Confirm certificate type and traceability requirements early
Inspection Document Checklist for Forged Flanges
Inspection documents should be agreed before quotation, not after production. This guide helps buyers specify MTC 3.1, dimensional report, PMI, UT, MT, PT, heat treatment records and third-party inspection requirements at RFQ stage. It also publishes one complete third-party type-test report on a flange from our own production, as a worked example of what such a document contains - including the rows that were left empty and the attachment slots that were never filled.
Key Points
List NDT, PMI and dimensional reports before price comparison
State whether third-party inspection is review, witness or release
Match markings, heat numbers and document language with the project specification
Read a supplied report row by row: a filled verdict column does not prove the row holds a measured value
Engineering Selection Notes
Most document disputes on a forged flange order are not about whether a certificate exists. They are about what is inside it: which values are measured and printed, which rows are left blank, whose laboratory produced the result, and whether the document covers the heat that was actually shipped. Those questions are cheap to settle in the RFQ and expensive to settle after production.
To make that concrete, this page publishes a complete third-party report in full. In December 2023 the Zhejiang Academy of Special Equipment Science type-tested an NPS4 Class 150 weld neck flange in F91 taken from our own production and issued report YSY202450082. It runs to five numbered report pages behind a cover and a declaration: page 1 carries the sample identification and the test basis, page 2 the sample parameters, page 3 a fifteen-line technical document review, and pages 4 and 5 the measured results. Its test basis is TSG D7002-2023 together with ASME B16.5-2020 and ASTM A182/A182M-23, and its ultrasonic row is written against ASTM A388/A388M-23.
Read it like a reviewer and the same document tells you what it does not cover. The impact row on page 5 is a dash in every result cell, so no impact test was run on that flange - and yet the verdict cell on that same row reads pass, which is exactly why a verdict column can never be read on its own. The metallographic row is empty too. On page 3, the eight design-document lines and the welding-procedure line are dashes, because the type test reviewed manufacturing documents rather than design and because the article is a forging with no weld. And the report's own contents page lists four attachment slots - radiographic, magnetic particle, penetrant and ultrasonic examination reports - with a dash where each page number would be, so no attachment report travels with it.
Two more lines are worth reading slowly. The ultrasonic row's result column states that the report provided by the manufacturer was reviewed and confirmed: the test body checked our UT record rather than running the ultrasonic examination itself, and that is how it should be described in any document you receive from us or from anyone else. And the declaration on the second page states, in the report's own words, that the report is valid only for the sample itself and that it is void without the personnel signatures, the test body's accreditation number and the cross-page seal. A type-test report belongs in a supplier-qualification file. The certificate that has to follow your goods is still an EN 10204 3.1 MTC written against your heat.
First-Hand Evidence
One third-party report, published whole. The figure is the last of its five report pages - the page where the measured results sit - and the link under it opens the complete PDF, cover, declaration, contents and all five pages, so the structure described above can be checked rather than taken on trust. It is a type test on an F91 flange from our own production, and the values on it belong to that grade and that sample.
Evidence 1
The verdict cell beside the empty impact row reads pass. No impact value exists anywhere in this report and we do not claim one. The remark column at the right edge lists residual elements that carry no standard limit, and its text runs past the bottom of the printed cell, so the last entries are not legible in the PDF and are not quoted on this page. Nothing here is redacted - a type test on our own production sample carries no customer, contract or order reference, and the personnel signatures are part of what makes the document valid.
Direct Answers with Evidence
What is actually inside a complete third-party test report on a forged flange?
Five numbered report pages behind a cover and a declaration: identification and test basis, sample parameters, a fifteen-line document review, then two pages of measured results with the inspector and reviewer signatures at the foot.
Evidence
- Report YSY202450082, cover: report number, equipment category and type - pressure piping components, pressure piping flange, forged steel flange, weld neck flange - model NPS4-CL150 WN-RF F91, manufacturer, and task number SL202312304891-003
- Report page 1 of 5: manufacturer name and works address, sample name and model, batch 2023-BCKC-0084, sampling base of five pieces with two sampled, manufacture and sampling date 2023-12-26, the two test-site addresses, the test basis TSG D7002-2023 with ASME B16.5-2020 and ASTM A182/A182M-23, the overall verdict, and the test body's accreditation number TS7610027-2025
- Report page 2 of 5: nominal size NPS 4, nominal pressure Class 150, material F91, forging grade IV, then a line stating that the rest of the table is blank
- Report page 3 of 5: fifteen numbered technical document review lines with a verdict against each, and the manufacturing specification named as ASME B16.5-2020
- Report pages 4 and 5 of 5: marking, appearance, sealing-face roughness, dimensional and geometric checks, the twelve-element chemistry, tensile, impact, hardness, ultrasonic and metallographic rows, the overall verdict, and signatures dated 2023-12-28 and 2024-01-11
Applies when
Use this as the shape to expect when any supplier offers a type-test report as qualification evidence. A document missing the identification page, the test basis or the signature block is not the same object.
Limits
This is a type-test report under TSG D7002-2023, not an inspection release for an order, and it describes one sampled article. The documents that travel with your goods - an EN 10204 3.1 MTC, a dimensional report, NDT or PMI records - have a different issuer, a different structure and a different scope. None of them is interchangeable with this one.
How do I tell which tests were actually performed?
Read the result cells, not the verdict column. On this report two rows carry a verdict but hold no data at all, and the report's own contents page shows four NDT attachment slots that were never filled.
Evidence
- Report page 5 of 5, impact row: the requirement column is a dash and all four result cells are dashes, so no impact test was run - and the verdict cell on that same row reads pass
- Report page 5 of 5, metallographic row: requirement, results and verdict are all dashes
- Report page 3 of 5: the eight design-document review lines and the welding-procedure line are dashes; the lines that carry a conforming verdict are the process-document, manufacturing-process-control, heat-treatment, NDT-method and inspection-acceptance lines
- The contents page lists four attachments - radiographic, magnetic particle, penetrant and ultrasonic examination reports - and prints a dash where each page number would be, so none of the four is enclosed
Applies when
Apply this to every third-party document you receive, from any supplier, before counting a test as evidence.
Limits
We cannot explain why the verdict cell on an untested row was filled in; that is how the test body's form was completed. We simply do not read it as a test result, and neither should you. The point also cuts the other way: an absent attachment report does not by itself mean no examination happened. On this article the ultrasonic examination is recorded in the body of the report instead; what the empty slot shows is that no separate NDT document travels with it.
What did the test body measure on that flange?
Chemistry across twelve elements, tensile on two specimens, hardness at six points, sealing-face roughness, dimensions and geometry, marking and appearance - every one of them inside the limits printed beside it.
Evidence
- Chemistry on specimen 23XS5129-001, spanning report pages 4 and 5: C 0.089 against 0.08-0.12, Si 0.31 against 0.20-0.40, Mn 0.40 against 0.30-0.50, P 0.0085 against 0.020 max, S below 0.0020 against 0.005 max, Cr 8.45 against 8.0-9.5, Ni 0.15 against 0.20 max, Mo 0.89 against 0.85-1.05, Nb 0.069 against 0.06-0.10, Ti below 0.0007 against 0.01 max, N 0.058 against 0.035-0.070, Al 0.0076 against 0.020 max
- Report page 5 of 5, tensile row: Rp0.2 544 and 555 MPa against a 415 MPa minimum, Rm 706 and 709 MPa against 620 MPa, elongation A 27.5% and 28.5% against 20%
- Report page 5 of 5, hardness row: 212, 218 and 210 HBW on specimen 23XS5129-001 and 219, 213 and 213 HBW on specimen 23XS5129-002, against a 190-248 HBW window on both lines
- Report page 4 of 5: sealing-face roughness Ra 5.2 and Ra 5.2 against Ra 3.2-6.3, and dimensional checks against ASME B16.5 - outside diameter 230.6 mm and 230.5 mm against 230 +2.0/-1.0, bolt-circle diameter 190.4 mm and 190.2 mm against 190.5 plus or minus 1.5, sealing-face diameter 157.5 mm and 157.4 mm against 157.2 plus or minus 1.0, thickness 22.5 mm and 22.8 mm against 22.3 +3.0/-0, flange height 75.6 mm and 75.7 mm against 75 plus or minus 1.5, facing parallelism 0.8 and 0.7 degrees against a 1 degree limit, weld-end outside diameter 114.0 mm and 114.2 mm against 114.3 +2.0/-1.0
Applies when
All of it applies to the two sampled pieces of batch 2023-BCKC-0084 only - an NPS 4 Class 150 raised-face weld neck flange in F91, forging grade IV, forged and sampled 2023-12-26 and tested at the body's Haining and Hangzhou sites between 2023-12-28 and 2024-01-11.
Limits
These values belong to F91 and to those two pieces. No impact test and no metallographic examination were run on them. Reduction of area and grain size appear nowhere in the report, and no normalizing or tempering temperature is recorded - the heat-treatment line on the document-review page is a conformity verdict with no process values behind it. The remark column listing residual elements overflows its printed cell, so its last entries cannot be read in the PDF and are not quoted here.
Is the ultrasonic examination on a report like this performed by the third party?
Not on this one. The row is titled piece-by-piece ultrasonic examination, but its result column states that the report provided by the manufacturer was reviewed and confirmed - our plant ran the UT and the test body checked the record.
Evidence
- Report page 5 of 5, non-destructive testing row: the requirement column reads piece-by-piece ultrasonic examination with results complying with ASTM A388/A388M-23; the result column reads that the report provided by the manufacturer was confirmed as meeting the requirement; the verdict is pass
- The same result wording appears on the other two type-test reports issued in the same campaign, against NB/T 47013.3-2015 Class I as the acceptance standard instead
- The report's contents page carries a slot for a separate ultrasonic examination report with a dash in place of its page number, so no UT report is enclosed
Applies when
Ask this of every NDT line on every supplier document: who held the probe, and who read the record.
Limits
This means the ultrasonic examination behind that report cannot be described as UT performed by a third party, and it is not described that way anywhere on this site. If your project needs NDT performed or witnessed by an independent body, that is a separate scope item to be priced and scheduled in the RFQ - a type-test report does not cover it.
Can a report like this replace the inspection documents on my order?
No, and the report says so itself: its declaration states that it is valid only for the sample. Your order still needs its own EN 10204 3.1 MTC, its dimensional report, and whatever NDT or PMI records you specify.
Evidence
- Report YSY202450082, declaration page, point 6: the report is valid only for the sample itself
- Same declaration, point 2: the report is void without the signatures of the testing, compiling, reviewing and approving personnel, without the test body's accreditation number and type-test seal, and without the cross-page seal
- The report belongs to type-test certificate TSXY741010027202450009, valid 2024-01-11 to 2028-01-10 under TSG D7002-2023, which leaves responsibility for keeping production consistent with the type-tested sample with the manufacturer
- The sampled article was NPS 4, Class 150, F91, batch 2023-BCKC-0084 - one size, one class, one grade, one batch
Applies when
Use it in a prequalification pack or a vendor registration, where the question is whether the supplier has been type-tested at all and what an outside body found when it was.
Limits
It is not an MTC, not a dimensional report for your parts, not a PMI record and not a third-party release note. It says nothing about your heat, your size or your pressure class. Everything you actually need with the goods still has to be listed in the RFQ, agreed before the price is fixed and issued against your order.
Source Basis
- Type-test report YSY202450082, F91 - complete PDF (Zhejiang Academy of Special Equipment Science) - the worked example on this page: every measured value comes from report pages 4 and 5, every structural statement from the cover, declaration, contents and report pages 1 to 3
- Special equipment type-test certificate TSXY741010027202450009 - the certificate the report belongs to, issued 2024-01-11 and valid to 2028-01-10
- ASME BPVC Section II Part A material conformity certificate issued by TÜV NORD - Annex I lists F91 among the SA-182/SA-182M grades assessed at our plant; a scope statement, not a test result
- ASTM A182/A182M - forged flange material specification (scope page) - the specification the chemistry, tensile and hardness limits on that report are written against
Inside type-test report YSY202450082, page by page
| Where in the report | Section as printed | What it holds | What to check on a report like this |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cover and declaration | Special Equipment Type Test Report / Declaration | Report number YSY202450082, equipment category and type, model NPS4-CL150 WN-RF F91, manufacturer, task number SL202312304891-003; then a six-point declaration stating among other things that the report is void without the personnel signatures, the accreditation number and the seals, and that it is valid only for the sample itself | That the declaration is present, and that every signature, number and seal it names is actually on the document |
| Contents page | Contents | Page references for the conclusion, sample parameters, document review and sample testing sections, followed by four attachment slots - radiographic, magnetic particle, penetrant and ultrasonic examination reports - each with a dash where the page number would be | Which attachments the form allows and which are actually enclosed; here, none of the four |
| Report page 1 of 5 | Type-test conclusion | Manufacturer name and works address, sample name and model, batch 2023-BCKC-0084, sampling base of five pieces with two sampled, manufacture and sampling date 2023-12-26, the two test-site addresses, the test basis TSG D7002-2023 with ASME B16.5-2020 and ASTM A182/A182M-23, the overall verdict, and accreditation number TS7610027-2025 | That the test basis names the standard your order is written to, and that the sampled model matches the article you are qualifying |
| Report page 2 of 5 | Sample parameters | Nominal size NPS 4, nominal pressure Class 150, material F91, forging grade IV, and a line stating that the remainder of the table is blank | Size, class, grade and forging grade - one report covers one sampled article, not a product range |
| Report page 3 of 5 | Technical document review | Fifteen numbered review lines with a verdict against each; the manufacturing specification is named as ASME B16.5-2020 and the design specification cell is a dash | Which lines carry a verdict and which are dashes; on this report the eight design-document lines and the welding-procedure line are dashes |
| Report pages 4 and 5 of 5 | Sample inspection and testing | Marking, appearance, sealing-face roughness, dimensional and geometric checks, the twelve-element chemistry, tensile, impact, hardness, ultrasonic and metallographic rows, the overall verdict, and the inspection and review signatures dated 2023-12-28 and 2024-01-11 | Every row individually - measured values are printed for some rows and nothing at all for others |
Row by row on report page 5 of 5 - what was measured on the F91 sample and what was not
| Row as printed | Requirement column | Result column | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical composition, specimen 23XS5129-001 | C 0.08-0.12, Si 0.20-0.40, Mn 0.30-0.50, P max 0.020, S max 0.005, Cr 8.0-9.5, Ni max 0.20, Mo 0.85-1.05, Nb 0.06-0.10, Ti max 0.01, N 0.035-0.070, Al max 0.020 - the first five rows sit on report page 4 | 0.089, 0.31, 0.40, 0.0085, below 0.0020, 8.45, 0.15, 0.89, 0.069, below 0.0007, 0.058, 0.0076 | Measured values printed against printed limits: this is what a usable chemistry row looks like |
| Tensile test, specimens 23XS5129-001 and -002 | Rp0.2 min 415 MPa, Rm min 620 MPa, A min 20% | 544 MPa / 555 MPa, 706 MPa / 709 MPa, 27.5% / 28.5% | Two specimens reported separately rather than averaged |
| Impact test | dash | dash in all four result cells | No impact test was performed on this flange; the verdict cell on the row nevertheless reads pass, which is why a verdict column cannot be read on its own |
| Hardness test, specimens 23XS5129-001 and -002 | 190-248 HBW on both specimen lines | 212, 218, 210 and 219, 213, 213 HBW | Three readings per specimen, each one printed |
| Non-destructive testing | Piece-by-piece ultrasonic examination with results complying with ASTM A388/A388M-23 | The report provided by the manufacturer was reviewed and confirmed as meeting the requirement | The test body reviewed our UT record rather than performing the ultrasonic examination itself - read the result column, not the row title |
| Metallographic examination | dash | dash | Not performed on this sample |
| Overall verdict and remark | - | Pass; the remark cell is a dash | The overall verdict summarises the rows that were run, not the ones that were not |
| Test-method standards | The report names TSG D7002-2023, ASME B16.5-2020 and ASTM A182/A182M-23 as its basis, and ASTM A388/A388M-23 on the ultrasonic row | No method standard is printed for the tensile, hardness or chemical analysis rows | If your specification requires results to a named test method, ask for it in writing - it cannot be recovered from this document |
Inspection Document Matrix
| Document | When to request | Evidence expected | Quotation impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimensional report | All critical flange and custom forging RFQs | Measured dimensions against drawing/table | Low to medium |
| PMI | Stainless, duplex, alloy or mixed-grade orders | PMI report or marked verification | Medium |
| UT | Heavy forgings, rings, pressure parts | UT procedure and acceptance level | Medium to high |
| MT/PT | Surface crack detection or pressure components | MT/PT report and acceptance criteria | Medium |
| Impact test | LF2 or low-temperature service | Charpy impact record | Medium |
| Third-party inspection | EPC or end-user hold point | ITP, witness report and release note | High if added late |
Practical Checklist
- MTC EN 10204 3.1 or project-specific certificate wording
- Heat number, material grade and product marking requirements
- Chemical and mechanical test values required by the standard
- Dimensional report scope and acceptance tolerance
- PMI, UT, MT, PT, hardness, impact test or other requested inspection
- Whether each test must be performed, witnessed or only reviewed by the third party, and who holds the equipment
- That every document prints measured values, not only a pass word, and carries the signatures, accreditation number and seal it depends on
- Third-party inspection agency, hold point and release document
- Document language, stamping, packing list and export document handover
Common RFQ Mistakes
- Requesting inspection documents only after the commercial price is agreed
- Comparing quotations without confirming whether NDT is included
- Leaving third-party inspection hold points undefined
- Not matching heat numbers between products, marks and certificates
- Forgetting document language, stamp or release-note requirements
- Accepting an overall pass verdict without checking which rows actually hold measured values
- Reading a row titled ultrasonic examination as an examination the third party performed
FAQ
Which inspection documents are standard for forged flange orders?
A typical set: EN 10204 3.1 material certificate, dimensional inspection report, heat treatment record, and marking/packing lists. Project orders may add PMI, UT/MT/PT reports, hardness results and third-party release notes.
What is PMI and when should it be requested?
Positive Material Identification verifies alloy composition on the finished part, usually by portable XRF. It is standard for stainless, duplex and alloy grades where material mix-up risk matters, and should be requested in the RFQ if required.
What are witness and hold points in an ITP?
An Inspection and Test Plan can define points where the buyer or third party observes a test (witness) or where production must stop until release (hold). These affect scheduling and cost, so they belong in the RFQ, not after order placement.
Do you have an example of a complete third-party report I can look at?
Report YSY202450082 is published in full on this page. The Zhejiang Academy of Special Equipment Science type-tested an NPS4 Class 150 weld neck flange in F91 from our own production in December 2023 and issued five numbered report pages behind a cover and a declaration. The figure on this page is the results page, and the buttons under it open and download the complete PDF. It is a type test on one sampled article, not an inspection release for an order, and this page states which of its rows hold measured values and which are empty.
If a report's verdict column says pass, does that mean the test was run?
No. On report YSY202450082 the impact row has a dash in the requirement column and a dash in every result cell - no impact test was performed on that flange - and the verdict cell on that same row still reads pass. Read the result cells. A row with no measured value is not evidence, whatever the verdict column says, and that applies to any supplier's document, ours included.
Is the ultrasonic examination on your flanges performed by a third party?
Not on that type-test sample, and we do not claim otherwise. The non-destructive testing row on report YSY202450082 requires piece-by-piece ultrasonic examination with results complying with ASTM A388/A388M-23, and its result column records that the report provided by the manufacturer - us - was reviewed and confirmed as meeting the requirement. Our plant ran the UT and the test body checked the record. If your project requires NDT performed or witnessed by an independent agency, list it in the RFQ as its own scope item so it can be priced and scheduled.
Author & Verification
Written by: Tom Fan, Sales Director, BLD Forge Direct (Shanxi Baolongda Forging Co., Ltd.)
Reviewed by: BLD QC Engineering Team - in-house laboratory, CNAS L24083
Last verified: 2026-09-19
Revision log
- 2026-09-19 - Added the worked example: type-test report YSY202450082 (Zhejiang Academy of Special Equipment Science) on our NPS4-CL150 WN-RF flange in F91, published whole - its data page as evidence 1 with the complete PDF attached, a page-by-page table of what the document contains, a row-by-row table of what was measured and what was not, five evidence units and this block. The rows that hold nothing are named as such: the impact row is empty although its verdict cell reads pass, the metallographic row is empty, no test-method standard is printed for tensile, hardness or chemical analysis, and the four NDT attachment slots on the contents page are unfilled. The ultrasonic line is described as our own UT report reviewed and confirmed by the test body, which is what the result column says. No value from the other two type-test reports appears on this page.
- 2026-07-09 - Inspection document checklist, document matrix and FAQ baseline version.
Send your RFQ or drawing directly to BLD Forge Direct.
Email quote@bldforgedirect.com with standard, drawing, material, quantity and inspection requirements.