What is the difference between an EN 10204 3.1 and a 2.2 material certificate?

What does each EN 10204 document type prove?

Per EN 10204:2004, the four document types differ in two ways: whether test results are included at all, and whether those results come from the products actually delivered. The table below sets the four types side by side.

The line between the two families is the difference between non-specific and specific inspection. A 2.2 report tells you what the mill’s process normally produces for that grade. A 3.1 certificate tells you what was measured on the heat or lot you received, and it identifies that heat or lot so the numbers can be tied to the metal in your hands.

The 2004 edition, per the national publication of EN 10204:2004, reduced the number of document types and added definitions of manufacturer, intermediary and product specification. Older drawings and purchase orders still ask for “3.1.B”, the pre-2004 name that the 2004 edition folded into type 3.1. Older types 3.1.A, 3.1.C and 3.2 were folded into the current type 3.2.

EN 10204 does not set any test itself. It only names the document. Which properties are tested, how often and to what limits comes from the product specification the order cites, such as an ASTM, EN or JIS material standard.

When does a purchaser need a 3.2 certificate?

Type 3.2 is needed when a regulation, a code or the purchaser requires a second party to witness or verify the tests. For most machined and die-cast OEM parts it is not required, and it adds scheduling and inspection cost to every lot.

Pressure equipment is the common case in Europe. The materials requirements of the Pressure Equipment Directive, as carried into UK law in the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016, Schedule 2, paragraph 31, require documentation from the material manufacturer for all materials, and for the main pressure-bearing parts of equipment in categories II, III and IV that documentation must take the form of a certificate of specific product control. That wording is why pressure-equipment buyers ask for 3.1 at minimum. Whether 3.2 is also needed depends on the conformity route the equipment manufacturer and its notified body have chosen, so the equipment designer, not the parts supplier, should decide.

If a 3.2 is truly required, name the inspecting party on the purchase order before the material is bought. A 3.2 cannot be produced after the fact, because the second party has to take part in the inspection itself.

What certificate should you expect for ADC12 or Zamak 3 die castings?

For die castings, the useful record is the chemistry of the alloy that went into the casting, normally from the ingot supplier’s certificate for each ingot lot, plus the die caster’s own record of which ingot lots fed which production lot. EN 10204 covers castings, so the same 2.2 and 3.1 names apply.

The difference from bar stock is that the die caster remelts the metal. The ingot certificate describes the ingot, and the casting is made from a melt that may also include in-house returns such as runners and scrapped parts. Ask the die caster how returns are controlled and whether melt chemistry is checked at the furnace.

Name the alloy standard as well as the document type. For aluminum, ADC12 is a JIS designation; its nearest US registered alloy is covered in the Aluminum Association Pink Sheets and die castings in general by ASTM B85/B85M. For zinc, Zamak 3 ingot is covered by ASTM B240 and zinc die castings by ASTM B86, which list separate composition limits for ingot and casting. A certificate is only as specific as the standard it reports against, so the PO should name one.

Mechanical properties are a separate question. Published die-casting alloy properties are typically measured on separately cast test bars, not cut from production parts, so a certificate for a die casting normally reports chemistry rather than the strength of your part. If strength matters, specify a test on parts. The ADC12 vs A380 guide covers how the alloy names map across standards, and the die casting page lists the aluminum and zinc alloys quoted.

How should the purchase order word the certificate requirement?

Name the document type, the material standard, the traceability level and the delivery point of the documents in one clause. Vague wording such as “material certs required” is the most common reason a buyer receives a datasheet instead of a certificate.

A clause that covers most machined and die-cast parts reads along these lines:

• Document type. “Material inspection certificate per EN 10204 type 3.1, or a mill test report per the cited ASTM specification containing the same information.”
• Material standard. The alloy, temper and standard exactly as on the drawing, such as ASTM B211 for aluminum bar, or ASTM B240 plus ASTM B86 for Zamak 3 ingot and castings.
• Content. “Certificate shall show the heat or lot number, chemical analysis and, for wrought material, mechanical test results.”
• Traceability. “Each shipment shall list the heat or lot number used for each part lot, with the matching certificate attached.”
• Intermediaries. “Certificates supplied through a distributor shall be copies of the material manufacturer’s original document, not retyped.”
• Delivery. Whether the certificates travel with the goods, arrive by email before shipment, or both.

Put the same clause in the RFQ, not only on the purchase order, so the supplier prices the document handling from the start. The RFQ package guide lists the other documents to request with it. When your drawing and document list are ready, send them for a quote; certificate requirements are confirmed in the written reply. Saola’s ISO 9001 certification is in progress, not held, so if a quality-system certificate is a gate for your approved-vendor list, say so in the RFQ.