Certificate of Compliance or MTR

[VoDich]

Do you guys typically request certificates of compliance (COC) or mill test reports (MTR) from the vendor to confirm that the pipes they want to use meet ASTM standards? Per specifications, the pipes need to meet ASTM A53/A53M for steel, and ASTM B88 for copper. These pipes will be used for domestic water, natural gas, chilled water, and/or steam (100 psi) in the building.

Does it matter whether the vendor is getting the pipes manufactured in the US or overseas? And how to ensure that the COC or MTR is valid? Say it's coming from China.

Thanks.

 

[weldstan]

We always purchased materials with MTR's.

 

[MJCronin]

The answer to your question depends on the engineer's decsion on the correct "Code of Construction" for the system

Is the system certified to be in conformance with ASME B31.3 ?... B31.1 or some EN code ?

This is not a flip, minor decision to be decided on the spur of the moment, IMHO ..



MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[EdStainless]

Ours were labeled as CMTR, certified material test report.
They contained all mill heat data, all final product testing, applicable specifications, and QC signoff.
I would never take of CoC only.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[1503-44]

You ensure the certification is true and correct by doing business only with well known reputable pipe suppliers that you know uou can trust. Mill certificates of large pipe orders are also verified by actual inspection and testing conducted at the Mill itself by independent 3rd parties on your behalf. Your purchasing department will be well acquainted with all the appropriate procedures, if they know what they are doing.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[VoDich]

MJCronin:
No, the system is not certified to ASME B31.1 or B31.3. For above ground natural gas piping in the building, the contractor submits a couple of letters from his distributor stating that they consolidate the delivery of products from many manufacturers to reduce the overall cost. Instead of providing multiple certification letters from multiple manufacturers, they are providing a letter to certify that the products listed in the quotation meet the applicable industry standards. MTRs are available upon request.

They also listed that their global sourced carbon steel pipe meets ASTM A53, grade B, type E. I'm wondering if the system is for plumbing and hydronic piping inside an office building and does not need to be certified to ASME B31.1 or B31.3, is this letter saying that the products meet ASTM A53 good enough?

EdStanless:
What if the QC is from overseas, how do you ensure that the MTR is from a trust worthy source?

Thanks

 

[VoDich]

1503-44:
As a mechanical engineer on the project, I don't have control of which pipe supplier to use. My projects go out for general contractors to bid on. I'm at the mercy of the general contractor on who they want to use as their pipe supplier.

So is it common to ask for an MTR regardless of how big or small an order is?

Thanks

 

[DekDee]

So is it common to ask for an MTR regardless of how big or small an order is?

Yes, it is common.
It depends on the criticality of your piping systems.
Domestic water, chilled water - no problem.
Steam, Natural gas - definitely.
Do you not have project specifications ?

I'm at the mercy of the general contractor on who they want to use as their pipe supplier.

Your quality department should be reviewing before purchasing / procurement give the go ahead and buy.
Why do we have so many issues with Chinese material ? - because they are cheap.
Purchasing / procurement make a name for themselves by major savings in costs - then move on to the next project.
Poor bastards who have had no input then have to try and work with sub-standard material to deliver a successful project.
Do a search on here for MTC's (same as MTR's) - I have posted a few.

 

[1503-44]

Engineering usually must have ultimate approval responsibility to ensure that material meets specifications, at least based on documentation supplied in the bid. A company that does not have that in their procedures is at very high risk.

Purchasing Departments should he more than a buy at the lowest price operation. They should approve eligible suppliers before requests for quotations are even sent out to them. Unapproved suppliers should not be allowed to participate in bid rounds. It is not uncommon for petroleum companies to employ engineers within their department to endure that suppliers are conforming to all standard and special practices in shop during fabrication, so that materials and equipment supplied will and do meet specifications. The engineering department should only verify the work of the purchasing department was appropriately completed, that evidence of technical conformity is sufficient and that any substitutions are acceptable and that all is in order. Then verify again that the material delivered is indeed the same that was intended on the purchase order.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[geesaman.d]

I agree with the others to look at MTRs both against code and sound judgement regarding the possible risks in the supply chain.

That said, on very small jobs it's torture to deal with approved vendor lists. My company makes a handful of pressure-containing components and they are a very small part of our sourcing volume. We've tried on a few occasions to follow our customers approved vendor list for piping, flanges, etc and those suppliers will not pick up the phone to work with us or our vendors. The ones who do, know they can both gouge us on price and jerk us around on delivery. So that's a real pitfall of approved vendor lists if your winning bidder doesn't have a lot of any one raw material in their scope.

 

[mk3223]

It's good to develop a Contractor and procurement (C&P) Plan to be used for the project with the approval by the Client's Procurement. It's to list the possible material suppliers which are based on the certain qualifications, such as company facility & finance, product fabrication & quality, inspection & testing, etc. And the Engineer may focus on the technical evaluation for the material proposal, and work with Inspection for the final products and ensure the complete document of the MTR and CoC for the engineering record.

 

[DekDee]

I'm at the mercy of the general contractor on who they want to use as their pipe supplier.

Remember, whoever holds the purse strings makes the rules !

Even if you receive MTR's unless you fully understand what they contain they are basically worthless to you.
I am currently on an O&G fabrication project in the Phillipines - destination Australia.
We are sourcing material from all over the world and as it is a fast-track project the push is on in multiple directions.
What I have done is directed the Contractor to only source from manufacturers who can supply the following (as a minimum)
Current ISO 9001: 2015 certification showing they have a third-party approved Quality Management System
Current Approved Manufacturers Certification issued by Lloyds Register, BV, TUV , SGS etc.

Took a bit to get everyone on the same page but system working well now.

 

[VoDich]

I appreciate everyone for all the very helpful comments.

In my case, the project was bid out and awarded to the lowest bidder. With my department, we are not allow to sole source. The clients we work for understand this as well. They can tell us the type of pipe (copper, steel, plastic, etc.) they want in the project. The purchaser is the contractor, and they are free to use any distributor they want, as long as these products meet technical specifications.

I have project technical specifications. My department uses Arcom MasterSpec. The specification section for natural gas just calls for black steel, ASTM A53, schedule 40, type E or S, grade B; which the pipe distributor claims in the letters that the pipes they are proposing to use will meet. The specification doesn't list approved manufacturers. And it doesn't ask for COC, MTR, or MTC, and does not mention that the pipes have to be manufactured in the USA. It is my job now to determine if this submittal from the contractor meet my specifications. The part that concerns me is the "Global sourced steel pipe, meeting ASTM A53, type E, grade B" in the submittal. I just don't know how I would be able to confirm this.

Is it correct that the MTR can only be provided after I have accepted a pipe distributor and that the pipes have been made and tested? Or are the pipes and MTR already sitting in a warehouse waiting to be used?

I think with the MTR, I can at least look at the chemical composition and tensile strength to ensure they meet grade of pipe...that is if I can trust the MTR.

 

[1503-44]

It is impossible for anyone to do more than their company will support and still have a peaceful life.

Write APPROVED on a copy of the certification they gave you and file it.

Don't worry. Be happy.



--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[DekDee]

Is it correct that the MTR can only be provided after I have accepted a pipe distributor and that the pipes have been made and tested? Or are the pipes and MTR already sitting in a warehouse waiting to be used?

EN/ISO 10204 is used world wide for MTR's / MTC's - it basically lays out what must be provided and by who.
I will not get into the technical side of that.
In answer to your first question - a lot of suppliers will only issue the "actual" MTR after the PO has been placed.
Generally a sample MTR of a similar item / material will be provided for review on request.
In answer to your second question - if you are sourcing small quantities of pipe it may be sitting in a yard somewhere and will have the MTR readily available. (this is generally a short lead time)
If you are sourcing a large quantity it may require a special mill run where they manufacture specifically for you. Obviously no MTR till after manufacture and testing. (This will always be a lot longer lead time)

I think with the MTR, I can at least look at the chemical composition and tensile strength to ensure they meet grade of pipe...that is if I can trust the MTR.

That is where my comments above about minimum document requirements come in.
Request the docs or do it yourself - takes no time at all.
Google Search "XYZ Steel Company" certifications and if they are a reputable manufacturer they will have multiple quality documents from third party audits / inspections.
Gives you a lot more confidence in where your pipe is coming from.
Lloyds Register actually provide Registers on the internet showing multiple approved manufacturers in multiple countries for both structural and piping.
Bureau Veritas and TUV Nord do similar.
Hope the above helps,
Cheers,
Shane

 

[mk3223]

The purchaser is the contractor, and they are free to use any distributor they want, as long as these products meet technical specifications.

The specification doesn't list approved manufacturers. And it doesn't ask for COC, MTR, or MTC, and does not mention that the pipes have to be manufactured in the USA.

It seems that, based on the procurement package, the issue is lack of the proper fabrication documentations, i.e. CoC, MTR, etc., from either the Material Distributor or Supplier.

For a good reputation and reliable Distributor or Supplier, these documentations may be produced in the process of the manufacturing for your specific items, and to be included as part of the shipment per Industrial Codes and Company Standards (if applicable). The docs should be part of the procurement bid and proposal and listed as the required deliverables.

 

[VoDich]

It is impossible for anyone to do more than their company will support and still have a peaceful life.

Write APPROVED on a copy of the certification they gave you and file it.

Don't worry. Be happy.

Haha 1503-44, I remember that song. My OCD will kick in and will drive me nuts. I'm not too concern about this one as much. It's more for my understanding and hopefully will help me write a better specification when I have to deal with steam piping.

Thank you Shane and mk3223. I'll check if they have an actual MTR. If not, they can provide one when the pipes are delivered to the job site where our inspectors will hopefully verify.

Any idea what a typical cost is to hire a third-party in the US or another country to do an MTR? And how long does it normally take to do MTR? I'm in California, but I guess the mill could be anywhere in the US. For future projects where I have boilers and steam piping, I'm thinking of adding to my specification to have the contractor hire a third-party in the US to perform an MTR. I feel that this is still not tight enough...how tight of a specification do I need to make it without sole sourcing?

Thank you!

 

[DekDee]

VoDich,
A third party does not provide an MTR/MTC - the manufacturer provides.
EN/ISO 10204 that I mentioned above has 2 x requirements that could be applicable to you - Type 3.1 & Type 3.2 certificates.
Type 3.1 MTR / MTC is issued by the manufacturer and counter signed by a member of the manufacturers quality department - this is the most common.
Type 3.2 MTR / MTC is issued by the manufacturer for more critical applications. The testing at the manufacturers is witnessed by a third party and certificate reviewed against actual test results.
If acceptable the third party will then endorse the MTR/MTC by signing / stamping the certificate. (obviously more expensive option)
Some top notch manufacturers (eg. Dillinger in France for PV plate) have resident third party inspectors so all certification offered is a Type 3.2.

The other issue to note is Supplementary Testing - if you have any doubts about the quality of supplied material you cut a small sample and have it sent to an independent laboratory for testing.
You can then compare independent test results with results published on the MTR / MTC (and hope they are close )

 

[VoDich]

Thank you for clarifying Shane. Very helpful!

 

[EdStainless]

When I worked in a mill we had two variation of outside inspection to deal with.
In one case an inspector would review procedures and witness a sample of our testing (both NDT and lab).
The other case is where some of the actual testing is done by a third party.
In the world of tube and pipe the NDT is nearly always done at the producing mill, the exception is when additional UT or RT is required.
Often what is sent out is the destructive lab testing (chemistry, tensile, and so on).
I will note that we were not doing steel but specialty alloys (SS and Ni).
We never did chemistries (unless there was a special requirement) but we would report the original mill values.
We did require supplying mills to do provide a product analysis along with the heat chemistry.
With some customer/alloy combinations we would actually supply the original melting mill certificates as well.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed