ASME SECTION VIII, DIVISION 1 INTERPRETATIONS

psithurismaccountantUrban and Civil

Nov 29, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

3,243 views

ASME SECTION VIII, DIVISION 1 INTERPRETATIONS


NOTE: THESE INTERPRETATIONS ARE FOR ASME COMMITTEE USE ONLY.
THEY ARE NOT TO BE DUPLICATED OR USED FOR OTHER THAN ASME
COMMITTEE BUSINESS.



WARNING:

THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN
THIS DOCUMENT. PLEASE REVIEW THE ACTUAL INTERPRETATION FOR THE
EXACT WORDING.



TO GET A PRINTED COPY OF AN INTERPRETATION, FIRST HIGHLIGHT
THE PORTION DESIRED, THEN GOTO
F
ile ON THE TOOLBAR, THEN
P
rint...

,
THEN HIGHLIGHT THE DOT AT THE (Selectio
n

BUTTON, FINALLY PRESS THE
OK BUTTON.
BE CAREFUL NOT TO PRINT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT
.


Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
01

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, U
-
1(c)(3)

Date Issued:

January 7, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Wh
at is the correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to U
-
1(c)(3) as
it relates
-
to the manufacture and stamping of compressor casings?


Reply:


The Scope of the present Code and the laws and regulations of some jurisdictions exclude
rot
ating equipment under their definition of pressure vessels. The rules in Section VIII, Division 1 as
presently written, may not be complete for the pressure retaining parts of such objects.



If a Code "U" symbol is desired, particular attention should be

given to the requirements
of UG
-
22. It may be necessary to apply the provisions of U
-
2(g) or UG
-
101.



In accordance with U
-
1(1) such objects may be stamped with the Code "U" symbol
provided that all requirements are satisfied.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
02

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
51(a)(3)

Date Issued:

January 7, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

With reference to UW
-
51(a)(3) is it permissible to qualify radiographic personnel in
accordance with SNT
-
TC
-
1A by means of certification by an outside orga
nization, such as the Canadian
Government Standards Board?


Reply:


It is not the intent of UW
-
51(a)(3) to permit qualification of radiographic personnel by
anyone other than the Manufacturer of the vessel involved. This would not preclude testing of
radiographic personnel by an outside agency such as that which you have described as long as the vessel
Manufacturer takes the final responsibility for certifying his personnel.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
03

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UNF
-
58

Date I
ssued:

January 18, 1977

File:


NA


Question 1:

Does UNF
-
58(c) apply to all welded joints and vessels, including those joining
nonpressure parts?


Reply 1:

UNF
-
58(c) applies to all welds in vessels or vessel parts constructed of materials
conforming to the
specifications listed.


Question 2:

Is it intended that UNF
-
58(c) requires that all finished surfaces of welds not required to
be radiographed be examined by the liquid penetrant method?


Reply 2:

Affirmative.


Question 3:

What are the provisions of UNF
-
58
(a) and (b) with regard to the types of joints and
method of liquid penetrant examination of all finished surfaces of welds?


Reply 3:

It is intended that UNF
-
58(a) and (b) apply to all joints in vessels constructed of the
materials described in those para
graphs and the method of liquid penetrant examination is such that all
finished surfaces of welds are required to be examined.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
04

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
84(c)(5)(b), Table UG
-
84.1 and Table UG
-
84.2

Date Issued:

Jan
uary 18, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Does the following meet the intent of the Code?



The material is SA
-
516, Grade 70 where the actual plate thickness is 0.262 in. The
minimum design temperature is
-
50

F and the Charpy impact specimen size is 10 x 5 mm.
Since the
specimen width (0.197) is less than 80% of the actual plate thickness, what is the interpretation with
regard to the appropriate test temperature per Table UG
-
84.2 and with regard to the applicable Charpy V
-
notch impact energy in foot
-
pounds per
Table UG
-
84.1.


Reply:


The provisions of the second sentence of UG
-
84(c)(5)(b) require that the test temperature
for the specimen in question is that which is adjusted by Table UG
-
84.2 for the temperature reduction
corresponding to the actual material
thickness and the temperature reduction corresponding to the Charpy
specimen width actually tested. In this case the test temperature would be reduced by the temperature
reduction corresponding to the size of the specimen, 20

F, minus the temperature redu
ction corresponding
to the material thickness, 10

F, resulting in a temperature reduction of 10

F below the minimum design
temperature
-
50

F or a required test temperature of
-
60

F. The required energy in foot
-
pounds from Table
UG
-
84.1 is multiplied by 5/1
0 or the ratio of the actual specimen width along the notch to the width of a
full size specimen.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
05

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
84 and Table UG
-
84.2

Date Issued:

January 18, 1977

File:


NA


Question 1:

Table UG
-
84.2 re
fers to width along the notch. Is this dimension limited by test plate
thickness for subsize specimens?


Reply 1:

The "width along the notch" dimension as indicated above is limited by the test plate
thickness for subsize specimens.


Question 2:

In the ti
tle of Table UG
-
84.2 it indicates .when the subsize Charpy impact width is . . ." Is
the width referred to here specifically referring to the width along the notch?


Reply 2:

Affirmative.


Question 3:

For materials of thickness less than 0.394 in., and whe
n the width along the notch is at
least 80% of the plate material being tested, is the test temperature reduced below the minimum design
temperature by an amount indicated in Table UG
-
84.2?


Reply 3:

We would refer you to the first sentence of UG
-
84(c)(5)(
b) which indicates that the
Charpy tests of such a specimen shall be conducted at a temperature not warmer than the minimum design
temperature. Further, there is no requirement for reducing this temperature further.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
06

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, SB
-
111, Copper Alloy 706

Date Issued:

January 18, 1977

File:


NA


Questions:

Is light drawn tubing in accordance with SB
-
111, Alloy 706 acceptable for Section VIII,

Division 1 vessels? Are there problems in recognizing hard drawn

tubing?


Replies:

SB
-
111, Alloy 706, light drawn tubing is acceptable in Table UNF
-
23.2 of Section VIII,
Division 1. The Summer 1976 Addenda should have reflected this in the tabulation; however, this will be
corrected in the Winter 1976 Addenda in the
Errata portion. With regard to hard drawn tubing, the
Committee has not received a user request for this material and, therefore, has not addressed its inclusion
in Section VIII, Division 1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
07

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1,

UG
-
23(b)

Date Issued:

January 28, 1977

File:


BC75
-
358


Question:

How should UG
-
23(b) be interpreted with regard to its applicability to vessels having
stresses which would cause fibers to be in compression as well as in tension?


Reply:


For vessels whos
e fibers are in tension as well as in compression, the vessel designer
must examine both the tension and compression sides individually to determine whether their algebraic
sum or difference does not exceed the maximum allowable stress value which by the r
ules of UG
-
23(b)
shall be the smaller of the value of maximum allowable stress in the tables of Subsection C or the value of
factor B.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
08

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
11

Date Issued:

February 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
11(a) with regard to
the applicable requirements for Category D welds such as those shown in Fig. UW
-
16.1?


Reply:


For vessels constructed under the provisions of full radiography in UW
-
1
1, UW
-
11(a)(5)
requires only that Category D butt welds be required to be radiographed for their full length. Such welds
are shown in Fig. UW
-
16.1, sketches q
-
1, q
-
2, q
-
3, and q
-
4. This does not preclude the possibility of
having nozzle attachments by an
y of the other sketches shown in Fig. UW
-
16.1 where radiography would
not be a requirement.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
09

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Table UHA
-
23, Use of SA
-
193 B8 Class 2 Bolts at Elevated
Temperatures

Date Issued:

February 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

May SA
-
193 Grade B8, Class 2 bolts be used for temperatures higher than those listed in
Table UHA
-
23 with the same temperature and stress levels as Class 1 bolts? It is noted that at the
increased temperatures the Class 2 bolts are
identical to the Class 1 bolts as they lose their increased yield
strength which was obtained at room temperature by strain hardening; also, that the Class 1 bolts are
inadequate for initial gasket seating forces but are adequate for service loads for flan
ge configurations.


Reply:


It is permissible to use the Class 2 bolts at elevated temperatures with the same
temperature and stress values as listed for the Class 1 bolts for SA
-
193, Grade B8 as described above.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
10

Subject:

Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG
-
116 and AS
-
131

Date Issued:

February 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation as to whether, under the provisions of Section VIII,
Division 1, the words "design pressure" may be used instead of "ma
ximum allowable working pressure"
on the vessel nameplate? It is noted that this is different from Section VIII, Division 2 in Fig. AS
-
131.1
in this respect.


Reply:


UG
-
116(a)(3) requires that the maximum allowable working pressure be stamped on the
name
plate. It is permissible to supplement this information with the design pressure on the nameplate if
so desired. The differences between Division 1 and Division 2 in this respect are intentional,



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
11

Subject:

Section VIII, Divis
ion 1, UG
-
25(a) and UG
-
46(f)(3)

Date Issued:

February 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 relative to whether it is
required that an ammonia receiver manufactured to Section VIII, Division 1 have manh
oles in accordance
with UG
-
46(f)(3) where they are over 36 in. I.D.?


Reply:


UG
-
25(a) indicates that the user or his designated agent has the responsibility to
determine whether or not the substance contained in a vessel is corrosive and, if there is no c
orrosion
allowance provided, this fact shall be indicated on the Manufacturer's Data Report (see U
-
2 for definition
of "user" or “designated agent").



If the substance contained in the vessel is determined as noncorrosive in accordance with
above, then UG
-
46(a) permits the omission of inspection openings described in that paragraph.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
12

Subject

:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
93 and UG
-
11, Pipes Used as Nozzle Necks in Pressure



Vessels

Date Issued:

February 4, 1997

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 as to whether pipe used as a
nozzle neck in a pressure vessel would be covered under UG
-
11?


Reply:


Pipe used as a nozzle neck in a pressure vessel would not fall under the provision
s of
UG
-
11 Miscellaneous Pressure Parts, but would be procured by the vessel Manufacturer as a material and
would be subject to the provisions of UG
-
93.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
13

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
13 and UG
-
93(d)(3)

Date Issued:

Feb
ruary 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation of UW
-
13(e) with regard to the liquid penetrant and
magnetic particle examination which is required per UG
-
93(d)(3)?


Reply:


As defined in UG
-
34(b), the part designated t
s

is the actual

thickness of the shell
exclusive of corrosion allowance and the vertical (thicker) member is the forged or rolled plate whose cut
edges shall be examined in accordance with UG
-
93(d)(3).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
14

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UCS
-
56

Date Issued:

February 4, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 to partly weld a nozzle
-
to
-
shell joint,
postweld heat treat to UCS
-
56, and then complete the weld without further postweld heat treatment?


Reply:


It i
s not the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 to permit a weld to be only partially
completed prior to postweld heat treatment as indicated in your inquiry. The thickness of the shell plate
would be the controlling factor in any case under the provisions o
f UCS
-
56(d)(4).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
16

(Refer to II
-
77
-
06, p. 171)

Subject:


Section II, Part B and Section VIII, Division 1, SB
-
17 1, Grade CDA 706


Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
17

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
44

Date Issued:

February 7, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Is it permissible for a vessel manufacturer to accept an ANSI B16.5 flange for use in a
Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel without further calculations or comparison with Appendix 2?


Reply:


It is permissible for a vessel manufa
cturer to utilize an ANSI B16.5 flange in accordance
with UG
-
44 without further calculation or comparison to Appendix 2.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
18

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
28(b) and UG
-
29(a)

Date Issued:

February 7, 1977

File:


NA


Questio
n:

Does the length L(2) as defined in UG
-
28(b) and L
s
(2) as defined in UG
-
29(a) apply to
the length between circumferential connections to the shell of a dimpled jacket?


Reply:


This construction would follow the rules of UW
-
19 which also requires that th
e dimpled
component is rated based on a proof test given in UG
-
101. The flat plate (inner shell) is calculated as a
braced and stayed plate. Consequently, the use of UG
-
28 and UG
-
29 would be inappropriate.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
19

Subject:

Section V
III, Division 1, UHA
-
20, Minimum Thickness of Tubes in a Shell
-
and
-
Tube
-
Heat Exchanger

Date Issued:

February 7, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Are the minimum thickness requirements in UHA
-
20 applicable to the tubes in a shell
-
and
-
tube heat exchanger?


Reply:


The rules of UHA
-
20 relative to minimum thickness are not applicable to tubes in a shell
-
and
-
tube heat exchanger provided the outer pipe or shell is constructed to the rules of Section VIII,
Division 1 including the minimum thickness requirements.



Interp
retation:


VIII
-
77
-
20

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
12(c), Stress Reduction for Unstayed Covers

Date Issued:

February 15, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Is it required that the stress S for unstayed covers in UG
-
34 be reduced per UW
-
12(c) for
vessels th
at are neither fully radiographed nor spot radiographically examined?


Reply:


The stress reduction of UW
-
12(c) applicable to design calculations for vessels that are
neither fully radiographed nor spot radiographically examined is not applicable to the st
ress S for
unstayed flat heads and covers in UG
-
34.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
21

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
11(a)

Date Issued:

February 23, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to
the applicable
material certification requirements for pipe nipples not exceeding 2 in. diameter and welding caps not
exceeding 5 in. diameter?


Reply:


Welding caps appear to fall within the provisions of UG
-
11(a) and, as such, the materials
shall be thos
e permitted under Section VIII, Division 1 or in an accepted standard (such as an American
National Standard) covering the particular type of pressure part. The marking required is that of the name
or trademark of the Manufacturer and such other markings
as are required by the standard involved, such
as ANSI
-
B 16.9, Wrought Steel Butt Welding Fittings.



Under the rules applicable through the Summer 1976 Addenda, the pipe nipples shall
satisfy either: (1) UG
-
93(a), which requires a Certified Test Report or

Certificate of Compliance as
provided for in the Material Specification. (However, the requirements of UG
-
93 will be significantly
reduced with the Winter 1976 Addenda, as indicated on the copy of the print of the applicable paragraph);
or, (2) UG
-
11(a).



However, since there is not an accepted standard covering pipe nipples, use of this
alternate would require that the nipples be made of a material permitted under Section VIII, Division 1
and that the requirements concerning the part Manufacturer's marki
ng, identification, and written listing
must be satisfied.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
22

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UCS
-
79, Cold Working and Heat Treatment of Flanged and
Dished Heads

Date Issued:

February 23, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the
correct interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to the heat
treatment required for a flanged and dished head which has been formed by cold working?


Reply:


The requirements of UCS
-
79 require heat treatment per UCS
-
56 under the provisions
de
scribed.



We would caution that ASTM material specification designations may not always be
arbitrarily substituted for ASME designations since they are not always identical.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
23

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Scope

Date Issue
d:

March 1, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

What is the interpretation of the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to a vessel
having an ordered inside diameter of 6.065 in. as opposed to 5.761 in.?


Reply:


Vessels made of 6 in. standard pipe 6.065 in.

I.D. (as ordered) fall under the Scope of
Section VIII, Division 1. Similarly if the ordered inside diameter is 5.761 in. this does not fall under the
Scope of Section VIII, Division 1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
24

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UCS
-
66

Date Issued:

March 2, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

May a material, which is acceptable for Section VIII use, be used without impact tests for
an operating temperature of
-
20

F?


Reply:


UCS
-
66(c)(1) permits an approved material to be used at or above
-
20

F

without impact
testing.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
25

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, U
-
2(g) and UG
-
101

Date Issued:

March 7, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Where complete rules for design and construction are not given, must a proof test in
accordance with

UG
-
101 always be performed or does conformance with U
-
2(g) permit acceptance
without such testing?


Reply:


Proof testing in accordance with UG
-
101(a) is only required when the strength cannot be
computed with a satisfactory assurance of accuracy. The in
tent of the reference to U
-
2 in UG
-
101(a)(1) is
to call attention to that paragraph which permits construction to Section VIII, Division 1 when the rules
do not cover all details of design and construction. U
-
2(g) states that where complete details are no
t
given, it is intended that the manufacturer, subject to the approval of the Inspector, shall provide details of
design and construction which will be as safe as those provided by the rules. A proof test performed in
accordance with UG
-
101 is one method
for accomplishing this. Alternative procedures, such as stress
analyses which demonstrate conformance with the design criteria used to develop the specific design rules
of Section VIII, Division 1, may be used subject to the approval of the Inspector. Th
e Inspector's
acceptance is indicated by his signing of the Manufacturer's Data Report. The use of U
-
2(g) may be
noted under remarks on that form.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
26

Subject:

Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Allowable Stress Values for SA
-
240

D
ate Issued:

March 14, 1977

File:


BC75
-
630


Question 1:

In Section VIII, Division 1, SA
-
240, TP316L is listed with a value at 400

F of 15.5 ksi.
Since this is the only value to change since the 1971 Edition, please verify that this value is correct.


Repl
y 1:

This will advise that the value of 15.5 is the correct value.


Question 2:

SA
-
240 TP316 is listed in Section VIII, Division 2 with a value of 17.2 ksi at 500

F
whereas in Section VIII, Division 1 the stress value for the same temperature is 17.9. Plea
se advise if
there is a discrepancy.


Reply 2:

This is to advise that the value in Section VIII, Division 2 for the subject material at
500

F should be 17.9 ksi, the same as in Section VIII, Division 1. We thank you for pointing this out and
this will be
reflected in a future errata.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
27

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Certificate of Test for Welding Filler Metal

Date Issued:

March 15, 1977

File:


NA


Question 1:

Must certified test reports be included with the purchase of SFA
welding electrodes?


Reply 1:

Certified test reports are not required for filler metals for Section VIII construction.
Testing of specific batches of electrodes is performed at the option and expense of the purchaser. Reports
may also be furnished, if re
quested.


Question 2:

Does ASME recognize certain companies for the purpose of manufacturing certified
welding electrodes?


Reply 2:

ASME does not recognize certain companies as approved manufacturers of filler metals.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
28

Subject
:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW(a) and (b), Double Butt Weld

Date Issued:

March 16, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Must the reverse or first side of a GTAW process double butt weld be ground or prepared
or the second side of the weld as described in UW
-
37(a) if
the process produces a first side weld of
radiographable quality?


Reply:


The reverse side of double welded joints need not be prepared as per UW
-
37(a) if the
provisions of UW
-
37(b) are complied with. A properly deposited TIG weld will meet the requireme
nts of
proper fusion and penetration, as well as freedom from impurities as stated in UW
-
37(b).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
29

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
35

Date Issued:

March 18, 1977

File:


BC75
-
558


Question:

Does a butt welded joint comply wi
th UW
-
35 if (a) the joint has complete joint
penetration and complete fusion for the full length of the weld, and is free from undercuts, overlaps, and
abrupt ridges and valleys, and (b) the surface of the weld groove falls below the surface of the adjoini
ng
plate in a smooth transition and exceeds minimum design thickness requirement for the material?


Reply:


The rules of UW
-
35(a) indicate that the butt joint as described does not comply with the
intent of Section VIII, Division 1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
30

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
11, UW
-
12, Partial Radiography

Date Issued:

March 18, 1977

File:


NA


Question 1:

Do the service restrictions of UW
-
2(a) for lethal substances and UW
-
2(c) for unfired
steam boilers with design pressures exce
eding 50 psi permit the use of partial radiography under UW
-
11(a)(5)(b)?


Reply 1:

For lethal substances, all butt welds in vessels are required to be examined
radiographically for their full length as prescribed in UW
-
11(a)(1) except as provided in UW
-
11(
a)(4)
which permits no radiography for Categories B and C butt welds in nozzles and communicating chambers
that neither exceed 10 in. nominal pipe size nor 1
-
1/8 in. wall thickness.


Question 2:

Does the term "fully radiographed" in UW
-
12(a) include the pr
ovisions for partial
radiography under UW
-
11(a)(5)(b)?


Reply 2:

Affirmative.


Question 3:

In Table UCS
-
57, is partial radiography permitted for butt welded joints above the
nominal thicknesses listed in the table for the various P
-
Number and group number
classifications?


Reply 3:

Negative. [See also UW
-
11(a)(2)]


Question 4:

Does UHA
-
33(b) require radiography for the full length without the use of partial
radiography for the butt welded joints in vessels of the various materials listed therein?


Reply 4:

Affirmative.


Question 5:

In UHT
-
5(a) it refers to "complete radiographic examination" in accordance with UW
-
51.
Does this permit the use of partial radiography under UW
-
11(a)(5)(b)?


Reply 5:

Negative. Complete radiographic examination requires this exam
ination for 100% of the
length of the weld.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
31

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
12(c)

Date Issued:

March 18, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Under Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
31, does the 20% stress reduction in UW
-
12(c) for
nonradiographed vessels apply to electric resistance welded pipe as shown in Table UCS
-
23?


Reply:


UW
-
12(c) requires that ". . in all other design calculations . . ." 80% of the allowable
stress is required except as specified therein. If a vessel utiliz
es a resistance welded pipe as the shell of a
vessel, and there are arc or gas welded butt joints that are not radiographed, the stress reduction in UW
-
12(c) applies.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
32

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
101

Date Issued:

Marc
h 25, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

May calculations be performed in lieu of proof testing to destruction to justify design
conditions of half
-
pipe coil jackets on a pressure vessel?


Reply:


Refer to UG
-
101(a)(1). This indicates that proof tests to establish

maximum allowable
working pressure are intended for those vessels or vessel parts where the strength cannot be computed
with a satisfactory assurance of accuracy. Therefore, if you are able to satisfy your Authorized Inspector
that your calculations sati
sfy this requirement, then proof testing would not be required.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
33

Subject


Section VIII, Division 1, UCS
-
85(b) and (d)

Date Issued:

March 25, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Is pipe, procured in accordance to a specification in Sectio
n II for use in nozzles in a
Code vessel, considered a standard pressure part under the provisions of UG
-
11 and exempted from the
provisions of UG
-
85 and UCS
-
85(b) under UCS
-
85(d)?


Reply:


The pipe described in the question, where used in the fabrication
of nozzles, would not be
covered under the provisions of UCS
-
85(d) where reference is made to standard items described in UG
-
11. Therefore, this would require test specimens as described in UCS
-
85(b).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
34

Subject:

Section VIII,
Division 1, Use of SA
-
515 Material and Interpretation of UG
-
99

Date Issued:

March 25, 1977

File:


NA


Question 1:

Is it permissible to use SA
-
515, Gr. 60 material in the ranges for which allowable stresses
are listed in Table UCS
-
23 without additional requ
irements in that temperature range?


Reply 1:

It is permissible to use SA
-
515, Gr. 60 material as listed in Table UCS
-
23 in the
temperature ranges for which tabular values are listed. However, the designer of the vessel should be
aware that the Code repre
sents minimum safety requirements and that he should consider any additional
design considerations that may exist for his particular application.


Question 2:

Is it permissible under the provisions of UG
-
99(h) to stipulate that the hydrostatic test
shall b
e conducted at a temperature at or above 60

F?


Reply 2:

The 60

F limitation under UG
-
99(h) is a recommendation only [see also footnote 1 to
subparagraph (h)]. Beyond this it is up to the vessel designer to take into account the nil ductility
transition t
emperature for the particular materials involved.


Question 3:

What does the term "intermediate" mean in terms of the use of SA
-
515 material for
specific services?


Reply 3:

In general, intermediate temperature service would be indicative of being at great
er than
room temperature but at a temperature less than that where creep considerations would be a controlling
factor.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
35

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW
-
13.2

Date Issued:

April 22, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

Is it perm
issible to use a tubesheet with a bolting flange that utilizes a weld detail similar
to that shown in Fig. UW
-
13.2, sketch (d)?


Reply:


Typical joint details that are applicable for tubesheets with a bolting figure are given in
Fig. UW
-
13.2, sketches (h)
through (l). Sketch (d) is not an acceptable welding attachment with the
addition of a bolting flange since the weld dimensions are not adequate for the additional moment
imposed by the bolt load.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
36

Subject:

Section VIII,
Division 1, Nozzle Configuration

Date Issued:

April 22, 1977

File:


BC77
-
222


Question:

In a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, may a nozzle utilize an abrupt transition in outside
diameter?


Reply:


A nozzle which utilizes an abrupt transition in outside di
ameter is not prohibited by the
rules of Section VIII, Division 1 providing all of the applicable requirements are met, paying particular
attention to “t
e
” in UG
-
40 and Fig. UG
-
40, and complying with items such as the strength of attachment
welds in UG
-
41
and the minimum nozzle requirements for attachment welds in UW
-
16.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
37

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
80, Out
-
of
-
Roundness

Date Issued:

April 22,1977

File:


BC77
-
236


Question:

Is it permissible to exceed the permissible ou
t
-
of
-
roundness of cylindrical shells under
internal pressure as required by UG
-
80(a) if an analysis is made as a basis?


Reply:


Under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, an analysis as described in the above
question is not permitted to circumvent the
rules as presently written. U
-
2(g) permits analysis to be made
for those instances where rules do not exist in Section VIII, Division 1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
38

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

F
ile:


BC73
-
467


Question 1:

For welded only joints under Table UA
-
002 is it required that the "a" dimensions be 1.4t
in the absence of testing?



Reply 1:

The requirement of 1.4t is not a mandatory requirement and provisions are made in the
Table to accomm
odate other designs, for example, type "b" permits a reliability factor of 0.55 for f
r

(no
test) for "welded only" joints t (a < 1.4t).


Question 2:

Is tube or tubesheet hardness taken into account for the factor "f
y
" in UA
-
002?


Reply 2:

Although it is
recognized that hardness is a factor in tube
-
to
-
tubesheet design, it is
sensitive to the fabrication process used, and consequently, hardness values are generally difficult to
obtain with a degree of accuracy. For this reason, the rules in Appendix A are
written to utilize data, such
as yield strength values, for the factor “f
y
”.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
39

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

File:


BC73
-
467


Question 1:

For welded only joints under Tabl
e UA
-
002 is it required that the "a" dimension be 1.4t
in the absence of testing?


Reply 1:

The requirement of 1.4t is not a mandatory requirement and provisions are made in the
Table to accommodate other designs; for example, type "b" permits a reliabilit
y factor of 0.55 for f
r

(no
test) for welded only joints t (a < 1.4t).


Question 2:

In Table UA
-
002, is rolling required to be done prior to welding?


Reply 2:

Regarding the rolling and welding sequence, Note 8 to Table UA
-
002 indicates that the
sequence u
sed in the joint description does not necessarily indicate the order in which the rolling and
welding is performed.


Question 3:

Figure UA
-
002 appears to show contact fits between the tube outside diameter and the
tube hole. This would seem to preclude "w
elded only" design. Do these sketches also represent types "a"
and "b" of Table UA
-
002?


Reply 3:

Figure UA
-
002 is intended to be schematic only and not show all details such as grooves,
fits, etc. Your point is well taken, and the Committee will continu
e to study this point for possible
clarification.


Question 4:

In the revised Fig. UA
-
002, the joints are indicates as "some acceptable." If this
Appendix is adopted as mandatory, would this limit the selections to the joints shown in the Figure?


Reply 4:

Whether or not the Appendix is adopted as mandatory, the joints shown in Fig. UA
-
002
are not intended to be all
-
inclusive and would not preclude other similar acceptable joints.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
40

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory

Appendix A

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

File:


BC73
-
467


Question 1:

The limits of acceptability for rolled only joints in various material combinations seem
overly restrictive. We feel that these should be relaxed.


Reply 1:

The values for acceptability
for rolled only joints are based on available published data
which has been submitted to the Committee. If you have any further test results to contribute in order that
consideration can be given to your request, please forward same to our attention.


Que
stion 2:

The testing of tube
-
to
-
tubesheet joints is an added expense and is of little or no value
where previously established proprietary designs have proven to be adequate and reliable. Should this
additional testing be eliminated based on proprietary d
esigns and experience?


Reply 2:

If on the basis of experience you can provide the Committee with data or any other
technical basis for the elimination of additional testing as outlined in Appendix A, please forward same to
our attention.


Question 3:

If A
ppendix A should become mandatory, would other designs, such as double
tubesheets, be precluded?


Reply 3:

Should Appendix A become mandatory, other special designs beyond what is required in
Appendix A would not be precluded; however, it is the responsibi
lity of the manufacturer to review his
design with his Inspector.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
41

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

File:


BC73
-
467


Question 1:

Is it necessary to achieve a 1.4t minimum we
ld size for all applications in Appendix A?


Reply 1:

Appendix A, as revised by the Winter 1976 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, gives
relief for welds of less than 1.4t minimum weld size and provides for the case when the weld is less than
1.0t in Tab
le UA
-
002.


Question 2:

For the thickness "t", as described in Question (1), on what basis is this thickness
determined?


Reply 2:

The tube wall thickness is based on nominal dimensions which is in agreement with Code
practice. For example, see Fig. UW
-
16
.1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
42

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

File:


BC73
-
467


Question:

In nonmandatory Appendix A to Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary to achieve 1.4t
minimum weld size
for all applications?


Reply:


Appendix A, as revised by the Winter 1976 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, gives
relief for welds of less than 1.4t minimum weld size and provides for the case when the weld is less than
1.0t in Table UA
-
002.



Interpreta
tion:


VIII
-
77
-
43

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Radiography of Formed Heads

Date Issued:

April 25, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

For cold formed heads to be used in Section VIII, Division 1 vessels and where
radiography of the weld seams in the head is re
quired, what are the requirements for the appropriate
sequence of cold forming and radiography?


Reply:


Section VIII, Division 1 does not contain any specific requirements pertaining to the
sequence of radiography and cold forming of heads required to be
radiographed. Therefore, it is up to the
vessel manufacturer to use his judgment for such an application.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
44

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, U
-
1, Classification of Sterilizers

Date Issued:

April 28, 1977

File:


BC76
-
187


Ques
tion:

What Code requirements apply to a sterilizer of 9 in. I.D. which generates steam for
internal use only and which is heated by a strip heater mounted on the outside?


Reply:


Such a sterilizer is within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. It could
be built under
the provisions of U
-
1(j) as a "UM" vessel. The sterilizer is not an unfired steam boiler or a fired pressure
vessel, so the requirements of UW
-
2(c) or (d) are not mandatory.



However, we caution you that the laws at the point of installati
on may dictate the
construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U
-
1, Scope, such laws must be reviewed to determine
requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
45

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1,

U
-
1, Classification of Autoclaves

Date Issued:

April 28, 1977

File:


BC76
-
187


Question:

What Code requirements apply to an autoclave of 6 in. I.D. which generates steam for
internal use only and which is heated by a strip heater mounted on the outside?


Reply:


Such an autoclave is not within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 when the inside
diameter does not exceed 6 in. [See U
-
1(c)(9)]. However, if desired, such an autoclave could be
constructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 rules [See

U
-
1(i)]. The mandatory rules are not
influenced by the location of the heater. The autoclave is not an unfired steam boiler or a fired pressure
vessel, so the requirements of UW
-
2(c) or (d) are not mandatory.



However, we caution you that the laws at t
he point of installation may dictate the
construction. As indicated by footnote to U
-
1, Scope, such laws must be reviewed to determine
requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
46

Subject:

Secti
on VIII, Division 1, U
-
1, Classification of Autoclaves

Date Issued:

April 28, 1977

File:


BC76
-
518


Question:

What is the applicable Code symbol to be applied to an autoclave which uses an electric
resistance heater to generate steam at no greater than 15
psig MAWP? (We assume that the steam is not
for use external to the autoclave and that the heaters transmit heat directly to the water and not through
the shell of the autoclave.)


Reply:


Such an autoclave is not within the scope of Section VIII, Division

1 when the pressure
does not exceed 15 psig [See U
-
1(c)(8)]. However, if desired, such an autoclave could be constructed in
accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 rules [See U
-
1(i)] . The autoclave is not an unfired steam boiler
or a fired pressure ves
sel, so the requirements of UW
-
2(c) or (d) are not mandatory.



However, we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the
construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U
-
1, Scope, such laws must be reviewed to determine
requirements

that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
47

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
80(a)

Date Issued:

April 29, 1977

File:


BC77
-
262


Question:

Are there any out
-
of
-
roundness tolerances for cylindrical
shells subject to internal
pressure other than those found in UG
-
80(a) for Section VIII, Division 1 construction?


Reply:


The requirements of UG
-
80(a) are the only permissible out
-
of
-
roundness tolerances for
cylindrical shells under internal pressure.



I
nterpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
48

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UA
-
6(b)(4), Dished Covers

Date Issued:

April 29, 1977

File:


BC77
-
94


Question:

What is the appropriate sign convention to be used for "F" and "J" in UA
-
6(b)(4) and Fig.
UA
-
6(d)?


Reply:


Positi
ve values for both "F" and "J" are used in the flange thickness equation of UA
-
6(b)(4)(b). This is caused by the value of "P" (see UG
-
98) and "M
O
" (see UA
-
50 and UA
-
55) used in the
equations always being positive values because they are actually the absol
ute values of the calculated
values for "P" and "M
O
". Of course, the calculated value of "M
O
" according to UA
-
6(a), could be either
positive or negative depending on the assumed sign convention. The reason for this use of "P" and "M
O
"
is that at some
point on the ring cross
-
section, the Stresses caused by "P" and "M
O
" add whether the
pressure is internal or external.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
49

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Date of Compliance

Date Issued:

April 29, 1977

File:


BC77
-
237


Question
:

What determines the mandatory Code requirements to be used for the manufacture of
new pressure vessels?


Reply:


The Foreword of Section VIII, Division 1 states that "After Code revisions are approved
by Council they


may be used beginning with the date
of issuance shown on the Addenda. Revisions
become mandatory as minimum requirements six months after such date of issuance, except for boilers or
pressure vessels contracted for prior to the end of the six
-
month period."



The applicable Code Edition and

Addenda is to be recorded on the Manufacturer's Data
Report. For example, see Item 5 of the U
-
1 Form.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
50

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
34, Nomenclature

Date Issued:

May 20, 1977

File:


NA


Question:

In the Winter 1976
Addenda the value of E as defined in the nomenclature for unstayed
flat heads and covers is as follows:



E = joint efficiency, from Table UW
-
12, of any Category A weld as defined in UW
-
3(a)(1)


Does this joint efficiency pertain to the efficiency of a wel
ded joint within the head as would be present in
a flat head fabricated from two or more pieces, or is this joint efficiency applicable to any Category A
joint within the vessel?


Reply:


The value of E as indicated above pertains to the joint efficiency t
o be used in a Category
A butt weld in the flat head or cover and not to any Category A joint in the vessel [see also UW
-
3(a)(1)]



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
51

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
15

Date Issued:

May 27,1977

File:


BC76
-
735


Question:

May

tubes conforming to the chemical and physical properties, heat treating, and melting
requirements of SA
-
249, Grades TP304N and TP316N, but otherwise conforming to the manufacturing
procedures, tolerances, test, and marking requirements of SA
-
688 be used u
nder Section VIII, Division 1
construction?


Reply:


Yes. Such material may be used under the provisions of UG
-
15 of Section VIII, Division
1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
52

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
52

Date Issued:

May 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
241


Question:

Does a weld "coupon," consisting of two plates tack welded to the end of a vessel and
duplicating the longitudinal joint in that vessel for purposes of spot radiography, meet the intent of UW
-
52(b)(1)?


Reply:


UW
-
52(b)(1) permits one spot
examination to represent identical vessels, individually of
less than 50 ft seam length under certain circumstances. The "coupon" described in the inquiry does not
meet the intent of UW
-
52(b)(1) in this regard.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
53

Subject:

Secti
on VIII, Division 1, UW
-
40

Date Issued:

May 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
265


Question:

Why is the circumferential band for local postweld heat treatment considerably larger
under the provisions of UW
-
40(a)(5) for attachment welds than that shown under UW
-
40(a)(3)

for

circumferential butt joints?


Reply:


The requirement for the wider circumferential band is based on the need for assuring that
the nozzle and nozzle welds, being of a different geometry than the vessel shell, are able to reach the
specified heat trea
ting temperature. This temperature is then maintained for a sufficient length of time to
achieve the appropriate stress relieving effect.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
54

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
16

Date Issued:

May 27,1977

File:


BC77
-
274


Ques
tion:

When an integrally reinforced nozzle is inserted into a shell utilizing a full penetration
weld and cover weld in accordance with Fig. UW
-
16.1, sketch (g), what determines the dimensions of the
cover weld?


Reply:


The dimensions of the cover weld, i
n the above described attachment, shall be
determined in accordance with Fig. UW
-
16.1, sketch (g) as described in the nomenclature for
tc
in UW
-
16(b).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
55

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA
-
51

Date Issued:

June 21, 1977

Fi
le:


BC77
-
255


Question:

Under the provisions of Fig. UA
-
51.1, the values of T, U, Y, and Z pertain to the design
of flanges where Poisson's ratio is assumed to be 0.30. What are the values of T, U, Y, and Z to be used in
flange construction under Section
VIII, Division 1 where Poisson's ratio is other than 0.30?


Reply:


For the design of flanges where Poisson's ratio is other than 0.30, we would direct you to
the provisions of U
-
2(g). This covers the instance where a particular aspect of vessel design an
d
construction is not covered by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
56

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
5 1, Retention of Radiographs

Date Issued:

June 23, 1977

File:


BC77
-
282


Question:

Under the provisions of UW
-
51(a)
(2), is it required that radiographs which were judged
unacceptable by the Inspector be retained?


Reply:


No. Only those radiographs which represent the final acceptable vessel welds are
required to be retained by the provisions of UW
-
51(a)(2) for a perio
d of at least 5 years.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
57

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
27

Date Issued:

June 23, 1977

File:


BC77
-
342


Question:

May a defect on a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel shell be repaired by grinding to a point
below the require
d thickness of the vessel if an analysis is performed in accordance with Section VIII,
Division 2?


Reply:


The rules prescribed in Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
27 require that the thickness of the
vessel be no less than that computed by the formulas given

in that paragraph. Therefore, repair by
grinding which causes the thickness to be less than that required by the rules of UG
-
27 is unacceptable.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
58

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
99

Date Issued:

June 23, 1977

File:


BC77
-
296


Question:

Is it permissible under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to apply an epoxy enamel
prior to the hydrostatic test of a completed vessel in accordance with UG
-
99?


Reply:


The rules of Section VIII, Division 1 do not include rules
covering epoxy enamel
coatings; however, application prior to hydrostatic test of a cast iron pressure vessel is not prohibited.
This intent has been established by the rules given in UG
-
99(l) and (m) for galvanized and lead lined
vessels.



Interpretatio
n:


VIII
-
77
-
59

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Impact Testing for Carbon Steel Vessels

Date Issued:

June 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
294


Question:

What are the requirements for impact testing for carbon steel vessels such as those
manufactured of SA
-
515 or SA
-
455 material?


Reply:


We would refer you to the requirements of UCS
-
66 for the requirements for impact
testing of materials conforming to the specifications tabulated in Table UCS
-
23, such as SA
-
515 and SA
-
455. This paragraph has impact test requirement
s for temperatures below
-
20

F.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
60

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
9(c) and UW
-
13(a)

Date Issued:

June 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
321


Question 1:

What is the intent of UW
-
9(c) with regard to the provision of a tapered transition

for
sections of different thickness?


Reply 1:

The intent of UW
-
9(c) is that a tapered transition shall be provided in accordance with
Fig. UW
-
9 when the difference in thickness between the two sections is
greater
than 1/4 the thickness of
the thinner sec
tion or 1/8 in., whichever is less.


Question 2:

In UW
-
13(a)(2),a tapered transition having a length not less than 3 times the offset is
described for head to shell joints as shown in Fig. UW
-
13.1. Is this offset obtained in a similar manner as
the dimensi
on Y in Fig. UW
-
9?


Reply 2:

Yes.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
61

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Case 1292
-
10 and U
-
2(d)

Date Issued:

June 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
314


Question:

In Case 1292
-
10, should the calculations for the plain plate used in an
embossed or
dimpled assembly meet the requirements for braced and stayed surfaces?


Reply:


The plain plate indicated in paragraph (1)(b) of the reply of Case 1292
-
10 shall meet the
requirements for braced and stayed surfaces in UG
-
47 and for welded stayed

construction in UW
-
19. The
allowable working pressure for resistance welded embossed or dimpled assemblies in Case 1292
-
10 shall
be established by the weaker of that calculated value or a proof test in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) of
the reply.



Int
erpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
62

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW
-
11(a)(4) and UW
-
2(a)

Date Issued:

June 27, 1977

File:


BC77
-
350


Question:

Do the provisions of UW
-
11(a)(4) override the requirements of UW
-
2(a) for the
exemption of certain butt welds in nozzl
es where a vessel is in lethal service?


Reply:


It is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that Category B and C butt welds in nozzles
and communicating chambers that neither exceed 10 in. nominal pipe size or 1
-
1/8 wall thickness are
excluded from the
provisions of radiography, even though the vessel is in lethal service. This overrides
the provisions of UW
-
2(a).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
63

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
116

Date Issued:

June 28, 1977

File:


BC77
-
335


Question:

Is it permissib
le under the provisions of UG
-
116 of Section VIII, Division 1 to express
the units of pressure and temperature in metric units on the nameplate?


Reply:


It is intended that the units on the nameplate be expressed in the customary English units,
and if met
ric units are needed, these can be inserted parenthetically next to the appropriate English unit.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
64

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UW
-
11

Date Issued:

July 1, 1977

File:


BC77
-
295


Question:

Does UW
-
11(a)(4) permit Category B

and C butt welds to be nonradiographed under the
following circumstances of nominal pipe size and wall thickness?



Circumferential welded butt joints in nozzles and communicating chambers, not
exceeding 10 in. nominal pipe size, need not be radiographed,

only if the wall thickness does not exceed
1
-
1/8 in.



Circumferential welded butt joints in nozzles and communicating chambers, not
exceeding 1
-
1/8 in. wall thickness, need not be radiographed only if the nominal pipe size does not
exceed 10 in.


Reply:


Yes.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
65

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Nonmandatory Appendix A

Date Issued:

July 1, 1977

File:


BC77
-
315


Question:

Note (5) to Table UA
-
002 in Nonmandatory Appendix A defines the term

t
as the
nominal thickness of the avera
ge wall tube. Why is this defined as nominal t rather than required t?


Reply:


The Code assumes that the nominal
t

is to be used as the required
t

since the thickness is
based on the worst condition, that is, all of the components are designed on the basi
s of the balanced
strength rather than an individual component on the basis of minimum strength. This is consistent with
the philosophy set forth in the other rules of Section VIII, Division 1 such as that of UW
-
16 regarding
requirements for attachment we
lds.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
66

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix II, Fig. UA
-
48, sketch (1a)

Date Issued:

July 8, 1977

File:


BC77
-
325


Question:

The note under Fig. UA
-
48, sketch (la) indicates "this weld may be machined to a corner
radius
to suit standard lap joint flanges". There is a minimum dimension of 0.7c for the fillet weld in this
figure. Is it the intent that the 0.7c dimension apply prior to the machining of the corner radius indicated
in the note, that is, where this machining
will cause the dimension of the fillet weld to be less than the
0.7c?


Reply:


Yes.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
67

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UCL
-
36(b)

Date Issued:

July 8, 1977

File:


BC77
-
323


Question:

Under the provisions of UCL
-
36(b) and UW
-
52(
a), are the welds in a vessel of a
Specification SA
-
264, designed for external pressure and welded with austenitic chromium
-
nickel steel
filler metal, required to be spot radiographed?


Reply:


The provisions of UCL
-
36(b) are applicable to chrome alloy cla
dding which has a quality
of air hardening and, as such, would not be applicable to SA
-
264 which is a chrome nickel high alloy
non
-
air hardening cladding. Therefore, such a vessel welded with austenitic chromium nickel steel filler
metal would not be requ
ired to be spot examined per UCL
-
36(b).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
68

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG
-
101(d)

Date Issued:

July 8, 1977

File:


BC77
-
324


Question:

Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 that different casting materials used t
o
make heads of the same design and pressure rating may be proof tested by an individual proof test for the
various materials involved?


Reply:


It is the intent of UG
-
101(d) that when different materials such as brass, stainless steel,
and cast iron are u
sed to make parts for a particular design and pressure rating, individual proof tests shall
be carried out for each material used.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
69

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UCS
-
79(b)

Date Issued:

July 11, 1977

File:


BC77
-
312


Question 1:

Is dimpled construction made by a method where the dimples are punched and drawn
cold in a hydraulic actuated die set, permissible under UCS
-
79(b) of Section VIII, Division 1?


Reply 1:

UCS
-
79(b) prohibits carbon and low alloy steel plates from

being formed cold by blows.
The construction described in the question is not considered an operation of this type but more of a
pressing operation and therefore, is permissible under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1.


Question 2:

Is proof test
ing in accordance with UG
-
101 required for a dimpled construction described
in Question 1?


Reply 2:

Yes. Refer to UW
-
19(c)(2). As a matter of interest, there are three Code Cases which
cover dimpled construction for resistance welding, gas metal arc spo
t welding, and resistance welded
hydraulically formed panels. These are Cases 1292
-
10, 1376
-
8, and 1585
-
1, respectively.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
70

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG
-
10 and Method of Rolling Plate for a Shell of a Vessel

Date Issued
:

August 8, 1977

File:


BC77
-
343


Question 1:

If a Material Manufacturer furnishes a plate to a Manufacturer of a vessel for Section
VIII, Division 1 Construction, and the plate has been sufficiently marked to identify the specification
number, is it neces
sary that the requirements of UG
-
10 be carried out for "Materials not fully identified"
if the Material Test Report or Certificate of Compliance has not been furnished?


Reply 1:

If a material has been furnished in accordance with the above without the nec
essary
documentation, such as a Certified Material Test Report or Certificate of Compliance, it is only necessary
that the vessel Manufacturer obtain this documentation from the Material Manufacturer under the
guidance of his Authorized Inspector. Alterna
tively, the material might be qualified under the provisions
of UG
-
10.


Question 2:

Is there any restriction in Section VIII, Division 1 as to whether a plate to be used in the
shell of the vessel must be rolled in the same direction as the shell is to be
rolled?


Reply 2:

No.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
72

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG
-
25(d) and UCS
-
25

Date Issued:

August 12, 1977

File:


BC76
-
614


Question:

What is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to the corrosion allowance
required by UG
-
24 and UCS
-
25 relative to an air
-
oil separator reservoir manufactured for a rotary screw
air compressor. The vessel contains both air and oil. Does the term "compressed air" in UCS
-
25 apply?


Reply:


The present wording of UCS
-
25 of Sectio
n VIII, Division 1 does not exempt vessels with
a required minimum thickness of 1/4 in., or less that are to be used, in compressed air service, or
containing compressed air and oil, from the corrosion allowance provision of this paragraph, unless the
foll
owing conditions are met:



(1) The vessels are designed in accordance with UW
-
12(c) of the Code; or



(2) The compressed air has had moisture removed to the degree that it has an atmospheric
dew point of
-
50

F.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
73

Subject:

Secti
on VIII, Division 1; UG
-
84(i)(3), Impact Test Requirements

Date Issued:

August 16, 1977

File:


BC77
-
338


Question 1:

This concerns a single vessel requiring more than 400 ft of welding per weld procedure
and which has a wall thickness varying from 3/4 in.
to 2 in. All welding will be done in the 1G position
and the welding is limited to joints of Categories A and B. Under the provisions of UG
-
84(i)(3)(a), is one
production impact test plate per weld procedure all that is required for a single vessel regard
less of the
length of welding involved and variations in wall thickness?


Reply 1:

Yes.


Question 2:

UG
-
84(i)(3)(b) requires that for several vessels or parts of vessels welded within any 3
month period at one location, one test plate shall be made for eac
h 400 ft of joints welded by the same
procedure provided the plate thickness does not vary by more than 1/4 in. or 25% and the same
specification and grade of material is used. Does this paragraph apply to a single vessel, either from the
aspect of the th
ickness limitation or the length of welded joints welded by the same procedure?


Reply 2:

No.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
74

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UA
-
280

Date Issued:

August 16, 1977

File:


BC75
-
760


Question 1:

In UA
-
280, what is the origin of

the 0.7 factor applied to the allowable tensile stress in
the nozzle wall shear calculation?


Reply 1:

The 0.7 factor is given in UG
-
45(b). The derivation of this factor can be found in earlier
Editions of the Code. The allowable stress in shear is take
n as 80% of the allowable tensile stress and a
factor of 87.5% is applied for combined end and side loading. Therefore: 0.80 X 0.875 = 0.70


Question 2:

In UA
-
280, in the calculation of (A) fillet weld shear why is (divided by 2 in this
equation? It
appears that only 1/2 of the weld circumference is considered.


Reply 2:

The example is intended to follow the rules given UG
-
41(c) and in particular the
sentence: "The strength of the attachment joint shall be considered for its entire length of each side

of the
plane of the area of reinforcement defined in UG
-
40." This length, in Example 1 of UA
-
280, is "

/2 X
nozzle O.D." The basis concept is that the forces in the vessel from one side of the plane must be
transmitted through the attachment joint and bac
k to the vessel on the other side of the plane.


Question 3:

In UA
-
280, in the calculation for (C) groove weld tension, why is tension considered in
the groove weld rather than shear? Unless the vessel is externally pressurized it would appear that the
pr
incipal loading of the weld is in the shear.


Reply 3:

Conceptually, the vessel shell in the above example is trying to pull away from the
nozzle, thereby placing tension on the groove weld.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
75

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1;
UG
-
39, UG
-
40. Section VIII, Division 2; AD
-
540.1

Date Issued:

August 17, 1977

File:


BC77
-
362


Question 1:

In Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 what are the applicable paragraphs for the limits of
reinforcement for openings and flat heads?


Reply 1:

UG
-
40 o
f Section VIII, Division 1 and AD
-
540 in Section VIII, Division 2 are the
applicable paragraphs for such openings.


Question 2:

Under what conditions would a single opening in a Section VIII, Division 1vessel not
require reinforcement?


Reply 2:

Refer to U
G
-
36(c)(3) which outlines the conditions under which a single opening in a
vessel not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure would not require reinforcement.


Question 3:

UG
-
39(b) and UG
-
39(d) give different methods of providing for the total cross sect
ional
area of reinforcement in flat heads. Which is the required calculation?


Reply 3:

The vessel designer has the option of using either UG
-
39(b) or (d) for such a calculation,
depending on which is most advantageous to him.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
7
6

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UW
-
2

Date Issued:

August 25, 1977

File:


BC77
-
398


Question:

What are the specific substances considered lethal under the service restrictions of UW
-
2
of Section VIII, Division 1?


Reply:


Section VIII, Division 1
provides a definition of lethal substance in the footnotes of UW
-
2. A list of lethal substances is not provided since the responsibility for the determination of whether a
substance is lethal as defined by Section VIII, Division 1 rests with the user and/
or his designated agent.
If such a substance is determined as lethal, the vessel Manufacturer shall be advised.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
77

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UW
-
51

Date Issued:

August 25, 1977

File:


BC77
-
395


Question:

Will the issue o
f the 1977 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 affect the qualification of
Level III Radiographers qualified under the provisions of UW
-
51 by a Manufacturer's written statement
based on experience?


Reply:


No.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
78

Subject:

Sectio
n VIII, Division 1; Impact Tests of Weld Metals

Date Issued:

August 30, 1977

File:


BC77
-
475


Question:

Are impact tests required for weldments made with carbon steel base metal and E6013
electrodes below
-
20

F?


Reply:


The requirements for impact testing

of weldments are given in UCS
-
66 and particularly
in UG
-
84.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
79

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Material Certification

Date Issued:

August 31, 1977

File:


BC77
-
401


Question:

Is it permissible for a vessel Manufacturer to
certify, with evidence acceptable to the
Authorized Inspector, that a material he has purchased complies with an ASME material specification
acceptable for a vessel constructed under Section VIII, Division 1?


Reply:


Yes, provided that the documentation i
ncluding any supplementary work performed by
the vessel Manufacturer is available to the Authorized Inspector at the site or plant where the material it
covers is to be used by the vessel Manufacturer in Code construction.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
80

Sub
ject:

Section VIII, Division 1; UW
-
12 and UG
-
36

Date Issued:

August 30, 1977

File:


BC77
-
394


Question 1:

In a vessel which has satisfied the requirements of UW
-
52 for spot radiography and
where it is desired to utilize a joint efficiency of 1.0 for the lo
ngitudinal seam in a two piece head, is it
necessary to radiograph the weld attaching the head to the shell along its entire length?


Reply 1:

The provisions of UW
-
11(a)(5)(b) permit the use of partial radiography as described
therein for the use of column

(a) of Table UW
-
12 for the joint efficiency involved. Assuming in this case
that the weld joint is Type No. 1, the joint efficiency would be 1.0.


Question 2:

If the half apex angle of a reducer or cone is 30 deg., is it necessary to provide a
reinforcin
g ring in accordance with UG
-
36?


Reply 2:

In accordance with UA
-
5(e), cone to cylinder junctions without a knuckle may be used
without reinforcing rings provided the design is based on a special analysis as described in that paragraph.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
81

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Manufacturer's Data Report Certification

Date Issued:

September 6, 1977

File:


BC77
-
446


Question:

What is the intent of the date of inspection on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form in
the "Certificate of Shop

Inspection" block for a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel?


Reply:


The significance of the date as described in the question is that of the final inspection date
for the completed vessel. We are of the opinion that the intent of the Code as descr
ibed above is
sufficiently clear not to warrant further revision.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
82

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; U
-
1 Manufacturer's Data Report

Date Issued:

September 7, 1977

File:


BC77
-
495


Question:

May the U
-
1 Data Report Forms existi
ng prior to the issuance of the Winter 1976
Addenda to the 1974 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 be used after July 1, 1977 for Code vessels?


Reply:


Data Report Forms which are of the format and content of those existing prior to the
Winter 1976 Adden
da to Section VIII, Division 1 may be used after July 1, 1977 only for vessels
contracted for prior to July 1st, 1977.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
84

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, Sequence of Radiography and Postweld Heat Treatment;
Section V, Required

Penetrameters

Date Issued:

September 20, 1977

File:


BC77
-
419


Question 1:

What is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to the sequence of postweld
heat treatment and radiography?


Reply 1:

Section VIII, Division 1 does not require a particu
lar sequence of radiography and
postweld heat treatment except for straight chromium ferritic steels in UHA
-
33(b); however, the vessel
designer should examine the properties of the materials involved to determine whether or not radiography
would be necessa
ry after postweld heat treatment.


Question 2:

For radiographic examination in accordance with Section V, what are the requirements
for the manufacture of penetrameters?


Reply 2:

Current requirements of Section V, Article 2, T
-
262.1 only recognize SE
-
142
as an
acceptable IQI design. At this time we know of no accepted method for comparing the sensitivities
obtained by the two types of IQI.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
85

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Postweld Heat Treatment of Tube
-
to
-
Tubesheet Joints

Date Issued:

September 20, 1977

File:


BC77
-
461


Question:

Under what conditions may the postweld heat treatment be eliminated for tube
-
to
-
tubesheet welds for a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger for a P No.
-
1 material designed for temperatures
below
-
20

F use
d for Section VIII, Division 1 construction?


Reply:


The exemptions from postweld heat treatment under the above conditions are contained
in UCS
-
66(c) and UCS
-
67(c).



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
86

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG
-
11 and Section I, PG
-
11 vs Section III

Date Issued:

September 23, 1977

File:


BC77
-
368


Question:

For welded parts (fittings), Section II Specifications SA
-
234, SA
-
403, and SA
-
420
include requirements for Code Stamping, Data Reports, Inspection, and mill test reports. These
r
equirements appear to conflict with the provisions of PG
-
11.3 and UG
-
11(c) of Section I and Section
VIII, Division 1, respectively. Are these specifications intended for Section I or Section VIII, Division 1
construction?


Reply:


Specifications SA
-
234, S
A
-
403, and SA
-
420 are intended for Section III construction.
Section I and Section VIII, Division 1 use of parts in accordance with these Specifications is possible
provided that the base material is permitted under Section I and Section VIII rules and is

so identified on
the Manufacturer's Partial Data Report. However, under the provisions of PG
-
11.3 and UG
-
11(c) the
corresponding ASTM material specification could be used since they are listed in an accepted standard
such as ANSI B16.9.



Interpretation:


VIII
-
77
-
87

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1; Requirements for Relief Devices, UG
-
125(h)

Date Issued: