Difference Between SCH 40 and SCH 80 Steel pipe
June 16, 2018
Aluminum Brass Tubes Inspection report
June 29, 2018

Copper Fittings inspection report



Report No.: MIL 100513-01A2

Issued on: Jun 18th, 2010 Inspection Time: Jun 13-15th, 2010

P.O. No.4300000743


Inspection Subject:

Copper Fittings


 Lin Gaojie


As per Sample




Visit Summary:

Scope of Inspection

  • Visual inspection.
  • Quantity and weight
  • Dimension
  • Packaging
  • Documents
  • Part photo


Results of inspection to MIL 100513-01A2

  • Process Verification
    1. Visual Inspection

The fittings were good and the details were as followed:

1)  All fittings were marked with  “MIL” Photo attachment as below


Pipe coupling copper equal

Pipe coupling copper reducing


Pipe elbow copper equal 90°

Pipe elbow copper equal 45°

End cap copper

Pipe tee copper

Pipe trap copper P’type

Pipe saddle 2 hole



  1. Quantity and weight verification

1) The quantity was sufficient Photo attachment as below



  1. Dimension inspection

The fittings were qualified according to standard C, though the plustolerance of some fittings with the size upon 3-1/8“ was 0.2mm more than ASME B16.22.

Photo attachment as below

Verifying the plug guage

Inspecting the inside diameter


measuring WT


  1. Packaging inspection

The fittings were encapsulated by the poly bags first, then put into cartons, and bundled by polywood tray. Details as below:

  • The packaging was on the witness of us
  • There was one label on each poly bag and carton;
  • The shipping mark was pasted on the tray;
  • All cartons were marked with “MIL”

Photo attachment as below



Poly bag with label

Fittings in the carton


Carton with label




Finished polywood tray


Shipping mark



  • Review of Documentation

Raw Material Test Certificate.


  • Conclusions:

The inspection results shows that the copper fittings are in full comformity with the client’s samples.









Comments are closed.