EN 10204 certificate 3.1 ?

[R4FKEN]

Hi,

I have a supplier delivering a rough forging with a 3.1 certificate. However, only chemical analysis has been performed; for mechanical values the certificate only mentions the min/max values.

EN10204 isn't 100% clear on what is obligatory to include in a 3.1. Is this supplier allowed to state "3.1" on the certificate when many tests have not been performed at all?

 

[XL83NL]

It depends if the material has been manufactured to a (material) standard or not, and if so, which one. 3.1 it self does not require values to be specified, it requires the manufacturer to declare and show test results for metallic materials manufactured according to the specification or standard mentioned in the purchase order.
If you e.g. buy a forging to ASTM A182, then that standard lists all values that need to be declared. Did you purchase the forging to a certain standard or spec which requires the manufacturer to declare test results acc. that spec or standard?
Or did you by just a forging, with nothing specified?

 

[R4FKEN]

Thanks for the quick reply!

The forging was bought to be an SA336M. What I don't know, is the additional purchase specifications. There's a confusing "and/or" in EN10204; is it possible that the order or additional specs state that only chemical tests should be performed? Ofcourse that's possible, but i mean: in that case, is the supplier allowed to call it a 3.1?

 

[XL83NL]

I would suggest you review EN 10204 to determine what's written in there, and also review SA336M (incl. the specific edition mentioned on the MTR for the SA336M standard, e.g. suffix -15 (indicating the 2015 edition)).
From there on you can determine what would be required per the EN standard and ASTM standard.

EN 10204 specifies for 3.1 certificates;

Document issued by the manufacturer in which he declares that the products supplied are in compliance with the
requirements of the order and in which he supplies test results.

The test unit and the tests to be carried out are defined by the product specification, the official regulation and
corresponding rules and/or the order.

The document is validated by the manufacturer’s authorized inspection representative, independent of the
manufacturing department.

It shall be permissible for the manufacturer to transfer on to the inspection certificate 3.1 relevant test results
obtained by specific inspection on primary or incoming products he uses, provided that the manufacturer operates
traceability procedures and can provide the corresponding inspection documents required.

 

[R4FKEN]

Hi,

I did review EN10204, but it's exactly this sentence that I find unclear:

The test unit and the tests to be carried out are defined by the product specification, the official regulation and
corresponding rules and/or the order.

Especially the "and/or" at the end. Is it either the product specification, OR the order (even if the order specifies less tests than the spec.)? Or is it: all tests required by the product specification, AND additional tests specified in the order (so tests in the product spec. are the minimum required for a 3.1)?

As for SA336M, both chemical and mechanical tests are specified, as is always the case.

 

[XL83NL]

IF you have specified SA336M in your order, than that is what the MFR requires to supply. Compliance with SA336 is verified with the MTR.

 

[R4FKEN]

Thanks, XL83NL, that's the answer I'm looking for, but I'd like to know what it is based on. Does EN10204 have "interpretations"?

Imagine this:
I order a bloom in SA336M, but I state in my order that only chemical analysis interests me and no mechanical testing needs to be performed. Reason is that I will further process the bloom by forging, thereby changing its mechanical properties anyway. Mechanical tests will be performed by us after forging (us or our contracted labo).
Can the supplier of the bloom deliver a 3.1 certificate with only chemical analysis as specific test result? Or does he have to issue a 2.2 certificate because mechanical testing as per SA336M is missing?

I hope this makes sense.

 

[micalbrch]

EN 10204 only specifies what kind of certifcates are available and who must issue them (simplified summary). But what many people do not know is that the scope of material tests is nowhere specified in EN 10204. Any of our purchase orders for material with 3.1 material certificate contains the sentence "incl. chemical analysis and mechanical property tests and incl. target/actual performance comparison´". We never receive 3.1 material certificates with missing Information.

 

[XL83NL]

@ R4FKEN: You could try that, but would, I guess, be so off-standard, that any supplier will provide you with the mechanical results. As that would be his standard procedure for any ASTM material. Deviaiting from that would probably cost him more, than just specifying it. And specifying the mechanical values doesnt harm you, does it? I would just keep it like that, making these things special for no added value doesnt make sense to me. Keep in mind that when you specify SA336M to him, youre actually asking for mechanical values.

The only other I see which you could try, is to specify all contents (like manufacture, heat treatment, chem. analysis, marking, et.c) of SA366M, but dont mention the mechanical values.

 

[R4FKEN]

Hehe, I tried to generalise/simplify the situation, but that's not working.

I'm a NoBo, I have in my possession a 3.1 certificate without mechanical values, but wíth SA336M reference. Now for this situation, I can imagine mech. values are less important, as it will be reforged. I'm not sure whether it is "legal" to declare it as a 3.1.
Anyway, all this just to say i'm not a cheapass purchaser that's trying to save money on certificates

 

[XL83NL]

If I had to review an MTR for an SA336M material, and SA336M requires mechanical values, I would reject the MTR if it doesnt specify these values, and save all the hassle.
What if the material has had a heat treatment that was so rubbish (even though it meets chemeical analysis) that any subsequent processing cant make up for it anymore? How are you than later going to finish this part?

 

[R4FKEN]

XL83NL, that's the thing: hot forging happens at a temperature above the recrystallization temperature, so earlier heat treatments have no effect. In fact, heat treatment has to be performed again after the forging process. As far as I know, chemical analysis is the only "relevant" test in this case. But this is all backstory, the true question remains.
I'd be happy to save the hassle and just reject the certificate, but I would really like to know what are the grounds for rejection. Where does it say that ALL tests as per SA336M have to be performed for a 3.1 to be valid?