Everyone, take a look – is this the correct way to describe how I pack the materials?
Thread Content
As for the design requirements, we will ignore them for now. For pipes (SMLS) with DN20, the petrochemical standard 20# GB/T8163 SMLS SH3405 SCH40 is used; for the same diameter, the national standard 20# GB/T8163 SMLS GB/T12495 SCH40 is employed. It could also be expressed as pipes (SMLS) DN20 20# GB/T8163 SMLS GB/T12495 26.7x2.7. The mechanical standard is applied in this case as well, resulting in pipes (SMLS) DN20 20# GB/T8163 SMLS HG 20553-93 SCH40. How is the wall thickness indicated here? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? What are the flaws in my approach to submitting material plans? Is it still better than the standard method?
It should be GB/T12459, but this is a standard for pipe fittings. This post was last edited by *exz on 2009-4-19 15:52]
This can be reported in that way: It can also be described as Pipe (SMLS) DN20, 20#, GB/T8163; SMLS, GB/T12495, dimensions 26.7x2.7. The mechanical standard applicable is Pipe (SMLS) DN20, 20#, GB/T8163; SMLS, HG 20553-93, SCH40. SCH40 itself is a standard related to the wall thickness of pipes
For HG 20553-93, the outer diameter series must be specified clearly.
The port of the pipe that is missing, namely the flat end, is denoted by PE.