We have some material test reports for some ASTM A182 stainless steel and others for ASTM A105 carbon steel forgings. Material types are flanges and valves (body and Bonnets). I have a question, is anyone can help on this. My question is if the ASTM revision year is required to be noted on MTR and also if EN10204 Certificate type is required to be noted on MTR as well eg 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 TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Material Test Results 2
- Thread starter jose0908
- Start date
-
2
- #2
You would need to refer to the purchasing documents to see what, if anything, is said about certificaiton requirements.
The revision year (or year of last adoption) is part of the ASTM specificaiton, so, technically, the specificaiton callout on any certificaiton is not complete without it. For many, many products, it is somewhat irrelevant since little changes in these specifications that materially affect the product, but for some of the standards, substantial changes do occur, so unless you want an inspector to guess, it would be better to have that information on the cert. I have seen some certificaitons that have a catch-all phrase on them that says that the revision of the applicable specificaiton that was in effect at the time of order placement would apply, so unless you need certification to a revision that is not in effect at the time of order placement, wording like this should cover it. That is, there should be something on the certification identifying which revision the product was manufactured to meet.
The EN10204 type is only applicable if the purchaser requires it. Not all products are sold with EN10204 certificates, so unless the purchase documents call for a EN10204 certificate, is isn't needed. If a EN10204 certificate type is required, the purchase documents should identify what type and what additional requirements are needed. I have seen some companies with purchase specificaitons that explicitly state what is required for each type because the EN10204 is somewhat vauge on some of the specifics.
rp
The revision year (or year of last adoption) is part of the ASTM specificaiton, so, technically, the specificaiton callout on any certificaiton is not complete without it. For many, many products, it is somewhat irrelevant since little changes in these specifications that materially affect the product, but for some of the standards, substantial changes do occur, so unless you want an inspector to guess, it would be better to have that information on the cert. I have seen some certificaitons that have a catch-all phrase on them that says that the revision of the applicable specificaiton that was in effect at the time of order placement would apply, so unless you need certification to a revision that is not in effect at the time of order placement, wording like this should cover it. That is, there should be something on the certification identifying which revision the product was manufactured to meet.
The EN10204 type is only applicable if the purchaser requires it. Not all products are sold with EN10204 certificates, so unless the purchase documents call for a EN10204 certificate, is isn't needed. If a EN10204 certificate type is required, the purchase documents should identify what type and what additional requirements are needed. I have seen some companies with purchase specificaitons that explicitly state what is required for each type because the EN10204 is somewhat vauge on some of the specifics.
rp
- Thread starter
- #3
Have you read EN 10204 to see if that answers your question?
If I remember correctly, a 3.1 certification is one that is issued by the processor that identifies the lot or lots and the results of the specific tests that qualifies the lot or lots to meet the specification. I don't think section 3.1 really says any more that that.
So, it really is a matter of interpretation. In the specific case of ASTM standards, the revision year (or year of last adoption) of the standard is part of the designation. ASTM adopted this system decades ago to make it possible for QC inspectors to be able to verify this, specifically. So, in a technical sense, it is required to identify the standard the products are being certified to. But, many processors, who can't be bothered to continuously update their certifications or have to re-produce certifications on product that was process two years ago, but sold this year, when the standard had been re-adopted, will just state the the revision of the standard that was in effect on the date of the order is what applies.
If you are a big consumer of product from a particular processor, and you want them to issue certifications with a specific year of adoption on it, you might be able to get them to accommodate you. If you are buying product from a guy in a truck, good luck in getting anyone to talk to.
If you are somewhere in-between and you raise a big enough stink, you might get someone to do something, but it might just be someone hand-writing the date by the designation on the certification. There isn't any reason that would not be valid, assuming it was true. If it wasn't true, it really wouldn't matter if the date was hand-written or if it was embossed with gold-leaf highlights.
Now, if you had a situation where the specific ASTM standard was one where complying with the 2009 version would not be acceptable for your application, but the 2013 version had been revised so that the material would be acceptable, you had better be specific on your purchasing documents that you need certification to the 2013 edition of the standard. If not, your receiving guys should stop it until someone can say whether or not the material is acceptable or not. In either case, the issue really is not what the paper says, but what the material is.
rp
If I remember correctly, a 3.1 certification is one that is issued by the processor that identifies the lot or lots and the results of the specific tests that qualifies the lot or lots to meet the specification. I don't think section 3.1 really says any more that that.
So, it really is a matter of interpretation. In the specific case of ASTM standards, the revision year (or year of last adoption) of the standard is part of the designation. ASTM adopted this system decades ago to make it possible for QC inspectors to be able to verify this, specifically. So, in a technical sense, it is required to identify the standard the products are being certified to. But, many processors, who can't be bothered to continuously update their certifications or have to re-produce certifications on product that was process two years ago, but sold this year, when the standard had been re-adopted, will just state the the revision of the standard that was in effect on the date of the order is what applies.
If you are a big consumer of product from a particular processor, and you want them to issue certifications with a specific year of adoption on it, you might be able to get them to accommodate you. If you are buying product from a guy in a truck, good luck in getting anyone to talk to.
If you are somewhere in-between and you raise a big enough stink, you might get someone to do something, but it might just be someone hand-writing the date by the designation on the certification. There isn't any reason that would not be valid, assuming it was true. If it wasn't true, it really wouldn't matter if the date was hand-written or if it was embossed with gold-leaf highlights.
Now, if you had a situation where the specific ASTM standard was one where complying with the 2009 version would not be acceptable for your application, but the 2013 version had been revised so that the material would be acceptable, you had better be specific on your purchasing documents that you need certification to the 2013 edition of the standard. If not, your receiving guys should stop it until someone can say whether or not the material is acceptable or not. In either case, the issue really is not what the paper says, but what the material is.
rp
- Status
Similar threads
- Question