Material certificates explained: EN 10204 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2
Which certificate type to ask for, who issues it, and what it actually proves about the material in your part.
Key takeaways
- EN 10204 defines 2.1, 2.2 (manufacturer declarations) and 3.1, 3.2 (inspection certificates).
- 3.1: specific inspection validated by an independent representative of the manufacturer — the usual choice for critical parts.
- 3.2: additionally confirmed by the purchaser's authorised representative or by an inspector designated by official regulations.
- Traceability: the heat number must follow the material to the finished part.
The four document types
| Type | Name | Test results | Validated by |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Declaration of compliance with the order | None | Manufacturer |
| 2.2 | Test report | Non-specific inspection (typical values from production) | Manufacturer |
| 3.1 | Inspection certificate 3.1 | Specific inspection on the delivered product or its test unit | Manufacturer's authorised inspection representative, independent of manufacturing |
| 3.2 | Inspection certificate 3.2 | Specific inspection | Manufacturer's authorised inspection representative, independent of manufacturing, and either the purchaser's authorised representative or the inspector designated by official regulations |
Source: EN 10204:2004, Metallic products — Types of inspection documents.
Specific vs non-specific inspection
Non-specific inspection means the results come from production of the same kind, not necessarily from the delivered batch. Specific inspection means the delivered product, or test units from it, were tested. For machined parts in energy, rail and aerospace applications, 3.1 is the usual requirement because it ties results to the heat of material actually used.
What to ask for
- 3.1 for most structural, pressure-bearing or safety-relevant parts.
- 3.2 when a contract, code or authority requires the inspection to be confirmed not only by the manufacturer's inspection representative but also by the purchaser's authorised representative or by an inspector designated by official regulations — expect longer lead times and extra cost.
- 2.2 may be acceptable for non-critical parts. EN 10204 covers metallic products only, so for engineering plastics a type 2.2 document can only be issued by analogy with the standard.
State the required type on the drawing or purchase order, together with the material standard (for example EN 10088-3 for stainless bars).
Traceability from certificate to part
A certificate is useful only if the part can be traced back to it. The heat or batch number on the certificate must follow the material through sawing and machining. We record it in our ERP against the production batch and mark parts where the drawing allows; on request, material composition is checked on our own spectrometer. See inspection and documentation.
North American terminology
In the United States and Canada the equivalent document is usually called a mill test report (MTR) or certified mill test report (CMTR). When a US buyer asks for an MTR on a European material, an EN 10204 3.1 certificate normally satisfies the requirement; confirm with the buyer if a specific format is required.
Frequently asked questions
Is a 3.1 certificate issued by the machine shop or the steel mill?
By the manufacturer of the material (mill or processor). A machine shop passes it on and must keep traceability; it cannot issue a 3.1 for material it did not produce.
What replaced the old 3.1.B?
In the 2004 revision of EN 10204 the old 3.1.B became 3.1; the old 3.1.A, 3.1.C and 3.2 became the new 3.2; and type 2.3 was withdrawn.
Related pages
- Quality
Inspection and documentation
First-article reports, material certificates and batch traceability.
- Quality
Materials
Steels, duplex and super duplex stainless, aluminium, copper alloys and engineering plastics.
- Technical guides
First article inspection reports
AS9102, PPAP and VDA 2 compared; what to check in a report.
Send us your drawing.
STEP, IGES, DXF or PDF. Quotation within 2–15 business days, depending on size and complexity.