swagelok/parker 5

[amper]

there is on the market cheap alternatives to swagelok and parket fittings and conector for steel tubing . can somebody do comments

regards

amper

 

[JLSeagull]

Several manufacturers offer knockoffs of the Swagelok and Parker fitting dimensions. The noticeable observation is that knockoffs lack the pretty finish of Swagelok. More subtle and serious issues may also exist. Swagelok uses a special carborization technique for stainless that hardens the ferrules. I can look for the details but it could take some time. If the knockoff fittings lack the polished finish, surely they also lack the metallurgical techniques too.

I am less familiar with any special metallurgical issues with Parker. Even the major hydrocarbon processing companies consider the knockoffs for air supply tubing etc. Few use knockoffs for analyzer tubing.

 

[cheute79]

amper:

Be cautious when using "knock off" or claimed equivalent fittings. If you are using the fittings for water or air service, almost anything will do. For hazardous service, if you need the quality and reliability of Swagelok, the only "true" equivalent is Parker's A-Lok series (not just any Parker fitting). I spent years in the nuclear field and then more years in hazardous chemicals. I will never use any but those 2 brands in critical service (or call in crucial service in the nuke industry). Even generic one-piece ferrules in Swagelok service are unacceptable in "critical" service.

 

[amper]

thanks i been on touch with a company call kor lok ofering equivalent swagelok fitting with supouse similar or better quality but i think it is cheap and better what is not well spread around the world ? well appreciate any help with comments base on experience . our proyect to used those fitting is on a power plant

 

[NGiLuzzu]

amper,
just to give you one reference, I am quite happy with HAM-LET fittings, for example:

http://www.ham-let.com/lang1/products/groups.aspx

Hope this helps, 'NGL

 

[ccfowler]

Hoke "Gyrolok" fittings are another excellent choice that is very much comparable to "Swagelok." Actually, I prefer the Gyrolok fittings because they are more resistant to accidental over-tightening damage, but both Swagelok and Gyrolok are truly excellent product lines. I agree with cheute79's caution about some Parker fitting being better than others. I do not normally specify anything but Gyrolok or Swagelok for any application that is the least bit "demanding."

Never use anything but the correct, manufacturer-supplied ferrules for the specific tube fitting body.

Beware of "cheap" substitutes. It won't take much of a failure to wipe out all of the expected savings. This question reminds me of some very good advice that I got from an "old-timer" many years ago:

"There's nothing more expensive than a cheap tool. The best that you can hope for is that you won't be maimed as it breaks while failing to accomplish the job for which it was purchased."

 

[Scotsinst]

1. There are cheap alternatives.
2. Don't buy them.
3. There is a reason Swagelok, Parker and Gyrolok have a large market share and that is quality. There are other quality vendors but beware of a product substantially cheaper than the rest of the market.
4. I inherited an offshore project supplied with Australian pneumatic fittings which were much cheaper than Swagelock. After replacing 100 leaking fusible loop plugs and an entire hydraulic system it cost us at least double of Swagelock, never mind the man-hours.

 

[moltenmetal]

Compression fittings are a wonderful option for line sizes below 3/4" pipe, if properly designed and installed.

There is more than one company claiming to have two-ferrule compression fittings which are interchangeable and intermixable with Swagelok. Gyrolok (Hoke) is not one of them as they have a different ferrule geometry, but there are numerous others, some of whom are quite large operations with very significant sales volumes and a very broad product line of associated valves, filters etc. Numerous major (multinational) end-user companies have accepted the fittings supplied by some of these knock-off suppliers as functionally equivalent to Swagelok.

Swagelok's patents expired many, many years ago. They have a well established brand, a very broad and quite complete product line, a good reputation in the marketplace, lots of stock of common items, and often very helpful sales reps- some of whom provide a very valuable service in educating thousands of students, lab techs and fitters in the proper use of the product. They tend to be conservative in rating their product, and to stand behind its quality if any problems are discovered.

You pay for all of that in a price premium for their product. That price premium can be minor to substantial depending on what you're comparing it against.

I look forward to the day when there's an MSS-type standard for these fittings, such that we can get REAL competition going and drive the prices down on these items to the commodity level where they belong. Until then it's a matter of comparing how much you'll save in purchasing the knock-offs versus the potential cost in labour and damage (physical and to your reputation) of a potentially defective product. For 15% savings in the bare cost of the fittings, it's probably not worth the risk. For 50% or more, maybe it is- depending on the hazards associated with the services where you're using the product.

 

[cannondale]

DNV prepared an equivalency of some of these fitting. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Generally we use Hoke, however we've pretty much used all of then at some point, and never had a problem/failure. Some companies are easier to deal with for documents, and others better for price and service.
Although when you actually fitting them there's little to choose between them (they are all copies of each other really).
I was offered Dk-lok a little while ago, as a none US alternative if that's one of your/client preferences.

 

[hsbcn]

Although I'd not move outside the Swagelok / Parker scope, if you absolutely must:

http://www.hoke.com/

US brand, reputable and competitively priced.

Heather's focus: Alloy Valves Duplex Valves Super Duplex Valves Monel Valves Inconel Valves [link titanium-valves.com]Titanium Valves[/url] & 6 Moly Valves

 

[TEV]

In response to JLSeagull, Parker has been using a "special hardening process" on ALL of their ferrules for over 20 years, compared to Swagelok's approx 10 years. Parker's process is AT LEAST equivalent to theirs. And their single ferrule fitting does have some advantages.

 

[DLite30]

Kor-Lok is a Chinese made version of Swagelok...we tried them at one point, then banned them from use after a fitting failure.

 

[rmw]

Hoke has just been banned in our operation. We are going back to Swagelok. They work for a reason. They are good. We saved money and paid dearly.

rmw

 

[ccfowler]

rmw,

Hoke banned. Wow! Can you share any more information on the reasoning behind the ban?

I've always found Gyrolok and Swagelok to be fully comparable in quality and functionality. In my experience, Swagelok was usually better for availability of less commonly used fitting types, but cost differential was never enough to be a controlling factor in choosing between the two.

Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.

 

[PAN]

DLiteE30,

I understand that Kor-Lok is product brand from Korea. Please recheck...

 

[rmw]

ccfowler,

I wasn't involved in all the technical discussions, but I believe it revolved around the ability to ascertain that a fitting was guaranteed tightened correctly.

I remember during the sessions that I did attend thinking to myself that this seemed like a replay of the same information that had been presented to me as a young field engineer in the early '70's regarding proper tube fitting tightening. It seemed to me to be a case of the further we go, the behinder we get (or deja-vu all over again).

Anyway, we had lots of wounds to lick and brand "H" came out the loser. I have a current project where I had to go back and change a lot of fittings to brand "S".

rmw

 

[polaristriple]

Some Rumors that I have heard that may or may not be true:

Crawford Fitting Company (Swagelok) was started by Cullen Crawford. Fred Lennon joined him in his business. Mr Crawford left the company and he started Tylok. Tylok has a long back ferrule that protrudes through the nut and is thought to give better support in situations where there is vibration.

In the early days, Crawford Fitting Company had fittings, but no valves. Swagelok distributors carried Hoke Valves. When Swagelok bought Whitey Valve Company, distributors were told to make a choice. Hoke had to come out with a fitting to complement their valve line. For many years Hoke Valves were considered by many people to be second to none.

One of the selling techniques used in the industry is to do a leak test. One way the test can be performed is to test small fittings of your manufacture and bigger fittings of the other manufacturer, because the bubble leakage from a bigger fitting is more evident.

It is not unusual for a saleman to tell his customer that is using his product that is not interchangeable with any other products, but tell customers that are not using his product that they are interchangeable, until he switches brands. I am not saying that a company promotes this philosophy, but it does happen among salesmen.

 

[rmw]

ccfowler,

I did some checking with the shop foreman for our tubing crews (our gadget has lots and lots of tubing). He stated things like; when the "H" fitting is turned one and one half turns, it is still loose while the "S" fitting is already tight. He also stated that just the act of tightening a "H" fitting produced a rough, raw, gritty feeling while the "S" fitting was smooth as glass.

That plus some of the warranty issues we have had due to failures of "H" fit tubing condemned them.

When I told him that I was specifying only "S" fittings on my new projects, he was a mighty happy man.

rmw

 

[ccfowler]

rmw,

Thanks for the additional information. Your description of the "rough, raw, gritty feeling ..." comes as a surprise. That suggests that "Brand H" has let their quality slip.

I will certainly take a closer look at the current "Brand H" before specifying them again.

Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.

 

[PersonalProfile]

There has been lots of good advice already.
Another potential supplier may be:

http://austfluidfittings.com.au/

Regards,
Lyle