The issue of using substitute branch consoles
Thread Content
I am currently working on an EPC project abroad, and there are some cases where the purchase requests for branch pipe fittings do not match the design specifications. The requested specifications are as follows: Sockolet, MSS SP-97, CL 3000, SW, ASTM A105, 2”X1”; Sockolet, MSS SP-97, CL 3000, SW, ASTM A105, 4”X1”; Sockolet, MSS SP-97, CL 3000, SW, ASTM A105, 8”X1”. However, what was actually delivered was Sockolet, MSS SP-97, CL 3000, SW, ASTM A105, 1-1/2”X1”. There are many similar branch pipe fittings, and only a few of them are listed here. I consulted relevant professionals, and it is possible to use an alternative, but the foreigners keep bringing up this issue, saying that the branch pipe base does not match the drawings. Is there any clear standard that permits the use of an alternative?
They are all 1; there shouldn’t be any substitution possible.
To be honest, it fails standard tests and cannot be used. To be more specific, this pipe socket can be modified; sockets of the same specification (meaning pipes of the same size) can be used, but the main pipe’s specification differs – the difference lies in the curvature at the weld position: larger pipes have a greater curvature, while smaller pipes have a smaller one
As long as the branch pipes are 1\" in diameter and all are of CL3000 grade, they can be used; this has little to do with the main pipe
I really haven’t encountered this before; it probably can’t be used universally
To be precise, the certificate does not match, so it cannot be used. The 1.5\"x1\" branch fitting is compatible with 1.5\" pipes, allowing it to be connected to pipes of 48.3 diameter, with a uniform clearance fit. If 1.5\"x1\" fittings are used for the 8\"x1\" branch pedestals, create a sample using CAD; at the point where the pedestal connects to the larger pipe, the gap between it and the outer wall of the 8\" pipe is uneven. So during welding, the weld on the inside of the pipe will look unsightly, and you can’t grind it away.
For EPC projects, the design aspect has already been approved for substitution; the issue now is how to convince the foreigners that it’s also feasible to use a substitute
I’m not very familiar with this area. Can’t it be modified? Logically, it should be accepted according to the standards; anything that doesn’t meet those standards shouldn’t be accepted, right?
Solutions that can be adopted for changes by the design institute