DIN 267 — the German technical delivery conditions series: which parts are withdrawn, which are still in force

Scope — and what it does not cover

DIN 267 — Mechanische Verbindungselemente, Technische Lieferbedingungen — is a multi-part German series of technical delivery conditions for fasteners, and most of the parts a heat treatment and plating shop used to meet are withdrawn: the subjects moved into ISO and EN documents as those were published. Several parts are nevertheless still in force and still appear on new German drawings, which is why "DIN 267 is obsolete" is as wrong as citing the number without a part. What the series does NOT do today is tell a plater what coating to apply, how much thickness a thread can accept, or how to relieve hydrogen embrittlement — that is ISO 4042 and the coating designation systems, covered on their own pages. This page is about document status: what a German-spec number on your drawing still means, and what to write instead when it no longer means anything.

Standards are copyrighted documents. We explain scope, intent and practical application in our own words; obtain the current edition from ISO, ASTM, DIN or your national standards body.

What actually bites in production

• 1A purchase order that says only "nach DIN 267" is not a specification. The series has many parts with different subjects and different fates; without a part number and an edition date nobody can quote against it, and nobody can inspect to it.
• 2Part 9 is the one an old plating drawing almost always means, and it is withdrawn. The subject travelled to ISO 4042 for what a plated fastener must satisfy, while the coating designation moved to DIN 50979 — which DIN's own catalogue now shows as withdrawn in favour of DIN EN ISO 19598. Two hops from the drawing in your hand to the document in force, and both hops have to be made deliberately.
• 3An old Part 9 callout usually carries a hexavalent chromate colour — yellow or olive. That chemistry is exactly what the newer documents were written to replace. The requirement to reproduce is the thickness and the corrosion criterion, not the colour of a tank that no longer exists.
• 4The number DIN 267-2 survived but its subject changed underneath it. The 1984 edition was design and dimensional accuracy; the 2017-06 edition specifies surface roughness for product grades A and B. An old drawing citing DIN 267-2 and a new one citing DIN 267-2 are asking for two different things, and only the edition date tells them apart.
• 5The parts of the series that touch a coating line today are 27 and 28: screws with a pre-applied adhesive coating and screws with a prevailing-torque locking coating. Those coatings sit on top of a plated and passivated surface, so plating, de-embrittlement baking and coating application have to be sequenced and the responsibility for the function test agreed before parts move.
• 6Parts 30 and 31 cover metric thread-rolling screws of property class 10.9, Part 31 adding an additionally hardened thread-forming zone; the scope of Part 30 limits it to small diameters formed into relatively soft material, so read the size and counterpart-hardness limits from the edition in force. Class 10.9 is above the strength level at which the plating standards call for embrittlement relief, so a plated thread-former is a baking conversation, not an optional one.

What to write on the drawing or PO

• The PART number and the EDITION date, never the bare series number: "DIN 267-2:2017-06", not "DIN 267".
• If the intent behind an old DIN 267 line is plating, restate the requirement in current terms: coating metal, minimum local thickness in µm, passivation type, sealer or none, and the corrosion criterion with its test standard.
• Whether a legacy hexavalent chromate appearance has to be approximated in a Cr(VI)-free system, and which property actually governs acceptance if the two cannot both be met — appearance, thickness or salt spray.
• The de-embrittlement bake for the strength class involved: temperature, minimum hold and the maximum delay allowed after plating.
• If Part 27 or Part 28 applies: who applies the locking or adhesive coating, in what sequence relative to plating and baking, and who performs and reports the function test.
• If Part 2 applies: which surfaces the roughness requirement covers and the value required — a rolled, drawn or forged surface is not made smoother by electroplating, and the requirement has to be met before the part reaches the tank.

What goes wrong when it is cited loosely

• Writing "DIN 267" alone on a drawing or purchase order. There is no single document behind the number, so the line is unquotable and later becomes an argument about what was meant.
• Sending a Part 9 code to a Cr(VI)-free line and judging the result by colour. The old code and the current chemistry cannot be matched letter for letter; they can only be matched requirement for requirement.
• Treating the whole series as dead. Parts 2, 13, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 were in force when we checked, and refusing a drawing because "DIN 267 is old" quietly throws away a real, current requirement.
• Assuming an old drawing's DIN 267-2 means today's DIN 267-2. One is dimensional accuracy, the other is surface roughness — the same number, two different requirements.
• Copying a status from a supplier catalogue or a forum post. Statuses change; the only defensible source is the standards body's own current entry, and that is worth re-checking before the requirement goes into a contract.