EN 10204 3.2 MTR's

[wsmith22]

Does anyone have any experience building vessels in the United States requiring EN 10204 3.2 material certifications? We have a customer asking for these MTR's. However this model is small and it seems unlikely any mill would provide these certificates for small quantities.

It looks like it is possible to have the materials tested after fact at an independent lab using a third party to witness the mechanical and chemical tests. This seems very expensive as we would need to have approximately 15 different pipe, bar, plate, etc. materials tested. We would also need to purchase extra materials with the same heat numbers of the production unit for testing.

It looks like 3.2 certification is common in Europe. How to those manufacturer's handle the requirement when materials are purchased in small quantities?

Thank you.

 

[bobjustbob]

I worked for a steel foundry that supplied raw valve bodies with 3.2 certifications occasionally. We did orders for as few as a single piece. These orders all went through a sperate flow for traceability. The cost would vary depending on the number of parts involved and how many visits from the inspector we anticipated. I would want the inspection done by the supplier as that should be the cheapest method. I would try to choose a supplier familiar with this requirement and who already has a working relationship with an inspector.

Bob

 

[The Obturator]

Reputable companies having ISO-9001 QA Systems, should be more than capable of providing 3.2 certification.

You need to ask the question, What is the 3.2 certificate required for? The materials used or the test/function of the finished product, or both, and then on what part(s).

3.1/3.2 relates to tests and not limited to a materials mechanical/test properties/composition etc.

An example. I worked at a company making safety valves. Typically the main pressure containing parts would require material certification to 3.1. The parts in question were the body and bonnet. Not an issue since these parts were castings and we required our vendor (foundry) to supply accordingly. The final product test certification of the valves tests were required to be 3.2 with a 3rd pary appointed by the purchaser. Again, not an issue as we organised the 3rd party to come in at time of tests and issue the 3.2 certification. The 3.1 material certification was included in the package (in some cases 3.2 material certification was required or the material and we would contract the foundry to get that done).

The key is to understand what is required and acceptable up front and to include the additional costs up front.

*** Per ISO-4126, the generic term 'Safety Valve' is used regardless of application or design ***

*** 'Pressure-relief Valve' is the equivalent ASME/API term ***

 

[Vikko]

not so common, for PED category III and IV it is required EN 10204 type 3.1 for pressure parts, which is the maximum level that can be required for PED.

A certificate type 3.1 for steel usually comprises mechanical tensile tests and chemical analysis (but to know which tests are required you shall see what is specified on the EN standard of the material). Actually there is no real difference from 3.1 and 3.2 as test required, what changes is the authorization level: while for 3.1 there is an external inspector of the manufacturer which is presumed "indipendent" but in reality the manufacturer is his customer and pay him for the certification process; with type 3.2 there should be also another additional external inspector that is not the normal "indipendent" manufacturer inspector.

 

[wsmith22]

The problem is we only require small quantities of raw materials. i.e. one piece of 2" thk SA-516 70 plate, 8" of 1" sch.40 pipe, (4) 5/8"-11 stud bolts, etc.

 

[DriveMeNuts]

If it is a rare 3.2 independent external testing then the price is probably the same irrespective of the size of the mill.