When is a certificate 3.1b? 4

[PeterIgg]

This follows on from a couple of earlier threads:
Is there an actual difference between ISO 10474 and EN 10204 or are they identical. I have 10204 and seen the table from ISO 10474 describing the attributes of the various certificates and the wording is identical. Is the rest of the standard?

Secondly, if I have a material certificate that has reference to the material standard, the heat number of the pour (or similar), details the chemical analysis and heat treatment, the results of (presuably) representative mechanical tests and is signed by a member of the Quality department of the supplier (as I understand that under ISO 9002 that the QA department is independant of the Production Department?)is the certificate 3.1b?

I can see no requirement for the certificate to actually be endorsed that it is 3.1b. Anyone else had experience in this area?

 

[metalonis]

I can find no requirement in EN 10204 that the certifiacte actually say "3.1.B" on it. As long as all the required elements are included, I'd say the cert, as you describe it, complies.

 

[atad]

In the past I have experienced the opposite.

In general I have found that, clients and more importantly third party inspectorate expect to see 3.1.b mentioned on the Certificate - and not added by you!

The process really has to start from receipt of the purchase order and to a large extent requires purchasing to buy materials specifically for the contract to achieve 3.1.b build.

It is not easy to achieve 3.1.b for what may be your standard product range, for example the materials used in the equipments manufacture may not be supplied with 3.1.b certification. Therefore you end up buying more expensive materials which can be obtained with 3.1.b certification.

However if the company adopts only 3.1.b supplied materials as the norm there is no real problem so long as the inevitable increase in price is reflected accordingly.

 

[bruv]

I have to agree with atad - if you start adding 3.1B to certification that doesn't have it, you could be the one liable if something goes wrong further down the line and it's found out that you're the one who added the 3.1B to the cert when it wasn't true. As he says, specify 3.1B to your supplier and there shouldn't be a problem.

Depending on what you are buying, 3.1B may be the minimum level of certification anyway if your supplier has a QA department independant of the Production Department. This should mean that there are no cost implications.

Bruv

 

[PeterIgg]

Hi guys

Thanks for all of your thoughts and comments.

I have been in contact with my client and it would appear that their concern is as to who actually took the sample - QC or Production? If the latter then their stance is that it is 2.3 type, not 3.1, irrespective as to whom actually did the testing. Whilst I can understand this to a degree I would suggest that when considering a keel block poured at time of casting or a prolongation/test piece when forging anyone - be they Production or QC - is going to somewhat limited as to where the test piece can actually be taken from!

Any QA/QC people got a view??

 

[FRANKDE]

I am currently trying to establish whether there is any major differences between EN ISO 10204 3.1.b and ISO 10474:1991. I dont have a copy of 10474 presently.
Our Enginnering sales have to quote against this specification and up to now we have certified our materials to the EN ISO 10204 specification.
I have noted that this matter has caused a problem for you as well and would like to know whether you managed to reach a conclusion.

 

[atad]

In my experience the certifcate must state 3.1.b. If it does not, it can be very dificult, most of the time impossible, to have the paperwork accepted by third party inspection authorities.