CONQUEST® Flangeless Piping Testing and Verification Data for CONQUEST Flangeless Piping Systems with 1" to 4" PP, 1" to 4" PVDF/HFP, and 1" & 2" PFA Liners To verify the integrity of the CONQUEST flangeless connection, Resistoflex conducted tests on three separate components of the connection: The mechanical coupling, which has been developed by LOKRINGTM for use with RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping. The liner butt weld. The CONQUEST flangeless connection as a whole. A summary of these tests and results are contained in this technical data sheet. Testing of the RESISTOFLEX/LOKRINGTM Mechanical Coupling To test the strength and integrity of the mechanical coupling, it was subjected to tests in three individual categories: Bend Burst Torsion A. Coupling Bend Test Test Procedure - Mechanical couplings were used to join two sections of plastic-lined pipe from RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products. These newly created sections of joined pipe were then subjected to a full reverse bend test. These tests were performed by the Lokring Corporation at their facility in Foster City, California. The load applied to the bend was the equivalent to subjecting the pipe to a minimum stress of 30 psi (2070 bar). The minimum number of cycles required to pass the test was set at 7,000 cycles. The test was carried out until either 7,000 cycles were completed or coupling failure was observed. Results - All four pipe sizes tested passes the minimum requirement of 7,000 cycles. The test on the 1" (25 mm) size was allowed to continue in order to determine approximately how many full reversing cycles the pipe could actually withstand. The test terminated after 71,089 cycles and still no failure was observed.

Table 1 - Bend Test Results Pipe Size inches (mm) Number of Cycles Result 1 (25) 71,089 Pass 1-1/2 (40) 7,399 Pass 2 (50) 7,251 Pass 3 (80) 7,500 Pass

B. Coupling Burst Test Test Procedure - Test samples were produced by connecting two sections of plastic-lined pipe from RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products with a mechanical coupling. Each end was then capped. The cap at one end was equipped with a connection that permitted internal hydraulic pressure to be applied. The requirement to pass the test was set at having the pipe fail before the coupling. Internal pressure was then applied and steadily increased. These tests were performed by the Lokring Corporation at their facility in Foster City, California. Results - The internal pressure was increased until the coupling failed or the pipe burst. Testing was completed for three different sizes of plastic-lined pipe and is summarized in Table 2. Note that in each case the pipe burst, which demonstrates that the coupling is actually stronger than the steel pipe.

Table 2 - Coupling Burst Test Results Pipe Size inches (mm) Burst Pressure psi (Bar) Result 2 (50) 7,500 (518) Pipe Rupture 3 (80) 10,000 (690) Pipe Rupture 4 (100) 5,200 (360) Pipe Rupture

C. Coupling Torsion Test Test Procedure - Pipe samples were produced by connecting two sections of plastic-lined pipe from RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products with mechanical couplings. Three samples of each size were produced and testing was performed by Lokring Corporation in Foster City, California. The minimum torques required to pass the test were set at 450 ft-lbs (610 N-m), 750 ft-lbs (1017 N-m) and 1,000 ft-lbs (1356 N-m) for each pipe size, respectively. Lokring Corporation conducted initial torque testing up to 600 ft-lbs (813 N-m), which is the maximum torque Capability of their apparatus. Torque was then applied until either the maximum torque capability of 600 ft-lbs (813 N-m) was reached or movement of the pipe in the coupling was detected. The test samples were then shipped to E.J. Daiber Company, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio in order to complete the testing at torques greater than 600 ft-lbs (813 N-m). Here, the samples were fixed between a torque transducer and pneumatic torque generator. Torque was increased until movement was detected. The average torque at which movement was detected for the three test specimens of each size was then recorded. Results - All samples passed torque tests up to 600 ft-lbs (813 N-m) conducted by Lokring Corporation. In torque tests conducted by E.J. Daiber Company, Inc., all samples exceeded the minimum torque requirements before movement of the pipe in the coupling was detected. The average torque size is shown in Table 3. The 3" was also tested by Lokring Corporation and passed the 600 ft-lbs (813 N-m) requirement.

Table 3 - Torsion Test Results Pipe Size inches (mm) Minimum Torque Requirement ft-lbs (N-m) Average Torque Test Results ft-lbs (N-m) Result 1 (25) 450 (610) 848 (1150) Pass 1-1/2 (40) 750 (1017) 942 (1277) Pass 2 (50) 1,000 (1356) 1,159 (1571) Pass

Testing of the Liner Butt Weld To test the integrity of the liner butt weld, it was subjected to tests in two separate categories: burst and pressure fatigue. Testing was performed on Resistoflex pipe in a test lab by RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products at their Bay City, Michigan facility. These tests were conducted three sets of plastic-lined pipe. The first set was lined in polypropylene (PP), the second in polyvinylidene (PVDF), and lastly in perfluoroalkoxy (PFA). All test samples were 24" (610 mm) long and were butt welded at their mid-point. The ends of each sample were flanged and blanked, and equipped with connections that permitted internal hydraulic pressure to be applied. Three steel bars were then welded to the steel shell spanning the exposed liner in the area that contained the butt weld. This prevented the butt weld from being subjected to tensile stress produced by the internal pressure on the flanged ends. The liners and buttwelds were visually monitored throughout the testing. A. Liner Butt Weld Burst Test Test Procedure - Liner butt welds were fabricated using standard fabrication techniques described in Resistoflex's Technical Data Sheet "Joint Fabrication Procedures for CONQUEST Flangeless Piping Systems with PTFE Liners". Three samples of each size and liner type were produced. Samples were filled with water and connected to a hand pump with a 10,000 psi (690 bar) capability. A 5,000 psi (345 bar) pressure gauge was attached to the pump outlet. The requirement to pass the test was set at a minimum of 1,100 psi (76 bar). Samples were pressurized to 500 psi (34.5 bar) and held there for three minutes, then increased in 1,000 psi (69 bar) increments and held at each increment for a minimum of three minutes. The burst pressure range in which failure occurred for the three test specimens of each size was recorded. Results - All samples exceeded the minimum burst pressure requirement of 1,100 psi (76 bar). Failures ultimately occurred in the burst pressure range given in Table 4. However, it should be noted that all failures occurred in the exposed portion of the liner and not at the butt weld faces.

Table 4 - Burst Test Results Pipe Size inches (mm) Liner Type Min. Burst Pressure Requirement psi (bar) Burst Pressure Range, psi (bar) 1 (25), 1-1/2 (40), 2 (50), 3 (80), 4 (100) PP 1,100 (76) 3,500-4,400 (241-303) 1 (25), 1-1/2 (40), 2 (50), 3 (80), 4 (100) PVDF 1,100 (76) 4,500-5,000 (311-345)† 1 (25), 1-1/2 (40), 2 (50) PFA 1,100 (76) 2,000-3,000 (139-208) †The test was discontinued after the pressure exceeded 5,000 psi (345 bar), the maximum pressure gauge reading.

B. Liner Butt Weld Pressure Fatigue Test Test Procedure - Test samples were 2" (50 mm) spools of pipe lined with PP and PVDF, each 24" (610 mm) long and containing a butt weld at their mid-point. The samples were connected to a high-pressure piston pump capable of producing 1,400 psi (97 bar). Description of pressure fatigue test cycle: increase internal pressure to 1,000 psi (69 bar), hold for 10 seconds, reduce pressure to 50 psi (3.4 bar), hold for 10 seconds, then increase to 1,000 psi (69 bar) to repeat the cycle. The minimum requirement to pass the test was set at 7,000 cycles. Results - All samples withstood the minimum 7,000 cycles without displaying any evidence of failure. All tests were allowed to continue in order to determine approximately how many pressure fatigue cycles the butt weld could actually withstand. The test was terminated after 50,115 cycles and still no failure was observed.

Table 5 - Pressure Fatigue Test Results Pipe Size inches (mm) Liner Type Minimum Number of Cycles Required Actual Number of Cycles Required 2 (50) PP 7,000 50,115 2 (50) PVDF 7,000 50,115

C. Testing of CONQUEST connection To test the integrity of the CONQUEST connection, it was subjected to tests in two separate categories: ASTM Steam/Cold Water and Cold Temperature. 1. ASTM Steam/Cold Water Test Procedure - Testing was performed on RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Pipe in a test lab by RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products at their Bay City, Michigan facility. Tests were conducted on one set of 1"(25 mm) 1-1/2" (40 mm) 2" (50 mm) pipe lined with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and two 2" (50mm) sections of pipe, one lined with polypropylene (PP) and the other with perfluoroalkoxy (PFA). Plastic-lined pipe spools were subjected to the appropriate ASTM Steam/Cold Water test for lined pipe. Each spool was 40 feet (12.2 m) long, consisting of two 20-foot (6.1 m) lengths joined by a CONQUEST flangeless connection at the mid-point. The test spools contained the standard flanged connection at each end. The test involved subjecting the spool to 100 alternating cycles of heating with steam, then cooling with water Results - All spools passed the requirements of the ASTM Steam/Cold Water test. 2. Cold Temperature Test Test Procedure - Testing was performed on RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Pipe in a test lab by RESISTOFLEX Plastic-Lined Piping Products at their Bay City, Michigan facility. The 2" (50 mm) spools were fabricated by joining two 10-foot (3 m) sections with a CONQUEST flangeless connection at the mid-point. One pipe section was lined with polyvinylidene (PVDF), the other with polypropylene (PP). The test involved inserting a sample into a freezer with a -40°F (-40°C) capability and cooling it until either the liner failed or the maximum low temperature was reached. Description of test procedure: Insert sample into freezer with temperature set at 20°F (-7°C) and hold for a minimum of 8 hours. Visually inspect each sample and, if no liner failure has occurred, reduce the temperature in 10°F (6°C) increments and hold at each increment for a minimum of 8 hours. Visually inspect each sample after each 8-hour interval. Results - All spools withstood a low freezer temperature of -40°F (-40°C).