SmartPlant Materials for Piping Procurement

What Is SmartPlant Materials

SmartPlant Materials (SPMat) is Hexagon’s enterprise materials management application. It tracks every material item on an EPC project from the moment it appears on an engineering document through procurement, delivery to site, and allocation to construction work packs. It is part of the Hexagon PPM (now HxGN) software portfolio that includes Smart 3D, SmartPlant P&ID, SmartPlant Foundation, and SmartPlant Instrumentation.

SPMat is not a simple bill-of-materials tool. It is a full lifecycle materials management system built on an Oracle database, configured for each project through a complex setup process, and operated by dedicated materials management teams. On a billion-dollar refinery or LNG project, SPMat might track 50,000 to 200,000 individual line items across dozens of material requisitions, hundreds of purchase orders, and thousands of delivery shipments.

The companies that use SPMat tend to be the largest EPC contractors in the world: Bechtel, Fluor, McDermott, KBR, and Jacobs. These are organizations with the IT infrastructure, licensing budgets, and specialist staff needed to deploy and maintain a system of this scale. Smaller engineering firms and mid-tier contractors rarely use SPMat because the cost and complexity of implementation are not justified for projects below a certain size threshold.

If you have worked on a major Hexagon-ecosystem project, you have likely interacted with SPMat, even if your primary role was piping design or engineering. The MTO you generated from Smart 3D ended up in SPMat. The material requisition your lead engineer signed came out of SPMat. The purchase order that went to the flange supplier was tracked in SPMat. It sits at the center of the materials workflow.

The Materials Management Challenge in EPC

Before discussing SPMat’s features, it helps to understand why materials management software exists at all, and why it is so complex.

The Scale of the Problem

A typical medium-sized EPC project (a gas processing plant or refinery unit expansion) might involve:

Category	Approximate Scale
Total MTO line items	30,000-80,000
Piping components alone	15,000-40,000 line items
Unique material descriptions	3,000-8,000
Material requisitions	50-200
Purchase orders	100-400
Suppliers involved	30-100
Delivery shipments	200-1,000
Construction work packs	50-300

On a mega-project (large LNG plant, full refinery, offshore platform), multiply these numbers by 3 to 10. Managing this manually with spreadsheets is theoretically possible but practically unsustainable once you exceed a few thousand line items. Errors compound: a missing gasket set for a 24-inch flange holds up a critical tie-in; surplus pipe from one area sits in the warehouse while another area places an emergency order for the same pipe.

The Lifecycle of a Material Item

A single piping component, say a 6-inch, 150#, ASTM A105 weld neck flange, goes through the following lifecycle on an EPC project:

The flange appears on the P&ID, gets modeled in the 3D design tool, and shows up in the MTO during the engineering phase.
During MTO consolidation, the same flange type may appear in 50 different pipe lines across the project. SPMat consolidates all instances into a total quantity.
The flanges are grouped with other piping components into a material requisition (MR), which is a formal document requesting procurement to buy these items.
The MR generates a Request for Quotation sent to qualified flange suppliers during the RFQ and bidding phase (see project procurement documents for the full document chain). Suppliers submit bids.
The procurement team evaluates bids by comparing price, delivery, compliance with technical specifications, and terms.
A purchase order (PO) is issued to the selected supplier.
The supplier manufactures the flanges. Inspection may be required (dimensional checks, material test reports, third-party inspection per the project spec).
Flanges are shipped to the project site or a marshaling yard.
Materials arrive at site, are checked against the PO and packing list, and entered into the warehouse inventory upon receipt.
The flanges are allocated to specific construction work packs and issued to the field for installation.
Any leftover flanges after construction are tracked as surplus for potential use elsewhere.

SPMat tracks a material item through every one of these stages. That is its value, and also the source of its complexity.

SPMat Modules

SPMat is organized into functional modules, each handling a specific phase of the materials lifecycle.

MTO Management

The MTO module receives material quantities from engineering sources (primarily Smart 3D for piping, but also from other design tools and manual inputs). The following table summarizes its key functions.

Function	What It Does
MTO import	Structured data from Smart 3D or other 3D tools is imported into SPMat. The import maps engineering component descriptions to SPMat’s commodity codes.
MTO consolidation	Individual line-by-line MTOs are rolled up into project-level totals. If 200 pipe lines each need 6-inch weld neck flanges, SPMat sums them.
MTO revision tracking	As the design evolves and MTOs are re-extracted, SPMat tracks the delta between revisions. If Rev B of the MTO shows 50 more flanges than Rev A, SPMat identifies those additions.
MTO status reporting	Project management can see how much of the total MTO has been requisitioned, ordered, delivered, and installed.

Material Requisition (MR) Module

The MR is the formal request from engineering/project management to procurement, authorizing the purchase of specific materials. SPMat’s MR module groups MTO items into requisitions based on commodity type, procurement strategy, or construction priority. A piping MR might cover all carbon steel butt-weld fittings, or all valves above 8 inches, depending on the project’s procurement plan. Once grouped, the module generates MR documents in the project’s standard format, including technical specifications, quantity summaries, and delivery requirements. It then routes MRs for approval through a configurable workflow (piping lead review, project engineering review, procurement review) and tracks each MR through its lifecycle: draft, issued for review, approved, issued for purchase.

Procurement Module

Once an MR is approved, the procurement module takes over. It generates RFQ packages that include the technical specification, quantity list, delivery requirements, and commercial terms. As supplier bids come in, they are recorded in SPMat with prices, delivery dates, and technical exceptions. SPMat then produces bid comparison tables — both the technical bid evaluation (TBE) and commercial bid evaluation (CBE) — allowing the procurement team to compare suppliers side by side. Based on the bid evaluation, SPMat supports the PO recommendation workflow and can generate PO documents or interface with an ERP system (typically SAP) for actual PO issuance. After PO issuance, SPMat continues tracking manufacturing progress, inspection milestones, and shipping dates.

Surplus and Warehouse Management

When materials arrive at site, they are checked in against the PO and recorded in SPMat’s inventory. The warehouse module tracks materials by location, quantity, and allocation status. As construction progresses, materials are reserved for specific construction work packs and issued to the field when needed. After construction is complete, remaining materials are identified as surplus, and SPMat tracks those surplus quantities for potential reuse on other projects or sale.

How SPMat Connects Engineering to Procurement

The core value of SPMat is the data chain it creates from engineering design through to material delivery. Here is how that chain works on a typical Hexagon-ecosystem project.

Step 1: MTO from Smart 3D

The piping designer completes the 3D model in Smart 3D. The model contains every pipe, fitting, flange, valve, gasket, and bolt in the design. Smart 3D extracts the MTO, which is a structured dataset listing every component with its specification, size, material grade, and quantity.

This MTO is exported from Smart 3D in a format that SPMat can import. The mapping between Smart 3D component descriptions and SPMat commodity codes is configured during project setup and is one of the critical configuration tasks.

Step 2: MTO Consolidation in SPMat

SPMat receives MTOs from multiple sources:

Piping MTO from Smart 3D
Structural steel MTO from Smart 3D or other structural design tools
Electrical MTO from cable and conduit design
Instrumentation MTO from SmartPlant Instrumentation
Mechanical equipment lists from the equipment engineering team
Manual MTOs for items not modeled in 3D (e.g., small-bore connections, field-run tubing)

SPMat consolidates these into a unified project material database. Duplicate items are merged; quantities are summed. The result is a single source of truth for “what does this project need to buy?”

Step 3: Material Requisition Generation

The materials management team, working with the piping and procurement leads, groups the consolidated MTO into material requisitions. The grouping strategy depends on the project:

Strategy	Example	Rationale
By commodity	All carbon steel butt-weld fittings in one MR	Suppliers specialize by commodity
By area/unit	All piping materials for Unit 100 in one MR	Construction sequence drives procurement priority
By delivery priority	Long-lead items (large-bore valves, exotic alloy fittings) in early MRs	Critical path items need early ordering
By supplier market	All flanges in one MR, all valves in another	Each product category has different supplier pools

Step 4: RFQ to Suppliers

The approved MR becomes the basis for RFQs sent to qualified suppliers. SPMat generates the RFQ package, which typically includes:

Material specification sheets
Quantity summary with delivery schedule
Project-specific technical requirements (e.g., NACE MR0175 compliance for sour service)
Inspection and test requirements
Commercial terms reference

Step 5: Bid Evaluation

Suppliers respond with quotations. The procurement team enters bid data into SPMat, which produces comparison tables. The Technical Bid Evaluation (TBE) compares each supplier’s technical compliance: did the supplier offer the correct material grade, are there any exceptions to the specification, and does the delivery schedule meet the project need? The Commercial Bid Evaluation (CBE) compares prices, payment terms, warranty provisions, and total cost of ownership.

SPMat’s bid tabulation is one of its most used features. On a large project, manually comparing five supplier bids for an MR with 500 line items would take days of spreadsheet work. SPMat automates the comparison and highlights discrepancies.

Step 6: PO Issuance and Tracking

After bid evaluation, a PO is recommended and issued. SPMat tracks the PO number and date, supplier details, ordered quantities and unit prices, delivery milestones (manufacturing start, inspection, shipping, arrival at site), expediting notes (delays, issues, recoveries), and invoice and payment status when integrated with ERP.

Step 7: Material Receipt and Allocation

When materials arrive at site, the warehouse team records receipt in SPMat. Each item is checked against the PO for quantity received versus quantity ordered, material test reports (MTRs) against specification requirements, physical condition including any damage or non-conformance, and heat number recording (critical for piping materials requiring traceability).

Received materials are then allocated to construction work packs and issued to the field as needed.

Piping-Specific Features in SPMat

While SPMat handles all material types, piping is typically the largest and most complex commodity group on an EPC project. SPMat includes several piping-specific features.

Piping Material Classes (Spec-Driven)

SPMat understands piping material classes (pipe specs). When importing an MTO from Smart 3D, the pipe class code (e.g., A1A, B2B) travels with each component. SPMat uses this to group items by pipe class for requisitioning, verify that components match the specified material class, report quantities by pipe class for cost tracking, and cross-reference with the piping material class document for completeness.

BOM Explosion

In piping, a flange is never just a flange. A flanged connection requires:

The flange itself
A gasket
A set of bolts and nuts

SPMat performs “BOM explosion” so that when the MTO includes a 6-inch, 150# weld neck flange, the corresponding gasket and bolt set are automatically added to the requisition. The explosion rules are configured per project based on the piping specification:

Flange Size	Flange Type	Gasket Type	Bolt Spec	Number of Bolts
6” 150#	WN, RF	Spiral wound, 304/graphite	A193 B7 / A194 2H	8 x 3/4” x 4-1/4”
8” 150#	WN, RF	Spiral wound, 304/graphite	A193 B7 / A194 2H	8 x 7/8” x 4-1/2”
10” 150#	WN, RF	Spiral wound, 304/graphite	A193 B7 / A194 2H	12 x 1” x 5”

Without BOM explosion, procurement teams would need to manually calculate gasket and bolting requirements for every flanged connection on the project. On a project with 10,000 flanged joints, that is a massive manual effort and a guaranteed source of errors.

Heat Number Tracking

For piping materials in critical services (sour service per NACE MR0175, high-temperature service, cryogenic service), traceability from the material test report (MTR) to the installed component is mandatory. SPMat supports heat number tracking at every stage: when materials arrive, the heat number from the MTR is recorded against each item; when materials are issued to a construction work pack, the heat number follows; and when the component is installed, the heat number can be recorded and linked back through the supply chain to the original mill certificate.

This traceability is not optional on projects governed by ASME B31.3 Chapter IX (high-pressure piping) or client specifications that require positive material identification (PMI). SPMat provides the data infrastructure to support it.

Surplus and Remnant Management

Piping procurement always results in some surplus. Pipe is ordered in standard lengths (typically 6 meters or 12 meters), and after cutting for spools, remnants are left over. Fittings may be over-ordered to provide a contingency margin. SPMat tracks remnant pipe lengths in the warehouse that remain available for use on other spools, surplus fittings and flanges that can be re-allocated to other lines if needed, and end-of-project surplus that the owner may want to retain as spares or sell.

Effective surplus management can save millions on a large project. Conversely, poor tracking leads to unnecessary re-orders and wasted material sitting in the warehouse.

Integration with Smart 3D for MTO Import

The integration between Smart 3D and SPMat is a key differentiator for the Hexagon ecosystem. When both tools are deployed on the same project, the MTO transfer is structured and repeatable.

How It Works

Smart 3D generates the MTO as a structured export file. The file contains component identifiers, descriptions, quantities, pipe class references, and 3D model coordinates.
The SPMat import process reads the export file and maps each component to an SPMat commodity code. The mapping rules are configured during project setup. For example, a Smart 3D “Elbow, 90 Deg LR, BW, 6 Inch, Sch 40, A234 WPB” maps to an SPMat commodity code that represents the same item.
When a revised MTO is imported, delta processing kicks in: SPMat compares the new data against the previous import and identifies additions, deletions, and quantity changes. This delta report is critical for procurement planning: “We need 50 more 6-inch elbows compared to last month’s MTO.”
SPMat can feed status information back to the engineering team: “These items have been ordered; those items are still awaiting requisition.” This status feedback helps piping engineers prioritize which areas of the model need to be completed first to support procurement.

Integration Challenges

The Smart 3D to SPMat integration is powerful but not without issues:

Commodity code mapping requires careful setup. Mismatches between Smart 3D component descriptions and SPMat commodity codes cause import failures or incorrect material groupings.
If the 3D model is still in preliminary design, the MTO will change significantly with each revision. Importing preliminary MTOs into SPMat creates noise that the materials team must manage.
Some piping components are not modeled in 3D (field-run tubing, small-bore instrument connections, temporary piping for commissioning). These non-modeled items must be added to SPMat manually.
On projects where piping is modeled in Smart 3D but structural steel comes from Tekla and electrical from a different tool, SPMat must handle multiple import formats and mapping schemes.

Integration with SAP

Most large EPC contractors use SAP (or a similar ERP system) for financial management, procurement, and supply chain operations. SPMat integrates with SAP to bridge the gap between engineering materials management and corporate procurement/finance.

Typical Integration Points

Data Flow	Direction	Purpose
Purchase requisition	SPMat to SAP	SPMat generates a purchase requisition in SAP based on the approved MR
Purchase order	SAP to SPMat	SAP creates the formal PO; PO details feed back into SPMat for tracking
Goods receipt	SAP to SPMat	When materials are received and recorded in SAP’s warehouse module, the receipt data feeds into SPMat
Invoice and payment	SAP only	Financial transactions remain in SAP; SPMat receives status updates
Cost data	SAP to SPMat	Committed costs from POs in SAP feed into SPMat for cost reporting

This integration avoids dual data entry: the materials team works primarily in SPMat for engineering-driven tasks (MTO management, requisitioning, bid evaluation), and SAP handles the financial and contractual aspects (PO issuance, payment, accounting).

The downside is complexity. The SPMat-SAP interface must be configured, tested, and maintained. Differences in data structures between the two systems (SPMat uses engineering-centric commodity codes; SAP uses procurement-centric material numbers) require a mapping layer that can be a significant configuration effort.

SPMat vs MARIAN: Detailed Comparison

MARIAN, developed by ICS (Industrial Computing Services, now part of Hexagon through acquisition), is the other major materials management system used on large EPC projects. MARIAN has a strong installed base, particularly among European and Middle Eastern contractors.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Aspect	SmartPlant Materials (SPMat)	MARIAN
Developer	Hexagon (formerly Intergraph)	ICS (now part of Hexagon portfolio)
Database	Oracle	Oracle
Architecture	Client-server; thick client application	Client-server; web-based interface (later versions)
Primary market	Large EPCs using Hexagon ecosystem (Bechtel, Fluor, KBR)	European and Middle Eastern EPCs; some Asian contractors
MTO import	Native integration with Smart 3D; also supports generic imports	Supports imports from multiple 3D tools including AVEVA PDMS/E3D
Material requisition	Full MR lifecycle management	Full MR lifecycle management
Procurement	RFQ generation, bid evaluation, PO tracking	RFQ generation, bid evaluation, PO tracking
Warehouse management	Yes, integrated module	Yes, integrated module
Surplus management	Yes	Yes
BOM explosion	Yes (configurable per project)	Yes (configurable per project)
Heat number tracking	Yes	Yes
ERP integration	SAP, Oracle ERP	SAP, Oracle ERP
3D tool integration	Best with Smart 3D; supports others via generic import	Good with AVEVA PDMS/E3D and Smart 3D
Reporting	Built-in reports; Crystal Reports integration	Built-in reports; configurable
Licensing cost	High (enterprise licensing)	High (enterprise licensing)
Implementation effort	3-6 months typical	3-6 months typical
Learning curve	Steep; requires dedicated training	Steep; requires dedicated training
User community	Large; Hexagon user conferences	Smaller but dedicated; strong in Europe/Middle East

Key Differences

Ecosystem lock-in. SPMat’s greatest advantage is its native integration with Smart 3D and the broader Hexagon ecosystem. If your project uses Smart 3D for 3D design and SmartPlant P&ID for process schematics, SPMat is the natural choice for materials management. MARIAN, by contrast, is more tool-agnostic; it works equally well with AVEVA and Hexagon 3D tools.

User interface. MARIAN’s later versions moved toward a web-based interface, which some users find more accessible than SPMat’s thick-client application. SPMat’s UI is functional but dated; it reflects its origins as a Windows desktop application from the 2000s.

Market trajectory. With Hexagon acquiring ICS, both SPMat and MARIAN are now under the same corporate umbrella. Hexagon’s long-term strategy for materials management is evolving, and some industry observers expect eventual convergence or replacement of both products with a next-generation platform.

SPMat vs Projectmaterials: Detailed Comparison

Projectmaterials and SmartPlant Materials serve overlapping but distinct parts of the materials management workflow. Understanding where each tool excels helps EPC teams choose the right approach for their project size and procurement strategy.

Fundamental Differences

SPMat is an enterprise system built for full lifecycle materials management on mega-projects. It assumes an Oracle database, a dedicated IT team, a multi-month implementation period, and a large user base of materials controllers, procurement engineers, and warehouse staff.

Projectmaterials is a web-based platform focused on the RFQ-to-PO cycle for piping products. It ships with built-in knowledge of piping products (pipes, fittings, flanges, valves, gaskets, bolting) and a supplier database that connects buyers with qualified manufacturers and distributors, allowing faster deployment without lengthy configuration.

Detailed Comparison

Aspect	SmartPlant Materials	Projectmaterials
Deployment	On-premise Oracle database; 3-6 months setup	Web-based; accessible immediately
Target project size	Mega-projects ($500M+); 50,000+ MTO line items	Small to large projects; flexible scaling
Material scope	All disciplines (piping, structural, electrical, instrumentation)	Piping-focused (pipes, fittings, flanges, valves, gaskets, bolting)
MTO management	Full MTO lifecycle; revision tracking, consolidation	MTO import and organization for procurement
Material requisition	Full MR workflow with approval routing	Simplified requisition process
RFQ creation	Generates RFQs from MR data	Built-in RFQ builder with piping product knowledge
Supplier database	Project-specific vendor lists	Pre-built database of piping suppliers with product catalogs
Bid evaluation	Technical and commercial bid tabulation	Bid comparison with piping-specific technical evaluation
PO management	Full PO lifecycle tracking	PO creation and tracking
Warehouse management	Full warehouse module with location tracking	Not a primary focus
Construction allocation	Material allocation to work packs	Not a primary focus
ERP integration	SAP, Oracle ERP	API-based integration
3D tool integration	Native with Smart 3D	Accepts MTO from any source
IT requirements	Oracle DBA, dedicated server infrastructure, Hexagon specialists	Web browser; no special IT infrastructure
Licensing cost	High (six to seven figures annually for enterprise license)	Lower; subscription-based
Implementation time	3-6 months	Days to weeks
Learning curve	Steep; weeks of training for each user role	Moderate; piping engineers find it intuitive
Product knowledge	Generic material codes; requires project-specific configuration	Built-in piping product specifications and standards

Where SPMat Wins

Full lifecycle coverage. SPMat tracks materials from the first MTO through construction and surplus. If you need to know, “Of the 500 weld neck flanges ordered on PO-1234, how many have been received, how many are allocated to Work Pack WP-007, and how many are still in the warehouse?”, SPMat provides that answer. Projectmaterials is focused on the procurement cycle, not the construction allocation phase.

Multi-discipline scope. SPMat handles piping, structural steel, electrical cable, instrumentation, and mechanical equipment in a single system. Projectmaterials specializes in piping. For a project that needs unified materials tracking across all disciplines, SPMat is the more complete solution.

Enterprise integration. SPMat’s SAP integration and Smart 3D connectivity make it the center of a fully integrated digital workflow on large Hexagon-ecosystem projects.

Where Projectmaterials Wins

Speed of deployment. On a project where procurement needs to start issuing RFQs within weeks, not months, Projectmaterials is ready to use almost immediately. There is no Oracle database to provision, no commodity code mapping to configure, and no multi-month implementation project to manage.

Piping product knowledge. Projectmaterials is built by people who know piping products. The platform understands the difference between an ASME B16.5 weld neck flange and a B16.47 Series A flange. It knows which manufacturers produce which products, which standards apply, and what the typical lead times are. SPMat treats all materials as generic commodity codes that must be configured from scratch for each project.

Supplier interaction. Projectmaterials includes a database of piping suppliers with their product ranges, certifications, and capabilities. This is valuable for procurement engineers who need to identify qualified suppliers quickly, particularly for specialty items (duplex fittings, large-bore valves, exotic alloy flanges). SPMat relies on the project team maintaining their own vendor lists.

Lower total cost. For piping procurement specifically, Projectmaterials delivers the RFQ-to-PO workflow at a fraction of SPMat’s total cost. No Oracle licenses, no Hexagon specialist consultants, no multi-month setup.

Accessibility. Any team member with a web browser can access Projectmaterials. SPMat requires a dedicated thick-client installation, Oracle connectivity, and often VPN access to the project server.

When to Use Which

Scenario	Recommended Tool
Mega-project ($1B+), Hexagon ecosystem, all disciplines	SPMat
Mid-size project, piping procurement is the priority	Projectmaterials
Project with Smart 3D and SAP already deployed	SPMat
Fast-track project needing procurement tools immediately	Projectmaterials
Owner-operator managing piping material purchases	Projectmaterials
EPC with existing SPMat licenses and trained staff	SPMat
Small engineering firm handling piping procurement	Projectmaterials

The two tools can also work together. An EPC contractor might use SPMat for overall project materials management while using Projectmaterials specifically for piping supplier identification and RFQ management, then feeding the procurement results back into SPMat for tracking.

SPMat Challenges

SPMat is a powerful tool, but it comes with significant challenges that project teams should understand before committing to it.

High Cost

SPMat licensing is expensive. Enterprise licenses from Hexagon for SPMat, along with the required Oracle database licenses, can run into six or seven figures annually. For a contractor running multiple concurrent projects, the software cost alone is a significant budget line item.

Beyond licensing, there are implementation costs: Hexagon consultants or trained internal staff to configure SPMat for each project, Oracle DBAs to manage the database, and ongoing support costs.

Long Implementation

Setting up SPMat for a new project is not a quick task. A typical implementation involves:

Phase	Duration	Activities
Configuration planning	2-4 weeks	Define commodity codes, MR grouping strategy, approval workflows, report formats
Database setup	1-2 weeks	Oracle database provisioning, SPMat installation, user accounts
Commodity code mapping	2-4 weeks	Map engineering component descriptions to SPMat codes; configure BOM explosion rules
Smart 3D integration setup	2-3 weeks	Configure MTO import from Smart 3D; test with sample data
SAP integration setup	3-6 weeks	Configure interfaces between SPMat and SAP; test purchase requisition and PO flows
User training	2-4 weeks	Train materials controllers, procurement staff, engineers
Testing and go-live	2-4 weeks	End-to-end testing; parallel operation with manual processes; go-live
Total	3-6 months

On a fast-track project where procurement needs to start immediately, this implementation timeline can be a serious constraint. Some projects have started procurement using spreadsheets while waiting for SPMat to be configured, then migrated the data into SPMat later, a painful and error-prone process.

Oracle Dependency

SPMat runs on Oracle Database, which adds a layer of IT infrastructure and licensing complexity. Oracle database administration is a specialized skill, and Oracle licensing costs are substantial. Some EPC contractors have moved other applications to SQL Server or cloud databases, but SPMat remains tied to Oracle.

This dependency also creates challenges for smaller offices or project sites with limited IT support. Running an Oracle database requires ongoing maintenance, backup management, and performance tuning that simpler database platforms do not demand.

Steep Learning Curve

SPMat is not intuitive software. New users require formal training, and even experienced users need project-specific training to understand the commodity codes, workflows, and reporting structures configured for each project.

Different user roles (materials controller, procurement engineer, warehouse supervisor, piping engineer) interact with different parts of SPMat, and each role requires its own training track. A piping engineer who needs to check MTO status in SPMat does not need the same training as a procurement engineer who is running bid evaluations.

Data Quality Dependence

SPMat is only as good as the data fed into it. Common data quality issues include inconsistent component descriptions from different engineering disciplines or different 3D modeling tools, MTO errors from incomplete or inaccurate 3D models, commodity code mismatches where the same physical item gets assigned different codes by different users, duplicate entries from overlapping MTO imports, and missing BOM explosion rules that result in flanges without gaskets and bolts.

These issues are not SPMat’s fault per se, but SPMat does not automatically detect or correct them. The materials management team must establish processes for data validation and cleanup, which is an ongoing effort throughout the project lifecycle.

SmartPlant Materials in the Hexagon Ecosystem

SPMat does not exist in isolation. It is part of a suite of interconnected Hexagon applications that, when deployed together, create an integrated engineering and procurement workflow.

The Hexagon PPM Ecosystem

Application	Function	Integration with SPMat
Smart 3D	3D plant design (piping, structural, equipment)	MTO export to SPMat
SmartPlant P&ID	Process and Instrumentation Diagrams	Equipment and instrument lists feed into SPMat
SmartPlant Instrumentation	Instrument database and hook-up design	Instrument MTO to SPMat
SmartPlant Foundation (SPF) / HxGN SDx	Engineering data management and integration platform	Data backbone connecting all applications
SmartPlant Review (SPR)	3D model review and visualization	Visual verification of materials in context
SmartPlant Construction	Construction work pack management	Receives material allocation data from SPMat
SAP (third-party ERP)	Financial and procurement management	PO issuance and financial tracking

The Integrated Workflow

On a fully integrated Hexagon project, the data flows as follows:

Process engineers create the P&ID in SmartPlant P&ID, defining all process piping, equipment, and instrumentation.
Piping designers model the 3D plant in Smart 3D, using the P&ID as the design basis.
Smart 3D generates the piping MTO and exports it to SPMat.
SPMat consolidates the MTO with MTOs from other disciplines.
The materials team creates MRs in SPMat and routes them for approval.
Approved MRs generate RFQs to suppliers.
Bid evaluations are performed in SPMat.
POs are issued through the SPMat-SAP interface.
Materials are tracked through manufacturing, shipping, receipt, and warehouse storage.
SmartPlant Construction receives material allocation data from SPMat to plan construction work packs.

This end-to-end integration is impressive in theory and genuinely valuable in practice when properly configured. The challenge is that achieving this level of integration requires all the tools to be deployed, configured, and maintained, which represents a substantial investment in software, IT infrastructure, and specialist staff.

HxGN SDx: The Future Direction

Hexagon is evolving its data management platform from SmartPlant Foundation (SPF) to HxGN SDx (Smart Digital Reality). SDx is a cloud-capable platform intended to serve as the data backbone for all Hexagon applications, including SPMat. The transition from SPF to SDx is ongoing, and its impact on SPMat integration is still unfolding. EPC contractors evaluating SPMat should understand where Hexagon’s roadmap is heading and plan accordingly.

Real-World Deployment Examples

To ground this discussion in reality, here are typical deployment scenarios that illustrate how SPMat is used on actual projects.

Scenario 1: Greenfield LNG Plant

A major LNG project in the Middle East with a total installed cost of $5 billion. The EPC contractor uses the full Hexagon ecosystem: Smart 3D for 3D design, SmartPlant P&ID for process schematics, and SPMat for materials management.

180,000 MTO line items across all disciplines
85,000 piping MTO line items covering carbon steel, stainless steel, duplex, and alloy piping
350 material requisitions over the project lifecycle
800+ purchase orders to suppliers worldwide
45 concurrent SPMat users (materials controllers, procurement engineers, warehouse staff, engineering reviewers)
5 months of implementation time before first MTO import
Integration with Smart 3D for MTO, SAP for PO and finance, SmartPlant Construction for work pack management

On this project, SPMat is necessary. The scale of material tracking would be unmanageable without a dedicated system. The investment in implementation and licensing is justified by the cost and schedule risks of material errors on a $5 billion project.

Scenario 2: Refinery Revamp

A mid-size refinery modification project with a total installed cost of $150 million. The contractor uses Smart 3D for new piping design (about 30% of the piping scope; the rest is reusing existing lines).

12,000 MTO line items (new materials only)
7,000 piping MTO line items, mostly carbon steel with some stainless steel and chrome-moly
25 material requisitions
60 purchase orders
8 concurrent SPMat users
3 months of implementation time

On this project, the question of whether SPMat is the right tool is legitimate. The material volume is manageable with lighter tools, and the implementation overhead consumes a meaningful fraction of the procurement schedule. Some contractors in this situation would use SPMat because they already have it configured as a corporate standard; others would opt for a lighter platform like Projectmaterials or even well-structured spreadsheets with procurement tracking databases.

Scenario 3: Owner-Operator Maintenance Procurement

A refinery owner-operator who regularly purchases piping materials for maintenance, turnarounds, and small capital projects. Annual piping material spend: $10-20 million across 200-500 purchase orders.

SPMat is not the right fit here. The project-by-project implementation model does not suit ongoing operations, and the overhead is disproportionate to the procurement volume. This is where platforms like Projectmaterials, which offer immediate access to piping supplier databases and RFQ tools without project-specific configuration, provide a better fit.

Summary

SmartPlant Materials is the most capable materials management system available for large EPC projects. Its ability to track materials from engineering MTO through procurement, delivery, and construction allocation is unmatched in the Hexagon ecosystem. For mega-projects with tens of thousands of line items, complex procurement strategies, and SAP integration requirements, SPMat is the standard tool.

The cost of that capability is real: Oracle database infrastructure, months of implementation, extensive training, and ongoing configuration maintenance. These costs are justified on billion-dollar projects where a single material shortage can delay construction by weeks and cost millions. On smaller projects, the same overhead becomes disproportionate.

For piping procurement specifically, the choice between SPMat and lighter platforms like Projectmaterials depends on project scale, existing IT infrastructure, and what you need the tool to do. If you need full lifecycle tracking across all disciplines with SAP integration, SPMat is the answer. If you need to get RFQs out to piping suppliers quickly, compare bids efficiently, and manage purchase orders without a multi-month implementation, Projectmaterials is the faster path.

Both tools serve the same ultimate goal: getting the right materials to the right place at the right time, so the construction team can build the plant on schedule and within budget. For a look at stress analysis software that consumes the same piping data, see CAESAR II for pipe stress analysis.