A casting that machines cleanly, welds without cracking and passes its pressure test is the result you actually buy — but none of those outcomes are visible on the day the crate arrives. What you receive instead is a stack of paper: a melt certificate, a dimensional layout, maybe a PPAP folder or maybe nothing at all. Learning to read that paperwork is the single highest-leverage skill a sourcing or quality engineer can develop, because documentation failures are the ones that surface latest and cost most. A missing heat-to-part traceability link can quarantine thousands of finished components; an unqualified weld procedure can invalidate an entire assembly. This guide explains what EN 10204 3.1, FAIR/ISIR and PPAP each actually prove, where the three overlap, how much they cost, and how to specify exactly what you need without paying for certificates that add nothing to your risk position.
The Challenges Buyers Face on Documentation
Challenge 1: Certificates Are Confused With Conformance
An EN 10204 3.1 certificate states that the material supplied meets the ordered specification, based on a specific inspected lot. It does not state that the finished casting’s mechanical properties meet your drawing, that the heat treatment cycle was correct, or that the machined dimensions are in tolerance. Buyers routinely accept a 3.1 sheet and assume the whole part is qualified. It isn’t — a 3.1 covers the melt, not the geometry.
Challenge 2: Heat-Lot Traceability Breaks at the Machining Stage
A foundry can trace a casting back to its furnace heat. Once that casting enters a machining cell alongside 400 others from six heats, traceability is easy to lose unless the router carries the heat number and each operation logs it. If your industry needs a recall path, this link is non-negotiable.
Challenge 3: “PPAP” Is Requested Without Specifying a Level
PPAP has five submission levels. Asking for “PPAP” with no level invites anything from a warranty signature (Level 1) to a full submission with supporting data (Level 5) — and wildly different prices and lead times. Undefined requests are also the top cause of first-pass PPAP rejection.
Challenge 4: Cost Is Quoted but the Document Scope Isn’t
One supplier’s quoted price includes certificates; another charges per document set. Comparing two quotes without knowing which certificates are bundled is comparing apples to subprocesses.
What EN 10204 Actually Covers
EN 10204 defines inspection document types for metallic products. It does not define testing methods; those live in the material standard (EN 10088 for stainless, ASTM A216 for carbon steel, etc.). The commonly requested types are:
| Type | Issued By | Based On | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Manufacturer | Statement of compliance, no test results | Low-risk fabrications, non-pressure parts |
| 2.2 | Manufacturer | Non-specific inspection (random sampling, not the delivered lot) | General commercial work |
| 3.1 | Manufacturer’s authorised inspection rep | Specific inspection of the delivered lot, results shown | Most castings for EU/UK/global OEMs |
| 3.2 | Manufacturer + independent third party (or buyer’s rep) | Specific inspection, verified/witnessed by external party | Pressure boundary, nuclear, offshore, defence |
The practical rule: 3.1 is lot-specific and signed by someone independent of production; 3.2 adds an external witness. For most industrial buyers, 3.1 plus a properly executed heat treatment chart is the correct, cost-effective default.
What a 3.1 Should Contain
- Standard and grade (e.g. EN 10213 GX5CrNi19-10 / AISI 304)
- Heat number and cast/lot identification
- Chemical composition: C, Si, Mn, P, S, Cr, Ni, Mo, N — plus any grade-specific residuals
- Mechanical test results from separately cast or attached test bars, with the standard’s minimum values shown alongside
- Heat treatment condition and furnace record reference
- Signature of the authorised inspection representative and date
Watch for one subtlety: mechanical values on a 3.1 come from test bars produced under the material standard’s conditions, not from the casting wall itself. Thin sections cool faster and can differ in properties. If properties in a specific wall section are critical to your design, say so at RFQ stage and specify where test coupons must be taken.
FAIR / ISIR: Proving the First Part Is Right
“FAIR” (First Article Inspection Report) — called ISIR in German automotive usage (Erstmusterprüfbericht) — answers a different question: does this specific finished part meet every requirement on the drawing?
A proper first article inspection includes:
- Ballooned drawing — every dimension, note and GD&T callout numbered, with the mapping between drawing balloons and measured values.
- Full dimensional results — measured value, tolerance band, and pass/fail, for every ballooned feature. “See drawing” or summarized measurements are not acceptable.
- Material and special process evidence — 3.1 certificate, heat treatment chart, coating or plating certificate, NDT reports.
- Non-conformances open and dispositioned — any feature out of tolerance listed with a documented decision (accept-as-is, rework, tool modification).
The standard reference is AS9102 for aerospace forms (Form 1 part accountability, Form 2 product accountability — materials, special processes, functional testing; Form 3 feature accountability). Even outside aerospace, using the AS9102 form structure is good practice because it forces completeness. FAIR is normally repeated after any design change, after a tooling transfer, after a significant process change, or after a production gap exceeding roughly 12–24 months.
PPAP: Proving the Process Can Repeat
First Article proves one good part can be made. PPAP (Production Part Approval Process), from the AIAG APQP manual at Level 3, proves your supplier’s process can produce conforming parts repeatedly at quoted rate. Its 18 elements include:
- DFMEA / PFMEA — design and process failure mode analyses, with Severity/Occurrence/Detection ranking and the resulting preventive and detection actions
- Control Plan — how each characteristic is controlled, at what frequency, with what gauge, and the reaction plan when it drifts
- Process Flow Diagram — every step from wax injection to final pack-out, including subcontracted operations
- MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) — gauge R&R studies proving the measurement itself isn’t the noise source; typically ≤10% R&R desirable, ≤30% conditionally acceptable
- Dimensional results — usually across a minimum run, commonly 300 pieces for automotive PPAP
- Initial Process Study — capability indices; buyers commonly require Ppk ≥ 1.67 for launch, with special characteristics often held to Cpk ≥ 1.33 sustained
PPAP Submission Levels
| Level | Submitted to Customer | Typical Cost Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Warrant (PSW) only | Minimal |
| 2 | Warrant + sample product + limited data | Low |
| 3 | Warrant + sample product + complete supporting data | Moderate — the automotive default |
| 4 | Level 3 plus customer-defined extra requirements | High |
| 5 | Level 3 plus on-site review of supporting data at supplier facility | High + travel/audit time |
Always state the level, the submission reason (new part, engineering change, tooling transfer, supplier change), and which characteristics you’ve designated as special.
Specifying Documentation Without Overbuying
The most efficient RFQ line sounds like this:
“EN 10204 3.1 per heat, with chemical analysis and mechanical test results. Heat treatment records referencing furnace ID and chart trace. AS9102 Form 1–3 FAIR for first shipment of each part number. PPAP Level 3 submission prior to SOP for all safety-critical parts only. Radiographic testing per ASTM E446, severity Level II, on 100% of pressure-boundary castings.”
Note how each requirement ties to something: a lot, a part number, a safety classification, a % of the batch. Vague language like “provide full certification” produces both over-supply and gaps simultaneously.
Also decide who pays for what. Certificates tied to a specific lot are usually included in piece price. Third-party witness (3.2), which involves an inspector attending pouring or testing, is normally quoted separately. PPAP preparation is engineering labour — expect either a line-item fee or amortisation into a minimum order quantity.
Verifying What You Receive
Do not file certificates unread. A 20-minute review catches almost every serious defect:
- Heat numbers reconcile — the number on the 3.1 appears on the part marking or bag label, and flows through any subcontract heat treatment certificate.
- Grade matches the drawing — including the standard year and any supplementary requirements (dual certification such as 304/304L is common and legitimate, but must be stated).
- Values against minimums, not just present — check elongation and impact values especially; these are where thin cast sections fail first.
- Signature present and independent — a 3.1 signed by the same person who released production is a red flag.
- Dates are sequential — the pour date must precede heat treatment, which must precede testing.
- Scope matches the delivered quantity — a certificate covering 800 kg cannot legitimately accompany a 4,000 kg shipment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Do I need both EN 10204 3.1 and a FAIR, or are they redundant? They answer different questions and are complementary. The 3.1 certifies the material; the FAIR certifies the finished part’s conformance to the drawing. A casting can have perfect material chemistry and still be dimensionally scrap.
Q2. Is PPAP only relevant for automotive? No. Although PPAP originated in automotive (AIAG), any high-volume, safety-related or regulated programme benefits — off-highway, agricultural machinery, hydraulics, medical devices and aerospace all use PPAP-derived workflows. Industrial equipment buyers increasingly ask for Level 3 for anything going into a warranted assembly.
Q3. Can I get EN 10204 3.2 instead of 3.1, and what does it add? Yes, but expect added cost and lead time. 3.2 adds witness or verification by an independent party (TÜV, SGS, Lloyd’s, DNV, or your own inspector). Specify it when the consequence of a material failure is severe: pressure vessels, lifting equipment, subsea or nuclear service.
Q4. How long should I keep these records? Automotive custom commonly requires 15 years or the service life plus one year, whichever is greater. For pressure equipment under the PED, retained documentation typically follows the vessel lifetime. Confirm against your own sector requirement, and require your supplier’s retention period in the purchase contract.
Q5. What if my drawing is old and has no GD&T — can I still get a useful FAIR? Yes, though tolerance interpretation must be settled first (often to ISO 8062-3 or ASME Y14.5 defaults). Have your supplier balloon the drawing, list assumptions where the drawing is ambiguous, and get those assumptions signed off before production so they don’t become disputes later.
Ready to Specify Your Documentation Package?
Ningbo Ruican has spent 17 years turning drawings and samples into certified precision investment castings — silica sol and water glass lost-wax processes plus in-house CNC machining, backed by IATF 16949 quality management. We issue EN 10204 3.1 certificates per heat, support third-party 3.2 witness when required, prepare complete FAIR/ISIR documentation, and submit PPAP at the level you specify. Send us your drawing, target quantity, material specification and documentation requirements, and we’ll quote piece price and certification scope as separate, transparent lines.