |||||
| High temperature Application | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Retains strength at high temperature | |||||
| Low Temperature Application | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Is not brittle at low temperature, unlike plastics or GI | |||||
| Fire Resistant | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Withstands High temperature. | |||||
| Experience of Usage | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | Worldwide usage experinence of 30-40 years | |||||
| Outside Painting Required | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | No need of painting | |||||
| Deposition of Algae | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | Smooth surface prevents algae buildup | |||||
| Blockage Problem | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | No deposit buildup hence no blockage | |||||
| Damage due to Drilling | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Strongest material doesn't get damaged due to drilling | |||||
| High Flow Rate of Water | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | Smooth and Wear resistant at High Flow rate | |||||
| Low Roughness (less scaling) | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Smooth surface prevents deposition | |||||
| Usage in Public Building | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | Strong material not easily damaged | |||||
| Wear Resistant | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Not effected by sand or high flow rate | |||||
| Joint Assurance System | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | No Welding or Solution joining. Permanent Mechanical Joint checked for each joint by gauge | |||||
| Saves Pumping Energy | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Smooth surface need less electricity | |||||
| Water Quality affect | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | No change in water quality during storage | |||||
| Pressure Rating | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | Highest Design pressure rating of 25 bar | |||||
| Joint Strength | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | Press fit joint has foolproof and high strength joint | |||||
| Application Range | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Used for Air, Water and Many Gases | |||||
| Less conduiting (Jhiri) Requirement | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | As Pipe dia is less | |||||
| High Wall Strength | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | Less Brick cutting for piping retains its strength | |||||
| Saving in Labor Cost | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | Fast installation with Low Skill worker | |||||
| Saving in Installation Time | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 5 | Fast to install (approx 1/3rd time of GI piping) | |||||
| Application in High Rise Buildings | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Not affected by Vibration and Wind Speeds | |||||
| Reduces Space requirement in Shafts | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | Since lower dia is possible, saving in Shaft sizes possible | |||||
| Life Cycle cost | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | Lowest lifecycle cost | |||||
| Equivalent ID (NB sizes shown) | 1/2" | 1" | 1" | 1" | 1/2" | 1/2" | Plastics are commonly denoted by OD sizes | |||||
| Low Diameter possible (eq. OD) | 3/4" | 1" | 1" | 1" | 1/2" | 1/2" | High flow rates, less deposits, allow for use of low diameter | |||||
| Cost index (GI = 100%), incl. Labor | 100 | 90 | 80 | 110 | 200 | 140 | Slightly more than GI and others | |||||
| Total 5 * Ratings | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 34 | Highest Rating in most parameters | |||||
| For any clarifications please contact | RATING: 1= Poor, 5= Best | | ||||||||||
| Pravin Goel, CEO, Rampart India Pvt. Ltd, | ||||||||||||
| Phone: 8800304400, email: pravingoel@outlook.com | ||||||||||||
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Grooved Piping System in SS
Posted on 10:06 by Unknown
The new and latest technology to enter India is the Grooved pipe joining system which is used primarily in bigger size pipe for applications like Water Supply, Fire Fighting Systems, Cooling Pipes, etc.
These piping systems are removable so that they can be cleaned and replaced. In stainless steel, the benefit is of using cost effective grades and benefiting from Hygienic and maintenance free properties of stainless steel.
Joining system is shown in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqaeEWGNRtA&feature=related
Launched in India under J-Press brand.
Detailed Presentation attached.
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5dd969b2d3b67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21289&Bsrc=Share&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive
For Details please contact: Jsteelsystems@gmail.com
These piping systems are removable so that they can be cleaned and replaced. In stainless steel, the benefit is of using cost effective grades and benefiting from Hygienic and maintenance free properties of stainless steel.
Joining system is shown in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqaeEWGNRtA&feature=related
Launched in India under J-Press brand.
Detailed Presentation attached.
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5dd969b2d3b67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21289&Bsrc=Share&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive
For Details please contact: Jsteelsystems@gmail.com
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Presentation on Stainless Steel
Posted on 01:00 by Unknown
This is a comprehensive presentation on Stainless Steel. It has some additional data on tests also.
https://blu002.mail.live.com/default.aspx?id=64855&owa=1&owasuffix=owa%2f#!https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5DD969B2D3B67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21187!cid=5DD969B2D3B67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21187
https://blu002.mail.live.com/default.aspx?id=64855&owa=1&owasuffix=owa%2f#!https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=5DD969B2D3B67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21187!cid=5DD969B2D3B67058&id=5DD969B2D3B67058%21187
Friday, 23 September 2011
Aluminum - Water mixture leads to Explosion
Posted on 02:06 by Unknown
TOI dated 23rd September 2011, page 19
The use of Aluminum piping has the risk of becoming a explosive material in case of fire. To avoid these situations, Firefighting sprinkler systems are preferred to use Stainless Steel as it has the additional advantages of no corrosion blocking the sprinklers in case of bulb breakage during fires (as happens in 2 out of 5 cases).
Paris: A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert told a technology conference on Wednesday.
“If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water,” explained Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway. “From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions.”
Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, these blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said in a statement. This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.
The aluminium-water scenario would account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been boobytrapped. The official report on the causes of the collapse blames over-heating and failure of structural steel beams in the centre of the buildings.
Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today. “The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980,” he said. In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. “The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter,” Simensen said. By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations. PTI
The use of Aluminum piping has the risk of becoming a explosive material in case of fire. To avoid these situations, Firefighting sprinkler systems are preferred to use Stainless Steel as it has the additional advantages of no corrosion blocking the sprinklers in case of bulb breakage during fires (as happens in 2 out of 5 cases).
Aluminium-water explosion led toTwin Towers collapse?
Paris: A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert told a technology conference on Wednesday.
“If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water,” explained Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway. “From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions.”
Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, these blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said in a statement. This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.
The aluminium-water scenario would account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been boobytrapped. The official report on the causes of the collapse blames over-heating and failure of structural steel beams in the centre of the buildings.
Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today. “The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980,” he said. In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust. “The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter,” Simensen said. By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations. PTI
NEW THEORY: A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, says a scientist
Friday, 3 June 2011
Lifecycle Approach to SS in Plumbing
Posted on 21:09 by Unknown
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
A typical life-cycle cost (LCC) calculation should take the following factors into
account:
• Material Cost • Fabrication Cost • Installation Cost
• Maintenance cost • Replacement Cost • Disruption cost
But typically, in most analysis, only the first 2 or at the most 3 factors are
considered. As a result of this, the study becomes skewed and when the other
costs are incurred during service life, the decision looks like a bad decision in
retrospect. To overcome this phenomenon, it is advisable to include all the costs.
An example of this analysis in water piping in a typical bathroom of a house is as
shown below:
LCC for 50-year life of Plumbing systems
Cost G I SS
Material cost 4,000 10,000
Installation Costs 4,000 4,000
Total 8,000 14,000
Average Life 10 years 50 years
Repairs during life Once (every 10 years) Nil
Cost of Repair (5 times) 10,000 0
Replacement 4 times (@Rs.15000/-) Nil
Cost of Replacement 60,000 0
Cost of Interiors 60,000 0
Total Lifecycle cost 138,000 14,000
(Disruption cost of GI not included)
Therefore, the actual cost of installing a Stainless Steel piping system is 1/10 of the GI system in the life of a house.
For details: please download the complete paper from http://stainlessindia.org/UploadPdf/MAY_2011.Pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

