lahane1443
Mechanical
- Oct 12, 2010
- 50
we mfg self actuated pressure control valve.can we certify our final valve certificate with EN 10204 3.1. Or is it the case that fimal assemble unit does not come under EN10204 3.1?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
certification 6
- Thread starter lahane1443
- Start date
- Status
-
4
- #2
EN 10204 = Metallic products - Types of inspection documents
If you are the manufacturer of the material, you will be allowed to issue a 3.1 certificate. You can not issue a certificate for the cpl. valve acc. to EN 10204, no 3.1, no 2.2 and no 2.1 certificate. EN 10204 is clearly related to materials. There are other standards you can use to issue a test certificate. I can check when I'll be back in the office.
If you are the manufacturer of the material, you will be allowed to issue a 3.1 certificate. You can not issue a certificate for the cpl. valve acc. to EN 10204, no 3.1, no 2.2 and no 2.1 certificate. EN 10204 is clearly related to materials. There are other standards you can use to issue a test certificate. I can check when I'll be back in the office.
- Thread starter
- #3
lahane1443
Mechanical
- Oct 12, 2010
- 50
we procure raw materials from traders.check test it in lab. Machine it from vendors & only assemb it in our factory.
Then you cannot issue a certificate acc. to EN 10204. You can issue test certificates acc. to DIN 55350-18 (Concepts in quality and statistics; concepts relating to certifi-cates on results of quality inspections; quality inspection certificates). You have to check if this standard is accepted in your country.
Type 3.1: Inspection certificate 3.1
A 3.1 certificate is issued by the manufacturer and is validated by the manufacturer’s authorised inspection representative. It is equivalent to the “old” 3.1.B certificate. The certificate must declare that the products are in compliance with the order requirements and supply test results.
I can not understan why I (like valves Manufacturer) can not issue 3.1 certificate. we issue 3.1 certificate of valves, including test results and chemical and mechanical properties. If our clients want check the 3.1 certificate of raw material we show them but i understand that we can issue 3.1. certificates with our internal test and the chemical and mechanical properties of the 3.1 certificate of the foundry or forged supplier.
A 3.1 certificate is issued by the manufacturer and is validated by the manufacturer’s authorised inspection representative. It is equivalent to the “old” 3.1.B certificate. The certificate must declare that the products are in compliance with the order requirements and supply test results.
I can not understan why I (like valves Manufacturer) can not issue 3.1 certificate. we issue 3.1 certificate of valves, including test results and chemical and mechanical properties. If our clients want check the 3.1 certificate of raw material we show them but i understand that we can issue 3.1. certificates with our internal test and the chemical and mechanical properties of the 3.1 certificate of the foundry or forged supplier.
Estibaliz: What you do is a common mistake. A lot of people think that EN 10204 only covers the type of inspection reports, their differences and the internal organization of a company. But they overlook that it is only valid for metallic products/materials and the corresponding manufactures of these materials. Read EN 10204 again and concentrate on the definitions of manufacturer and material.
lahane 1443,
I will support micalbrch's answer and add following:
The difference in requirements between issuing material certificates class 3.1 and 2.2 has for years been about the same, regardless if EN or other worldwide organizations.
Material certificates are issued by material producers and are traceable back to original material and lot. Even if a valve producer normally check all incoming materials, and always buy materials with 3.1 b certificate, it is in itself not sufficient for the valve producer to issue 3.1 b certificates from parts produced from this material.
A valve producer can however issue a function and performance and pressure test certificate grade 3.1 b (or witnessed 3.1 C), but only if he has a working and certified recognized QA system and procedures, enabling him to do this.
With a 3.1 b performance test, material certification will normally follow as a 2.2 certificate of materials (valve producer confirming that materials are correct and of such and such metallurgical quality).
If the end users wishes a 3.1 b material certificate for the valve (say for pressure containing parts) certain procedures must be followed.
Normally this will consist of original material producer issuing a 3.1 b certificate for the relevant parts and with a marking from material producer with traceable marking for each single part through the valve producers production, and a copy of the original parts analysis and test certificates following the parts through production. It might also be necessary with further tests or additional documentation if a component is treated during production, making changes possible in material quality for instance heat treatment.
A typical example is welding, wich will require typically for instance certified welders, welding procedures (doucumented), and sometimes x-ray or other tests confirming end quality.
In all this is not then the valve producers material certification, but copy of traceable original certification with necessary additions.
PS - This is a resume from memory, but all procedures are, as michalbrch
states, clarly described in the relevant EN or other documents, 3.1b and 2.2 not precises descriptions as such but typical 'branch abbreviations'.
If in doubt, a qualified experienced end user will always be able to give details at what the exact requirements are for each project or company or application.
Hope this will help.
I will support micalbrch's answer and add following:
The difference in requirements between issuing material certificates class 3.1 and 2.2 has for years been about the same, regardless if EN or other worldwide organizations.
Material certificates are issued by material producers and are traceable back to original material and lot. Even if a valve producer normally check all incoming materials, and always buy materials with 3.1 b certificate, it is in itself not sufficient for the valve producer to issue 3.1 b certificates from parts produced from this material.
A valve producer can however issue a function and performance and pressure test certificate grade 3.1 b (or witnessed 3.1 C), but only if he has a working and certified recognized QA system and procedures, enabling him to do this.
With a 3.1 b performance test, material certification will normally follow as a 2.2 certificate of materials (valve producer confirming that materials are correct and of such and such metallurgical quality).
If the end users wishes a 3.1 b material certificate for the valve (say for pressure containing parts) certain procedures must be followed.
Normally this will consist of original material producer issuing a 3.1 b certificate for the relevant parts and with a marking from material producer with traceable marking for each single part through the valve producers production, and a copy of the original parts analysis and test certificates following the parts through production. It might also be necessary with further tests or additional documentation if a component is treated during production, making changes possible in material quality for instance heat treatment.
A typical example is welding, wich will require typically for instance certified welders, welding procedures (doucumented), and sometimes x-ray or other tests confirming end quality.
In all this is not then the valve producers material certification, but copy of traceable original certification with necessary additions.
PS - This is a resume from memory, but all procedures are, as michalbrch
states, clarly described in the relevant EN or other documents, 3.1b and 2.2 not precises descriptions as such but typical 'branch abbreviations'.
If in doubt, a qualified experienced end user will always be able to give details at what the exact requirements are for each project or company or application.
Hope this will help.
Gerhardl: The actual version of EN 10204 (January 2005) does not include 3.1B or 3.1C certificates anymore.
And once again: EN 10204 is only applicable for metallic products. A metallic product is not a valve but - as written in EN 10204 - metal sheets, bars, forgings and castings. EN 10204 can also be used for non-metallic products but it is in any case related to raw materials only.
And once again: EN 10204 is only applicable for metallic products. A metallic product is not a valve but - as written in EN 10204 - metal sheets, bars, forgings and castings. EN 10204 can also be used for non-metallic products but it is in any case related to raw materials only.
@micalbrch:
First thank you for the clarification that EN 10204 only applies to metallic products.
gerhardl said about 3.1 b or c certificates for hydrostatic or performance tests in his points but you have mentioned that these are not included in EN 10204-2005.
I've received an ITP (Inspection and Test Plan)from a valve manufacturer that has expressed "certificate 3.1 EN 10204" for machining, NDE, surface preparation, coating and valve examinations. He has also mentioned "certificate 3.2 EN 10204" for witness inspections and tests such as dimensional check, pressure test and functional tests.
Could you please help to figure out what this means? After reading your post I decided to ask the mfg, but then thought it is better to get some advice before turning to mfg since I am not that familiar with EN 10204.
Thanks in advance for any help and a swift reply is appreciated.
First thank you for the clarification that EN 10204 only applies to metallic products.
gerhardl said about 3.1 b or c certificates for hydrostatic or performance tests in his points but you have mentioned that these are not included in EN 10204-2005.
I've received an ITP (Inspection and Test Plan)from a valve manufacturer that has expressed "certificate 3.1 EN 10204" for machining, NDE, surface preparation, coating and valve examinations. He has also mentioned "certificate 3.2 EN 10204" for witness inspections and tests such as dimensional check, pressure test and functional tests.
Could you please help to figure out what this means? After reading your post I decided to ask the mfg, but then thought it is better to get some advice before turning to mfg since I am not that familiar with EN 10204.
Thanks in advance for any help and a swift reply is appreciated.
Waterpipe: It depends what you want to do with the certificates. Are you the end user? If so, I would accept them but inform the supplier that he shall no longer use 3.2 certificates and that he shall not refer to EN 10204 for any test certificate unless it is a material certificate.
As I wrote it is popular to refer to EN 10204 for test certificates in general and I have seen test certificates from well known and big companies with this wrong reference. At the end of the day it is only a wrong certificate designation. The test results are not affected by this. So, it is a formal mistake - but a mistake. But if you must submit the certificates to your client, make sure that he will not be a nitpicker and refuse them.
2.3, 3.1A, 3.1B, 3.1C and 3.2 certficates were described in the old EN 10204 standard (as of 1995 if I'm not wrong). The 2.3 certificate does no longer exist. 3.1B was replaced by 3.1. 3.1A, 3.1C and 3.2 of the old version were all replaced by 3.2 of the new version.
As I wrote it is popular to refer to EN 10204 for test certificates in general and I have seen test certificates from well known and big companies with this wrong reference. At the end of the day it is only a wrong certificate designation. The test results are not affected by this. So, it is a formal mistake - but a mistake. But if you must submit the certificates to your client, make sure that he will not be a nitpicker and refuse them.
2.3, 3.1A, 3.1B, 3.1C and 3.2 certficates were described in the old EN 10204 standard (as of 1995 if I'm not wrong). The 2.3 certificate does no longer exist. 3.1B was replaced by 3.1. 3.1A, 3.1C and 3.2 of the old version were all replaced by 3.2 of the new version.
micalbrch,
Thanks for your swift and clear reply. I'm the end user's engineer, the mfg company is a well-known name and I'm going to remind them about this EN 10204 issue very soon. As you said, it doesn't change the test result but it will bring a good "anchor" for some other discussions that we have! Thank you again.
Thanks for your swift and clear reply. I'm the end user's engineer, the mfg company is a well-known name and I'm going to remind them about this EN 10204 issue very soon. As you said, it doesn't change the test result but it will bring a good "anchor" for some other discussions that we have! Thank you again.
As you know 3.2 is a 3.1 with a third party inspection that see all chemical test and mechanical examination. So before that the foundry cut the sample of the good they must call to the inspector to check the test of the sample. For NDT we make the same, the foundry send the piece to the lab and a TP (third parte) must see all process, sing and stamp correctly final reports. For machining, surface preparation, coating and valve examinations i propose a hold point on the ITP. You must call to the inspecto to inpect all this point.
-
2
- #15
Santhosh5974
Petroleum
- Aug 7, 2011
- 3
Micalbrch,
I fully agree with you but under certification requirements in Shell MESC SPE77/302;2008 (Valves-General requirements), they want certificates from valve manufacturers as follows.
3. All testing and examination shall have an inspection certificate in accordance with ISO 10474 Type 3.1 b or EN 10204 type 3.1
4. Finished valve shall have an inspection certificate in accordance with ISO 10474 Type 3.1 b or EN 10204 type 3.1, demonstrating that it complies with all requirements.
I think this is a misinterpretation of EN 10204 by Shell by which they are forcing valve manufacturers to use incorrect certificate designation.
I fully agree with you but under certification requirements in Shell MESC SPE77/302;2008 (Valves-General requirements), they want certificates from valve manufacturers as follows.
3. All testing and examination shall have an inspection certificate in accordance with ISO 10474 Type 3.1 b or EN 10204 type 3.1
4. Finished valve shall have an inspection certificate in accordance with ISO 10474 Type 3.1 b or EN 10204 type 3.1, demonstrating that it complies with all requirements.
I think this is a misinterpretation of EN 10204 by Shell by which they are forcing valve manufacturers to use incorrect certificate designation.
Does EN10204 3.1 cover Pressure Testing as well as material certification, seems to be some confusion with different valve suppliers, when we order valves we ask for an EN10204 3.1 cert which we expect to cover hydrostatic and pneumatic testing for the valve most of the valve makers comply with this requirement, howecer some state that EN10204 3.1 covers the material analyses and mechanical tests not pressure testing requirements
Can anyone offer any clarification on this?
Can anyone offer any clarification on this?
It is as written above. EN 10204 covers material certificates. I know that it is very common to issue other test certificates (hydrostatic pressure tests, dimensiomal tests etc.) and refer to EN 10204, too. The reason is that there is no other standard which covers test certificates. The test procedures are specified, the contents is perhaps specified but not the certificates themselves. Therefore many manufactures refer to EN 10204 for other certificates. Principally this is not correct. But as the content of hydrostatic test certificate (for example) will not change, regardsless whether is is called EN 10204-3.1 certificate of ISO EN 1234567-XX certificate (or whatever) it is more a formal question.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question