Decoding material certificates: 3.1 vs 3.2 and why it matters

When your project depends on material performance, the certificate that accompanies your forged components isn’t just paperwork—it’s your assurance that the material will perform as specified. Yet many purchasers don’t fully understand the crucial differences between material certificate types, potentially exposing their projects to unnecessary risks or costs.

Understanding material certificates can save you significant money while ensuring your components meet critical performance requirements.

The certificate confusion

In the forging industry, material certificates come in different types, with 3.1 and 3.2 certificates being the most common. The numbers might seem arbitrary, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to quality assurance—and dramatically different cost implications for your project.

 

Many procurement teams simply specify “material certificate required” without understanding which type they actually need. This lack of clarity can lead to either unnecessary costs or inadequate quality assurance for critical applications.

Material certificate 3.1: Internal verification

A 3.1 certificate means the material testing requirements specified in the relevant standard are performed and verified by the manufacturer’s own testing laboratory. The manufacturer tests the material properties—such as tensile strength, impact resistance, and chemical composition—using their internal facilities and personnel.

When 3.1 certificates are appropriate:

  • Standard industrial applications where the manufacturer has established quality systems
  • Projects where cost optimization is important and the application isn’t life-critical
  • Applications where the manufacturer’s reputation and track record provide sufficient confidence
  • Components that will undergo additional testing or verification after delivery

Advantages of 3.1 certificates:

  • Lower cost due to internal testing processes
  • Faster turnaround times as external inspectors aren’t required
  • Established manufacturers often have excellent internal quality systems
  • Suitable for the majority of industrial forging applications

Material certificate 3.2: Independent verification

A 3.2 certificate requires that an independent, third-party inspection body witnesses and verifies the material testing process. Organizations like Lloyd’s Register, DNV, or Bureau Veritas send qualified inspectors to oversee the testing process and verify that results meet the specified requirements.

When 3.2 certificates are essential:

  • Offshore and subsea applications where component failure has catastrophic consequences
  • Pressure vessels and critical safety systems
  • Applications requiring compliance with stringent industry standards like Norsok
  • Projects where end-client specifications explicitly require independent verification

The 3.2 certificate process:

The third-party inspector must be present during critical testing phases, which means:

 

  • Scheduling testing around inspector availability
  • Coordinating between manufacturer, inspector, and client
  • Additional costs for inspector time and travel
  • Potential delays if testing needs to be repeated

The real cost implications

The cost difference between 3.1 and 3.2 certificates isn’t just the inspector’s fees—it’s the entire project impact. Here’s what many people don’t realize:

Direct cost increases:

  • Inspector fees and travel expenses
  • Potential premium pricing from manufacturers due to scheduling complexity
  • Extended lead times that may require expedited shipping

Hidden cost factors:

  • Production scheduling must accommodate inspector availability
  • If testing occurs during night shifts (common in continuous forging operations), inspectors may not be available
  • Failed tests require inspector return visits, multiplying costs and delays

Real-world example:

A recent project required 3.2 certification for critical offshore components. The manufacturing was scheduled for completion on a Friday, but the inspector wasn’t available until the following Tuesday. This four-day delay cascaded through the project timeline, ultimately costing more in schedule delays than the original component price.

Making the right choice for your application

The key is matching certificate requirements to actual application needs rather than automatically specifying the highest level of certification.

Questions to ask yourself:

  1. What are the consequences of component failure? Life-critical applications justify 3.2 certification costs.

  2. What do your end-client specifications actually require? Don’t assume 3.2 is required if specifications don’t explicitly mandate it.

  3. What’s your manufacturer’s track record? Established manufacturers with strong quality systems may provide excellent reliability with 3.1 certification.

  4. How does certificate type affect project timeline? If schedule is critical, consider whether 3.2 certification delays are acceptable.

Common specification mistakes

Over-specification:

Many projects automatically specify 3.2 certification without evaluating whether it’s necessary. This adds cost and complexity without improving safety or performance in many applications.

Under-specification:

Some projects underestimate the importance of proper certification for critical applications, potentially creating liability issues or component failures.

Geographic confusion:

Different regions have different preferences for certification types. What’s standard in Norway may be different from requirements in other markets.

Industry-specific considerations

Offshore and subsea applications:

These environments typically require 3.2 certification due to the consequences of failure and the difficulty of replacement or repair.

Chemical processing:

Critical pressure-containing components often require 3.2 certification, while auxiliary equipment may be suitable for 3.1.

General industrial:

Most standard industrial applications perform well with 3.1 certification from reputable manufacturers.

Defence applicartions:

May require 3.2 certification due to stringent documentation requirements and critical performance needs.

Working with your supplier

A knowledgeable forging supplier should be able to guide you through certificate selection based on your specific application. They should ask about:

 

  • End-use application and criticality
  • Client requirements and specifications
  • Budget and timeline constraints
  • Risk tolerance and safety factors

 

Be wary of suppliers who automatically quote 3.2 certification without understanding your requirements, as this may indicate they’re padding costs unnecessarily.

The bottom line

Material certificates aren’t just paperwork—they’re a critical part of your quality assurance strategy. Understanding the differences between 3.1 and 3.2 certificates allows you to make informed decisions that balance cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

 

The goal isn’t to choose the most expensive option, but to select the certification level that provides appropriate assurance for your specific application while optimizing cost and schedule performance.

 

Ready to optimize your material certification strategy? Contact us for a consultation on selecting the right certification approach for your specific requirements.

Ready to experience our service?

ProSteel Supply was born from the specialized forge division of Bruk GmbH, one of Europe’s oldest forging operations with facilities in Germany and the Czech Republic.

Share this post:
SUBSCRIBE
Join our community of 3 million people and get updated every week We have a lot more just for you! Lets join us now