A Valve Data Book is the controlled documentation package that valve manufacturers compile for project handover in EPC oil and gas, petrochemical, power, water, and industrial pipeline projects.
It is the primary evidence file for each delivered valve. A complete Data Book links the purchase order, valve tag, serial number, material heat number, inspection records, pressure test results, certificates, and final release status into one traceable package.
A properly compiled Valve Data Book helps the owner, EPC contractor, and third-party inspector verify each valve without searching through disconnected certificates, test sheets, and scanned files.
In project handover work, repeated document queries usually come from the same causes: missing heat-number traceability, unclear NDE acceptance references, wrong test pressure, expired gauge calibration, unsigned records, or inconsistent tag and serial numbers. The purpose of the Data Book is to remove those gaps before the documents reach the client.
| Data Book Area | What It Proves | Main Review Risk |
|---|---|---|
| MTRs | Material grade, heat number, chemical composition, mechanical properties, heat treatment, and traceability to the supplied valve parts. | Wrong heat number, missing certificate validation, or material values outside the purchase order or material standard. |
| NDE Reports | Inspection evidence for castings, forgings, welds, overlays, and other pressure-retaining parts without damaging the valve. | Missing procedure number, unclear acceptance criteria, outdated standard edition, or no inspection sketch. |
| Test Records | Pressure-boundary integrity, seat leakage performance, functional testing, torque evidence, and instrument calibration traceability. | Wrong pressure, missing hold time, missing leakage result, expired gauge calibration, or incomplete TPI witness signature. |
| Final Certification | Inspection release status, conformity declaration, document-control completeness, and certified-copy status. | Missing stamps, wrong revision, inconsistent tag numbers, or serial numbers that do not match the nameplate photo. |
Document Inventory
MTR Compilation
Mill Test Reports (MTRs), often supplied as EN 10204 Type 3.1 or Type 3.2 inspection certificates, form the backbone of any Valve Data Book. EN 10204 defines the types of inspection documents used to confirm that supplied metallic products comply with the order requirements [1].
Each MTR should document the chemical composition, mechanical properties, heat treatment condition, and heat number for the pressure-containing and pressure-retaining parts required by the purchase order, ITP, and product standard. Metallic trim should also be traceable when the project specification or valve standard requires it.
- Body.
- Bonnet or cover.
- End flanges or end connections.
- Ball, disc, gate, or plug when specified as metallic trim.
- Stem and metallic seats when required by the project specification.
- Yield strength, tensile strength, elongation, impact values where applicable, hardness, and heat treatment condition.
For API 6D ball valves, the material records should cover the parent material and any pressure-retaining weld overlay, hard-facing, or seat-surface deposit when those items are part of the approved design, ITP, or purchase order requirements [2].
In one batch of 200 Class 600 forged valves prepared for a gas processing EPC package in Malaysia, three MTRs listed the wrong heat number across duplicate body halves. If that discrepancy had reached the client, the package would have failed the material traceability review even though the physical valves had already passed pressure testing.
Each MTR should be cross-referenced against the purchase order material specification and the applicable ASTM, ASME, EN, ISO, MSS, or project material standard.
- ASTM A105/A105M is commonly used for forged carbon steel piping components such as flanges, fittings, valves, and similar parts for pressure systems at ambient and higher-temperature service conditions [3].
- ASTM A182/A182M is commonly used for forged or rolled alloy and stainless-steel flanges, fittings, valves, and parts for high-temperature service [4].
- ASTM A350/A350M is commonly used for carbon and low-alloy steel forged or ring-rolled flanges, fittings, and valves intended primarily for low-temperature service and requiring notch toughness testing [5].
A practical way to reduce MTR review delays is to create an MTR summary table. The table lets the TPI reviewer trace each valve serial number to the correct heat number, material grade, certificate page, and applicable material standard without searching through the full certificate stack. ISO 9001 guidance on documented information supports controlling records so that required evidence remains identifiable and available [6].
| MTR Summary Column | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Valve tag number | Connects the document set to the project line item. |
| Valve serial number | Connects the document set to one physical valve. |
| Part name | Shows whether the record applies to the body, bonnet, stem, ball, seat ring, or another part. |
| Heat number | Confirms material traceability back to the mill certificate. |
| Material grade | Confirms compliance with the purchase order and project specification. |
| Certificate page reference | Helps the reviewer find the supporting MTR quickly. |
When compiling MTRs, check the certificate validation requirements carefully.
- EN 10204 Type 3.1 certificates are validated by the manufacturer’s authorized inspection representative, independent of the manufacturing department.
- EN 10204 Type 3.2 certificates require validation by the manufacturer’s authorized inspection representative and either the purchaser’s authorized representative or the inspector designated by official regulations.
A certificate that only carries a generic “Witnessed” stamp without a printed inspector name, position, date, or authorized signature can be challenged during document review. The safest practice is to confirm the client’s certificate validation expectations before MTR submission.
In a refinery expansion package in Thailand, the client’s engineering consultant flagged six MTRs where the tensile strength was within the required range but the elongation value fell below the ASTM A105/A105M requirement for the ordered material condition. The affected valves were quarantined until retesting and document re-issue were completed.
For non-metallic seats, seals, gaskets, O-rings, and soft goods, a traditional metallic MTR is normally not available. These items should instead be supported by a manufacturer’s certificate of conformance, material designation, batch number, shelf-life information where applicable, and storage condition evidence when required by the project specification.
Further reading: EN 10204 3.1 material test report interpretation.
NDE Reports
Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) reports validate the soundness of valve castings, forgings, welds, weld overlays, and selected pressure-retaining parts without damaging the finished valve.
The most common NDE methods in valve manufacturing include radiographic testing (RT), ultrasonic testing (UT), magnetic particle testing (MT), and liquid penetrant testing (PT). Method standards define how the examination is performed. Acceptance criteria must come from the governing product code, purchase specification, approved ITP, or project-specific acceptance standard.
| NDE Method | Common Standard Reference | Typical Use in Valve Manufacturing |
|---|---|---|
| Radiographic testing (RT) | ASTM E94/E94M, ASME BPVC Section V Article 2, or project-approved equivalent [7] | Checks internal discontinuities in pressure-containing castings, welds, and selected weld overlays. |
| Ultrasonic testing (UT) | ASTM E213 for metal pipe and tubing, ASTM A388/A388M for steel forgings, ASME BPVC Section V Article 4, or project-approved equivalent [8] | Checks volumetric discontinuities in tubes, forgings, welds, and selected pressure-retaining parts. |
| Magnetic particle testing (MT) | ASTM E709, ASTM E1444/E1444M, ASME BPVC Section V Article 7, or project-approved equivalent [9] | Checks surface and near-surface discontinuities in ferromagnetic materials. |
| Liquid penetrant testing (PT) | ASTM E165/E165M, ASME BPVC Section V Article 6, or project-approved equivalent [10] | Checks discontinuities open to the surface on non-porous metallic and non-metallic materials. |
For forged metal-seated valve bodies, pressure-containing castings, weld overlays, and repair welds, the inspection scope should follow the project ITP and the approved quality plan. A manufacturer may adopt enhanced internal inspection rules, but those rules should not be presented as mandatory API or ASME requirements unless the governing standard or purchase specification actually requires them.
In our workshop, we use enhanced inspection controls for higher-risk parts. For example, selected pressure-containing castings rated Class 600 and above may receive 100% RT when required by the ITP, while forged components may receive MT at defined manufacturing stages such as rough machining, finish machining, and final inspection. The exact scope is always tied to the approved inspection plan.
We adopted this approach after a Class 1500 valve body from a subcontractor showed surface and near-surface indications on the flange sealing face during MT. The issue was treated as an inspection hold point because the sealing surface condition could affect final assembly and pressure test confidence.
Each NDE report should include clear technical references and reviewer-friendly evidence.
- Procedure number, such as RT-P-001 or MT-P-003.
- Examination method, technique, equipment, consumables, and sensitivity or calibration details where applicable.
- Acceptance criteria from the applicable product code, casting standard, weld standard, project specification, or purchaser-approved ITP.
- Operator Level II or Level III qualification evidence according to the project-approved personnel qualification scheme.
- Drawing, weld map, casting sketch, or marked photograph showing the examined area.
- Report number, part number, heat number, serial number, tag number, inspection date, result, and reviewer approval.
One common Data Book audit issue is an NDE report that only references “ASME Section V” without stating the article, method, edition, procedure number, or acceptance criteria. ASME B16.34 covers valve requirements including materials, nondestructive examination, testing, and marking, while ASME BPVC Section V provides nondestructive examination rules when invoked by the construction code or project specification [11] [12].
The better practice is to write the complete reference, for example: “RT performed according to ASME BPVC Section V Article 2, project-specified edition, Procedure RT-P-001; acceptance criteria according to approved ITP Clause 6.2 and purchase specification Appendix B.”
Weld maps or inspection sketches are important because they show exactly where the inspection took place. A report that lists “RT accepted” without film location, weld joint identification, or traceable sketch forces the reviewer to guess whether the correct area was examined.
For cryogenic and low-temperature service valves, additional material, design, NDE, and pressure-testing requirements may apply when the project specification cites MSS SP-134, ISO 28921, or legacy BS 6364 requirements. MSS SP-134 covers valves for cryogenic service, and ISO 28921 addresses isolating valves for low-temperature applications. BS 6364:1984 has been withdrawn by BSI, so it should only be used when the contract or legacy project specification explicitly requires it [13] [14] [15].
Low-temperature service documentation may include Charpy V-Notch impact test certificates, weld procedure impact evidence, low-temperature sealing test records, cryogenic test records, and additional marking or cleaning records when specified. These documents should be placed in a dedicated subsection so the reviewer can confirm the low-temperature requirements without searching through unrelated reports.
Further reading: Forged ball valve structure and working principle, forging process and inspection quality.
Test Records
Test records form the performance evidence section of the Valve Data Book. They show that the valve pressure boundary, seats, closure member, stem sealing system, and operating mechanism were tested according to the governing standard and project requirements.
The mandatory minimum normally includes shell pressure test, seat leakage test, and functional checks. Fire-safe tests, fugitive emission tests, cryogenic tests, torque tests, antistatic tests, cavity relief tests, and cycle tests are added when required by the product standard, purchase order, or project specification.
| Test Record | Typical Requirement | Information That Must Be Recorded |
|---|---|---|
| Shell hydrostatic test | API 6D, API 598, ISO 5208, ASME B16.34, or project specification. For many steel valves, the shell test pressure is based on 1.5 times the applicable pressure rating at 38°C / 100°F, with rounding as required by the governing standard. | Test pressure, hold time, medium, temperature, gauge ID, calibration expiry date, acceptance result, and witness status. |
| Seat leakage test | API 598, API 6D, ISO 5208, or project specification. High-pressure closure tests are commonly based on 1.1 times the applicable pressure rating at 38°C / 100°F when that test is required. | Test side, test pressure, test medium, leakage rate or acceptance class, hold time, and result. |
| Functional test | Product standard, project specification, or actuator vendor procedure. | Opening and closing operation, stem movement, travel stop setting, actuator response, limit switch setting, and abnormal operating condition if any. |
| Fire-safe test | API 607, API 6FA, API 6FD, ISO 10497, or project-approved equivalent, depending on valve type, seat design, and service. | Certificate number, issuing laboratory or certification body, test standard, edition, test scope, covered valve size/class range, and design coverage. |
API 598 covers valve inspection and testing requirements, ISO 5208 specifies pressure testing of metallic industrial valves, and ASME B16.34 covers pressure-temperature ratings and valve testing requirements for flanged, threaded, and welding-end valves within its scope [16] [17] [18].
Each test record should list the test pressure, hold time, measured leakage rate or leakage class, test medium, test temperature, gauge identification number, calibration expiry date, test date, and witness status.
- Water is commonly used for shell hydrostatic testing unless the specification permits another medium.
- Air, nitrogen, inert gas, water, or another permitted fluid may be used for seat testing depending on the standard and project specification.
- Temperature should be recorded as a numerical value instead of only “ambient”.
- Gauge calibration must be valid on the date of the test.
- The gauge range should be suitable for the recorded test pressure and the project calibration procedure.
For a detailed walkthrough, see our guide on API 6D testing requirements.
On one Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) topside module package in Singapore, the TPI rejected 48 test records because the test-fluid temperature was recorded only as “ambient.” That created a traceability problem because the reviewer could not confirm the actual test condition or compare the test record against the project procedure.
The required test pressure should be calculated from the governing test standard, pressure-temperature rating basis, material group, standard edition, and project specification. It should not be calculated from the nominal class number alone. For example, a Class 600 valve should never be tested at 600 psi simply because the pressure class is called “Class 600.”
For a common ASME Class 600 carbon-steel rating basis, the shell test pressure is approximately 2.2 ksi before the applicable rounding rule. Some API 6D legacy schedules and project specifications may show different published values, so the final value should always be checked against the contractually applicable standard edition and valve material group before release.
Beyond shell and seat leakage tests, torque records are important for actuated valves. A complete torque record should show break torque, running torque, reseating torque where applicable, test condition, pressure condition, actuator model, safety factor or sizing margin, and the actuator vendor sizing sheet.
A 25-30% actuator sizing margin is often used as a project or actuator-vendor practice where service conditions justify it, but it is not a universal rule. The final sizing basis should follow the actuator vendor calculation, valve torque data, safety factor required by the project specification, service temperature, differential pressure, and operating frequency.
For high-cycle applications, cycle life records should show the number of cycles achieved, test pressure or differential pressure, operating medium, inspection interval, measured leakage after each interval, seat condition, and final acceptance result. If leakage is checked every 10,000 cycles, the record should clearly show the leakage trend and acceptance limit at each checkpoint.
The most useful test certificate indexes map each test record to the valve tag number, serial number, purchase order clause, applicable standard clause, gauge calibration certificate, and TPI witness signature.
Photographic logs can also reduce re-test queries when they are controlled properly.
- Show the gauge reading clearly.
- Show the valve tag or serial number.
- Show the test rig and connection arrangement.
- Link the photo number to the test record number.
- Keep the photo timestamp consistent with the test date.
A photo is not a substitute for a signed test record, but it is useful supporting evidence when the reviewer needs to confirm that the test record belongs to the correct valve.
Further reading: API 6D shell test, seat test, functional test.
Organization Format
Organize by Tag Number
Organizing the Data Book by tag number is one of the most effective ways to reduce document retrieval time during project handover.
Instead of compiling all MTRs in one section, all NDE reports in another section, and all test records in a third section, a tag-number-based structure groups every required document for one valve tag together. This lets the reviewer verify one physical valve from material traceability through final release without jumping between separate volumes.
We use a format where each valve receives its own tabbed divider with the tag number, valve type, serial number, and a summary card listing the document count per category.
| Divider Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Tag number | HV-101. |
| Valve type | 12″ Class 600 metal-seated ball valve. |
| Serial number | SN-24-600-101. |
| Summary card | Document count per category with review status. |
This tagging approach pairs naturally with the valve specification sheet methodology used in EPC data sheets.
In a project with 340 actuated valves across five refinery units, the tag-based structure allowed the EPC document controller to complete first-pass verification faster because each valve package could be reviewed as a complete evidence set.
Within each tag section, the recommended document sequence is:
- Valve data sheet or approved drawing.
- MTR summary and supporting MTRs.
- NDE reports and inspection sketches.
- Pressure test and functional test records.
- Assembly drawing, actuator setting sheet, and wiring diagram where applicable.
- Inspection release note (IRN), certificate of conformity, and nameplate photo.
This order reflects the way many inspectors review a valve package: first confirm the ordered design, then material traceability, then inspection evidence, then performance testing, then final release status.
The tag number on the physical valve nameplate must match the tag number on the divider, drawing, test record, certificate, and packing list.
In a UAE gas plant package, 12 body serial number plates were swapped during final assembly. The valves passed testing, but the document package failed because the tag-to-serial-number cross-check did not match the MTR and test records. The issue required a full physical and document reconciliation before the package could be released.
A control index at the front of the Data Book prevents this type of error from being hidden until final review.
- List every tag number.
- List every valve serial number.
- List the number of documents required for each tag.
- Add a revision status column.
- Add a review status column for the client or TPI.
- Add a document controller sign-off column.
The index should be updated whenever a page is replaced, a certificate is re-issued, or a test record is revised. Otherwise, the Data Book may contain correct records but still fail document-control review because the index no longer matches the contents.
Further reading: valve data sheet field guide for EPC projects.
Electronic and Hard Copies
Many EPC projects still require both electronic and hard-copy submission of the Valve Data Book, while other projects now accept fully electronic handover through an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). The purchase order, VDRL, MDR, and document-control procedure should define the final submission format.
| Submission Format | Recommended Layout | Common Problem to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Electronic copy | One indexed PDF per volume, with bookmarks that mirror the tag-number organization. | Loose image files, unsearchable scans, or bookmarks that do not match the index. |
| Hard copy | Project-specified number of identical A4 sets, often bound in D-ring folders. | Glued spines that make document replacement difficult during review. |
| Large project volumes | Multiple indexed PDF volumes organized by unit, area, valve type, tag range, or package number. | Oversized files that exceed the EPC document management system limit. |
The industrial forged ball valve documentation packages we deliver generally follow an electronic-first approach, with hard copies produced only when the purchase order or client document-control procedure requires them.
The recommended PDF settings include searchable text, clear bookmarks, page numbers, revision-controlled file names, and scanned pages that are legible at normal zoom. OCR is helpful, but OCR errors should not replace manual checking of heat numbers, serial numbers, and test values.
I have seen a 300-page Data Book that could not be searched because every MTR had been scanned as a JPEG image and embedded into a PDF without OCR. The client document team had to manually re-type heat numbers into its review log, which created avoidable delay and additional transcription risk.
Each PDF volume should be submitted as one indexed file rather than loose image files. If the EDMS has file-size limits, split the Data Book into multiple indexed volumes by unit, area, valve type, or tag range.
For hard copies, a common project requirement is three identical A4 sets bound in D-ring folders for easy document replacement during review. This is a project practice, not a universal industry rule. The actual number of sets and binding format should follow the purchase order and VDRL.
Each folder should include a spine label with the project name, purchase order number, Data Book volume number, document number, and revision status, such as “Rev 0 — For Review” or “Rev 1 — Approved for Construction Records.”
Some clients require color-coded spine labels or stickers.
- Green for approved files.
- Yellow for files under review.
- Red for rejected or resubmitted files.
When the project handover procedure requires site records to be merged into the final Data Book, reserve a section for commissioning and installation documents.
- Bolted connection torque values.
- Flange alignment records.
- As-left test results after installation.
- Site preservation and storage records.
- Installation photographs.
The EPC contractor usually fills this section during commissioning, but the manufacturer should leave the document placeholders in the correct location when the final handover format requires them.
For reference on how test documentation flows into the supply chain, see our API certified manufacturers guide.
A practical readability issue appears often in scanned MTRs. Some steel mills issue certificates at small paper sizes or with dense 7-point tables. When these certificates are reduced or scanned poorly, the heat number, chemical composition, and mechanical property rows become illegible.
Our workaround is to scan each MTR at 300 DPI minimum and add a 200% enlargement of the critical data block as a facing page when the original certificate is difficult to read.
- Chemical composition rows.
- Mechanical property rows.
- Heat number and material grade area.
- Heat treatment condition.
- Certificate validation signature and stamp.
Further reading: forged vs cast valve body under strict inspection.
Signatures and Stamps Complete
A Valve Data Book is only as valid as the signatures, stamps, approvals, and revision controls on its constituent documents.
The required signature level depends on the purchase order, ITP, MDR, document-control procedure, and TPI involvement. At minimum, controlled quality records should show who performed the activity, who reviewed it, who approved it, and when the record was issued.
- MTRs.
- NDE reports.
- Pressure test records.
- Functional test records.
- Calibration certificates.
- Drawings and data sheets.
- Inspection release notes.
- Certificates of conformity.
The signature hierarchy often follows three levels.
- Inspector or technician who performed the test or inspection.
- Reviewer, usually the quality engineer or NDE Level III where applicable.
- Approver, usually the quality manager or authorized signatory.
Blue ink is commonly used for original hard-copy signatures because it helps distinguish original signatures from photocopies. If the project uses electronic signatures, the document-control procedure should define how electronic approval, access control, and revision history are managed.
For an end-to-end view of how factory inspection documentation is structured, read our guide on customer factory inspection process.
One Korean EPC rejected a Data Book because a test record carried an “APPROVED” stamp but did not identify the approving authority. The client treated this as a document-control gap because the approval status and responsible person were not clearly controlled.
ISO guidance on documented information explains that QMS documents and records must be controlled according to ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.5 requirements, including availability, suitability, and protection where applicable [19].
Date stamps require special attention. The test date on each record must fall within the calibration validity period of the equipment used, and the calibration certificate for that equipment must itself be traceable and current on the test date.
| Document Date Check | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Test date | Confirms when the valve was tested. |
| Calibration date | Confirms when the gauge or instrument was calibrated. |
| Calibration expiry date | Confirms the gauge or instrument was valid on the test date. |
| Gauge ID | Connects the test record to the correct calibration certificate. |
| Certificate number | Confirms the calibration evidence can be retrieved and audited. |
In a refinery project in Vietnam, the TPI noted that a pressure gauge had been calibrated on 15 January, but the hydrostatic test record was dated 12 January. That date gap triggered an NCR until the manufacturer demonstrated that the gauge had been cross-checked against a master gauge before the test. Since then, we block expired equipment from test use and schedule calibration before the first planned test window.
For certified copies of the Data Book submitted to the client, the manufacturer’s authorized representative should sign and stamp the title page. The representative may also sign and stamp each document section divider with a statement such as “Certified True Copy,” including the date, signatory name, and designation.
For European projects under the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 2014/68/EU, conformity assessment, notified body involvement, technical documentation, and EU declaration of conformity requirements must be handled according to the applicable PED category and conformity assessment module. The European Commission describes PED 2014/68/EU as applying to the design, manufacture, and conformity assessment of stationary pressure equipment with maximum allowable pressure greater than 0.5 bar [20].
Valve manufacturers with export experience understand that complete quality documentation is not only a handover formality. It is part of the evidence that allows the EPC contractor, owner, inspection agency, and regulatory reviewer to confirm that the delivered valve matches the ordered design and conformity route.
Further reading: ball valve applications in oil and gas pipelines.
Submission and Acceptance
What the Owner Reviews
The owner or EPC contractor’s document review team typically checks the Valve Data Book through completeness review, technical compliance review, and data cross-verification.
| Review Stage | What the Owner Checks | Common Failure Example |
|---|---|---|
| Completeness check | Every document listed in the index is present, readable, signed, stamped, and in the correct revision. | The index lists 14 documents for a tag, but only 12 are included. |
| Technical compliance audit | Material grades, NDE scope, test pressures, hold times, leakage rates, calibration records, and acceptance criteria match the specified codes and project requirements. | A valve is tested below the required shell test pressure or the leakage class is not recorded. |
| Data cross-verification | Tag number, serial number, heat number, PO line item, data sheet, MTR, test record, nameplate photo, and packing list match. | The MTR heat number or serial number does not match the test record or nameplate photo. |
During the completeness check, the reviewer confirms that every document listed in the Data Book index is physically or electronically present. The reviewer also checks that the document count per tag matches the purchase order and that required signatures, stamps, and revision marks are included.
This stage is often the fastest to fail. I have seen Data Books rejected within 30 minutes because the index listed documents that were not actually included in the package.
The technical compliance audit examines whether material records, NDE records, pressure test records, leakage acceptance, calibration evidence, and final certification conform to the specified codes and project requirements.
For example, the reviewer may verify that a Class 600 valve was hydrotested at the correct shell test pressure. The correct value depends on the governing standard, pressure-temperature rating table, material group, rounding rule, product standard, and project specification. It should not be calculated from the nominal class number itself. API 598, ISO 5208, ASME B16.34, and API 6D should be checked according to the edition and scope invoked by the contract [21] [22] [23] [24].
The same review applies to seat leakage testing. The test side, test pressure, medium, hold time, leakage result, and acceptance class must be clear. A record that only states “seat test passed” without leakage value or acceptance reference may fail review even if the valve physically passed the test.
This check supports compliance with API 6D ball valve specifications.
The final cross-verification step checks that all identification numbers link consistently from the purchase order line item through the data sheet, MTR, NDE report, test record, nameplate photograph, packing list, and final certificate.
In a gas terminal project in Bangladesh, a third-party auditor discovered that 22 valve serial numbers did not match between the MTR and the pressure test record. The issue was traced to a batch of forged bodies where the supplier re-stamped serial numbers after heat treatment. The valves could not be released until the manufacturer restored traceability through physical inspection, heat-number verification, and corrected document issue.
Calibration validity is another frequently audited area. The owner’s engineer may sample pressure test records and verify that the attached gauge calibration certificate was valid on the test date. If the gauge ID on the test record does not match the calibration certificate, the test record can be challenged.
We place the calibration certificate for each gauge directly after the first test record that uses it, then add cross-references for later records using the same gauge. This saves the reviewer from flipping to a separate calibration section and reduces the risk of missing calibration evidence.
A FAT witness checklist can also help bridge the gap between factory test records and owner review expectations. The checklist should reference the exact purchase order clause, ITP line item, witness point, acceptance standard, and record number.
Further reading: pre-production document confirmation for custom valves, ball valve manufacturer selection criteria.
How to Supplement Missing Documents
Missing documents can appear during Data Book compilation, especially when multiple subcontractors are involved in material supply, casting, forging, machining, welding, coating, assembly, and testing.
An incomplete Data Book should never be submitted as if it were complete.
If a required document is not ready, mark the missing item with a controlled placeholder page stating “TO BE PROVIDED,” the expected delivery date, the reason for delay, and the responsible person or department. The placeholder should appear in the index so the client can see that the omission is controlled rather than hidden.
| Missing Item | Correct Action | What Not to Do |
|---|---|---|
| MTR from a steel mill | Issue a material traceability hold notice and request a re-issued certificate with correct heat-number traceability. | Use an unverified certificate from another heat, batch, or supplier. |
| Lost or damaged test record | Repeat the test where technically possible and issue a new test record with explanatory remarks and revision control. | Recreate the test record from memory or estimate pressure, leakage, or hold time values. |
| Pending fire-safe certificate | Include the laboratory order confirmation, scheduled test date, applicable standard, covered valve design, and provisional status page. | Claim fire-safe approval before the certificate or report is issued. |
| Missing calibration certificate | Retrieve the original calibration record or remove the affected test equipment record from use until traceability is restored. | Attach a calibration certificate for a different gauge or a later calibration date that does not cover the test date. |
For missing MTRs from steel mills, we issue a formal material traceability hold notice and request a corrected or re-issued certificate from the mill or authorized distributor. The expected re-issue date should be confirmed in writing and tracked in the Data Book action list.
For test records that are genuinely lost or damaged, the correct procedure is to repeat the test where technically possible and issue a new test record with explanatory remarks. If the test cannot be repeated because the valve has already shipped or the test condition cannot be recreated, the issue should be escalated through the project NCR or deviation process rather than solved by reconstructing values from memory.
Never estimate gauge readings, leakage values, hold times, or witness status. Fabricated records can trigger a full quality-system audit, client suspension, shipment hold, or contract claim.
I recall one Southeast Asian project where a quality manager attempted to recreate a hydrostatic test record from memory after the original file was lost. The client discovered the fabrication when it compared the reported test duration against the calibrated data logger record. The result was a full audit, a long delivery delay, and removal of the quality manager from the project.
The honest approach would have been to document the missing record, perform a controlled retest, and issue the new test record with a deviation note.
Suppliers with consistent API compliance in quality systems avoid these pitfalls by treating missing records as controlled quality events rather than clerical problems.
For fire-safe test reports, the applicable standard may be API 607, API 6FA, API 6FD, ISO 10497, or another project-approved equivalent. API 607 applies to fire testing of quarter-turn valves and valves equipped with non-metallic seats; API 6FA is used for fire testing of API 6A and API 6D valves; API 6FD addresses fire testing for check valves; ISO 10497 specifies fire type-testing requirements and a fire type-test method for valves under pressure [25] [26] [27] [28].
If the final fire-safe certificate has not been issued when the Data Book is due, include the laboratory order confirmation, scheduled test date, applicable standard, valve design scope, test size and class, and a clear provisional status page. The final certificate should be added by controlled revision once received.
Further reading: API 607 fire test procedures for ball valves.
Warranty Period Archival Requirements
Warranty and document-retention obligations for Valve Data Books are contract-driven. Common EPC clauses may refer to 12 months after commissioning or mechanical completion, or 18 months after delivery or shipment, whichever occurs first, but the signed purchase order and contract conditions govern the actual trigger.
During the warranty period, the manufacturer should retain the complete master set of all Data Book documents in a controlled environment. The documented retention policy should define storage location, access control, backup frequency, retrieval responsibility, and destruction rules after the retention period expires.
ISO 9001 documented-information guidance supports controlling QMS documents and retained records so that evidence remains available, suitable for use, and protected throughout the required retention period [29].
We store master Data Books in a fire-resistant on-site archive and an encrypted cloud backup with geographic redundancy. This is our internal practice, not a universal ISO requirement. The important point is that the records must remain retrievable, legible, protected, and controlled for the required period.
For more context on quality documentation expectations, see our quality control and document traceability.
During the warranty period, the manufacturer may be required to respond to document retrieval requests within a defined timeframe.
- Routine document retrieval may be required within several working days.
- Safety-critical or shutdown-related document requests may require same-day or next-day response.
- The exact response time should follow the contract, warranty clause, or client document-control procedure.
A digital archive with full-text search capability allows documents to be located by tag number, serial number, heat number, purchase order number, certificate number, or test record number.
An often-overlooked warranty obligation is the replacement of Data Book pages lost or damaged during site activity. If the site team loses MTR pages, pressure test records, or calibration certificates during installation or commissioning, the manufacturer should be able to reissue controlled copies from the master archive.
Under some contracts, delay in replacing required records can trigger document hold points, warranty remedies, or commercial claims. Treat document retrieval as an active warranty responsibility rather than an administrative afterthought.
After warranty expiry, retention may continue for a contractually defined period. Some projects require 10 years from project completion, while others define a longer period based on local regulation, owner standards, safety classification, or regulatory conformity requirements.
For European PED-related projects, manufacturers must keep the required technical documentation and EU declaration of conformity for the period required by PED 2014/68/EU. The PED framework requires technical documentation and conformity evidence to be available to market surveillance authorities where applicable [30].
For process piping projects, examination and inspection records should be retained according to the applicable piping code, owner’s engineering standard, project quality plan, and local regulatory requirements. Avoid assuming a single retention period unless it is stated in the signed contract or governing project procedure.
At Data Book handover, we advise clients in writing if the manufacturer’s digital master archive will be destroyed after the contractual retention period. This gives the client the opportunity to request a complete archive copy before the destruction date.
Further reading: high-pressure forged ball valve selection guide.
Preparing a Valve Data Book that passes client review on the first submission requires systematic document management, rigorous cross-verification of material traceability, and careful control of signatures, calibration records, test evidence, and revision status.
From our project experience delivering more than 8,500 valves across 25+ countries since 2020, the difference between a smooth handover and a rejection-and-resubmission cycle most often comes down to three control points.
- MTR heat number consistency across all pressure-containing, pressure-retaining, and specified trim components.
- NDE reports with complete procedure references, examination sketches, acceptance criteria, and edition years.
- Test records with full traceability from gauge calibration to the recorded pressure, hold time, leakage result, and witness signature.
When the Data Book is organized by tag number, supported by searchable electronic files, verified against the purchase order and ITP, and controlled through a clear revision process, the owner can review each valve package with confidence.
- Organize each valve package by tag number.
- Build an MTR summary table before document submission.
- Verify NDE method standards and acceptance criteria separately.
- Calculate pressure test values from the applicable standard edition and material rating basis.
- Attach valid calibration evidence to the test records that use each instrument.
- Confirm that signatures, stamps, revision numbers, and dates are complete.
- Keep electronic copies searchable, indexed, and controlled.
These steps help project teams reduce document rejection, shorten client review time, and hand over valve packages with traceable evidence from material receipt to final release.
