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 File ON THE TOOLBAR, THEN Print... , THEN HIGHLIGHT THE DOT AT THE (Selection 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: What 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 rotating 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 organization, 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 Issued: 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 paragraphs 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: January 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 -50F 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 Vnotch 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, 20F, minus the temperature reduction corresponding to the material thickness, 10F, resulting in a temperature reduction of 10F below the minimum design temperature -50F or a required test temperature of -60F. The required energy in footpounds from Table UG-84.1 is multiplied by 5/10 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 refers 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 title 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 when 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 whose 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 rules 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-11, 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 any 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 flange 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 "maximum 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 nameplate. 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, Division 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 manholes 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 corrosion 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 provisions 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: February 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 ts 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 is 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 of 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 manufacturer 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

Question: 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 the 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 VIII, Division 1, UHA-20, Minimum Thickness of Tubes in a Shell-and-TubeHeat Exchanger Date Issued: February 7, 1977 File: NA Question: Are the minimum thickness requirements in UHA-20 applicable to the tubes in a shelland-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. Interpretation: 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 that 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 stress 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 those 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 marking, 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: described. The requirements of UCS-79 require heat treatment per UCS-56 under the provisions

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 Issued: 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 -20F? Reply: testing. UCS-66(c)(1) permits an approved material to be used at or above -20F without impact

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 intent 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 not 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. The 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 Date Issued: March 14, 1977 File: BC75-630 Question 1: In Section VIII, Division 1, SA-240, TP316L is listed with a value at 400F of 15.5 ksi. Since this is the only value to change since the 1971 Edition, please verify that this value is correct. Reply 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 500F whereas in Section VIII, Division 1 the stress value for the same temperature is 17.9. Please 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 500F 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 requested. 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: File:

March 16, 1977 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 requirements 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 with 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 adjoining 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 exceeding 50 psi permit the use of partial radiography under UW11(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 provisions 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 UW51. Does this permit the use of partial radiography under UW-11(a)(5)(b)? Reply 5: Negative. Complete radiographic examination requires this examination 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 utilizes 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 UW12(c) applies. Interpretation: VIII-77-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-101 Date Issued: March 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 satisfy 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 Section 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 requirements 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 represents 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 be conducted at a temperature at or above 60F? Reply 2: The 60F 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 temperature 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 greater 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 permissible 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: diameter? In a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, may a nozzle utilize an abrupt transition in outside

Reply: A nozzle which utilizes an abrupt transition in outside diameter is not prohibited by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 providing all of the applicable requirements are met, paying particular attention to te 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 out-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 File: 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 accommodate 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 "fy" 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 fy. 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 Table 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 reliability factor of 0.55 for fr (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 used 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 "welded 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 continue 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. Question 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 designs 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 Appendix 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 responsibility 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 weld 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 Table UA-002. Question 2: determined? For the thickness "t", as described in Question (1), on what basis is this thickness

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: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A April 25, 1977 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. Interpretation: 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 required, 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 Question: 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 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-77-45 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 the 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: Section 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 vessel, 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. Interpretation: 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: Positive 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 absolute values of the calculated values for "P" and "MO". Of course, the calculated value of "MO" 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: File:

April 29, 1977 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 welded 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 to 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 under Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: Division 1. Yes. Such material may be used under the provisions of UG-15 of Section VIII,

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 UW52(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: Section 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 treating 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 Question: 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, in the above described attachment, shall be determined in accordance with Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (g) as described in the nomenclature for tc in UW16(b). Interpretation: VIII-77-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-51 Date Issued: June 21, 1977 File: 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 and 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 period 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 required 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. Interpretation: 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 SA455. This paragraph has impact test requirements for temperatures below -20F. 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 section 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 dimension 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. Interpretation: 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 nozzles 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 permissible 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 metric 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: File:

July 1, 1977 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 average 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 basis 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 welds. 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 cladding 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 required 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 to 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 used 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 testing 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 spot 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 necessary 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 necessary 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. Alternatively, 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 Section 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 following 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 -50F. Interpretation: VIII-77-73 Subject: Section 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 regardless 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 each 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 thickness 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 taken 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 back 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 principal 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 of 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 UG-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 sectional 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-77-76 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 UW2. 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 of 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: Section 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 -20F? Reply: in UG-84. The requirements for impact testing of weldments are given in UCS-66 and particularly

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 including 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 Subject: 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 longitudinal 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 reinforcing 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 described 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 existing 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 Addenda 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 particular 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 necessary 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-totubesheet welds for a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger for a P No.-1 material designed for temperatures below -20F used 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 requirements 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, SA-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: September 23, 1977 File: BC77-397 Question 1 and Reply 1:See Interpretation VIII-77-89, Question 1 and Reply 1. Question 2: What rules apply to the set pressure and accumulation pressure for the facilities described in Question 1? Reply 2: The requirements concerning set pressures are defined in UG-134. The relief devices must be sized to satisfy the accumulation pressure requirements of UG-125(c) or UG-125(c)(1). Question 3: Question 1? Reply 3: present rules. May control systems or instruments be substituted for the relief device described under As stated in the Note under UG-125(h), such substitution is not permitted under the

Interpretation: VIII-77-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-129(c)

Date Issued: File:

September 27, 1977 BC77-337

Question: Do the rules of UG-129(c) permit the additional required marking to be placed on the rupture disk holder instead of the pressure relief valve? Reply 1: Question 2: No. Who is the "responsible manufacturer" referred to in UG-129(c)(2)?

Reply 2: The responsible manufacturer is the manufacturer who conducts the certification of capacity tests of UG-127(a)(3)(b)(3). Interpretation: VIII-77-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Requirements for Relief Devices Date Issued: September 30, 1977 File: BC76-523 Question 1: Where the only source of overpressure is external to a pressure vessel and there is no risk of exposure to fire or other source of external heat, does UG-125(h) permit a suitably set and sized relief device to be installed between the source of external pressure and the vessel rather than directly on the vessel? Reply 1: Yes

Question 2: May intervening stop valves be installed between the relief device of Question 1 and the pressure vessel? Reply 2: In accordance with the provisions of UG-135(e)(2) and UA-354(b), such stop valves are permitted subject to the acceptance by the legal jurisdiction as stated in UA-350. Question 3: If a vessel has a source of overpressure internal to itself and was protected against that source by a suitable set and sized relief device installed directly on the vessel, could the vessel be protected against an external source of overpressure by another relief device installed as in Questions 1 and 2? Reply 3: Yes, subject to the qualifying conditions regarding the stop valves given in Reply 2.

Question 4: If a manufacturer furnished to a user an assembly consisting of pressure vessels, piping, stop valves, and instruments to perform a specific function such as removing moisture from a gas, who is responsible for furnishing the relief devices under Questions 1, 2, and 3? Reply 4: This is a contractual matter that probably cannot be resolved by reference to Code rules. To assist in resolution of this question additional rules which may have some bearing are as follows: (a) U-2(a) which defines certain responsibilities of the user or his designated agent. (b) Footnote 2 to U-2(a) which appears to define designated agent so as to apply the manufacturer of the assembly in Question 4. (c) Footnote 31 to UG-125(a) which states, "Safety devices need not be provided by the vessel manufacturer, but overpressure protection shall be provided prior to placing the vessel in service." In the absence of any specific contractual reference to relief devices, it is our opinion that the rules would intend, under the provisions of Footnote 2 of U-2(a), that the manufacturer of the assembly would be responsible to furnish the relief device installed directly on the vessel under Question 3. Beyond this opinion, it is not believed that the Code rules can assist in this contractual matter.

Interpretation: VIII-77-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Size and Volume Limits, U-1 Date Issued: September 30, 1977 File: BC76-615 Question 1: U-1(j) of Section VIII, Division 1 defines the volume and pressure limits for vessels which may be marked with a "UM" symbol. U-1(j)(2) defines 1-1/2 cu ft in volume and 600 psi design pressure as one of these limits. How is the 1-1/2 cu ft volume determined for the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchanger? Reply 1: Where the tube side is an independent pressure chamber as described in UG-19(a), the volume of the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchanger is the total shell volume minus the volume taken up by the tube side. Where the shell can be thoroughly vented, filled, and drained, measuring a suitable liquid drained from a filled shell is a method frequently used to prove the volume of an independent chamber. Question 2: U-1(c)(9) excludes "vessels having an inside diameter not exceeding 6 in. (152 mm) with no limitation on pressure" from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. Would this exclusion apply to a vessel in which two cylindrical shells having inside diameters less than 6 in. are connected by a pressure containing header (housing) which has an inside dimension exceeding 6 in.? Reply 2: No.

Interpretation: VIII-77-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Formed Heads Furnished as a Part, UG-11(b) vs UG-77(c) Date Issued: September 30, 1977 File: BC75-239 Question 1: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction there appears to be a possible conflict between the requirements of UG-11(b) and UG-77(c). When a head, wholly formed by forging or die forming, is furnished by a parts manufacturer basically as material under the provisions of UG-11(b) including the required marking and material identification, must the requirements of UG-77(c) concerning marking and material identification also be satisfied? Reply 1: Question 2: to apply? No. Under the stated conditions, the requirements of UG-77(c) do not apply. If the answer to Question 1 is negative, under what circumstances is UG-77(c) intended

Reply 2: If, instead of purchasing the heads basically as materials under the provisions of UG11(b), the vessel manufacturer was contracting work to others under the provisions of U-2(b)(2), the requirements of UG-77(c) would apply. Interpretation: VIII-77-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-52 Date Issued: October 13, 1977 File: BC77-605 Question: The length of weld in a vessel is less than 50 ft.; however, one welding operator is to weld the longitudinal seam and two welding operators are to weld each circumferential seam. Is one spot examination acceptable to satisfy the requirements of UW-52?

Reply: Under the provisions of UW-52(b)(2), a spot examination must be made for the welding of each welding operator or welder. The exception to this is a condition under which two or more welders or welding operators make weld layers in a joint in which case one spot examination may represent this work. This rule applies regardless of the fact that the total length of weld in the vessel may be less than 50 ft. Interpretation: VIII-77-93 Subject: Use of SA-487 Class 4Q for Section VIII, Division 1 Construction Date Issued: October 13, 1977 File: BC77-603 Question: Reply: May SA-487 Class 4Q be used for construction under Section VIII, Division 1? No. This material is not presently listed in the appropriate table in Subsection C.

ATTENTION The foregoing interpretation has been further considered and the following was added as a clarification and sent to the inquirer. Clarification Issued: Question: UCS? May 16, 1978

May SA-487 Class 4Q be used for construction under Section VIII, Division 1, Part

Reply: No; however, this material is presently listed as an approved material in Table UHT-23 in Subsection C and may be used for Section VIII, Division 1 construction in conjunction with the rules of Part UHT. Interpretation: VIII-77-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Multi-Platen Press Date Issued: October 18, 1977 File: BC77-332 Question 1: The platens of a multi-platen, hydraulic press, such as used in the plywood and laminate industries, are pressured with steam at 150 psig and subsequently cooled with water during each cycle of operation. Do the platens constitute a pressure vessel under the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply 1: The manufacturer and the user of the multi-platen, hydraulic press described above, should carefully review the definitions of U-1(c)(3) regarding rotating or reciprocating mechanical devices in relation to the primary design considerations of your equipment. It appears that your equipment may be excluded from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. 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. Question 2: Can you furnish guidance on the design of such multi-platen presses and recommendations on a manufacturing source? Reply 2: Interpretation: No. Such guidance or recommendations is not in the scope of the Committee's activities. VIII-77-95

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116 October 20, 1977 BC77-564

Question: Is it permissible 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 metric units are needed, these can be inserted parenthetically next to the appropriate English unit. Interpretation: VIII-77-96 Subject Section VIII, Division 1; Nameplate Stamping Date Issued: October 21, 1977 File: BC74-185 Question: Where a pressure vessel has one independent Code pressure chamber and one independent non-Code pressure chamber, is it permissible to mark the data for the non-Code chamber on the same nameplate that carries the Code symbol and appropriate data for the Code chamber? Reply: No. Under the provisions of UG-119 and UG-116(i), it is intended that only the design data for those portions of the vessel which comply with Section VIII, Division 1 be included in the nameplate having the Code symbol; however, it is recommended that manufacturers attach an additional nameplate (or marking) without the Code symbol indicating the design data for the non-Code chamber. Interpretation: VIII-77-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UNF-91 Date Issued: November 7, 1977 File: BC77-528 and BC77-702 Question: What is the intent of UNF-91 with regard to the filler metal being of the same composition as the base metal? Reply: In this regard, filler metal would be of a material of alloy which has approximately the same radiation absorption rate as the material being radiographed. The identical alloy, by chemical analysis, is not necessarily required. Interpretation: VIII-77-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(e) Date Issued: November 7, 1977 File: BC77-527 Question: Is it the intent of U-1(e) that piping and valves subject to pressure, including those with an inside diameter greater than 6 in. but beyond the geometric limits listed in that paragraph, are outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-77-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-93 Date Issued: November 9, 1977 File: BC77-593

Question: Are material test reports required for SA-53 Grade A or B for construction under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The provisions of UG-93(a)(2) allow for this material to be accepted without obtaining material test reports from the manufacturer provided the pieces are marked in accordance with Section 20 under that specification. Further, the requirements of UG-93 and UG-94 shall be complied with. Interpretation: VIII-77-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56, P-No. 4 Materials Date Issued: November 9, 1977 File: BC77-568 Question: Under Table UCS-56, P-No. 4 material, does Note (1)(c)(3) apply as an exemption for castings of SA-217 Grade WC-6, if the percent maximum carbon is restricted to 0.15%? Reply: No. The exemption from postweld heat treatment specified in Note (1)(c)(3) (See Summer 1977 Addenda) applies to pipe or tubes. Postweld heat treatment is mandatory in all cases for this material. Interpretation: VIII-77-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Inspection Openings, UG-46 Date Issued: November 16,1977 File: BC76-734 Question 1: Do the UG-46 requirements for inspection openings apply to the shell of a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger? Reply 1: The shell of a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger not subject to internal corrosion on the shell side need not be provided with inspection openings. We see no direct conflict in the UG-46(a) requirement for marking the Manufacturer's Data Report "for noncorrosive service" for a vessel containing a standard corrosion allowance such as required by TEMA. Where the shell side fluid has the potential to cause internal corrosion of the shell, the UG-46 requirements apply. Question 2: May telltale holes in accordance with UG-25(e) be used in lieu of the inspection openings required by UG-46 for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers subject to internal corrosion and having a diameter in excess of 36 in.? Reply 2: No. As required by UG-46(b), inspection openings meeting the requirements of UG-46(f) (3) are required for such vessels. Note: The Winter 1977 Addenda will contain a new UG-46(f)(7) "Flanged connection from which piping, instruments, or similar attachments can be removed may be used in place of the required inspection openings provided that: (a) the connections are at least equal to the size of the required openings, and (b) the connections are sized and located to afford at least an equal view of the interior as the required inspection openings." Interpretation: VIII-77-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-15(b) Date Issued: November 28,1977 File: BC77-676

Question 1: Are the values given in UW-15(b) regarding stress values for weld metal to be modified further by the joint efficiencies given in UW-12? Reply 1: No. The values given in UW-15(b) are applicable for calculations pertaining to reinforcement as indicated in UG-41 and as set forth in the examples given in UA-280. Question 2: Is the calculation using the values in UW-15(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 affected by the use of a particular welding process which consequently would result in stress reductions for the values of S in the applicable formulas? Reply 2: No.

Interpretation: VIII-77-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-119(a) Date Issued: November 29, 1977 File: BC77-525 Question: Is it required that the nameplate on a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel be stamped exactly as shown in Fig. UG-118, or may the information concerning the company name and location be placed across the top of the nameplate and code stamp placed in the center? Reply: UG-119(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 states that the arrangements shown in Fig. UG118 shall be substantially complied with. It is our opinion that the arrangement indicated in the inquiry does not satisfy this requirement. Interpretation: VIII-77-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56 Date Issued: November 30, 1977 File: BC77-520 Question: Under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, may pock-marks, pits, or tears produced on the surface of a carbon or low alloy steel vessel by the improper removal of a thermocouple or other attachment subsequent to postweld heat treatment be repaired by welding without subsequent postweld heat treatment after the completion of the repair if the vessel is in lethal service? Reply: Yes, provided this complies with the Notes to Table UCS-56 for the P-Number material.

Interpretation: VIII-77-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(5)(b) Date Issued: November 30, 1977 File: BC77-578 Question: Are the provisions of UW-11(a)(5)(b) for partial radiography applicable to individual Category B and C butt welds, regardless of length? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-77-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Use of SA-182 Grade F6A Date Issued: December 5,1977

File:

BC77-750

Question: In Table UHA-23 SA-182 Grade F6 is listed; however, this material is not included in Section II, Part A nor is it commercially available. May SA-182 Grade F6A be used for Section VIII, Division 1 construction under the provisions of UG-15 using the allowable stresses for SA-479 Grade 410? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-77-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Policy on Certification of Materials Date Issued: December 8, 1977 File: BC77-371 Question: Is it acceptable for a material supplier to transfer information from a Material Manufacturer's Certification or Certificate of Compliance, under his letterhead, in lieu of furnishing a copy of the Material Manufacturer's CMTR or Certificate of Compliance? Reply: It is the intent of the Code that a material supplier shall not transcribe data certified by a Material Manufacturer but shall furnish a copy of that certification, supplemented as necessary by additional documents which certify the results of tests, examinations, repairs, or treatments required by the basic Material Specification and performed by the material supplier. Interpretation: VIII-77-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-66 Date Issued: December 9, 1977 File: BC77-628 Question: UCS-66(c)(1) indicates that no impact test is required on any material for use at temperatures of -20F and above. Would E-6013 electrodes fall within this category? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-77-109 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; Type No. 1 Joints Date Issued: December 20,1977 File: BC77-758 Question: A weld with the following specifications is proposed to be used for Section VIII, Division 1 or Section VIII, Division 2 construction as a Type No. 1 weld used in a Category B location: (a) single side, vee groove weld with no access to back side; (b) root pass made with TIG process with no gas backing or backing strip or back gouging on back side; (c) balance of weld completed with submerged-arc process or manual shielded metal arc process; (d) no consumable insert used, (e) material is carbon steel. Does the above weld qualify as a Type No. 1 weld? Reply: The above weld may qualify as a Type No. 1 weld provided the requirements of UW-35 in Section VIII, Division 1 and AF-220 in Section VIII, Division 2 are met. Verification of the contour of the back side of the weld may necessitate radiographic examination.

Interpretation: VIII-77-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-10 Date Issued: December 29, 1977 File: NA Question: Would it be permissible to have hot rolled carbon-steel bars to AISI No. 1018 tested to ensure that it meets the chemical and mechanical requirements of SA-675, and then use it in place of material to SA-675 for construction of unfired pressure vessels? Reply: A material could be produced to some other specification and be qualified as an SA material provided the Inspector is presented with evidence acceptable to him, including the specific requirements of UG-10, Section VIII, Division 1, indicating that the material satisfies all requirements of the Code approved specification. Interpretation: VIII-78-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-65 Date Issued: January 6, 1978 File: BC77-681 Question: UA-65(b)(1) indicates that "the maximum pore dimension shall be 20% of T, or 1/8 in., whichever is smaller, except that an isolate pore separated from an adjacent pore by 1 in. or more may be 30% of T or 1/4 in., whichever is less". In the foregoing paragraph, do the words after "except" contradict the first part of the paragraph? Reply: No. The words after "except" in the above quoted paragraph override the first portion of the paragraph in the instance where an isolated pore (separated from an adjacent pore by 1 in. or more) exists. Interpretation: VIII-78-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52(b) Date Issued: January 6, 1978 File: BC77-699 Question: UW-52(b)(2) indicates that "such additional spots as may be required shall be selected so that an examination is made of the welding of each welding operator or welder." Do the words "such additional spots" apply even though the length of linear welding in the vessel is less than 50 ft.? Reply: Yes. The words "such additional spots" apply in the case where more than one welder or welding operator performs on other than 2 or more layers of an individual joint, in which case an examination must be made for each welder or welding operator, regardless of the fact that the length of linear weld may be less than 50 ft. This is an additional requirement to that specified in UW-52(b)(1). Interpretation: VIII-78-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Case 1348, Use of ASTM A 494-62 Date Issued: January 6, 1978 File: BC77-724 Question: Code Case 1348 indicates in Par. (3) of the Reply that no welding is permitted. Is repair by welding of castings conforming to ASTM A 494-62 permissible under the provisions of this Case?

Reply: Repair by welding of castings conforming to ASTM A494-62 under the provisions of Case 1348 are only permissible in connection with compliance with the material specification, not in the vessel fabrication. Interpretation: VIII-78-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-126 Date Issued: January 16, 1978 File: BC77-573 Question: Under footnote 33 to UG-126, 1977 Edition, is it correct to refer to "static pressure" when characterizing the opening or pop action of a safety valve? Reply: Yes. The term "static pressure" is that pressure which tends to exert force on the walls of a pressure vessel and actuates the safety valve as prescribed in UG-134. Interpretation: VIII-78-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11 and UG-15 Date Issued: January 16, 1978 File: BC77-602 Question: May nozzles be furnished by one fabricator to a manufacturer of a completed vessel out of SB-265 plate which is to be rolled and welded without filler metal? Reply: Such nozzles may be furnished for a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel as described in the question under one of the following options: (1) The nozzle could be furnished as a pressure part, requiring compliance with the applicable material certification rules and Partial Data Report; or (2) The nozzle could be furnished as SB-337 pipe for the same welded grade (note that the chemical and mechanical properties are essentially the same); or (3) The nozzle could be furnished under the provisions of UG-11(c) as a manufacturer's standard in which case all of the rules in UG-11 as applicable to this construction shall be met, including establishing a pressure-temperature rating. Interpretation: VIII-78-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-37(f) Date Issued: January 16, 1978 File: BC77-626 Question: UW-37(f) requires markings for welders and welding operators for vessels in which the wall thickness is less than 1/4 in. for steel material by a stencil or other surface marking unless a record is kept by the manufacturer. May these markings be eradicated after the application of the Code symbol? Reply: Yes, provided the Manufacturer's Data Report has been completed.

Interpretation: VIII-78-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-3 Date Issued: January 16, 1978 File: BC77-627 Question: UW-3: Please verify that the following statements are correct with regard to interpretation of

(1) UW-3(a) weld Categories define the location of a joint, but not the type of joint. (2) Category C merely locates the joint. This Category includes all types of flange to nozzle neck connections. (3) The butt welded joint connecting a welding neck flange to a nozzle neck is classified as Category C and not Category B, although both are circumferential butt welded joints in a nozzle (4) An intermediate circumferential butt weld joining two lengths of pipe in a nozzle neck, such as may be found in a drain line, is classified as Category B. (5) The weld categories do not describe the type of joint as indicated in Table UW-12. (6) The weld categories do not define the nondestructive examination requirements. (7) The requirements for the type of weld joint and nondestructive examination are dependent on design and service considerations and are specified elsewhere in the Code. (8) UW-11(b) and Note: All Category B and C butt welds in nozzle necks, including those exempted on the basis of size from full radiography in UW-11(a)(4) or partial radiography in UW-11(a) (5)(b), shall at least be examined by spot radiography according to UW-52. The frequency of the spot examinations is defined in UW-52(b). Reply: We agree with the above interpretations of UW-3.

Interpretation: VIII-78-09 Subject Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(d)(2) Date Issued: January 16,1978 File: BC77-753 Question: An evaporator or condenser has a water side comprised of heads and tubes, which represent an independent pressure chamber of a multiple chamber vessel. Does the 120 gal limitation of U-1(c)(6) apply to the sum of the volumes of the tubes and heads? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-101, Proof Testing Date Issued: January 16,1978 File: BC77-756 Question: Under the formulas of UG-101, proof testing, the formulas to compute the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel are reduced based on the ratio of the specified minimum yield or tensile strength over the actual average strength from test specimens. On what basis is the maximum allowable working pressure reduced by this ratio? Reply: Although the actual average strength from test specimens as specified in the inquiry may be greater than the specified minimum strength required by the materials specification, the proof test in UG-101 are utilized for duplicate parts of the same materials, design, and construction which need not be proof tested but only given a hydrostatic test or pneumatic test as described in UG-101(d). Accordingly, these duplicate parts may have average actual strength from test specimens which may be close to the specified minimum and below that determined by the specimens in the proof test procedure. Interpretation: VIII-78-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(c), Manhole Rings Date Issued: January 16,1978 File: BC77-757

Question: Is it permissible under the provisions of UG-11(c) to manufacture a manhole ring for use in a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel without forwarding the U-2 Partial Data Report Form if the ring is marked with the welder's identification symbol, trademark of the fabricator, and the material identification number? Reply: Under the provision of UG-11(c)(2), such a part may be fabricated in accordance with a manufacturer standard provided all of the requirements of UG-11(c)(2) are met, including compliance with the requirements of UW-26 through UW-40 and marking as required by UG-11(a)(1). Interpretation: VIII-78-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-186, Design of Supports Date Issued: January 16, 1978 File: BC77-775 Question: Is it the intent of Appendix G that the Manual for Steel Construction issued by the American Institute of Steel Construction is to be used for the design of leg supports for tanks, including the allowable stresses permitted by that document? Reply: The above Publication as referenced in the first paragraph of UA-186 is only suggested as good practice for the design of supports for pressure vessels. There may be other criteria that may need to be used when the considerations as outlined in the other paragraphs of Appendix G are considered. We regret that we cannot further comment on the specifics of the allowable stresses given in the Manual for Steel Construction for the reasons which are given in UA-185. Interpretation: VIII-78-13 Subject: Section III, Division 1, UG-36 and U-2(g) Date Issued: January 18, 1978 File: BC77-594 Question: Is it permissible to design an end closure for a full diameter of a vessel where the inner surface exposed to pressure is concave and where this end closure has an opening in the center? Reply: Yes, it is permissible to design a vessel with the end closure equal to the full vessel diameter. Some acceptable closures with full-open, flat ends are shown in Fig. UG-34 and other types are described in UG-35. Except for UG-38 for flued openings and UG-39 for flat heads, the opening rules of UG36 through UG-41 apply. The design of the full-open closure would be required to comply with the requirements of U-2(g) since the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 do not specifically cover this design detail and geometry. Interpretation: VIII-78-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(3) and U-1(i) Date Issued: January 18, 1978 File: BC77-722 Question: May hydraulic cylinders, pneumatic cylinders, rams, and similar equipment be stamped with the Code U-Symbol, provided all the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 are met? Reply: The provisions of U-1(c)(3) exempt such vessels from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 However, U-1(i) permits such pressure vessels which meet all of the requirements of the Code to be stamped even though exempted from such stamping. Therefore, it is permissible to stamp the

equipment described in the question with the Code "U" Symbol. We would like to caution you that the designer must be aware of the loading to consider under UG-22 and, where necessary, follow the provisions of U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-78-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66, UG-118 and UG-119 Date Issued: January 19, 1978 File: BC77-572 Question (1): What are the requirements with regard to steel stamping directly on a pressure vessel stamped in accordance with UG-118? Reply (1): The provisions in UG-119(a) require nameplates bearing the marking called for in UG116 on vessels constructed for steel plates less than 1/4 in. or of nonferrous plates less than 1/2 in. Question (2): Under UCS-66(c)(1), what is the intent of the Code regarding the exemption from impact testing for vessels that may operate below -20F due to a lower seasonal atmospheric temperature? Reply (2): As is noted in UG-20, Design Temperature, atmospheric temperature is not included as a factor in the establishment of operating conditions. It is the responsibility of the user to exercise engineering judgment in the selection of materials for designs where the vessel may be in service temperature. This was incorporated into the Code in recognition that there are a great number of vessels having reduced pressures at such low temperatures and this exemption would avoid the imposition of an unnecessary penalty. Interpretation: VIII-78-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: January 20,1978 File: BC77-807 Question: Is it permissible to use ASTM A621 under Case 1292 and Case 1376 for dimpled embossed assemblies if the material is proven to meet the requirement of SA-414 which is listed in Subsection C of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: It is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that material for Code use be ordered, produced, and documented to an SA Specification; however, material produced to some other specification could qualify as an SA material provided the Inspector is presented with evidence acceptable to him, including the specific requirements of the UG-10, indicating that the material satisfies all the requirements of the Code approved Specification. Interpretation: VIII-78-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-81(a) Date Issued: January 31, 1978 File: BC77-782 Question: What is the intent of the permissible tolerance in UG-81(a) relative to the theoretical shape of the head? Reply: The tolerance permitted in UG-81(a) refers to a deviation from the specified shape of the head outside of the theoretical shape of the head. Interpretation: VIII-78-19

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Signature on Manufacturer's Data Report by Manufacturer January 31,1978 BC77-855

Question: Is a handwritten signature of the Manufacturer or his designee required in the Certificate of Compliance block on the Manufacturers' Data Report Form for Code construction under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-129 Date Issued: February 1, 1978 File: BC77-725 Question: What are the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 regarding the rating and application of the Code Symbol Stamp to liquid relief valves? Reply: Paragraph UG-129(e) prescribes the appropriate marking for liquid relief valves; however, the application of the Code Symbol Stamp is not required. Section VIII, Division 1 does not discuss the method of rating liquid relief valves. Appendix XI for capacity conversion addresses itself to compressible fluids and does not cover liquid conversions. It is permissible to apply a Code Symbol Stamp to a safety relief valve in accordance with UC-129 for air or steam service and add additional information for liquid service. Interpretation: VIII-78-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2 and UCS-56 Date Issued: February 1, 1978 File: BC77-805 Question: For heat exchanger parts of P-No. 1 material is postweld heat treatment required if the vessel is operating in nonlethal service? Reply: Such heat exchanger parts would be required to be postweld heat treated under the conditions given in Table UCS-56 below that specified in Note (2)(a) and Note (3). Interpretation: VIII-78-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Alloy 303 Date Issued: February 1, 1978 File: BC77-854 Question: Is Grade 303 stainless steel acceptable for use in vessels manufactured under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. Grade 303 stainless steel is a free machining steel which has certain elements which have been added making the material undesirable for use in pressure boundary applications, and for this reason it has been previously rejected. Interpretation: VIII-78-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-34 Date Issued: February 3, 1978

File:

BC78-1

Question: Are the requirements of UHA-34 for liquid penetrant examination applicable to butt and fillet welds used in the fabrication of stiffening rings of vessels under external pressure? Reply: No. We would also refer you to UG-30(b) for the requirements for the welds attaching stiffening rings to shell plates. Interpretation: VIII-78-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-15 Date Issued: February 6, 1978 File: BC77-583 Question: For use as heat exchanger tubes under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, is it acceptable to fabricate tubes by forming a nickel plate or strip conforming to SB-162 into tubular shape and welding using electron beam welding? Reply: In accordance with the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-15, welded nickel tubular products may be furnished as material when ordered to the applicable requirements of an approved specification, such as SB-517, except that the chemical and mechanical properties shall conform to the requirements of an approved material such as SB-162. The order for such a tubular product must clarify the matter of required finishing treatment so that the finished product will conform to the mechanical properties specified in the plate specification and listed in Table UNF-23.3 of Section VIII, Division 1. Note that a factor of 0.85 must be applied to the allowable stress values listed for plate material. Electron beam welding is acceptable under the requirements of SB-517 and Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-78-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-47 Date Issued: February 6, 1978 File: BC78-2 Question (1): Do the rules of UG-47 which are applicable to staybolts also apply to reinforcing rectangular bars used to reinforce flat plates used in rectangular vessels? Reply (1): No. Section VIII, Division 1 does not contain specific rules to cover such reinforcing bars and, therefore, the rules of U-2(g) apply. Question (2): flat plates? Reply (2): Are there any recommended procedures for the reinforcement of rectangular vessels of No. See answer to question (1).

Interpretation: VIII-78-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56(d)(4) Date Issued: February 7, 1978 File: BC77-860 Question: Under UCS-56(d)(4) it is indicated that, with the exception of Fig. UW-16.1, sketches (a) and (b), the criteria for establishing the thickness to be used in applying the requirements for postweld

heat treatment is the thickness of the shell or head plate in nozzle attachment welds. May the ordered thickness be used for establishing this criteria? Reply: Yes. See also UG-16(c).

Interpretation: VIII-78-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125(e) Date Issued: February 15,1978 File: BC76-201 Question: May a pressure gage used to determine the vessel pressure at or near the set pressure as prescribed in UG-125(e) be omitted and an alternate gage be used to determine operating conditions which is appropriately graduated? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Clamp Connections Date Issued: February 20, 1978 File: BC78-28 Question: Is it permissible to use a clamp connection consisting of two flanged ferrules and a molded gasket which fits into a grooved ferrule lip facing on the interior of the clamp device for Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: The devices covered by your inquiry are not prohibited by the rules of the Code. When the device is used within the boundary of the vessels, as complying with the Code, the devices must be of Code material and the design pressure must be established by an analysis under U-2(g) or by proof testing under UG-101. When the device is used in conjunction with a closure providing access to a vessel, further requirements of UG-35 shall be satisfied. Suppliers of these types of devices have demonstrated capability to meet all of the Code rules and devices of the type covered by your inquiry have been incorporated in vessels stamped with the Code Stamp. Interpretation: VIII-78-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-119 Date Issued: February 22,1978 File: BC78-54 Question: Is it permissible to attach a vessel nameplate by the use of a high temperature adhesive?

Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 specifies in UG-119(c) that the required nameplate shall be permanently attached by suitable means to the vessel in a conspicuous place. The adhesive material described in the question is not prohibited as a means to satisfy this requirement. It is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to determine that this adhesive would be able to withstand the conditions that the vessel might see in service. If the nameplate does not directly adhere to the shell of the vessel, this may not be a problem. Interpretation: VIII-78-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56 Date Issued: February 23, 1978

File:

BC77-790

Question (1): What are the requirements for preheat and postweld heat treatment for Section VIII, Division 1 construction under the following conditions: vessel wall material P-No. 1; wall thickness 11/2 in.; attachment utilizes a throat thickness of 1/2 in. for attaching a nonpressure part to pressure part; no service restrictions per UW-2; and postweld heat treatment is not a requirement per UCS-67. Reply (1): Assuming that the vessel has no other welding than that attaching the nonpressure part as described in the above question, postweld heat treatment is not a requirement; however, preheat to a minimum temperature of 200F is required as indicated in the Notes in Table UCS-56. Question (2): Same as Question (1) except that the wall thickness is greater than 1-1/2 in.

Reply (2): Same as the Reply (1) again assuming that the vessel has no other welding than that described in the question. Interpretation: VIII-78-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Overpressure Protection, UG-125 Date Issued: February 23, 1978 File: BC75-60 Question (1): Is it permissible to operate a vessel at a pressure exceeding the design pressure if the design pressure and maximum allowable working pressure are assumed as equal? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does the inclusion of an overpressure margin for a pressure relief device setting as permitted by UG-125 permit operation of a vessel at a pressure exceeding the vessel design pressure? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84 Date Issued: February 23, 1978 File: BC78-29 Question: A tube to be used in a shell and tube heat exchanger is exempt from Charpy V-notch testing since it would have a maximum obtainable Charpy specimen with a width along the notch of less than 0.099 in. Table UG-84.3 indicates that SA-334 is the appropriate specification for impact tested materials in tubular form. If the design temperature of the vessel is below -20F, is it necessary that SA-334 be used for tubes in such a vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 Date Issued: March 10, 1978 File: BC78-37 Question: Is it the intent of sketch (3) of Fig. UA-48 that it is permissible to attach a hubless flange to the outside diameter of a shell of a vessel with a fillet weld shown by the dotted lines in that sketch?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56(d)(2) and Fig. UW-13.1, Sketch (f) Date Issued: March 10, 1978 File: BC78-79 Question: What is the intent of UCS-56(d)(2) with regard to the thickness to be used in applying the requirements for postweld heat treatment in Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (f)? Reply: It is the intent that the governing thickness in Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (f) would be the greatest of the dimensions ts1, ts2 or th Interpretation: VIII-78-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Use of SA-53 Type F Pipe Date Issued: March 10, 1978 File: BC78-80 Question: Is it permissible to use SA-53 Type F pipe for Section VIII, Division 1 construction?

Reply: No. SA-53 Type F is presently not listed in the tables of Subsection C with appropriate stress values. (See UG-8.) Interpretation: VIII-78-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-20(b) and UG-10 Date Issued: March 10, 1978 File: BC78-81 Question (1): construction? Reply (1): Is it permissible to use SA-453 Gr. 651 Bolting at 1200F for Section VIII, Division 1 No. See UG-20(b).

Question (2): Under UG-10, is it permissible to use a material for Section VIII, Division 1 construction if it is not identified with a specification number as listed in Subsection C if it is proven to meet the requirements of an ASME Specification listed in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): It is the intent of the Code that materials for Code use should be ordered, produced, and documented to an SA Specification; however, material produced to an ASTM Specification may be used in place of an ASME Material Specification provided the requirements of the ASTM Specification are shown to be identical or more stringent than the ASME Specification, or that the ASTM Specification is certified to meet all the basic requirements of the ASME Specification. In reply to the question, a material could be produced to some other specification and be qualified as an SA material provided the Inspector is presented with evidence acceptable to him, including the specific requirements of UG-10, indicating that the material satisfies all requirements of the Code approved specification. Interpretation: VIII-78-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-94 Date Issued: March 14, 1978 File: None

Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-94 that each piece of plate or sheet be marked as required by the applicable Material Specification prior to fabrication of the vessel? Reply: It is the intent of UG-94 that each piece of plate or sheet be marked in accordance with the requirements of the applicable Material Specification in Section II. If the material is subject to the requirements of SA-20 or SA-414, for example, these specifications require that each piece be marked by the Material Manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-78-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(b) Date Issued: March 14, 1978 File: None Question: What are the requirements of UG-90(b)(6) and (b)(12) relative to the examination of materials before fabrication" and "parts prior to joining" as applicable to the vessel Manufacturer and Inspector? Reply: It is the intent of UG-90(b)(6) and (b)(12) that the vessel Manufacturer establish a system of control which provides that each piece of material and each part is so examined and that this system is acceptable to the Inspector. This examination may be done by the Manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-78-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, SA-240 Grade 304 and UG-15 Date Issued: March 14, 1978 File: BC78-51 Question (1): In Table UHA-23, Note (11) referenced by SA-240 Grade 304, indicates that for temperatures above 1000F the stress values can be used provided heat treatment is carried out as specified. Does this heat treatment apply to the material prior to welding rather than postweld heat treatment? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible to use Type 304H material under Section VIII, Division 1 and if so what are the maximum allowable stress values permitted? Reply (2): Type 304H is presently not listed in Table UHA-23 in the product form of plate; however, under the provisions of UG-15 this may be used as specified in that paragraph. Accordingly, the maximum allowable stress values shown for Type 304H may be used. Interpretation: VIII-78-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Scope Date Issued: March 28, 1978 File: BC78-48 Question: Is an oil reclaimer which encloses a compressor and is built as an integral part of an air compressor considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: 1(c)(3). It would appear that these are excluded from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 by U-

We would call you attention to footnote 1 under U-1 which indicates that the legal requirements of the various jurisdictions should be reviewed as they may have different or more restrictive limitations than those prescribed by the Code. Interpretation: VIII-78-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56 Date Issued: April 11,1978 File: BC77-790 Question (1): Is it the intent of UCS-56(d)(6) and Note (2)(a) to Table UCS-56 that the exemption from postweld heat for material 1-1/2 in. and less, provided preheat over 1-1/4 in. is employed, applies to the thickness of the weld attaching a nonpressure part to a pressure part? Reply (1): No. The reference to 1-1/2 in. as described in the above question applies to the thickness of the pressure part and not to the thickness of the weld. The provisions of UCS-56(d)(6) which refer to the thickness of the weld at the point of attachment when a nonpressure part is welded to a pressure part are applicable to the minimum time at normal temperature for nominal thickness if the weld requires postweld heat treatment. Question (2): Which of the following statements regarding fillet weld size and exemption from postweld heat treatment where nonpressure parts are attached to pressure parts is correct? (a) Fillet welds with a throat greater than 1/2 in. require postweld heat treatment when the thickness of the pressure part exceeds 1-1/4 in. and preheat is not used. (b) Fillet welds with a throat less than 1/2 in. need not be postweld heat treated if preheat is used when the pressure part exceeds 1-1/4 in. (c) Fillet welds with a throat less than 1/2 in. need not be postweld heat treated regardless of the thickness of the pressure part or the fact that preheat is not applied. Reply (2): Items (a) and (b) are correct statements. Item (c) is incorrect.

Question (3): Do the exemptions in Notes (3)(a), (b), and (c) apply only if postweld heat treatment is required by UW-2? Reply (3): No. The exemption in these Notes apply in any instance where a mandatory heat treatment was required. Interpretation: VIII-78-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-45 Date Issued: April 11,1978 File: BC78-82 Question: Is it the intent of UG-45(a) that a sump or similar appurtenance when attached to a vessel conform to the requirements of this paragraph? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-33 and UW-51 Date Issued: April 11, 1978 File: BC78-136

Question (1): Is it permissible to exceed the permissible alignment tolerances of UW-33 if the out-of roundness tolerances of the shell or head to be joined are not exceeded? Reply (1): No. The alignment tolerances of UW-33 shall be met under all circumstances.

Question (2): Section VIII, Division 1, UW-51 and Appendix IV do not specify any volumetric criteria for slag inclusions. Is it correct that volumetric considerations are not applicable for acceptance-rejection criteria? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): A radiographic examination in accordance with UW-51 discloses three parallel lines of slag inclusions. If each line does not exceed the length limitations in UW-51(b)(3), is this acceptable under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): In UW-51(b)(3) a group of slag inclusions in line are acceptable if the distance between successive imperfections exceeds 6L where L is the length of the longest imperfection in the group. If two parallel lines of slag inclusions exist, is the 6L dimension measured within each individual line? Reply (4): Question (5): welded joint? Reply (5): Yes. What are the rules in Section VIII, Division 1 for maximum permissible offset for a butt See UW-33.

Question (6): What are the rules in Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to the gap between members when fitting up a corner joint? Reply (6): Section VIII, Division 1 does not specify dimensional limits; it is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to use sound engineering judgment based on welding procedure qualification. Interpretation: VIII-78-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-14 and UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: April 11,1978 File: BC78-148 Question(1): May a single opening not larger than 2 in. pipe size in a vessel shell or head over 3/8 in. be exempt from the reinforcements requirements of UG-37? Reply (1): Question(2): Yes. See UG-36(c)(3). May the opening described in Question (1) be located in a joint in a shell?

Reply (2): Such an opening may only be located in a head-to-shell or other circumferential joint in a vessel shell, provided the requirements of UW-14(b) are met, including additional radiographic requirements as prescribed in that paragraph. Question (3): May the opening described in Question (1) be located in a longitudinal joint in a shell?

Reply (3): No. See reply to Question (2). Additionally, we would direct your attention to UW-14(a) which indicates that any type of opening meeting the requirements in UG-37 for reinforcement may be located in a welded joint. Interpretation: VIII-78-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(h) and Fig. UA-4, Sketch (e) Date Issued: April 13,1978 File: BC78-63 Question: Is D1 as shown in Fig. UG-36, sketch (c) correct to use for the determination of the required thickness of a conical portion of a toriconical head as described in UG-32(h)? Reply: Figure UG-36 is not the appropriate figure to be referenced for the required thickness of a conical portion of a toriconical head as required by UG-32(h). The appropriate figure to be referenced is Fig. UA-4, sketch (e), Interpretation: VIII-78-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-35 Date Issued: April 14,1978 File: BC77-388 Question: Is it permissible to apply the "U" part stamping to a part of a vessel constructed to Section VIII, Division 1 requirements under Part UHT using a "low stress" steel stamp in lieu of a nameplate where this part has a thickness of not less than 1/4 in.? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-77(a) Date Issued: April 14,1978 File: BC78-26 Question: UG-77(a) requires in part that .....an as-built sketch or tabulation of materials shall be made, identifying each piece of material with the identification required by UG-93 and the coded marking. Does this paragraph require such a sketch or tabulation to apply to components other than the major pressure components of the vessel, such as small threaded fittings per the requirements of UG-11? Reply: UG-77(a) is intended to apply to all pressure parts in the vessel, including miscellaneous pressure parts finished under the provisions of UG-11. Interpretation: VIII-78-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, A-572 Grade 65 Date Issued: April 17, 1978 File: BC78-85 Question: May steel plate conforming to the specifications of ASTM A-572 Grade 65 be used in pressure retaining expansion elements in pressure vessels fabricated by welding and designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. See UG-5(a).

Interpretation: VIII-78-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Effective Gasket Width, Table UA-49.1 Date Issued: April 17,1978 File: BC78-171 Question: If the formula, b = (bo/2), when b > 1/4 in., given in Table UA-49.2 under the heading Effective Gasket Seating Width, 'b'," applicable when calculations are performed with bo in SI Units? Reply: This formula, although dimensionally inconsistent, is the correct formula for Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 applications. The value of b is determined in inches and is then converted to millimeters. We agree that the (mm) in the nomenclature for bo is misleading and we will correct this by deleting this in a future Errata. Interpretation: VIII-78-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93 and UG-11 Date Issued: April 21, 1978 File: BC78-97 Question: Is it correct to interpret that identification requirements for acceptance of material are met by UG-11(c)(1) and UG-93(a)(2) in reference to welded standard pressure parts, such as flanges, pipe, and pipe caps, and that Material Test Reports or Certificates of Compliance are not required for such parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Form U-1A Date Issued: April 21, 1978 File: BC78-149 Questions: In reference to Item 7 of Form U-1A, what shall be recorded under "R.T."? Are the requirements of UG-116(f) applicable to Form U-1A? Replies: For "Long" (Category A)joints, "R.T." of Item 7 of Form U-1A relates to radiographic examination of welded joints per UW-51 (indicating "spot" examination by radiography) or UW-52 (indicating full examination by radiography), as applicable. Therefore, "spot" or "full" shall be recorded under "R.T." as required. "Girth" (Category B) joints, should be recorded in the same manner except that "partial" should be recorded when the partial radiography provisions of UW-11(a)(5) are applied. The requirements of UG-116(f) apply to vessel markings, not to Data Reports. Interpretation: VIII-78-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(c), UG-116(g)(1), UG-120, Appendix W Date Issued: April 21,1978 File: BC78-150 Question (1): Is it the intent of UG-116(c) to require that a pressure vessel with a seamless shell be marked with an "S" under the Code "U" symbol even if lug brackets are attached to the vessel by fillet welds? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does UG-116(g)(1) require that the letters "HT" applied under the Code symbol for a seamless vessel made of liquid quenched and tempered SA-372 material but which contains no welds and thus which has not been postweld heat treated? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is "HT" in line 7 of Form U-1A applicable for pressure vessels which do not require a postweld heat treatment or other heat treatment by the vessel Manufacturer but are constructed of liquid quenched and tempered SA-372 materials? Reply(3): No. See instruction 20, UA-1030, Guide for Preparing Form U-1A .In this case recording of the material specification and grade in the appropriate location(s) adequately defines the heat treatment. Question (4): If the vessel Manufacturer performs a heat treatment other than a postweld heat treatment, how shall this be recorded on the U-1A Form? Reply (4): This shall be recorded in accordance with Instruction 20 of UA-1030.

Interpretation: VIII-78-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-15 Date Issued: May 8,1978 File: BC76-735 Question: May tubes conforming to the chemical and physical properties, heat treating, and melting requirements of SA-249, Grades TP304 and TP316 but otherwise conforming to the manufacturing procedures, tolerances, test and marking requirements of SA-688 be used under Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: Division 1. Yes. Such material may be used under the provisions of UG-15 of Section VIII,

Interpretation: VIII-78-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Scope Date Issued: May 8,1978 File: BC78-49 Question: Are hydraulic piston accumulators included in the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: Yes, unless the accumulators in question are excluded from the Scope by the provisions of U-1(c) and, in particular, U-1(c)(3) which applies to mechanical devices where the primary design considerations and/or stresses are derived from the functional requirements of the device or U-1(c)(9) which applies to vessels having an inside diameter not exceeding 6 in. 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-78-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Hydrostatic Testing with Temporary Attachment. Alteration of an Existing Vessel

Date Issued: File:

May 8, 1978 BC78-115

Question (1): Is it permissible to weld a temporary connection to a nozzle of a vessel such as a flat head for the purpose of hydrostatically testing the vessel and then subsequently cut this attachment off when the vessel is to be installed in the field? Reply (1): Section VIII, Division 1 does not prohibit temporary welded attachments such as described in the inquiry for the purpose of hydrostatic testing of the vessel and subsequent removal for installation. However, the vessel Manufacturer should indicate under "Remarks" on the Manufacturers Data Report Form that this is how the vessel was furnished and to record any restrictions that might be applicable to the removal such as maintaining a minimum nozzle length. Question (2) Is it permissible to weld a flange to a weld neck of an existing Code stamped vessel manufactured to Section VIII, Division 1 prior to further field installation? Reply (2): Such welding as described in the question is beyond the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 as the vessel geometry limit in this case would be the welding end connection of the stub end to which the flange was welded [See U-1(e)(1)(a)] . Therefore, this may be considered as an alteration to an existing Code vessel and, as such, would be subject to the laws and regulations at the point of installation covering such alteration. Interpretation: VIII-78-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued: May 8,1978 File: BC78-122 Question: What percent of the closing seam is required to be examined when Ultrasonic Examination is substituted for radiographic examination by Par. UW-11(a)(5)(b)(7)? Reply: The percent of the closing seam to be inspected by Ultrasonic Examination shall be equivalent to the percent of radiography required. Interpretation: VIII-78-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Form U-1A Date Issued: May 8,1978 File: BC78-158 Question(1): In reference to Form U-1A under the item 8(a), what is the interpretation of "min. thk." as it applies to the minimum head thickness? Reply (1): As indicated by Note 23 of UA-1030, the "min. thk." described in the question is the specified minimum thickness of the head after forming, including any corrosion allowance, in. (mm) specified by the vessel manufacturer. It is not intended to apply to the required minimum thickness as calculated by UG-32. Question (2): If a head manufacturer furnishes and certifies a head having a minimum thickness greater than specified, may that thickness be recorded on Form U-1A? Reply (2): Interpretation: Yes. This practice would be desirable but is not mandatory. VIII-78-61

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 May 8, 1978 BC78-193

Question (1): For an integral type flange with hub welded to the neck as shown in Fig. UA-48, sketch (6b) may the weld shown be located at a distance greater than the minimum value given for "h + 1.5 go (min.)"? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In regard to the distance "h + 1.5 go (min.)" in Question (1), is there a maximum value where the SH is no longer based on the smaller of 1.5 Sf or 1.5 Sn? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(g)(3)(a) Date Issued: May 8,1978 File: BC78-196 Question: Is it the intent of UW-16(g)(3)(a) regarding requirements for fittings with internal threads to apply to socket welded connections? Reply: Yes. See Note 5 to UW-16(g)(3)(a).

Interpretation: VIII-78-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-52 Date Issued: May 9,1978 File: None Question (1): sketch (7)? What is the allowable longitudinal hub stress for the flange illustrated in Fig. UA-48,

Reply (1): As prescribed in UA-52(a)(1), the longitudinal hub stress shall not exceed 1.5Sf or 1.5 Sn, whichever is less. Question (2). Is there any limitation on the minimum distance from the outside face (side opposite gasketed face) in Fig. UA-48, sketch (5) to the weld attaching the flange to the vessel shell? Reply (2): In reference to Fig. UA-48, sketch (5) there is such a minimum distance. This can be substantiated by sketch (6) which gives a minimum distance of h 1.5 go and its slope is required to 1:3 or less. The sketch in your inquiry has zero slope, which is less than 1:3; therefore the requirements of sketch (6) are also applicable. Interpretation: VIII-78-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-001 Date Issued: May 12,1978 File: BC73-467 Question: In UA-001(d)(2) how are the percentages for coefficients of expansion determined?

Reply: These percentages are determined by the ratio of the absolute difference between the coefficients of expansion of the tube and tubesheet materials and the smaller of the two coefficients. Interpretation: VIII-78-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Allowable Stress Levels, UG-23 Date Issued: May 12, 1978 File: BC78-174 Question: Is it mandatory for Section VIII, Division 1 applications to use the allowable stress values required by UG-23 or may actual yield and tensile values be used to establish higher allowable stress levels? Reply: The allowable stress levels indicated by UG-23 are mandatory and may not be exceeded for Section VIII, Division 1 construction. Interpretation: VIII-78-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(b) Date Issued: May 15,1978 File: BC78-173 Question: Is it the intent of UCS-85(b) to exclude heat treatment specified therein for the following items? (a) flanges and elbows complying with UG-11(a),covered by ANSI B16.5 and ANSI 16.9 constructed of materials permitted by those Standards; and (b) flanges complying with Appendix 11 constructed of P-No. 1 materials. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-49(b)(3)(d) Date Issued: May 15,1978 File: BC78-189 Question: Is it the intent of UA-49(b)(3)(d) to permit the use of a lower stress value in formula (4) than that required by Subsection C? Reply: No. The allowable bolting stress values to be used for a flange designed to Appendix II are only the values given in the Subsection C. Additional information is given in Appendix S. Interpretation: VIII-78-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-280, Reinforcement Date Issued: May 15, 1978 File: BC78-214 Question: element? Reply: Interpretation: What is the formula to be used when calculating the Area (A5) added by reinforcing A5= (Dp - d - 2tn) te as indicated in Fig. UA-280. VIII-78-69

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Coil Type Jackets May 25, 1978 BC77-562

Question: Are there established criteria and details for the design of half-pipe coil jacketed vessels in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: There are no specific geometric requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 However, it is our opinion that this type of construction is not prohibited, and that the rules and guidelines in U-2(g) and UG-101 can be applied for the design, construction, and testing of this type of vessel. Interpretation: VIII-78-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56(d)(4) Date Issued: May 25,1978 File: BC78-141 Question (1): Is postweld heat treatment per Table UCS-56 required for P-No. 1 materials for a nozzle welded to a flat cover plate 1-7/8 in. thick per Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (e-2), the maximum fillet weld throat is not over 1/2 in., and the finished inside diameter of the nozzle is 2 in. or less? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If all of the conditions in Question (1) were the same except that the actual inside diameter of the nozzle were greater than 2 in., would postweld heat treatment be required? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-46 Date Issued: May 25, 1978 File: BC78-277 Question: Is it permissible to flame-cut ring or blind flanges from plate material listed in the stress tables in Section VIII, Division 1 even though the original plate surface is perpendicular to the axis of the finished flange? Reply: Yes. The requirement that the plate surface be parallel to the axis of the finished flange applies only to hubbed flanges (see UA-46). Interpretation: VIII-78-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-80, Out-of-roundness Date Issued: May 26,1978 File: BC78-190 Question: The cylindrical shell of a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel has a required minimum thickness resulting from design consideration of internal and external pressure of 0.45 in. Because of additional requirements beyond the Code requirements, the vessel has a wall thickness of 0.75 in. On the basis of the 0.75 thickness, the out-of-roundness exceeds the requirements of UG-80; however, based on an inscribed circle of 0.45 in. the out-of-roundness does not exceed UG-80 requirements. Is this in compliance with UG-80?

Reply: If the vessel shell thickness is determined as a result of the external pressure controlling, the deviation may be in accordance with the provisions of Case 1824 which goes beyond the requirements of UG-80. If the internal pressure is the controlling factor, the out-of-roundness described in the inquiry is not in compliance with Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-78-73 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Grades 321H and 347H Date Issued: May 26, 1978 File: BC78-29 Question(1): Is it permissible to use Type 321H and 347H material in the form of plate, presently listed in Section VIII, Division 1 in other product forms for Section VIII, Division 1 construction, including expansion joints? If so, what allowable stress values may be used? Reply (1): Type 321H and 347H may be used in the product form of plate under the provisions of UG-15. Accordingly, the maximum allowable stress values shown for Type 321H and 347H may be used. Question (2): construction? Reply (2): Is it permissible to use SA-240 Type 321H and 347H for Section VIII, Division 2 No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Foreword Date Issued: May 29, 1978 File: BC78-303 Question: A utility company engages in a contract with an architect engineering firm for a complete plant, which includes several pressure vessels. The architect engineering firm in turn contracts for a given vessel from a vessel Manufacturer. What is the contract date upon which the mandatory Code requirements are based? Reply: The date of contract for a given vessel with the vessel Manufacturer is the date upon which the mandatory Code requirements are based, in accordance with the Foreword of the Code. ATTENTION The foregoing interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected interpretation sent to the inquirer. Correction Issued: August 14, 1978 Question: A utility company engages in a contract with an architect engineering firm for a complete plant, which includes several pressure vessels. The architect engineering firm enters into a contract with an equipment supplier who, in turn, contracts for a given vessel from a vessel Manufacturer. What is the contract date upon which the mandatory Code requirements are based? Reply: The date of contract for a given vessel with the vessel Manufacturer is the date upon which the mandatory Code requirements are based, in accordance with the Foreword of the Code. Interpretation: VIII-78-75

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Effective Date of Code June 5, 1978 BC78-213

Question: An engineering contractor for a vessel user received a contract prior to the issuance of the 1977 Edition of the Code. Subsequent to January 1, 1978 this engineering contractor enters into a contract with a vessel Manufacturer. What is the mandatory effective Code to be complied with by the Manufacturer of the vessel? Reply: The mandatory effective Code to be used in this case is the 1977 Edition of the Code including the Summer 1977 Addenda. Interpretation: VIII-78-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, SB-161, Nickel 200 Tubing Construction Date Issued: June 6, 1978 File: BC77-460 Question: Can hot-finished, annealed, Nickel 200 tubing be used in welded construction satisfying the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 for sight glass applications? Reply: Hot-finished Nickel 200 tubing, annealed to meet the requirements of SB-161, may be certified as SB-161 material and used under the provisions of Table UNF-23.3. Interpretation: VIII-78-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93(d)(3) and Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: June 7, 1978 File: BC78-137 Question(1): Does a joint configuration for a box header similar to Fig. UW-13.2 except that a groove weld having an "a" dimension equal to ts comply with the intent of UW-13(e)(4)? Reply (1): No. The "b " dimension for such a configuration would be zero and this would not comply with the intent of the Code. In this case the configuration shown in Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (a) would require a groove and fillet weld with an "a" dimension of not less than 2ts. Question (2): Would it be required by UG-93(d)(3) that the cut edges of the plate in Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (a) be inspected by PT or MT methods in accordance with UG-93(d)(3)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-22 and UG-23 Date Issued: June 9, 1978 File: BC78-74 Question (1): May the stress factors of some acceptable standard be used in conjunction with the maximum allowable stresses prescribed in UG-23 to accommodate the loadings of UG-22(a)(4) and (6)? Reply (1): In accordance with U-2(g), it is the responsibility of the Manufacturer to provide acceptable evidence of compliance to the Authorized Inspector that the stress levels established do not exceed the requirements prescribed in UG-23.

Question (2): Is it permissible to manufacture and stamp a vessel subject to fluctuating operating pressure to Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Are there requirements prescribed in Section VIII, Division 1 for submitting calculations when considering fluctuating pressures? Reply (3): UG-22(2) indicates that rapidly fluctuating pressures shall be one of the loadings to be considered in designing a vessel. See U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-78-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(d) and UG-101 Date Issued: June 9, 1978 File-. BC78-128 Question (1): Is it the intent of U-2(d) that if the strength of any part cannot be computed with a satisfactory assurance of safety, the rules of UG-101 provide procedures for establishing its maximum allowable working pressure? Reply (1): Yes.

Questions (2) and (3): When utilizing the Brittle-Coating Test Procedure in UG-101(1), is it permissible to increase the hydrostatic test pressure in steps greater than one-tenth of the anticipated maximum allowable working pressure after approximately one-half the anticipated working pressure is reached, if the test is closely observed for an indication of yielding? Replies (2) and (3): No. UG-101(h) requires maximum steps of one-tenth of the anticipated maximum allowable working pressure. Interpretation: VIII-78-81 Subject:. Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2, UW-3, and Table UW-12 Date Issued: June 9, 1978 File: BC79-306 Question(1): What is the appropriate weld joint category for a circumferential welded joint attaching a torispherical head to a shell? Reply (1): As indicated in UW-3(a)(2), such a welded joint is classified as a Category B joint.

Question (2): For a vessel intended to operate below -20 F and constructed of Type 321 stainless steel, what type of joint is required for the Category B joint described in Question (1)? Reply (2) In accordance with UW-2(b)(2), all joints of Category B intended for such low temperature service shall be either Type No. (1) or No. (2) of Table UW-12. Question (3): Assuming that all Category A and B butt welds have been radiographed for their entire length, what type of joint would be required for Category A in order to use an E factor of 1.0 in all shell and head calculations? Reply (3): In accordance with Table UW-12 a Type No. (1) butt weld would be required for Category A joints in order to utilize an E factor of 1.0 for shell and head thickness calculations under such circumstances.

Interpretation: VIII-78-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 and 2, UG-18, UW-16, and Fig. AD-621.1, sketch (c) Date Issued: June 20, 1978 File: BC78-289 Question (1): A vessel is to be manufactured under Section VIII, Division 1 having a shell of Code approved low alloy in steel material clad on the inside with austenitic stainless steel. An austenitic stainless steel nozzle is inserted into the shell utilizing a detail similar to Fig. AD-621.1, sketch (c) in Section VIII, Division 2. Is this detail permitted in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Fig. UW-16.1 covers some acceptable types of welded nozzles for Section VIII, Division 1 construction. Provided the welds and nozzle dimensions satisfy the rules shown under UW-16 and U2(g), the weld detail described in the inquiry is acceptable. We also refer you to UW-15 regarding requirements for weld strength. Question (2): For the weld detail as described in Question (1), is it permissible to demonstrate compliance with UG-18 regarding welding of dissimilar materials by the use of service experience only? Reply (2): No. It is necessary to demonstrate such compliance by providing appropriate design details in accordance with U-2(g). Question (3): Is it permissible to contravene specific Code rules in Section VIII, Division 1 if a special analysis or experiment is performed? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): For the weld detail in Question (1), what stress concentration factor is applied for the longitudinal stress in the nozzle at the weld root? Reply (4): Section VIII, Division 1 does not contain specific rules covering such factors; thus, it is necessary to comply with U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-78-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: June 23, 1978 File: BC76-801 Question (1): A heat exchanger for an air-conditioning system consists of shell and tube side, both sides designed for less than 250 psi and each side having less than 5 cu ft in volume. May such a vessel be stamped with the "UM" Stamp? Reply (1): Such a vessel may be stamped with a "UM" Stamp, provided that each chamber is an independent pressure chamber as described in UG-19(a) and the provisions of U-1(j) are complied with. Question (2): Is the volume of the shell side of the heat exchanger described in Question (1) determined as the total shell volume minus the volume taken up by the tube side? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If the heat exchanger described in Question (1) was constructed with the shell side having a pressure of 15 psi or less, would the shell side require stamping with a "U" or "UM" Stamp?

Reply (3): Such a pressure chamber would not require a "U' Stamp and could not be stamped with a "UM" Stamp. [see U-1(j).] Question (4): If the heat exchanger in Question (1) was constructed with the shell side containing 120 gal or less of water, does such a pressure chamber fall within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (4): Such a pressure chamber is not considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 as per U-1(c)(6). Interpretation: VIII-78-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(g)(2), UW-2(c); Section I Date Issued: June 23, 1978 File: BC78-95 Question: U-1(g) of Section VIII, Division 1 states in part: The following pressure vessels in which steam is generated shall be constructed in accordance with the rules of this Division: (1) vessels known as evaporators or heat exchangers (2) vessels in which steam is generated by the use of heat resulting from operation of a processing system containing a number of pressure vessels such as used in the manufacture of chemical and petroleum products The preamble of Section I also excludes such unfired pressure vessels in which steam is generated from the definition of unfired steam boilers. Do the rules of UW-2(c) which include radiography and postweld heat treatment requirements apply to such vessels? Reply: The requirements of UW-2(c) do not apply to such vessels. However, other rules, such as UCS-56 or UCS-57, might require postweld heat treatment or radiography. 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. Some applicable laws may require such vessels to be constructed either with the provisions of UW-2(c) applied or under the rules of Section I. Interpretation: VIII-78-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 and UA-60(f) Date Issued: June 23, 1978 File: BC78-170 Question. U-1(c)(8) indicates that a vessel having an internal or external operating pressure not exceeding 15 psi with no limitation on size is not considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1. Is this still true, if under temporary or abnormal operating conditions the operating pressure may exceed 15 psi? Reply: As defined in UA-60(f) the operating pressure (temporary or abnormal) shall not exceed the maximum allowable working pressure. Thus, if the vessel's maximum allowable working pressure does not exceed 15 psi, it is excluded from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1. 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-78-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Documentation of Radiography, UW-51

Date Issued: File:

June 27, 1978 BC78-312

Question: A vessel Manufacturer contracts an outside firm to perform radiography required by Section VIII, Division 1. Evidence is presented to the Inspector that the individual who performs the radiographic examination is qualified in accordance with UW-51(a)(3). Does Section VIII, Division 1 require that this individual identify or document by signature the radiographic examination he performed? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not specify the method by which individual radiographs are accepted by the Authorized Inspector. This is documented in the Quality Control Manual of the vessel Manufacturer which is reviewed and accepted by the ASME reviewing team at the time Of review of the Manufacturer's facility. Interpretation: VIII-78-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Design of Jacketed Vessels Date Issued: June 28,1978 File: BC78-323 Question(1): In a jacketed vessel, assume that the jacket is to be designed for a maximum allowable working pressure of 100 psi and the vessel is to be designed for a maximum allowable working pressure of 50 psi. Under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, must the common shell of the vessel be designed for an external pressure of 100 psi? Reply(1): The rules of UG-19(a) govern this question and, for certain applications, would permit design of the common shell for an external pressure equal to the maximum differential pressure possible between the jacket and the vessel. Also see UG-99(e) concerning hydrostatic testing) of such units. Question (2): If a jacketed vessel, as in Question (1), is equipped with instruments to limit the differential pressure between the two independent chambers, may the maximum pressure differential for external pressure design of the common shell be based on the instruments control pressure? Reply (2): No. See UG-125(h).

Interpretation: VIII-78-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1. UCS-85 Date Issued: July 6, 1978 File: BC78-295 Question UCS-85(e) exempts materials classified as P-No. 1 Group Nos. 1 and 2 of QW-422 of Section IX from the requirements of UCS-85(b) when the heat treatment during fabrication is limited to postweld heat treatment. For dished heads made of material classified as P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2, such as SA-515 or SA-516 plate material, and which are hot formed in the normalizing range and subsequently postweld heat treated., is it required to carry out the testing of the coupons in accordance with UCS-85(b) using the same heat treating cycle and subsequent postweld heat treatment? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52(d)(2)(c) Date Issued: July 6, 1978 File: BC78-321

Question: Is further radiographic examination required in accordance with UW-52 for an area which was rejected under the requirements of UW-52(d)(2)(a) and subsequently repaired? . Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99(a), Welding of Attachments After the Final Hydrostatic Test Date Issued: July 7, 1978 File: BC78-325 Question (1): May nonpressure attachments be welded to a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel subsequent to the final hydrostatic test required by UG-99(a) without subsequent hydrostatic testing and prior to the stamping of the completed vessel? Reply (1): No. Section VIII, Division 1 requires that the final hydrostatic test as required by UG-99(a) be the last operation prior to the stamping of the completed vessel. Question (2): Is it permissible to weld nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, and what are the additional applicable requirements? Reply (2): Section VIII, Division 1 is a Code for original construction of a vessel including all aspects prior to and including the stamping of the vessel. Additional welding of nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped vessel is a matter to be reviewed between the user of the vessel and any regulatory authorities at the point of installation of the vessel. Provided the procedure is acceptable to such regulatory authorities, this may be permissible. Interpretation: VIII-78-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-33 and Part UHT Date Issued: July 10, 1978 File: BC78-227 Question (1): Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that the limits of Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (1) or (n) are to be used for the design of a joint and that the alignment tolerances given in UHT-20 shall be used in addition to Fig. UW-13.1 even though the limits of that figure are exceeded? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it the intent of UW-33(a) and (b) to satisfy the requirements for alignment tolerances of butt joints whereas UW-33(c) is intended to satisfy only the offset due to a difference in thickness of the two plates being joined? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-903 and UA-904 Date Issued: July 10, 1978 File: BC78-268 Question (1): Is it the intent of UA-903 that linear type discontinuities which have a signal amplitude above the reference level are acceptable unless their length exceeds:

1/4 in. (6 mm) for t up to 3/4 in. (19 mm) 1/3t for t from 3/4 in. (19 mm) to 2-1/4 in. (57 mm) 3/4 in. (19 mm) for t over 2-1/4 in. (57 mm) where t is the thickness of the weld being examined? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are linear discontinuities which have a signal amplitude exceeding 50% but less than 100% of the reference level acceptable regardless of length, although required to be recorded by UA-904? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Is it the intent of UA-904 to permit all discontinuities having signal amplitude below the level of 50% to be disregarded? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-15 Date Issued: July 10, 1978 File: BC78-293 Question: Section VIII, Division 1 does not list seamless pipe for Grade TP304L under SA-376. Section II lists this grade under SA-376. This grade is listed in other product forms such as seamless pipe conforming to SA-312 and plate conforming to SA-240. May SA-376 Grade TP304L be used for Section VIII, Division 1 construction utilizing the maximum allowable stress values listed for these other product forms of the same grade? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of UG-15 are satisfied.

Interpretation: VIII-78-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 sketch (5) Longitudinal Hub Stress and U-2(g) Date Issued: July 10, 1978 File: BC78-305 Question: Up to and including the Summer 1978 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, what are the longitudinal hub stress limits applicable to Fig. UA-48 sketch (5)? Reply: UA-52 does not address the appropriate longitudinal hub stress limits for Fig. UA-48 sketch (5). Therefore, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be followed. Interpretation: VIII-78-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-57(a) and UW-11(a)(4) Date Issued: July 10, 1978 File: BC78-311 Question: Is it the intent of UW-11(a)(4) to require radiography for Type No. 1, Category 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 in vessels built in accordance with Part UHT of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: Yes. Such welded joints require complete radiographic examination in accordance with UHT-57(a) for vessels built under Part UHT. Interpretation: VIII-78-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Welding of Attachments to a Code Stamped Vessel Date Issued: July 12, 1978 File: BC78-167 Question: Is it permissible to weld nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, and. what are the additional applicable requirements? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 is a Code of original construction of a vessel including all aspects prior to and including the stamping of the vessel. Additional welding of nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped vessel is a matter to be reviewed between the user of the vessel and any regulatory authorities at the point of installation of the vessel. Provided the procedure is acceptable to such regulatory authorities, this may be permissible. Interpretation: VIII-78-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Welding on a Code Stamped Vessel Date Issued: July 18, 1978 File: BC78-228 Question: If a vessel has been manufactured and stamped to Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible for a company that assembles the vessel into a system to perform seal welding on the vessel's threaded piping fittings? Reply: Such welding is outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, and, as such, would be subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction at the point of installation. Such a regulatory body would set forth the applicable procedures for maintaining Code compliance for the vessel. An alternate procedure to better satisfy the assembling company's need might be to have the vessel manufacturer install and seal weld the first piping fittings into the vessel fitting. Under remarks, the Manufacturers Data Report should indicate that this was done by the vessel manufacturer, but in accordance with U-1(e)(1) the geometric scope of Section VIII, Division 1, stopped at the threaded vessel fitting. Under these conditions, subsequent assembly work could proceed without dependence on Section VIII rules. Interpretation: VIII-78-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11 Date Issued: July 18, 1978 File: BC78-292 Question: May a welded manway ring which complies with a Manufacturer's Standard be used in a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel without a Partial Data Report Form, authorized inspection, or identification in accordance with UG-93 if the ring meets the applicable requirements of UG-11(c)(1), (2), (3), and (4)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-23(c) Date Issued: July 18, 1978

File:

BC78-302

Question(1): In determining the maximum direct (membrane) stress as described in UG-23(c), may this be done by the use of any appropriate stress combination theory such as maximum stress, maximum strain, or maximum shear provided the requirement of U-2(g) is satisfied? Reply (1): Yes, except all formulas and rules given in the text and mandatory appendices of this Division must be met regardless of what theory of failure is selected to satisfy U-2(g). Question (2): UA-266 of Appendix L illustrates the use of the maximum stress theory used in Section VIII, Division 1. Does this preclude the use of other stress combination theories? Reply (2): No. See Reply (1).

Interpretation: VIII-78-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-77 Date Issued: July 18, 1978 File: BC78-396 Question (1): Is it required by UG-77 that the serial number of the final vessel assembly be marked on each piece of material which is divided into two or more parts prior to fabrication of the vessel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When material is cut into two or more pieces, does UG-77(a) require, prior to cutting, either the transfer of the required identification markings to each piece or the use of a coded marking on each piece to maintain identification? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36 Date Issued: July 18, 1978 File: BC78-405 Question: In UG-36(c)(3)(a) and UG-36(c)(3)(b) a reference is made to "3 in. pipe size" and "2 in pipe size." Do these sizes refer to the size of the opening which would be required to be cut into the vessel in order to accommodate such a pipe? Reply: Yes. For 2 in. pipe size this dimension would be 2.375 in., and for 3 in. pipe size this dimension would be 3.500 in. Interpretation: VIII-78-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-35(b) Date Issued: July 19, 1978 File: BC78-114 Question: Is it the intent of UG-35(b) to permit a quick-actuating closure to a vessel having only one locking element in its locking device (one center bolt)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11, Manufacturer's Standard Date Issued: July 19, 1978 File: BC78-328 Question: May the pressure-temperature ratings given in ANSI B16.31-1971 be used for flanges used in Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessels under the provisions of UG-11(a)(1)? Reply: Since ANSI-B16.31 is not now listed in UG-44, they cannot be used under the provisions of UG-11(a)(1) and footnote 49 applicable to an ANSI standard. In accordance with footnote 51, such flanges could be used at the pressure-temperature ratings of ANSI-B16.31 provided they satisfied the requirements of UG-11(a)(1) applicable to a Manufacturer's Standard including footnote 50. Interpretation: VIII-78-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93 Date Issued: July 19, 1978 File: BC78-349 Question (1): Is it acceptable for a material supplier to transfer information from a Material Manufacturer's Certification or Certificate of Compliance, under his letterhead, in lieu Of furnishing a copy of the Material Manufacturer's CMTR or Certificate of Compliance as required by UG-93? Reply (1): It is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that a material supplier shall not transcribe data certified by a Material Manufacturer but shall furnish a copy of that certification, supplemented as necessary by additional documents which certify the results of tests, examinations, repairs, or treatments required by the basic Material Specification and performed by the material supplier. Question (2): Is it required by Section VIII, Division 1 for the CMTR or Certificate of Compliance described in Question (1), that either a metallurgist signature or a notarized signature appear on this document? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(6), UG-19(a), and UG-99(e) Date Issued: July 19, 1978 File: BC78-351 Question: When applying the exemption for a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel in U-1(c)(6) to the tube side of a shell and tube heat exchanger when the tube side contains only water, should the 120 gal nominal water-containing capacity be applied to the entire water containing capacity of the tube side, including both channels or heads and tubes, or should it be applied separately to each channel and head? Reply: The intent of Section VIII, Division 1 regarding multiple chamber vessels is that each pressure chamber be treated as a separate pressure vessel. In the case of a shell or tube type heat exchanger as covered by your inquiry, U-1(c)(6) would apply to the total volume of the channels or heads and tubes. The channel sections or heads and the tubes would not be treated independently in determining volume of the water side of the heat exchanger. The intent of U-1(d)(2) is further clarified by UG-19(a) and UG-99(e) that deal with combination units. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1 in Section VIII, Division 1, the Code does not take precedence over pressure vessel laws that may exist at the point of installation.

Interpretation: VIII-78-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(d), UG-27, and UG-45(a)(2), Wall Thickness of Nozzles and Shells Date Issued: July 20, 1978 File: BC77-291 Question (1): Is a 12-1/2% reduction of wall thickness for diameters other than those listed in Table 2 of ANSI B36.10-1970 required for the determination of nozzle neck thickness in accordance with UG45(a)(2)? Reply (1): Yes. See footnote 19 to UG-45(a)(2).

Question (2): Is it required, after the minimum required wall thickness per UG-27(c) is determined, that this thickness shall be increased by an amount sufficient to provide the manufacturing undertolerance allowed in the pipe or tube specification? Reply (2): Yes. See UG-16(d).

Interpretation: VIII-78-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-27 and UA-1, Use Of Corrosion in Thickness Calculations Date Issued: July 20, 1978 File: BC77-.191 Question (1): When plate is used for pressure parts, what procedure shall be used to determine the thickness using the inside radius when calculating the thickness per UG-27 required to resist pressure? How is corrosion allowance considered? Reply (1): In accordance with UG-27(b), R equals the inside radius of the shell course under consideration, before corrosion allowance is added, that is, in the corroded condition. Therefore, for example, if the inside diameter of a vessel is 60 in., with 1/4 in. corrosion allowance, the appropriate value of R to insert in the equation for the determination of minimum required thickness in UG-27 is 30.25 in. Further, after the value of t is calculated, the corrosion allowance (1/4 in. in this example) is added to that result. Question (2): How is corrosion allowance applied to formulas written in terms of outside dimensions?

Reply (2): UA-1 contains formulas for cylindrical and spherical shells in terms of outside radius. The minimum required thickness is as defined in UG-27(b) in the nomenclature for t.

Interpretation: VIII-78-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-27(b) and UW-28(b); Section IX, QW-451 Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-78 Question: Is the automatic upset electric resistance welding process permitted for Section VIII, Division 1 construction under UW-27, and how shall the qualification of welding procedure under UW-28(b) be complied with?

Reply: Such a welding process is permitted by UW-27(b),and the qualification of the welding procedure required by UW-28(b) shall be complied with by the making and mechanical testing of sample welds in accordance with the requirements of QW-451 of Section IX. Interpretation: VIII-78-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Welding of Attachments to a Code Stamped Pressure Vessel Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-167 Question (1): Is it permissible to weld nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, and what are the additional applicable requirements? Reply (1): Section VIII, Division 1 is a Code for original construction of a vessel including all aspects prior to and including the stamping of the vessel. Additional welding of nonpressure attachments to a Code stamped vessel is a matter to be reviewed between the user of the vessel and any regulatory authorities at the point of installation of the vessel. Provided the procedure is acceptable to such regulatory authorities, this may be permissible. Question (2): If a vessel has been previously hydrostatically tested but requires rework before stamping, may a subsequent pneumatic test be made in lieu of a hydrostatic test assuming the provisions of UG-100(a)(1) and (a)(2) are not a factor? Reply (2): Question (3): No. Where a pneumatic test is permitted, what special procedures must be observed?

Reply (3): The procedure requirements are contained in UG-100 and its footnotes. As indicated in footnote 26 special safety precautions are recommended. Interpretation: VIII-78-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(g), UG-28, and UG-101 Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-353 Question (1): A horizontal vessel is mounted on two vertical vessels by means of a solid pad which extends around a portion of the circumference of the horizontal vessel. The pad is welded around the periphery to both the horizontal and vertical vessels. Do the rules of UG-28 regarding external pressure apply to this configuration? Reply (1): Assuming that these vessels are under internal pressure, UG-28 would not apply with the exception of UG-28(i) relative to a portion of the vessel subject to collapsing pressure in the local area of the pad. Some other applicable paragraphs to be considered are UG-22(a)(3) regarding the consideration of loading due to weight of the vessel and its contents, and UG-23(b) for calculation of the maximum allowable longitudinal compressive stresses. Question (2): Are the bevel welds in the vessel described in Question (1) which connect the outside and inside diameters to the pad around the periphery covered by Fig. UW-13.2? Reply (2): This weld configuration is not specifically covered by Section VIII, Division 1; however, it is not prohibited providing U-2(g) is complied with. Interpretation: VIII-78-111

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG-43 July 31, 1978 BC78-356

Question: A manhole cover on a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel contains 12 tapped holes for the attachment of 3 flanged valves. Some of the tapped holes are of the same depth as the thickness of the cover. No extra metal is added to the inside surface of the cover. Is this in compliance with UG-43(d)? Reply: No. The intent of UG-43(d) is that such tapped holes shall not penetrate within onefourth of the wall thickness from the inside surface of the vessel after deducting corrosion allowance. Interpretation: VIII-78-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-47 Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-403 Question: Are tile requirements of UG-47 for braced and stayed surfaces applicable to tubes welded to tubesheets in a pressure vessel manufactured Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The rules for braced and stayed surfaces in UG-47 are normally not applied in the design of' tubes welded to tubesheets; however, there are no specific rules covering this in Section VIII, Division 1 We refer you to the requirements of U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-78-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(g) and UA-53(a) Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-410 Question (1): Is a split loose flange, having a closely toleranced machined spigot, fitting in an equally machined groove required to be in compliance with UA-53(a)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If a connecting plate is used in conjunction with the split loose flange described in Question (1), may this be designed as a solid flange utilizing 100% Mo as defined in UA-50? Reply (2): to U-2(g). There are no specific rules Covering this construction in Section VIII, Division 1 Refer

Interpretation: VIII-78-114 Subject, Section VIII, Division 1, UG-33 Date Issued: July 31, 1978 File: BC78-411 Question: A torispherical head with pressure on the convex side has a crown radius equal to the inside diameter of the vessel and a knuckle radius equal to 15% of the inside diameter of the vessel. Is this permitted by UG-33(e)? Reply: Interpretation: Yes, provided the requirements of UG-33(a) are met. VIII-78-115

Subject: Date Issued: File: Question (1):

Section VIII, Division 1, Scope August 1, 1978 None Are hydraulic cylinders included in the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply (1): Yes, unless the cylinders in question are excluded from the Scope by the provisions of U-1(c) and, in particular, U-1(c)(3) which applies to mechanical devices where the primary design considerations and/or stresses are derived from the functional requirements of the device or U-1(c)(9) which applies to vessels having an inside diameter not exceeding 6 in. In any case, the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction and/or pressure testing requirements. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1 of Section VIII, Division 1 , such laws must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Question (2): If these hydraulic cylinders are constructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 , may the hydrostatic test be conducted at the point of installation rather than at the Manufacturer's plant? Reply (2): Yes. Procedures for such field work are defined in U-2(i).

Interpretation: VIII-78-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UW-12 and UG-101 , Baffle-to-Shell Joints Date Issued: August 1, 1978 File: BC78-352 Question (1) A heat exchanger utilizes a seamless pipe for the shell material. The pipe is split for a portion of its length in order to provide for the attachment of a baffle which is cut to fit the inside diameter, and hence the weld becomes a type No 2 joint per Table UW 12. No radiography is performed in the vessel. Are there any conditions under which the joint efficiency may be recorded for the longitudinal joint as 100%. Reply (1): No.

Question (2): All the conditions in Question (1) are the same except that the longitudinal baffle projects through the shell so that a corner joint is formed in accordance with Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (a), (c) (d), or (e). Are there any conditions under which the joint efficiency. relay be recorded for the longitudinal joint as 100%? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-78-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34 Date Issued: August 14, 1978 File: BC78-41 Question: A vessel has a flat head which is secured to a vessel by means of swing-away bolts. The equation used to calculate the thickness is given in UG-34(c)(2), Eq. (1) There is no specific sketch in Fig, UG-34 covering this method of attachment. What is the value of C to be used in this Calculation? Reply: Since Section VIII, Division 1 does not cover nor prohibit this construction, no C value is prescribed. Therefore, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be complied with. Interpretation: VIII-78-118

Subject: Date Issued: File;

Section VIII, Division 1, UG-135 and Appendix M August 15, 1978 BC78-495

Question (1): In Section VIII, Division 1 , UG-135(e)(1), does the reference to "when stop valves are so constructed or positively, controlled in the Code include the use of chains and locks with the lock key under the control of an authorized person at the facility to assure that the block valve is locked open or closed as the case may be? Reply (1): UG-135(e)(1) covers the case where multiple relief devices are installed and one or more block valves may be closed at one time without reducing tile capacity of the unaffected devices below the required capacity. The use of chains and locks as described above on intervening stop valves between the vessel and its protective device or devices, or between the protective device or devices and the point of discharge is all acceptable means of positive control. Question (2): As stated in Section VIII, Division 1, UG-135(c)(2), are the provisions of UA-354(a), Appendix M, applicable as all alternative to UG-135(e)(1)? Reply (2): UA-354(a) of Appendix M states "A vessel, in which pressure can be generated because of service conditions, may have a full-area stop valve between it and its pressure relieving device for inspection and repair purposes only. When such a stop valve is provided, it shall be so arranged that it can be locked or sealed open, and it shall not be closed except by an authorized person who shall remain stationed there during that period of the vessel's operation within which the valve remains closed, and who shall again lock or seal the stop valve in the open position) before leaving the station." Since Appendix M is listed alternative in the body of the Code as stated in UG-135(e)(2), the provisions of UA-354(a) satisfy the rules of Section III, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-78-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(g), UG-11, and UG-101 Date Issued: August 18, 1978 File BC78-467 Question: What is the interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1 with regard to the rules applicable to a specially designed welded obround flange to be furnished for incorporation into such Code constructed pressure vessels? Reply: The rules of Section VIII, Division 1 do not cover the determination of the thickness of an obround flange. The following alternatives are acceptable: (1) As stated in U-2(g) in Section VIII. Division 1, the code rules do not contain rules to cover all details of design and construction. Under these paragraphs, your flanges could be furnished, subject to the inspectors acceptance. To satisfy these requirements, the boiler or pressure vessel Manufacturer would have to submit to the Inspector detailed design calculations and / or conduct a proof test under the provisions of UG-11(c) of Section VIII, Division 1. (2) As an alternative to (1), it is possible to carry out a number of proof tests and / or calculations covering a range of geometries and pressure-temperature ratings in order to develop a manufacturers standard as provided for in UG-11(c) of Section VIII, Division 1. In this instance, these flanges can be accepted by the Inspector of the boiler or pressure vessel for inclusion in Code construction, provided that the standard outlines the method for determining the rating and further, the calculation and / or proof test data are available for review by the Inspector for the vessel. We direct your attention to UG-101(e) in Section VIII, Division 1 which requires that proof tests to establish maximum allowable working pressure require the witness and acceptance of an Authorized Inspector.

Interpretation: VIII-78-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 Appendix 11-U-2(g) and UA-45, Flat Faced Flanges with Full Face Gaskets Date issued: August 28 1978 File: BC78-539 Question: Are there rules in Section VIII, Division 1 covering the design of flat face flanges with full face gaskets? Reply: The rules of Section VIII, Division 1 do not contain a method for such a design. As indicated by UA-45(e)(2) of Appendix 11, bolted flanges using full face gaskets are not prohibited provided the method is in accordance with good engineering practice and is acceptable to the Inspector. Interpretation: VIII .78-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 .UG-43(c) Date Issued: September 6, 1978 File: BC78-527 Question: Is it the intent of the second and third paragraphs of UG-43(e) to apply to a type of threaded connection where a fitting or pipe is welded to a vessel wall and has either internal or external threading covered by UW-16? Reply: No. These paragraphs are applicable only to a type of threaded connection where there is a threaded hole in the vessel wall. Interpretation: VIII-78-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (f) Date Issued: September 6, 1978 File: BC78-534 Question: 1 belong? To what category does the butt weld shown in Fig. UW-13.1(f) of Section VIII, Division

Reply: The butt weld shown in Fig. UW-1 3.1(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 is a Category B joint. Radiography may or may not, therefore, be a requirement as prescribed by other Code paragraphs. Interpretation: VIII-78-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93 Date Issued: September 25, 1978 File: None Question: Are Material Test Reports required for SA-53 Grade A or B for construction under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The provisions of UG-93(a)(2) allow for this material to be accepted without obtaining Material Test Reports from the Manufacturer provided the pieces are marked in accordance with Section 20 under that Specification. Further, the requirements of UG-93 and UG-94 shall be complied with. ATTENTION The foregoing interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected interpretation sent to the inquirer:

Correction Issued: October 4, 1978 It has been called to our attention that since the Winter 1977 Addenda to Section II, Part A, the appropriate reference for the requirements for marking was redesignated. Accordingly, the following is a corrected reply to our previous reply as referenced above: Reply: The provisions of UG-93(a)(2) allow for this material to be accepted without obtaining Material Test Reports from the Manufacturer provided the pieces are marked in accordance with Section 21.1 under that Specification. Further, the requirements of UG-93 and UG-94 shall be complied with. Interpretation: VIII-78-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-15(c) Date Issued: September 25, 1978 File: BC78-526 Question: Is the reference to tapping the required telltale hole for a preliminary compressed air and soapsuds test for tightness of welds in UW-15(c) an optional requirement of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Heating Coil Consisting of SA-53 Pipe Date Issued: September 25, 1978 File: BC78-528 Question (1): A heating coil consisting of an SA-53 pipe containing natural gas at 700 or 800 psi and having an inside diameter of 6 in. or less falls outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(9). May this be manufactured and stamped to Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes. See U-1(i).

Question (2): Can the heating coil in Question (1) be considered a complete vessel and be stamped with a U symbol and be reported on the U-1A Form? Reply (2)Yes. Interpretation: VIII-78-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-44(b) and U-2(g) Date Issued: October 3, 1978 File: BC78-322 Question: Do the requirements of UG-44(b) apply to both screw threads and stud threads, and what are the applicable rules for engagement length. Reply: The requirements of UG-44(b) apply to both screw threads and stud threads, This paragraph gives requirements for minimum engagement length; however, it is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to determine that the actual engagement length includes the appropriate chamfer and other tolerances. See U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-78-127

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Defects in Plate October 3, 1978 BC78-556

Question (1): Is it permissible to measure injurious defects such as pits on plate used for Section VIII, Division 1 construction based on the actual measured thickness at the location of the defect rather than the ordered thickness given on the Mill Test Report? Reply (1): Yes.

Question: Is the permissible depth of the defects described in Question (1) based on the limits given by the applicable Material Specification and the minimum required thickness for the vessel? Reply (2) Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-128 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56.1 , Postweld Heat Treatment as an Essential Variable in Welding Procedure Qualification Date Issued: October 4, 1978 File: BC78-572 Question: May a WPS from a welding procedure which had been qualified with postweld heat treat-merit on a P-No. 1 test plate held at 1100 F (minimum) for one hour per inch of thickness be used in the fabrication of a vessel from the same material which will be postweld heat treated at 900 F for 10 hr (minimum) per inch of thickness without requalification? Reply: Yes. For Section VIII, Division 1 vessels this is covered by Table UCS-56.1.

Interpretation: VIII-78-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 UG-134, Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: October 4, 1978 File: BC78-583 Question (1) What are the requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 pertaining to set pressure of pressure relief devices on vessels storing liquefied compressed gases and which satisfy the conditions of UG-125(c)(3)? Reply (1): Such relief devices may be set in accordance with UG-125(c)(3)(b).and UG-1 34 including the special provisions of UG-134(e)(2). Question (2): 125(a)? Is it required that the vessel Manufacturer furnish the pressure relieving device(s) by UG-

Reply (2): No. Footnote 31 indicates that safety devices need not be provided by the vessel Manufacturer, but overpressure protection shall be provided prior to placing the vessel in service. Applicable jurisdictional requirements should be reviewed to determine limitations which may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules referenced in Question (1). Interpretation: VIII-78-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: October 10, 1978

File:

BC78-574

Question: Is it permissible to use carbon steel pipe for pressure parts on a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure Vessel under the following conditions: (1) the pipe is ordered to SA-53 Grade B specifications; (2) the Material Test Report for the pipe indicates that it complies with both API 5L and ASTM A-53 Grade B specifications; (3) the markings on the pipe itself are in accordance with API 5L specifications only? Reply: Yes, provided the pipe is not manufactured with filler metal added and UG-10 is complied with. Interpretation: VIII-78-131 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84, UHA-5 1, and UHT-6 Date Issued: October 12, 1978 File: BC78-578 Question: Are the following assumptions correct with regard to the requirements for qualifying a welding procedure for Type 304 stainless steel where the design of the vessel is below -20F but not lower than -325F? (1) Impact test shall be made with the notch in the weld metal. The heat affected zone need not be checked. (2) Acceptance criterion is 0.015 in. minimum lateral expansion. Measured values shall be recorded. (3) Energy absorption values (ft-lbs or joules) may be recorded for "information," but that is not mandatory requirement. (4) Filler metal shall be the same E-Number that will be used in production, such as, measurement of lateral expansion of an E309 (less than 0.10% C) deposit would not qualify for an E308 deposit. Reply: The following answers are in the numerical order described in the question. (1) Correct. See UHA-51(b)(5) and UG-84. (2) Correct. See UG-84(c)(4)(b) and UHT-6. (3) Correct. (4) Incorrect. E309 and E308 are both of A-No. 8 Weld Metal Analysis per QW-441 of Section IX. See UHA-51(b)(5)(a)(1).

Interpretation: VIII-78-132 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Material Requirements Date Issued: October 20, 1978 File: BC78-568 Question (1): Is it permissible to use ASME/ASTM SA-516-74 plates with all mandatory requirements conforming to this specification except for the aluminum content, ranging up to 0.040% for pressure vessels and parts constructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 (1977)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): What are the reasons the bend test became a supplementary requirement for ASME/ ASTM SA-516 plates after 1974?

Reply (2): The bend test requirement of SA-516 was deleted as a mandatory requirement due to the consensus that the test did not give any meaningful information. Furthermore, since the tensile tests are required to be transverse to the final direction of rolling, the elongation requirement provides adequate assurance of ductility. Question (3): What are the restrictions for using ASTM/ASME SA-516 plates without bend test in pressure vessels and parts constructed according to the ASME Code Section VIII, Division 1 (1977)? Reply (3): None.

Interpretation: VIII-78-133 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90 and UG-93, Quality Inspection of Materials Date Issued: October 24, 1978 File: BC78-458 Question (1): Section VIII, Division 1 requires inspection of materials for defects in accordance with UG-93(d) and for required thickness in accordance with UG-90(b)(6). May such operations be Performed by other organizations, including Material Manufacturers or Suppliers, responsible to the vessel Manufacturer? Reply (1): Yes. See U-2(b)(2).

Question (2): If operations as described in Question (1) are permitted, what rules apply to the procedures that must be followed? Reply (2): The procedures must be defined in the written description of the Manufacturer's Quality Control System. See U-2(h) and Appendix X. Question (3): May operations as described above be performed at a location away from tile vessel Manufacturer's plant such as at the plant of a Material Manufacturer? Reply (3): Yes, providing the Quality Control System suitably covers such operations at the plant of others and at the vessel Manufacturer's plant. Interpretation: VIII-78-134 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(b)(1) and (c)(4)(a) Date Issued: October 24, 1978 File: BC78-577 Question: UG-84(b)(1) refers to the requirements of SA-370 with regard to impact test procedures. SA-370, in par. 20.1.1, indicates that, unless otherwise specified, longitudinal test specimens shall be used with the notch perpendicular to the Surface of the object being tested. Assuming compliance with Table UG-84.1 is required per UG-84(c)(4)(a), are these longitudinal specimens permitted for Code compliance even though transverse specimens on the same material might produce values which do not meet Table UG-84.1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99(b) Date Issued: October 27, 1978 File: BC78-579

Question: Is it the intent of UG-99(b) that the minimum hydrostatic test be based on the maximum allowable working pressure determined by the design formulas given in Section VIII, Division 1 even though additional material may be present for corrosion allowance? Reply: pressures. Yes. However, UG-99(c) and (d) provide alternative rules for higher hydrostatic test

Interpretation: VIII-78-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Scope Date Issued: October 27, 1978 File: BC78-580 Question: Two pressure vessels, each with a separate U symbol and Manufacturer's Data Report, are welded together at their respective nozzles. Is the weld itself subject to the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. U-1(e)(1)(a) indicates that the geometry of pressure-containing parts includes the welding end connection for the first circumferential joint for welded connections. Further, this welding is being done subsequent to the stamping of the vessel. The applicable requirements are those indicated by the jurisdictional authorities at the point of installation. Interpretation: VIII-78-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Jurisdiction Heat Exchangers Date Issued: November 6, 1978 File: BC78-548 Question (1): A heat exchanger contains a refrigerant on the shell side that places the shell side within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 and water on the tube side, If the tube side is exempt from the Scope by U-1(c)(6) and is an independent pressure chamber, do the tube side parts, such as heads and channels, which are not common with the shell side need to follow Code rules for material and design? Reply (1): No. See also UG-19(a) and UG-116(l).

Question (2): Are the common parts, such as tubesheets and in the heat exchanger described in Question (1), required to comply with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for materials and design? Reply (2): Question (3): or brine? Reply (3): Yes. In U-1(c)(6) is it intended that the word "water" may include salt water, brackish water, Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-23, Notes (19) and (20) Date Issued: November 6, 1978 File: BC78-581 Question: Is it the intent of Notes (19) and (20) to Table UCS-23 to prohibit the use of materials listed which reference these Notes above 800 F and 875 F, respectively?

Reply: No; however, the vessel designer should be so cautioned by these Notes in his metallurgical considerations. Interpretation: VIII-78-139 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 1177-7, Bellows Joint Design Date Issued: November 13, 1978 File: BC78-626 Question: Is it permissible to use a weld joint efficiency of 1.0 for the longitudinal seam weld in bellows that does not exceed 1/8 in. t that has been made under Code Case 1177-7 where the Manufacturer and Inspector have exercised reasonable judgment in assessing a joint for an individual application? Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the longitudinal weld in a bellows is a Category A welded joint. In order to be an E = 1.0 joint, it must be a Type 1 with full radiography or otherwise meeting UW-11(a). Interpretation: VIII-78-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-15(c), Reinforcing Pads Date Issued: November 14, 1978 File: BC78-526 Question: Does UW-15(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 require that reinforcing pads be given a preliminary compressed air and soapsuds test for tightness of welds that seal off to the inside of the vessel? Reply: A preliminary compressed air and soapsuds test may be given.

Interpretation: VIII-78-141 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Table UCS-56 and Table AF-402.1 Date Issued: November 14, 1978 File: BC78-667 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of Table UCS-56 and Table AF-402.1 of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to make a 1 in. thick full penetration weld of a P-No. 1 material to 1-3/4 in. thick P-No. 1 material, using a 200F minimum preheat, without postweld heat treating the 1 in. thick weld? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-142 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-84(d)(1) and AM-204.4, Impact Test Requirements Date Issued: November 14,1978 File: BC78-709 Question (1): Is it a requirement that the Material Manufacturer calibrate his impact test machine using USAMRC specimens, or may he perform the calibrations using another procedure which is commonly used in his country for calibrating of Charpy Impact Test Machine? Reply (1): A Material Manufacturer must calibrate his impact test machine using USAMRC specimens to comply with requirements of UG-84(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1.

Question (2): If the vessel manufacturer performs the impact testing, is it a requirement that his impact test machine be calibrated using USAMRC specimens? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Does the Material Manufacturer's Report of impact tests provide satisfactory evidence that his impact test machine was calibrated as required by the Code when the purchase order references applicable requirements? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(g), Design of Tubesheets Date Issued: November 15, 1978 File: BC78-693 Question: Can the provisions of UG-47 and Appendix A of Section VIII, Division 1 be used in the design of tubesheets? Reply: The requirements of the Code do not have specific design rules for determining the thickness of tubesheets. The provisions of paragraph U-2(g) and/or UG-101 apply. Depending upon the type of heat exchanger, the designer may apply parts of the rules in other paragraphs of the Code including UG-47 and Appendix A. Interpretation: VIII-78-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Scope - Gate Valves Date Issued: November 15, 1978 File: BC78-726 Question: Is a gate valve which is bolted to the discharge opening of a steam jacketed pressure vessel considered to be within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. Such a valve is outside of the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 and is not considered to be part of the pressure vessel [see U-1(c)(5) and U-1(e)(1)(c)] . The applicable piping codes should be consulted for the requirements for construction and installation. Interpretation: VIII-78-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36(e) Date Issued: December 1, 1978 File: BC78-269 Question: Do the requirements of UG-36(e) Section VIII. Division 1 apply to reducer sections which have been formed by swaging down the larger diameter section with no weld joint at the larger end? Reply: Yes, the requirements of UG-36(e) may be used.

Interpretation: VIII-78-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UF-7, SA-649 Date Issued: December 1, 1978 File: BC78-727

Question: Is it inside the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate rolls for corrugating paper machinery in accordance with SA-649 and have it Code stamped? Reply: The requirements of UF-7 of Section VIII, Division 1 call for SA-649 material to be used in fabrication of rolls used for corrugating paper machinery along with the rules of construction in Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-78-147 Subject-. Section VIII, Division 1, UW-51(a) Date Issued: December 7, 1978 File: BC78-740 Question: Under the provisions of UW-51(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, is it required that radiographs which represent the final acceptable vessel welds be retained for a period of five years if this vessel is exported to a country which also requires the same radiographs? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 1205-5 Date Issued: December 7, 1978 File: BC78-756 Question (1): Under what conditions may special integrally forged pressure vessels, Section VIII, Division 1 constructed of carbon and alloy steel forging conforming to SA-372 using an allowable stress value equal to one-third of the specified minimum tensile strength be used for storage of natural gas assuming that the additional requirements specified in Code Case 1205-5 are met? Reply (1): The only service restrictions which could apply can be found under UW-2 of Section VIII, Division 1. Question (2): Reply (2): Is there any necessity to make a distinction between flammable or nonflammable gases? No,

Interpretation: `VIII-78-149 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-41 Date Issued: December 13, 1978 File: BC78-460 Question (1): You plan to qualify per Section VIII, UCL-41 for welding clad plate on an integrally clad plate (SA-264), 20 mm thick made up of 17 mm of SA-516 Gr. 70 and 3 mm of TP 316 L. What range of thickness is qualified by this procedure test under Section IX? Reply (1): UCL-41(a)(2) states the thickness of QW 451 shall apply to total thickness of clad plate." Therefore the 2t rule applies to 20 mm and the range qualified per Section IX would be 5 mm to 40 mm. Question (2): If the clad plate in Question (1) had 16 mm base plate thickness and 8 mm clad thickness, what would the thickness range qualified be for (a) total thickness?

(b) clad plate thickness? Reply (2): (a) 5 mm to 48 mm. (b) Although not specifically addressed it would follow that a liberal thickness tolerance, such as 5 mm to 16 mm thickness of cladding, would be qualified. Interpretation: VIII-78-150 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, NDE Level I Evaluators Date Issued: December 15, 1978 File: BC78-728 Question: Is it permissible to allow NDE Level I personnel to make specific evaluations under Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, if the specific acceptance criteria are defined in written instructions and further, that the limitations are described in the written procedure? Reply: Yes, it is the intent of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to allow NDE Level I personnel to make evaluations with the restrictions outlined in your question. Interpretation: VIII-78-152 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, U-1(c)(5) and A-121(e), Flexible Metal Hose Date Issued: December 27, 1978 File: BC78-478 Question: Can flexible metal hose assemblies be constructed under the requirements of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that metal flexible hose assemblies are considered as piping components; and as such, as defined in U-1(c)(5) and A-121(e), they are not within the scope of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. Neither is it proposed to revise these sections, nor to establish a Code Case to include these items. Interpretation: VIII-78-153 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 , UW-11(b), Footnote Date Issued: December 27, 1978 File: BC78-637 Question (1): Is there a need for a reduction factor on the allowable stress when calculating the circumferential stress of a seamless shell attached to a flathead with a corner joint as described in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (a) through (g) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): There is no reduction factor needed since the seamless shell with the flat head attached by a Category C corner joint allows the circumferential stress calculation of the shell to be E= 1.0 and S = 100%. Question (2): Reply (2): Are the requirements of UW-11(a) satisfied? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-78-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66, Impact Testing

Date Issued: File:

December 27, 1978 BC78-767

Question: Are there any restrictions inherent in UCS-66(c)(2) for material usage except where prohibited as in UCS-66(b)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-79-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Hydro Test of Field Erected Vessels Date Issued: January 3, 1979 File: BC78-290 Question (1): Is it permissible in accordance with one of the methods in U-2(i) of Section VIII, Division 1 to hydrotest the completed vessel in the shop, cut the vessel in half, reweld the girth joint in the field and then hydrotest the field weld only by use of a half pipe as a test ring welded to the vessel shell in lieu of retesting (hydrostatic or pneumatic) the whole vessel and then apply the U symbol? Reply (1): vessel. No. UG-99 and UG-100 provide only for hydrostatic or pneumatic test of the entire

Question (2): Is it permissible, in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, to construct (including hydrostatic or pneumatic testing) a vessel in the shop including stamping with the "U" Symbol. The vessel would then be cut in half, rewelded in the field, and the field weld only would be tested by use of a half pipe as a test ring welded to the vessel shell in lieu of retesting the whole vessel? Reply (2): The Code is applicable to a vessel up to and including the stamping of the vessel. Any modifications, alternations, or repairs to a stamped vessel must be performed in accordance with the requirements of tile jurisdiction where the vessel is to be located. Interpretation: VIII-79-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32 and UW-12 Date Issued: January 3, 1979 File: BC78-774 Question: May a seamless hemispherical head complying with UG-32(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 with a weld efficiency from Table UW-12 of E = 0.90 be permitted to have the minimum required thickness reduced by using, E = 1.0 in areas of the head other than the head-to-shell joint?

Reply: No. The minimum required thickness of the head after forming, exclusive of corrosion allowance, must be based on E = lowest efficiency of any joint in the head, and for hemispherical heads this includes head-to-shell joint. See UG-32(a) and definition of E in UG-32(c) of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(c) Date Issued: January 4, 1979 File: BC78-668

Question (1): May SA-403 standard pipe fittings fabricated by welding under tile dimensional requirements of ANSI B16.9 be radiographed and examined by the parts manufacturer and furnished to the vessel manufacturer without a Partial Data Report if the radiographs are also furnished? Reply (1): No. (See Preamble of SA-403)

Question (2): May A403 standard pipe fittings fabricated by welding under the dimensional requirements of ANSI B16.9 be radiographed and examined by the parts manufacturer and furnished to the vessel manufacturer without a Partial Data Report if the radiographs are also furnished? Reply (2): Yes. (See UG-11)

Question (3): Can A403 standard pipe fittings under the dimensional requirements of B16.9 be radiographed and examined by the parts manufacturer and furnished to the vessel manufacturer Without a Partial Data Report if the radiographs are not furnished? Reply (3): No. Partial Data Reports are required. (See UG-11)

Interpretation: VIII-79-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11, Weld Caps Date Issued: January 4, 1979 File: BC78-745 Question: May weld caps, as called out in UG-11(a)(1), produced per SA-234 or SA-403 and marked in accordance with UG-93 and UG-94 and complying with ANSI B16.9 be used as a formed end closure head on a pressure vessel? Reply: The Preface of Material Specifications SA-234 arid SA-403 outline that these materials are intended for Section III construction. They are not intended for Section VIII construction. It is suggested that ASTM Standards A403 and A234 could be used and would meet the intent of UG-11(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-05 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-120(c), UG-116(i), AS-120, and AS-310; Partial Data Reports Date Issued: January 5, 1979 File: BC78-749 Question (1): A vessel Manufacturer at site "A" receives fabricated parts from his facility at site "B". Under these conditions may these parts be furnished without parts stamping of Partial Data Reports U-2 or A-2 under the provisions of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply (1): Yes, provided the Quality Control System of the vessel Manufacturer outlines the method of control, including applicable documentation and procedure, to be used to produce the vessel and the Manufacturer does have a contract with the same inspection agency at Location A and B. Question (2). May the Partial Data Report U-2 or A-2 Form be used under Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to document more than one part to be incorporated into a vessel? Reply (2): Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 do not prohibit the documentation of more than one part on a Partial Data Report U-2 or A-2 Form.

Interpretation: VIII-79-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UNF-23.3; Maximum Allowable Stress Values in Tension for Nonferrous Boltings Date Issued: January 9, 1979 File: BC78-734 Question: In general, allowable stress values for bolting, are lower than those for plates, pipe, and tubes, or rods and bars of same materials. Maximum allowable stress values in tension for high nickel boltings have been revised in Table UNF-23. May we assume that the reason why these revisions have been made although material specifications have not been revised, is reliable technical data on these materials have been developed and come to be available after previous issuance of the Code? Reply: The requirements of Appendix P, UA-500(4)(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 explains the reasoning for the stress criteria in Table UNF-23 for bolting material. Note that the higher stress values for certain materials are not recommended for the design of flanges and other strain sensitive applications. Bolting is considered a strain sensitive application. Interpretation: VIII-79-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99(b) and Section I Date Issued: January 17, 1979 File: BC78-737 Question: Why are the requirements in UG-99(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 for obtaining the Hydrostatic test pressure different from the requirements outlined in PG-99.1 of Section I? Reply: Due to the evolution of Sections I and VIII, Division 1, the requirements for obtaining the hydrostatic test pressure have been different in both Code Books. The requirements in UG-99(b) are correct, and should be used when testing Section VIII, Division 1 vessels. Interpretation: VIII-79-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(5) Date Issued: January 17, 1979 File: BC78-775 Question: Is a snubber (pulsation damper) constructed entirely of standard piping components and installed as part of the piping in an installation required to be ASME Code stamped? Reply: In accordance with U-1(c)(5), components of a piping system, such as snubbers, are excluded from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 provided "that pressure containing parts of such components are generally recognized as piping components or accessories." 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 than the Code rules. Interpretation: VIII-79-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-193 Date Issued: January 17, 1979 File: BC78-819 Question: Can stress calculations for design of supports on a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel be made with methods outlined in UA-193(a), e.g., BS-5500?

Reply: The references in UA-193 Section VIII, Division 1 are for guidance only; maximum allowable stress calculations cannot exceed the limits as given in UG-23(a). Also see footnote 8 of UG23(c). Interpretation: VIII-79-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 and UG-28; Jacketed Vessels Date Issued: January 19, 1979 File: BC78-666 Question (1): Assuming that the jacket and inner vessel are independent pressure chambers, is Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for jackets of vessels which have a jacket pressure below 15 psig? Reply (1): The jacket is excluded from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1.

Question (2): Do the requirements of UG-28(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 make the Code applicable for the shell of the vessel for the case where the shell of a jacketed vessel has full vacuum on the inside and up to 15 psig pressure in the jacket? Reply (2): Question (3): stamped? Reply (3): Yes, because the total external pressure on the inner shell is more than 15 psig. If the Code is applicable as a legal document in a jurisdiction, must the vessel be Code Generally the answer would be "Yes." See also footnote 1 to U-1.

Question (4) With regard to the vessels in question (2), must both the shell and jacket be stamped or can the shell be stamped and not the jacket? Reply (4): The vessel portion would need to be Code stamped, but not the jacket portion.

Interpretation: VIII-79-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56 and UHA-51 Date Issued: January 25, 1979 File: BC78-850 Question: If a vessel is fabricated using ASTM A387 Grade B material under the provisions of UCS, and a procedure is qualified by welding A387 Grade B to A240 Grade TP321 using 309Cb weld metal, is it then a requirement to impact test the weld metal as stated under UHA-51 if the weld is subjected to PWHT under 1650F? Reply: Since one of the materials being welded using 309Cb weld metal is a high alloy, then the provisions of UHA-51 of Section VIII, Division 1 for impact testing are required. Interpretation: VIII-79-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-46 Date Issued: January 26, 1979 File: BC78-823 Question: Can a pressure vessel under the provisions of UG-46(f)(7),Section VIII, Division 1, that is larger than 36 in. I.D. use multiple flanged connections smaller than 15 in. I.D. in lieu of a 11 in. x 15 in. or 10 in. x 16 in. in manhole?

Reply: Not unless the shape or use of the vessel makes a manhole impractical, See UG-46(f)(3) and UG-46(g)(1). Interpretation: VIII-79-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(b) Date Issued: January 26, 1979 File: BC78-847 Question: Is it the intent of UG-99(b), Section VIII, Division 1 that the highest ratio of stress values should be used provided that no other part of the vessel would be subjected to a stress exceeding 90% of the material yield strength? Reply: The requirements of UG-99(b) call for the minimum hydrostatic test pressure to be 1 1/2 MAWP multiplied by the lowest ratio of stress values. The requirements of UG-99(b), however, do say that Section VIII, Division 1 does not specify an upper limit for hydrostatic test pressure. Interpretation: VIII-79-15 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85 Date Issued: February 13, 1979 File: BC78-849 Question (1): Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-85 that simulation of postweld heat treatment of mechanical test coupons be performed (either by the mill or the vessel manufacture) on PNo. 1, Group No. 1 or 2 materials which are to be postweld heat treated during fabrication per UCS-56? Reply (1) No. See requirements under UCS-85(e) of Section VIII, Division 1

Question (2) Should such a test be performed on a coupon taken from a vessel so heat treated, where the test results show a reduction of tensile strength below that stated by the material specification in Section II and as reported on the original mill test report, would the vessel be in compliance with Section VIII, Division 1 by reason of Section VIII, Division 1 acceptance of the fact the original mill test report was in compliance with Section II? Reply (2): Yes; however, a Designer should give consideration to results and service condition for the vessel and be responsible for the use of such material. Interpretation: VIII-79-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(i)(1) Date Issued: February 13, 1979 File: BC79-15 Question: Is it the intent of UG-84(i)(1), Section VIII, Division 1 to allow welding a production test plate (for a Category A weld) prior to waiting until the first longitudinal weld is made with the test plate used as a run-off tab? Reply: It is the intent of the Code to require the test plate to be a run-off tab of the longitudinal joint. Where it is impractical, for example, using a seamless shell, then a separate test production test plate can be made. This should not be interpreted so as to avoid the use of the run-off tab because of any other problem. Interpretation: VIII-79-17

Subject : Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, UW-35 March 6, 1979 BC79-41

Question: Is concavity in the root of a weld considered to be the lack of preparation and how do you determine by radiographic examination the amount of internal concavity in the root of a weld? Reply: The indication of concavity in a radiograph does not constitute incomplete penetration as referenced in UW-51(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1. The extent of concavity in the root of a weld that is not visible by visual inspection is determined by film density and may require multiple exposures. The extent of concavity can further be verified by thickness readings utilizing ultrasonic equipment. Interpretation: VIII-79-18 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2 Date Issued: March 16, 1979 File: BC79-16 Question: If a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel contains two independent pressure chambers of which one chamber is for a special service, such as lethal service, must the independent chamber which is not in the special service also comply with the special requirements such as those of UW-2(a)? Reply: As covered in UG-19(a), the independent chamber which is not in a special service, such as lethal service, need not comply with the special requirements such as those of UW-2(a). However, if there are common parts between the two chambers they must satisfy the special requirements such as those of UW-2(a). Also see UG-116(d), (k), and (l) concerning marking and UG-120(b) and (d) concerning data reports. Interpretation: VIII-79-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(6) Date Issued: March 20, 1979 File: BC78-560 Question: Can the exemption under U-1(c)(6) also include water solutions of calcium and sodium chloride and water solution of ethylene and propylene glycol? Reply: The Code does not prohibit the use of additives in the water. To clarify this point a revision was made to U-1(c)(6) by adding a footnote to the word water, which reads: "The water may contain additives provided the flash point of the aqueous solution at atmospheric pressure is 185F or higher." This revised wording has gone through initial acceptance. If after public review there are no objections, then the revision will be published in the Summer 1979 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1 for inclusion into the Code. Interpretation: VIII-79-20 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.1 and UW-33(b) Date Issued: March 21, 1979 File: BC79-35 Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, that tolerances specified in Fig. UW-13.1 apply to the attachment of elliptical and torispherical heads to cylindrical shells, whereas the tolerances specified in UW-33 apply to the attachment of hemispherical heads to cylindrical shells?

Reply: It is the intent of the provisions in UW-13 as well as in Fig. UW-13.1 to allow for the attachment of hemispherical heads to cylindrical shells among the other formed heads referenced. As a point of clarification the requirements under UW-13 and Fig. UW-13.1 apply to design methods, whereas the requirements under UW-33 apply to fabrication methods. Interpretation: VIII 79-21 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79(d) Date Issued: March 21, 1979 File: BC79-83 Question (1): Is it the intent of UCS-79(d) in Section VIII, Division 1, which concerns itself with formed shells and heads, to reference UCS-56 for heat treatment requirements when UCS-56 deals with postweld heat treatment? Reply (1) Yes, The reference to UCS-56 in UCS-79(d) is correct. The intent is to use the requirements of UCS-56 as a tempering heat treatment for the formed shell and heads. Question (2) Does the exemption of no heat treatment in Note 2A, Table UCS-56, apply to cold formed shell or head less than 1-1/4 in. thick? Reply (2) No. The requirement of UCS-79(d)(2)(e) mandates that heat treatment must be performed on parts exceeding 5/8 in. Interpretation: VIII-79-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix VI, UA-71 Date Issued: March 21, 1979 File: BC79-84 Question: Under the provisions of Appendix VI, UA-71 of Section VIII, Division 1, may a Manufacturer delegate responsibility of witnessing the reading of the Jaeger Type 2 standard chart to plant personnel, such as the Quality Control Inspector or Plant Manager? Reply: The requirements of Appendix VI, UA-71 Section VIII, Division 1 do not address the question of who is to witness the reading of the Jaeger Type 2 chart, or what his qualifications must be. Therefore the Manufacturer should specify his designee to witness the NDE requirement in his Quality Control Manual, and this shall be acceptable to the Inspector. This can be done by demonstrating that the designee is qualified to perform this operation. Interpretation: VIII-79-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-5 and UHT-6 Date Issued: March 30,1979 File: BC79-92 Question: Is impact testing under UHT-5(c), a requirement for material (SA-517 Grade E) to be used in vessel construction under Part UHT when the vessel is to be insulated and the vapor pressure of the enclosed gas mixture is dependent on the atmospheric temperature conditions? Reply: The requirements of UHT-5(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 call for steels referenced in Table UHT-23 to be tested for notch toughness. This test can be made at a temperature corresponding with the vapor pressure for materials where the vapor pressure of the gas is dependent on the atmospheric temperature conditions.

This requirement is independent of whether the vessel is insulated. For temperatures below -20F for SA-517 material the requirements of UHT-6(b) call for, in addition to Charpy tests, drop weight tests. Interpretation: VIII-79-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56 Date Issued: April 18, 1979 File: BC79-147 Question: When rings are welded using flash butt welding and the material is P-No. 1 Group No. 1, is it mandatory to require postweld heat treatment under UCS-56 and radiographic examination under UCS-57 of Section VIII, Division 1 for material above 1 1/4 in. thick? Reply: The material of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 for the size referenced need not be postweld heat treated as long as the requirements of Note (2)(a) of Table UCS-56 are met. Radiographic examination is required under the provisions of UCS-57 of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Forms U-1 and U-1A and Table UA-1020 Date Issued: May 10, 1979 File: BC79-159 Question: What is the intended dimension to be recorded for length in item 6, as referenced in Note (22) of Table UA-1020, of U-1 and U-1A Forms of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: It is the intent of Note (22) of Table UA-1020 to record the length of the circular shell from weld seam to weld seam, and enter that dimension in item 6 of Forms U-1 and U-1A of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Transitions at Fittings UG-44(a) and UW-9(c) Date Issued: May 21, 1979 File: BC79-88 Question: UG-44 of Section VIII, Division 1 lists ANSI Standard B16.9 Wrought Steel Buttwelding Fittings as acceptable for use; however, UW-9(c) which may be invoked by UW-8, limits a transition taper to no less than three to one. Therefore are the words "vessel parts" in UW-8 intended to invoke the requirements of UW-9(c) for B16.9 fittings, or are B16.9 fittings permitted per se? Reply: Regarding UG-44(a), the fittings are acceptable insofar as the design details and pressure/ temperature ratings go except that UW-9(c) requires a transition with a 3:1 slope between sections of unequal thickness. This slope may be partly or totally across the weld. (see Fig. UW-9). The subject is being reviewed as part of another inquiry, and the rules may be changed at some future date. Interpretation: VIII-79-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48, Circular Flanges Date Issued: May 21, 1979 File: BC79-155

Question: May optional type flanges in Fig. UA-48 be calculated and designed as an integral type without the weld extending through the flange thickness t as shown in Figure UA-48, sketch (7) if design conditions exceed values in UA-48(a)(3) for go, B/go,, P, or operating temperature? Reply: Figure UA-48 of Section VIII, Division 1, sketches (5) through (7) shall be calculated as integral unless they meet the requirements of UA-48(a)(3). If they do meet those requirements, they may be calculated as loose. If the weld details of Fig. UA-48, sketches (8) through (9) are met, the flange may be considered integral. Interpretation: VIII-79-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37; Reinforced Opening in ERW Date Issued: May 24, 1979 File: BC79-152 Question: In the case of reinforcement calculations on shells fabricated of SA-53 ERW Pipe, would it be permissible that in the calculation of the value (tr), i.e., the required thickness of a seamless shell per UG-37 of Section VIII, Division 1, that the maximum allowable stress value of SA-53 seamless pipe would be allowed to be used provided the nozzle was cut in the seamless part of the ERW pipe? Reply: UG-37 of Section VIII, Division 1 does permit the required shell thickness which is used in the reinforcement calculations to be based on E = 1.0, and neither the opening nor the reinforcement may lie in the weld when the E= 1.0 is used. See also the definitions of E1 in UG-40. You are reminded of the requirements of UW-14, which may be applicable. Interpretation: VIII-79-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Weld Ells Made by Bending Pipe Date Issued: May 24,1979 File: BC79-161 Question: Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate standard weld ells by bending pipe instead of ones fabricated by forging? Reply: Whether they are long radius or short radius weld ells, bends may be made either by bending pipes or by the forging process. However, in the formed shape, the fittings must meet the materials specification. Sometimes this is more difficult to do with an elbow made from a bent pipe than a forged elbow. (For example, see ASTM A-234 for requirements for some fittings.) Interpretation: VIII-79-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(5)(b) Date Issued May 24,1979 File: BC79-205 Question: If we have Category A longitudinal welds that are spot radiographed to which is attached a seamless head by Category B joint, and if this Category B joint is partially radiographed, as per UW11(a)(5)(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, do we need to apply a stress reduction factor as per UW-12(b)? Reply: There would be no need for the stress reduction due to the fact that the seamless head would satisfy the requirements of UW-11(a) of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)

Date Issued: File:

June 15,1979 BC79-243

Question(1): A vessel has two shell courses and segmented hemispherical heads attached at the ends. All longitudinal and circumferential welds in these parts are butt welds. A nozzle is attached to the shell by a corner joint (Category D) and has a ring flange attached to it by a corner joint (Category C). To satisfy the requirements for full radiography under UW-11(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary for the circumferential butt welds in the vessel to be either partially or 100% radiographed? Reply (1): It is assumed that all the seams in the heads and shell courses of the vessel are Category A butt joints, except for the girth seam between the two shell courses which is assumed to be a Category B butt joint. Thus, all of the Category A welds are required to be 100% radiographed, and the Category B joint shall be partially radiographed as a minimum. Question (2): Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): Is the Category D joint described in Question (1) required to be radiographed? No. Corner joints are not required to be radiographed. Is it necessary for the Category C joint described to be radiographed? No. Since the Category C joint is not a butt weld, then no radiography is required.

Interpretation: VIII-79-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2 and Fig. UW-13.1, Sketch (f) Date Issued: June 15, 1979 File: BC79-247 Question: A two chambered vessel is constructed with an intermediate head attachment per Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) as the pressure barrier between the chambers. May the chamber exerting pressure on the convex side of this head be used in lethal service per UW-2 when at the same time the other chamber is not? Reply: No. The intermediate head attachment does not satisfy the requirements of UW-2(a)(2) which specifies that such a Category B joint should be of Type No. (1) or (2) of Table UW-12. Interpretation: VIII-79-35 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; Interpolation of Stress Values Date Issued: June 25, 1979 File: BC78-439 Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 in allowing interpolation of stress values by the notes in the stress tables in Division 1 and AD-130 in Division 2 to mean arithmetical interpolation, or one by conducting a smooth curve? Reply: The reference in the Section VIII (and other Code Sections) allowable stress tables to "interpolation" to determine values at intermediate temperatures refers to straight line interpolation.. This interpretation is essential so that all users of the Code will arrive at consistent answers for a particular set of conditions. The subcommittees which evaluate data and recommend the Code allowable stress values may use a number of curve-fitting techniques in their evaluations, but the values subsequently tabulated in the Code are intended to be used with straight-line interpolation.

Interpretation: VIII-79-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(g)(3)(a) Date Issued: June 25, 1979 File: BC79-266 Question (1): What is the proper definition of the thickness of the vessel wall as stated in the requirements of UW-16(g)(3)(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): allowance. The definition of the vessel wall thickness would be the nominal thickness less corrosion

Question (2): Do the rules of UW-16(g)(3)(a)also apply to the attachment of internally threaded fittings to flat covers? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52 Date Issued: June 25, 1979 File: BC79-265 Question: UW-52(b) requires, as a minimum, that one spot be radiographed in each 50 feet of welding. It follows that a vessel having 160 ft of butt welds will require 4 spot radiographs to satisfy Code requirements. If one radiograph has rejectable indications, should the distance represented by this radiograph be 50 ft or 40 ft? Reply: UW-52 requires a minimum of one radiograph for each 50 ft of welding. Should the manufacturer choose to perform additional radiographs, the number of feet represented is reduced. In the above example the number of feet represented by each radiograph would be 40 ft. The two additional radiographs required should be taken within that length. Should either of these two radiographs include rejectable indications, the entire 40 ft of the weld represented shall be rejected. See UW-52(d)(2)(b). Interpretation: VIII-79-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-79(a)(1) Date Issued: July 6, 1979 File: BC79-245 Question: Is it the intent of UHT-79(a)(1), Section VIII, Division 1 that formed shell sections and heads shall be postweld heat treated at the temperature shown in Table UHT-56 regardless of thickness if the 3% strain is exceeded? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-40 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UCS-56 and AF-415 Date Issued: July 6,1979 File: BC79-274 Question: Are the PWHT procedures which were qualified using the 600F temperature for charging a furnace valid for use with the 800F in UCS-56 and AF-415 Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 without requalification?

Reply:

Yes. The values in UCS-56 and AF-415 are maximums.

Interpretation: VIII-79-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-80(a) and UG-79(b) Date Issued: July 6, 1979 File: BC79-298 Question: Is it the intent of UG-80(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 to allow flat spots, as referenced in UG-79-(b), including those adjoining longitudinal joints in cylindrical vessels made of plate, when the difference between the maximum and minimum inside diameters at any cross section does not exceed 1% of the nominal diameter at the cross section under consideration? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-3 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: July 9, 1979 File: BC79-246 Question: A longitudinal baffle is inserted perpendicularly into a longitudinal Category A weld of a shell in a heat exchanger. The baffle is seal welded on the first pass and the remainder of the passes complete the longitudinal seam. What is the joint efficiency of the weld? Reply: A weld as described is not acceptable.

Interpretation: VIII-79-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-34 Date Issued: July 12, 1979 File: BC79-321 Question: Is it required to postweld heat treat a fabricated pressure vessel in clad steel, base metal of ASTM A285 Grade C (21 mm thick) and cladding of ASTM A240 Grade TP405 (2.78 mm thick) under the rules of UCL-34, Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: It is preferred that material be ordered, produced, and documented to an ASME material specification under Section II of the Code. No postweld heat treatment need be performed due to the fact that the material is below the minimum size limitation for P-No. 1 material as listed in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, provided the electrode used is either austenitic or nonair-hardening nickel-chromium-iron electrode. [See UCL-34(b)]. Interpretation: VIII-79-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(e)(4) Date Issued: July 12, 1979 File: BC79-345 Question: Under the provisions of U-1(e)(4), is a strain gage level indicator attached to a vessel beyond the first sealing surface exempted from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1, or must it be considered a part of the containment, and be designed with material acceptable under Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: Excluding relief devices, any gage or instrument attached to a vessel beyond the first sealing surface is excluded from the Scope of the Code and does not need to comply with Code requirements including Code acceptable material. Interpretation: VIII-79-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(e) and UG-90(c)(1) Date Issued: July 26,1979 File: BC79-105 Question (1): Is it the intent of U-2(e) of Section VIII, Division 1, that the Authorized Inspector shall check and accept (by signing the U-1 Form) the accuracy of the design calculations with respect to the proper choice of applicable design formulas, stress values for materials used, and mathematics? Reply(1): U-2(e) requires the Inspector to verify that the applicable calculations have been made and requires that any questions raised by the Inspector be resolved. The Inspector is not required to check the calculations. Question (2): Is the intent of U-2(e) in any way modified when Section VIII, Division 1 does not provide rules covering all the design details as per U-2(g)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-79-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-8(b)(5)(b) Date Issued: July 26,1979 File: BC79-328 Question (1): Is the requirement of UG-8(b)(5)(b), Section VIII, Division 1 met if each integrally finned tube is tested after it has been assembled in a tube bundle by applying pressure externally to all of the tubes in the bundle at the same time and examining for leakage out of the end of each tube? Reply (1): No. An internal test is required and each tube is to be tested before installation .

Question (2): Is the requirement of UG-8(b)(5)(b), Section VIII, Division 1 met if each integrally finned tube is tested after it has been assembled in a tube bundle, by applying pressure internally to all of , the tubes in the bundle at the same time, and checking for leakage through shell connections during an extended test of at least 30 min.? Reply (2): No. Each tube is to be individually tested before installation to permit complete examination for leakage. Interpretation: VIII-79-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2(i) Date Issued: July 26, 1979 File: BC79-350 Question: Would the use of the method of attachment shown in Fig. UW-13.2(i) of Section VIII, Division 1, where the tubeplate is machined to provide a back for the weld, be construed as a joint not having a back-up strip? Reply: Yes .The machining of the tubeplate is the backing for the weld in Fig. UW-13.2(i).

Interpretation: VIII-79-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(a), Footnote 10 Date Issued: July 26, 1979 File: BC79-361 Question: Under the rules of UW-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, including footnote 10, is it required that both the shell side and channel side of a shell and tube heat exchanger be designed for lethal service if only one side is designated as lethal service, regardless of whether the tubes in the bundle are seamless or butt welded without the addition of filler metal? Reply: No. The generalized reply to your question is as follows: An independent chamber as covered in UG-19(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 which is not in a special service, such as lethal service, need not comply with the special requirements such as those of UW-2(a). However, if there are common parts between the two chambers they must satisfy the special requirements such as those of UW-2(a) Also see UG-116(d), (k), and (1) concerning marking and UG-120(b) and (d) concerning Data Reports. Regarding the tubes which are a common part: (a) If they are seamless, the special requirements applicable to UW-2(a) do not apply to the tubes, and, in as far as the tubes influence the requirements, noncommon parts of the independent chamber which is not in lethal service need not satisfy the requirements applicable to UW-2(a). (b) Footnote 10 to UW-2(a) is a special provision under which butt welded tubes may be used provided both the shell and channel sides satisfy the requirements applicable to UW-2(a). Interpretation: VIII-79-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(b) Date Issued: July 30, 1979 File: BC79-354 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UCS-85(b) Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate a vessel from P-No. 4 plate material and stress relieve it at 640C or 700C when the plate was tempered at 680C? Reply: Plate material which has been tempered at 680C by the mill should not be stress relieved at any temperature above that. Care must be taken to assure that the tensile properties of the material are not altered by too high a stress relieving temperature. ATTENTION The foregoing interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected interpretation sent to the inquirer. Correction Issued: February 15, 1980 Reply: Plate material which has been tempered at 680C by the mill may be stress relieved at a temperature above that, provided that test coupons for the plate reflect all heat treatments that the material is subjected to including postweld heat treatments. Interpretation: VIII-79-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-18 Studding Nozzles Date Issued: August 1, 1979 File: BC79-40

Question: Is it permissible to fabricate studding nozzles: the nozzle would be designed under the rules of UHT-18 Section VIII, Division 1 and the reinforcement would be integral within the studding flange body, made from SA-517 plate material for installation in tanks made from SA-517 steel? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not specifically limit the fabrication of nozzles to forgings; therefore, if the weld joint is made readily examinable, a studding nozzle as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (t) could be used and made as long as all of the minimum thickness and other requirements for studded connections are met, such as those given in UG-12 and UG-43(d) of Section VIII, Division' 1. Also the provisions of UHT-57(b) and UHT-83 must be met. Interpretation: VIII-79-51 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UCS-56(f) and AF-420 Date Issued: August 8, 1978 File: BC79-307 Question: May welds be made for the following combinations of materials in all thicknesses for both butt and fillet joints using ENI Cr Fe 3 electrodes of SFA 5.11 without additional postweld heat treatment for those parts of the vessel which already received postweld heat treatment in accordance with UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1 and AF-420 of Section VIII, Division 2? P-No. 1 to P-No. 1 P-No. 3 to P-No. 3 P-No. 4 to P-No. 4 P-No. 5 to P-No. 5 P-No. 1 to P-No. 3, P-No. 4, P-No. 5 P-No. 3 to P-No. 4, P-No. 5 P-No. 4 to P-No. 5

Reply: No. The requirements of UCS-56(f) 1n Section VIII, Division 1 and AF-420 1n Section VIII, Division 2 apply. Interpretation: VIII-79-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a) and UW-52 Date Issued: August 8, 1979 File: BC79-368 Question (1): If a vessel is to be examined under the requirements of UW-52 of Section VIII, Division 1, does the exemption in UW-11(a)(4) and (a)(5)(b) for small connections apply? Reply (1): No. The requirements of UW-52 are not based on weld joint location, but solely on examination of every 50 ft increment of the butt welded joints. Question (2): When the vessel sections and heads to which nozzles are attached are covered by UW11(a)(5), what requirements shall be applied to the Category A, B, and C of the welds in small nozzles? Reply (2): Category A, B and C butt welds are required to be fully radiographed when the rules of UW-11(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 are applicable, except when Category B and C butt welds meet the exemption of UW-11(a)(5)(b). Interpretation: VIII-79-53 ,Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-51 Date Issued: August 8, 1979 File: BC79-436

Question: Do weld metal impact tests in accordance with UHA-51 of Section VIII, Division 1 require lateral expansion measurements as referenced in UG-84(c)(4)(b)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34(d) and Fig UG-34 sketch (g) Date Issued: August 9, 1979 File: BC79-435 Question (1): Is it a requirement of UG-34(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 that in referencing sketch (g) of Figure UG-34 that a full penetration weld is required? Reply (2): No. The provisions of UG-34(d) call out the requirements for weld size t w sketch (g) and state that the weld depth need not exceed the head thickness t. The sketch (g) already shows that the weld dimension tw may be less than head thickness t provided tw2tr (See errata in volume 10 page 116) Interpretation: VIII-79-55 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UG-45 and Appendix 11, UA-48 Date Issued: August 13, 1979 File: BC79-238 Question (1): Under the provisions of UA-48(a)(3) and Fig. UA-48 sketches (8), (8a), and (8b) of Section VIII, Division 1. May optional type flanges be fabricated from flat plate, burning the ring? Grain orientation will be the same as for flat covers, flat heads or tubesheets shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (h) to (l). Reply (1): Material requirements for flanges are contained in UA-46. The special requirements for fabricated hubbed flanges are given in UA-46(d). Since your inquiry has no description as to whether or not the flanges have hubs and Fig. UA-48 sketches (8), (8a), and (8b) do permit hubbed and hubless flanges, you will have to assure yourself that UA-46 has been met. Question (2): Under the provisions of UG-45 of Section VIII, Division 1 in nozzles using welding neck flanges, must the schedule of the flange be the same as the schedule used for the tube? Is it possible to use a different schedule for flanges provided that pressure and corrosion allowances are satisfied? Reply (2): Yes, provided that the abutting sections and welded joint meet the rules for a tapered transition of UW-9(c), if they are applicable. Interpretation: VIII-79-56 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UA-46(d) and Fig. UA-48 Date Issued: August 13,1978 File: BC79-309 Question (1): Is it permissible to simply cut a ring from plate and use it in the configurations of Fig. UA-48, sketches (7), (8), (8a), (8b), and (9) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1) Yes, as long as the fabricated flange does not have an integral hub as part of it. For fabricated hubbed flanges, the rules of UA-46(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 shall be followed.

and tw 1.25ts.

Question (2): Does the fillet weld connecting the flange and outside of nozzle constitute a hub as referred to in UA-46(d) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes. [See Fig. UA-48, sketch(7) for dimensions.]

Interpretation: VIII-79-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(g)(5) Date Issued: August 17, 1979 File: BC79-329 Question: Can we interpret the wording of UW-16(g)(5) to mean that when all the conditions in UW-16(g)(5)(a),(b),(c), and (d) of Section VIII, Division 1 are satisfied that no additional reinforcement other than that inherent in the construction is required? Reply: Yes. The weld size must still be determined but cannot be less than a 3/32 in. leg.

Interpretation: VIII-79-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 Sketch (5) Date issued: August 17, 1979 File: BC79-388 Question: In Fig, UA-48 sketch (5) of Section VIII, Division 1, what is the value of h and what are the values for F and Vin Fig. UA-51.2 and UA-51.3? Reply: For flanges without hubs, the value of h = 0 and h/ho = 0; also g1 = go or g1/go = 1. In using Fig. UA-51.2, for g1/go = 1, for all values of h/h0, F = 0.908920. In using Fig. UA-51.3, for, g1/go = 1, for all values of h/ho, V= 0.550103. Interpretation: VIII-79-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-22 Date Issued: August 17, 1979 File: BC79-348 Question: In designing for earthquake loading, should impact loads be used to determine design loads used in obtaining the earthquake loads under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The requirements of UG-22 of Section VIII, Division 1 list some of the loadings which shall be considered in the design of a vessel. Included are impact and earthquake loads. However, this Division of Section VIII does not contain rules on how to consider every loading. When no rules are given, then the requirements of U-2(g) shall be followed. Interpretation: VIII-79-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Use of SA-36 Material Date Issued: August 17, 1979 File: BC79-463 Question: Are there any restrictions on the use of SA-36 material in Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: The only restrictions on the use of SA-36 material is on plate called out in UCS-6(b) and specifically UCS-6(b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1. These restrictions prohibit the use of such plate

material where strength welding is applied and only for heads, shells, and nozzles which exceed 5/8, in, in thickness. There is no restriction on the use of SA-36 bar stock. Interpretation: VIII-79-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-15 Date Issued: September 4, 1979 File: None Question: At present, only copper alloy 655 is included under SB-315, and this material is no longer available on the market in the form of tubing for the manufacture of couplings. However, both copper alloy 651 and copper alloy 655 are included under SB-98. Is it permissible to use copper alloy 651 in the form of tubing for the manufacture of threaded couplings for welding into Section VIII, Division 1 vessels? Reply: Yes, providing the requirements of UG-15 are met.

Interpretation: VIII-79-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, ASTM-A182, Grade 5 Flanges Under Provisions of UG-11 and UG-44 Date Issued: September 7, 1979 File: BC79-8 Question: ANSI Standard B16.5, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, 1977 Edition, does not include ASTM-A182, Grade 5 forgings but this material is included in ANSI Standard B16.34, Steel Valves, 1977 Edition, with pressure-temperature ratings given in Table 2-1.12A for standard class valves, flanged and buttwelding end. Under the provisions of UG-11(a) and UG-44, Section VIII, Division 1, may a flange made of ASTM-A182, Grade 5 and otherwise complying with B16.5 be used at the pressure-temperature ratings of Table 2-12A of ANSI B16.34? Reply: Yes. In a reply dated October 4, 1978, the ANSI B16 Committee indicated that ASTM A-182, Grade 5 material may be used in B16.5 flanges at the pressure-temperature ratings of Table 2-1.12A of ANSI B16.34. This interpretation is acceptable under the provisions of UG-11(a) and UG-44, Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-79-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Clamp Connections Date Issued: September 26, 1979 File: BC79-472 Question: Is it permissible to use triclamp ferrules which can be used with a quick opening type clamp for Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: The Committee is assuming that the fittings will be attached to nozzles and used to connect piping to the vessel. Based on this assumption the Committee refers you to U-1(e)(1)(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 which states that the Code rules terminate at the first sealing surface. This means that one part of the fitting would have to be made of Code material, and the Code would have no jurisdiction over other parts of the fitting. In the case of a nozzle even the first sealing surface can be external to the vessel by terminating it at the weld for attaching that part. Interpretation: VIII-79-64

Subject : Date Issued: File

Section VIII, Division 1, UA-67 Rounded Indications October 9, 1979 BC79-602

Question: Is it a requirement of the provisions in UA-67(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 to include a line of nonrelevant indications with those relevant aligned rounded indications which have been determined acceptable? Reply: The rules of UA-67(b) do not regard any rounded indications which do not exceed the dimensional limits outlined there as being significant enough for interpretation. Those that do exceed the dimensional limits are then considered relevant, and only then are used to determine acceptance or rejection of the radiograph. Interpretation: VIII-79-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Epoxy Paint used as Coating for a Fabricated Tank Date Issued: November 7, 1979 File: BC79-642 Question: Is it permissible under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to coat the internal surface of a tank, fabricated under the requirements of Section VIII, with an epoxy paint? Reply: The Code does not prohibit the use of epoxy paint as a coating for a pressure vessel fabricated under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 as long as all of the applicable requirements of that Division have been met. Interpretation: VIII-79-66 Subject,: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.3 Date Issued: November 7, 1979 File: BC79-657 Question: In vessels manufactured for lethal service may enclosures be fabricated of forged material in accordance with the details shown in Fig. UW-13.3, sketch (a) or (b) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided the welded joint is made a Type 1 or 2 joint of Table UW-12.

Interpretation: VIII-79-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 and 2, UW-16 and AD-610 Date Issued: November 8, 1979 File: BC79-507 Question: May a nozzle abutting the vessel wall and attached to the vessel by a full penetration weld as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (a) and (b) and in Fig. AD-610.1 sketches (a) and (b) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 respectively, be reinforced with a pad on the outside of the vessel where the pad is attached by welds at the outer edge of the pad and at the nozzle neck periphery? The weld at the outer edge of the pad shall be a fillet weld and the welds attaching the nozzle neck to the vessel wall and to the pad shall be full penetration welds. Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-79-68

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 and UG-40 November 8, 1979 BC79-669

Question: When calculating tr for nozzle reinforcement per UG-40 and UG-37(b)(4)of Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary to include the stress reduction factor of 0.8 for no radiography in the calculation, with E equal to 1 for both a seamless shell and a rolled shell with a Type 1 longitudinal joint? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-69 [Same as 80-02 Vol. 7, pg. 106] Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16 and Fig. UW-16.2 sketch (p) Date Issued: November 14,1979 File: BC79-622 Question: What is the minimum fillet leg size for the attachment of a 2 in. flange-type fitting (as in Fig. UW-16.2 sketch (p) with the opening in the vessel wall less than the outside diameter of 2 in. pipe plus 0.75 in.) to a 0.375 in. thick shell under the conditions listed below? (1) Design pressure = 350 psi. (2) Corrosion Allowance = 0 in. (3) The minimum nozzle neck thickness required by UG-45(a) = 0.13475 in. [see UW-16(g)(3)(a) (3)(a)]. (4) The attachment weld throat necessary to satisfy the requirements of UW-18 for the applicable loadings of UG-22 = 0.0625 in. [see UW-16(g)(3)(a)(3)(b)] Reply: The weld throat shall meet the rules given in UW-16(g)(3)(a)(3),and the weld leg shall meet the rules given in UW-16(g)(3)(a)(4). Interpretation: VIII-79-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2 Sketches (b) and (c) Date Issued: November 14,1979 File: BC79-639 (Same Q. and A. as 80-02 Vol. 7, pg. 105) Question: Is the joint configuration illustrated in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (b),and (c) of Section VIII, Division 1 acceptable when used to join side plates in a box header designed for lethal service? Reply: No. 'The last sentence of the first paragraph of UW-2(a) lists the types of joints which may be used with various categories of welded joints. The three categories of joints which are used to join the sides of a box header in lethal service and the type of joint are: Category A (Longitudinal welded joint) must be Type 1 (butt) Category B (Circumferential welded joint) must be Type 1 or Type 2 (butt) Category C same as Category B Since the joint must be a butt joint, the types shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (b) and (c) are not permitted for lethal service. Interpretation: VIII-79-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCD-3(a) and 3(b) Date Issued: November 14,1979 File: BC79-640

Question (1): May cast ductile iron of the type listed in Table UCD-23 of Section VIII, Division 1 be subjected to operating temperatures below that required in UCD-3(a) by utilizing additional criteria, testing or lowering the pressure rating? Reply (1): No The requirements of UCS-3(a) specifically limit the use of cast ductile iron to -20F, and additional testing would not satisfy any requirements. Question (2): Under the provisions in UCS-3(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 may the latest edition of ANSI B16.5 (1977) be used instead of the 1968 version that is referenced? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix II, UA-46(d) Date Issued: November 14, 1979 File: BC79-714 Question: Is the following interpretation of UA-46(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to the 1977 Edition? (1)Hubbed Flanges. Specific requirements are given for the fabrication of hubbed flanges made from plates. (2)Hubless Flanges. No special mention is made regarding the fabrication of hubless flanges, such as types (1), (1a), (7), (8), (8a), (8b), and (9) of Fig. UA-48 types of flanges. (2.1) We understand that hubless flanges as mentioned on item (2) may be cut from plate as rings and machined. This way, the original plate surfaces would be perpendicular to the axis of the flange and not parallel to it, as required for hubbed flanges. (2.2) The above mentioned hubless flanges may be made up of segments cut from plate, buttwelded and machined, provided that Section VIII, Division 1 stress-relief and radiography requirements are complied with. (2.3) There are no diameter or pressure limitations for hubless flanges fabricated as mentioned under (2.1) and (2.2) provided they are designed in accordance with applicable rules of Section VIII, Division 1. Reply: The above interpretation is correct.

Interpretation: VIII-79-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36(c)(3)(a) Date Issued: November 19, 1979 File: BC79-611 Correct Question to read: Question: Would it be permissible under UG-36(c)(3)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 that a 2 in., 300 lb. rating long weld. neck inserted into a vessel shell, which would require a 3.4375 in. hole cutting the shell or head, be classed as an opening requiring reinforcement according to the rules of UG-37, when in fact the 2 in. long weld neck contains more inherent reinforcement strength than a 2 in. pipe with 2 3/8 in. outside diameter? Reply: No. The provisions of UG-36(c)(3) provides for the condition where no reinforcement calculations need to be made for single openings in vessels not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure, and this solely refers to the opening in the vessel. UG-36(c)(3)(a) states the size limitation on that opening and says that when the connection is welded or brazed, if the vessel is 3/8 in. or less in

thickness, the opening in the vessel may be as large as 3 in. pipe size (3 1/2 in.). If the vessel is over 3/8 in. in thickness the opening in the vessel may be as large as 2 in. pipe size (2-3/8 in.) Interpretation: VIII-79-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Spherically Dished Covers, UA-6 Date Issued: November 20, 1979 File: BC79-606 Question (1): Would it be acceptable under the requirements of UA-6 of Section VIII, Division 1 to define L as positive as shown in Fig. UA-6 and negative when the center of curvature of the dish is outside the vessel; also to define P as negative for external pressure? Reply (1): The formulas in UA-6 of Section VIII, Division 1 are correct for both internal and external pressure. Use of + and - signs on L, P, or Mo will give errors. UA-6(c) shall be followed. Question (2): Is it correct that the definition of Mo in UA-6(b) should say "convex to" and "concave to" instead of "under external" and "under internal" pressure? Reply (2): The words in the definition for Mo are correct. The words "concave" and "convex" to pressure were chosen because it is possible to have pressure of either kind on either side. Question (3): Is the formula t =5PL/6S good for external as well as internal pressure in UA-6(e) through (g), and should not UG-32 or UG-33 be used in each case, depending on whether the pressure is internal or external? Reply (3): The formula is adaptable for external as well as internal pressure. The opening paragraph of UA-6(a), in the last sentence states that heads convex to pressure must also meet UG-33. Interpretation: VIII-79-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Coverage of Pressure Vessel Designed Under External Pressure Date Issued: November 20, 1979 File: BC79-658 Question: Is a vessel designed for an external pressure of 6 psi included in the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. See U-1(c)(8); however, such a vessel may be constructed in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1. See U-1(h). Interpretation: VIII-79-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Extent of Stress Analysis Required by U-2(g), UG-22, and UG23(c) Date Issued: December 5, 1979 File: BC79-671 Question: What is the extent of additional stress analysis which shall be performed to comply with the requirements of U-2(g), UG-22, and UG-23(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The responsibility, the correctness, and the extent of the stress analysis required to satisfy UG-22, UG-23(c) and U-2(g) belongs to that company which applies the U-stamp to the vessel. The Code does not evaluate the methods of stress analysis, nor does it specify the areas to be examined other

than those already given in Division 1. The responsibility for the adequacy of the vessel rests with the vessel manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-79-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-85 and UCS-85 Date Issued: December 5, 1979 File: BC79-700 Question: In the fabrication of a dished end using plate material SA-285 Grade C, SA-515 Grade 70, and SA-516 Grade 70, which is annealed after forming, is it a requirement of UG-85 and UCS-85 of Section VIII, Division 1 to call for an additional test coupon with our normalizing cycle of the dished end? Reply: The requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 do not specifically request annealing; however, a test coupon would be required if annealing is done. Interpretation: VIII-79-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(c) Date Issued: December 7, 1979 File: BC79-666 Question: Is it permissible under the provisions of UG-11(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 for a parts manufacturer, who does not hold a Code symbol, to butt weld tubes together in order to furnish "U" tubes in accordance with his standard to a heat exchanger shop, provided all the requirements of UG11(c)(2)(3) and (4) are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, SA-285 Date Issued: December 13, 1979 File: BC79-781 Question: Would the requirements of the "Basis of Purchase" paragraph in SA-285 be satisfied if the boiler manufacturer listed the ASME designation "ASME SA-278 W78 Grade C" rather than "ASTM A285-77 Grade C"? Reply: The requirements of the "Basis of Purchase" sections of the material specifications would be satisfied by the procedure suggested above. Interpretation: VIII-79-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-15(c) Date Issued: December 17, 1979 File: BC79-738 Question: Does the requirement for providing at least one telltale hole for reinforcing plates and saddles in UW-15(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to reinforcing plates and saddles which are not associated with nozzles or other connections? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-79-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW 12 and UG-116 Date Issued: December 21, 1979 File: BC79-625 Question (1): Seamless ellipsoidal heads of a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel are attached to a cylindrical shell having a spot radiographed Type 1, Category A joint by Type 1, Category B joints which are partially radiographed in accordance with UW-11(a)(5). Longitudinal stresses do not govern for any part. For the seamless heads, what joint efficiency and percent of allowable stress shall be used? Reply (1): The joint efficiency shall be 1.0 (see UG-32) and the percent of allowable stress shall be 100%. [See UW-12(b). Also see UA-265(b).] Question (2): For the shell of the vessel described in Question (1), what joint efficiency and percent of allowable stress shall apply? Reply (2): The joint efficiency shall be 0.85 [see UW-12(b)(and the percent of allowable stress shall be 100% [See UW-12(b). Also see UA-265(g)] Question (3): In accordance with UG-116(f), what markings shall be applied to the vessel to indicate the degree of radiography? Reply (3): The marking "RT-4" shall be applied.

Interpretation: VIII-79-86 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: December 21, 1979 File: BC79-626 Question: It is desired to fabricate an electric resistance heated water heater that is within the Scope of Section IV using austenitic stainless steel (SA-240, Type 304 or 316). Since Section IV does not permit the use of this material, may such a vessel be built and stamped under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. Vessels within the Scope of another Code section should not be constructed in accordance with Section VIII unless, as for unfired steam boilers, specific provisions are included for such construction. See U-1(c)(1) and U-1(g). Interpretation: VIII-79-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(a)(3) Date Issued: December 21, 1979 File: BC79-737 Question (1): Are sketches (g) and (o) of Fig. UW-16.1 full penetration Category D joints which satisfy the requirements of UW-2(a)(3)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are sketches (g) and (o) of Fig. UW-16.1 butt welded joints which would require full radiography under the provisions of UW-2(a) and UW-11(a)?

Reply(2): Sketches (g) and (o) of Fig. UW-16.1 do not contain butt welded joints. In Fig. UW16.1, only sketches (q-1) through (q-4) illustrate butt welded joints. Also see the definition of a butt joint in QW-492 of Section IX. Interpretation: VIII-80-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Postweld Heat Treatment Requirements of P-No. 4 and P-No.-5 Materials Date Issued: January 2, 1980 File: BC79-615 Question: Is it acceptable under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that when stress relief heat treatment is required for P-No. 4 and P-No. 5 materials that it be performed at a temperature which exceeds that used for tempering the base metal? Reply: UHT-5 (also, UCS-85 for non-quenched-and-tempered carbon and low alloy steels) mandates that the material test specimens shall be in the final heat treated condition of the end product. This includes all the mill heat treatments and anticipated heat treatments performed in the fabrication shop and/or the erection site. This assures that the mechanical properties of the test specimens are representative of the final, as fabricated, product. While it is true that postweld heat treating a quenched and tempered material at a temperature equal to, or higher than, the tempering temperature will result in a reduction of yield and tensile strengths, the fact remains that this is being anticipated and accounted for by the test specimen heat treatment. The sequence with which various subcritical (below the lower transformation temperature) heat treatments are applied to a quenched and tempered material has no effect on the tensile properties of the material. Interpretation: VIII-80-02 (Same Q. and A. as 79-70 Vol. 6 pg. 84) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2 Sketches (b) and (c) Date Issued: January 14, 1980 File: BC79-639 Question: Is the joint configuration illustrated in Fig. UW-13.2, sketches (b) and (c) of Section VIII, Division 1 acceptable when used to join side plates in a box header designed for lethal service? Reply: No. The last sentence of the first paragraph of UW-2(a) lists the types of joints which may be used with various categories of welded joints. The three categories of joints which are used to join the sides of a box header in lethal service and the type of joint are: Category A (longitudinal welded joint) must be Type 1 (butt); Category B (circumferential welded joint) must be Type 1 or Type 2 (butt); Category C same as Category B. Since the joint must be a butt joint, the types shown in Fig. UW-13.2, sketches (b) and (c) are not permitted for lethal service. Interpretation: VIII-80-03 (Same as 79-69 Vol. 6 pg. 84) Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UW-16 and Fig. UW-16.2 Date Issued: January 14, 1980 File: BC79-622 Question: What is the minimum fillet leg, size for the attachment of a 2 in. flange-type fitting (as in Fig. UW-16.2, sketch (p) with the opening in the vessel wall less than the outside diameter of 2 in. pipe plus 0.75 in.) to a 0.375 in. thick shell under the conditions listed below?

(a) design pressure = 350 psi; (b) corrosion allowance = 0 in.; (c) the minimum nozzle neck thickness required by UG-45(a) = 0.13475 in. [see UW-16(g)(3)-(a) (3)(a)(; (d) the attachment weld throat necessary to satisfy the requirements of UW-18 for the applicable loadings of UG-22 = 0.0625 in. [see UW-16(,g)(3)(a)(3)(b)] . Reply: The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee does not review nor confirm design calculations. This is the responsibility of the Code stamp holder. In answer to your specific question, the weld throat shall meet the rules given in UW-16(,g)(3)(a)(3) and the weld leg shall meet the rules given in UW-16(g)(3)(a)(4). Interpretation: VIII-80-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-31(c) Date Issued: January 30, 1980 File: BC80-5 Question: To what extent should a defective tackweld be removed so to comply with the requirements in UW-31(c) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: A tackweld found to be defective should be removed flush with the parent metal.

Interpretation: VIII-80-05 Subject: Section VIII-Division 1, Joint Categories Table UW-12 Date Issued: January 30, 1980 File: BC79-682 Question (1): What is the joint category and joint efficiency of a nozzle-to-shell joint which is similar to Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (q-4) of Section VIII Division 1, is a butt joint with a backing strip remaining, and is fully radiographed? Reply (1): Since the weld is a nozzle-to-shell weld, it is a Category D joint. Since the weld is fully radiographed and the backing strip remains, the weld type is Column (a), Type 2, with E = 0.90 of Table UW-12. Question (2): What are the joint categories and joint efficiencies of a construction where a ring, is butt welded into the shell in the region of a nozzle with and without a reinforcing pad. The nozzle is welded to the inner edge of the ring with a full penetration weld similar to Fig. UW-16.1, sketches (h) and (o)? All welds are fully radiographed and the backing, strip remains. Reply (2): The outer weld at the ring-to-shell is a butt joint in the shell and is Category A. Since the weld is fully radiographed and the backing strip remains, the weld type is Column (a), Type (2), with E = 0.90. The inner welds attaching the nozzle to the ring is a Category D weld. It is a full penetration weld and not covered by Table UW-12. The categories of the outer and inner welds remain tile same regardless of whether or not they are covered by a reinforcing pad. Interpretation: VIII-80-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13, Rectangular Headers Date Issued: January 30, 1980 File: BC79-267

Question (1): When calculating membrane stresses on the short and long side plates in Appendix 13 of Section VIII Division 1 . reference is made to an efficiency factor of 0.8 for welds; however, examples do not show any weld efficiency in the calculations. Which is correct? Reply (1): The statement regarding the weld efficiency of E = 0.80 is being removed and is not appropriate, however, the example is correct because E = 0.80 is not used. Question (2): factor? Is it correct for the bending stress equations in Appendix 13 to require a weld efficiency Efficiency factors also exist for

Reply (2): Weld efficiency factors apply only to butt welds. perforated plates where no welds are present and must be used.

Question (3): In our analysis of tubesheet design, we have discounted the ligament efficiency as being ineffective as a result of the staying action of the tubes and reinforcing effect of the plugs; therefore, can the ligament efficiency in the design be set at a value of one, and can a proof test be used as an alternative to the calculations? Reply (3): The basis for the equations in Appendix 13 is primarily an elastic analysis which is based on structural and finite element analyses. Equations are not based on proof tests. Proof tests may give a variety of results, especially in rectangular vessels where yielding of the corners and ligaments may take place; and for this reason, formulas were developed. In those cases where tubes add staying power to the plate, a special analysis may be made according to U-2(g) for those situations which are not covered by Code formulas. Interpretation: VIII-80-07 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UCS-66 Date Issued: February 1, 1980 File: BC79-712 Question (1): Is it permissible to use various acceptable carbon steel plate materials (i.e., SA-515 SA285) under the requirements of UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 without impact testing? Reply (1): Section VIII makes no distinction between the type of carbon steels permitted without impact tests being required as per UCS-66. Question (2): Is it permitted to wave-off impact testing flanges on the basis of a temperature-pressure rating chart which in our case indicates maximum pressure of 275 psi (19.33 kg/cm 2) which is greater than 2.5 X 7.0 = 17.5 kg/cm2? Reply (2): As long as a flange rating according to the ANSI B16.5-1977 pressure rating is more than 2.5 times the maximum pressure for which the vessel is stamped, the impact tests would not be required. Question (3): If the impact test requirement is waved-off for flanges in the above context, can we substitute SA-350 LF2 with SA-105? Reply (3): Section VIII, Division 1 makes no distinction in the kinds of carbon steels used. Therefore, the use of SA-105 would not be prohibited by Section VIII, Division 1 where it was not impact tested according to the provisions of UCS-66. Interpretation: VIII 80-08 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-21 and AD-120 Design Pressure

Date Issued: File:

February 1, 1980 BC79-758

Question (1): In designing a vessel according to Section VIII, Division 1 for short time conditions, since no provisions are made for short time conditions in Section VIII, Division 1, may the criterion of ANSI B31.3, 302.2.4 be applied? Reply (1): Since there are no special provisions for consideration of the length of time of operation, short or otherwise, in Section VIII, Division 1, the vessel design shall meet the requirements of UG-20 and UG-21. Question (2): In designing a vessel according to Section VIII, Division 2 for short time conditions, may the criterion of ANSI B31.3, 302.2.4 be applied or shall a fatigue analysis be performed? Reply (2): In designing a vessel according to Section VIII, Division 2, there is no specific consideration of time except for that inferred by Table AD-150.1 for certain loads, such as wind load, which are usually of short time. Time is not considered in the fatigue evaluation, only the number of various cycles. Each shall be applied if it is applicable. Interpretation: VIII-80-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-28 and UG-29 Date Issued: February 6, 1980 File: BC80-1 Question: In the design of a cylindrical pressure vessel for external pressure, where the vessel is of varying thickness, is it permissible to use an "effective" (weighted-average) thickness in the calculations under UG-28 and UG-29 of Section VIII, Division 1 Reply: The requirements of UG-28 and UG-29 are based on a uniform wall thickness and are not adaptable to a varying thickness situation; therefore, the rules of U-2(g) of Section VIII, Division 1 are applicable. Interpretation; VIII-80-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Welding, of Attachments After the Final Hydrostatic Test, UG99(a) Date Issued: February 7, 1980 File: BC80-74 Question: May nonpressure attachments be welded to a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel subsequent to the final hydrostatic test required by UG-99(a) without subsequent hydrostatic testing and prior to the stamping of the completed vessel? Reply: No. Section VIII, Division 1 requires that the final hydrostatic test as required by UG99(a) be the last operation prior to the stamping of the completed vessel. Interpretation: VIII-80-11 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Criteria for Using Allowable Stresses Date Issued: February 13, 1980 File: BC79-756

Question: Is it permissible under the rules of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to use the actual tensile strength value of a material in the design of a vessel instead of the minimum specified tensile strength given in the stress Tables of Section VIII? Reply: No. The criteria for designing a vessel shall be based on the allowable stresses given in Section VIII-Divisions 1 and 2 for the material at the minimum specified tensile strength value given. Interpretation: VIII-80-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Butt Welding. Hubs, Weld Overlay Construction Date Issued: February 25, 1980 File: BC79-704 Question: May butt welding hubs of the types shown in Figs. UW-13.3, UW-16.1(q), UHT-18.1, and UA-48 of Section VIII, Division 1 be constructed of overlayed weld metal provided the base materials and the weld metal are examined by the ultrasonic, liquid penetrant, and radiographic methods? Reply: Code. No. Butt welding hubs constructed from weld overlay deposit are not permitted by the

Interpretation: VIII-80-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(g) Date Issued: February 25, 1980 File: BC79-760 Question: May inverted flanges be designed per U-2(g) of Section VIII, Division 1 with smaller openings than one-half of the inside diameter? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not contain specific rules for the design of inverted flanges therefore, U-2(g) is applicable. Interpretation: VIII-80-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-6(a) Date Issued: February 25, 1980 File: BC79-791 Question: Is it permissible under UA-6(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, in calculating the thickness of the dished portion of a spherical head under external pressure, to use the provisions for hemispherical heads under UG-33(c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-704 and UA-706 Date Issued: February 26, 1980 File: BC79-804 and BC80-2Question: Is there a discrepancy in the I, nomenclature for calculating the moment of inertia between 11, , and I2, and footnote 2 of UA-704 in Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: the vessel.

No. The method of calculating the moment of inertia is done by taking a unit length into

Interpretation: VIII-80-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-77(a) and (c) Date Issued: March 5, 1980 File: BC80-98 Question (1): In complying with the requirements of UG-77(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, does the marking of material with only the heat and slab number fulfill the identification requirements of "A Coded marking"? Reply (1): The heat and slab number can be used as a coded marking to satisfy tile rules. The Manufacturer's quality control system shall include the proper controls. Question (2): In complying with the requirements of UG-77(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, does the marking of material formed into shapes with only the heat and slab number fulfill the identification requirements of "Modified Marking Requirements"? Reply (2): No. The marking of heat and slab number on the material is riot sufficient identification when formed shapes are furnished by anyone other than the manufacturer of the completed pressure vessel. The full marking as required by the applicable Material Specification is required. Interpretation: VIII-80-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-23(c) Date Issued: March 7, 1980 File: BC78-91 Question: May corrosion resistant weld metal overlay be used in determining the required thickness of a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel? Reply: Yes. For a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, corrosion resistant weld metal overlay may be used in determining the required thickness under the provisions of U-2(g). Attention is called to UCL-23(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 for guidance in calculating equivalent weld metal overlay thicknesses. Interpretation: VIII-80-18 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1. Use of ASTM A 276 Type 304 in Place of SA-479 Type 304 Date Issued: March 10, 1980 File: BC80-92 Question: Is it permissible to use ASTM A 276 Type 304 material as a substitute for SA-479 Type 304 using stress values Per Section VIII, Division 1 for temperature in excess of 1000F? Reply: No. The Committee has reviewed the inclusion of ASTM A 276 Type 304 material into the Code and the consensus is that this Specification is not suitable for Code construction. Interpretation: VIII-80-19 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-4 and AM-100 Date Issued: March 12, 1980 File: BC80-9

Question: May carbon, chrome, nickel alloy, or stainless materials which have been alloyed with aluminum by calorizing be used for pressure retaining parts for vessels built to Section VIII, Division 1 or 2? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2 are met.

Interpretation: VIII-80-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-119(c) Use of Adhesive Nameplates Date Issued: March 14, 1980 File: BC79-751 Question: Under the requirements of UG-119, Section VIII, Division 1, may a nameplate be made of 0.003 in. thick aluminum metal foil and be attached to the vessel with an adhesive provided that: (a) the nameplate satisfies the requirements of UG-119 for stamping of the Code Symbol and vessel serial number with all other data embossed or impressed; and (b) the nameplate and its adhesive have been tested and satisfy the Material Adhesion Test, Section 2 wq of ANSI Z21.10.3-1975 at temperatures exceeding the maximum temperature at the point of attachment? Reply: Some comments are as follows (a) The present rules do not establish a minimum thickness for nameplates (b) Concerning the use of adhesive as a means of permanent attachment as required by UG119(c) this question was answered previously and is outlined below. Question: Is it permissible to attach a vessel nameplate by the use of a high temperature adhesive?

Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 specifies in UG-119(c) that the required nameplate shall be permanently attached by suitable means to the vessel in a conspicuous place. The adhesive material described in the Question is not prohibited as a means to satisfy this requirement. It is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to determine that this adhesive would be able to withstand the conditions that the vessel might see in service. If the nameplate does not directly adhere to the shell of the vessel, this may not be a problem. Thus the specific rules do not prohibit the use of an aluminum foil nameplate to the thickness, marked and attached as described in the Question. As indicated by U-2(g), where complete rules are not given, the details of construction are subject to acceptance by the Inspector. The vessel manufacturer remains responsible for the suitability of the nameplate, particularly including the permanence of the attachment and the markings. Interpretation: VIII-80-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-51(a)(3) Qualification of Radiographic Personnel Date Issued: April 3, 1980 File: BC80-27 Question (1): Under the requirements of UW-51(a)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1, are all radiographs for RT-1 and/or RT-2 radiographed vessels required to be interpreted by an interpreter that has been qualified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A (1975 Edition)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May experience in welding, including locating, removing, and/or repairing defects by radiography, be substituted for NDT Level I or II experience for the qualification of Radiograph Interpreters provided the acceptance of this experience is included in the employers written practice? Reply (2): No. Experience in welding including locating, removing, and/or repairing defects by radiograph can certainly be a part of the manufacturer's written program for qualification of a radiographic interpreter; however, the other requirements of the SNT-TC-1A document must be satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-80-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-8 Use of SA-358 Class 1 or 2 Fusion Welded Pipe Date Issued: April 4, 1980 File: BC80-162 Question: May fusion welded austenitic chromium-nickel alloy steel pipe, meeting all of the requirements of SA-358, Class 1 or 2, be used for shell or nozzle material in the fabrication of Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessels? Reply: SA-358 is not an acceptable material under Section VIII, Division 1 requirements. If fusion welded pipe is requested for usage under Section VIII, Division 1, then by the rules of UG-8, the pipe shall be fabricated as a pressure part. Material procurement shall be to an acceptable Material Specification in Section VIII, Division 1, or in compliance with the provisions of UG-10. Interpretation: VIII-80-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Use of Hexagon Socket-Head Cap Screws Date Issued: April 4, 1980 File: BC80-123 Question: Is it permissible to use alloy steel socket head cap screws meeting ASTM A 574 on vessels built in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The existing bolting Specifications approved by the Code were revised recently so that head types other than hex could be furnished; therefore, it would be permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 to order socket head cap screws to one of the Code approved Specifications. Interpretation: VIII-80-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-25 Corrosion Allowance Date Issued: April 16, 1980 File: BC79-789 Question: Does the application of paint, including baked epoxy coatings, to the inside of pressure vessels eliminate the requirements for corrosion allowance, as required by UG-25? Reply: Other than for the specific corrosion requirements of UCS-25, the user (or designer) must specify the manner and degree of corrosion protection. Nonmetallic coatings can be used for this purpose, but if used, the Manufacturer's Data Report must show zero corrosion allowance. Interpretation: VIII-80-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56(d)(4) Date Issued: April 16. 1980 File: BC80-13

Question: If a nozzle of the type shown in Fig. UW-16.1, sketches (n) or (o) of Section VIII Division 1, with its reinforcement, was required to be postweld treat treated, would the thickness criteria in UCS-56(d)(4) be based solely on the nominal thickness of the shell or must the pad thickness also be taken into account? Reply: Under the requirements for postweld heat treatment in UCS-56(d)(4), the thickness criteria is based on the nominal thickness of the shell without the reinforcement pad. Interpretation: VIII-80-26Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UW-12 and UW-15(b) Date Issued: April 17, 1980 File: BC79-503 Question: Is there a conflict between the nozzle weld requirements in UW-15(b) versus those in Table UW-12 for a Category D or other category joints? Replay: No. The weld strength is given in UW-15(b) are to be used only for calculating load carrying paths as required in UG-41. The weld joint efficiencies given in Table UW-12 are those to be used in vessel wall thickness calculations. Interpretation: VIII-80-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Maximum Allowable External Working Pressure for Seamless Copper Alloy Tubes Date Issued: April 17, 1980 File: BC79-763 Question: Is it permissible to establish the maximum allowable external working pressure of seamless copper tubes complying with SB-111 Alloy 19200 by the formula in Code Case 1847? Reply: No. Code Case 1847 is for special tubes with integral fins. Maximum allowable external working pressure for all other tubes shall be established using the rules of UG-28. Interpretation: VIII-80-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AD-204.2 Date Issued: April 17, 1980 File: BC80-26 Question: Do the requirements of AD-204.2 apply only when there is no integral head skirt and the cylindrical shell is welded directly at the head-to-shell tangent line? Reply: No. AD-204.2 rules are unrelated to the location of a weld, if any, which may be placed in the construction. These rules state that for a torispherical head, there shall be a cylindrical part attached to the head which is at least as thick as the head thickness and shall be at least Rt long. Also, it tells that a transition to a thicker shell may be in this zone while a transition to a thinner shell shall not be. AD-204.5 gives one of the rules for minimum thickness of a skirt if it is provided, but other requirements of AD-104.2 may prevail. Interpretation: VIII-80-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-18(d) Date Issued: April 17, 1980 File: BC80-190

Question: In UW-18(d), what does the 55% joint efficiency factor represent when calculating the allowable load on a fillet weld? Reply: The 55% joint efficiency factor includes the conversion of the leg length of the fillet weld to the throat length (0.707), and the conversion of the tensile strength to the shear strength (0.8); therefore, no additional reduction need be taken in calculating the allowable load by computing the weld area. Interpretation: VIII-80-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36(b)(2) Date Issued: April 28, 1980 File: BC80-59 Question: Is the word recommended as used in UG-36(b)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 interpretable to be a mandatory or optional requirement? Reply: The word recommended as used in UG-36(b)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, indicates an optional requirement. Interpretation: VIII-80-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AD-150 and AD-151.1 Date Issued: April 28, 1980 File: BC80-141 Question: Is it permissible to use either of the stress intensity limits established by AD-150 and AD-151.1 of Section VIII, Division 2, or must they both be observed? Reply: The limits in both AD-150 and AD-151.1 of Section VIII, Division 2 must be met.

Interpretation: VIII-80-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 Date Issued: April 29, 1980 File: BC79-261 Question (1): Does the answer to Interpretation VIII-78-35, as shown below, actually apply to flanges attached to nozzles as well as shells? Interpretation: VIII-78-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UA-48 Date Issued: March 10, 1978 File: BC78-37 Question: Is it the intent of sketch (3) of Fig. UA-48 that it is permissible to attach a hubless flange outside diameter of a shell of a vessel with a fillet weld shown by the dotted lines in that sketch? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is there not a conflict between attachment welds for hubless flanges of the loose and optional types?

Reply (2): The Committee has recognized the discrepancies between welds shown for hubless flanges of the loose and optional types as caused by the dotted lines. The dotted lines have been deleted, and this change will appear in a forthcoming Addenda. Interpretation: VIII-80-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-903 Date Issued: April 29, 1980 File: BC79-636 (BC78-268) Question (1): Under the requirements of UA-903(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, is a crack to be considered a linear discontinuity? Reply (1): No. The acceptance standards of UA-903(a) apply to linear discontinuities other than cracks, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration which are covered in UA-903(b). Question (2): Do the requirements of UA-903(b) require rejection of indications identified as cracks, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration, even though the indication produces an amplitude less than 20% of the reference level? Reply (2): Yes. If the UT examiner assesses an ultrasonic indication to be a crack, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration, UA-903(b) mandates rejection regardless of the UT signal amplitude. The rejected area of the weldment must be corrected by repair welding. Interpretation: VIII-80-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(b)(1) and UG-90(b)(2) Date Issued: May 1, 1980 File: BC80-129 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 require drawings and design calculations, referenced in U2(b)(1) and UG-90(b)(2), to be prepared and/or reviewed by a registered professional engineer, for vessels to be stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93(d)(4)(e) Date Issued: May 2, 1980 File: BC80-213 Question: If a tubesheet is welded to a shell (less than 80% supported) in accordance with Fig. UW-13.2, sketches (h), .(i), or (l) of Section VIII, Division 1, and the bolt hole is tapped into the tubesheet or blind tapped into the tubesheet, which is the equivalent in bolt engagement, do the provisions of UG-93(d)(4)(e) apply, i.e., no examination of the cut edge required? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-90-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-35(c)(3) Date Issued: May 6, 1980 File: BC80-205

Question: Can the use of liquid penetrant alone be considered a satisfactory method of spot examination under the provisions of UCL-35(c)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-37 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, Joint Efficiency of a Corner Joint, Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: May 6, 1980 File: BC79-351 Question: Shall the weld joint efficiencies of Table UW-12 and UW-12(a) and (b) for butt joints be applied to corner joints as shown in Fig. UW-13.2? Reply: No. Only the C and ZC factors are required to determine the required thickness of the flat plate in UG-34. Interpretation: VIII-80-38 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Design Rules, UG-22 and U-2(g) Date Issued: May 13, 1980 File: BC79-122 Question: Is it permissible to combine the design rules of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2?

Reply: No. The design of nozzles and other vessel parts must satisfy the design rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for design loadings specified in UG-22. When no design methods are given in Division 1, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be met. The methods used to satisfy the requirements of U-2(g) are the responsibility of the U-Certificate Holder. Interpretation: VIII-80-39 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part AD and Appendix 4 Date Issued: May 13, 1980 File: BC79-122 Question (1): Are the sample calculations as presented adequate to support the claim that "Vessels fabricated to the design conditions quoted in the calculations would satisfy the ASME Codes without recourse to additional design appraisal"? Reply (1): The form of the question is not appropriate for code response. The following question and reply may answer your immediate need. Question (2): Are the stress indices given in 4-612 applicable if the D/t exceeds 100?

Reply (2): No. All requirements of the limitations in 4-613 must be met for the stress indices to be applicable. When the limitations are not met, the Manufacturer must conduct such analysis (theoretical and/or experimental) as needed to assure the User that stresses at nozzles or other locations have been properly evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in Appendices 4 and 5 that analysis must be included in the Manufacturer's Design Report. Interpretation: VIII-80-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, Part AD and Appendix 4 Date Issued: May 13, 1980

File:

BC79-122

Question (1): In accordance with the provisions of AD-160.2 and AD-160.3, if the exemptions are not met, a detailed fatigue analysis shall be made. Considering the integral parts vessel, to what extent must this be carried out? For example, is a discontinuity analysis required; and if so, how should this be applied to the torispherical formed heads which are not covered by Article 4-7? Reply (1): Appropriate stress analysis must be made of all Portions of the vessel to determine peak stress intensities (see 4-135). For relatively simple and commonly used configurations, stress analysis guidance is given in Appendix 4. However, absence of guidance in Appendix 4 does not mean that analysis is not required. The type of analysis performed by the Manufacturer must be such as to assure the User that the intent of the Code has been met, and these are to be described in the Manufacturer's Design Report (see A-302.2 and A-302.3), Question (2): In Article 4-6, the Stress Index Method for determining pressure stresses in single, isolated openings imposes limitations on the use of the indices tabulated in 4-612. One of the dimensional ratios specified under 4-613(c) seems incorrect. The ratio to which we refer was introduced in the Winter 1977 Addenda and states that d/Dt shall not exceed 0.80. Is this correct? Reply (2): The limit is correct. The change introduced in the Winter 1977 Addenda was motivated by research work done over the past several years which indicates that for certain types of nozzles, the stress indices becomes unconservative for d/(Dt > 0.8. Question (3): Also in Article 4-6, with our design, the limitation given in Question (2) and Reply (2) restricts the use of the 4-612 indices to nozzles approximately 8 in. maximum diameter or requires the head thickness to increase from 1 in. to 5.24 in. Is there an alternative? Reply (3): The alternative rules in AD-560 were developed for a restricted range of parameters. You have the option of using the rules in AD-510 through AD-550. These rules do not impose a d/ (Dt(0.8 restriction. Question (4): Finally, in Article 4-6, if the dimensional ratios are outside of the limitations of 4-613(c), is it acceptable to use theoretical Stress Concentration Factors obtained from authoritative sources such as Leckie & Penny as used in the U.K. Vessel Code BS-5500? Reply (4): Yes, provided they meet the intent of the Code (see 4-135), are acceptable to the User, and are described in the Manufacturer's Design Report. Question (5): In Article D-5. the Stress Indices tabulated under 4-612(a) refer to Nozzles in Spherical Shells and Formed Heads. Similar indices are given in Table AD-560.7-1 but under (a) the heading refers to Nozzles in Spherical Shells and Spherical Heads. Can the indices in the latter Table be applied to openings in the spherical parts of torispherical formed heads? Reply (5): If you can determine that the nozzle is of a size and location in the spherical part of the torispherical head so that stresses are not influenced by the toroidal portion of the head or by other nozzles in the head, then the stress indices could be used. The Manufacturers Design Report shall describe that determination. Question (6): In 4-610, when applying a stress index to a nozzle opening in a torispherical formed head, is it correct to use a membrane stress derived from the formulas given in Article 4-4? If so, can we assume that the empirical rules produce a membrane stress which is a maximum for any section of the head including the transition from the spherical to the knuckle radius?

Reply (6): The indices are intended to be applicable to spherical heads but they may be used for torispherical heads when justified as noted in Question (5) and Reply (5), above. Obviously, the assumption is not correct. Question (7) Article D-5 recognizes the use of nozzles with reinforcing pads as shown in Fig. AD612.1, sketches (a), (b),and (c). However, for our vessel manway, the limitation of AD-560.1 requires that radius r2, is not less than 2 in. The size of the corner weld which can be made to this dimension is, in our opinion, likely to result in cracking. This suggests that where high cycling duty is involved requiring a fatigue analysis, the Code prefers the use of integral type nozzle reinforcement. The same general remarks apply to the application of Article 4-6. Is this observation corrects Reply (7) AD-560.1 imposes limitations on the Alternative Design Rules. Those rules (AD-560) are not to be used for pad reinforced nozzles [see AD-560.1(b)] . You have the option of using AD-501 through AD-551 and can use any radius r, that you wish. However, if your radius r2 does not meet 4613(e), the tabulated stress indices in 4-612 are not applicable. Interpretation: VIII-80-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (c) Date Issued: May 14, 1980 File: BC80-199 Question: May an intermediate head in a compartmented vessel constructed in accordance with Part UHT of Section VIII, Division 1 be installed in accordance with Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (c)? Reply: No. If the vessel is to be designed according to Part UHT, their the rules of UHT-17 must be followed. Any Category B joint must be Type 1 of Table UW-12 except for special materials listed in UHT-17(b) which permits a Category B joint to be either Type 1 or Type 2 of Table UW-12. In either situation, butt welds are required and the combination of fillet weld and plug weld is not permitted for UHT vessels. Interpretation: VIII-80-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(c) Date Issued: May 15, 1980 File: BC80-214 Question; May a corner joint attaching a shell to tubesheet be acceptable, and not require full radiography under the provisions of UW-2(c) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-29 Date Issued: May 21, 1980 File: BC80-175 Question Are there any mandatory requirements as to the dimensions of a stiffening ring under UG-29 of Section VIII, Division 1 in regard to the proportions between width and height? Reply: No. Section VIII, Division 1 does not have rules which cover the stability of a cross section in compression or compressive bending, such as that generated on a stiffening ring. Therefore, the rules of U-2.(g) shall be followed.

Interpretation: VIII-80-44 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UG-99(f) Date Issued: May 23, 1980 File: BC80-196 Question (1). Is the wording of UG-99(f), Section VIII, Division 1 clear in stating the requirement for calculating the hydrostatic test pressure? It seems the value would work out negative if the internal design pressure exceeded 14.7 psia. Reply: The wording of UG-99(f) is correct in that the word difference is used which gives no connotation of a sign, either plus or minus. Question (2) How are hydrostatic test rules to be applied for a vessel which is designed for internal and external pressure? Reply (2): A vessel which is designed for internal pressure and for external pressure must be examined as a combination unit according to UG-99(c) unless some design feature shows that the combination of internal and external pressure cannot occur independently. If each can occur independently from the other, the vessel must be hydrostatically tested for each independent design condition. Interpretation: VIII-80-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Form U-1A Data for Nozzles and Inspection Openings Date Issued: May 27, 1980 File: BC80-45 Question: For Data Report Form U-1A, Item 11, Nozzles and Inspection Openings, Section VIII, Division 1, what data should be entered under the following columns? (a) Type; (b) Matl.; and (c) Nom. Thk. Reply: There are no specific requirements concerning the data entered in these columns. Data entries acceptable to the Inspector satisfy the requirements. The most common practices, which satisfy the intent of the Form, are described as follows: (a) Type. With abbreviations or coded identification define: (1) any generic name, such as coupling, studding outlet. long weld neck flange, etc.; (2) the type of attachment from the opening to connecting piping, or to a closure, such as screwed, welded, or flanged; (3) for ANSI B16.5 flanges the class should be defined. (The facing and type of attachment to the opening need not be shown.). Thus, abbreviations for some typical types would be as follows: Screwed Coupling Scd. Cpl. Socket Welded Coupling S.W. Cpl. Flanged Fabricated Nozzle 150# Flgd. Weld End Fabricated Nozzle W.E. Screwed Fabricated Nozzle Scd. Long Weld Neck Flange 300# LWN Flg. (b) Material. If the opening is fabricated from more than one material, as for a pipe nozzle with a welded flange, show the material for the nozzle neck. In such cases, it is not necessary to define the flange material.

(c) Nom. Thk. The nominal thickness applies to the part defined for material under (b) above. Where the parts are in accordance with an ANSI Standard, such as B16.11, the appropriate class designation may be substituted for the thickness. Interpretation: VIII-80-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34 Flat Tubesheet Date Issued: May 27, 1980 File: BC80-176 Question (1): In designing for ligament efficiency in a circular flat tubesheet, may the requirements of UG-53 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used in conjunction with those of UG-34? Reply (1): No. The rules of UG-53 apply only to cylindrical shells and they were developed on that basis alone. It would be inappropriate to use UG-53 rules with UG-34 rules. The design of flat tubesheets shall follow UG-34, UG-37, and U-2(g). Question (2): Can any technical guidance be given in designing the insert retaining ring as illustrated in Fig. UG-34, sketch (n)? Reply (2): Although there is guidance and warnings given for many configurations, design rules are not always given; therefore, in those instances the rules of U-2(g) shall apply. Interpretation: VIII-80-47 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Use of Quenched and Tempered Material Date Issued: May 27, 1980 File: BC80-278 Question: If quenched and tempered plates conforming to SA-517 are used in Code construction per Section III-Divisions 1 and 2, is it necessary to carry out quenching and tempering after fabrication and welding? Reply: No. However, see requirements in Table UHT-56 in Division 1 and Table AF-630.1 in Division 2 for postweld heat treatment requirements, if applicable. Interpretation: VIII-80-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(b) Date Issued: May 29, 1980 File: BC80-217 Question: Would the requirements of UCS-85(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 be met if test plates in the normalized condition are used to represent P No.-1 Gr. 1 Nos. 1 and 2 material both in the normalized and as-rolled condition? Reply: No. A normalized test plate may not be used to represent material which has been furnished in the as-rolled condition regardless of later forming operations. ATTENTION The foregoing interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected reply sent to the inquirer. Correction Issued: July 23, 1980

Reply: No. The heat treatment condition of the test plate must be the same as that in which the Material Specification and additional Code requirements are certified. For plate furnished and certified in the as-rolled condition, the test plate should be in the as-rolled (plus any PWHT) condition. For plate furnished in either the as-rolled or normalized condition, but certified on the basis of material or test coupons in the normalized condition, the test plate should be in the normalized condition (plus any PWHT). Interpretation: VIII-80-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2 Tapered Shell at Corner Joint Date Issued: June 4, 1980 File: BC78-627 Question: The cylindrical portion of a vessel has an actual thickness ts exclusive of corrosion allowance which is greater than that required for its design loading (see UG-22). May the shell be tapered down via a 3:1 taper to its minimum required thickness plus corrosion allowance at the point of attachment to a tubesheet using the permissible weld details shown in Fig. UW-13.2? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not prohibit this approach of reducing excess shell thickness at tubesheet welded attachment points. However, the designer is cautioned, when using such a detail, that a point of undesirable stress concentration may result at the point of minimum thickness, for cyclic and/or other design loading outlined in UG-22. Interpretation: VIII-80-50 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Attachment of Studs or Thermocouples to a Vessel Date Issued: June 5, 1980 File: BC79-332 Question: Is it permissible in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 construction to make use of the capacitor discharge method to make a temporary attachment of studs or thermocouples to a vessel? Reply: Yes. The capacitor discharge method is a resistance welding technique which is accepted under the provisions of Section VIII. Interpretation: VIII-80-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Strength of Weld Metal vs Base Metal Date Issued: June 5, 1980 File: BC80-293 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, what criteria should be used to determine the maximum allowable stress for a welded joint when the weld metal has a specified lower strength than the base metal? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 at the present time has no criteria for determining the stress of a welded joint by using the strength of the weld metal. The maximum allowable stress shall be determined using the base metal values. Interpretation: VIII-80-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c)(2) Date Issued: June 10, 1980 File: BC80-44

All of the below listed questions apply to vessels constructed under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c)(2) or UHA-51, which waive the requirement for impact test of materials for design metal temperatures below -20F provided that the minimum thickness is determined by multiplying the coincidental pressure by 2 1/2. The lower than -425F or -325F temperature limits of UHA-51(a) do not apply. Question (1): Reply(1): Question (2): Reply(2): Question (3): Reply (3): UHA-51(b). Do the weld joint restrictions of UW-2(b) apply? No, except where UHA-51(c) applies. See UCS-67(b) and UHA-51(b). Within the limitations of Table UW-12, may Type Nos. 2 through 6 joints be used? Yes except where UHA-51(c) applies. Are weld metal impact tests required? No, except where UHA-51(c) applies. See UG-84(h)(2), UG-84(i)(2), UCS-66(c)(2), and

Interpretation: VIII-80-53 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UW-35(a)(2) and AF-221.1(b) Date Issued: June 10, 1980 File: BC80-292 Question: Do UW-35(a)(2) and AF-221.1(b) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 permit a reduction in thickness adjacent to the weld (commonly referred to as undercutting), and that the weld may be left as welded unless the limitations outlined in the paragraphs are exceeded? Reply: ATTENTION Upon further review of our reply of June 10, 1990, the following clarification is being made to the question. Question: Do UW-35(a)(2) and AF-211.1(b) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 permit a reduction in thickness adjacent to the weld (commonly referred to as undercutting) and permit the weld to be left as welded? Interpretation: VIII-80-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-704 and UA-709 of Appendix 13 Date Issued: June 18, 1980 File: BC80-2 Question (1): In the nomenclature of UA-704, footnote 2 of Section VIII, Division 1, what is the intent in introducing the length p into the moment equation for unreinforced vessels? Reply (1): For reinforced vessels the length is not divided into unit strips, as is for unreinforced vessels, but into strips of p dimension. The equations for the bending stress of the reinforced sections apply I11 or Z11 (I21, I22, or Z21) as shown in UA-707(e). For vessels which are partially reinforced [Fig. UA-701(a), sketch (5)], the moment of inertia Yes.

I=pt3 /12 is used in those sections which are not reinforced as shown in UA-707(f) for illustrated in Example UA-715(e). Question (2): 709?

(Sb)D, (Sb)E, etc.

This is

Is there a discrepancy in the dimensions of UA-704 for Eqs. (4), (5), (6), and (7) of UA

Reply (2): Footnote 2 of UA-704 applies to all unreinforced vessels [this includes Fig. UA-701(b), sketch (1)-the vessel section for UA-709] ; namely, that I is for a unit strip and equal to I = t 3/12 in .3 Consequently, the units in Eqs, (4), (5), (6), and (7) of UA-709 are consistent and yield psi. Note that in a bending stress equation Sb = Mc/I c is in the numerator and I in the denominator. Interpretation: VIII-80-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52(b)(2) Date Issued: June 24, 1980 File: BC80-284 Question: What is required by UW-52(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 regarding the number of spot radiographic examinations required, especially when multiple welders, or welding operators are involved? Reply: The provisions of UW-52(b)(2) require that one spot radiograph be made for each 50 linear ft of weld and that every welder be represented by a spot radiograph. However, note that Section VIII, Division 1 permits two or more welders to be represented by one spot radiograph, e.g., a multiple layered weld or a double butt weld. Interpretation: VIII-80-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1, UG-21, and UG-99 Design, Relief Devices, Hydrostatic Testing, and Data Reports for Combination Units Date Issued: June 25, 1980 File: BC79-513 Question (1): The tube side of a heat exchanger has a significantly higher operating and design pressure than the normal operating pressure of the shell side. Must the possibility of a tube failure be considered in establishing the maximum allowable working pressure at the shell side? Reply (1): As covered in UG-133(d),the possibility of a tube failure must be considered in determining the capacity of relief devices to prevent overpressure. Otherwise the maximum allowable working pressure of one chamber need not influence the determination of the maximum allowable working pressure for internal pressure of another chamber of a combination unit. See UG-19. Question (2): For a fixed tubesheet exchanger, may both the tube side and the shell side be hydrostatically tested by applying pressure only to the shell side provided the test pressure exceeds the minimum test pressure requirements of UG-99 for either chamber?

Reply (2):

No. See UG-99(e).

Question (3): On Data Report Form U-1, which Item is to be completed for the tube side design conditions of a heat exchanger? Reply (3): Item 17.

Question (4): Data Report Form U-3 for vessels to be stamped with the UM Symbol does not contain entries for all items that would be applicable for a heat exchanger. How should the additional data be presented. Reply (4): The additional data should be shown on the supplementary sheet, Form U-4, using Form U-1 as a guide to additional data required. Interpretation: VIII-80-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Documentation Requirements for Compliance With ASNT SNT-TC-1A Date Issued: June 27, 1980 File: BC80-305 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 require that actual examinations for subcontracted nondestructive examination personnel be at the Certificate Holder's location? Reply (1): There are no specific requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 which cover any procedures which a Certificate Holder may need to perform to comply with the provisions of SNT-TC1A. However, it is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that actual examinations for subcontracted NDE personnel need not be performed at the Certificate Holder's location provided that there is sufficient traceability of the documented examination in the quality control system of the Certificate Holder, and it meets with the acceptance of the Authorized Inspector. Question (2): If it is not a requirement that the documents be at the Certificate Holder's location, does Section VIII, Division 1 consider it satisfactory for the Certificate Holder and Authorized Inspector to review the actual examinations at the subcontractor's location for compliance with SNT-TC-1A? Reply (2). This may be one method in accomplishing the review.

Question (3): What documents, as a minimum, must be physically located at the Certificate Holder's location for compliance with SNT-TC-1A? Reply (3). Holder. None, if there is sufficient traceability in the quality control system of the Certificate

Interpretation: VIII-80-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, A-100(b)(1) and A-301.1 Date Issued: July 3, 1980 File: BC80-188 Question: May a vessel Manufacturer design and construct for sales in quantity, vessels to be ASME Code Symbol Stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 2 rules using a set of operating and design parameters established by the vessel Manufacturer?

Reply: The rules of Section VIII, Division 2 do not prohibit the procedure described in the Question provided that all applicable requirements, including the user's responsibilities as defined in A301, are satisfied for each vessel. Interpretation: VIII-80-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix XIII, * UA-703,* UA-704, and * UA-708 Date Issued: July 8, 1980 File: BC80-180 Question (1): Are UA-703(e), UG-34, and UW-3(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 to be interpreted to mean that weld efficiency shall be used in the calculation of end plate only when there is a joint within the rectangular plate so that it may be considered 1 when (as usual) corner welds are joining the edges of the ends to the four side plates? Reply (1): Yes. The rules of Appendix XIII specify that weld efficiencies in accordance with Table UW-12 shall apply only to butt joints located within the side or end plates but not to corner weld joints which are not butt welded. These latter joints shall be controlled by the applicable rules for sizing such joints. Question (2): Is UA-704 to be interpreted to mean that: (a) weld efficiency is applicable when the point of calculation is located in the same part (side plate) where the joint is located? (b) ligament efficiencies em or eb (UA-705*) are applicable only when the point of calculation is located within a row of holes of the compartment? (c) weld efficiency does not apply to corner joints since stresses in these joints are controlled by rules such as UW-13(b)(2)? Reply (2): (a) Yes. The weld joint efficiency shall be applied to the calculation when a butt joint is located anywhere within the part even though the joint is not located at the point of calculation. (b) No. Ligament efficiency and weld joint efficiency are both designated E (UA-704) and used the same way in the equations. Therefore, the ligament efficiency shall be applied to the calculations when the row of holes is located anywhere within the part even though it is not located at the point of calculation. Of course, the value of E for the corner calculation (subscript Q) is taken as 1.00 as Illustrated in the example UA-715(a).* (c) Yes. Footnote 1 of UA-704 is explicit. * With the publication of the 1980 Edition, Appendix XIII, UA-703, UA-704, UA-705, UA-708, and UA-715 were redesignated as Appendix 13, 13-4, 13-5, 13-6, 13-9, and 13-16, respectively. Interpretation: VIII-80-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 1854 Date Issued: July 8, 1980 File: BC80-248 Question: For pressure vessels of general construction that may become out-of-round during construction and the condition cannot reasonably be corrected, may the vessel be stamped for a reduced internal pressure determined by the methods permitted by Code Case 1854, provided there is excess thickness over that required by UG-27 for internal pressure? Reply: No, Code Case 1854 permits application of its requirements for a specific type of vessel (enameled lined) and could not be used for vessels of general construction

Interpretation: VIII-80-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-14(d) Date Issued: July 11, 1980 File: BC80-356 Question: Is it the intent of the words edge of a weld. in UW-14(d) of Section VIII Division 1 to mean the edge as shown in a weld detail, or from the toe of the weld when overlap is present? Reply: The edge of a weld. in UW-14(d) represents the edge of the weld in a weld detail.

Interpretation: VIII-80-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix Y and Code Case 1828 Date Issued: July 21, 1980 File BC80-365 Question: When analyzing flanges per Appendix Y of Section VIII, Division 1 and Code Case 1828 can the assembly stress (prestress S i) and the operating bolt stress S b be increased above the maximum allowable bolt stress values given in the various Tables of Subsection C? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-42(b)(1) and (b)(2) Date Issued: July 22, 1980 File: BC80-307 Question (1): When restoring base material thickness for strength considerations must the weld as magnetic particle or dye penetrant tested per UW-42(b)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When restoring base material thickness, for strength considerations must the weld as per UW-42 of Section VIII, Division 1 be radiographed when full radiography or spot radiography is a requirement for the vessel? Reply (2): Yes, when such surface weld metal buildup is used in welded joints which require full or spot radiographic examination. Interpretation: VIII-80-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UNF-95 Date Issued: July 22, 1980 File: BC80-372 Question: Is it the intent of UNF-95 of Section VIII-Division 1 that one production test plate be made of one of the vessel thicknesses (in a multiple thickness vessel) for each welder or welding operator for each 100 ft of Category A or B joints when constructed of welded unalloyed titanium or zirconium? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-80-65

Subject: (9) Date Issued: File:

Section VIII Division 1, UA-46(d)* and Fig. UA-48* Sketches (7), (8), (8a), (8b), and July 24, 1980 BC80-215

Question (1): Are the requirements of UA-46(d)(2)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable when fabricating plate ring flanges per Fig. UA-48 sketches (7), (8), (8a), (8b), and (9)? Reply (1): Yes, if a fabricated, integrally-formed hubbed flange is used.

Question (2): Is it permissible to simply cut a ring from plate and use it as a flange in all of the sketches referenced in Question (1)? Reply (2): Only if an integrally-formed hub is not used, that is, the hub cross section is rectangular as shown in those sketches without a hub. * With the publication of the 1980 Edition, UA-46 and UA-48 were redesignated as 2-2 and 2-4, respectively. Interpretation: VIII-80-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11, UW-27, and UA-46* Date Issued: July 24, 1980 File BC80-364 Question (1): Is it permissible under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate flanges by hot ring rolling, and electroslag welding the joints? Reply (1): Yes. See UA-46(d) and UW-5(c) of Section VIII, Division 1.

Question (2): If permissible, is it then mandatory to fully radiograph the welded joint, or perform an ultrasonic examination including heat treatment, or to perform both? Reply(2): In electroslag welding butt joints in ferritic and austenitic materials, the provisions of UW-11(a)(6) and UW-11(d) require full radiography and ultrasonic examination (see UW-27). * With the publication of the 1980 Edition, UA-46 was redesignated as 2-2. Interpretation: VIII-80-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UB-8(a) Date Issued: July 31, 1980 File: BC80-392 Question: Is it permissible to use SA-53 Type F Pipe for Section VIII, Division 1 construction?

Reply: No. SA-53 Type F is presently not listed in the Tables of Subsection C with appropriate stress values (see UG-8). Interpretation: VIII-80-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-26(d) and Code Case 1913 Date Issued: August 1, 1980 File: BC80-390

Question: Is it permissible to use welders, not in the employ of a Code Symbol Stamp holder and at a location not shown on the Manufacturer's Certificate of Authorization, for Section VIII, Division 1 fabrication? Reply: Yes, provided that work at a location not shown on the Certificate of Authorization is permitted by the accepted Quality Control System and all requirements of UW-26(d) are satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-80-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UA-280,* Nozzle Reinforcement Date Issued: August 5, 1980 File: BC80-298 Question (1): In calculation of reinforcement area from nozzles made from standard pipe in UA-280 of Section VIII, Division 1, shall the nozzle wall thickness for reinforcement calculations be based on nominal wall thickness? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When a nozzle is installed in a nonradial position, what is the distance of the reinforcing limits on the inward projecting areas? Reply (2): The limits of reinforcement are given in UG-40. Regardless of whether or not the nozzle is radial or nonradial, excess metal within the limits may be included as reinforcement as long as it meets all of the requirements for reinforcement, such as strength, etc. * With the publication of the 1980 Edition, UA-280 was redesignated as L-7. Interpretation: VIII-80-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(c) and UG-32(a), Tolerance on Plate Thickness Date Issued: August 8, 1980 File: BC79-322 Question: Assume that in accordance with footnote 12 of UG-32 Section VIII, Division 1, a plate which is to be formed into a head is ordered with a forming allowance considered appropriate for the application but without an additional allowance for mill under tolerances on the plate. After forming, the head is found to have a minimum thickness less than required by UG-32. May the undertolerance permitted by UG-16(c) be applied to the minimum thickness calculations, and if the actual minimum thickness is within this limit, may the head be used at the design pressure corresponding to the calculated minimum thickness? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 through UG-41, Nozzle Reinforcement Date issued: August 8, 1980 File: BC80-43 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-37 through UG-41 of Section VIII, Division 1 to take full credit for the area between a nozzle taper and a flange for a self-reinforcing nozzle when it becomes necessary to increase the nozzle thickness above the standard value when construction requires the nozzle flange be integral with the nozzle neck?

Reply

Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-80-72 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, U G-37(c)(2) Date Issued: August 8, 1980 File: BC80-402 Question: Is reinforcement required for an opening in the inner vessel of a jacketed vessel designed for external pressure? Reply: Yes. See UG-37(c)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-80-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-101(m) Date Issued: August 11, 1980 File: BC80-403 Question: In using the burst test provisions of UG-101(m) of Section VIII Division 1, is it necessary to rupture the part if a test pressure is attained (without failure) which will yield the desired maximum allowable working pressure at test temperature by substituting the maximum test pressure applied for "B, bursting test pressure" in the applicable equations of UG-101(m)(2)? Reply: It is not necessary to take a part through rupture to comply with the rules of UG-101(m).

Interpretation: VIII-80-74 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UW-11(a) Date Issued: August 12, 1980 File: BC79-628 Question: A vessel is required to comply with the requirements of UW-11(a) for full radiography. Under what circumstances may partial radiography be used for Category B welds in the shell in order to utilize a value of E = 1.0 and S = 100% of the tabulated value in the stress Tables in the circumferential stress calculations for the shell? Reply: UW-11(a)(5)(b) permits Category B welds in the shell, that are not required to be fully radiographed by UW-11(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) and that are examined by the acceptance standards of UW51, to be partially radiographed and comply with the requirements of UW-11(a). This would permit E = 1.0 and S = 100% for the calculations described in the Question. Interpretation: VIII-80-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UG-34 Sketch (g) and UHT-83(b) Date Issued: August 13, 1980 File: BC80-384 Question: Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 require magnetic particle or liquid penetrant examination of a corner joint in a double wall pressure vessel in which the construction consists of welding the peripheral surface of a flat cover plate to the outer shell of the vessel in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. UG-34 sketch (g), and the inner shell is welded to the flat cover in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (e)?

Reply: No. The rules of Section VIII, Division 1 do not require such examination since in the case in question the cut edges of the flat cover plate are eliminated by fusion with weld deposits. Interpretation: VIII-80-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(b) and (c), Sheet Tolerance Date Issued: August 15, 1980 File: BC80-194 Question: Is it the intent of UG-16(b) to establish a minimum thickness of 1/16 in. without allowance for undertolerance? Reply: No. The undertolerances of UG-16(c) may be applied to the minimum thickness of UG16(b). We caution you to observe the warning in the last sentence of UG-16(c) which points out that some material specifications permit greater undertolerances than permitted in UG-16(c). Interpretation: VIII-80-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-23, Use of SA-515 and SA-516 Date Issued: August 20, 1980 File: BC79-4 Question (1): May material supplied to SA-515 and SA-516 for pressure vessel construction be used for continuous operation up to 800F as shown in Table UCS-23 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the materials referenced in Question (1), may they both be used for continuous operation over 800F, up to the temperatures stated in Table UCS-23 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes. However the Manufacturer is cautioned by Note (19) of Table UCS-23 of possible graphitization above 800F. Interpretation: VIII-80-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-45 Date Issued: August 20, 1980 File: BC80-430 Question: Are the requirements of either UG-45(a)(1) or (a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to a heater neck, which contains heater coils, that is inserted through a head of a vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued: August 22, 1980 File: BC80-438 Question: May ultrasonic examination, or magnetic particle examination, or both be used in lieu of full radiographic examination, as called for in UW-11 of Section VIII, Division 1 when fabricating a vessel under Code rules? Reply: No, except as given in UW 11(a)(7).

Interpretation: VIII-80-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52, Personnel Qualification for Spot Examination of Welded Joints by Radiography Date Issued: August 25, 1980 File: BC78-669 Question: Are the personnel performing spot examination of welded joints by radiography under UW-52 Section VIII, Division 1 required to be qualified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A-1975? Reply: Yes. Personnel performing spot radiography under UW-52 are required to be qualified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A-1975. Interpretation: VIII-80-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: August 25, 1980 File: BC80-421 Question Does UG-10 include shapes among the product forms that can be identified provided the shape Material Specification, such as SA-36, is listed in one of the allowable stress Tables and that shape is indicated as an allowable product form and stress values are listed for the temperature at which the material will be used. Reply: Yes, it is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that shapes as described in the Question may be included with bar stock under the provisions of UG-10. Interpretation: VIII-80-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, Table AD-155.1, Note (5) Date Issued: August 25, 1980 File: BC80-422 Question: A Section VIII, Division 2 vessel made of ferrous material other than austenitic is to be in lethal service and, therefore, must be postweld heat treated. Is it permissible to pressure test this vessel at the same temperature as the impact test temperature which is colder than that determined by Note (5) of Table AD-155.1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(b)(2) Date Issued: August 27, 1980 File: BC80-323 Question: In designing vessels for cryogenic service, what is the criteria in Section VIII, Division 1 for establishing test temperature and its variance when performing impact tests? Reply: The requirements of UG-84(b)(2) specify the provisions to follow when establishing a test temperature for impact tests. Interpretation: VIII-80-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79(c) [Void See 80-84R Vol. 14 Pg. 88 ]

Date Issued: File:

August 28, 1980 BC80-434

Question: Is UCS-79(b), Section VIII, Division 1 violated if after fabrication: of portions of a cone, a hammer is used to correct some deformation, or distortion, or both? Reply: Yes. UCS-79(b) prohibits cold forming by blows; however, you may be able to meet the requirements of UCS-79(c). Revisions and Other Actions to Interpretations Published in Previous Volumes Interpretation VIII-80-84, which was published on p. 75 of Interpretations Volume No. 8, is hereby rescinded. Interpretation: VIII-1-80-84R See Errata Below Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(b) and Part UHA Date Issued: August 19, 1983 File: BC82-403 & BC 80-434 Question (1): Per UCS-79(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, carbon and low alloy steel plates shall not be formed cold by blows. Will removal of dents and distortion by hammering manually amount to forming cold by blows so as to reject material? Reply (1): No. UCS-79 only applies to forming.

Question (2): May shells and heads under Section VIII, Division 1 rules be formed out of high alloy steel material by cold blows? Reply (2): This is not specifically covered in the Code. UG-79(a) applies. The suggestions in Appendix HA should also be considered. Errata Volume 14 Interpretation (1) Correct Interpretation to read. VIII-80-84R (2) Correct File to read., BC80-434*, BC82-403

Interpretation: VIII-80-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c)(2) Date Issued: August 28, 1980 File: BC80-455 Question: Does the exemption in UCS-66(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to a nozzle, and can impact testing be waived if the nozzle minimum thickness is determined using 2 1/2 times the coincident pressure? Replay: Yes/

Interpretation: VIII-80-86Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 9, Fig. 9-5 Sketch (c) Date Issued: September 5, 1980 File: BC80-280

Question: Is it permissible when using a jacket closure as shown in Fig. 9-5 sketch (c) of Section VIII, Division 1 where the closure thickness tc. = 1 in. and = 30 deg. to have the closure weld shaped as an equilateral triangle having 1 in. sides? Reply: No. The closure weld geometry is based on the jacket closure thickness and the angle ; therefore, when the angle is at its maximum of 30 deg., only one closure weld configuration is appropriate. Interpretation: VIII-80-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-100(a)(1) and (2) Date Issued: September 5, 1980 File: BC80-419 Question (1): May a pneumatic test be used in lieu of the required hydrostatic test in Section VIII, Division 1 when the exemptions from performing the hydrostatic test as given in UG-100(a)(1) and (2) are not a consideration? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Must the Manufacturer's Data Report Forms U-1, U-1A, etc., be completed in accordance with the latest Form published? Reply (2): The mandatory requirements concerning the completion of Manufacturer's Data Report Forms are the same as for any other Code revisions. As stated in the eighth paragraph of the Foreword of Section VIII, Division 1: ".. 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 latest form may be used upon publication. Interpretation., VIII-80-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division, 1, UW-28 and UW-29 Date Issued: September 8, 1980 File: BC80-497 Question (1): Is it required by Section VIII, Division 1 when an autogenous seal weld is used in a tubeto-tubesheet joint to have a welding procedure qualified to Section IX? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If filler metal of an A-Number .compatible with the P-Number of the base metals is added, would this be considered a strength weld requiring Section IX qualifications Reply (2) The addition of filler metal would require qualification to Section IX; however, whether it would be considered a strength weld is something not covered by the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 and for that the requirements of U-2(g) shall be followed. Interpretation: VIII-80-89 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Hardfacing Safety Relief Valve Disks and Body Seating Date Issued: September 11, 1980 File: BC90-506

Question: Was it a requirement of the 1965 and 1968 Editions with Addenda of Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2, or is it a requirement of the present Editions to qualify hardfacing welding procedures in accordance with Section IX used for hardfacing safety relief valve disks and body seating surfaces? Reply: The 1965, 1968, as well as the present Editions of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 do not specify any requirements for hardfacing of safety relief valve disks and body seating surfaces. Interpretation: VIII-80-90 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(b) Date Issued: September 17, 1990 File: BC80-400 Question: What joint efficiency factor and allowable stress factor are required for a head-to-shell joint in a vessel in which the head is a torispherical seamless head and the requirements of UW-12(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 are imposed? Reply: When UW-12(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 is followed and a seamless torispherical head is used, the efficiency used to calculate the head is E = 1.0, but the stress value used in the calculations is 85% of that value given in Subsection C. If a joint efficiency of E = 1.0 and a stress value of 100% of the value given in Subsection C is desired, the Category B head-to-shell joint must have full or partial radiography according to UW-11(a) including UW-11(a)(5)(b). Interpretation: VIII-80-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2 and Code Case 1749, Flange Design Date Issued: September 17, 1980 File: BC80-428 Question (1): May fabricated hubbed flanges be formed from plate and what are the requirements?

Reply (1): Rules for fabricated hubbed flanges are given in 2-2(d) of the 1980 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1. The hubbed flanges may be fabricated from plate when the requirements of 2-2(d)(2) are met. Question (2): May the rules of Code Case 1749 be used for flange design and fabrication?

Reply (2): No. The rules are presently applicable to hubs of tubesheets and flat heads fabricated from rolled plate. Interpretation: VIII-80-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-23(c) and UCL-42 Date Issued: September 25, 1980 File: BC79-790 Question: In using the fabrication procedures of UCL-42 of Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to use weld metal of 9Cu-Ni in the base metal of integrally clad plate when calculating the minimum required thickness of a weld that has different strength than the base metal? Reply: Yes, as long as the welding procedure specification as outlined in Section IX has been met. The strength of the weld is not a consideration in Section VIII, Division 1 calculations. Interpretation: VIII-80-93

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, UG-46(e) and UG-46(i), Requirements for Tapered Threads for Openings and Connections September 26, 1980 BC80-285

Question (1) What does UG-43(e) require regarding the use of screwed fittings with straight threads in accordance with ANSI B2.1-1968 for Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply (1): UG-43(e) states that the thread shall be a standard tapered pipe thread, except that a straight thread of equal strength may be used if other sealing means to prevent leakage are provided. Question (2): What does UG-46(i) require regarding "other sealing means" when straight thread pipe fittings are used for inspection openings? Reply (2): "Other sealing means" would include the use of a seal weld or a suitable gasket.

Interpretation: VIII-80-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56 Date Issued: September 29,1980 File: BC80-354 Question: Is it acceptable under the requirements of Table UCS-56, Note(2)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 when you have a P-No. 3 Group No. 1 material to use 16 mm as a metric equivalent to the 5/8 in. thickness provision? Reply: The use of English units shall be the required customary units under the Code; however, when it can be shown that a metric equivalent is within a small tolerance of the Code referenced customary unit, then the equivalent may be used. Interpretation: VIII-80-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 and 2, Microstructure of SA-515 and SA-516 for Hot Formed Dished Ends Date Issued: September 29,1990 File: BC80-381 Question: Does the presence of Widmanstatten Structures in a hot-formed head for a Section VIII, Division 1 or 2 vessel constitute a nonacceptable criteria as far as the specifications are concerned for SA-515 and SA-516 materials? Reply: SA-515 and SA-516 do not include any requirements for microstructure configurations. Accordingly, the Widmanstatten Structures in a hot formed head are not part of the requirements for acceptance. Interpretation: VIII-80-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(b)(5) Date Issued: September 29, 1980 File: BC80-537 Question: Would the minimum thickness requirement of UG-16(b)(5) of Section VIII, Division 1 be applicable to a double pipe or multitube heat exchanger with a nominal inside diameter of 6 in. or less?

Reply: The requirements of U-1(c)(9) of Section VIII, Division 1 exclude from the Scope of Division 1 vessels having an inside diameter, width, height, or diagonal of 6 in. or less. However, if the Manufacturer chooses to Code Stamp the vessels, the rules of UG-16(b)(2) and (3) are applicable for heat exchangers. Interpretation VIII-80-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Material Usage for Intermediate Head per Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (f) Date Issued: October 8, 1980 File: BC80-474 Question (1): Is it permissible when fabricating an intermediate head per Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (f) of Section VIII, Division 1 for cryogenic service, in which both chambers contain liquid nitrogen, to use SA-240 Type 304 stainless material? Reply (1): If impact tests are a requirement under UHA-51 and each chamber is considered to be an independent pressure vessel, an intermediate head as Illustrated in Fig, UW-13.1 sketch (f) is not acceptable under the Code since the requirements of UW-2 for Category B Joints to be a butt weld is not satisfied. If impact tests are required, and the entire shell is designed to satisfy the most severe condition, and the vessel is described as a single chamber vessel, an intermediate head of the type shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) can be used as an internal structure. Question (2): Referring to Question (1), is it permissible to fabricate such a vessel with an intermediate head when one chamber contains liquid oxygen and the other contains liquid nitrogen? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): ATTENTION The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered and the following clarified versions of Replies (1) and (2) sent to the inquirer. Clarification Issued: October 31, 1980 Reply (1): If impact tests of materials or welds are a requirement under UHA-51 or any other applicable Code rule, and each chamber is considered to be an independent pressure vessel, an intermediate head as illustrated in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) is not acceptable under the Code since the requirements of UW-2 for Category B Joints to be a butt weld is not satisfied. If impact tests are required, and the entire shell is designed to satisfy the most severe condition, and the vessel is described as a single chamber vessel, an intermediate head of the type shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) can be used as an internal structure. Reply (2): Yes. The designer and the user of a vessel incorporating an intermediate head as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) of Section VIII, Division 1 needs to determine the effect of any leakage that might exist between the two chambers. Interpretation: VIII-80-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AT-203(a) Date Issued: October 8, 1980 Yes. Should the U-1 Data Report Form Show the data for the intermediate head? Yes.

File:

BC80-547

Question: Under the requirements of AT-203(a), Section VIII, Division 2, may a test plate represent a group of vessels of the same specification, grade of material, and material thickness, when the test plate is made for each qualified welding procedure used on the group of vessels? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCI-78(a) Date Issued: October 9, 1990 File: BC80-380 Question: In sand cast machine dryers, imperfections are generally repaired in accordance with UCI-78(a), Section VIII, Division 1. May imperfections that exceed the limitations of UCI-78(a) be allowed if the thickness below the imperfection exceeds the minimum required calculated thickness? Reply: Imperfections may exceed the limitations of UCI-78(a) if the thickness below the imperfection exceeds the minimum required calculated thickness, and the imperfection sides have rounded edges to reduce stress concentrations. Interpretation: VIII-80-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-15, UW-16, UW-18, UG-41 and Fig. UA-48* Date Issued October 9, 1980 File: BC80-423 Question (1): Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1, that in addition to meeting the minimum dimension requirements specified in UW-16, that calculations must be performed to demonstrate that attachment welds meet the strength requirements of UW-15 and UG-41? Reply(1): Yes. The minimum attachment weld requirements given in UW-16 and shown in Figs. UW-16.1 and UW-16.2 are-as stated-"minimums." The requirements of UW-15 and UG-41 must also be met. Question(2): If the weld metal stress values specified in UW-15 apply to nozzles and reinforcement, in what cases does the stress value specified in UW-18(d) apply? Reply(2): UW-15 is strictly for the reinforcing load-carrying paths of nozzles where UW-18 is for fillet welds which may not necessarily be around a nozzle. The values in UW-15(b) are 7/8 times the values in UW-18(d) to account for the combined end and side loadings. That is, 0.55 x 7/8 = 0.49. Question (3): What are the requirements for minimum attachment welds for the attachment of slip-on flanges to nozzle necks? Are the double welded attachments per Fig. UA-48 of Section VIII, Division 1 to be considered mandatory? Are there any conditions under which a single weld (hubside only) is permitted? Reply (3): For slip-on flanges, the weld details are those shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (1) through (4), Section VIII, Division 1. In those cases where the flange is attached by welds, two welds are required. *With the publication of the 1980 Edition, Fig. UA-48 was redesignated as Fig. 2-4. Interpretation: VIII-80-101

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Attachment of Reinforcing Pad October 9, 1980 BC80-431

Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 permit the use of a reinforcing pad which does not lie along the shell wall for its entire length and is attached only by a fillet weld to the shell wall at the outer edge and by a fillet weld to the nozzle wall at the inner edge? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does require that a reinforcing pad conform to the wall surface for its entire length and have a weld detail which attaches the inside edge of the pad to the shell close to the nozzle wall when only a fillet weld is used. For examples of this, see Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (1) and (m) which note attachment of "weld to shell" and "weld to pad," respectively. When this is not done, as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (n), both a groove weld and a fillet weld are required at the inner edge of the pad. Interpretation: VIII-80-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-6(b)(4) Date Issued: October 9, 180 File: BC80-432 Question: Under the provisions of UCS-6(b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1, may SA-36, SA-283 Grades A, B, C, and D plate over 5/8 in. thick, or both be exempted when used for ring type flanges attached to nozzle necks using attachment details as shown in Fig. UA-48* sketch (7), (8), (8a), (8b), or (9)? Reply: only. No. UCS-6(b)(4) limits steel plates to SA-36 and SA-283 for shells, heads, and nozzles

*With the publication of the 1980 Edition, Fig. UA-48 was redesignated as Fig. 2-4. Interpretation: VIII-80-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 13-2(a)(3) Date Issued: October 9, 1980 File: BC80-539 Question: Is it permissible to fabricate a vessel of rectangular cross section as depicted in Fig. 132(a) sketch (3) of Section VIII, Division 1 with corners bent to a radius of less than three times the wall thickness? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-52(b)(1) Date Issued: October 16,1980 File: BC80-569 Question: Is it permissible under UW-52(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 when welding identical vessels, individually of less than 50 ft. seam length , and using two welding operators, one welding the longitudinal seam and the other circumferential seams, to have one spot radiograph represent each welding operator?

Reply: Yes. One spot X-Ray for each 50 ft of longitudinal weld and one for each 50 ft of circumferential weld satisfy the requirement of UW-52(b)(1). Interpretation: VIII-80-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AD-912(b), Nonpressure Attachments Date Issued: October 23, 1980 File: BC80-511 Question (1): For the attachment of a nonpressure part to a pressure part which meets the requirements of AD-912(b) but is to be used only during the erection stage and will remain in place during operation, may the 3/4 in. thickness limit be exceeded? Reply (1): No. The requirements of AD-912(b) as well as the other requirements of Article D-9 of Section VIII, Division 2 must be met regardless of the time of loading. Question (2): If an attachment of a nonpressure part to a pressure part complies with the requirements of AD-925 and AD-930 of Section VIII, Division 2, but the attachment is to be used only during erection, may the nonpressure part attachment remain on the pressure part during operation? Reply (2): Yes. An attachment of a nonpressure part to a pressure part may remain in place if the design is shown to be adequate by meeting all of the applicable requirements of Article D-9 of Section VIII, Division 2. Of course, certain welds as described in AD-925 may be exempt because of the limitations of their use. Interpretation: VIII-80-106 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Pressure Vessel Design Life Date Issued: October 24, 1980 File: BC80-512 Question: Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 for the consideration of pressure vessel design life for vessels designed and fabricated to those rules? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not have a specific finite life requirement. If a specific life is required, it must be a non-Code requirement given in the purchase order or the User's Design Specification, neither of which is called for in a Code requirement in Section VIII, Division 1 For Section VIII, Division 2, as stated in AG-100(b)(1), the rules refer to the "useful life of the vessel." This relates to design for a specific life which, for Division 2, must be described in the User's Design Specification in AG-301.1. Interpretation: VIII-80-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, Flange Calculations Date Issued: October 28, 1980 File: BC80-454 Question: Is it permissible under the rules of Appendix 2, Section VIII, Division 1, when fabrication of a vessel having standard pipe flanges is mated with reducing flanges to treat the reducing flange as a standard flange when computing the reducing flange stress resulting from gasket seating loads? Reply: As stated in 2-5(b), there are no rules given for the design of flange pairs for Part A, Flanges with Ring Type Gaskets. Consequently, the provisions of U-2(g) in Section VIII, Division 1 are applicable

ATTENTION The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected Reply sent to the inquirer. Correction Issued: November 17, 1980 Reply: As stated in 2-5(a)(2), there are no rules given for the design of flange pairs for Part A Flanges with Ring Type Gaskets. However, after the loads for the most severe condition are determined, the flanges shall be designed according to Appendix 2. .Interpretation: VIII-80-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Material Usage Date issued: October 28, 1980 File: BC80-549 Question: Is it acceptable under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to use material under SB-171 Grade 706 when previous to the Winter 1979 Addenda to Section II-Part A, the chemical requirements of the Specification called out % "Nickel" and present requirements specify % "Nickel including Cobalt"? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AT-112 Date Issued: October 30, 1980 File: BC80-548 Question: Under the provisions of AT-112 of Section VIII, Division 2, when the material used in the vessel fabrication undergoes an intermediate stress relief at a temperature lower than the final PWHT, in addition to the final PWHT, must the test specimens which represent such material be subjected to such intermediate stress relief in addition to the final PWHT? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(b)(1)(b) and (b)(1)(b)(2) Date Issued: November 10, 1980 File: BC80-612 Question: Under the requirements of UG-116(b)(1)(b) and UG-116(b)(1)(b)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, what marking is required if only part of the vessel material, e.g., shell, has been impact tested to UG-84 and the remainder, e.g., flanges and nozzles, have been waived for impact tests by UCS-66 or UHA-51? Reply: Add letters IT (UCS-66 or UHA-51) after the figures for minimum allowable temperature when part of the vessel material has been impact tested and the remainder waived per UCS66 or UHA-51. Interpretation: VIII-80-111 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(a), 2-4, Requirements of Category C Welds for Lethal Services

Date Issued: File:

November 12, 1980 BC79-680

Question (1) Is a lap joint stub end as illustrated in Fig. 2-4 sketch (1) the only acceptable flanged connection under the requirements of UW-2(a)? Reply (1) No. Other acceptable connections would include those of Fig. UW-13.3 and Fig. 2-4 sketches (5) and (6). The following Questions apply to stub ends for lap joint flanges Question(2): Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): Is the weld joining a lap joint stub end to a nozzle neck or shell a Category B or C joint? Category C, See UW-3(a)(3). Must the joint described in Question (2) always be fully radiographed? No. See the diameter and thickness exceptions of UW-11(a)(4).

Question (4): Are the types of flanges described in 2-4(a)(1), i.e., sketches (1), (1a),(2), (3), and (4) of Fig. 2-4, acceptable for lethal service? Reply (4): (a) The lap joint stub end illustrated by sketch (1) would normally be connected by a but weld which is not illustrated. If so, it would be acceptable provided all other applicable requirements were satisfied. (b) Sketches (la), (3), and (4) are not acceptable since they do not satisfy the requirement of UW2(a)(1)(b) that Category C joints be butt welds of Type No. (1) or (2). (c) Use of the screwed flange of sketch (4) is not prohibited.

Question (5): UW-3(a)(3) addresses itself to Category C welds attaching "Van Stone laps" to nozzles. .Does this mean the lap itself or is the intent that this be a lap joint stub end? Reply (5) :Any welded joint connecting a flange to a nozzle neck is a Category C joint. See the Replies to Questions (2) and (4) above. Also see Interpretations No. 3, VIII-78-08, which discusses this overall subject in more detail. Interpretation: VIII-80-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-100(c) Date Issued: November 17,1980 File: BC80-635 Question: In testing a pressure vessel under the requirements of UG-100 of Section VIII, Division 1 may the provisions of UG-100(c) be waived and the pressure in the vessel be increased up to the required test pressure without intermediate steps when a safety test chamber is used? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-39 Openings in Flat Heads Date Issued: November 20, 1980 File: BC80-513

Question: May the minimum area of reinforcement as required in UG-39(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 be taken as being the same as A = d(0.5t)? Reply: Although the expression A = d(0.5t) is mathematically equal to the equation given in UG-39(b) of A= 0.5dt, it is important to express the terms in the order given in UG-39)(b) to help establish that the area removed is dt, but for flat head applications the area required for reinforcement is one-half of the area removed. This gives the equation of A = 0.5dt The t is the required thickness of the flat head according to UG-34 and the d is the diameter of the .openings in the flat head. Interpretations VIII-80-114 Subject.. Section VIII, Division 1, UW-37(f) and UW-37(f)(1) Date issued: November 20,1980 File BC80-543 Question: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-37(f) and UW-37(f)(1) require welders of special welds such as tube-to-tubesheet welds to be "properly qualified." Is it the intent of the properly qualified statement to mean full performance qualification and documentation in accordance with all Section IX requirements including the following of a qualified WPS for such performance qualifications? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig, UW-13.1 Sketch (k), Joggle Joint Date Issued: November 20,1980 File: BC90-556 Question: In Fig UW-13.1 sketch (k) of Section VIII, Division 1, is the 2 1/2t maximum and 1t minimum applicable to the, groove, or the weld, or both? Reply: It is the intent that the "groove" meet these requirements and then be completely filled with weld metal. Interpretation: VIII-80-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2, UW-3, and UW-11 Date Issued: November 24,1980 File: BC80-427 Question (1): Does the joint efficiency listed in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1 need to be applied to the calculation of required thickness of ellipsoidal and torispherical head if they were formed from a one piece (seamless) plate? Reply (1): No. Appendix L, specifically L-1, of Section VIII, Division 1 sets forth examples which illustrate the application of Code formulas and requirements for most possible variations. In reviewing these examples, it will clarify questions concerning thickness calculations for shells and heads. It is also suggested that the provisions of UW-12(b) and (c) be reviewed. Question (2): When is the 80% factor on allowable stress as given in UW-12(c) applicable to the calculation of required shell thickness?

Reply (2): The applicable examples in Appendix L of Section VIII, Division 1 will give you the needed clarification. Question (3): Would a steam receiver be classified as a unfired steam boiler?

Reply (3): Your question does not provide sufficient information for a complete answer. Some possibilities are answered below: (a) If the steam is generated in a Section I boiler, but the "steam receiver" is outside the limits of boiler piping as defined in Fig. PG-58.3.1 of Section I, the vessel falls within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1. The requirements of UW-2(c) do not apply. (b) If the steam is generated in or receives steam from a vessel as defined in U-1(g)(1) or (2), the vessel is also within the Scope of Division 1. The requirements of UW-2(c) do not apply. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, any applicable laws and regulations should be reviewed for requirements which are different or more restrictive. Interpretation: VIII-80-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: November 24,1980 File: BC90-614 Question (1): Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 establishing weld joint efficiencies, such as those of Table UW-12, for comer joints as shown in Fig. UW-13.2? Reply (1): No. There are no criteria in Section VIII, Division 1 for establishing joint efficiencies for comer joint attachments; only the C and ZC factors are required to determine the required thickness of the flat plate in UG-34. Question (2): What type of examination, if any, is required to be performed on the corner joint?

Reply (2): The NDE requirement is specified by the provisions outlined in UG-93(d)(3) and UW13(e), and the requirements for fillet welds as given in UW-.36. Question (3): If full radiographic examinations or equivalent of the longitudinal shell joints in a vessel are to be undertaken for whatever reasons, are corner joints according to Fig. UW-13.2 still allowable or must one of the constructions allowing full radiography as per Fig. UW-13.2 be adopted? Reply (3): Corner joints would be allowed.

Interpretation: VIII-80-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52(d) and UW-52(d)(2)(b) Date Issued: November 24, 1980 File: BC80-642 Question (1): Under the requirements of UW-52 of Section VIII, Division 1 for spot radiography, a vessel is spot examined. Where the vessel consists of two circumferential weld joints and one longitudinal weld joint with a total weld length of less than 50 ft., must the entire weld length of the circumferential and longitudinal weld joint in the vessel be rejected when the examination and retest of UW-52(d)(2) and UW-52(d)(2)(b) are enforced? Reply (1): Yes. For a vessel represented by one spot radiograph, the entire weld length of all welded joints in the vessel would be rejected if the requirements of UW-52(d)(1) and UW-52(d)(2)(a) could not be met see UW-52(d)(2)(b)].

Question (2): May a spot radiograph be taken in the first 18 in. increment of weld made by a welder in a vessel which contains a total weld length of the welded joints of 50 ft.? Reply (2): No. For a vessel that is to be represented by one spot radiograph in which one welder joints with a total length of 50 ft, the entire 50 ft of weld shall be deposited before the spot radiograph can be taken [see UW-52(b)(3)] Interpretation: VIII-80-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-16.1 Sketch (w-3) Date Issued: December 4, 1980 File: BC80-610 Question: Does an abutting nozzle satisfy the requirements of Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (w-3) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. Sketch (w-3) represents an inserted nozzle. Abutting nozzles must meet the requirements of UW-16(c)and Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (a), (b),and (r-1). In the case of small fittings, you must meet the requirements of UW-16(g) and Fig. UW-16.2 sketch (m). Interpretation: VIII-80-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 1292-12 Date Issued: December 4, 1980 File: BC80-658 Question: In Reply (2)(a) of Code Case 1292-12, is the requirement of "not less than 24 in. in either direction" applicable to both length and width of a representative panel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-121 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UG-116(j) Date Issued: December 12, 1980 File: BC80-287 Question: If a Manufacturer (ASME Certificate of Authorization holder) of a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel tack welds fittings, such as nozzles and couplings, into a shell, or head, or both of a vessel, and then subcontracts the completion of these welds to another Manufacturer who is also an ASME "U" symbol holder, is it a requirement for the subcontractor to stamp each weld as per UG-116(l), or can the required marking be in accordance with UG-116(j)? Reply: The requirements of UG-116(j) and (1) have no relationship to the described circumstances. These paragraphs apply to the marking of the completed vessel, which is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-80-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 Through UG-41 Date Issued: December 12, 1980 File: BC80-554 Question: Is it permissible under the nozzle reinforcement requirements of UG-37 through UG-41 of Section VIII, Division-1 to take the wall-increased part of a nozzle as nominal thickness of the nozzle

in the reinforcement calculation when the wall increased part extends beyond the allowable reinforcing limit, measured normal to the vessel wall? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(h), Conical Reducer Date Issued: December 12,1980 File: BC80-605 Question: Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 when designing a conical shell reducer section for the transition knuckle forming the cone-to-small cylinder junction under internal pressure, and when the half apex angle is greater than 30 deg? Reply: There are no specific requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 for the design of the small end of the cone-to-cylinder junction under internal pressure, and when the half apex angle is greater than 30 deg. It shall be the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to ensure the adequacy of design and to have such design acceptable to his Authorized Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-80-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 Date Issued: December 15, 1980 File: BC80-681 Question: Is there any requirement under the rules of UG-99 in Section VIII, Division 1 for a minimum time that the hydrostatic test pressure must be applied? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-80-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37(c)(1) Date issued: December 18, 1980 File: BC80-682 Question: Is it the intent of UG-37(c)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1 that the value of tr to be used in this analysis be determined by following the steps laid down in UG-28 where tr is the minimum thickness which is acceptable at P, the external design pressure? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-80-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(f) Date Issued: December 23,1980 File: BC90-609 Question: If a vessel is constructed under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and meets the requirements of UW-11(c) and UW-12(c) for no radiography, what marking under UG-116(f) is required? Reply: There are no requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 for marking the vessel when the vessel meets the requirements for no radiography under UW-11(c) and UW-12(c); however, the Manufacturer's Data Report Form shall show that no radiography was performed.

Interpretation: VIII-81-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(f) and UG-116(g) Date Issued: January 1, 1981 File: BC80-757 Question: Do the marking requirements of UG-116(f) and (g) apply to a pressure part marked under the provisions of UG-116(i)? Reply: No. The provisions of UG-116(f)(1), (2) ,(3), and (4) and UG-116(g)(1)and(2)apply to marking for the whole pressure vessel. Pressure parts need comply only with the marking provisions of UG-116(i) due to the fact that radiography and heat treatment requirements would be recorded on the Manufacturer's Partial Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-81-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, SA-675 Bar Material for External Pressure Date Issued: February 10, 1981 File: BC80-218 Question: May steam ejectors constructed of SA-675 bar stock be used in Division 1 construction for external pressure? Reply: Steam ejectors constructed of SA-675 bar stock may not be used in Division 1 construction due to the fact that SA-675 is not a Code approved material for a shell under external pressure. Interpretation: VIII-81-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix Y, Allowable Bolt Stresses Date Issue: April 9, 1981 File: BC79-502 Question: Is it permissible under Division 1 to allow the use of higher allowable stresses for calculating the amount of bolting required for Appendix Y flanges as compared with Appendix 2 flanges? Reply: There is no justification for permitting higher allowable stresses for calculating the amount of bolting required for Appendix Y flanges as compared with Appendix 2 flanges. Interpretation: VIII-81-04 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions l and 2, UG-136 and AR-210, Materials for Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: April 9, 1981 File: BC79-766 Question: The body of a safety relief valve is being fabricated using ASTM B 124 UNS C37700, which is not listed in either Section II or Division 1 or 2 of Section VIII. Also, this material is not listed under Case 1750.-2 which applies to valves. May a safety relief valve fabricated of this material be stamped with the UV Code Symbol Stamp? Reply: Division 1, UG-136, and Division 2, AR-210, require materials used in bodies and bonnets or yokes to be listed in both Section II and either Division 1 or 2 of Section VIII, depending

upon use. The material is not permitted under the special provisions of Case 1750.2. Therefore, the safety relief valve described in the Question could not be stamped with the UV Code Symbol Stamp. Interpretation: VIII-81-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-77(a) Date Issued: April 9, 1981 File: BC80-185 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-77(a), is it permissible to transfer heat numbers to satisfy material identification? Reply: Transfer of heat numbers alone is not adequate. Where "coded markings" are not used, UG-77(a) requires the transfer of "the original identification markings required in the specifications for the material." Where required by the material specification, heat numbers must be included. Interpretation: VIII-81-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13 Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-555 Question (1): For a rectangular box header constructed from four side plates as shown in Fig. 13-2(a) sketches (1) and (2), is it correct to classify the welds at the corners as "Category C butt" in order to determine an efficiency from UW-12? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In the example of 13-16(e), the value of E= 0.8 is used in the calculations for S m of the corner section CD, (Sb)C-D, (Sb)C, (Sb)D, and (Sb)E although it is specifically indicated that there are no weld joints at those locations. Is it not correct to use E =1.0 in this case? Reply (2): Although there is no specific weld joint efficiency, UW-12(c) requires that the stress used in calculations be 80% of the allowable Stress from Subsection C for parts of vessels that are neither fully radiographed nor spot-radiographed. For those vessels which are designed according to Table UW12, column (c), the joint efficiency is taken directly from that Table depending upon the type of joint without the added stress factor of 0.8 which is already incorporated into the weld joint efficiency of column (c). Interpretation: VIII-81-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Expansion Joints Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-634 Question (1) When an expansion joint is welded to a Division 1 pressure vessel, does it become an integral part of the shell? Reply (1): An expansion joint may be an integral part of a Division 1 pressure vessel if it satisfies all the requirements of Code Case 1177-7. Question (2): If it becomes an integral part of the shell cylinder, should the expansion joint material be the same thickness as the shell?

Reply (2): Code Case 1177-7 waives the minimum thickness requirements for expansion joints, and, therefore, if the design satisfies the Code Case design criteria, the expansion joint may be less than the thickness of a shell component to which it is attached. Interpretation: VIII-81-08 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(b)(2) Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-697 Question: For a pressure vessel fabricated of SA-516 Grade 65 material having a design temperature of -38C, shall Charpy impact tests for the welds and heat affected zones be conducted at -38C or at the temperature indicated for the base material in SA-20, Table 16? Reply: It is the minimum design temperature of the vessel stated in the Data Report and included in the vessel stamping that will determine the impact test temperature of the weld and heat affected zone and base material. Interpretation: VIII-81-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Effective Dates Date Issued: April I0,1981 File: BC80-750 Question (1): Are all of the applicable requirements of a specific Addenda of Division 1 mandatory for vessels contracted for six months subsequent to publication of that Addenda? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, are the requirements of Appendix 13 of Division 1 mandatory, when applicable, for design of vessels which have previously been designed by other methods [UG-19(b)] or proof testing [UG-19(c)]? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-35(c) Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-758 Question: Is it the intent of UW-35(c) to limit the as-welded height to those in that paragraph, and if so, can any excess weld over that height be ground to within limits? Reply: It is the intent of UW-35(c) that weld grooves be completely filled. It also places a limit on the height of finished weld (weld reinforcement). Appropriate grinding may be required to meet the specified limits for weld reinforcement. Interpretation: VIII-81-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32 Conical Reducer Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-761

Question: Are there any rules in Division 1 for designing a conical head or transition under internal pressure when the half apex angle is greater than 30 deg? Reply: There are no specific formulas in Division 1 for designing a conical head or transition under internal pressure when the half apex angle is greater than 30 deg. The method of analysis is given in 1-5(e), but the Certificate of Authorization holder is responsible for the design under the provisions of U-2(g). Interpretation-. VIII 81-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 14-10.5 Weld Joint Efficiency for Dimpled Panels Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC80-780 Question: Is it required that a weld joint efficiency factor of 0.8 be used in formula UG-101(m)(2) (a) for establishing the MAWP of dimpled panels attached by fillet welds around 1 in. diameter holes at the dimpled root? Reply: Yes. See provisions of 14-10-5(a)(1) and (2).

Interpretations. VIII-81-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 7-3(a)(4)(d) Date Issued; April 10, 1981 File: BC80-781 Question: Shall all nonlinear indications over 3/32 in. detected by liquid penetrant examination be removed as called for under 7-3(a)(4)(d)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-14 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part ULW and Article D-11 Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC81-2 Question (1): In fabricating layered vessels under the requirements of Part ULW of Division 1 and Article D-11 of Division 2, can the total number of proposed layers be reduced when the minimum required metal thickness is achieved? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If all the plates used have a negative tolerance, can they still be used in fabrication without additional thickness requirements? Reply (2): No, unless the total metal thickness obtained equals or exceeds the total required metal thickness less 0.01 in. Interpretation: VIII-81-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. 5-UCS-28.2 and Table 5-UCS-28.2 Date Issued: April 10, 1981 File: BC81-18

Question: Is it permissible to exceed the maximum temperature listed in Fig. 5-UCS-28.2 and Table 5-UCS-28.2 when designing for external pressure? Reply: No. See UG-20(c).

InterpretationVIII-81-16 (Void See 81-16R Vol. 16, pg. 167 ] Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued April 10, 1981 File: BC81-19 Question: May an ultrasonic examination, in accordance with UW-53, be utilized to confirm the validity of the radiographs and the integrity of welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-18 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UG-1 19, Requirements for Nameplates Date Issued: April 14, 1981 File: BC80-656 Question (1): May nameplates contain data, such as corrosion allowance, the purchase order number, drawing numbers, and the name of the purchaser, in addition to the markings required by the Code? Reply (1): Question (2): Yes, provided that the additional data is factual and applicable to the pressure vessel May the additional data of Question (1) be mixed with the Code required markings?

Reply (2): No. As indicated by UG-119(a), the Code required marking shall be arranged substantially as shown in Fig. UG-118. The additional data shall be below the Code required marking. Question (3): May a vessel manufacturer mark a nameplate, including application of his Code Symbol Stamp, which has been furnished by the purchaser and which contains additional data as indicated in Question (1)? Reply (3): Yes, provided all applicable Code rules are satisfied.

Interpretation: VIII-81-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 and L-7 Date Issued: April 29, 1981 File: BC80-719 Question: What is the intent of the manufacturing tolerance tn. in calculating nozzle wall thickness for reinforcement as given in UG-40 and L-7? Reply: When pipe is used as a nozzle neck, it is not necessary to consider the 12 1/2% mill tolerance when calculating reinforcement required for openings per UG-37, UG-40, and the example in L-7. The reason for the tolerance on the pipe is to accommodate the possible shifting of the dies during the manufacturing process. Since the nozzle reinforcement is based on an area replacement method, although the pipe may be thinner on one side of the center line, it will probably be correspondingly thicker on the other side.

Interpretation: VIII-81-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UF-I Certification and Stamping of Rolls for Corrugated Paper Machinery Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC80-187 Question: A supplier manufactures rolls for corrugating paper machinery to SA-649, including the journal seal welding permitted by 4.6 of SA-649, and supplies them to a U symbol holder who initially designs, completes construction, including final machining and final hydrostatic testing, prepares the Code Manufacturers Data Report, and applies the Code Symbol under the provisions of UF-7. Is it sufficient for the supplier to provide only the certified material test reports as required by SA-649, or does a Partial Data Report Form U-2 have to be provided as well? Reply: A Partial Data Report is not required. Rolls furnished to SA-649 under the provisions of UF-7 are furnished as material. The rolls shall be marked and test reports shall be furnished as required by SA-649. Interpretation: VIII-81-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56 Date Issued: June 2, 1982 File: BC90-611 Question (1): Is postweld heat treatment per Table UCS-56 required for P-No. 1 materials for a pipe neck welded to a slip-on or ring type flange per Fig. 2-4 sketch (3), when the maximum fillet weld throat is not over 1/2 in. and the finished inside diameter of the pipe is over 2 in.? Reply (1): For this situation, the need for postweld heat treatment is controlled by the thickness of the nozzle neck [see UCS 56(d)(5)]; therefore, postweld heat treatment is not required unless the thickness of the nozzle neck exceeds 1 1/2 in. provided that a minimum preheat of 200F is applied when the thickness of the neck exceeds 1 1/4 in. Question (2): If all conditions in Question (1) were the same except that the finished inside diameter of the pipe is 2 in. or less, would postweld heat treatment be required? Reply (2): See Reply (1).

Interpretation: VIII-81-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, M-5 Date Issued: June 2, 1983 File: BC81-3 Question: M-5(a) states, "A vessel, in which pressure can be generated because of service conditions, may have a full area stop valve between it and its pressure relieving device for inspection and repair purposes only." What is the intent of the Code with regard to the definition of the term "service conditions?" Reply: The purpose of the quoted wording is to separate the provisions of M-5(a) from the provisions of M-5(b). If pressure can be generated in the vessel due to any service condition, the provisions of M-5(a) apply. Interpretation: VIII-81-23

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Appendix 8 and Article 9-2 June 2, 1981 BC81-22

Question: Is it acceptable to apply the rules of Appendix 8 in Division 1 and Article 9-2 in Division 2 when visible defects as stated in UW-38 and AF-251 are present? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(h) Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-67 Question: If a vessel meets the requirements of UCS-66(c)(2), does that exempt it from the impact test provisions for the welding procedure test plates as given in UG-84(h)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-25 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part ULW and Article D-11 Low Temperature Service Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-68 Question: Is it permissible for layered pressure vessels constructed under the requirements of Part ULW and Article D-11 in Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, to operate at low temperatures, below -20F? Reply: Yes, if all of the appropriate design and fabrication requirements, including impact test provisions, in the respective Section VIII, Divisions are met. Interpretation: VIII-81-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-87 Question: Can a nozzle, which is welded through a shell with a full penetration weld, claim the inside projection as per UG-40, if there is no fillet weld on the inside of the shell? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-81-27 (Void See 81-27R Vol. 13, Pg. 49 ] Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UW-42 Date Issued: June 2, 1981File: BC81-100 Question: Is postweld heat treatment per UCS-56 required for UW-42(b) fabrication when P-No. 1 material is used and the thickness limit does not go beyond 1 1/2 in.? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-28 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UG-37 and UG-40 Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-106 Question: May a second reinforcing pad of a smaller diameter than that attached initially to a vessel and nozzle be added to the initial pad, and additionally attached to the nozzle, provided attachment welds meet the requirement of the Code, the area of all pads and welds being contained within the limits of UG40, and such area supplies only that required by UG-37? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c) Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-128 Question: Under the exemption requirements of U-1(c), may a pressure vessel meeting one of those exemptions still be fabricated to the Code rules even though it falls outside of the Scope? Reply: Yes. See U-1(i).

Interpretation: VIII-81-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52(b)(1) Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-129 Question: In constructing a pressure vessel which contains a seamless head attached to a welded shell by a joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (k), is it permissible to perform spot radiography per UW-52(b)(1) on the shell seam without radiographing the head-to-shell joint? Reply: Yes, provided that the requirements of UW-52(b)(2) and (3) are complied with.

Interpretation: VIII-81-31 Subject: Section VIII-Division 1, UW-16 Requirements for Attachment Welds, 1974 Edition Date Issued: June 2, 1981 File: BC81-133 Question: For a vessel fabricated under the 1974 Edition of Division 1, are the minimum weld size requirements in UW-16 based on actual thickness and not minimum design thickness? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(6) Date Issued: June 3, 1981 File: BC81-17 Question: Does a pressure vessel that contains water, has a capacity of less than 120 gallons, and also contains hydrogen in a process flow fall under the provisions of U-1(c)(6)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-25(e) Date Issued: June 3, 1981 File: BC81-23 Question: Under the requirements of UG-25(e), must the depth of a telltale hole be equal to or greater than 80% of the thickness of a seamless shell of similar dimensions? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(d) Date Issued: June 3, 1981 File: BC81-24 Question: Under the requirements of UW-11(d), electroslag welds in ferritic materials are required to be ultrasonically examined. Does this apply also to electrogas welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-102 Date Issued: June 3, 1981 File: BC81-92 Question: UG-102(a) states in part, "An indicating gage shall be connected directly to the vessel. If the indicating gage is not readily visible to the operator controlling the pressure applied, an additional indicating gage shall be provided where it will be visible to the operator throughout the duration of the test. Could the indicating pressure gage required by the first quoted sentence be located on the test fluid supply piping, perhaps 30 ft from the vessel, provided there was no block valve between the indicating pressure gage and the vessel and provided the calculated pressure drop at maximum flow rates between the indicating gage and the vessel did not exceed 1 psi? Reply: No. The requirements of the first quoted sentence are to prohibit sole reliance on a single pressure gage located as described in the Question. The gage described in the Question appears to be applicable to the requirements of the second quoted sentence, Interpretation: VIII-81-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-40(d) Date Issued: June 3, 1981 File: BC81-101 Question: Under the requirements of UW-40(d), it is permitted to perform a preliminary hydrostatic test to detect leaks prior to postweld heat treatment. May the rules of UG-99 be used in performing such a test? Reply: Yes, the applicable requirements of UG-99 may be used. However, the rules do not establish the preliminary test pressure to be used under the provisions of UW-40(d). The Manufacturer shall determine the test pressure to be used.

Interpretation: VIII-81-38 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32 and 1-5(e) Date Issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC80-128 Question (1): May the large end of a toriconical reducer, as shown in Fig. UG-36 sketch (b), with a knuckle. that meets the requirements for rL and with a half-apex angle (greater than 30 deg., be designed using the formulas given in UG-32(g) and (h) only? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the design of reinforcement at the small end of reducers whose half-apex angle (exceeds 30 deg., may the design rules other than those specified in 1-5(e) be used in Division 1? Reply (2): Yes. Rules other than those specified in 1-5(e) may be used [see U-2(g)]

Interpretation: VIII-81-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 Repair of Leaks in Two-Sided Partial Penetration Nozzle Welds Date Issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC80-130 Question: A Division 1 vessel has nozzles attached by fillet welds or fillet plus partial penetration groove welds on both sides of the shell as in Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (d), (e-1), (e-2), and (f). The nozzles do not have reinforcing plates or saddles, which, under the requirements of UW-15(b), would provide a telltale hole to permit independent testing of the soundness of the inside welds. Prior to testing, the welds have been visually examined for defects. Code Case 1518 has been applied, and for vessels to be pneumatically tested, the examination of UW-50 has not been made. If the hydrostatic or pneumatic test does not indicate leakage of such a joint, the vessel is acceptable, even though a leak could exist in one side of the joint. If such a joint does leak and the outside of the joint is repaired, is the vessel acceptable, without further examination and possible repair of the inside of the joint, if the vessel passes a subsequent pressure test? Reply: No. The comparison to the acceptability of the vessel when no leak is found is not valid If a leak as described is found, either it must be located and repaired or the nozzle must be removed and replaced. In either case, the vessel must be subjected to another pressure test. Interpretation: VIII-81-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, ULW-17 and UHT-82 Date Issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC80-650 Question (1): For pressure vessels fabricated by layered construction to Part ULW, there is no requirement for production test coupons for the layers. When using quenched and tempered steel for the layers, is it required that production impact tests of the heat affected zone be performed per UHT-82, even though the welds are not subject to quenching or normalizing followed by tempering? Reply (1): Yes. ULW-1 requires that the rules of UHT-82(c) be met.

Question (2): ULW-17(k) states that for Category D joints for nozzles in layered shells the welds shall be full penetration except as otherwise stated. Please advise whether a partial penetration weld for a 14 in. nozzle located tangentially to the cylindrical shell is acceptable. Reply (2): No. A partial penetration weld is not acceptable for nozzles over 6 in. nominal pipe size. See ULW-18(c) for limits on partial penetration welds. Interpretation: VIII-81-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 14-10.7(a)(2) Date issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC80-762 Question: Is it permissible, under the requirements of 14-10.7, to use materials within the same Pgrouping of materials listed in Table 14-10.3 without conducting another test plate if one performs appropriate workmanship samples to assure weld nugget quality? Reply: For construction in which the dimpling or embossing of the plate or plates is performed before the spot welding, or seam welding, or both, the required burst proof test for procedure and performance qualification for each welding process using material of one of the allowable specifications in each grouping of materials in Table 14-10.3 will qualify for any other material in that grouping. On the other hand, for construction in which the dimpling or embossing of the plate or plates is performed after the spot or seam welds are made, the required burst proof test for procedure and qualification for each welding process must be performed on each specification, type, thickness, and grade of material for either sheet of both sheets. The permitted Materials are again listed in Table 14-10.3. Interpretation: VIII-81-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(c)(2) Manual Revision Date Issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC81-84 Question (1) When a revision is Proposed for a UG-90(c)(2) manual concerning the changing of sample forms located in the index section, does this type of change require prior approval by the National Board or can the local Authorized Inspector make this decision? Reply (1): As stated in UG-90(c)(2), the test is whether the proposed changes in the inspection and quality control procedure affect the satisfaction of the requirements of Division 1. If the proposed changes clearly do not affect such satisfaction, the Authorized Inspector may accept them. Otherwise the changes must be reviewed and accepted by the parties specified in UG-90(c)(2). Question (2): When a revision is proposed for a UG-90(c)(2) manual concerning the addition to a procedure which does not take away from the original content, does this type of change require approval by the National Board or can the local Authorized Inspector make this decision? Reply (2): The same as Reply (1).

Interpretation: VIII-81-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 Date Issued: June 30, 1981 File: BC81-131 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-99 to allow the coating of a vessel prior to performing the hydrostatic test?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-44 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2, and UW-18 Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC79-206 Question (1): Figure UW-13.2 sketch (g) shows fillet welds attaching plates to flat heads. Does this violate UW-18(b)? Reply (1): No. The requirements of UW-18(b) for independent support of single fillet welded corner or tee joints pertains to fillet welded corners, such as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (o), (p), and (q), and not to the double fillet welding shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (g) and (i). Question (2): How is the fillet weld efficiency of 55% in UW-18(d) used in weld strength calculations?

Reply (2): The allowable load per unit length of fillet weld is equal to the minimum leg dimension times the allowable stress value in tension of material being welded together by fillet weld times 0.55. Interpretation: VIII-81-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(c) Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC79-330 Question: Is it permissible to use a seamless shell in a vessel calculated under UW-12(c) in order to eliminate the corrosion allowance required by UCS-25? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-46 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, Monitoring of Welded Variables During Fabrication Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC80-299 Question (1): For Division 1 fabrication, must heat input be constantly monitored during production welding when notch toughness is a consideration? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For Division 1 fabrication, is it required to constantly monitor the width, frequency, or dwell time of oscillation when QW-410.7 of Section IX is an applicable supplementary essential variable? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 14, Jacketed Assemblies, and U-2(g) Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC80-326

Question: When single embossed, jacketed assemblies, such as described in Appendix 14, are used as shells subjected to external pressure loading on the embossed side, may properties of the embossed assembly be considered when determining the required thickness of the flat plate for the external pressure? Reply: Yes. The geometry covered by your inquiry is not specifically covered by any of the rules of Division 1. However, the rules of U-2(g) shall apply. Interpretation: VIII-81-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-8 and UW-29, Use of Finned Tubing Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC80-467 Question: Under what conditions may a manufacturer procure treat exchanger tubes with resistance welded fins from an outside organization, when the tubes are to be used in the construction of a Division 1 pressure vessel? Reply: Tubing with resistance welded fins fabricated by an outside organization may be used in the construction of a Division 1 pressure vessel under the provisions of UG-8, with the welding of the extended surface under the provisions of UW-28 and UW-29. Interpretation: VIII-81-49 [Void -See 81-49R Vol. 12] Subject Section VIII, Division 2, Table ABM-1 Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC80-725 Question: Does Table ABM-1 refer to raised face and flanges with full face gaskets only?

Reply: Table ABM-1 has allowable bolting stresses for flanges designed in accordance with Appendix 3. The Code does not prohibit the use of other types of bolted connections such as flanges using full face gaskets or other means of fixing or clamping the flange at the bolt circle to provide effective restraint against flange deflection. Such designs may be used provided they are designed in accordance with good engineering practice and the method of design is acceptable to the Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-81-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 UG-29(a) Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC81-138 Question: Are the required moments of inertia Is, and I, and Is,' and I', as given in UG-29(a), restricted to multi ring and single ring designs, respectively? Reply: No. Each may apply to either multi ring or single ring designs. The moments Is, and I are used when no part of the shell is counted as part of the stiffening ring, and Is' and I' are used when part of the shell is counted together with the stiffening ring. There can be overlap for that part of the shell which is counted on either side of the stiffening ring; however, it shall be counted only once. Interpretation: VIII-81-51 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UHA-51(b)(5) Date Issued: July 1, 1981

File:

BC81-193

Question: May Type 304L material be exempted from impact testing, if it meets all of the requirements of UHA-51(b)(5)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-52 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(c)(4)(b) Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC81-194 Question: In complying with the impact test requirements in UG-84, are there any requirements for the minimum absorbed energy when using materials per Table UHA-23? Reply: No. For materials specified in Table UHA-23, the minimum lateral expansion requirements in UG-84(c)(4)(b) are applicable. Interpretation: VIII-81-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 UG-84(g)(2) Date Issued: July 1, 1981 File: BC81-248 Question: Under the requirement of UG-84(g)(2) for testing material (e.g., SA-517 Grade E) in the heat affected zone, must any part of the notch be required to transverse the actual fusion line when the notch is located to include as much of the heat affected zone as possible? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c)(2)(b) Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC80-718 Question (1): For vessels designed according to Division 1 which are to operate at temperatures below20F and to use materials conforming to Table UCS-23 when the provision for 2 1/2 times design pressure is used to waive impact tests, is there any low temperature limit? Reply (1): No. See UCS-66(c)(2).

Question (2): For a vessel designed as in Question (1), does the Code require any special changes if the actual impact readings required by contract result in answers that are low? Reply (2): The Code does not address contractual requirements.

Interpretation: VIII-81-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Part UW, Weld Strength in Head to Shell Connection Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC80-721

Question: A pressure vessel is constructed to Division 1 requirements with a multilayered shell and dished head. The head is constructed of SA-516 Grade 70 steel, and the shell is constructed of a higher strength steel. Is it permissible to attach the head to shell with weld metal with a strength equivalent to the head material? Reply: Yes. See QW-153.1(b) of Section IX.

Interpretation: VIII-81-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-46(a) Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-4 'Question: Can vessels used for the containment and transport of uranium hexafluoride be constructed under Division 1 without having inspection openings per UG-46(a)? Reply: Under UG-25, it is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent to decide if a vessel can be considered to be in noncorrosive service, or if a corrosion allowance should be specified. If in noncorrosive service, inspection openings may be omitted, but the statement "for noncorrosive service" shall be included under remarks on the Manufacturers Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-81-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-13(f) Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-32 Question: When hubs are integrally forged or machined from a forging used for a tubesheet or flat head according to Division 1, is a tension test specimen required? Reply: Yes. See UW-13(f) and Fig. UW-13.3.

Interpretation: VIII-81-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-18(b)(1) Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-33 Question: May a nozzle designed in accordance with Fig. UHT-18.2 Sketch (a) or (b), but on the in-side of the vessel, so that the design pressure is external to the nozzle, be exempted from the requirements of UHT-18(b)(1) and radiography of the nozzle to shell joint? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-59 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UW-11(a)(5) Date Issued: July 2, 1991 File: BC81-41 Question (1): When is full radiography a requirement for a Category D joint for a vessel constructed of carbon, or low-alloy steel, or both under Part UCS? Reply (1): You are referred to UW-11, UW-12, Table UW-12, and Fig, UW-16.1. The Code requires that all butt welds in a vessel, or vessel part, designed under the provisions of E = 1.0, be radiographed. Therefore a vessel part designed under UW-11(a) incorporating nozzles as illustrated in

Fig. UW-16.1(q-1), (q-2), (q-3), or (q-4) requires radiography of the butt welds between the vessel wall and the nozzle. If the nozzle design follows any of the other partial or full penetration welds, with or without pads, illustrated in Fig. UW-16.1, radiography of the, attachment weld is not a requirement of the Code. Question (2): Reply (2): May fillet welds be considered for strength purposes under Division 1 fabrication? Yes. See UW-18, and Table UW-12, Types 4, 5, and 6.

Interpretation: VIII-81-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37(c)(1) Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-45 Question: What is the required area of reinforcement for openings in single walled vessels subjected to external pressure for Division 1? Reply: A = 0.5dtrF' where d = diameter of opening tr = required thickness of shell due to external pressure F = factor for plane examined The area of reinforcement available in the shell and the nozzle is that calculated according to UG-40 with tr and trn being the required thicknesses of the shell and nozzle, respectively. Interpretation: VIII-81-61 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 Table 2-5.2 and 2-5(c), Gasket Factors Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-46 Question: flanges? Reply: May gasket factors other than those given in Table 2-5.1 be used for the design of Yes. As stated in UG-37(c)(1), the required area of reinforcement is equal to:

Interpretation: VIII-81-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.1 Date Issued: July 2, 1981 File: BC81-47 Question: If the bevel option is used in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (k), does the dimension 2 1/2t maximum and t minimum pertain to the distance from a vertical line extending from the root of the weld to the top edge of the offset plate? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, ULW-77(d) Date Issued: July 2, 1981

File:

BC81-63

Question: What is the intent of the first sentence of the second paragraph of ULW-77(d), which reads, "The gap area Ag shall not exceed the thickness of a layer expressed in square inches"? Reply: The intent of the first sentence of the second paragraph of ULW-77(d) is that the gap area Ag be less than or equal to the thickness of a layer t times a unit length, which is expressed in square inches. Interpretation: VIII-81-64 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UNF-58(c) Date Issued: July 6, 1981 File: BC81-70 Question: If a vessel or vessel part meets the requirements for spot radiography under UW-52, do those same joints require liquid penetrant examination as required by UNF-58(c)? Reply: conducted. Yes. UNF-58(c) provides for exclusion for stated materials only if full radiography is

Interpretation: VIII-81-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(c) and UW-12(c), Joint Efficiency Factors Date Issued: July 6, 1981 File: BC81-96 Question: What is the value for E to be used in calculating the thickness of a seamless ellipsoidal head that will be installed in a shell in accordance with Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (a) when no radiography is to be performed in the construction? Reply: You are referred to UG-32(c) and UW-12(c). Since the head is seamless, the value of E to be used in the formula for calculating the thickness would be 1.0. Since a butt weld does not exist between the head and the shell and no radiography is performed, the requirements of UW-12(c) apply and it will be necessary that the S value be multiplied by 0.8. For longitudinal stresses E = 0.45, see Table UW-12. Interpretation: VIII-81-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 1177-7 Date Issued: July 6, 1981 File: BC81-164 Question: A vessel Manufacturer supplies transition elements, rolled plate with a welded longitudinal seam, to an expansion joint manufacturer who subsequently welds an expansion joint to them. The completed assembly is then returned to the vessel Manufacturer for further processing into the vessel. Does the vessel Manufacturer have to supply a Partial Data Report for the code work performed by him to the expansion joint manufacturer if the expansion joint manufacturer provides a Partial Data Report in accordance with Code Case 1177-7? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-98, UG-125(c),UG-126(d), and UG-134(e)

Date Issued: File:

July 6, 1981 BC81-1 65

Question: In determining the maximum allowable working pressure as defined in UG-98, do the set pressure set tolerances of relief devices, such as defined in UG-126(d) and UG-134(e), and the pressure increase after the relief device opens, as defined in UG-125(c), need to be taken into account? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66 Date Issued: July 6, 1981 File: BC81-199 Question: Under the requirements of UCS-66, may SA-193 B7 bolts less than 2 1/2 in.. in diameter be utilized for temperature down to-50F without impact testing? Reply: No, unless exempted by UCS-66(c)(1) or (c)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-81-69 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Tables UHT-23 and AQT-1, and Figs. UHT-18.2 and AD-610.1. Date Issued: July 29, 1981 File: BC80-142 Question: For materials of Table UHT-23 or Table, AQT-1, may nozzle constructions as depicted in Figs. UHT-18.2 and AD-610.1 be used when the shell plate thickness is 2 in. or less? Reply: As defined in UHT-17(b), certain materials may use Fig. UHT-18.2 for all thicknesses. Otherwise, this Figure may not be used for shell plate thicknesses 2 in, or less. For Division 2 vessels, Fig. AD-610.1 may not be used for shell plate thicknesses 2 in. or less. Interpretation: VIII-81-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(a)(1), UG-11(c)(1), and UG-11(c)(2) Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC80-404 Question: A hinged closure is secured by multiple, hinged T bolts and incorporates welding. May such a closure be used in a Division 1 pressure vessel as a parts Manufacturer's welded standard pressure part without authorized inspection of the part, material identification in accordance with UG-93, or a Partial Data Report, provided that the requirements of UG-11(c) are satisfied? Reply: The present rules do not prohibit use as defined in the Question.

Interpretation: VIII-81-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Torispherical Heads Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC80-604 Question: Does Division 1 provide specific criteria for acceptance of material laminations and for welded repair of material?

Reply: Division 1 requires that material comply with a specification contained in the appropriate stress table. Acceptable plate specifications reference SA-20, which addresses material quality in 9. UG-79(a) requires that the process used in forging heads shall not unduly impair the physical properties of the material. UG-78 contains provisions for minor repairs to material by the vessel Manufacturer, Interpretation: VIII-81-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16 Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC80-645 Question: Under what conditions may the minimum thickness of shells, made from seamless pipe of materials listed in Table UCS-23, for double pipe heat exchangers used in compressed air service, steam service, or water service, be 1/16 in. exclusive of any corrosion allowances? Reply: None. If any parts are to be constructed to Code rules under Division 1, including parts of double pipe heat exchangers that are to be used in compressed air, steam, or water service, then the 3/32 in. thickness limitation of UG-16(b)(6) shell apply. Interpretation: VIII-81-74 Subject: Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2, UCS-56(d) and AF-402.3(a) Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC81-14 Question: When applying the requirements of UCS-56(d) and AF-402.3 for PWHT, which thickness governs when you have a fabricated head attached to a shell of greater thickness? Reply: Under the provisions of UCS-56(d)(1) and AF-402.3(a), the thinner of the two parts governs, provided the PWHT requirements of the weld joints in the fabricated head and shell are satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-81-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2 Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC81-94 Question (1): In Division 1, what specific rules are given for the design of tubesheets?

Reply (1): In Division 1, the only direct references to tubesheets are given in nonmandatory Appendix A and Appendix AA giving the basis for establishing allowable loads for tube-to-tubesheet joints, and in UW-13 and Fig. UW-13.2, where details of corner joints for the tubesheets with and without a bolting flange are given. Also, reinforcement requirements for openings in flat heads are given in UG-39. Except for those rules noted above, there are no rules given for the calculation of tubesheets, so U-2(g) applies. Question (2): Reply(2): Question (3): In Division 1, may flanges with or without hubs be fabricated from flat plates? See UG-14, UW-13(e), 2-1(c), and 2-2(d)(2) for conditions under which it may be done. In Division 1, what rules apply to floating head covers under external pressure?

Reply (3): In Division 1, rules are given in 1-6 for circular spherically dished heads with bolting flanges both concave and convex to pressure. Interpretation: VIII-81-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c)(2) Date Issued: September 22, 1981 File: BC81-102 Question: A carbon steel vessel is to be designed according to Division 1 for two different conditions of coincident design pressure and temperature. One condition is design pressure of 10 psig and design temperature of-50F. The other condition is design pressure of 285 psig and design temperature of 650F. Are impact tests required under the provisions of Part UCS? Reply: UCS-66(c)(2) states that no impact test is required when the minimum thickness is the greater of those determined for the more severe of the two conditions of coincident pressure and temperature. For the example in question, those two conditions are: (a) 285 psi at 650F, using the allowable stress at 650F (b) 2 1/4 times 10 psi at -50F, using the allowable stress at -20F Interpretation: VIII-81-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(a)(1)(b) Date Issued: October 8, 1981 File: BC81-263 Question: May a Category C weld joint utilize the tubesheet-to-shell or tubesheet-to-channel details of Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (h), (i), (j), (k), or (1) without radiography or dye penetrant examination? Reply: If there are no special service restrictions such as lethal, which requires the Category C joints to be, butt joints, or any other special limits, the Category C joint may be made without radiography or dye penetrant examination. Interpretation: VIII-81-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34(c)(3), Eqs. (3) and (5) Date Issued: October 8, 1981 File: BC81-259 Question: When applying Eqs. (3) or (5) of UG-34(c)(3) for the thickness determination of flat unstayed rectangular covers attached by bolts that may or may not cause an edge moment, is it permitted to use a maximum allowable stress which is 1 1/2 times the appropriate stress value in the tables of Subsection C? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-40(e) and UCS-56(d), PWHT Requirements Date Issued: October 8, 1981 File: BC80-515 Question: Is it the intent of the Code when establishing PWHT requirements for vessels of different thicknesses, based on the statements of UW-40(e) and UCS-56(d), to preserve the mechanical properties of the thinner material or to assure full relief of stresses in the thicker material?

Reply: It is the intent of the Code when establishing PWHT requirements for all vessels to preserve the mechanical properties and to obtain stress relief of the materials. A vessel with varying thicknesses of material must be postweld heat treated based on the greatest nominal thickness of any welded joint in the vessel when the entire vessel is postweld heat treated in a closed furnace. The same is true for vessels of different thicknesses when postweld heat treated in the same closed furnace charge. In either case, the requirements of UCS-85(b) must be met for all material, including the thinner material, except as modified by UCS-56(d), (e), and (f). UW-40(e) allows for the PWHT of multiple vessels or parts of vessels in the same furnace charge based on the PWHT requirements of the thickest vessel for the reason of economy to the Manufacturer, but does not eliminate the requirements of UW-40, UCS-56, or UCS-85. UCS-56(d) establishes the thickness to be used in applying the requirements for PWHT after it has been determined that PWHT is required by UCS-56(a). These thicknesses are used to establish holding time and temperature as given in Table UCS-56 and are applicable primarily where the vessel is not postweld heat treated as a whole in one furnace charge, such as those items found in UCS-56(d)(1) through UCS-56(d)(7). Interpretation: VIII-81-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. A-2 Date Issued: October 8, 1981 File: BC80-557 Question (1): On the tube-to-tubesheet welds shown in Fig. A-2, can the geometries (5), (6),(7), (8) and (9) be categorized as, Joint Type a or e in Table A-2 if the dimension a is equal to or greater than 1.4t. Reply (1): Yes. The intent of Fig. A-2 is to show some typical figures of a equal to or greater than 1.4t and less than 1.4t. The basic objective of the a 1.4t criteria is to define a tube-to-tubesheet weld which is equal to the tube wall strength in tension. Question (2): (3), and (4)? Is it acceptable to add the depth of fusion to the groove depth in Fig. A-2, geometries (2),

Reply (2): No. It is the intent of Appendix A to base minimum fillet weld leg and groove weld depth thickness dimensions on the actual component or machined weld bevel dimensions and not on estimated weld fusion lines. Question (3): If the geometry (4) of Fig. A-2 is used and the tube end metal is fused causing the completed weld surface to fall below the tubesheet face, how should the dimension a be established? Reply (3): Dimension a is to be established on the basis of adding the minimum tube-to-tubesheet fillet weld leg dimension plus the depth of any groove welding. Therefore, the dimension a cannot be measured from the tubesheet face, if the tube end projection and deposited weld metal are both below that surface. See Fig. A-2, geometries (5) and (7). Interpretation: VIII-81-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13, Rectangular Headers With Flanged and Bolted Covers Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-280 Question (1): Are there any requirements in Division 1 for nozzle openings in short sided plates of noncircular vessels?

Reply (1): It is intended that nozzle openings in the flat side plates of noncircular vessels shall comply with the rules in UG-39, as applicable. Question (2): covers? Are there any rules in Division 1 for rectangular headers having flanged and bolted end

Reply (2): The present rules of Appendix 13 do not include rules for the design of noncircular flanges, and as stated in 13-1(c), U-2(g) applies. For the noncircular, bolted flat cover, UG-34(c)(3) applies. Interpretation: VIII-81-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AT-200(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-313 Question: Under the provisions of AT-200(b), shall a Manufacturer who establishes a wide range of possible times at PWHT subject the impact test plates to a heat treatment based on minimum or maximum time at PWHT? Reply: The impact test plates shall be heat treated based on the maximum time at PWHT temperature (see also AT-112). Interpretation: VIII-81-84 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, Minimum Impact Test Temperature Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-318 Question: In the use of material, eg., SA-203 Grade D, for Division 1 fabrication, do the provisions in the Code govern the establishment of the minimum impact test temperature as opposed to those referenced in the general material specification SA-20? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(g)(3)(a) Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-320 Question: Is it permissible to attach a pipe to a vessel using a fillet weld deposited from the outside only in lieu of using a threaded fitting as shown in Fig UW-16.2, sketch (k), if the attachment meets the limitations specified in UW-16(g)(3)(a) and is not designed for lethal service? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-86 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UW-11(a)(2) Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-326 Question: 57? Is there a conflict in the thickness requirement in UW-11(a)(2) and that of Table UCS-

Reply: No. The thickness limitation of 1 1/2 in. in UW-11(a)(2) applies for any material unless specifically limited by UCS-57 and other applicable provisions of Section VIII. Interpretation: VIII-81-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-12(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-358 Question: Does the requirement in UG-12(b) for threaded portions of studs to be at least 1 1/2 diameters in length pertain to root diameters, or nominal diameters? Reply: It pertains to nominal diameters.

Interpretation: VIII-81-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UF-32(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1981 File: BC81-363 Question: Under the requirements of UF-32(b), is it permissible to weld pads on a vessel made of SA-372, Class IV material for the purpose of attaching mounting feet, supports, etc.? Reply: No. The attachment of mounting feet, supports, etc., to a welded pad would constitute major load carrying components, which are not permitted by the Code rules under welded fabrication. Interpretation: VIII-81-89 [Void-See 81-89R Vol. 12 Pg. 6 ] Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Stamping of Plate Type Heat Exchangers Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-258 Question (1): If the gasket material is not listed in Table 2-5.1, or if different y and m values or different thicknesses are used, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol? Reply(1) Yes. See Note (1) to Table 2-5.1. In such cases the requirements of U-2(g) shall apply.

Question (2): If the plates are made from a material not permitted by the rules, including applicable Code Cases, but other parts such as end closures and tie bolts do satisfy the rules, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol? Reply (2): No. However, the end closures could be constructed and marked as U symbol parts, provided that all Code requirements, including design [see UG-120(c)], applicable to the part are satisfied. However, we caution you, that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, such laws must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Question (3). If the end closures are hydrostatically tested in accordance with UC-99 without the plates, and the completed assembly is not pressure tested, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol? Reply (3): No. See UG-99(a).

Interpretation: VIII-81-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-262 Question: Are small openings that are exempt from opening reinforcement requirements by UG36(c)(3) also exempt from the attachment weld strength requirements of UG-41 and UW-15? Reply: Yes, but they must satisfy other applicable requirements, such as those of UW-16.

Interpretation: VIII-81-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division, UW-52(b)(1) Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-264 Question: In applying the requirements of UW-52(b)(1) and (b)(2) for multiple duplicate vessels, the following situation exists: Circumferential and longitudinal butt welded seams are used in the construction of identical pressure vessels. The circumferential and longitudinal butt welded seams are individually completed by two different welders. Each vessel consists of 5 lineal feet of circumferential butt welds and 10 lineal feet of longitudinal butt welds. One spot radiograph is taken of one of the circumferential butt welds and will represent 10 vessels. For the same 10 vessels, there will be two spot radiographs taken of the longitudinal welded seams, one in the first 50 lineal feet of welding and the second in the next 50 lineal feet of welding. In summary, there will be three spot radiographs to represent 10 identical vessels. Will this procedure satisfy the requirements of UW-52 for spot radiography? Reply: Yes. In the production of identical pressure vessels, one radiograph can represent the welder used for the circumferential butt welds and another radiograph can represent the welder used for the longitudinal seams. If additional welders are used in either the circumferential welds or the longitudinal welds, an additional radiograph would be necessary for each additional welder used. Interpretation: VIII-81-92 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, ISO (Metric) Bolting Standards for Pressure Retaining Equipment Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-265 Question: May pressure retaining bolting according to the dimensions of the standards ISO/R262 and ISO/724 be used in the construction of boilers and pressure vessels, provided the materials, and heat treatments when applicable, conform to an appropriate Section II material specification listed in Section I, or Section VIII, Divisions 1 or 2? Reply: Some bolt material specifications (see 15.1 of SA-193) have a provision for using threads other than those specified in ANSI B1.1. Interpretation: VIII-81-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Stamping of Vessels Containing Non-Code Components Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-307

Question (1): Is it permissible under Division 1 to apply the U part stamp and supply Partial Data Report Forms for the metallic portions of a vessel that contains non-Code material, such as impervious graphite? Reply (1): Yes, provided that all Code requirements including design [see UG-120(c)] applicable to the part are satisfied. However, we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, such laws must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Question (2): Is it permissible under Division 1 to apply the U stamp and supply Manufacturer's Data Report Forms for a metallic vessel which would completely enclose an impervious graphite vessel? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AF-223.2(c)(2) and Table AF-241.1 Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-312 Question: Does the 6 in. diameter reference in AF-223.2(c)(2) and Table AF-241.1 apply to the opening in the shell wall to accommodate a self-reinforcing forging, or to the inside diameter of the forging? Reply: shell. The reference to the 6 in. diameter applies to the diameter of the finished opening in the

Interpretation: VIII-81-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-23(a) Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-319 Question: Under the rules of Division 1, are there any provisions which would allow the increase of the joint efficiency of welded austenitic steel pipe or tube without filler metal beyond that specified in Table UHA-23 when Note (4) applies? Reply: No. See UG-31(a).

Interpretation: VIII-81-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (8) Date Issued: October 13, 1981 File: BC81-357 Question: Is the value of the minimum fillet weld throat dimension c in Fig. 2-4 sketch (8), affected by nozzle neck thickness? Reply: Yes. See definition of c

Interpretation: VIII-81-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 Date Issued: October 20, 1981

File:

BC81-361

Question: Is it necessary to consider mill under tolerance of pipe used for nozzles in the calculation of available nozzle reinforcement area of openings in UG-37 through UG-42? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII--81-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99(e)(1) Date Issued: November 21, 1981 File: BC80-283 Question (1): If the chambers of a multichamber vessel are designed for independent operation may one chamber, such as the tubes of a shell and tube heat exchanger, be subjected to an external pressure test as would be applied during an internal pressure test of the other chamber in lieu of its own internal pressure test? Reply (1): No. See UG-99(e)(1).

Question (2): May the criteria used for the test in Question (1) be applied when the chambers have their common elements designed for the maximum differential pressure that can occur? Reply (2): No. See UG-99(e)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-81-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Hydraulic Expansion of Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints Date Issued: November 21, 1981 File: BC80-529 Question (1): Reply(1): Is hydraulic expansion an acceptable procedure for expanding tube-to-tubesheet joints? Yes, hydraulic expansion is an acceptable procedure under the scope of A-1(b)(1).

Question (2): Is it the intent of Appendix A to require the conducting of qualification tests in accordance with A-3 and A-4 for hydraulically expanded joints? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Does the Committee have any experimental test results of technical papers which support the need for qualification testing of hydraulically expanded tube-to-tubesheet joints? Reply (3): No. This requirement is not intended to imply that hydraulic expansion is superior or inferior to other methods, but simply reflects the state of the art and experience with the method at this time. Interpretation: VIII-81-100 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UCS-79(d) Date Issued: November 24, 1981 File: BC80-598 Question (1): In using the fiber elongation formula in UCS-79, should the fiber elongation be multiplied by 100 to obtain percent value?

Reply (1): Question (2):

No. The formula gives percent values as is presently written. What value of R must be used in a pipe drawing operation?

Reply (2): The formula in UCS-79 is based on a forming rather than a drawing operation. Accordingly, it cannot be used in calculating fiber elongations due to a drawing operation. Question (3): Does a drawn pipe have to be stress relieved if none of the conditions in UCS-79(d)(1) through UCS-79(d)(5) exist and the material is P-No. 1 with a maximum elongation of 40%? Reply (3): The requirements of UCS-79(d) apply to forming rather than drawing operation. Stress relieving due to drawing is considered in various material specifications (see 6 of SA-106, 7 of SA-179, etc.). Interpretation: VIII-81-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Repair of Castings Date Issued: November 24, 1981 File: BC81-184 Question: May porosity defects that are discovered during a pneumatic pressure test after all manufacturing and brazing operations have been completed, in a part of a pressure vessel that is manufactured from an SB-61 bronze casting, be sealed by vacuum impregnating with sodium silicate? Reply: There are no specific provisions in Division 1 for the sealing of castings as described in the Question. The requirements of the material specification that govern prohibit this practice. Interpretation: VIII-81-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56, UCS-57, and Appendix 2, Heat Treatment Requirements Date Issued: November 24, 1981 File: BC81-266 Question (1): Are radiography and PWHT per Division 1 required for a butt weld in the flange ring when the flange thickness exceeds 1 1/4 in. for radiography or 1 1/2 in, for PWHT? Reply (1): Question(2): plate or bar? Reply (2): Question (3): apply? Yes. See UCS-56 and UCS-57 for detailed PWHT and radiography requirements, Does the answer to Question (1) change depending on whether the ring is formed from No. When flange thickness exceeds 3 in., do the requirements of Part UCS or Appendix 2

Reply (3): Requirements of Appendix 2 apply in addition to all applicable portions of part UCS. The requirements of 2-2 for a normalizing or full annealing heat treatment applies. Question(4): For flanges fabricated under UG-11(c) by other than U Symbol holders are: (a) radiography and PWHT required for butt welds in flanges over 1 1/4 in. or 1 1/2 in, thick, respectively, when flanges are produced in accordance with an ANSI standard listed in UG-44?

(b) radiography and PWHT required for flanges over 1 1/4 in. or 1 1/2 in. thick, respectively, produced to a Manufacturer's standard with welding in accordance with requirements of UW-26 through UW--40? Reply (4): (a) The only standards listed in UG-44 covering flanges of P-No. 1 materials are ANSI B16.51977 and API Standard 605-1978. Since these Standards do not permit flanges to be fabricated by welding, flanges as described in the inquiry could not be included in a Code vessel under the provisions of UG-11(c) and UG-44, (b) Yes. See UG-11(c). Question (5): Do the answers to Questions 4(a) and 4(b) above change depending on whether the flange is formed from plate or bar? Reply (5): No.

Question (6): If a parts Manufacturer is required to perform radiography and PWHT to meet Code requirements, must he supply a Partial Data Report? Reply (6): No, if the part is furnished under the provisions of UG-11(c). The use of Partial Data Reports (U-2) and parts stamping also is acceptable under the Code. Interpretation: VIII-81-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Jacketed Vessel Design Date Issued: November 25,1981 File: BC81-305 Question (1): A jacket is to be installed on the outside surface of a metallic container which is not a pressure vessel as defined in U-1. The surface of the container may be any shape including cylindrical, spherical, or flat, and forms one pressure containing part of the jacket. The jacket is to operate at pressures above 15 psi and may have geometries defined as follows: (a) The jacket does not enclose the full perimeter of the container. In plan view it is a rectangle. The outer wall of the jacket parallels the wall of the containers The jacket edge walls are formed by welded bars or plates normal to the wall of the container. (b) The jacket is as described in (a), except that it is an embossed or dimpled assembly as covered by 14-10, and there are no separate edge walls. The container wall is the inner wall of the embossed or dimpled assembly. (c) The jacket consists of a half pipe, welded to the outside of the container, and may spiral about its full perimeter one or more times. (d) The jacket is circular in plan view, similar to Fig. 9-2, Type 3, and is welded to the container. (e) The jacket and the container are cylindrical as shown in Fig. 9-2, Types 1, 2, 4, and 5. The jacket encloses the entire circumference of the container. For each of these cases, what dimensions should be used to determine if the jacket is excluded from the Scope of the Code by the provisions of U-1(c)(9)? Reply (1): Jackets as described above are not within the Scope of Division 1 if the inside dimensions of the jacket do not exceed 6 in., as follows: (a) the width, diagonal, or height in a cross section normal to the length of the jacket; (b)as for (a), the dimensions apply to the assembly. The pitch between welds is not a factor, (c) the inside diameter of the half pipe; (d) the inside diameter of the jacket in plan view; (e) the inside diameter of the jacket.

Question (2): If jackets as described above are within the Scope of the Code, may they be marked with the UM symbol under the provisions of U-1(j)? Also, do the volume limits of U-1(j) apply to the volume of the jacket alone? Reply(2): Such jackets may be marked with the UM symbol. As stated in U-1(j), the volume limits apply to each vessel (i.e., the jacket). In the replies to both Questions, we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, such legal requirements must be reviewed to determine requirements that maybe different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Interpretation: VIII-81-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 9 Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-397 Question (1): and (d)? Reply (1): Question (2): Can a Type 3 jacket welded to a reinforcement pad meet the requirements of 9-6(a), (b), Yes. However, the additional loads that may be imposed shall be considered. Does a half pipe coil jacket have to be proof tested to UG-101 or can it be calculated?

Reply (2): Division 1 has no specific requirements for half pipe coil; therefore, the provisions of U-2(g) shall apply. Interpretation: VIII-81-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-400 Question: Are the formulas of UG-40(d)(1) for calculating metal in the vessel wall available for reinforcement applicable to designs where the reinforcement extends into two areas with different minimum required thicknesses? Reply: No. However, the first sentence of UG-40(d)(1) states the requirements.

Interpretation: VIII-81-106 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(e) Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-431 Question (1): Is it the intent of UCS-85(e) to exempt materials conforming to one of the Specifications listed in P-No. 1, Group Nos. 1 and 2, of QW-422, Section IX, from the requirements of UCS-85(b)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Would the same exemption as referenced in Question (1) apply to other carbon and low alloy steels which are not in the fully annealed condition but are quenched and tempered? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): welded hubs? Reply (3):

Is the requirement mentioned under Question (1) also valid for tubesheets with butt Yes.

Question (4): Is it possible to do the tests on the specimens which have been subjected to simulated PWHT at either the location of the vessel manufacturer or the manufacturer of the semifinished material? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79(b) Date Issued: November 25,1981 File: BC81-447 Question: Under the provisions of UCS-79(b), what constitutes a cold blow, and how is that differentiated from a multiple press? Reply: A cold blow is the result of an impact, such as a hammer strike, at ambient temperature. This differs from a multiple press, which is a slow deformation without an impact. Interpretation: VIII-81-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 14-10.8(b)(2) Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-482 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of 14-10.8(b)(2) to substitute a peel test for assemblies constructed to the requirements of 14-10.1(b)(3)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 and Table W-3, Hydrostatic Test Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-489 Question: If a Manufacturer elects to hydrostatically test a Division 1 vessel above the minimum test pressure required by UG-99(b), may the minimum hydrostatic test pressure be recorded on the Data Report Form? Reply: No, the specific test pressure at the top of the vessel in the test position is to be recorded. See Note (37) of Table W-3. Interpretation: VIII-81-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-34 and Table UCS-56 Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-492 Question: Is it required under the provisions of UCL-34 and UCS-56 to postweld heat treat a vessel made of SA-516 Grade 70 base material which is 1 5/16 in. thick, arid has l/4 in. thick integral nickel clad-ding?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(g)(3)(a) Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-493 Question: Is it permissible under the provisions of UW-16(g)(3)(a) to allow fittings of 3 in. NPS or less which are provided with the following end treatments: internal thread, external thread, socket weld, and butt weld? Reply: Yes, provided all of the limitations of UW-16(g)(3)(a) are met. See footnote 5, which says explicitly that UW-16(g) is also applicable to fittings that are externally threaded, socket welded, or butt welded. Interpretation: VIII-81-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(d) and UW-16(g)(3)(a) Date Issued: November 25, 1981 File: BC81-494 Question: Is it permissible under UW-16(g)(3) to consider inserted nozzle necks without added reinforcement, as specified in UW-16(d), as butt weld fittings, and if they meet the criteria of UW-16(g) (3)(a) and UW-16(g)(3)(b), may they be attached to vessels by a fillet weld deposited from only the outside? Reply: Yes. See footnote 5, which says that UW-16(g) is also applicable to fittings that are externally threaded, socket welded, or butt welded. Interpretation: VIII-81-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Stainless Steel Bolts Date Issued: November 30, 1981 File: BC81-444 Question: Is it permissible to use bronze nuts (SB-150, Alloy 642, 630, and 614) in conjunction with stainless steel bolts (SA-193) in Division 1 construction? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-8I-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 1-5 Date Issued: November 30, 1981 File: BC81-458 Question: May a cone to cone intersection without a knuckle be designed to the same design rule as presently outlined in 1-5 for a cone to cylinder intersection without a knuckle? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-81-116 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2

Date Issued: File: Question(1): Reply (1):

November 30,1981 BC81-467 May hubless flanges as depicted in Fig. 2-4 be fabricated from plate? Yes.

Question (2): May such flanges be fabricated from plate segments which are then butt welded provided PWHT and radiographic requirements as outlined in the Code are met? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Are there any specific diameter or pressure limitations other than those required by the design rules in Division 1 for these fabricated hubless flanges? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-81-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40, Nozzle Projection Date Issued: November 30, 1981 File: BC81-471 Question: Under the requirements of UG-40, is there any limit on the amount of projection of a nozzle inside a vessel wall that can be considered as contributing to the reinforcement required for a nozzle opening, after proper deduction for corrosion allowance is made? Reply: Yes, the limits of reinforcement given in UG-40(c) are equally applicable inward from the inside vessel surface. The metal which may be considered is described in the second paragraph of UG-40(d)(2). All excess area within these limits may be counted. Interpretation: VIII-81-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(i) Date Issued: November 30, 1981 File: BC81-481 All the questions apply to parts for which marking and Partial Data Reports are required in accordance with UG-116(i) and UG-120(c). Question (1): Is it a requirement to mark a vessel part with the maximum allowable working pressure and design temperature? Reply (1): No. See UG-116(i).

Question (2): If a part is marked as required by UG-116(i), does this indicate that it was constructed in accordance with the applicable rules? Reply(2): Yes. The application of the U symbol by the part manufacturer is a symbolic representation of the Certificate of Compliance required by the Partial Data Report Forms U-2 or U-2A. Question (3): If the part is not marked with the maximum allowable working pressure and design temperatures, how can these values be determined? Reply (3): The responsibility lies with the vessel Manufacturer.

Interpretation: VIII-81-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Welded Stayed Construction in Nonrectangular Jacketed Vessels Date Issued: December 2, 1981 File: BC81-65 Question: A rectangular pressure vessel has a stayed jacket. For welded stays as shown in Fig. UW-19.2, is it permissible to completely fill the hole with weld metal? Reply: Yes. See UW-36.

Interpretation: VIII-82-0l Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 12-3(a) Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-210 Question (1): In applying the acceptance standards of Appendix 12, is a discontinuity rejectable if the amplitude exceeds the reference level, but the length is less than that given in 12-3(a)? Reply (1): No, provided the discontinuity is not interpreted to be a crack, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration. These classifications are rejectable regardless of length or amplitude. Question (2): Is a discontinuity rejectable if the length is greater than that given in 12-3(a), but the amplitude does not exceed the reference level? Reply (2): No. See Reply (1).

Interpretation: VIII-82-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UNF-58(a) and (c), PT Requirements Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-236 Question: Do the requirements of UNF-58(c) relieve the requirements of UNF-58(a) for materials conforming to SB-333 and SB-335? Reply: No. The requirements of UNF-58(a) require PT examination for all welds on materials conforming to SB-333 and SB-335. Interpretation: VIII-82-03 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UW-14(b) Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-252 Question (1): Is it permissible under the provisions of UW-14(b) to have an opening in a head to shell weld when the opening meets the provisions of UG-36(c)(3) and the head to shell weld is examined for a length equal to three times the diameter of the opening, using the radiographic requirements of UW-51? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For connections involved in Question (1), must calculations per UG-37 be performed to indicate that added reinforcement is not required? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-04 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 and UG-41, Nozzle Reinforcement limits Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-51 5 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, what area is available for reinforcement when the vertical limit may include the dimension te? Reply: After establishing the vertical reinforcing limit of the smaller of 2-1/2 times the nominal shell thickness less corrosion allowance, or 2-1/2 times the nozzle wall thickness plus the added reinforcement te and the horizontal reinforcing limit, any area over and above that required for shell wall and nozzle wall minimum required thickness may be used for reinforcing area as long as it is within these limits. Interpretation: VIII-82-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-35 and UCL-36, Examination of Base Metal With Weld Overlay Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-586 Question: A heat exchanger is fabricated in the following manner: Stainless steel weld overlay that is not included in the design calculation and is not air hardening is used. To comply with the density limitation of Article 2 in Section V, the radiographic examination is performed after the weld overlay is deposited. Prior to RT the weld overlay is examined by a dye penetrant check for cracks. Is it permissible under the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 to consider as nonrelevant, indications found by radiography in the weld overlay, not in the pressure retaining weld as assured by UT, that are revealed to be rounded or elongated inclusions? Reply: No. Any indications located as described in the Question shall be evaluated as prescribed in Appendix 4. Interpretation: VIII-82-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-119, Nameplate Attachment Date Issued: January 20, 1982 File: BC81-588 Question: Is it the intent of UG-119 to allow the attachment of the nameplate to a vessel skirt, support bracket, or other nonpressure part, which is then welded to the shell of the vessel, as the sole nameplate for the vessel? Reply: No. The required nameplate bearing the markings of UG-116 shall be affixed directly to the shell of the vessel. The provisions of UG-119(e) do allow the attachment of an additional nameplate to skirts, supports, etc. with the provision that it be marked "duplicate." Interpretation: VIII-82-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Sequence for NDT Examination on Welded Joints

Date Issued: File:

January 20, 1982 BC81-594

Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 mandate that any radiography or ultrasonic examination that might be required by the Code be performed after the vessel is postweld heat treated, when such PWHT is required? Reply: No, except as specified in UHA-33(b) and (c) and UHT-57 for vessels constructed of high alloy or heat treated steels. Interpretation: VIII-82-08 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, Appendix 13, 1980 Edition With Winter 1980 Addenda Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC80-723 Question (1): 13-5 introduces = angle. This value is required to calculate Mr, using 13-8(f)(2) Eq. (38). In the example found in 13-16(e), a value of Mr is given, without showing the value of used. 1316(c) states "Stress maximum at = 27 deg." Is it the intent that the definition of = the angle at which the maximum stress occurs in the corner sections? If this is the case, how is it calculated? Reply (1): In the Winter 1980 Addenda, both 13-7(c) and 13-8(f) have had equations for = angle at which Sb in the corner section is maximum) added. In 13-8(f), the determination of Mr from Eq. (38) should use the equation for that follows Eq. (30) Question (2): In 13-16(e), the statement is made that no radiographic examination is to be performed. The membrane stresses are calculated with a joint efficiency factor E = 0.7. Later, in the bending stress calculations, the factor E = 0.8 is used. The statement is also made that welds are located at A and F. F is not shown on Fig. 13-2(a)(5). Although the location of F may have some bearing on the 0.8 value, it appears that the maximum value of E would be 0.7 per Table UW-12, column (c). Please clarify the location of F and the proper value. Reply (2): F has been added in the Winter 1980 Addenda. It is the midpoint on the short side plate following E, counterclockwise. The factor of 0.7 for tension on the side plates and for bending at the weld joints A and F is determined directly from Table UW-12. The factor of 0.8 for bending stresses at C, D, and E are determined from UW-12(c). Question (3): 13-8(f)(2) Eq. (29) calculates the bending stress at F. C is not shown on Fig. 13-2(a) sketch (5). Where is C? Reply (3): C has been inadvertently omitted from the Winter 1980 Addenda. It is the point of tangency between the long side plate and the rounded corner following B, counterclockwise. Question (4): 13-4 establishes limits for stress values when designing for internal pressure. What stress limits are intended for vessels of rectangular cross section when subjected to external pressure? Reply (4): See U-2(g). Appendix 13, Winter 1980 Addenda, does not include rules for external pressure design.

Question (5): When designing a jacketed vessel such that the vessel represented by Fig. 13-2(a), sketch (3) is welded over the vessel represented by Fig. 13-2(a), sketch (5), as per Fig. UW-19.2, is it permissible to take credit for the contributions of both the chamber plate and the jacket plate when calculating I11 and I21,?

Reply (5): As noted in 13-1 and 13-2, the rules in Appendix 13 apply to vessels as illustrated in Figs. 13-2(a), 13-2(b), and 13.2(c). All other configurations, including jacketed vessels, shall comply with U-2(g) or UG-101. Question (6): The constant K4 becomes a major factor in many of the equations of 13-8(f). The true physical significance of K4 is not apparent. By varying the accuracy of the information used in this calculation (number of decimal places or significant figures), a variation in the final value of K4 is obtained. While this by itself may not be a problem, when K4 is used to find MA , widely differing answers can be obtained. By carefully selecting values of K4, Eqs. (24), (25), (26), (27), (28), and (29) can yield acceptable resulting stresses or, with a slightly different input, very unacceptable (high) stresses. This allows the engineer a wide latitude in his choice of what may be acceptable and what is not acceptable. Can this value of K4 be found in another way? Is there an easily understandable explanation of K4's physical significance? What are the proper number of significant figures to use in such a calculation? Reply (6): The constant K4 has no physical significance. The form it has in the Code is the form it took during the derivation of the equations. It is expected that each designer will develop good judgment in the repeated use of Eq. (39) under Code rules. Question (7): In the past, vessels as now covered in Appendix 13 were not justified by calculations, but by proof test per U-2 and UG-101. Is it the intent of the Code that, now that satisfactory rules of design are published, the proof test is not to be used for vessel configurations shown in Appendix 13? Reply (7): Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-82-09 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UW-40(a)(5) Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC81-212 Question: May the requirements for a full circumferential band in performing postweld heat treatment per UW-40(a)(5) be waived when a nozzle is welded into an insert reinforcing plate of greater thickness than the rest of the shell, is attached for a nozzle-to-shell connection, and a heated zone of at least 6 times the thickness around the weld attaching the nozzle is provided? Other welds in the part do not require postweld heat treatment. Reply: No. The requirements for an entire circumferential band shall apply, unless the nozzle to insert weld is postweld heat treated prior to welding the insert into the shell. Interpretation: VIII-82-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-36 Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC81-294 Question (1): For an integrally clad vessel, fabricated with SA-515 Gr. 60 and 410S stainless clad, and welded with austenitic chromium nickel steel filler metal, is it mandatory under the provisions of UCL36 to examine the base metal before the alloy cover weld is deposited and again after the alloy weld is deposited, when spot radiography is the only consideration? Reply (1): The provisions of UCL-36(b) require that spot radiography for crack detection be performed after the alloy weld is made.

Question (2): If radiographic examination is performed once, i.e., after the joint including corrosion resistant layer is complete, will it be acceptable? Reply (2): Yes. See Reply (1), above.

Interpretation: VIII-82-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AF-420, PWHT After Repair Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC81-432 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 2 require postweld heat treatment to be performed again on a previously postweld heat treated vessel after the repair of a defect in P-No. 1 material, if the depth of the repair weld does not exceed 1-1/4 in., or, if preheat is used. does not exceed 1-1/2 in? Reply: No, unless a service restriction applies.

Interpretation: VIII-82-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-37 Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC81-459 Question: Must the reverse side of a double weld joint always be prepared by chipping, grinding, or melting out before applying weld metal from the reverse side? Reply No [see UW-37(b) in Section VIII, Division 1].

Interpretation: V111-82-13 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UG-22 Date Issued: January 21, 1982 File: BC81-519 Question: Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1 that, for those design analyses not specifically covered for the loadings to be considered in UG-22, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be met? Reply: Yes. Also see Footnote 1 of U-1.

Interpretation; VIII-82-14 Subject : Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Design Stress Criteria Date Issued: January 22, 1982 File: BC81-276 Question: Is it permissible, for temperatures below the creep range, to establish allowable stresses by using the numerical criteria factors from Appendix P of Section VIII, Division 1 in conjunction with the tensile and yield strength values tabulated in Section III? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-34(a) Date Issued: January 22, 1982 File: BC81-316

Question: Do the provisions of UCL-34(a) apply when the cladding thickness is not included in the design thickness? Reply Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 12 Date Issued: January 22, 1982 File: BC81-325 Question: Do the acceptance and rejection standards of Appendix 12 apply to porosity and rounded type discontinuities? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(d) Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC81-.597 Question: Is it permissible under UW-16(d) to attach an inserted neck into a shell in which a ring is attached to the neck by a single full fillet lap joint, and to the shell with two partial penetration welds? Reply: Yes for the ring to shell weld attachment, but no for the ring to neck weld attachment.

Interpretation: VIII-82-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-4(d) Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC91-614 Question: May materials permitted by Section VIII, Division 1 be used for fabrication in sizes and tolerances outside the limits established in the material specification and given in the allowable stress tables of the Code? Reply: Yes, if the provisions of UG-4(d) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-82-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 2-4(a)(3) Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC81-621 Question (1): Is there a limitation on pressure and temperature in fabricating optional type flanges as depicted in Fig. 2-4 when they are designed as integral type? Reply (1): No, except as limited for the appropriate material in the allowable stress tables of Section VIII, Division 1. Question (2): Reply (2): Shall the weld details be those as depicted in Fig. 2-4 sketches (8), (8a), (8b), and (9)? Yes.

Question (3): Is it permissible for optional flanges as depicted in Fig. 2-4 to be fabricated from plate by cutting the inside and outside diameter? Reply (3): material. The provisions of 2-2(d)(2) establish the criteria for fabricating flanges from plate

Interpretation: VIII-82-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40(d)(2) Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC81-622 Question: Does UG-40(d) allow the value of E in the available area equations to be those of columns (a) and (b) of Table UW-12 for a localized portion of a Category A weld joint that has been penetrated by a nozzle, whereas the rest of the Category A joint is either spot or nonradiographed? Reply: No. The provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 do not allow a welded joint to have two different weld joint efficiencies. Interpretation: VIII-82-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-81(a) Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC81-646 Question: Reply: Is the definition of D in UG-81(a) the nominal inside diameter of the vessel shell? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AD-602 Date Issued: January 25, 1982 File: BC81-649 Question: Under the requirements of AD-602, may a schedule 40 pipe be used for a 4 in. inlet pipe where the vessel shell has a minimum required thickness of 0.35 in., a corrosion allowance of 0.02 in., and a minimum required neck thickness due to pressure loading of 0.001 in.? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52, Use of Run Off Tabs Date Issued: January 26, 1982 File: BC81-655 Question: Does UW-52 allow the use of run off tabs to satisfy the spot X-ray provisions when the tabs are of the same material and thickness as the two main butt welded pieces of material, and the deposited butt weld is continuous using the same welding procedure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-8(a) Date Issued: January 26, 1982 File: BC81-657

Question: Do the words "These stress values may be used without reduction" at the beginning of the third sentence of UG-8(a) waive the requirements in UW-12(b) and UW-12(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(c)(2) Date Issued: January 27, 1982 File: BC81-699 Question: Is it required that an Authorized Inspector be present in the plant at all times during which vessels and parts of vessels are fabricated under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-26 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, Check Valves in Relief Systems Date Issued: February 17, 1982 File: BC75-554 Question: Under what conditions may a check valve be installed between a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel and its pressure relief device? Reply: The rules of Division 1 do not prohibit installation of a check valve between a pressure vessel and its pressure relief device. However, such an installation must meet all Code requirements, including those of UG-135. Interpretation: VIII-82-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AG-301.1(a) Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC81-75 Question: Is it permissible under the provisions of AG-301.1(a) for the User's Design Specification to specify fatigue data to be used in conducting a cyclic analysis, when the specified operating temperatures exceed the 700F limitation of Fig. 5-110.1, but do not exceed the maximum temperature for which stresses are provided in Table ACS-1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Impact Test Requirements Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC81-667 Question: Are impact tests a requirement for the base metal, or deposited weld metal, or both, when P-No. 1 Group 2 material is being welded to P-No. 1 Group 2 material and the design temperature is 0F? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10, 1980 Edition With Winter 1980 and Later Addenda Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC81-719 Question (1): SA-135 material is no longer referenced in Table UCS-23 but has been incorporated into SA-53. May a vessel Manufacturer who has purchased SA-135 material use it as SA-53 material by the provisions of UG-10? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Must the Data Report for vessels manufactured to the Winter 1980 Addenda, Or later, state that SA-53 material was used, or may it reference SA-135? Reply (2): The Data Report shall reference SA-53.

Interpretation: VIII-82-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 1-5(e) Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC81-720 Question: In determining reinforcement requirements under 1-5 in Section VIII, Division 1 for a cone to cylinder junction where the half apex angle is less than 30 deg., is it permissible to use the special analysis requirements of 1-5(e) in place of the provisions in 1-5(b) and 1-5(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Procurement of SA-36 Material in Coil Form Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC81-722 Question: Is it permissible for a pressure vessel Manufacturer, to purchase SA-36 carbon steel in coil form, decoil it at the Manufacturer's facility, and cut it to length as required for subsequent use in a pressure vessel? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-82-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC82-20 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UW-11(a)(7) to substitute ultrasonic examination for radiography when the radiograph cannot be taken with an acceptable penetrometer, or when indications occur below the metal thickness as might be the case if slag becomes trapped under the weld by a distorted backing ring? Reply: No. The intent of UW-11(a)(7) is to permit such substitution for the closure seam of a vessel only when it is not possible to obtain interpretable RT results because either the film or the radioactive source cannot be properly located.

Interpretation: VIII-82-33 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, U-2(g) and Table UHA-23, Design Thickness Calculation for Tubesheets Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC82-22 Question (1): Note (1) to Table UHA-23 reads in part, "These stress values are not recommended for flanges of gasketed joints, or other applications where slight amounts of distortion can cause leakage or malfunction." Is it correct that there are no specific rules in Section VIII, Division 1 to be used to determine the extent to which a tubesheet flange (heat exchanger construction) would be deformed? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. May U-2(g) be used to cover this design situation in Question (1)? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-34 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UCS-56(f) Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC82-54 Question: Does UCS-56(f) require that repaired welds be stress relieved when the original weldments were not required to be stress relieved? Reply: No, not unless required by UCS-56(d)(7).

Interpretation: VIII-82-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix Z Date Issued: March 18, 1982 File: BC82-62 Question (1): Under the requirements of Appendix Z, are there any restrictions on the diameter of the vessel to which these design rules apply? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): No. Is it permissible to weld the clamp lugs to the outside of the clamp ring halves? Yes. Are there any restrictions to the gap between the two clamp ring halves? No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-5, Welding Procedures for Unidentified Material Date Issued: Match 18, 1982 File: BC82-116

Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that unidentified material used under the provisions of UG-5 must be identified to the extent required to establish a P-Number for it in order that compliance with the requirements of UW-28 can be verified? Reply: No. The Manufacturer is responsible for using a qualified welding procedure in accordance with Section IX. The Manufacturer must select the applicable welding procedure, giving consideration to base metal characteristics, such as composition, weldability, and mechanical properties. Interpretation: VIII-82-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-43(f) Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC80-589 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, does UG-43(f) apply in the case of multiple tubes expanded into headers of air cooled heat exchangers? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-38 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix A Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC81-127 Question (1): Do the limits on the use of tubes as stays in A-1(d)(2) pertain to all types of heat exchangers (e.g., fixed tubesheet, fixed tubesheet with expansion joint, floating head)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If an expanded tube to tubesheet joint is acceptable for staying per A-1(d)(2),how may the design stay load be calculated? Reply (2): Use A-2, Eq. (2).

Question (3): Do the requirements of UG-34 apply to the extension of a fixed tubesheet that is provided for bolting to heads? Reply (3): No. The requirements of Appendix 2 and the intent of U-2(g) are to account for bolting, edge moment and other loadings. Interpretation: VIII-82-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, 4-138 Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC81-368 Question (1): Is it the intent of 4-138 that the stress intensities identified as "General membrane" and "Bending across nozzle section" in Table 4-120.1 occurring in a nozzle neck within, but not beyond, the area of reinforcement be classified Pm., primary general membrane stress, without regard to the nature or source of the external loading? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it the intent of 4-138 that, in a nozzle neck beyond the limits of reinforcement, a primary local membrane stress classification PL (4-132) be applied to the stress intensities resulting from external force or moment without regard for the condition that the load may be self-limiting as defined in 4-112(h), as for thermal expansion and contraction of external piping? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 2 that, in the head or shell adjacent to a nozzle with external forces or moments, stress intensities are classified and combined according to Figs. 4-120.1 and 4-130.1, and that the special requirement of 4-138 does not apply at this location? Reply (3); Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC81-524 Question: Is it permissible to use ASTM A 621 under Code Case 1292 and Code Case 1376 for dimpled embossed assemblies if the material is proven to meet the requirement of SA-414, which is listed in Subsection C of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: It is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1 that material for Code use be ordered, produced, and documented to an SA Specification; however, material produced to some other specification could qualify as an SA material provided the Inspector is presented with evidence acceptable to him, including the specific requirements of UG-10, indicating that the material satisfies all the requirements of the Code approved Specification. Interpretation: VIII-82-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fabrication of a Completed Vessel With Application of Code Symbol Stamp Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC81-589 Question: A paper machine roll is manufactured to the Code and, under the required hydrostatic test, a leak is disclosed in one of the bolted heads. A long lead time is encountered in obtaining a replacement head. The roll can be installed and used without internal pressure as an idler roll until a new head is available. Can Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to the installation of the head at a future date and, after the required hydrostatic test, permit the stamping of the vessel and the completion of the U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report Form? The test and the application of the U-1 Stamp would be controlled by the U Stamp holder, and the test would be witnessed by an Authorized Inspector. Reply: No. The ASME Code Stamp is applicable to new construction only. Parts, or material, or both, from equipment that has been placed in service cannot be salvaged for use in a vessel constructed to Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-82-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13 Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC81-598

Question (1): Which paragraphs in Part UW apply to the attachment weld connections of the stay plates of noncircular vessels designed in accordance with Appendix 13? Reply (1): The weld attachment details of stay plates shall be in accordance with UW-19 as applicable. Weld details not covered by UW-19 shall comply with the requirements of U-2(g). Question (2): Is it necessary for multiple nozzle openings in noncircular vessels designed in accordance with Appendix 13 to be reinforced in accordance with the rules of UG-42, as applicable? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): For noncircular vessels designed and constructed in accordance with Appendix 13, is the ligament efficiency applied to stay plates with rows of holes? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): For noncircular vessels designed and constructed in accordance with Appendix 13, do the rules of 13-9(f) apply if the thicknesses of opposite side plates are not equal? Reply (4): No. In this case, 13-1(c) shall apply.

Question (5): In noncircular vessels with rounded plate sections as shown in Fig. 13-2(a) sketches (3) and (5), Fig. 13-2(b), and Fig. 13-2(c), are the calculated stresses based on the nominal plate thickness before forming? Reply (5): No. The stress formulas in Appendix 13 are used to determine the minimum required thicknesses [as defined in 3-1(h)] of the completed vessel sections. Interpretation: VIII-82-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-101 Date Issued: March 19, 1982 File: BC82-5 Question: Is it required when performing a proof test under the provisions of UG-101 to perform an additional proof test when the material specification grade, class, or type is changed? An example of such a change might be from SA-240, Type 304 to Type 316 or 315L. Reply: Yes [see UG-101(d)] .

Interpretation: VIII-82-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-15(c) Date Issued: March 19,1982 File: BC82-53 Question: UW-15(c) requires telltale holes in nozzle reinforcement plates and saddles of nozzles. Are telltale holes required in reinforcement plates for nonpressure parts, such as lifting lugs, saddles, legs, and such attachments, under the following conditions: (a) when plates extend over vessel weld seams and are continuously welded all around; (b) when plates do not extend over vessel weld seams but are continuously welded all around? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-45 [Void-See Vol. 14, Pg. 87 N0. 82-45] Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(b) Date Issued: March 23, 1982 File: BC81-38 Question: (1) For a pressure vessel designed for low temperature service (50F) and internal pressure only that is horizontally supported on a number of ring girders directly attached to the vessel by welding and that utilizes backing strips, left in place, in the welding of the head to shell joints, must the ring girders and backing strips meet the requirements of UCS-66(b) for low temperature service? Reply (1): Ring girders directly attached to the vessel by welding and backing strips left in place as described in Question (1) are considered to be material used in the construction of the vessel. Therefore, they are subject to the provisions of UCS-66(b). Question (2): In the vessel described in question (1), may SA-36 material be used for ring girders and backing strips? Reply (2): No. See UCS-6 and UCS-66.

ATTENTION The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered and the following corrected Question (1) sent to the inquirer.. Correction Issued: September 30, 1982 Question (1): For a pressure vessel designed for low temperature service (50F) and internal pressure only that is horizontally supported on a number of ring girders directly attached to the vessel by welding and that utilizes backing strips, left in place, in the welding of the head to shell joints, must the ring girders and backings strips meet the requirements of UCS-66(b) for low temperature service? Interpretation: VIII-82-46 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. 11-2 Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC79-713 Question: Under what conditions does Fig. 11-2 apply?

Reply: Figure 11-2 applies to saturated water, i.e., water at a temperature at or just below the saturation temperature. Interpretation: VIII-92-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(b)(6) Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC80-429 Question (1): If the Manufacturer satisfies his Authorized Inspector that sample measurements (less than 100% of lots of materials such as multiple sheets sheared from the same coil, or multiple heads formed on the same die set) establish that thicknesses of materials or shapes of formed parts, or both, meet all specified or applicable Code requirements, have the specific requirements of UG-90(b)(6) Section VIII, Division 1 with respect to thickness, and UG-90(b)(9) and UG-96 with respect to formed shape been met? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the Manufacturer satisfies his Authorized Inspector that examinations of materials for the detection of unacceptable defects are made during fabrication at a time or stage when they are meaningful, instead of "before fabrication," have the requirements of UG-90(b)(6) and UG-93(d) with regard to "before fabrication" been met? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 14-10, MAWP of Embossed Assemblies Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC80-764 Question: For dimpled or embossed assemblies constructed under the rules of 14-10, where the MAWP has been established by the proof test method described in 14-10.5(a), is it permissible to increase the thickness of any part of the assembly and retain the same MAWP established prior to the thickness increase? Reply: No.

Interpretation VIII-82-49 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, U-1A Data Reports Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC81-95 Question: A Section VIII, Division 1 vertical pressure vessel is supported by a cylindrical skirt welded to its bottom head. Four clips at the base attach the skirt to the foundation. There are no attachments for superimposed equipment. Would Item 12 of Manufacturer's Data Report Form U-1A be satisfactorily completed as shown below? 12. Supports: Skirt Yes Lugs No Legs No Other N/A Attached: Welded to head Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-50 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1, UG-47 and Fig. UG-47 sketch (a) Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC81-150 Question: Are the rules of UG-47 through UG-50 applicable to a floating end closure, where the stays are not threaded into the closure, but only pass through a drilled hole and are held and sealed by gaskets, washers, and nuts external to the closure? Reply: closures. The rules of UG-47 through UG-50 apply equally to both fixed and floating types of end

Interpretation: VIII-82-51 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, PWHT of Test Coupons Date issued: June 1, 1992 File: BC81-465 ,

Question: Is it a requirement under UG-84(d),UCS-85(e),& AM-204.4 and AT-114.2 to subject the test of specimens P-No. 1 Gr. 1 or 2 materials to simulated postweld heat treatment prior to impact test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Coincidence of Tray Supporting Rings With Circumferential Welds Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC81-585 Question: Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 for internals, such as tray supports attached by continuous double fillet welds, to straddle and seal off vessel welds? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79(d) Date Issued: June 1, 1982 File: BC81-623 Question: What amount of extreme fiber elongation is permitted without postform heat treatment under the requirements of UCS-79(d), where shells or heads are formed at temperatures less than 250F, and the conditions of UCS-79(d)(1) through (4) are not applicable? Reply: For all carbon and low alloy steels, the maximum extreme fiber elongation is limited to 5%, regardless of other considerations. For P-No. 1, Groups Nos. 1 and 2, the maximum extreme fiber elongation may be 40%, provided UCS-79(d) is met. Interpretation: VIII-82-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-51(b)(5) Date Issued: June 2, 1982 File: BC81-659 Question: Under the requirements of UHA-5l(b)(5), are vessel production impact tests of welds required for Type 304 materials welded by the SMAW process using Type 308L electrodes with a nominal nickel content of 13% for operating temperatures of -325F and above, if requirements of UG84(h) have been met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-82-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, AF-810.20(b)(4) Date Issued: June 2, 1982 File: BC81-687 Question: The last sentence of AF-810.20(b)(4) seems to contradict the requirements of AF810.20(b)(1), (2), and(3). Should AF-810.20(b)(4) be deleted? Reply: No. AF-810.20(b)(4) relates to layers not welded to the previous surface, whereas AF810.20(b)(1), (2), and (3) relate to layers that are welded to the previous surface.

Interpretation: VIII-82-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(b)(3) Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC81-578 Question: Under the rules of UG-16, would tubes in a shell and tube heat exchanger that are below 6 in. in nominal diameter be required to meet the 1/16 in. minimum thickness requirement, whether or not the shell is Code Symbol stamped? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-57 Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99, External Pressure Testing Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC81-718 Question (1): What are the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 for pressure testing of single chamber pressure vessels designed for external pressure above 15 psi? The requirements of UG-99(b) and (f) do not appear to apply. Reply (1): Section VIII, Division 1 does not contain specific rules for pressure testing of a pressure vessel as described in the inquiry. The requirements of U-2(g) would apply. Question (2): For combination units, what rules apply to external pressure testing of the inner shells of jacketed vessels and the tubes of shell and tube heat exchangers tested under the provisions of UG-99(b) and UG-99(c)? Reply (2): Except as covered in UG-99(f), there are no specific rules for external pressure testing. However, tests in accordance with UG-99(e) are required. In the test of such vessels, the tubes or inner shell is subjected to an external pressure established by the internal design pressure and temperature. In some cases, particularly where the temperature correction ratio of UG-99(b) is relatively high, damage to the tubes or inner shell might result. Manufacturers should consider this condition in design to guard against the possibility of such damage. It should be considered whether or not the vessel described in Question (1) comes under the scope of PVHO-1. Interpretation: VIII-82-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-34 Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-25 Question: Does the requirement in UHA-34 for the 36% nickel steel welds pertain to specific material specifications on 36% nickel steels, or does it pertain to all material specifications with a 36% nickel content as a minimum? Reply: The requirement in UHA-34 applies to specific material specifications for 36% nickel steels nominal composition (e.g., see Table UHA-23 under SA-658). Interpretation: VIII-82-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 2, Appendix 5, Design Fatigue Curves

Date Issued: File: Question (1): vessels? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2):

June 3, 1982 BC82-28 Do the fatigue curves of Appendix 5 consider the effect of prestressing for multilayer No. How may the fatigue curves be modified for multilayer vessels? The fatigue curves of the Code may not be modified by users of the Code.

Interpretation: VIII-82-60 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UW-11 and UW-12, Category D Welds Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-64 Question: By the rules of Section III-Division 1, is any radiography required for a Category D corner joint for a vessel built according to UW-12(a) and Table UW-12, Column (a)? Reply: No, except for vessels constructed under Part UHT.

Interpretation: VIII-82-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UB-31(a) and UW-28(b) Date issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-69 Question: UW-28(b) and UB-31(a) require welding and brazing procedures to be qualified in accordance with the requirements of Section IX. Does Section VIII Division 1 contain any special requirements concerning the completion of procedure Qualification Records as required by Section IX? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-51(b) Date issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-71 Question (1): What is the intent of the word confirmed in UW-51(b)?

Reply (1): The intent of the word "confirmed" is that if a Manufacturer elects to use ultrasonic examination, he must UT the unacceptable imperfection before repairs are made so as to identify the imperfection's size, shape, and location. After repair, the Manufacturer can then verify by UT that the imperfection was removed Question (2): Can unacceptable imperfections revealed by radiography and confirmed by ultrasonic examination be considered acceptable if the UT responses fall below the 20% reference level specified in 12-3 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No. UT is only permitted to verify that the unacceptable imperfections revealed by radiography are removed.

Question (3): In using the ultrasonic examination option of UW-51(b), is it necessary to radiograph the final acceptable repair? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Tables NF-1 and UF-27, and Appendix 5 Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-96 Question: Why are the values for the moduli of elasticity in Tables UF-27 and NF-1, and Appendix 5 of Section VIII, Division 1 different for the same material? Reply: The moduli of elasticity shown in Tables UG-27 and NF-1 are based on average values at room temperature as published in the literature. The values listed in the External Pressure Charts are based on actual data of specific tests supplied to ASME and are intended for external pressure calculations only. Interpretation: VIII-82-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-56(c) and (d), and UG-43(e) Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-124 Question (1): Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-43(e) to allow a threaded connection with a size below that specified in Table UG-43 (e.g., 3/8 in.)? Reply (1): The rules in Section VIII, Division 1 do not prohibit the use of threaded connections less than 1/2 in. pipe size. Requirements, such as thread engagement and minimum plate thickness, should be specified by the individual responsible for the particular application. Question (2): Is postweld heat treatment under UCS-56 required when a ring flange made of P-No. 1 material of any thickness is welded as illustrated in Fig. 2-4, flange type 7, to a nozzle neck of P-No. 8 material? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-82-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-16.1, Sketch (b) Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-126 Question (1): Reply (1): Is the weld detail shown in Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (b) a butt weld? No.

Question (2): In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, is volumetric examination required for Category D welds in lethal service? Reply (2): No, unless nozzle designs of the types shown in Fig. UW-16.1, sketches (f-1) through (f4) are incorporated into the design (see UW-11).

Interpretation: VIII-82-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 1-6(g)(2) and 2-6 Date Issued: June 3, 1982 File: BC82-207 Question: In the design of a floating head cover flange for a spherically dished steel plate cover of the type shown in Fig. 1-6, sketch (d) in Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to set the factor F in the formula under 1-6(g)(2) to zero when the flange is designed with the moment for gasket seating as shown in Formula (5) for 2-6? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-79-13R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99(b) and UG-99(d) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC78-847*, BC81-433* Question (1): Is it the intent of UG-99(b) that the highest ratio of stress values should be used provided that no other part of the vessel would be subjected to a stress exceeding 90% of the material yield strength? Reply (1): The requirements of UG-99(b) call for the minimum hydrostatic test pressure to be 1 1/2 MAWP multiplied by the lowest ratio of stress values. The requirements of UG-99(d), however, do say that Section VIII, Division 1, does not specify an upper limit for hydrostatic test pressure. Question (2): Concerning the "lowest ratio of stress values" of UG-99(b), may the lowest ratio be applied even for vessels for which the ratios of stress values are significantly different as could result from using different materials or different design temperatures for various parts? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Assume that the ratios of stress values are significantly different as described in Question (2) and that it is desired to test to 1( times the MAWP multiplied by the highest ratio of stress values permitted by UG-99(d). Should the manufacturer consider the need to increase the thickness of parts having lower ratios of stress values? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-81-89R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Stamping of Plate-Type Heat Exchangers Date Issued: September 7, 1982 File: BC81-258* Question (1): If the gasket material is not listed in Table 2-5.1, or if different y and m values or different thicknesses are used, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol?, Reply (1): Yes. See Note (1) to Table 2-5. 1.

Question (2): If the plates are made from a material not permitted by the rules, including applicable Code Cases, but other parts such as end closures and tie bolts do satisfy the rules, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol?

Reply (2): No. However, the end closures could be constructed and marked as U symbol parts, provided that all Code requirements, including design [see UG-120(c)], applicable to the part are satisfied. However, we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, such laws must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Question (3): If the end closures are hydrostatically tested in accordance with UC-99 without the plates, and the completed assembly is not pressure tested, may the completed vessel be stamped with the U symbol? Reply (3): No. See UG-99(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11(b) and UG-93(a)(1), Identification and Marking for Heads Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-195 Question (1): What identification in accordance with UG-93 is required? Reply (1): 93(a)(1). A material test report or certificate of compliance shall be furnished as required by UG-

Question (2): Does marking on the head as required by UG-11(b) satisfy all the applicable marking requirements? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-213 Question: Is there a stress reduction factor in the thickness calculation for a seamless ellipsoidal and/or torispherical head attached to a shell by a bolted flange, and the head-to-flange and flange-to-shell joints are category C corner joints which satisfy the requirements of UW-13, the longitudinal seam in the shell is spot X-rayed, and the vessel meets the requirements of UW-52? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-I(e) and UG-43(f) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-260 Question: In the construction of an air-cooled heat exchanger consisting of two box headers with connecting fin tubes, may each of the two box headers be considered a separate pressure vessel with the boundary limited at the tube-to-tubesheet connection, per UG-43(f)?

Reply: U-I(e).

No. The rectangular headers could not be considered independent pressure vessels. See

If for some reason, such as the use of tube materials not approved for Section VIII-1 use, it was desired to exclude the tubes from the vessel, the box headers could be constructed and marked as "U" parts, provided that all Code requirements, including design [see UG-120(c)], applicable to the part are satisfied. However, we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1, such laws must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-100(a), Conditions to Permit Pneumatic Test Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-526 Question: To what extent can the limitations and restrictions of UG-100(a) be relaxed if the manufacturer can demonstrate alternate methods of pneumatic testing which provide a degree of safety at least as high as hydrostatic testing? Reply: In recent years, the Committee has considered similar questions on several occasions and has not relaxed the requirements that you question. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-05 Subject: Section VIII Division 1, UG-45(c) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-651 Question: What is the definition of the words "vessel material" as used in UG-45(c)?

Reply: The words "vessel material" refer to the head or shell and the nozzle neck material. For an opening in a head, the 70% is applied to the lower of the tensile stress allowable of the head or nozzle neck; for an opening in a shell, it is applied to the lower of the tensile stress allowable of the shell or nozzle neck material. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-10(a), Use of SA-515 Material Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC81-660 Question: It is known that a plate exceeding a 2 in. thickness has not been normalized as required by SA-515. If this plate satisfies the mechanical and chemical test requirements for SA-515 as required by UG-10, may it be used in Section VIII, Division 1, construction as SA-515 plate? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-07 (VOID SEE 1-83-07R PAGE 189) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12(c) Date Issued: July 26 1982 File: BC81-664

Question: For vessels built under UW--12(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, that have no welds capable of being radiographed, is it permissible to use the full allowable stress value prescribed for the materials in Subsection C when determining nozzle reinforcement calculations? Reply: No. [See UG-37(b)(4).]

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-35(b) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-66 Question: Is it the intent of the first sentence of UG-35(b) to require redundancy of locking mechanisms for quick-opening closures or only of each element in a lock mechanism? Reply: The first sentence of UG-35(b) requires that a locking mechanism be so designed that a failure of any one of its parts will not allow the closure to open while the vessel is under internal pressure. This may require redundancy of some of the parts. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHA-51(b)(5)(a)(1) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-127 Question: UHA-51(a) exempts impact testing for Type 304L stainless steel for vessels operating at temperatures of -425F and higher. UHA-51(b)(5)(a)(1) exempts vessel (production) impact tests of welds for Type 304 stainless steel provided that deposited weld metal is of less than 0.10% carbon and is Type 308, 308L, 309, or 316L. Are vessel (production) impact tests of welds for Type 304L also exempted provided they meet the same carbon and Type requirements? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2, UW-3, and Appendix A, Requirements for Tube-toTubesheet joints in Lethal Services Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-164 The questions apply to welded tube-to-tubesheet joints where one or both sides of a heat exchanger are in lethal service as defined in UW-2(a) and are as follows: Question (1): Reply (1): No. Question (2): Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): Is radiographic examination required? No. Other than visual, is any nondestructive examination required? Not unless the requirements of UHA-34 or UHT-57 are applicable. Do such joints fall under any of the joint categories of UW-3?

Question (4): For welding processes permitted by UW-27, are there any special requirements concerning the use or absence of filler metal? Reply (4): Question (5): Reply (5): Question (6): be satisfied? No. Are welded or seal welded joints required? No. Must the provisions of Nonmandatory Appendix A concerning tube-to-tubesheet joints

Reply (6): No, but they are acceptable where applicable. The details of the joint are the responsibility of the vessel manufacturer, after consideration of the service information furnished to him by the user. See UW-2(a). Interpretation: VIII-1-83-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-33(a) and Table UW-12 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-165 Question(1): In Section VIII, Division 1, construction, for a formed head with pressure on the convex side, is it mandatory to select the greater of the thicknesses as calculated according to UG-33(a)(1) or (2)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In Section VIII, Division 1, construction, for a shell and head attached by a single, full fillet lap joint without plug welds for attaching shells and heads not over 5/8 in. thick, how is the joint efficiency of 0.45 from Table UW-12, column (c), applied? Reply (2): For calculating the circumferential stress in the seamless shell, UG-27(c)(1) is used with E = 1.0, but with stress used in the formula equal to 80% of the allowable stress from the tables. For calculating the longitudinal stress in the seamless shell, UG-27(c)(2) is used with E = 0.45, but with the stress used in the formula equal to the allowable stress from the tables. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-170 Question: Do P-No. 1 materials require heat treatment after forming when the extreme fiber elongation exceeds 40% and none of the conditions (1) through (5) of UCS-79(d) apply? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure UW-16.1, UHT-18(a), UHT-56(d), Table UHT-56, UHT-79(a)(1) and (2), and Table UHT-23 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-180

Question (1): Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, that postweld heat treatment requirements of UHT-56(d) would be met when any of the alternatives given in UW-40 are followed? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Where postweld heat treatment is required under UHT-56(d), UHT-79(a)(1) and (2), and Table UHA-56, must it also include the normalizing/quenching heat treatment? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Are screwed connections of the type shown in sketch (y-1) or (z-1) of Fig. UW-16.1 permitted to be attached to shell plate of 2 in. thickness or less, for all plate materials of Table UHT-23? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-36(b)(2) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-191 Question: What is the intent of UG-36(b)(2) in recommending that openings exceeding one-half the shell diameter be made by a reversed curve section, when that opening is in the head? Reply: The reverse curve approach is recommended due to the stress condition being an improved one using reverse curves; this, however, does not imply that a conventional nozzle, properly designed, could not be used. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; 13-14(e) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-206 Question: than"? In 13-4(e), what C-factor shall be used and what is the intent of the phrase "no less

Reply: The C-factor to be used is C = 0.20 and the phrase "no less than" refers to the fact that details which permit a C-factor of less than C=0.2 in UG-34 are not permitted for noncircular vessels. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure UG-37 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-223 Question: Does the "plane" in Fig. UG-37 refer to different planes of the opening in the shell relative to the angle of the plane with the longitudinal axis of the shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-120, Data Report Forms

Date Issued: File:

July 26, 1982 BC82-238

Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, allow the creation of Data Report Forms by the Manufacturer using any printed form as long as the size, arrangement, and content are identical, without addition or deletion, to either the forms available from ASME, samples of which are shown in Appendix W, or the corresponding forms available from The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHA-32(e) and UHA-51(c) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-242 Question (1): Under the provisions of UHA-51(c), is a production weld test specimen required on a joint of Type 316 to 316 stainless with 316 electrode when joint is heat treated below 1650F after welding? Reply(1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it correct that under UHA-32(e), postweld heat treatment if required shall be in accordance with UCS-56(e) except as modified by the Notes to Table UHA-23? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-77(a) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-258 Question: Do the provisions of UG-77(a) apply to a miscellaneous forged threaded flange meeting UG-11(a)(1) when an attached fillet weld covers the identification markings? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix A, PWHT of Tube-to-Tubesheet joints Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-259 Question(1): In the case of tube-to-tubesheet joints separating a shell side pressure chamber from a tube side pressure chamber, both at the same design and operating pressure, do the heat treatment requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, apply? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does the requirement in A-1(c) that "Appropriate ... heat treatment shall be used differ from the requirements in UCS-56(c) for heat treatment of dissimilar materials? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure 2-4 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-274 Question: Figure UA-48, sketch (3) of the Winter 1977 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, showed by a dotted line that loose-type hubbed and hubless flanges can be attached with two fillet welds only. This dotted line, however, has been removed in subsequent issues of the Code. In the 1980 Code Edition, hubless loose-type flanges attached by welds are only shown under optional type flanges, Fig. 24, sketches (8), (8a), (8b), and (9). Does this mean that all hubless loose-type flanges must be attached according to Fig. 2-4, sketches (8), (8a), (8b), or (9), even if the flange stresses have been determined for loose-type flanges per 2-7(b)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(b) Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-289 Question: If a nozzle exceeding the size limitations of UW-11(b) contains a Category B butt weld, and the welder or welding operator makes this weld as well as the Category A butt welds in the vessel, which are examined under UW-52(b), does UW-11(b) require an additional spot examination to be taken of each Category B nozzle weld? Reply: exceed 50 ft. No, providing the linear length of welding by the welder or welding operator does not

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix W, Forms U-1 and U-4 Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-291 Question: The format of Form U-1 in Appendix W of Section VIII, Division 1, has no designated spaces for bolted type exchanger body flanges; is it necessary to record these flanges either under Remarks or on the Supplementary Form U-4? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Use of SA-105 Material Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-295 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, allow the use of SA-105 material for fabrications other than piping flanges? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-25

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, 2-4(a)(3) July 26, 1982 BC82-301

Question: Is it permissible under Appendix 2 to fabricate an integral-type flange by using Fig. 2-4, sketches (8), (8a), (8b) and (9c), when the provisions of 2-4(a)(3) are exceeded? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UHA-23, Use of SA-240 Grade TP304L Date Issued: July 26, 1982 File: BC82-311 Question: Is it permissible to use SA-240 Type 304L material with the higher allowable stresses as specified in Table UHA-23 of Section VIII, Division 1, for fabricated heads and/or shells designed for internal pressure? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-125(h), UG-135(e), UG-136(a)(3), and M-5(b), Relief Protection for External Source of Pressure Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC80-198 Question (1): One compartment of a Section VIII, Division 1, heat exchanger contains water which is being heated and has a pressure relief valve to protect against overpressure due to thermal expansion of the water if this compartment was blocked in while hot fluid was in the other compartment. Under relief conditions, the temperature of the water could exceed 140F. Do any of these conditions waive the requirements of UG-136(a)(3) for a lifting device on the pressure relief valve? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In a system containing Section VIII, Division 1, pressure vessels, a vessel "A" supplies fluid under pressure to one or more vessels "B" with intervening block valves. Vessel A has relief devices which satisfy Code requirements, and its maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) is not greater than the MAWP for the B vessels. There is no other source of pressure such as that from fire to the B vessels. Do the B vessels require relief devices other than those provided for vessel A? Reply (2): No. See UG-1 25(h), UG-1 35(e), and M-5(b).

Interpretation VIII-1-83-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-134(d), UG-135(g), and Appendix M, Back Pressure on Relief Devices Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC80-607 Question (1): UG-134(d) states "The pressure at which any device is set to operate shall include the effect of static head and constant back pressure." Where relief devices are piped into a relief system, the back pressure can vary. Does "constant back pressure" mean the back pressure, if any, normally maintained in the relief system when no devices have opened?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): If the back pressure varies above the constant back pressure, the pressure in the vessel could exceed the maximum allowable working pressure. Is this acceptable providing that the requirements of UG-135(g) are satisfied? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): UG-135(g) makes reference to Appendix M and states in part "The size, of the discharge lines shall be such that any pressure that may exist or develop will not reduce the relieving capacity of the relieving devices below that required to protect the vessel." M-7(b) and M-8 make recommendations on the design of relief systems and on the consideration of relief devices suitable for high or variable back pressures. Do these provisions require that the relief devices and relief system prevent the pressure in the vessel(s) from exceeding the limits of UG-125? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-125, Relief Devices Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC81-268 Question (1): UG-125(h) states "The protective devices required in (a) need not be installed directly on a pressure vessel when the source of pressure is external to the vessel and is under such positive control that the pressure in the vessel cannot exceed the maximum allowable working pressure at operating temperature except as permitted in (c) (See UC-98)." A note states that control instruments, except for pilot operated valves, cannot be considered for such positive control. What constitutes "positive control" as used in UG-125(h)? Reply (1): Without excluding other possible methods of positive control, it is often taken to mean the maximum pressure that could be developed in a vessel based upon engineering calculations applicable to the system. One example might be the maximum shut-off head plus maximum suction pressure of a pump which pressurized the vessel. Another example might be the pressure drop at maximum flow conditions when a vessel discharges through a system to a known pressure, such as the atmosphere. Question (2): If a vessel is pressurized by a centrifugal pump and the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel exceeds the shut-off head of the pump plus its maximum suction pressure, must the vessel still be protected by a relief device(s)? Reply (2): Yes, see UG-125(a). However, this source of pressure need not be considered in determining the required capacity of the relief device(s). Question (3): If the reply to Question (2) is yes, then under what formula or guidelines does one determine the required capacity of the relief device? Reply (3): Except for unfired steam boilers as covered by UG-125(b) and for the references contained in M-11 concerning fire conditions, the Code does not provide requirements or guidance on the determination of required relief capacities. That is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent. Question (4): If the answer to Question (2) is yes, is it still acceptable to have the set pressure of the relief device at the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel which exceeds the maximum pressure the pump can develop?

Reply (4):

Yes.

Question (5): If the answer to Question (2) is yes, has the Committee considered modification of the requirements of UG-125(a), which requires all vessels to be protected by relief devices? Reply (5): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-2(a) and UW-40, PWHT Requirements Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC82-166 Question (1): A nozzle is to be added to a vessel to be marked with the Code Symbol which was previously postweld heat treated (PWHT). The weld is not exempted from PWHT by requirements such as those of UCS-56(d) or Note 3(a) for P-No. 1 material of Table UCS-56. Is it necessary to heat a circumferential band as required by UW-40(a)(5)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): A nozzle in a vessel as described in Question (1) requires repair by welding. The repair weld is not exempted from the requirements for postweld heat treatment as stated in Question (1) and is too close to vessel shell to satisfy the heat treating requirements of UW-40(a)(6). Is it necessary to heat a circumferential band as required by UW-40(a)(5)? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Assume that a vessel has been previously PWHT due to service conditions specified by the user in accordance with U-2(a) and that PWHT is not a Code requirement. If a nozzle or attachment is added to the vessel, is it necessary to heat the circumferential band as in Questions (1) and (2)? Reply (3): Question (4): Reply (4): Yes, if PWHT is performed and the vessel is to be marked with the Code Symbol. Does the size of nozzle or attachment modify the reply to Question (3)? No.

Question (5): For the vessel described in Question (3) assume that an accidental weld arc was made on the vessel after PWHT. Is the need for subsequent PWHT a contractual subject to be resolved between manufacturer and user? Reply (5): Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Figure 2-4, Weld Requirements with Corrosion Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC82-196 Question: Is the minimum throat thickness of 0.7c as referenced in sketch (8) of Fig. 2-4 intended to be calculated in the corroded condition? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(b) Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC82-240 Question (1): Are material test specimens exempted from heat treatment under UCS-85(b) when the material, which is a P-No. 1, has undergone heat treatment during fabrication of the vessel above the critical temperature, followed by postweld heat treatment? Reply (1): No. The specimens must be subjected to the same manner of heat treatment, including postweld heat treatment, as the material used in the vessel, since the heat treatment during fabrication exceeded the critical temperature. Question (2): Is it the intent of UCS-85(b) to test each plate, as defined by the test requirements of the material specification, which has undergone a particular heat treatment? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-136(a)(3), Lifting Devices for Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC82-260 Question: Is it acceptable under the requirements of UG-136 to have a safety relief valve where a ball valve member is used in place of a valve disk, and the ball valve is not mechanically attached to the lifting mechanism? Reply: F. Yes, unless the intended service of the safety relief valve is air, steam, or water over 140

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure UW-16.1 Date Issued: October 4, 1982 File: BC82-264 Question (1): For category D joints in vessels constructed of SB-443 operating over 1000F, does sketch (d) in Fig. UW-16.1 meet the design requirements of UNF-19(c)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does sketch (e) in Fig. UW-16.1 meet the design requirements of UNF-19(c) for the vessel described in Question (1)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Does sketch (f-4) in Fig. UW-1 6.1 meet the design requirements of UNF-19(c) for the vessel described in Question (1)? Reply (3): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-35

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; Multiple Openings October 5, 1982 BC82-273

Question (1): When there are two openings close together in a shell, a flat spot sometimes develops between the two openings. Do rules of Section VIII, Division 1, allow a type of strongback to be placed on the inside of the shell before welding either nozzle and remain in place providing all other rules, such as those of UW-2, UNF-19, and UHT-17, are satisfied? Reply (1):. Yes.

Question (2): A flanged and dished head can be provided with either a 1 1/2 in. straight flange or a 6 in. straight flange. Is there a point on the straight flange when the weld of the head-to-shell seam should be considered as a shell-to-shell seam because of the length of the straight flange? Reply (2): Since a circumferential shell-to-shell joint and a dished head-to-shell joint are both Category B joints, Code requirements will be identical. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-35(c) Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-309 Question: Do the weld reinforcement requirements of UW-35(c) apply in the case of clad construction with weld overlay seams after the weld overlay has been deposited, where the weld overlay is not used for strength? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Acceptability of Alloy Steel Bars Under SA-193 Gr. B7 Material Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-314 Question: May non-welded SA-193 Gr. B7 be used as a pressure-resisting screw conveyor drive shaft for a heat exchanger constructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes. External pressure chart UCS-28.2 may be used to determine the maximum permissible pressure on the shaft. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(i) Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-357 Question: UG-84(i)(3)(a) requires one vessel plate for each Qualified Welding Procedure used for joints of Categories A and B. Since a welding procedure can consist of a large range of variables, can welding be done using the same WPS on all Category A and B joints in a vessel with the vessel coupon plate provided for any one of these joints?

Reply: Yes, however the welding procedure shall be qualified in accordance with Section IX and address both essential and supplementary essential variables. [See UG-84(h).] Interpretation: VIII-1-83-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Gasket Factor m and Seating Stress y Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-398 Question: What gasket factor m and minimum design seating stress y can be used in the design of flanges under Section VIII, Division 1, using Teflon 0-ring gaskets? Reply: The values given for gasket factor m and seating stress y are solely recommendations and are not mandatory. The Manufacturer has the responsibility to select the proper factors for the appropriate gaskets used in flange design. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure UW-16.1, sketch (k) Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-402 Question: When a reinforcement ring is added to the outer side of the shell, do the rules applicable to Fig. UW-1 6.1, sketch (k), require a fillet weld at the inner nozzle connection to the shell of not less than 1/4 in. or 0.7t when the sum of the welds (tl + t2) exceeds < 1 1/4t and even though the design has been proven satisfactory through acceptable calculations, proportional limit tests, and a thorough stress analysis? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-41 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, 6-4 and 9.103 Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-409 Question: The provisions of 6-4 and 9.103 in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, do not contain a definition of "linear discontinuities" as it relates to magnetic particle examination. Is it permissible to use the definition of "linear discontinuities" as given for liquid penetrant examination in B-3 and 9-220 in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-02.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-416 Question (1): Is there a need for a reduction factor on the allowable stress when calculating the required thickness of a seamless shell (E = 1.0) attached with a corner joint to a nonextended tubesheet as shown in sketches (a) through (g), or to an extended tubesheet as shown in sketches (h) through (l) of Fig. UW-13.2?

Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Similarly, is a reduction factor required when a seamless shell is attached to a flange as shown in sketches (m) and (n) of Fig. UW-13.2 or sketches (3) and (4) of Fig. 2.4? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): In reinforcement calculations, when both ends of the seamless shell are attached as described above and no radiography is performed, what would the allowable stress reduction factor be when calculating the required thickness of a seamless nozzle attached to this shell? Reply (3): There would be no required reduction in allowable stress.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Thickness Values for go. Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-508 Question: In the fabrication of integral and optional type flanges where optional type is calculated as integral in Appendix 2, must go be calculated as the minimum wall thickness of pipe when attached to pipe? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-120(a), Distribution of Data Reports Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-509 Question: UG-120(a) states, in part, "A copy of the Manufacturer's Data Report shall be furnished to the user or his designated agent and, upon request, to the Inspector." May the Manufacturer supply a copy of the Manufacturer's Data Report Form for a completed vessel to a distributor, or supplier when no final user is known, and by doing so, satisfy his Code responsibilities? Reply: Yes. See the definition of designated agent in U-2.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-45 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UW-11(a)(7) and Table AF-241.1, Note (3), NDE of Heavy-Walled Pressure Vessels Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-513 Question (1): May ultrasonic examination be used in place of radiographic examination in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, for the following circumstance: when the wall thickness of the pressure vessel exceeds 16 in., and all of the seams cannot be radiographed with available equipment? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May ultrasonic examination be used in place of radiographic examination in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, for the following circumstance: with the reason being that the construction of the pressure vessel does not permit interpretable radiographs in accordance with Code requirements? When

one or more welds at a site are involved due to transportation limitation, etc., the radiographic examination of the seams in a pressure vessel with wall thickness exceeding 8 in. is difficult. Reply (2): No.

Question (3): With regard to Questions (1) and (2), may ultrasonic examination be used in place of radiographic examination when a fully automatic ultrasonic examination procedure with complete recordkeeping made by a data processing computer is available? Reply (3): Note: No.

This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-03.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-36(c)(3)(a) and (b) Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-518 Question: When a vessel has more than one opening and the openings do not fall under the provisions of UG-42, are UG-36(c)(3)(a) and (b) applicable? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UHA-23, SA-240 Type 316 Date Issued: October 5, 1982 File: BC82-519 Question: Is it permissible to fabricate a vessel using SA-240 Type 316H material based on the allowable stress values shown under SA-240 Type 316 in Table UHA-23? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UHA-23, Use of SA-479 Cr. Material for Bolting up to 800 F Date Issued: October 6, 1982 File: BC82-521

XM-19 and XM-29

Question: Is it permissible to use SA-479 Cr. XM-19 and XM-29 material for bolting, including studs and nuts, for temperatures from 20F to 800F, and use the allowable stresses in Table UHA-23 for the material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-67(c) Date Issued: October 6, 1982 File: BC82-546 Question: Is it required that a vessel designed in accordance with UCS-66(c) for service below -20F using P-No. 1 materials under 1 1/2 in. or I 1/4, through 1 1/2 in. with preheat be postweld heat treated as set forth in UCS-67(c)?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued: October 6, 1982 File: BC82-624 Question: Can the longitudinal butt welds in the U-bend and the circumferential welds which join the U-bend to the shell of a heat exchanger for a Section VIII, Division 1, vessel be classified as the final closure seam to allow substitution of UT for RT examination of the welds as specified in UW-11(a)(7), when construction of the vessel does not permit their examination by radiography? Reply: Yes, when agreeable with the Authorized Inspector.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-127, UG-129, and UG-136 Date Issued: October 13, 1982 File: BC82-405 Question (1): Assume that a rupture disk is to be used under conditions as follows: (a) as the sole relief device in accordance with UG-1 27(a)(3)(a); (b) between the vessel and a pressure relief valve with the combined capacity determined by the 0.80 factor of UG-1 27(a)(3)(b)(2); (c) on the outlet side of a spring-loaded safety relief valve in accordance with UG-1 27(a)(3)(c).

Under these conditions, is certification of the capacity of the rupture disk by any party other than the manufacturer required? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If a rupture disk is installed between the vessel and a pressure relief valve, may the combined capacity be determined and certified in accordance with UG-132? Reply (2): Yes. See UG-1 27(a)(3)(b)(3).

Interpretation: V111-1-83-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-93(d)(3), Loadings Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC80-514 Question: In UG-93(d)(3), how may the determination of when 80% or more of the pressure load is carried by the tubes, stays, or braces be made? Reply: The determination of the UG-93(d)(3) requirement that 80%, or more, of the pressure load on the plate or tubesheet is carried by the tubes, stays, or braces, shall consider the relative metal areas, moduli of elasticity, and geometries of these components. The analytical determination shall be made by using methods of analysis which will account for the structural interactions that occur between these components when exposed to the pressure loadings.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Mottling Due to X-Ray Diffraction Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-56 Question (1): Is mottling due to X-ray diffraction which appears on a radiograph as a linear radiographic image rejectable in accordance with UW-51 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No. See Section UW-51(b).

Question (2): If a radiographic indication has been found acceptable, are additional radiographs necessary to prove that no rejectable discontinuities are being masked by the acceptable indication? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Welding of Expansion Joints Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-64 Question: Is it permissible to employ resistance spot welding or resistance seam welding for nonpressure retaining welds in the construction of bellows expansion joints for Section VIII, Division 1, vessels? Reply: Yes, if the requirements of Code Case 1177, including the qualification requirements of UW-28 and UW-3 1, are satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11(c) and UW-16(f) Fittings and Miscellaneous Pressure Parts Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-269 Question (1): May a fitting that satisfies the requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a) be installed similar to Fig. UW-16.2, sketch (a), except that the fitting would be constructed so that the weld would be made from the inside rather than the outside of the vessel? Reply (1): No. See the first sentence of UW-16(f)(3)(a) which requires such fittings to be welded from the outside. Question (2): If a fitting satisfies all requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a), may it have a pressure containing pipe not exceeding 3 in. NPS welded to it by a single fillet weld? Reply (2): No. See the limitations in the title of UW-16(f).

Question (3): Assume that the fitting was as in Question (2) except that the pressure-containing pipe was welded with a joint similar to Fig. UW-13.2(e) which satisfied the requirements of UW-13(e). Is such construction acceptable? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): If the fitting and welded pressure-containing pipe constitute a part manufacturer's standard instrument connection and satisfy all applicable Code requirements, may they be furnished to a vessel manufacturer as miscellaneous pressure parts under the provisions of UG-11(c)? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix A, Table A-2, Tubesheet Joints Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-403 Question (1): Is the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, to allow the nominal pitch used in the design of tubesheets for roller expanded joints calculated per Note (5) of Table A-2 to be less than the value of the nominal pitch calculated per Note (5)(a)? Reply (1): Yes, provided the joint is qualified in accordance with A-3 and A-4.

Question (2): Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, to allow the nominal pitch used in the design of tubesheets for roller expanded joints qualified in accordance with A-3 and A-4 per Note (5)(a) of Table A-2 to be less than the value of the nominal pitch calculated per Note (5)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Figure UW-13.1, sketch (k) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-404 Question Reply (1): No. Question (2): Is the Committee presently considering changes in the restrictions of UW-13(c) of the prohibition of ULT-17(d)applicable to the offset joints of Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (k)? Reply (2): No. (1): Are there provisions for increased stresses for SA-240, Type TP304 in Part ULT?

Interpretations: VIII-1-83-58 (Void See 83-58R Page 167) Subject: Section III-1, Impact Testing Requirements Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-609 Question: Is impact testing required for qualifying used in welding 1 in. NPS 6000 psi forged coupling in a shell fabricated under Section VIII, Division 1 consisting of SA-240-304 clad on SA-302 Gr. B steel plate? The plate is subjected to a PWHT temperature of 915F and the minimum operating temperature is 550F. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-59 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UCS-56(f), AF-112.1, and AF-420

Date Issued: File:

December 29, 1982 BC81-656

Question (1): Is it permissible to utilize the repair rules and technique for laminar type discontinuities given in Section III, Division 1, NB-5130(b), for repairs of laminar discontinuities exceeding 1 in. for vessels fabricated under Section VIII, Division 2? Reply (1): Yes, provided all applicable requirements of Section VIII, Division 2, are satisfied.

Question (2): Is it permissible to utilize the repair rules and technique of Section III, Division 1, NB4622.9, for repairs to P-No. 1 and P-No. 3 materials and A-No. 1 or A-No. 2 weld filler metal without subsequent postweld heat treatment as required by UCS-56 and AF-402 under Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply (2): Note: No.

This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-06.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Containment of Non-Code Material for Tubes in Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-659 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1, construction and certification, may nonmetallic tubes, or tubes of other non-Code material, be used in heat exchangers of the fixed tubesheet, floating head, or the U-tube types, provided that for both the shell-side and the tube-side chambers all of the following requirements are met? (1) MAWP and coincident temperature are the same for both chambers and is at least the MAP for each chamber as if it were to be considered alone. (2) Protected from overpressure by the required pressure relief devices. (3) Parts that are common to both chambers are designed for at least the maximum coincident operating pressure and temperature conditions. Reply: No. The question applies to two independent pressure chambers as defined in UG-19. The tubes are common to both chambers, neither chamber could be stamped and certified as a Code vessel with tubes of non-Code material. The outside pressure boundary parts could be treated as a single chambered vessel. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-16(f)(3)(a)(2) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC81-661 Question: Is the phrase "maximum size of the opening in the vessel in UW-16(f)(3)(a)(2) defined?

Reply: Yes. The maximum limitation on opening size is the lesser of the pipe O.D. plus 3/4 in. when the pipe does not exceed 3 in., or the vessel diameter. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-62 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Radiography Prior to Final Machining Date Issued: December 29, 1982

File:

BC81-685B

Question: When radiographing a weld in a part for Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, is it a requirement that radiography for acceptance of the weld be performed after machining the weld to its final thickness? Reply: No. However, the penetrometer to be used when radiographing the weld for acceptance must be based on the final thickness after machining of the weld in the finished part of the pressure vessel. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-05.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-27 Question (1): A Section VIII, Division 1, vessel constructed under the provisions of UW-12(b) is spot radiographed in accordance with UW-52. The radiograph of the Category A longitudinal butt joint at the intersection of the Category B butt joint reveals a defect in the Category B butt joint. Must the defect in the Category B butt joint be evaluated for acceptability under UW-52 and, if unacceptable, repaired, even though the vessel can meet thickness requirements using a Category B butt joint efficiency of 70%? Reply (1): Yes. The vessel is a spot-radiographed vessel and the provisions of UW-52 must be met for butt welds regardless of category. Question (2): The same vessel is constructed under the provisions of UW-12(c) and is spot radiographed by the manufacturer for his own edification. The same rejectable indications are disclosed in the radiograph. Do the rules of the Code require that the vessel manufacturer repair the weld? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(1), (4), and (5) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-125 Question (1): Do the provisions of UW-11(a)(4) in Section VIII, Division 1, modify the radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(1)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do the provisions of UW-11(a)(5) in Section VIII, Division 1, modify the radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(1)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11, Welding on Formed Heads With a Flued Manway Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-293

Question: A formed head containing an integral flued manway could be furnished under the provisions of UG-11(b) or UG-77(c) without a Manufacturer's Partial Data Report and Part Stamping. Assume that in order to provide for gasket seating surface, it is necessary to weld a ring to the flued manway. May this be done under the provisions and requirements of UG-11(c)(2)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45, Nozzle Neck Thickness Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-294 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, in determining the nozzle neck thickness according to UG45(a)(1) and UG-45(a)(4), one of the considerations is the required head thickness plus corrosion allowance. When the nozzle is located entirely within the spherical portion of a torispherical head, will the thickness which is considered for the head thickness be that calculated by UG-32(e) or that calculated by UG-37(b)(1)? Reply: When a torispherical head meets the exact proportions which permit the use of UG-32(e), the minimum required thickness shall be calculated by the formula which is part of UG-32(e). When a torispherical head has proportions other than those specified in UG-32(e), the required thickness shall be calculated by the formula in 1-4(d). The required head thickness to use when determining the minimum nozzle neck thickness under UG-45 is based on one or the other of the thicknesses noted above depending upon the head proportions. The thickness determined by UG-37(b)(1) shall not be used as it is used only for reinforcement calculations. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-44 Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-306 Question (1): Does UG-44 permit the use of ANSI B16.9 butt welding fittings on pressure vessels fabricated from pipe, without further calculations for the fittings, providing the grade and schedule of the fittings are the same as the pipe shell, and no modifications are made on the fittings? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-11.

Question (2): If an ANSI B16.9 welding cap is used to close the ends of a pressure vessel fabricated from pipe, and it is desired to attach a nozzle not exempt from reinforcement calculations, are reinforcement calculations required, and if so, how shall they be computed when there is no allowable stress given for SA-234 in Table UCS-23? Reply (2): When a standard pressure-temperature rated ANSI B16.9 welding cap used to close the ends of a pressure vessel has a nozzle attached, both the end cap and the nozzle reinforcement requirements shall be calculated to meet the Code, using the allowable stress values for the applicable material. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-29(c)

Date Issued: File:

December 29, 1982 BC82-308

Question: May rings having sufficient moment of inertia as described in UG-29(c)(1), (2), and (3) be used as external pressure stiffener rings without bridging the unsupported gap with a section having the required moment of inertia? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-127 and UG-129 Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-511 Question: If the requirements of UG-1 27(a) and UG-1 29(f) are met, is it mandatory for a rupture disk manufacturer to hold a valid ASME Code symbol stamp? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix W, Recording Non-Pressure Attachments Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-529 Question: Is it required to describe all non-pressure attachments, such as lifting lugs, insulation studs, platform, ladder, pipe brackets, etc., which are welded to a vessel on the Data Report Form under "Remarks," or on supplementary Form U-4? Reply: No, only vessel and superimposed equipment supports need be recorded, See Note (42) of Table W-3. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79 Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-587 Question: Does the existence of any one or more of conditions (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of UCS-79(d) necessitate heat treatment when the specified extreme fiber elongation is less than 50%? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13(a)(2) and Figure UW-13.1 sketches (n) and (o) Date issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-593 Question: With regard to UW-13(a)(2) and Fig. UW-13.1 sketches (n) and (o), is the entire following statement correct? A shell course thinner than the skirt of the head to which it is attached may be attached without regard to the relative positions of the center lines of the head skirt and shell course, provided the head skirt has a minimum length of the smaller of three times the actual head thickness, or 1 1/2 in.

Transitions of proper length may be formed by adding additional weld metal on the shell side of the joint. Such additional weld metal buildup shall meet the requirements of UW-42. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(i) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-663 Question: Outside of UG-84(i)(2), are there any circumstances relating to UG-84(i)(1) which permit the vessel impact test plate to be made of material of the same specification as opposed to being from one of the heats of metal used for the vessel or group of like vessels? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHA-51(c), UCS-56, and UNF-95 Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-664 Question (1): Will the testing of one longitudinal root and one longitudinal face bend specimen from a production test plate of welded titanium construction meet the intent of UNF-95? Reply (1): Yes, providing all other requirements of UNF-95 are met.

Question (2): During postweld heat treatment, what minimum time interval may be used to calculate the rate of heating above 800F in UCS-56? Reply (2): There is no minimum time interval to be used to calculate the heating or cooling rate. The manufacturer should use a time interval that assures that the rate is uniform. Question (3): Under the requirements of UHA-51(c), what should be the maximum temperature of heat treatment below which a production weld coupon test specimen is not required to be tested? Reply (3): Section VIII, Division 1, specifies a minimum temperature for postweld heat treatment below which impact tests are required. it does not give a maximum temperature for postweld heat treatment. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-42(a) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-677 Question: Does the spacing between adjacent openings mentioned in UG-42(a) refer to the distance between centers of the two openings? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-16(c) and Figure UW-16.1

Date Issued: File:

December 29, 1982 BC82-678

Question: Are the following sketches from Fig. UW-16.1 examples of a nozzle with integral reinforcement: (1)sketch (a-1) (2)sketch (d) (3)sketch (e) (4)sketch (z-2) Reply: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-77 (Void, see VIII-1-83-77R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2(a), ERW Pipe for Lethal Service Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-679 Question: May electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe be used for the shell of a pressure vessel designed for lethal service under UW-2(a) where no radiographic examination would be performed on the ERW welded seam? Reply: No. See UW-2(a). The provisions of UW-2(a)(2) and (3) do not apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-77R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-2(a) Date Issued: December 3, 1992 File: BC82-679* Question: May electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe be used for the shell of a pressure vessel designed for lethal service under UW-2(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 whether or not radiographic examination is performed on the ERW welded seam? Reply: No. See UW-2(a). The provisions of UW-2(a)(2) and (3) do not apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-9(d) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-683 Question: Would the requirements of UW-9(d) be satisfied by buttwelding a circular piece at a cross joint, of a diameter not less than 5 times the thickness of the shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(c)(2), Approval Process Date Issued: December 29, 1982

File:

BC82-684

Question: Is it the intent of UG-90(c)(2) that the approval process for Quality Control Procedures for multiple duplicate vessels follow through a sequence of approvals, beginning with the inspection agency, which provides written acceptance, then submits it to the legal jurisdiction for written acceptance, which in turn submits it to the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel inspectors for written acceptance? Reply: No. The approval process as outlined in UG-90(c)(2) specifically mandates the inspection agency to transmit the procedure, accepted by them, to the legal jurisdiction and to the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors or to another representative designated by ASME for their written acceptance. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UNF-57(c) Date Issued-. December 29, 1982 File: BC82-719 Question: Does UNF-57(c) apply to a butt weld between a nonferrous material mentioned in this paragraph and a carbon steel material even when the majority of the material constituting the vessel is carbon steel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d) Date Issued: December 29, 1982 File: BC82-729 Question: In UCS-79(d), does Rf, the final center line radius, apply to the dished radius or the knuckle radius for the case of double curvature? Reply Rf applies to the knuckle radius in the case of double curvature.

Interpretation: VIII-81-27R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-42 Date Issued: February 22, 1983 File: BC81-100 Question (1): Is it permissible to weld a transition section up to 1 1/2 in. in thickness on a head according to UW-42(b), or as shown in Fig. ULW-17.2 sketch (f), without postweld heat treatment for PNo. 1 materials, if the head requires postweld heat treatment? Reply (1): No. The taper weld on the head requires postweld heat treatment.

Question (2): Is postweld heat treatment per UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1 required in layered construction, Part ULW, 'where a layered section is welded to a solid section, the thickness exceeds 1 1/2 in., and all materials are P-No. 1? Reply (2): No. See ULW-26(b).

Note: This Interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 12, Section VIII, Division 1; covering the period of July 1, 1982 through April 1, 1983. Interpretations VIII-1-83-82 (Void See I-83-82R Page 189) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 10, 10-12, Calibration of Test Equipment Date Issued: February 8, 1983 File: BC80-289 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, 10-12 of Appendix 10, Quality Control System requires that "the Manufacturer shall have a system for the calibration of examination, measuring, and test equipment used... Is traceability to standards of the National Bureau of Standards Required. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-2(i), Repairs Before Stamping Date Issued: March 2, 1983 File: BC81-267 Question (1): A Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel experiences damage during the hydrostatic test. Before stamping with the Code Symbol and completion of the Manufacturer's Data Report, it is desired to modify or repair the construction of the pressure vessel to satisfy Code requirements. May this work be performed by a U Symbol holder other than the symbol holder originally responsible for the construction? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. If the answer to Question (1) is yes, what requirements apply? The requirements parallel those for field assembly as defined in U-2(i).

Question (3): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, are there any national restrictions on the place of business of the "other" symbol holder? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-23, EPC Reference for SA-737 Material Date Issued: March 2, 1983 File: BC82-545 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, is the reference in the right-hand column of Table UCS-23 to Fig. 5-UCS-28.4 correct for SA-737 Grade C material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-85 (Same as question 1 of VIII-1-83-166 page 96) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Documentation for Qualification of NDE Examiners Date Issued: March 2, 1983

File:

BC82-811

Question: When a previous employer will not make documented records of qualification, training, and experience of an NDE examiner available, may the hiring company use the individual's documented personal history as a basis for experience level in his qualification and certification? Reply: Yes. However, the individual shall be examined in accordance with the hiring company's program for examination of NDE personnel. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-52 Date Issued: March 2, 1983 File: BC82-813 Question (1): For a vessel that is fabricated with seamless heads and a welded shell, where there are different welders welding both the circumferential and longitudinal joints, can the required spot radiographs be taken solely on the longitudinal seam and meet the requirements of UW-52 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, provided the requirements of UW-52(b)(2) are met, which state that one spot radiograph be made for each 50 linear ft of weld and that every welder be represented by a spot radiograph. Question (2): Reply (2): If the requirements of UW-52 are met, can the vessel nameplate be stamped RT3"? Yes.

Question (3): If there is more than one welded shell course in a vessel, does the circumferential joint attaching the courses need to be spot examined to satisfy UW-52 requirements? Reply (3): Yes, if so chosen under UW-52(b)(3).

Question (4): If the circumferential seams in the vessel are not spot examined, do their lengths need to be calculated toward the 50 ft requirement of UW-52(b)(1)? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; 1977 Edition Through W79 Addenda, Appendix 4 Date Issued: March 2, 1983 File: BC82-828 Note: The inquirer questioned provisions in the 1977 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 through the W79 Addenda. Since the 1980 Edition is technically compatible and reference paragraphs have been renumbered, the following Questions and Replies are based on the 1980 Edition. Question (1): Are the requirements of 4-2(c) in Appendix 4 of Section VIII, Division 1 intended to define t, as related to acceptance criteria for rounded indications as specified in 4-3? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the above paragraph is the definition of t, in the case of full penetration butt weld, would t be the thickness of the weld or the thickness of the material (since the weld with reinforcement would always be greater than the material thickness)? Reply (2): t would be the thickness of the weld.

Question (3): For a butt weld, would the value for t used for evaluation of slag inclusions in accordance with UW-51 be the nominal wall thickness plus the permissible reinforcement? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): In the example cited above, would the value of t used for rounded indication Acceptance Criteria be the nominal wall thickness plus the permissible reinforcement? Reply (4). Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-16(d) Date Issued: March 2, 1983 File: BC82-845 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UW-16(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 to obtain the required penetration tw, as shown for example in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (q), by using welding processes such as semiautomatic SAW with square groove penetration? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2(b) and UHA-51(a), SA-240 T304 Material Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-685 Question: Are full penetration welds for Category D joints as specified in UW-2(b) required for vessels constructed of SA-240 T304 stainless steel when the filler metal is AWS-A5.9 ER-308L Si and when impact testing is waived by UHA-51(a) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-52(b)(2) Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-737 Question: Do the provisions of UW-52(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 require the application of spot radiography to represent each welding process used by an individual welder/operator? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, 2-2 Date Issued: March 3, 1983

File:

BC82-738

Question (1): 2-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 requires that bolted flange materials must comply with UG-4 through UG-14. Is it permissible to use materials that comply with UG-15 for flanges designed in accordance with Appendix 2? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): 2-2(d)(2)(b) gives the method of determining the thickness of a hubbed flange, formed into a ring from bar or plate, to be used in determining postweld heat treatment and radiographic requirements of the welded butt joints. Does this requirement also apply to hubless flanges similar to those shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (1), (1 a), (2), (7), (8), (9) and 2-9 covering split loose flanges containing similar butt welded joints? Reply (2): Yes. See UCS-56(d) and Table UCS-56.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-92 Subject: Section VIII-I, UG-23(b) Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-756

(Void See 83-92R Page 121)

Question (1): Are the allowable compressive stresses established in accordance with UC-23(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to primary stresses only or to the sum of primary and secondary stresses (including thermal stress)? Reply (1): The requirements of UG-23(b) are applicable to primary stresses only.

Question (2): For a vessel subjected to a combination of loadings, such as axial compressive loading on a cylindrical shell and external pressure, are there methods in Section VIII, Division 1 to determine the acceptability of the vessel due to the interaction of the loadings? Reply (2): Yes, only as provided in UG-23(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-31(c) Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-783 Question (1): May welders or welding operators not qualified in accordance with Section IX of the Code make tack welds which neither become a portion of final pressure welds nor become a portion of final welds attaching nonpressure parts to pressure parts under the requirements of UW-31(c) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to the above is affirmative, is any permanent identification of such nonqualified tack welders or welding operators required? Reply (2): Interpretation: No. VIII-1-83-94

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG-42, Reinforcement of Multiple Openings March 3, 1983 BC82-784

Question: When there are multiple openings in a shell or header and each has sufficient reinforcement by calculation, within the reinforcement limits, to satisfy individual reinforcement requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, can each opening therefore be considered a single opening and not require calculation using the ligament efficiency factor? Reply: Yes, see UG-42.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-27 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-787 Question (1): Is R, used in the formula in Section VIII, Division 1, UG-27(c)(1), the inside radius of the shell plus the thickness added for corrosion? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does the Table A-2 of SA-106 in Section I1 have any bearing on the Section VIII, UG27 calculations? Reply (2): Yes, see UG-16(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, 2-3 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-801 Question: In the case of two identical flanges (using identical gaskets) attached to a tubesheet, is W as defined in 2-3 of Section VIII, Division 1 the same for both flanges? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-56, Exemption Notes Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-806 Question: Is the word "studs" of the exemption Notes to Table UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1 meant to also include insulation pins? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1, 1-7 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-807

Question: Does 1-7 in Appendix 1 of Section VIII, Division 1 intend to make the sum of the area available within the two limits equal to or greater than two-thirds of the required area of reinforcement? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(c)(5) Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-808 Question: Reply: Are valves excluded from Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 as specified in U-1(c)(5)? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56 and Table UCS-56 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-825 Question: Is PWHT required by Table UCS-56 Section VIII, Division 1 for the weld joints in the following conditions? In each case all material is P-No. 1, and the service requirements of UCS-67 and UW-2(a) are not applicable. (a)A 5/8 in. thick shell is attached to a 3 in. thick tubesheet using the attachment weld geometry of Fig. UW-1 3.2 sketch (f) of Section VIII, Division 1. (b)A 5/8 in. thick nozzle that is 8 in. in diameter is attached to a 3 in. thick shell using the attachment weld geometry of Fig. UW-1 6.1 sketch (a) of Section VIII, Division 1. (c)A 5/8 in. thick clip (nonpressure part) is attached to a 3 in. thick shell using a full penetration weld through the thickness of the clip. Reply: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-52 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-840 Question: When determining the number of spot radiographs required to comply with UW-52 of Section VIII, Division 1, should all longitudinal and circumferential butt welded seam lengths of a multicourse vessel be added together regardless of the joint efficiencies used in the calculations for the longitudinal and circumferential stresses? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37 and UG-45 Date Issued: March 3, 1983 File: BC82-843

Question: May the rules of UG-37(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied when calculating the minimum nozzle wall thickness in accordance with UG-45(a)(1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56 Date IssuedMarch 3, 1983 File: BC82-873 Question: UCS-56(c) in Section V111, Division 1 states, "When pressure parts of two different PNumber groups are joined by welding, the postweld heat treatment shall be that specified in Table UCS56 with applicable Notes for the material requiring the higher postweld temperature." If both materials have the same holding temperature, does the manufacturer have the choice of which requirements to use for postweld heat treatment? Reply: No. All the applicable Notes apply regardless of holding temperatures. stringent takes precedence. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-I(g); and Section I, Preamble Date Issued: March 4, 1983 File: BC79-780 Question: U-1(g) of Section V111, Division 1 states: The most

Unfired-steam boilers as defined in Section I shall be constructed in accordance with the rules of Section I or this Division [see UG-1 25(b) and UW-2(c)]. ` The following pressure vessels in which steam is generated shall be constructed in accordance with the rules of this Division: (1) vessels known as evaporators or heat exchangers; (2) vessels in which steam is generated by the use of heat resulting from operation of a processing system containing a number of pressure vessels, such as used in the manufacture of chemical and petroleum products. Are these provisions in conflict with the third from the last paragraph of the Preamble of Section I? Reply: No, as illustrated by reasons as follows: (a) The definitions of pressure vessels in which steam is generated, but which are not "unfired steam boilers," are identical in both Sections I and VIII. Such vessels are not within the Scope of Section I. They are within the Scope of Section VIII, and the special rules applicable to "unfired steam boilers," such as UW-2(c), are not required. (b) The second from the last paragraph of the Preamble of Section I requires "unfired steam boilers" to be constructed in accordance with its rules or the applicable rules of Section VIII. (c) As quoted in the Question, Section VIII requires "unfired steam boilers" to be constructed in accordance with its special, applicable rules, such as UW-2(c). We caution you that the laws or regulations at the point of installation may dictate the construction. As indicated by footnote 1 to U-1 Scope of Section VIII, such laws or regulations should be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Some applicable laws or regulations may require such vessels to be constructed either with the provisions of UW-2(c) applied or under the rules of Section I

Note:

This Interpretation also appears as 1-83-37.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d) Date Issued: March 4, 1983 File: BC82-798 Question: Does heat treatment per UCS-56 satisfy the requirements of UCS-79(d) of Section VIII, Division 1, when the extreme fiber elongation is considerably more than 5% and any of conditions (1) through (5) exist? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-131 Date Issued: March 7, 1983 File: BC82-798 Question: During certification or recertification tests of pressure relief valves built to the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, is it intended that chatter or flutter of the valve is cause for rejection? Yes. In accordance with UG-131(f), the referenced testing procedures of ASME PTC 25.31976 require that a steady-state condition must be established and maintained before reading and recording data. A valve which chatters or flutters at the flow rating pressure is not considered to be under steady-state conditions. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCL-35(c) Date Issued: March 7, 1983 File: BC82-169 Question (1): The fusion zone for a deposited weld overlay procedure reduces the thickness of the base material, Is it required under Part UCL in Section VIII, Division 1 that the Manufacturer allow additional base material thickness to provide for the loss due to corrosion resistant weld overlay dilution? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When removing a defect in the corrosion resistant deposited weld metal, the base material is penetrated a significant depth over a significant area. (a) Is it required that the Manufacturer restore the base material thickness with like material before proceeding to restore the corrosion resistant deposited weld metal overlay? (b) May the Manufacturer restore the base material thickness with corrosion resistant deposited weld metal? Reply (2): (a) No, provided the corrosion resistant deposited weld metal is of equal strength at the design temperature. See Interpretation VIII-80-1 7. (b) Yes. See reply to (a), above. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-108

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UCI-101 and, UCD-101 March 8, 1983 BC80-053

Question: May the tests to destruction provided for in UCI-101 and UCD-101 of Section VIII, Division 1 be terminated when the test pressure reaches the point required to establish the maximum allowable pressure? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-12(b) Date Issued: March 8, 1983 File: BC82-195 Question: Reply: Are the requirements of UG-12(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to bolts? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-53(g) and Fig. UG-53.6 Date Issued: April 25, 1983 File: BC82-864 Question: What is the definition of s as shown in Fig. UG-53.6 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: s = Longitudinal dimension of diagonal pitch p' = P, Cos Interpretation: VIII-1-83-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116(n)(2), UM Stamp Date Issued: April 25, 1983 File: BC83-022 Question (1): The second paragraph of UG-116(n)(2), Section VIII, Division 1 contains special provisions for permission to use the UM Stamp by U or S Stamp Holders, if such U or S Stamp Holders have not built any U Stamped or S Stamped vessels during the period of time that a UM Certificate of Authorization is in force. Is that fact a reason to refuse authorization under these special provisions? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do the "special provisions" of Question (1) apply to a U-2 Stamp Holder as well as a U Stamp Holder? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-120(a), U-3 Certificate of Compliance Date Issued: April 25, 1983 File: BC83-032

Question: Must a vessel manufacturer complete a U-3 Certificate of Compliance, as required by UG-120(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, even when the manufacturer keeps an accurate detailed account of the information required to complete the U-3 in his construction records as defined in his Quality Control System and keeps this information for each individual pressure vessel for a minimum of 5 years? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: April 25, 1983 File: BC83-033 Question: definition In UG-34(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, should the "Category A weld" referenced in the of E, the joint efficiency, be changed to read "Category C weld"?

Reply: No. The value of E as ' indicated above pertains to the joint efficiency to be used for a Category A butt weld within the flat head or cover. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85 Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC81-130 Question (1): Under the requirements of UCS-85(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, material from which test specimens are prepared shall be heated at the specified temperature within reasonable tolerance, such as are normal in actual fabrication. What is a reasonable tolerance? Reply (1): A reasonable tolerance depends on the heat treating response of the specific materials.

Question (2): Under the requirements of UCS-85(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, may the total time at temperature when postweld heat treating the test specimens be greater than 100% of the total time at the PWHT temperature during actual fabrication of the product? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If the material (SA-387 Grade 1, Class 2) is supplied in normalized and tempered condition, and the material is subjected to postweld heat treatment during fabrication at a temperature which is below the tempering temperature at the mill, must the test specimen material heat treatment include such postweld heat treatment? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): If the material, SA-204 Grade B, 1 in. thick, is furnished by the mill with test results in the as-rolled condition and in the simulated heat treated condition, including postweld heat treatment, is it still required to conduct the tests required by UCS-85 for the following three cases? (a) The material is subjected to postweld heat treatment during fabrication at a temperature range above the minimum temperature and the minimum hold times required by Table UCS-56 but below the specified temperature range performed during the simulated postweld heat treatment at the mill. (b) The material is subjected to postweld heat treatment during fabrication at a temperature range above the minimum temperature and the minimum hold times required by Table UCS-56 but for hold times which do not satisfy the requirements of UCS-85 compared to those performed during the simulated postweld heat treatment at the mill.

(c) The material is subjected to a postweld heat treatment temperature range during fabrication at the alternate postweld heat treatment temperatures and longer hold times of Table UCS56.1 instead of the simulated postweld heat treatment temperature range and hold time performed at the mill, and which met the requirements of Table UCS-56. Reply (4): The answer in all cases is yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Flange Design Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC81-514 Question (1): May a flange with an integral hub as shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (3) and (4) be calculated as an integral type under optional type flanges, attached as shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (8), 8a), and (8b)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): What dimensions should be used for go, gi, and h for the flange described in Question (1)? Reply (2): The following are the dimensions to be used: go = the thickness of the shell or nozzle neck to which the flange is attached g1 = the thickness of the large section of the hub plus the shell or nozzle neck thickness to which the flange is attached h = the length of the hub plus the leg length of the weld attaching the hub to the shell or nozzle neck Interpretation: VIII-1-83-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(b) Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC81-559 Question: Would the requirements of UCS-85(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 be met if test plates in the normalized condition are used to represent P-No. 1, Grade Nos. 1 and 2 material, both in the normalized and as-rolled condition? Interpretation: VIII-1-83-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2(b) and UHA-51 Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC82-305 Question (1): A vessel is fabricated of Type 304 or 304L stainless steel base and weld metal and has a design temperature of -100F. Impact tests are not waived by the first paragraph of UHA-51(b). Do the requirements of UW-2(b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 need to be met? Reply (1): Yes. The weld requires impact tests per UHA-51(b)(5)(b). Therefore, the requirements of UW-2(b)(3) are mandatory. Question (2): Is it the intent of UW-2(b) that whenever any impact tests of the base material or weld metal are required in accordance with UG-84, the specific requirements of UW-2(b) are mandatory?

Reply (2):

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99(g), Gas Leak Test in Lieu of Visual inspection Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC82-397 Question: May air be used as the medium to satisfy the requirements for a gas leak test in accordance with UG-99(g)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Tables UCS-56 and UHA-32 Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC82-411 Question (1): In Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56, is it required to postweld heat treat fillet welds that are used as strength welds in attaching tubes to the inside of a drum or a header when the drum or header material and the tube material are of the same P-No. 4 or P-No. 5 groupings? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Except as excluded by Note (1) for P-No. 6 and by Notes (1) and (3) for P-No. 7 of Table UHA-32, is it required to postweld heat treat fillet welds that are used as strength welds in attaching tubes to the inside of a drum or a header when the drum or header material and the tube material are of the same P-No. 6 of P-No. 7 groupings? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45 Date Issued: April 26, 1983 File: BC83-030 Question: When designing nozzle thickness according to UG-45 of Section VIII, Division 1 for internal pressure only, may the requirements of UG-45(a)(1) be used instead of those in UG-45(a)(4)? Reply: No, both the requirements of UC-45(a)(1) and (a)(4) shall be considered.

Interpretation VIII-1-83-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Repair of Bronze Castings Date Issued: April 27,1983 File: BC81-184 Question: May porosity defects that are discovered during a pneumatic pressure test complying with UG-100 after all manufacturing and brazing operations have been completed, in a part of a pressure vessel that is manufactured from an SB-61 bronze casting, be sealed by vacuum impregnating with sodium silicate?

Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not prohibit the use of vacuum impregnation of bronze castings after machining. Note (4) to Table UNF-23.2 specifically prohibits welding or brazing of SB-61 castings. (See also U NF-8.) Interpretation: VIII-1-83-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-79, UW-11, UCS-57, and UCS-85 Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC82-549 Question(1): Is it a requirement under UW-11 of Section VIII, Division 1 to radiograph the butt welds within dished heads and longitudinal welds in shells of vessels if welding is carried out prior to forming the dished heads and/or shells when the design stresses of the vessel are based on visual inspection? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is there any Code restriction for the minimum distance between two longitudinal welds in the same course of the shell or distance between two consecutive circumferential welds? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Are the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 for radiography and heat treatment applicable to joints in flanges fabricated from plate? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-123 (Void see 83-121R-2 page 189) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Case 1409-5 Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC82-834 Question: Does paragraph 5(a) of Code Case 1409-5 permit WPS's qualified using Grade I coupons to be used in lieu of WPS's qualified using Grade 2 coupons? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UW-12 Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC82-842 Question: Table UW-1 2 of Section VIII, Division 1 indicates the "Limitations" for Type (3) joints as "Circumferential joints only, not over 5/8 in. thick and not over 24 in. outside diameter." Does this limitation preclude the use of Type (3) joints for other than circumferential joints? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Case 1177-7 Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC82-863

Question: Is it the intent of Code Case 1177-7 to apply to an expansion joint assembly which includes the convoluted expansion bellows elements and the attached ring on each end necessary to weld the assembly into the vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-66(c)(2) Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC83-073 Question: When a vessel is designed for low-temperature operation, in accordance with UCS 66(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, e.g., no material impact tests, and a 2 1/2 factor on the pressure, is it required that impact tests be made on weld procedure qualifications or on vessel (production) welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-127 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-66(c)(2) Date Issued: April 27, 1983 File: BC83-083 Question: Is the impact testing requirement exemption of UCS-66(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to vessels with flanged joints for use below -20F? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-128 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-99 and AT-300, Consideration of Bolting Material Date Issued: April 28, 1983 File: BC83-072 Question (1): In establishing hydrostatic test pressures in accordance with UG-99 of Division 1 and Article T-3 of Division 2, shall the allowable stress of bolts be considered? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In Division 2, Tables AM-214.1 and AM-214.2, the values for bolting materials are titled "allowable bolt stress values." Shall these values be used as "design intensity values" in applying the rules of Article T-3? Reply (2): Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-1 0.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-129 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions I and 2, UG-136(a)(2) and AR-200(200)(b), Permanent Set of Pressure Relief Valve Springs Date Issued: June 1 7, 1983

File:

BC81-583

Question (1): In UG-136(a)(2) and AR-200(b) of Section VII 1, Divisions 1 and 2, what is meant by presetting at room temperature"? Reply (1): temperature. Question (2): This means that a spring has been previously compressed to its solid height at room How is presetting at room temperature accomplished?

Reply (2): The spring is compressed to its solid height by any suitable means. Question (3): What effect does presetting have on the spring material? Reply (3): The Code does not address the effect of presetting on the spring material. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-12.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Divisions 1 and 2, Appendix P and Fig. 4-130.1 Date Issued: June 17, 1983 File: BC81-717 Question (1): The dotted lines shown in Fig. 4-130.1 of Section VIII, Division 2 are classified as operating loads. May the operating temperature and pressure be used in the design calculations? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, may an average stress for creep rate of 0.2% per 20,000 hr be taken as equal to 0.01% per 1,000? Reply (2): Note: No. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-13.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-131 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; 1-5 and 1-8 Date Issued: June 20, 1983 File: BC82-209 Question (1): If reinforcement is required at the cylinder-to-cone junction and a compression ring is not used, is it the intent of 1-5 and 1-8 of Section VIII, Division 1 that reinforcement may be provided by thickening the shell only, or can both the cylinder and cone thickness be increased? Reply (1): Either the cylinder, the cone, or both thicknesses may be increased.

Question (2): Is it permissible to weld a weld neck flange directly to the cone at either end without a transition shell? Reply (2): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-132

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (f) June 21, 1983 BC82-298

Question (1): When using the intermediate head design shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f), in Section VIII, Division 1, and each chamber is designed as a separate vessel, are there any limitations on the allowable difference in thickness between ts1 and ts2? Reply (1): Question (2): No When ts1 and ts2 are different, is a taper of 3:1 required on any part of the joint?

Reply (2): Yes, when required by UW-9(c). Question (3): If a taper is required, are there any limitations on thickness? Reply (3): Yes, as necessary to provide minimum required thicknesses at all locations. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-133 (Void see 83-133R page 87) Subject: Section VIII, UW-51(b) and Appendix 4 Date Issued: June 12, 1983 File: BC82-718 Question: If a rounded indication on a weld radiograph is interpreted as incomplete fusion, is it rejectable as addressed in UW-51(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, even if it is acceptable as a rounded indication as defined in 4-2(a) of appendix 4 and does not exceed the size limitation given in Table 4-1? Reply: Note: Yes. Incomplete fusion is rejectable, regardless of the size or shape of the indication. On July 7, 1983 this Reply was withdrawn for further committee consideration.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-134 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(b)(8) and UG-78 Date Issued: June 21, 1983 File: BC83-151 Question: Do the words "repairs" and "defects in material" in UG-90(b)(8) and UG-78, respectively, in Section VIII, Division 1, apply to the material that is supplied to the Manufacturer of the vessel prior to fabrication? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-32 Date Issued: June 21, 1983 File: BC83-159 Question(1): Does t, the minimum required thickness of head after forming, in UG-32 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the thickness of the entire head including that at the knuckle radius? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it the intent of "minimum required thickness of head after forming" in UG-32 that the thinnest part of the head be of at least this thickness, with no limitation on the maximum thickness? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCL-1 Date Issued: June 21, 1983 File: BC83-224 Question (1): Are the Code rules of UCL in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for a nozzle lining which is neither integrally clad nor attached to the base material by welding? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. Are there any restrictions in the use of material for such lining? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-35, Cosmetic Welding Subsequent to Hydrostatic Testing Date Issued: June 22, 1983 File: BC82-782 Question (1): Is it permissible to have cosmetic welding performed after the final hydrostatic test to comply with UW-35 in Section VIII, Division 1 when no rehydrostatic test is made? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any other means of nondestructive testing, such as MT, PT, or UT, the use of which after cosmetic welding would preclude the necessity of a second hydrostatic test? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45 Date Issued: June 22, 1983 File: BC82-880 Question: In determining the required thickness of a nozzle neck according to UG-45(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, when do the requirements of UG-45(a)(1) through (4) apply? Reply: Except for access and inspection openings, when the required thickness of the nozzle neck determined by UG-45(a) is smaller than the least thickness obtained by using UG-45(a)(1) through (4), the required thickness set by the least of UG-45(a)(1) through (4) controls, Interpretation: VIII-1-83-139 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1, 1-5 Date Issued: June 22, 1983 File: BC83-132

Question(1): For a given design pressure and cone apex angle, will a reduction in stress value decrease the likelihood of the juncture requiring reinforcement? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For a given cone apex angle and stress value, will a decrease in design pressure increase the likelihood of the juncture requiring reinforcement? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): Question (4): cylinder? Reply (4): Yes. Are cone reinforcement requirements independent of shell diameter? Yes. Are joint efficiency factors E1, and E2 always equal to 1.0 for junctions with the large Yes.

Question (5): Are joint efficiency factors E1, and E2 always equal to the joint efficiency E of UW-12 for junctions with the small cylinder? Reply (5): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Shell Alignment. UG-28(f); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (n); UW33(a) Date Issued: June 23, 1983 File: BC82-285 Question(1): UG-28(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 indicates that vessels stamped for external pressure of 15 psi or less shall be designed for the smaller of 15 psi or 25% more than the maximum possible external pressure. If a vessel is to be stamped for 10 psi external pressure, is the required design pressure 1.25 X 10 or 12.5 psi? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For head-to-shell attachments, does the maximum center line offset of Fig. UW-13.1 of Section VIII, Division 1 supersede the edge alignment tolerance of UW-33(a)? Reply (2): No. The maximum center line offset of Fig. UW-13.1 is a design requirement. The alignment tolerance specified in UW-33(a) is a fabrication tolerance for misalignment. Both requirements must be met. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-52 Date Issued: June 23, 1983 File: BC82-833 Question: Under the provisions of UW-52(d)(2)(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, the Manufacturer elects to radiograph the entire unit of weld, and repair any defective welds. Does one spot radiograph at one of the repaired locations satisfy the requirements of UW-52(d)(2)(c)?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-142 (Same as VIII-1-83-140) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-28(f) and UG-1 1 6 Date Issued: June 23, 1983 File: BC83-168 Question: UG-28(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 indicates that vessels stamped for external pressure of 15 psi or less shall be designed for the smaller of 15 psi or 25% more than the maximum possible external pressure. If a vessel is to be stamped for 10 psi external pressure, is the required design pressure 1.25 X 10 or 12..5 psi? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-143 (Same as VIII-1-83-137) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Welding After Hydrostatic Testing Date Issued: June 27, 1983 File: BC82-222 Question (1): Is it permissible to have cosmetic welding performed after the final hydrostatic test to comply with UW-35 in Section VIII, Division 1 if no subsequent hydrostatic test is made? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any other means of nondestructive testing, such as MT, PT, or UT, the use of which after cosmetic welding would preclude the necessity of a second hydrostatic test? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13(e) and UG-93(d)(3) Date issued: June 27, 1983 File: BC83-198 Question (1): Does the term "rolled plate" in UW-13(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 refer to flat plate as rolled at the mill? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it required as described in UG-93(d)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 to examine by magnetic particle or liquid penetrant a joint preparation similar to the one shown in Fig. UW-1.32 sketch (c) except that both plates are of the same dimension (3/4 in.) and the b dimension is the thickness of the plate? Reply (2): The joint described in Question (2) is not acceptable. Flat closure plates on cylindrical vessels would require compliance to Fig. UW-13.2 for tp dimension in sketches (b), (c), and (d), and the requirements of UG-93(d)(3) shall apply. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Markings, UG-116(c) Date Issued: June 27, 1983

File:

BC83-200

Question: Is it required under UG-116(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 that the letters "S-W" be applied under the Code Symbol for a vessel constructed with seamless hemispherical heads arc welded to a seamless shell? Reply: Yes. See the concluding paragraph of UG-116(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-146 Subject: Calibration of Welding Equipment, Sections 1, IV, and VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 Date Issued: June 30, 1983 File: BC80-38C Question: Is it a requirement of Section I, IV, or VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, that manual, semiautomatic, and automatic welding equipment be calibrated, and if so, that the devices used for calibration be calibrated? Reply: Note: No. This Interpretation also appears as 1-83-45, IV-83-22, and VIII-2-83-1 7.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-147 Subject: Tack Welding, Sections 1, IV, and VIII-I Date Issued: June 30, 1983 File: BC80-173 Question: A manufacturer, holder of a valid U, S, H, or M Certificate of Authorization, subcontracts an outside organization to roll a shell, which is to be part of a stamped boiler or vessel, and to perform tack welding to secure the longitudinal seam alignment. The outside organization is not part of the Certificate holder's organization. Under what conditions may this work be performed? Reply: In accordance with PW-31 of Section I, HW-810 of Section IV, and UW-31 of Section VIII, Division 1, tack welds, whether removed or left in place, shall be made using a fillet weld or butt weld procedure qualified to Section IX. Tack welds to be left in place shall be made by welders qualified to Section IX and shall be examined visually for defects, and if found to be defective, shall be removed, It is not necessary that a subcontractor performing such tack welds for the boiler or vessel manufacturer be a holder of an ASME Certificate of Authorization. The final boiler or vessel manufacturer shall maintain the controls to assure the necessary welding procedure and performance qualifications are met in order to satisfy Code requirements. Note: This Interpretation also appears as 1-83-46 and IV-83-23. (Withdrawn)

Interpretation: VIII-82-45 Subject: VIII-1, UCS-66(b) Date Issued: March 23, 1982 File: BC81-038

Question (1): For a pressure vessel designed for low temperature service (-50F) and internal pressure only that is horizontally supported on a number of ring girders directly attached to the vessel by welding and that utilizes backing strips, left in place in the welding of the head to shell joints, must the ring girders and backings strips meet the requirements of UCS-66(b) for low temperature service?

Reply (1): Ring girders directly attached to the vessel by welding and backing strips left in place as described in Question (1) are considered to material used in the construction of the vessel. Therefore they are subject to the provisions of UCS-66(b). Question (2): In the vessel described in Question (1), may SA-36 material be used for ring girders and the backing strips? Reply (2): No. See UCS-6 and UCS-66.

Note: On November 12, 1982, this Interpretation was withdrawn for further Committee consideration. This withdrawal notice should have appeared in Interpretations No. 12-Section VIII,-1, covering Interpretations issued from July 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982, and revised Interpretations issued from July 1, 1982, through April 1, 1983. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-133R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51(b) and Appendix 4 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC82-718* Question: If a rounded indication on a weld radiograph is interpreted as incomplete fusion, is it rejectable as addressed in UW-51(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, even if it is acceptable as a rounded indication as defined in 4-2(a) of Appendix 4 and does not exceed the size limitation given in Table 4-1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-81(b) Date Issued: August 19, 1983 File: BC83-036 Question: In UG-81(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, what shall be considered the spherical portion of an ellipsoidal head? Reply: The part of an ellipsoidal head that is to be considered the spherical portion is that part which is located within a circle the center of which coincides with the center of the head and the diameter of which is equal to 80% of the shell diameter. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix L-7 Date Issued: August 19, 1983 File: BC83-120 Question: zero? Reply: In Appendix L-7 of Section VIII, Division 1, when fr1 = 1, will A and A1, be equal to No. In this case, A = dtrF and A, = d(E1 t - Ftr,).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-151 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, ULW-16(b) and AD-110(a)

Date Issued: File:

August 23, 1983 BC82-652

In the fabrication of multilayered vessels, the following parameters exist. The inner shell is made of carbon steel, low alloy, or austenitic material. Over the inner shell a dummy layer is used, which is only tack welded. Over the dummy layer the other layers are fully welded. UG-27 and AD-201 of Section VIII, Divisions I and 2, require R to be the inside radius in deriving the shell thickness calculation. Question (1): Is it permissible in calculating the inside radius R to use the dimension corresponding to the inner shell I.D. only, where the dummy layer is between the inner shell and regular layers? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Can the dummy layer which is only tack welded be considered as part of the thickness of the shell contributing to the strength and resisting the loading conditions, since it is securely in position between the inner shell and other regular layers? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Can the inner shell strength be considered in determining the shell thickness when a dummy layer is present subject to meeting the requirements of AD-110(a) and ULW-16(b)? Reply (3): Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-18.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Stress Values and Joint Efficiencies Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-167 Question(1): Are there any nondestructive tests that may be used on welded pipe or tubing to increase the allowable stress in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any nondestructive tests that may be used on welded pipe or tubing to increase the joint factor in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-153 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Appendix 1-5 and AD-210 Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-169 Question (1): Can Appendix 1-5 of Section VIII, Division 1, be applied to an offset cone such as a kettle-type reboiler? Reply (1): Question (2): Yes. Can AD-210 of Section VIII, Division 2, be applied to offset cones?

Reply (2): Note:

No. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-20.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 14-40 Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-170 Question: When a channel cover consisting of a flat cover, a bolted flange, and a hublike projection is machined from a solid plate, and is attached by through bolting rather than welding, do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 14-40, apply? The hublike projection is used to provide a gasket seating surface in the same manner as a raised face on a conventional flange, Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-155 Subject-. Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 PWHT Welded Buttered Joints; Dissimilar Metal Attachments Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-197 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1 or 2 construction, is it permissible to weld an austenitic stainless (P-No. 8) steel nozzle into carbon steel (P-No. 1) shell or head after postweld heat treatment, provided the carbon steel weld joint preparation is buttered in accordance with the requirements of Section IX with an austenitic stainless steel before postweld heat treatment? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-21.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51(a)(3), Winter 1982 Addenda Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-201 Question (1): Is it required that the manufacturer requalify and recertify his NDE personnel to a program developed using the 1980 Edition of SNT-TC-1A as a guide, as referenced in UW-51(a)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1, if the personnel are presently qualified and certified to a program developed using the 1975 Edition of SNT-TC-1A as a guide? Reply (1): No. However, when his present certification expires, he must then be requalified and recertified to a program developed using the latest edition of the SNT-TC-IA document adopted by the Code. Question (2): May NDE personnel qualified and certified to the manufacturer's program developed using the 1980 Edition of the SNT-TC-1A as a guide perform nondestructive examinations on items being constructed to an addendum which referenced the 1975 Edition of SNT-TC-1A? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix A, A-1(a) Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-207 Question: Do the present rules in Appendix A for tubesheet design apply only to tubesheets which derive some of the support of the pressure load from the tubes? Reply: Yes. The present rules do not apply to U-tube and floating head construction where no support of the tubesheet comes from the tubes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51(a)(3) and 12-2 Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-210 Question (1): Are the recommended guidelines contained in SNT-TC-1A 1980 considered minimum requirements to be addressed in the employer's written practice? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May the detailed recommendations contained in SNT-TC-1A 1980 be reviewed and modified by the employer to meet particular needs, e.g., limited certification? Reply (2): Yes, as described in Interpretation V-80-05.

Question (3): To what extent may the detailed recommendations of SNT-TC-1A 1980 be modified by the employer to meet particular needs? Reply (3): The extent that the program may be modified can only be determined by the Manufacturer subject to the scope of his activities. The program will be reviewed and accepted at the time of the joint review and on an ongoing basis by the Authorized Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-159 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-9(d) Date Issued: August 23, 1983 File: BC83-262 Question: Would a welded head and/or head skirt with longitudinal welds be required to satisfy the rules of UW-9(d) for shell courses of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2 and UW-16 Date Issued: August 24, 1983 File: BC83-034 Question: Do the provisions in UW-2 of Section VIII, Division 1, take precedence over general requirements in other paragraphs? That is, does a requirement, such as that given in UW-2(b)(4), which

requires all Category D joints to be full penetration welds, take precedence over a general rule, such as that given in UW-16(d), which permits nozzles to be attached by fillet and partial penetration welds? Reply: Yes. Throughout Section VIII, Division 1, there are special provisions which take precedence over general rules. For example, the requirements of UW-2(b) relate to special service restrictions for vessels operating at temperatures below -20'F. There are many other rules for specific design and construction which take precedence over general rules. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-161 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: August 24, 1983 File: BC83-268 Question: Does a tubesheet over 1/2 in. in thickness welded to the inside of a shell to form a corner joint as shown in Fig. UG-34 sketch (f) require examination in accordance with the requirements of UG93(d)(3)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-162 Subject: Section VIII, Appendix 9 Date Issued: August 25, 1983 File: BC83-246 Question: Is it the intent of Fig. 9-5 sketch (a) in Section VIII, Division 1, that the dimensions of Type 2 and 4 jackets be the same as Type 1 jackets except for the indicated weld sizes? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-163 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Weld Metal Strength in Design Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File-. BC81-576 Question (1): Excluding special provisions such as Note (3) in Table UHT-23 of Section VIII, Division 1, are there any supplemental requirements for a pressure vessel designed and constructed according to Section VIII, Division 1 or 2, when the weld metal of any joint, or attachment, is of lower minimum specified tensile strength than the base metal? Reply (1): No. However, the provisions of QW-100. 1 of Section IX shall be satisfied.

Question (2): Section IX, QW-153.1(c), permits the tensile strength of the tension test specimen to be not less than the specified minimum tensile strength of the weld metal when the applicable section provides for the use of weld metal having lower room temperature strength than the base metal. Does Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, provide for the use of weld metal having lower room temperature strength than the base metal? Reply (2): 1. Yes. As an example, see footnote (3) to Table UHT-23 and footnote (11) to Table AQT-

Question (3): Does the use of weld metal with lower strength than the base metal have to be reported on the Manufacturer's Data Report?

Reply (3): Note:

No. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-23.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-164 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Foreword, Material Usage Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC81-610 Question: May an ASTM material specification which has been revised from the current version by ASTM and which has not been adopted by the ASME Committee be used in Section VIII, Division 1 fabrication in lieu of the current SB version? Reply: No, unless the provisions of the Foreword apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-165 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Tables UCS-56.1 and AF-402.2 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC82-736 Question: In using the alternate PWHT requirements of Tables UCS-56.1 and AF-402.2 of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, would a P-No. 1 material that is 8 in. thick be held at a minimum temperature of 1050F for a minimum hold time of 7 hr or 16 hr? Reply: The requirements of Tables UCS-56.1 and AF-402.2 of Section VIII, Divisions I and 2, would necessitate a minimum hold time of 16 hr based on 2 hr/in. of thickness when the minimum PWHT is 1050 F. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-24.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-166 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Certification of NDE Personnel Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC82-754B Question (1): If a previous employer will not make documented records of qualification, training, experience of an NDE examiner available, may the hiring company use the individual's documented personal history, such as a resume, as a basis for experience level in his qualification and certification? (Same as Vol. 13 pg. 51, 83-85) Reply (1): Yes, provided the individual is in full compliance with the hiring company's written practice. (Same as Vol. 13 PG. 51, 83-85) Question (2): Is it permissible, for Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 construction, to extend the certification period of Level III examiners to five years, in accordance with ASNT published policy on recertification that has not yet been incorporated into SNT-TC-1A?

Reply (2): Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, do not address NDE personnel recertification; however, NDE personnel recertification must be addressed to the Manufacturer's Quality Control System (Appendix 10 and Appendix 18, respectively). Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-25.

InterpretationVIII-1-83-167 See Errata on page 584(Interpretation No. 33) ' Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; 7-3(a)4)(b), (c), and (d) Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC82-830 Question: When examination is in accordance with Article 6 of Section V (see T-660 through T680), does the term "indication," referenced in 7-3(a)(4)(b), (c), and (d) of Section VIII, Division 1, mean the bleed-out size? Reply: Errata Volume No. 14 Interpretation VIII-1-83-167 Yes.

In the Subject and in the second line of the Question, correct 7-3(4)(b) to read 73(a)(4)(b)

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-168 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-56 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-084 Question: Under the requirements for postweld heat treatment, will holding a vessel at a temperature of 1112 F 36 F for a minimum period of 2 hr for material 2 in. thick of P-Nos. 1, 3, and 4 meet the provisions of Table UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No, the minimum temperature specified in Table UCS-56 is 1100 F for P-No. 1, P-No. 3, and P-No. 4 materials. UCS-56 permits lower temperatures for postweld heat treatment of P-No. 1 and P-No. 3 materials only if the requirements of Table UCS-56.1 are met. Lower temperatures are not permitted for P-No. 4 materials. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-169 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; External Pressure Design Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-113 Question: In Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, when calculating the strength of a helical coil subjected to external pressure, what Code rules are used to set the external MAWP? Reply: The present rules in UG-28 and AD-310 are for straight tubes between supports. Any other configurations, such as helical coils, shall be considered according to U-2(g) for Division 1 and Appendix 4 for Division 2. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-170

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116(m); UG-46 October 27, 1983 BC83-208

Question: Is it permissible to consider bolted water box covers fabricated of steel plate, conforming to a material specification listed in Table UCS-23, and identified per the requirements of UG-93 and UG94, to be manhole or handhole covers within the meaning of UG-116(m) of Section VIII, Division 1, and thus exempt from an additional marking identifying them with the vessel or chamber of which they form a part? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-171 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Radiography Before Forming Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-212 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, in order to utilize the joint efficiencies listed in Table UW-12 and UW-12 for full or spot in determining the minimum required thickness of a torispherical formed head, shall the radiographic examination be carried out before or after the head is formed? Reply: The rules in Section VIII, Division 1, do not stipulate when the radiography is to be performed. Consequently, it may be done before or after the welded segments are formed into a torispherical head. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-172 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCI-35, Fig. 1-6, and UG-32 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-256 Question: Which formula in UG-32 of Section VIII, Division 1, should be used to determine t for circular cast iron spherically shaped head with a bolting flange similar to Fig. 1-6 sketch (c)? Reply: For the Configurations given in Fig. 1-6, the applicable head thickness shall be determined from the formulas in Appendix 1-6 using the allowable stress from Table UCI-23. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-173 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-261 Question: An annular ring cut from flat plate is attached to a cylindrical shell with fillet welds similar to those shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (g) of Section VIII, Division 1. Bolt holes for the purpose of attaching a flat cover plate are drilled and tapped into the annular ring on a bolt circle center line which coincides with the midthickness of the shell plate, thereby eliminating bending moments, resulting from the bolt load, in the annular ring. Do the requirements of UG-93(d)(3) apply? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-174

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-11(a)(1) and AM-105.1(a), Weld Caps Used for Heads in Pressure Vessels October 27, 1983 BC83-266

Question (1): UG-11(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, permits the use of pipe fittings, including welding caps, in accordance with an ASME Standard listed in Table UG-44. If the pipe fittings are supplied to ANSI B16.9, what method should be used to determine the pressure-temperature rating? Reply (1): The pressure-temperature ratings for B16..9 fittings shall be calculated as for straight seamless pipe in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, including the maximum allowable stress value for the material. (See Case 1899 where applicable.) The thickness tolerance of B16.9 shall apply. Question (2): AM-105.1(a) of Section VIII, Division 2, permits the use of standard pipe fittings, including welding caps, provided the material is permitted for Division 2. If the pipe fittings are supplied to ANSI B16.9, what method should be used to determine the pressure-temperature ratings, excluding any limitation of the rules of AD-150 and AD-160? Reply (2): The pressure-temperature ratings for B16.9 fittings shall be calculated as for straight seamless pipe in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 2, including the design stress intensity value for the material. The thickness tolerance of B16.9 shall apply. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-27.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-175 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56(d)(4) Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-283 Question: Is it necessary to perform postweld heat treatment on a shell-to-nozzle attachment per UW-16.1 sketch (e), in Section VIII, Division 1, when both materials are P-No. 1 and the shell thickness is 0,699 and the nozzle wall thickness exceeds 1 1/2 in.? Reply: No. See UCS-56(d)(4).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-176 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Tubesheet Extension Used as a Bolting Flange Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-285 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, when tubesheets are extended to be used as a bolting flange, what method should be used to determine the minimum required thickness for the flange? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1, does not contain specific rules for this configuration; therefore, the rules of U-2(g) apply. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-177 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-3 and UW-12 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-286

Question (1): If two hemispherical spherical heads are welded with a Type 1 joint, what is the minimum degree of radiographic examination that must be performed to obtain an efficiency of 1.0? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): This joint must be fully radiographed for the desired efficiency. Is the joint described in Question (1) a Category A joint? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-178 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UNF-19(b) Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-304 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UNF-19(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, to weld unalloyed titanium to zirconium? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-179 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37 and Appendix 1 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-306 Question (1): A heat exchanger floating head is of the type depicted in Fig. 1-6 sketch (d) of Section VIII, Division 1. When there is a round nozzle opening in the center of the dished plate, what is the basis of t, as defined in UG-37 for determining required reinforcement? Reply (1): In this case, tr is the head thickness required by 1-6(g)(1).

Question (2): If the area of reinforcement is within the dished plate section of the floating head, is t, based on the required thickness of a seamless sphere of the same radius as the dished plate? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-180 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-23 and UW-12 Date Issued: October 27, 1983 File: BC83-311 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, a vessel shell fabricated from ERW pipe is welded circumferentially to formed heads. The joints are visually examined only. What factors shall be used in the formulas of UG-27? Reply: For circumferential stress, the allowable stress from Table UCS-23 is multiplied by 80%, and E= 1.0 .For the longitudinal stress, the allowable stress from the Table is multiplied by 100%, but E = 0.7 or 0.65, depending on the joint Type 1 or 2. Interpretation.VIII-1-83-181 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34 and UG-39 Date Issued: October 27, 1983

File:

BC83-315

Question: A flat head of the type depicted in Fig. UG-34 sketch (j) or (k) of Section VIII, Division 1, is to have reinforcement as required by UG-39(b). Since the opening in the blind flange is equal to or less than, half the head diameter, is it appropriate to use Formula (1) from UG-34(c)(2) instead of Formula (2)? Reply: No. Formula (2) of UG-34(c)(2) is required for this case.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-182 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-3 and UG-32 Date Issued: November 1, 1983 File: BC83-312 Question: If two seamless formed heads, each with a skirt as described in UG-32 of Section VIII, Division 1, are welded together with a double welded butt joint, is this joint considered Category A or B? Reply: The joint described is a Category B joint.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-183 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-35 Date Issued: November 1, 1983 File: BC83-314 Question: Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: What is the acceptable level of reduction in thickness adjacent to a weld in UW-35 of

The acceptable conditions for this reduction in thickness are given in UW-35(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-184 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45 and Appendix 13 Date Issued: November 1, 1983 File: BC83-328 Question (1): UG-45(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, reads "The wall thickness of a nozzle neck ..." Does this refer to the minimum wall thickness? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When applying 13-18(b) or (c), what values of J2, and J3, shall be used when L1, / H or L1, / h is less than 1 0? Reply (2): L1/H or L1/h must be at least equal to 1.0 to use the provisions in 13-18(b) or (c). Interpretation: VIII-1-83-185 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45 Date Issued: November 10, 1983 File: BC83-317

Question: Openings for NPS I through NPS 2 1/2 are used for heater wells and are subjected to external pressure only. A small portion of these wells (approximately 1/2 in. to 3 in.) extends into the atmosphere for insertion of heater elements. May these openings be considered access openings when using the provisions of UG-45 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-186 (Void see 83-186R page 121) Subject: Section VIII-1, UG-136, UG-11(c), and UW-11, Welding of Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: November 28, 1983 File: BC83-071A Question (1): UG-136 does not include any specific requirements for welding in the construction of pressure relief valves. With regard too such welding, do the requirements of UG-11(c) apply? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): With regard to the welding referred to in question (1), if threaded parts are seal welded, is radiographic examination in accordance with UW-11 required? Reply (2): No.-

Question (3): With regard to the welding referred to in Question,(1), if parts are welded with butt joints, is radiographic examination in accordance with UW-11(a) or (b) mandatory? Reply (3): No.

Note: On November 30, 1983, this Interpretation was withdrawn for further Committee consideration. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-187 (Withdrawn) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-3, Longitudinal joint with Backing Bar Date Issued: November 21, 1983 File: BC79-246 Question (1): A longitudinal baffle is used as a backing strip for a Category A joint in a cylindrical shell by fitting it to the inside of the vessel against the weld prep where it is used as a backing strip. Is this joint acceptable and what type is it? Reply (1): The Code does not cover this type of design and no joint efficiencies are given in Table UW-12. Therefore, the provisions of U-2(g) or UG-101 apply to Section VIII, Division 1. Question (2): A longitudinal baffle is inserted entirely through a Category A joint and attached to the cylindrical shell on each side of the baffle by full penetration welds. Is this joint acceptable and what type is it? Reply (2): Same as Reply (1).

Question (3): A longitudinal baffle is inserted partially into Category A joint and welded into place. Is this joint acceptable, and what type is it? Reply (3): Same as Replies (1) and (2).

Note: On December 29, 1983, this Interpretation was withdrawn for further Committee consideration. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-188 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Heat Exchange Tube Qualification, SB-111 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC81-443 Question: May SB-111 tubing which is processed into final form by having both doubly enhanced (externally and internally finned by cold working) and plain sections be used for pressure vessel applications if the certification of the finished tube is based on an analysis of the weaker plain section and the design for internal pressure is based on the corresponding maximum allowable stress values for the weaker material in Subsection C of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-189 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UCL-34, AF-551, and AF-552, PWHT of Weld Overlaid Tubesheets Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC81-531 Question (1): Is it required under the provisions of UCL-34 in Section VIII, Division 1, to postweld heat treat SA-105 tubesheet forgings when weld overload with austenitic stainless steel with 1/8 in. nominal thickness for the following base metal thicknesses? (a) 1.42 in. (b) 0.98 in. (c) 1.97 in. Reply(]): Question (2): No. Is it required under the provisions of AF-551 and AF-552 in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (2): Requirements for postweld heat treatment of weld metal overlay are not covered in Division 2 of the Code. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-190 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-35 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC82-197 Question (1): May wing nuts used for a bolted cover on a pressure vessel built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, be made from malleable iron castings conforming to SA-47 Grade 35018? Reply (1): No, SA-47 Grade 35018 is not listed in Section VIII, Division 1.

Question (2): May wing nuts used for a bolted cover on a pressure vessel built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, be made from a material listed in Table UCI-23? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-191 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCL-36, Repair of Clad Material, SA-263 Date issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC82-221 Question (1): Are the requirements of UCL-36 in Section VIII, Division 1, applicable to repair welding of clad conforming to SA-263? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In the event of damage occurring to clad conforming to SA-263, is examination by liquid penetrant method alone sufficient for the repaired clad using austenitic chromium-nickel steel weld filler metal or non-air-hardening nickel-chromium-iron weld filler metal? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Is the radiographic spot examination requirement specified in UCL-36(b) applicable only when the weld is in continuous contact with the welds in the base metal? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Can the radiographic spot examination, referred to in UCL-36(b) for lined construction, be satisfied by other testing methods? Reply (4): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-192 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCL-34 and PWHT of Weld Overlaid Tubesheets Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC82-655 Question (1): Is it required under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, UCL-34, to postweld heat treat as a result of overlaying a P-No. 1 Group No. 2 tubesheet, 15 in. thick, which has one surface completely weld overlaid with a 5/8 in. thick layer of P-No. 8 composition weld metal? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Same as Question (1), except that the weld overlay is 3/16 in. thick? Reply (2): Question (3): No. Same as Question (1), except that the tubesheet material is P-No. 5 Group No. 1?

Reply (3): Yes. UCS-56 and Table UCS-56 apply, and the minimum holding time is based on the weld overlay thickness. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-193 (Same as question (1) 83-195 next page) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-9(c), Tapered Transition at Tubesheets Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC82-739 Question: A flat plate or tubesheet is welded into the cylindrical portion of a vessel of thinner thickness such that the plate forms a part of the external pressure boundary. If the opening in the

cylindrical shell satisfies the shape and size limits of UG-36(a) and (b) and the shell reinforcement is designed in accordance with the rules for openings, does the requirement for a tapered transition between plates of differing thickness in UW-9(c) apply? Reply: No. However, if these limits are not satisfied, the provisions of U-2(g) or UG-101 apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-194 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-127(a)(3) and UG-132, Safety Valve Rupture Disk Combination Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC82-740 Question: When a rupture disk device and a pressure relief valve are tested in combination in accordance with the rules of UG-132 in Section VIII, Division 1, may the Combination Capacity Factor be used with a rupture disk holder and/or rupture disk of a model or series other than that for which it is tested? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-195 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34, UG-36, UG-39, UG-42(e), and UW-9(c) Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-007 Question (1): A flat plate or tubesheet is welded into the cylindrical portion of a vessel of thinner thickness such that the plate forms a part of the external pressure boundary. If the opening in the cylindrical shell satisfies the shape and size limits of UG-36(a) and (b) and the shell reinforcement is designed in accordance with the rules for openings, does the requirement for tapered transition between plates of differing thickness in UW-9(c) apply? (Same as 83-193 on previous page) Reply (1): No. However, if these limits are not satisfied, the provisions of U-2(g) or UG-101 apply. (Same as 83-193 on previous page)

Question (2): Is it permissible to attach a large opening designed in accordance with the UG-36 through UG-41 rules for openings with a corner joint configuration? Reply (2): Yes. (Void see 83-268)

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-196 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and UW-52 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-019

Question: If a Category B, Type 1 head-to-shell weld joint with no radiography, would a Category A, Type 1 longitudinal weld joint on the same vessel that is spot radiographed in accordance with UW-11(b) and UW-52 in Section VIII, Division 1 have a maximum allowable joint efficiency of 0.85 as given in Table UW-12? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-197 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Restricted Lift Pilot Operated Safety Relief Valves

Date Issued: File:

December 21, 1983 BC83-039

Question: When each combination of size and lift of a type or series of restricted lift pilot operated safety valves has been capacity certified in accordance with the provisions of UG-131(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, how many valves must be tested for the subsequent stamped capacity verification requirements of UG-136(c)(3)(a) and (b) and UG-136(c)(4)(a) and (b)? Reply: When a type or series of restricted lift pilot operated safety valves has been originally certified by conducting tests in accordance with the requirements of UG-131(d)(2) on each size and lift combination, each subsequent stamped capacity verification test of the type or series as required by UG136(c)(3)(a) and (b) and UG-136(c)(4)(a) and (b) may be conducted by testing two valves only, each of which is of a different size and set at a different pressure and lift restriction. The preceding only applies if the stamped capacity of the unrestricted type or series is verified as required by UG-136(c)(3)(b), and the method and/or procedure for restricting the lift is uniform throughout the design. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-198 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-139 Question: Figure UW-13.1 sketch (a) (left view) of Section VIII, Division 1, depicts a head with pressure on its concave side inserted into a shell and attached using a single fillet lap weld on the outside of the vessel. May such a head be attached using a single fillet lap weld on the inside of the vessel? Reply: No. [See Table UW-12(6)(b).]

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-199 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45, Nozzle Neck Thickness Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-226 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1, prohibit the use of standard wall pipe for internal and external pressure when corrosion is specified? Reply (1): No. To determine the minimum nozzle neck thickness, first a thickness according to UG45 is calculated. Then the thicknesses according to UG-45(a)(1) through (4) are calculated and the smallest of (1) through (4) is noted. The minimum nozzle neck thickness shall be the least that is determined by UG-45(a), but not less than the smallest determined by UG-45(a)(1) through (4). Depending upon the calculations, UG-45(a)(4) may control, which states that the thickness shall be standard wall pipe plus corrosion. This rules out standard wall pipe if UG-45(a)(4) sets the thickness. Question (2): In Section VIII, Division 1, what are the requirements for establishing the minimum nozzle neck thickness for a vessel under external pressure only? Reply (2): The procedure is similar to that given in Question (1) and Reply (1), above. First, a thickness is calculated according to UG-45(a), which means using external pressure only; the smaller thickness determined by UG-45(a)(2) and UG-45(a)(4) is noted. The minimum nozzle neck thickness for external pressure only shall be at least that determined by UG-45 and no less than the smaller determined by UG-45(a)(2) and (4).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-200 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Physical Properties After Furnace Brazing Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-408 Question: Are there any provisions in Section VIII, Division 1, regarding the tensile strength or yield strength requirements for base metals after brazing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-201 Subject: Section VIII, U-1(k)(1) and (2) Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-420 Question (1): Under the provisions of U-1(k)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, may a pressure vessel which must otherwise be inspected be exempt from inspection requirements if the volume is limited to 5 cu ft, but the maximum working pressure is allowed to exceed 250 psig? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Under the same provision of the Code, may a like pressure vessel which must otherwise be inspected be exempt from inspection if the maximum allowed working pressure is limited to 250 psig, but the volume is allowed to exceed 5 cu ft? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is the following interpretation of Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(k)(1) consistent with the intent of the Code? Pressure vessels of 5 cu ft or less in volume which do not exceed 250 psig pressure shall be exempt from inspections, provided they comply in all other respects with the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, of the Code. Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-202 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Use of Fluoroscopy Instead of Radiography Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-424 Question: Is it permissible in Section VIII, Division 1, to use fluoroscopy in performing examination of welds in pipe in lieu of radiography? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-203 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12(c) Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-429

Question(1): A head is butt welded to one end of a one-course seamless shell and a tubesheet is attached by a corner joint at the other end. No radiography is to be performed. Shall the stress valve used in calculating the shell be reduced to 80% according to the requirements of UW-12(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Would the stress valve (value) in the situation above be reduced to 80% if two shell courses connected by butt welding were used? Reply (2): Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-204 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-5(b) and UG-55(a), Welding Requirements Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-453 Question: Are qualified welding procedures and qualified welders to Section IX required for all welding done in accordance with UG-55 of Section VIII, Division 1 even when material 3/8 in. thick and under is used and the provisions of UG-5(b) are followed? Reply: Yes. UG-55 makes reference only to the material requirements of attachment. Therefore, other applicable fabrication requirements for welded vessels must also be followed. See UW28(b). Interpretation: VIII-1-83-205 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCL-23(b) Date issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-461 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UCL-23(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, to include as part of the base metal thickness calculation the thickness of a low carbon weld overlay which is 0.2 in. thick for girth flanges of SA-105 and SA-350 LF 2 materials? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-206 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHT-18 and Code Case 1883 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-463 Question: For vessels constructed according to Code Case 1883, when the material (for shells or heads) is 2 in. or less in thickness, is it required that all openings, regardless of size, shall meet the requirements for reinforcing, nozzle geometry, and nozzle attachments, and shall conform to details shown in Fig. UHT-18.1 (only)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-207 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2(a) and UCL-34(a) and (b) Date Issued: December 21, 1983

File:

BC83-464

Question: Would a vessel fabricated of carbon steel plate material be required to be postweld heat treated per UW-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, when the inside of the vessel is lined with a corrosion resisting chromium-nickel stainless steel lining? Reply: Yes. See UCL-34,

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-208 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-14 Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-465 Question (1): Under the requirements of UW-14 in Section VIII, Division 1, may an opening which is inherently reinforced in accordance with UG-36(c)(3) be placed in a weld seam without radiographing the weld seam or adding additional reinforcement in the form of a pad? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If a small nozzle within the limits of UG-36(c)(3) is placed in a weld seam, the reinforcement calculations being made to show adequate reinforcement, will this satisfy the requirements of UW-14(b) without any radiography or additional reinforcement pad? Reply (2): Only if the reinforcement calculations as described in UG-40 contain a value of E1, from Table UW-12, column (c); and additionally, if no pad is to be added, any reinforcement which is required to satisfy the reinforcement requirements comes from additional thickness of the shell and/or nozzle. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-209 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(h)(3), Location of Impact Specimens Date Issued: December 21, 1983 File: BC83-537 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-84(h)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, to take the second set of impact specimens at a location three-fourths of the material thickness, measured from the same surface the first set of impact specimens was taken from? Reply: Yes Errata Volume 13 Interpretation VIII-1-83-133 Correct Date Issued to read June 21, 1983

SPECIAL NOTICE SECTION VIII,, DIVISION 1 The following Interpretation should be considered part of Interpretations Volume 1 4. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-210 (Recinded) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13 and Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: September 15, 1978 File: BC78-640 (BC78-640 per Vol. 15 Errata, page 162) Recinded

Question: In a joint configuration for a box header similar to that shown in Fig. UW-13.2(b) or (c), is it permissible to determine the "a" and "b" dimensions using the line of fusion [as defined in UW-13(e) (1)] in the welded condition? Reply: Yes, provided that the procedure and frequency for determining the dimensions using the fusion line are acceptable to the Authorized Inspector. Note: This Interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 4, covering Interpretations issued from July 1, 1978, through December 31, 1978. Errata Volumes 14 and 15 Interpretation VIII-1-83-210 Correct File to read BC78-640 Recinded Interpretation VIII-1-83-210, which was published both as a separate insert to Interpretations No. 14 and on p. 122 of Interpretations Volume No. 15, is hereby rescinded. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-92R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-23(b) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC82-756* Question (1): Are the allowable compressive stresses established in accordance with UG-23(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, applicable to primary stresses only or to the sum of primary and secondary stresses (including thermal stress)? Reply (1): The requirements of UG-23(b) are applicable to primary stresses only.

Question (2): Are there methods in Section VIII, Division 1, to determine the acceptability of a vessel subject to a combination of axial compressive loading and external pressure? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-186R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Welding of Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-071 A* Question: UG-136 does not include any specific requirements for welding in the construction of pressure relief valves. With regard to such welding, do the requirements of UG-11(c) apply? Reply: No. See U-1(f).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-210 (Same as Vol. 9 page 121 & Vol. 14 page 116) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13 and Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: September 15, 1978 File: B78-465 (BC78-640)

Question: In a joint configuration for a box header similar to that shown in Fig. UW-13.2(b) or (c), is it permissible to determine the "a" and "b" dimensions using the line of fusion [as defined in UW13(e)(1)] in the as-welded condition? Reply: Yes, provided that the procedure and frequency for determining the dimensions using the fusion line are acceptable to the Authorized Inspector. Note: This Interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 4, covering Interpretations issued from July 1, 1978, through December 31, 1978. (Interpretation VIII-1-83-210 appeared as a separate insert to VIII-1 Interpretations No. 14 that was distributed with the Summer 1984 Addenda. It is being included here as a convenience to the reader.) Recinded (See Errata to VIII-1-83-210 on p. 162 of Interpretations No. 15.) to 78-640) (This Errata corrects BC No.

(This Interpretation was rescinded see page 589) Interpretation: VIII-1-83-211 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-27(c)(1), UG-76(c), and Fig. UW-16, Required Thickness of Head and Skirt Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC82-417 Question (1): In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, when the allowable stress value of the head is greater than that of the shell, is it permissible for the thickness of the head skirt to be thinner than that required of the shell to which it is attached? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): (a) When nozzle necks extend inside the vessel shell beyond the limits of reinforcement, are the exposed edges required to be rounded or chamfered as per UG-76(c) of Section VIII, Division 1? (b) Do the above requirements of UG-76(c), within the limits given above, apply to pipe, forgings, and/or plate necks? (c) Do the requirements of UG-76(c) apply to the exposed shell edge for openings as shown in Fig. UW16.1 sketch (bb) and Fig. UW-16.2 sketch (p) Reply (2) (a) Yes. (b) Yes (c) Yes Interpretation: VIII-1-83-212 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix L, Nozzle Load Paths Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC82-882 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1 calculations, are nozzle load paths other than those presently in Appendix L required to be considered?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-213 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-5(b) Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-075 Question: UG-5(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, specifies that when material not identified in accordance with UG-93 is used for a nonpressure part, guided bend test per QW-451 of Section IX is required for each "lot" of all such material over 3/8 in. thick. May the "Material Specification" of such material be considered as "lot," provided all following conditions are met? (a) The material to be used for nonpressure parts conforms to a National Standard Material Specification and is identified with the particular Material Specification Number. (b) The guided bend test required by UG-5(b) is made for each Material Specification and material thickness in accordance with the requirements of QW-451 of Section IX, and the test report is available to the Authorized Inspector. (c) The identification marking traceable to the Material Test Report is stamped on each part of such material, and the Material Test Report of such material is available to the Authorized Inspector. Reply: No. A test must be made for each lot as defined in the Material Specification. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-214 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Scope, U-1 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-127 Question (1): A type of tire retreading equipment holds a rubber tire in metal part(s) which can be pressurized only when a tire is in place. The tire forms part of the pressure containing boundary. Is this equipment within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No. However, in accordance with footnote 1 to U-1, the laws or regulations of jurisdictions should be reviewed to determine requirements which may be different or more restrictive. Question (2): May the metallic pressure containing part(s) of the equipment described in Question (1) be constructed as a Section VIII, Division 1 part, including stamping and data reports? Reply (2): Yes. See U-1(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-215 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-32, UG-37, and UG-45 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-404 Question (1): Does UG-32 of Section VIII, Division 1, apply for formed heads of vessels with pressure on the concave side? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does UG-37 apply to the required thickness of a formed head when determining the nozzle neck thickness to the provisions of UG-45(a)(1)?

Reply (2):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-216 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, 2-12(a)(1) Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-476 Question: For flanges with nut-stops designed to Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, is the g1 dimension defined in 2-12(a)(1) intended to be a maximum limit for g1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-217 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11 and UG-45 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-544 Question: Are threaded couplings welded directly to a pressure vessel to be designed per ANSI B16.11 as stated in UG-11, footnote 5, Section VIII, Division 1, thus disregarding the requirements of UG-45 for nozzle neck thicknesses, since no neck exists? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-218 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; SA-455 in UCS-23 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-546 Question: A pressure vessel manufacturer fabricates a head made of SA-455. The required calculated thickness is 0.375 in. which is based on the allowable stress value for thicknesses up to 0.375 in. Because of thinning allowance, the fabricator has to increase the thickness by a given value and then orders a plate which is thicker than 0.375 in. Since the ordered thickness is greater than 0.375 in., does the required calculated thickness have to be based on the allowable stress value given for the thickness range of 0.375 in. to 0.58 in.? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-219 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Attachment Welds at Openings Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-556 Question (1): Are the nozzle reinforcement details given in UW-16 of Section VIII, Division 1, and shown in Fig. UW-16.1 the only details which are permitted? Reply (1): No. The title of Fig. UW-16.1 states "some acceptable types."

Question (2): Are the nozzle design rules applicable to nozzle configurations which are perpendicular to the shell or head surface only, or may they be used for nozzles at other angles such as "hillside" and other nonperpendicular constructions?

Reply (2): There is no limitation on the angle of the nozzle axis to the shell or head surface in the nozzle reinforcement rules of Section VIII, Division 1. When no specific rules are given, the requirements of U-2(g) apply, Interpretation: VIII-1-83-220 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-557 Question (1): For vessels of small diameter, not accessible for welding from the inside, as well as for vessels of large diameter where welding from the inside is possible, it is proposed to weld both the longitudinal and circumferential seams with single side full penetration welds. TIG and SMAW or TIC; and SAW processes with argon backing for the root run will be used. May these be considered to be Type 1 joints in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Will the degree of examination affect the determination of the type of joints? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-221 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 4 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-578 Question: 4-3 in Section VIII, Division 1, gives formulas for the maximum size of rounded indications. If the maximum size of an acceptable rounded indication calculated from this paragraph differs from the examples in Table 4-1 or the measured sizes in Figs. 4-1 through 4-8, which size shall be used? Reply: The formulas shown in 4-3 shall take precedence.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-222 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2, UG-84, and UHA-51 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-580 Question (1): Are weld metal impact tests for each welding procedure used, made in accordance with UG-84(h) and tested at a temperature at least as low as the minimum design temperature of the vessel, required for vessels made of Type 304 or 304L materials? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are weld metal impact tests for each procedure used and vessel production impact test of the welds [in accordance with UG-84(i)] required for vessels made of Type 316 (or all other UHA-23 materials except Type 304 or 304L) materials? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Are Category C and D welds in vessels made of Type 304 or 304L material required by UW-2(b)(3) and(4) to be full penetration welds?

Reply (3):

Yes.

Question (4): Are Category C and D welds in vessels made of Type 316 materials (or all other UHA23 materials) required by UW-2(b)(3) and (4) to be full penetration welds? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-223 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-582 Question: May SA-515 Gr. 70 (without any supplementary requirements) be used for making dished heads by cold spinning and then heat treating after welding to the shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-224 Subject-. Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79, UG-79, and UHT-79 Date Issued: February 22, 1984 File: BC83-586 Question Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): (1): Do the provisions of UCS-79 in Section VIII, Division 1, apply to cold spinning? Yes. Also see UG-79. When cold spinning to UCS-79, do the heads have to be normalized? Normalizing is not specifically required, but the provisions of UG-79 and UHT-79 apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-225 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-39, Flat Head with Opening Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC79-323 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, may the formulas in 2-13 for reverse flanges be applied to configurations where the K value, that is, the ratio of the outside diameter of the flange to the inside diameter of the flange, is greater than 2.0? Reply: Yes. See 2-13(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-226 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Use of SA-234 Fittings Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC81-301 Question: May either SA-516-70 or SA-515-70 be used in the fabrication of caps in accordance with SA-234 or A 234 for applications in Section VIII, Division 1 construction operating at a design temperature of 20'F to 650F?

Reply::

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-227 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(b) and (e) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC82-563 Question (1): A dished head made of P-No. 1 Gr. Nos. 1 and 2 material with a thickness of less than 1 1/4 in. is hot pressed at a temperature of 1750F. Are test specimens required under UCS-85 of Section VIII, Division 1, to establish the mechanical property of the material? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the head described in Question (1) is welded to the shell and then postweld heat treated at 1150F, are additional test specimens simulating the postweld heat treatment required? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-228 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-25, UG-25, and Appendix E, Use of Corrosion Allowance for Boiler Economizers Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC82-824 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, is it a requirement to have a corrosion allowance added to the minimum required thicknesses of a boiler economizer fabricated to the rules of this Division? Reply: Yes, if UCS-25 applies. Also see UG-25 and Appendix E.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-229 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(b)(9) and UG-96(a), Certification of Formed Heads Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-024 Question: If a Manufacturer of formed heads certifies that the forming tolerances of UG-81 of Section VIII, Division 1, are met, does such certification satisfy the requirements of UG-90(b)(9) and UG-96(a)? Reply: appropriate. Yes, unless the vessel Manufacturer or the Inspector considers that verification is

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-230 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-110 and BC83-298 Question(1): Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13, apply to the design of a noncircular pressure vessel as shown in Fig. 13-2(a) sketch 4 if the reinforcement consists of channel sections, the legs of which are welded to the noncircular shell?

Reply (1):

Yes,

Question (2): In the case described in Question (1), do the rules of Appendix 13 apply if the inverted channel sections are used to contain fluid or vapor and serve as partial jackets? Reply (2): No. The rules of Appendix 13 do not apply to jacketed vessels, and the rules of Appendix 9 do not apply to noncircular vessels. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-231 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(5)(b) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-235 Question: Is it permissible to partially radiograph Category B butt welds in a shell section designed under the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, when the material is SA-612 and the thickness is 5/8 in. or less? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-232 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-43(f) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-355 Question: Does UG-43(f) of Section VIII, Division 1, for expanded connections apply to multiple tubes expanded into tubesheets in shell and tube heat exchangers? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-233 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-28 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-356 Question: A cylindrical jacketed vessel has a continuous spiral baffle welded around the outside surface of the inner shell. The spiral baffle is designed as a stiffening ring. Is it permissible to consider the baffle pitch as a design length of the inner shell section (L) when calculating the shell thickness under external pressure in UG-28? Reply: No. Spiral stiffening rings are not specifically covered in Section VIII, Division 1, and the designer is referred to U-2(g) or UG-101. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-234 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix A, Fig. A-2, Tensile Strength of Weld Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-534 Question: Is the tube-to-tubesheet weld joint shown in Appendix A, Fig. A-2 sketch (6), to be considered only for seal welding? Reply.: Yes.

Interpretation: ` VIII-1-83-235 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2 Date issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-590 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. 2-4 sketch (la), the rule is that t1 (tn,. Is tn, the nominal thickness or the minimum required thickness? Reply: tn, is the nominal thickness of the shell or nozzle wall to which the flange is attached, less corrosion allowance. Therefore, the nominal thickness of the flange shall be equal to or greater than the nominal thickness of the shell or nozzle to which it is attached, less corrosion allowance. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-236 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-36 and Appendix 1 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-597 Question (1): A conical shell reducer section has a cone connected to a cylindrical section. The center line of the conical section is at an angle to the center line of the cylindrical section. In this case, is angle a in UG-36(g) of Section VIII, Division 1, to be the angle the center lines make with each other or the largest included angle between the cone and cylinder sections? Reply (1): sections. Angle a shall be taken as the largest included angle between the cone and cylinder

Question (2): Does an oblique conical shell section under internal pressure with an angle a greater than 30 deg. meet the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No. See UG-36(g)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-237 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56 and Code Case 1177-7 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-598 Question(1): Are the requirements of Table UCS-56 applicable to the bellows element to ring elements attachment welds? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are the requirements of Table UCS-56 applicable to ring element attachment welds which do not have a pressure retaining function? Reply (2): Postweld heat treatment is required when a nonpressure part is welded to a pressure part as described in UCS-56(c). Question (3): If the Manufacturer, with the acceptance of the inspector, shows that heat treatment is injurious to the design and serviceability of the bellows element, is it permissible to use the provisions of U-2(g) in lieu of the postweld heat treatment requirements in Table UCS-56? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-238 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix L and UG-37(b) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-599 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, two different equations are given for determining the area required A for reinforcement calculations. One is given in UG-37(b) and the other is given in Fig. L-7 of Appendix L. Which shall be used? Reply: The equation given in UG-37(b) is mandatory. However, there are additional rules in UG-41(a) which require that different strengths of materials be considered. The equation in Appendix L has incorporated these differences in materials strengths into the basic equation. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-239 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Strength of Connection Elements for Category D Joints in a Shell or Head Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-600 Question: A nozzle connection is seamless and does not pass through any weld seam in the shell or head. Is it permissible to use the full allowable stress for the design temperature, as given in the applicable Tables in Subsection C, when calculating both the load carried by the welds and the unit stresses? The applicable stress factors in UG-45(c) and UW-15(b) are taken into account. Reply: Full allowable stresses are permitted for nozzle calculations except for those nozzles located in a vessel that has been designed according to UG-12(c),(? UW-12(c)) where an 80% factor shall be applied to allowable stresses. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-240 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37(b) and UG-40(d) Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-602 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, in nozzle reinforcement calculations in UG-37(b), the thickness is taken to be "seamless." Does this apply to ERW tubes? Reply: UCS-23. Yes, provided the allowable stress for ERW pipe or tube is used. See Note (27) to Table

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-241 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51 and UW-52 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-603A Question: May a Real Time Radiography System (filmless radiography system) be used under the provisions of UW-51 and UW-52 in Section VIII, Division 1, in lieu of film type radiography? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-242 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-604 Question (1): Is there a need for a stress reduction factor on the allowable stress when calculating the required thickness of a heat exchanger seamless shell (E= 1.0) attached to flanges of both ends, as shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (8), (8a), (8b), and (9)? No radiography is performed. Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is there a need for a stress reduction factor on the allowable stress when calculating the required thickness of a heat exchanger seamless shell (E = 1.0) that does not contain any Category A or B joints, but is strictly fabricated with Category C and D non-X-rayable joints? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-243 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-125(e) and UG-102, Mounting of Pressure Gages Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-633 Question (1): Concerning test gages, UG-102(a) in Section VIII, Division 1, reads, "An indicating gage shall be connected directly to the vessel." Is it acceptable for a pressure gage to be mounted on a tee which is directly mounted to the pressure vessel? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): UG-125(e) covers indicating pressure gages, if provided, to determine vessel pressure as it relates to relief device setting. Does the Code contain rules for the mounting or location of such gages? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-244 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-36 and Interpretation VIII-79-73 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-638 Question(1): Does the opening formed by the attachment of a 2 in. long weld neck flange to a shell require reinforcement? Reply (1): The opening formed by the attachment of 2 in. long weld neck flange does not require additional reinforcement other than that inherent in the construction if all of the requirements of UG36(c)(3) are met; that is, single opening, not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure. Question (2): Interpretation VIII-79-73 refers to UG-36(c)(3)(a) and mentions the word "opening." Is this term meant to refer to the finished opening in the vessel, such as the inside diameter of a nozzle? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): With regard to UG-36 and the Interpretation mentioned in Question (2), would a 2 in. 600 lb. long weld neck nozzle inserted into a vessel, not subject to rapid fluctuation in pressure, with a shell thickness greater than 3/8 in., be classified as an opening requiring reinforcement?

Reply (3): The opening formed by the attachment of a 2 in. 600 lb. long weld neck flange does not require additional reinforcement other than that inherent in the construction if all of the requirements of UG-36(c)(3) are met; that is, single opening, not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure. Question (4): With regard to UG-36 and the Interpretation mentioned in Question 2, would a 2 in. Schedule 160 pipe inserted into a vessel, not subject to rapid fluctuation in pressure, with a shell thickness greater than 3/8 in., be classified as an opening requiring reinforcement? Reply (4): The opening formed by the insertion of a 2 in. Schedule 160 pipe into a shell of a thickness greater than 3/8 in. does not require additional reinforcement other than that inherent in the construction if all of the requirements of UG-36(c)(3) are met; that is, single opening, not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-245 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-101(m), Sm Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-642 Question(1): What is the definition of Sm in Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply (1): Sm is defined in UG-101(m)(2) as follows: "Sm = maximum tensile strength of range of specification." Question (2): How is Sm derived for use in the equation in UG-101(m)(2)(a)?

Reply (2): Sm is to be taken from the specific material's specification given in Section I1. If no value of Sm is given in the material specification in Section I1, it is necessary to get the value of Sa by tests. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-246 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and UG-32 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-643 Question(1): In Section VIII, Division 1, what is the weld joint category of two hemispherical heads with short skirts which are welded together? Reply (1): The skirts shall meet the requirements of UG-32(l) which states that the skirt thickness shall be at least that required for a seamless shell of the same diameter. Therefore, effectively, two shells are being welded together, and the weld joint is Category B. Question (2): E = 1.0? What radiographic examination is required for the joint described in Question (1) to use

Reply (2): Unless there are special service restrictions, the weld joint is treated as any other Category B joint and requires full radiography or partial radiography to assume E = 1.0. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-247 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(c)(6), 120 gal Water Exclusion Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-648

Question: Does U-1(c)(6) define vessels with a nominal water containing capacity of 120 gal or less for containing water, with no limitation on pressure, as being outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes; however, the laws or regulations of jurisdictions should be reviewed for size or service limitations which may be different. See footnote 1 to U-1. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-248 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-52(c), Retention of Spot Radiographic Record Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-649 Question: The third line of UW-52(c) in Section VIII, Division 1, reads: "Spot radiographs may be retained or be discarded by the manufacturer after acceptance of the vessel by the inspector." May reader sheets which document the interpretation of spot radiographs also be discarded? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-249 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-119 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-650 Question: UG-119(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, requires all required markings for nameplates to be produced by casting, etching, embossing, debossing, stamping, or engraving. If these requirements are satisfied, may the nameplate have a painted background with unpainted boxes for the required marking? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-250 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-42, AF-229.1, and Article T Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-652A Question (1): AT-202(a) has the requirement that welding procedure impact tests shall be made on all high-alloy steel weld metal. Does this include corrosion resistant weld overlays? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. Is Article T-2 applicable at all design temperatures in Section VIII, Division 2? Yes.

Question (3): AT-202(a) has the requirement that welding procedure impact tests shall be made when the base material is selected from Groups IV and V of Fig. AM-218.1. Is this applicable for all design temperatures in Section VIII, Division 2? Reply (3): Note: See Question (2) and Reply (2). This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-34.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-251 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-119(c)(1), Size of Characters Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-661 Question: UG-119(c)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, states: "The required markings on a nameplate shall be in characters not less than 5/32 in. high. . ." Does this requirement pertain only to the required markings, and may supplemental data be of smaller size? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-252 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-662 Question (1): A vessel has a cross section similar to that shown in Fig. 13-2(c) of Section VIII, Division 1. If the vessel's central dividing plate is off center, is Appendix 13 applicable to the design of the vessel? Reply (1): For situations not specifically covered in Section VIII, Division 1, the provisions in 131(c) are applicable. Question (2): Two connected chambers operate at different pressures. One has a vacuum while the other has an internal pressure above 15 psig. Is this configuration outside the rules of Appendix 13? Reply (2): Yes, but it is not outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. See UG-19.

Question (3): Two connected chambers operate at maximum pressures of 48 psia and 18.6 psia. The stamping on the vessel is for "vac & 50#." Would operating one side at 0.5 psia and the other at 50 psig be considered an abnormal operating condition? Reply y (3): No; however, see UG-19.

Question (4): May the design differential pressure between two connected chambers be in excess of the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel? Reply (4): No. For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, each chamber shall be treated as an individual vessel unless there is a special provision that ties the pressures of the individual chambers to each other. See UG-19 and UG-21. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-253 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Use of SA-179 and SA-214 for Low Temperature Services Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-663 Question: May SA-179 tube, SA-214 tube, and SA-285 Grade C plate be used in pressure vessels operating at a temperature of -100F and built to Section VIII, Division 1, if the minimum required thickness meets the provisions of UCS-66(c)(2)(b)? Interpretation: VIII-1-83-254 (Void see 83-254R page 168)

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII; Division 1, UW-12(c), Reference to Design Calculations May 31,1984 BC83-664

Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(c) states that for vessels which are not to be radiographed, a value of E is taken from column (c) of 'Table UW-12 "provided that in all other design calculations...." What is meant by "other design calculations? Reply: "Other design calculations" means all calculations which are required to satisfy the loadings in UG-22 except those calculations which use a joint efficiency from column (c) of Table UW12 or are exempt as defined in UW-12(c), such as flat heads, etc. For example, in a seamless cylindrical shell, since there is no weld joint, E =1.0. However, the value of S to be used in calculations shall be 0.8 times the value of allowable stress from the Tables in Subsection C. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-255 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions I and 2, UW-39 and AF-234, Peening Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC83-683 Question (1): UW-39 in Section VIII, Division 1, and AF-234 in Section VIII, Division 2, have the words "peening and "controlled peening," respectively. Do "peening" and "controlled peening" refer to only hammer peening or to all peening (hammer, shot, rotary flap, etc.)? Reply (1): Peening in the Code is meant to apply to only that accomplished by blows from either manual, electric, or air driven hammers. It is not meant to apply to such fabricating practices as shotblast, rotary wire wheels, and/or flapper wheels. Question (2) Division 2? : What are the controls implied in "controlled peening" in AF-234 of Section VIII,

Reply (2): The Code does not establish technique and/or controls for peening. Peening is not a science, but an art that is developed by experienced craftsmen. Question (3): by welding? Does "weld metal," in the paragraphs given in Question (1), refer only to the metal added

Reply (3): Weld metal is defined in Section IX, QW-492, as that portion of a weld which has been melted during welding. Question (4): Reply (4): Note: Is it permissible to peen the heat affected zone and sections of the base metal? The Code does not prohibit the peening from being carried into the heat affected zone. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-36.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-256 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Nonmetallic View Ports Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-030 Question: Reply: May nonmetallic view ports be used in Section VIII, Division 1 and 2 pressure vessels? Yes. See U-1(e)(1)(d)

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-256R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmetallic View Ports Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-030 Question: Are nonmetallic components attached to the first sealing surface of a vessel as referenced in U-1(e)(4) and AC-120(d) outside the scope of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-257 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-44, Pressure Rating of Short Radius Elbows and Returns Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-032 Question: Does the Note in UG-44 pertain only to subparagraph (g), or does it apply to all subparagraphs of UG-44 preceding the Note? Reply: The Note applies only to UG-44(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-258 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(k), Quick Actuating Closure Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-033 Question: 1? Reply: What is the definition of "quick actuating closures" in U-1(k) of Section VIII, Division See UG-35(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-259 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-050 Question (1): A pressure vessel has an inside diameter, width, height, or cross section diagonal of less than 6 in. and a length greater than 6 in. Is this vessel outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, as given in U-1(c)(9)? Reply (1): Yes. See footnote 1 to U-1.

Question (2): Are pressure vessels having a volume of less than 5 cu ft and a pressure under 250 psi outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, in accordance with U-1(k)? Reply (2): No. U-1(k) gives some exemptions from inspection by inspectors (as defined in UG-91) but does not exclude vessels from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. Question (3): Form U-3 of Appendix W for UM vessels does not provide for two chamber vessels nor an entry for tubesheets. When completing Form U-3 for a two compartment vessel or for a vessel with a

tubesheet, should the additional data be recorded either under "Remarks" or on Form U-4 using Form U1 as a guide? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-260 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-051 Question: A forged vessel has a seamless shell and two bolted flat heads. Under the provisions of UG-99(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, may the ratio (S test temperatures/S design temperature) for the bolting material be used if it results in the lowest ratio for the material of which the vessel is constructed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-261 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-16(d) and UG-40 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-052 Question: For reinforcement calculations in Section VIII, Division 1, when pipe used is as the shell or nozzle, should t or tn as described in UG-40 be calculated as the minimum wall thickness of the pipe rather than the nominal wall thickness because of the provisions in UG-16(d), Pipe Undertolerance? Reply: Minimum thickness is used in all reinforcement calculations except for calculating the available area for reinforcement in the nozzle wall where nominal thickness (with no reduction for undertolerance) is used. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-262 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-14 and UG-36 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File-. BC84-053 Question: Do the radiographic requirements of UW-14(b) apply to a 6 in. pad type connection which is located in a circumferential seam and which fully meets the reinforcement requirements of UG37? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-263 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(h)(3), Impact Specimens Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-057 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-84(h)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, to take the second set of impact specimens at a location of one-half the material thickness, measured from the same surface from which the first set of impact specimens was taken? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-264 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-46(f)(2), Plugging of Inspection Openings Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-071 Question: UG-46(f)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, stipulates that a vessel which requires access or inspection openings and has an inside diameter of 18 to 36 in., inclusive, is to have a manhole or two handholes or two threaded pipe plug inspection openings of not less than 2 in. pipe size. Is it the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer to provide the closing plugs if the threaded pipe plug inspection openings are used? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-265 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UW-12 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-087 Question: To meet the requirements of Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1, for a joint efficiency of 1.00, may a single bevel butt joint with the root pass made with SMAW, GTAW, or GMAW, and the rest made by SMAW or SAW with 100% radiograph be used? Reply: Yes. See UW-37(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-266 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix W, Form U-1A and Form U-4 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-089 Question: Item 10 Form U-1A in Appendix W is for nozzles and inspection and safety valve openings. Is it required that all nozzle openings in a pressure vessel be listed, thus possibly necessitating the use of Form U-4, the Manufacturer's Data Report Supplementary Sheet? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-267 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UW-12, Joint Types Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-090 Question: A circumferential joint of greater than 24 in. 0. D. is made with a single-welded full penetration butt weld. Is this a Type No. (1) joint as given in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements in UW-35 and UW-37(d) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-268 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and UW-52 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-102

Question: If a Category B, Type 1 head to shell weld joint is completed with no radiography by one welder, would a Category A, Type 1 longitudinal weld joint on the same vessel that is spot radiographed in accordance with UW-11(b) and UW-52 of Section VIII, Division 1, have a maximum allowable joint efficiency of 0.85 as given in Table UW-12 if it is made by a different welder? Reply: Note: No. See UW-52. This Interpretation corrects VIII-1-83-196 of Interpretations No. 14, Section VIII-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-269 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116(c), Vessel Markings Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-105 Question (1): Is it required under UG-116(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, that the letters "S-W" be applied under the Code symbol for a vessel constructed of a welded cylindrical shell with one or more of the following seamless welded on parts? (a) seamless torispherical heads; (b) seamless flat heads or tubesheets; (c) seamless pipe nozzle connections. Reply (1): (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) N o. Question (2): Is it required that the letters "S-W-RES" be applied under the Code symbol for a vessel constructed of a welded cylindrical shell, seamless flat tubesheets, and ERW pipe nozzles? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it required under UG-11(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, that the letters "W-B" be applied under the Code symbol for a vessel constructed of a welded cylindrical shell of 12 in. diameter or larger, with welded pipe nozzles and one 1 1/8 in. diameter copper tube that extends through the shell (to form both an internal pressure boundary and an external nozzle) and is brazed to a fitting attached to the shell at two places? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-270 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-66(c)(2)(b), Low Temperature Service Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-106 Question (1): For P-No. 1 materials, is there a lower limit to the design temperature below which UCS66(c)(b) does not apply? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): . No. Does UCS-66(c)(2)(b) apply to SA-312? No. See UCS-5(a)

Question (3): When designing for low temperature service, using UCS-66(c)(2)(b), may the allowable stress values given in Table UCS-23 and Table UHA-23 for -20 to -650F, and -20 to 100F, respectively, be used? Reply (3): UCS-66(c)(2)(b) does not apply to Table UHA-23. The values in UCS-23 for -20 to 650F may be used. See UCS-67(d). Interpretation: VIII-1-83-271 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-57, SA-612 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-113 Question: 1)? Reply: Does Table UCS-57 of Section VIII, Division 1, apply to SA-612 (P-No. 10C, Gr. No. No. See UW-11 for the present radiography requirements for this material.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-272 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11, Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (a), and UW-51 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-116 Question (1): Is a nozzle to shell weld (Category D) as illustrated in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (a) considered a butt joint, and if the nozzle is over 10 in. in diameter, does this joint require radiography if the design of the vessel dictates radiography of butt joints? Reply (1): No. Figure UW-16.1 sketch (a) illustrates a full penetration corner joint, not a butt joint as defined in the Code. Question (2): Is a flange to nozzle or flange to shell weld (Category C) as illustrated in Fig. UW-13.3 (UW-13.2) sketch (m) considered a butt joint, and if the nozzle and/or shell exceeds 10 in. in diameter, does this joint require radiography if the design of the vessel is dictated by radiography of butt joints? Reply (2): No. Figure UW-13.3 (UW-13.2) sketch (m) illustrates a full penetration corner joint and not a butt joint as defined by the Code. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-273 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-75(c), (UW-35(c) Small Diameter Tubes and Pipes Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-118 Question: Do the provisions of UW-35(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, apply to the inside surfaces of circumferential single welded butt joints in small diameter tubes and pipes such as those used in heat exchangers? Reply: Yes. (Void see 83-274R page 169)

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-274 Subject: Section VIII-1, Fig. UW-16.1 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-128

Question: Is it permissible to attach screwed connections of the type shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (y-1) or (z-1) to SA-517-E plate that is less than 2 in. in thickness using the weld joint configuration shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (y-1) or (z-1)? Interpretation: VIII-1-83-275 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Fig. UW-16.1 Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-129 Question: With regard to Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (k) in Section VIII, Division 1, if the nozzle neck is not inserted into the shell but meets it corner to corner, making the dimension between fillet roots equal to zero, is this joint acceptable? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-276 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(c)(6), Impact Testing Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-131 Question: With reference to UG-84(c)(6) of Section VIII, Division 1, if a material fails the first impact test but is then reheated above its critical temperature before a second set of tests, should the second set of tests be run as a retest (where all values must equal or exceed the required average value) or as a test on new material (where the average of these values must equal or exceed the required average)? Reply: The test shall be considered a first test of the new material.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-277 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-40(d)(3) and UW-16(b), Nozzle Fillet Welds Date Issued: May 31, 1984 File: BC84-142 Question: If there is sufficient reinforcement available in the shell and nozzle cylinders, do UG40(d)(3) and UW-16(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, require an external fillet weld? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-278 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-136(c)(3)(b), Safety Valve Certification Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC82-860 Question: Do the words "After ... adjustment" appearing in Section VIII, Division 1, UG-136(c)(3) (b), allow the manufacturer to adjust the valve's set pressure should it fail to meet the applicable tolerance during 5 yr recertification testing? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-83-279

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UHA-51, Impact Testing of 316L Stainless Steel June 29, 1984 BC83-318

Question (1): Must SA-240-316L plate used for pressure vessel fabrication for a design temperature of -60F be impact tested? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Must the PQR for the WPS utilizing E316L weld filler material for this vessel include impact testing? Reply (2): Question (3): application? Reply (3): Yes. Are production impact tests of welds noted in UHA-51(b)(5) required for this Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-280 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-136(a)(7), Seals for Relief Valves Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC83-591 Question: Does a safety relief valve designed and manufactured to be nonadjustable after manufacture, utilizing welding or a locking pin to prevent subsequent adjustment, require a seal? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-281 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 14, Requalification of Weld Procedure Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-135 Question: Is it required under 14-10.7(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, that an additional proof test be made if any essential variable in the weld procedure originally qualified is changed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-282 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(e)(1), Materials for External Piping Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-137 Question: U-I(e)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, defines the geometrical scope of a pressure vessel in relation to external piping. May such external piping be a material not permitted by the rules of Division 1? Reply: Interpretation: Yes VIII-1-83-283

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1-8 and UG-36(a), Design Requirements June 29, 1984 BC84-139

Question: May 1-8 of Section VIII, Division 1, be used to calculate the reinforcement of a conical shell reducer section under external pressure which has been flared to provide a reverse curve reducer as shown in Fig. UG-36 sketch (c)? Reply: Reducers under external pressure shall follow the rules of UG-33(f) and 1-8 where applicable. For those elements for which there are no rules, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be followed. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-284 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-41, UG-44, and UW-15, Socket Weld Flanges Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-140 Question (1) Reply (1): Does UG-44 permit the use of socket weld flanges attached to nozzles? Yes.

Question (2): Are the criteria of UW-15 and UG-41 applicable in the calculation of the attachment fillet weld size with the nozzle thickness being substituted for the vessel wall thickness in UG-41(b)(2)? Reply (2): The criteria in UW-15 and UG-41 are for nozzle-to-shell reinforcement calculations, not for flanges attached to nozzles. Question (3): Does UW-16(f)(3)(a) apply to socket weld flanges not exceeding 3 in. pipe size?

Reply (3): No. UW-16(f) applies to fittings attached to shells in a manner similar to nozzles attached to shells. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-285 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-16(b), UG-37(b), and Appendix 1 Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-141 Question: In computing nozzle reinforcement for nozzles in 2:1 elliptical heads and other heads and shell sections in UG-37(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, if the minimum thickness computed by Eq. (1) of 1-4 is less than 1/16 in. as given in UG-16(b), should the minimum value determined in 1-4 or the 1/16 in. thickness be used in nozzle thickness calculations? Reply: The 1/16 in. minimum thickness which is listed in UG-16(b) is the minimum nominal thickness of the actual plate. It would be used in nozzle reinforcement calculations as the actual thickness. The minimum required thickness, tr or trn is based on the appropriate formula for determining the shell, head, or nozzle minimum required thickness and could be less than 1/16 in. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-286 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34, UG-39(c), and Appendix 14, 14-20, Openings in a Rectangular Flat Cover Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-153

Question: Is the calculation procedure of Appendix 14, 14-20, directly applicable to openings in rectangular flat cover? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-287 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99(d) Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-154 Question (1): In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, when hydrostatic test pressure is used to compute the thickness of a shell, is it the intent of UG-99(d) to take the yield strength as maximum allowable value in order to have no visible permanent distortion? Reply (1): UG-99 gives the hydrostatic test requirements for a vessel which has had the thickness set by formulas given elsewhere in the Code, such as UG-27, UG-28, UG-32, and UG-33. It is not used to compute the thickness of the shell. Question (2): In Eqs. (1a), (1b), (1c), and (1d) of 13-8(d) of Section VIII, Division 1, if the pressure is the test pressure, is it permissible to take the yield strength for the allowable stress? Reply (2): No. The rules that are given in Appendix 13 are for design conditions only. The allowable stresses that are given are for that condition only. If the designer wants to use some of the procedures for some other calculations, that is the designer's responsibility according to U-2(g). Question (3): In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, is it permissible to use UCL-23(c) for carbon steel SA-515 Grade 60, integrally clad with copper nickel Alloy 706, when the joints are completed by depositing corrosion resisting weld metal over the weld in the base plate? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-288 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 9 Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-157 Question (1): Does a partial jacket resembling Fig. 9-5 sketch (k) fall within the category of a Type jacketed vessel as shown in Fig. 9-2 for the purpose of calculations? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Regarding 9-7(b)(2), does a partial jacket failing within the scope of a continuous jacket meet Code requirements without calculations if it is proof tested in accordance with UG-101(p)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Regarding 9-5(b), in the case of a conical head with jacket, are distances Rs and Rj to be measured perpendicular to the axis of the conical head or perpendicular to the wall of the conical head? Reply (3): Rs and Rj are measured perpendicular to the axis of the conical head.

Question (4): Can a flat closure bar for a jacket similar to Fig. 9-5 sketch (d-1) be considered a flat head for the purpose of calculations in lieu of the formulas for trc given in Appendix 9?

Reply (4):

No.

Question (5): Is a full penetration weld connecting a closure bar to the vessel wall permissible in place of two fillet welds as shown in Fig. 9-5 sketch (f-1)? Reply (5): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-289 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13 Date issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-158 Question: Do the rules of 13-7(b) per Fig. 13-2(a) sketch (2) apply to a formed channel with flat end plates when attached by full penetration welds to the exterior of a pressure vessel cone operating at the same working pressure as the channel attachment? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-290 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 and UG-37(b)(4), Stress Reduction Factor for Seamless Shell Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-174 Question (1): If a vessel is fabricated without butt welded joints, using a shell of seamless or ERW pipe and having end heads in accordance with Fig. UG-34 sketch (e), (f), or (g), and/or flanged per Fig. 2-4 sketch (3), (4), (8), (8a), (8b), or (9), so that no radiography is required, is there a need for a stress reduction factor to be applied to the allowable stress values prescribed for the material in Subsection C? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In reinforcement calculations, when both ends of the seamless or type ERW shell are attached as described above and no radiography is required or performed, is there a need for a stress reduction factor to be applied to the allowable stress from Subsection C for the shell and the nozzle attached to the shell? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): No Does UG-37(b)(4) apply to a vessel fabricated per Question (2) above? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-291 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12 Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-191 Question: For vessels of small diameter, not accessible for welding from inside, as well as for vessels of large diameters where welding from inside is possible, it is proposed to weld both longitudinal and circumferential seams with single side full penetration welds. GTAW, GMAW, SMAW, and SAW

processes with fiberglass tape backing for the root run will be used. May these be considered to be Type No. (1) joints as described in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-292 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13(g)(1), Requirements of Tension Test Specimen Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-192 Question: Is a reverse flange designed per 2-13 and used as an end closure for a pressure vessel exempt from the requirements of UW-13(g)(1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-293 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11, and UCS-85, Low Alloy Tubes and Pipes Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-193 Question(1): May low alloy steel pipes procured in other than annealed condition in accordance with an ASME Section II Specification and used as nozzle pipes on low alloy steel equipment be exempted from the requirements of UCS-85(b)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May low alloy steel pipes procured in other than annealed condition in accordance with an ASME Section II Specification in standard lengths and used as heat exchanger tubes in low alloy steel equipment be exempted from the requirements of UCS-85(b)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May low alloy steel tubes procured in other than annealed condition in accordance with an ASME Section II Specification in standard lengths and used as heat exchanger tubes in low alloy steel equipment be exempted from the requirements of UCS-85(b)? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-294 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-2(b) and UHA-51(b)(5)(b), SA-240-304 Material Date Issued: June 29, 1984 File: BC84-228 Question: Are full penetration welds for Category C and D joints as specified in UW-2(b) required in vessels constructed of SA-240-304 stainless steel when the base metal, the deposited weld metal, and other requirements of UHA-51(a) and (b) are met and impact testing of the vessel and production welds are waived? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-295

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UW-28, Definition of Manufacturer June 29, 1984 BC84-259

Question: UW-28 in Section VIII, Division 1, uses the term "Manufacturer." Is this meant to apply to the designer/seller of the equipment or the fabricating contractor who performs the actual welding? In this case, the designer/seller is responsible to the user of the equipment. Reply: The term "Manufacturer" refers to the Certificate of Authorization Holder who stamps the completed vessel. Errata Volume 6 Interpretation VIII-79-73 Correct Question to read. Question: Would it be permissible under UG-36(c)(3)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 that a 2 in., 300 lb rating long weld neck inserted into a vessel shell, which would require a 3.4375 in. hole cutting the shell or head, be classed as an opening requiring reinforcement according to the rules of UG-37, when in fact the 2 in. long weld neck contains more inherent reinforcement strength than a 2 in. pipe with 2 3/8 in. outside diameter? Interpretation: VIII-81-16R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(7) Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC81-019*, BC83-018 Question (1): May an ultrasonic examination, in accordance with UW-53, be used to assist in the interpretation of the radiograph? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May an ultrasonic examination, in accordance with UW-53, be utilized to accept questionable indications in radiographs ? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-58R Subject-. Section VIII, Division 1; Impact Testing Requirements Date Issued: March 30, 1983 File: BC81-609* Question: Is impact testing required for qualifying welding procedure to be used in welding 1 in. NB 6000 psi forged coupling in a shell fabricated under Section VIII, Division 1, consisting of SA-240 Type 304, and SA-182 F16, clad on SA-302 Gr. B, and SA-204 Gr. B, steel plate? The plate is subjected to a PWHT temperature of 915F and the minimum operating temperature is 550F. Reply: No.

Note: This interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 12 Section VIII, Division 1; covering interpretations issued from July 1, 1982, through December 31, 1982, and revised interpretations issued from July 1, 1982, through April 1, 1983.

Interpretation: VIII-1-121R (Void see 83-121R-2 page 189) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Repair of Bronze Castings Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC81-184* Question: May porosity defects that are discovered during a pressure test complying with UG-99 or UG-100 after all manufacturing and brazing operations have been completed, in a part of a pressure vessel that is manufactured from SB-61 or SB-62 bronze castings, be sealed by vacuum impregnating? Reply: Provided that the pressure test requirements are subsequently satisfied, Section VIII, Division 1, does not prohibit the use of vacuum impregnation of bronze castings after machining. Note (4) to Table UNF-23.2 specifically prohibits welding or brazing of SB-61 or SB-62 castings. (See also UNF-8.) Note: On December 3, 1984, this interpretation was withdrawn for further committee consideration. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-254R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12(c), Reference to Design Calculations Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC83-664* Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(c) states that for vessels which are not to be radiographed, a value of E is taken from column (c) of Table UW-12 "provided that in all other design calculations . . ." What is meant by "other design calculations"? Reply: "Other design calculations" means all calculations which are required to satisfy the loadings in UG-22 except those calculations which use a joint efficiency from column (c) of Table UW12 or are exempt as defined in UW-12(c), such as those for flat heads, etc. For example, in a seamless cylindrical shell, attached to a seamless head by a butt joint which is visually examined, the circumferential stress is based on E = 1.0. However, the value of S to be used in calculations shall be 0.8 times the value of allowable stress from the Tables in Subsection C. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-274R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Fig. UW-16.1 Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-128* Question: Is it permissible to attach screwed connections of the type shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (y-1) or (z-1) to SA-517 E plate that is less than 2 in. in thickness using the weld joint configuration shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (y-1) or (z-1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-296 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Material Usage Under Section VIII, Division 1, and UG-84(b) (2) Date Issued: June 6, 1980 File: BC80-251

Question(1): Is it the intent of the Foreword and all of Section II and Section VIII that only material produced to the exact Code Edition or Addenda, as stated in the governing design specification, be used in the construction of the pressure vessel? Reply (1): No. Neither the Foreword of Section II nor the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, reference governing design specifications or the Code Edition or Addenda that might be referenced therein. The pertinent Code words from the Foreword are: 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 sixmonth period. Question (2): May material which is produced to any version of the Code be used so long as there has not been any changes made to the specification except for editorial changes? Reply (2): In all construction other than Section III, use of materials to the latest Code Edition or Addenda at the time of material manufacture is encouraged regardless of the contract date, but as is indicated in the quoted excerpt from the Foreword in Reply (1), specifications in effect at the time of contract or subsequent revision may also be used. Specifications to editions or addenda earlier than that in effect at the time of vessel contract may be used provided the requirements are identical (excluding editorial differences) or more stringent for the grade, class, or type produced. Material produced to earlier specifications with requirements different from the specification in effect at the time of contract may also be used provided the material manufacturer or vessel manufacturer certifies with evidence acceptable to the Authorized Inspector that the requirements of the version in effect at the time of contract will be met. Question (3): Is the intent of UG-84(b)(2) to allow a vessel to be stamped at a lower operating temperature than the Charpy impact temperature? Reply (3): No.

Note: This interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 7, covering interpretations issued from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 1980. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-297 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-55, UG-80, UW-5, and Appendix 2 Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC82-122 Question (1): face gasket? What rules in Section VIII, Division 1, shall be used for the design of a flange with a full

Reply (1): Section VIII, Division 1, contains no rules for the design of flanges using full face gaskets. [Refer to U-2(g).] Question (2): For nonpressure parts fabricated of material not specified in Section VIII, Division 1, does the act of welding one nonpressure part to another part prove weldability? Reply (2): Question (3): WPS? Reply (3): Yes; see UG-5(b). Does the process used to weld nonpressure parts to pressure parts (the shell) require a Yes.

Question (4): In Section VIII, Division 1, for stiffening rings on a vessel under external pressure where all the rules of UG-30 are met, is it also necessary to meet the rules of UG-82(b)? Reply (4): Question (5): Reply (5): No. Are roundness templates required for shells subject to internal pressure only? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-298 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-93(d)(3) and (4) Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC82-827 Question(1) : Is the use of magnetic particle or liquid penetrant examination in Section VIII, Division 1, limited to the detection of surface defects? Reply (1): Liquid penetrant examination detects surface defects only. examination detects surface and may detect near surface defects. Magnetic particle

Question (2): Where in Section VIII, Division 1, are the acceptance criteria for magnetic particle and liquid penetrant examinations? Reply (2): See Appendices 6 and 8 of Section VIII, Division 1.

Question (3): Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1, to use liquid penetrant examination to determine whether a magnetic particle surface indication is nonrelevant? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Is it permissible to use acceptance criteria from a material specification (see para. 9.3 of SA-20) before and after welding? Reply (4): Question (5): Reply (5): No. Must the unacceptable discontinuities defined in Appendices 6 and 8 be removed? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-299 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Brazed Fabrication Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-025 Question: In a brazed construction, does the fabricator have to demonstrate that the material properties after brazing are not below the minimum specified values? Reply: No, provided the requirements of Section IX are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-300 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Putting Pressure-Temperature Markings on Pressure Parts

Date Issued: File:

October 1, 1984 BC83-273

Question: Do the rules of UG-116(i) either require or prohibit including the pressure-temperature rating on a vessel part for which Partial Data Reports are required? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-301 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-99, Hydrostatic Testing of Interconnected Vessels Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-308 Question: Is it permissible for a Manufacturer to perform the hydrostatic test required by UG-99 of Section VIII, Division 1, and AT-300 of Section VIII, Division 2, on a number of interconnected vessels using test gage(s) required by UG-102 or AT-500 and connected to one of the vessels in the test system? Reply: Note: Yes. This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-40.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-302 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45, Nozzle Thickness Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-332 Question(1): Is the minimum thickness of standard wall pipe in UG-45(a)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1, the same as designated "Standard" in Table 2 and para. 8 of ANSI B36.10? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is ANSI B36.19 or ANSI B36.10 applicable in determining the minimum wall thickness of a stainless steel nozzle in accordance with UG-45(a)(4)? Reply (2): ANSI B36.10.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-303 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2 and Appendix Y, Bolted Flange Connections Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-359 Question (1): Does a flange designed to Appendix 2 of Section VIII, Division 1, require a bolted flange connection to have a ring gasket? Reply (1): Yes. See 2-1(a).

Question (2): Does a flange designed to Appendix Y of Section VIII, Division 1, require a metal-tometal flange connection to have a self-sealing gasket? Reply (2): See Y-1(b). Appendix Y is a nonmandatory Appendix. It assumes that a self-sealing gasket is used.

Question (3): Without a gasket between flanges, a flanged connection can be seal-welded all around on the outside of the gap between the surface of two flanges to prevent the leakage due to pressure. Is this acceptable for Section VIII, Division 1, construction? Reply (3): Yes. See 2-1(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-304 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UNF-23.2, Material Properties of SB-75 Seamless Copper Tubes Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-538 Question: May the ends of SB-75 annealed copper tubes to be contained wholly in the expanded depth of tubesheet holes be annealed to a yield strength below the specified minimum of 9.0 ksi as given in Table UNF-23.2 of Section VIII, Division 1, if the tubes are to be joined to the tubesheet by expanding? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-305 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51 and UW-52 Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-568 Question (1): When spot radiography is performed in accordance with UW-52, to what extent shall areas beyond the weld be included? Reply (1): UW-52 does not specify the extent of examination beyond the spot of weld being examined. The radiographic requirements of UW-52 apply to the weld deposit and the heat affected zone in the spot selected for examination. Question (2): Do the acceptance standards of UW-51(b)(1)-(4) apply to imperfections that may be detected in adjacent base metal when performing spot radiography in accordance with UW-52? Reply (2): No. The acceptance standards of UW-51(b)(1)-(4) apply to the weld metal and heat affected zone of the weld spot being radiographed. (For imperfections detected in base metal adjacent to the spot, see UG-93 and UG-95.) Interpretation: VIII-1-83-306 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 12 and UHT-57 Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-592 Question (1): Shall a discontinuity be rejected using the acceptance standards of Appendix 12 in Section VIII, Division 1, when the amplitude exceeds 20(of the reference level, but does not exceed the reference level and the length is greater than the limits specified in 12-3(b)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If indications produce a response greater than 50% of the reference level, shall the discontinuities be recorded regardless of their length?

Reply (2):

Yes. See 12-4.

Question (3): According to UHT-57(d), what must be done with a cracklike defect found using the magnetic particle method when the liquid penetrant method does not find any relevant indications? Reply (3): The cracklike defect shall be repaired or removed.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-307 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-56, Heat Treatment Requirements Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC83-636 Question: Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, gives postweld heat treatment requirements for carbon and low alloy steels. Do the minimum holding temperatures given in this Table refer to the measured ambient temperature in the furnace, to the measured temperature at the surface of the product, or to the measured temperature at the center of the product? Reply: The temperatures given in Table UCS-56 refer to the product metal temperature. The temperature is measured at the surface of the product with a sufficient soaking period that allows for full thickness temperature penetration. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-308 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-28, UG-101, and Appendix 9, Spiral Welded Pipe Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-156 Question(1): vessel? Reply (1): Are the rules in 9-5(c)(2) applicable to half pipe jackets that spiral around the No.

Question (2): Are the rules of UG-28 applicable in determining the required thickness of the inner vessel wall due to the pressure in the spiral half pipe jacket? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-309 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-20, High Temperature Galvanizing Process Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-264 Question: A vessel is designed for working temperatures between -20F and 650F. Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-20 to galvanize the vessel at a temperature between 750F and 850F? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-310 Subject: Section VIII-1, Interpretation VIII-81-113, Use of Bronze Nuts With Stainless Steel Bolts

Date Issued: File:

October 1, 1984 BC84-266

Question (1): Does UG-13 allow the use of bronze nuts (SB-98, Alloy 651, 655, or 661) in conjunction with stainless steel bolts (SA-193)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does UG-13 allow the use of cast bronze nuts (SB-584, Alloy 922, 937, or 976) in conjunction with stainless steel bolts (SA-193)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-311 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UF-37, Hydrostatic Testing After Grinding Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-313 Question: If inside surface indications are removed/blended using a large radius internal grinder after the hydrostatic test is conducted, is it required per UF-37 that a vessel be hydrostatically tested again? All of the provisions of UF-30 are met. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-312 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UB-18 and UW-28(c)(2), Brazing Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-340 Question: May furnace brazing be performed by a non-Certificate Holder, provided the Certificate Holder maintains control and responsibility for this work? Reply: Yes. See UW-26(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-313 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-45, Thickness of Nozzle Neck Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-361 Question: When a nozzle is made up of a "set-on" welding boss with a tapered transition, a piece of pipe, and a weld neck flange, do the minimum thickness requirements for nozzle necks in UG-45 apply to all parts of the nozzle? Reply: Yes. See U-1(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-314 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-2(g), Bolted Flange Connections Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-379

Question: Reply:

What rules are applicable to the design of bolted connections without flanges? See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-315 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-40, Procedures for Postweld Heat Treatment Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-385 Question: UW-40(a)(5) has requirements for postweld heat treating a circumferential band around a vessel. In the case of a tray ring connected to a shell, does the "at least six times the plate thickness" in this paragraph apply to the weld throat thickness on either side of the connection or does it apply to the shell thickness? Reply: The plate thickness applies to the shell thickness.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-316 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Case 1177-7 Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-410 Question: An expansion joint for a pressure vessel is to be fabricated by welding together two flanged and flued heads. Do the provisions of Code Case 1177-7 apply to this case? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-317 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; "Year Built" in Data Report Forms Date Issued: October 1, 1984 File: BC84-412 Question: Data Report Forms U-1 through U-4 have an entry to indicate the year in which the vessel or part was built. Does this refer to the year in which the vessel or part was completed, final inspection concluded, and the Data Report signed? Reply:. Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-318 Subject: Sections 1 and VIII-1, Use of Parts Manufactured to Superseded Revisions Date Issued: October 3, 1984 File: BC82-270B Question (1): May parts for Section I or Section VIII vessels, made prior to the mandatory use date of the Code to which the boiler or pressure vessel is to be constructed, be used, provided they meet the requirements of the applicable Code Edition and Addenda and are established by the Certificate Holder to be suitable for the design conditions? Reply (1): Question (2): Yes. Is any special documentation required for such parts?

Reply (2): Note:

No. This interpretation also appears as 1-83-93.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-319 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-136(c)(3), National Board Representative Date Issued: October 4, 1984 File: BC83-223C Question: Can an Authorized Nuclear inspector who has a National Board commission serve as the representative of the National Board to witness the capacity and operational testing of valves that have been selected by another representative of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors when the valves are tested at an ASME accepted laboratory? Reply: No. See UG-1 36(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-320 (See Errata on page 469) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12, UG-27, and UG-32, Weld joint Efficiency Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-130 Question (1): A vessel is designed for internal pressure. The vessel consists of a cylindrical shell with a longitudinal butt weld and torispherical heads butt welded to each end. There are also butt welded joints within each head. It is (Is it) permissible to radiograph a part of the vessel, such as the head, for the purpose of reducing the(required thickness by using a joint efficiency of 0.85 or 1.0 in the calculations for that part with no stress reductions if the shell does not meet the requirements of full or spot radiography? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For the situation in Question (1), except that the welds in the heads are spot radiographed, a joint efficiency of 0.85 is used in the formula of UG-32(e) with no stress reduction, and the head-to-shell joint is spot radiographed, is the answer yes or no? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): A pressure vessel is designed for internal pressure with a welded cylindrical shell designed per UG-27 and welded heads designed per UG-32. Is it permissible to radiograph only one part of the vessel, such as a head, for the purpose of reducing its required thickness by using a joint efficiency of 0.85 or 1.0 in the calculations with no stress reductions? Reply (3): Errata Volume 16 Interpretation VIII-1-83-320 No.

In final sentence of Question (1), correct It is to read Is it

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-321 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1, 1-5, Cone-to-Cone Cylinder Junction Reinforcement Date Issued: November 19, 1984

File:

BC84-381

Question: Interpretation VIII-1-83-139 indicates that in Appendix 1, 1-5, for a given cone apex angle and stress value, a decrease in design pressure would increase the likelihood of the juncture requiring reinforcement. If a vessel is designed and stamped for a pressure that is greater than the operating pressure, which shall govern the design of the reinforcement at the cone-to-cylinder junction? Reply: The design pressure.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-322 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix W, Table W-3, Note 57, Nozzle Attachment on Data Report Forms Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-411 Question: Entries 18, 10, 20, 12, and 1 3 of Data Report Forms U-1, U-1 A, U-2, U-2A, and U-3, respectively, have a column entitled "How Attached," which is covered by Note 57 of Table W-3. Do these requirements refer to the method of attachment of the nozzle or inspection opening or refer to the way in which the reinforcement material is attached? Reply: They refer to the method of attachment of the nozzle or inspection opening.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-323 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34(c)(2), Opening in Flat Circular Cover Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-429 Question: A flat circular cover is designed to UG-34(c)(2) using Eq. (2), taking into account the edge moment due to bolt loads. There is an opening in the cover for which reinforcement is provided per UG-39(b). When thickness t is determined for reinforcement, may Eq. (2) of UG-34(c)(2) be used? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-324 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-36(c)(3), UG-42, and UG-53, Reinforcement for Tube Holes Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-430 Question (1): welding? Reply (1): Do the rules of UG-53 apply to tube holes where the method of attachment is by Yes.

Question (2): Shall the size of tube holes be necessarily limited to a size exempted from reinforcement requirements in UG-36(c)(3)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Must the pitch of the tube hole pattern in UG-53 be limited to twice the diameter of the tube given for multiple openings in UG-42?

Reply (3):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-325 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-30, Size of Fillet Welds for Stiffening Rings Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-545 Question: UG-30(c) states that all attachment welding of stiffening rings shall comply with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 is there any reference which gives requirements for fillet weld size to be used for attachment welding of stiffening rings? Reply: No. See UW-18.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-326 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 8, Vision of NDE Personnel Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-564 Question: Does 8-2(a) require NDE personnel performing liquid penetrant examination to obtain medical doctor's certification for the required annual visual examinations? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-327 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-23 and UG-34 C Factor for a Flat Circular Head Date Issued: November 19, 1984 File: BC84-592 Question: For a flat circular head of the configuration shown in Fig, UG-34 sketch (p) is it permissible to increase the allowable stress to 1.5S in the formulas of UG-34? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-07R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12(c) Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC81-664* Question: For a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel that is made up of a seamless shell and seamless formed heads joined together by the butt welds listed in Table UW-12, column (c) is it permissible to use the allowable stress value prescribed for the material in Subsection C without applying a stress reduction factor when determining nozzle reinforcement requirements in accordance with UG-37(b)? Reply: No. if the shell and heads are joined by the butt welds listed in Table UW-12, column (c), an 80% factor shall be applied to the stresses used in nozzle reinforcement calculations. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-82R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 10, 10-12, Calibration of Measurement and Test Equipment Date Issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC80-289*, BC85-158

Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, 10-12 of Appendix 10 Quality Control System requires that "the manufacturer shall have a system for the calibration of examination, measuring and test equipment used . . ." Is traceability to a national standard required? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-121R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Repair of Bronze Castings Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC81-184** Question: Note (4) to Table UNF-23,2 specifically prohibits welding or brazing of certain castings. Where Note (4) applies, may porosity defects that are discovered during a pressure test complying with UG-99 or UG-100, after all manufacturing and brazing operations have been completed, in a part of a pressure vessel that is manufactured from such castings, be sealed by vacuum impregnating? Reply: Provided that the pressure test requirements are subsequently satisfied, Section VIII, Division 1, does not prohibit the use of vacuum impregnation of such castings after machining. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-312R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UB-18 and UW-28(c)(2), Brazing Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC84-340* Question (1): Can the criteria in UW-28(c)(2) for automatic welding processes be applied to UB-18 for furnace brazing non-pressure-bearing attachments which have essentially no load carrying function (such as extended heat transfer surfaces) to pressure parts? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May furnace brazing be performed by a non-Certificate Holder, provided the Certificate Holder maintains control and responsibility for this work? Reply (2): Yes. See UW-26(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-328 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116, UG-118, and UG-119, Arrangement of Markings Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC82-284 Question: When the vessel geometry precludes the use of the marking arrangement shown in Fig. UG-118, may an alternative arrangement be used if acceptable to the Inspector, provided the Code symbol and associated required markings are retained as a grouping, and all other Code required markings are included with no intervening additional data Interpretation: VIII-1-83-329 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1;U-1(e)(1), Geometric Scope for Piping Connections Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC82-755

Question (1): A nozzle for a piping connection to a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel consists of a nozzle neck joined by a butt weld to a section of pipe which is joined by another butt weld to a welding neck flange. May the vessel Manufacturer include the section of pipe and the welding neck flange in his construction, but exclude the section of pipe, the welding neck flange, and their joining weld from the Scope of the Code? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. See U-1(e)(1)(a). If Reply (1) is yes, how should this condition be documented? By an appropriate note on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-330 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11(c)(2), Use of SA-53, Grade B Pipe for Standard Pressure Parts Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC83-320 Question: May butt welding fittings, such as elbows, 180 deg. return bends, reducers, and tees, which otherwise meet the requirements of ASTM A 234-75 manufactured from SA-53, Type E, Grade B pipe, be utilized as standard pressure parts for use other than vessel shells? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-331 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-31(c), Tackweld Requirements Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC83-324, BC83-384 Question: For tackwelds which are not to be removed completely, UW-31(c) requires that their ends be "properly prepared by grinding or other suitable means." Are these requirements satisfied when a tackweld is made in such a manner that the starting and stopping ends are blended into the base metal and therefore suitable to be incorporated into the final weld without modification? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-332 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-40(d), Reinforcement of Nozzle Under External Pressure Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-115 Question: UG-40(d) has a definition for trn the required thickness of a seamless nozzle wall. For external pressure conditions, is trn to be determined per UG-27 or UG-28? Reply: UG-28.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-333 Subject Section VIII, Division 1; UG-101(a)(1) and Appendix 14, MAWP for Embossed Assembly Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-125

Question: An embossed assembly is welded by a procedure qualified in accordance with Section IX with the addition of filler wire. Is it correct that Appendix 14, 14-10, does not apply and that the applicable rules are contained in UW-19(c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-334 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part ULW and Article D-11 Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-334 Question: Is it permissible per Part ULW and Article D-11 to measure the thickness of a layered vessel solely at the ends due to the fact that some gaps are permitted between layers? Reply: No; however, the total number of layers can be reduced when the minimum required metal thickness is achieved. See Interpretation VIII-81-14. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-42 . Interpretation: VIII-1-83-335 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56, UHA-102, and UCL-34, Postweld Heat Treatment, 1974 Edition Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-384 Question: According to the 1974 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1, if postweld heat treatment is required by UCS-56, and if the warnings in UHA-102 and UCL-34 against some postweld heat treatment apply, do they waive the requirement of UCS-56? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-336 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-46(a) and (f), Inspection Openings and Noncorrosive Service Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-599 Question (1): UG-46(a) does not require inspection openings for vessels which are in noncorrosive service." Is there any size limitation on vessels covered by this rule? Reply (1): Question (2): (3)? Reply (2): No. May the requirements in UG-46(0(6) be used in lieu of those in UG-46(f)(1), (2), and Yes.

Question (3): UG-46(f)(6) allows a single inspection opening to be used instead of smaller inspection openings if its size and location provide at least an equal view of the interior of the vessel. Does this require the area of the single opening to have at least the total area of the smaller openings. Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-337 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d), Elliptical Manway Rings Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-601 Question (1): Do the words "and other pressure boundary parts" as contained and applied in UCS-79(d) encompass cold formed elliptical manway rings when used as pressure boundary parts? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If Reply (1) is yes, what formula in UCS-79(d) is used to compute the extreme fiber elongation when required of formed elliptical manway rings? Reply (2): The extreme fiber elongation for formed elliptical manway rings shall be determined by the formula for single curvature surfaces as contained in UCS-79(d). Interpretation: VIII-1-83-338 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix M, M-5(a), Full Area Stop Valve Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-615 Question: Appendix M, M-5(a), describes the possible use of a "full-area stop valve." Does full area mean that the minimum flow area in the stop valve shall at least equal the inlet area of the pressure relief device? Reply: Yes. See UG-135(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-339 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34, Thickness Calculation for Unstayed Flat Head Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-635 Question: For a flat head configuration not shown in Fig. UG-34, what is the basis of selecting Formula (1) or (2) of UG-34 for determining the minimum required thickness of the flat head? Reply: For a configuration not shown in Fig. UG-34, the designer shall determine whether or not there is an edge moment, what that edge moment is, and whether or not Formula (1), Formula (2), or some other formula is applicable. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-340 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Bolted Flange Connections Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-656 Question (1): Is it permitted to fabricate a bolted flange connection of hubless rectangular cross section similar to Fig. 2-4 sketch 8, but with twin fillet welds only, which has been machined from a ring which has been flame cut in one piece from carbon steel plate material? Reply (1): No. The groove weld must be equal to c in accordance with Fig. 2-4 sketch 8.

Question (2): cases?

Does the examination requirement in Appendix 2, 2-2(d)(3), apply for the following

(a) hubless flange machined from a ring which has been flame cut from a carbon steel plate; (b) hubless flange machined from a hot forged carbon manganese ring; (c) hubless flange machined from carbon steel plate or bar stock which has been formed into a ring with end joints butt welded by a manual inert gas process. Reply (2): Question (3): Part UHT? Reply (3): No. Appendix 2, 2-2(d), is applicable only to hubbed flanges. Do the requirements for ferritic steel in Appendix 2-2(b) apply to only those materials in No.

Question (4): Interpretation VIII-1-83-21 discusses the use of hubless optional loose type flanges attached by only two fillet welds. Do the rules in Appendix 2 allow the use of such flanges with a back fillet weld minimum throat dimension of 0.7c per Fig. 2-4 sketch (3)? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-341 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-40(d)(3), Limit of Reinforcement Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-662 Question: For the nozzle configuration shown in Fig. UG-40 sketches (e), (e-1), and (e-2), the rule given in the Note beneath the sketches is followed to establish te. Once te is established, limits of reinforcement are established according to UG-40(c). May all of the excess area of metal within these limits, as given in UG-40(c) and (d), be considered as metal available for reinforcement? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-342 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCD-78 and Code Case 1939, Repair of Ductile Cast Iron Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-667 Question (1): With reference to UCD-78 and Code Case 1939, may discontinuities which permit leakage in ferritic ductile cast iron materials be repaired by welding? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May unacceptable discontinuities which reduce the wall thickness below the design dimensions in ferritic ductile cast iron materials be repaired by welding? Reply (2): Yes,

Question (3): May unacceptable discontinuities which only sever the required contour of ferritic ductile cast iron material be repaired by welding? Reply (3): Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-343 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-9, Tagging of Welding Material Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-674 Question: UG-9 contains certain requirements for the qualification and identification of welding materials. Under controls established in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System, may welding materials which have satisfied the requirements of UG-9 be periodically removed from their containers or packages as required to maintain production without additional tagging and any unused material returned to the container or package? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-344 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-38, Weld Repairs Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-675 Question: For visible defects in welds that require repairs, must the Manufacturer first obtain acceptance by the Inspector for the method and extent of repairs as stated in UG-78 for base metal repairs? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-345 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11, Pressure Part Manufacture Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-677 Question(1): Does the phrase "other than the shop of the manufacturer" in UG-11 mean that a pressure vessel Manufacturer can not make its own parts which will be used on the completed vessel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If Reply (1) is no, does the Manufacturer have to identify the pressure parts which he manufactures in accordance with UG-11(a)(1)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): If Reply (1) is no, may the Manufacturer sell its pressure parts to a sister company which does not operate under the same ASME Certificate of Authorization without either satisfying all the requirements of UG-11 or satisfying the requirements of UG-116(i) and UG-120(c)? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-346 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-120, Stamping of Pressure Parts Date Issued: March 6, 1985 File: BC84-695

Question: May a Manufacturer build a pressure part for a vessel which meets all "UM" requirements of U-1(k), stamp the part "U M" in accordance with UG-116(b) and (i), and prepare a Partial Data Report in accordance with UG-120(c)? Reply: No. See Data Report Forms U-2 and U-2A.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-347 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-46 and UW-47, WPS Assignments Date Issued: April 1, 1985 File: BC84-589 Question (1): WPS? Reply (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1, require that each welded joint in a vessel be traceable to a Yes.

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1, specifically set forth the period of time or a particular document to be used in designating the WPS to be used for a welded joint? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May the document used to record the WPS used in a joint be a traveler, drawing, inspection report, separate log, etc., provided that it is set forth in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-348 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-10, Requirements for Non-Code Material Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC82-385B, BC83-085 Question: If a non-Code material is used for nonpressure parts and is joined to a Code material by a welding procedure qualified in accordance with Section IX, may other heats of the same nonCode material which conform to the specification requirements of the material used during the Welding Procedure Qualification be joined to the Code material thereafter for such nonpressure applications without performing the chemical and mechanical tests required by UG-10 or the bend tests of UG-5 on each piece of material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-349 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(c)(1) and (2), Duties of Inspector and Manufacturer's Quality Control System Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC84-335 Question: UG-90(c)(1) summarizes the Inspectors duties. In determining the extent of his verification of compliance with the rules, should the Inspector consider the requirements and application of the Manufacturer's Quality Control System? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-350 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-134, Use of Hydraulic or Pneumatic Lift Device to Establish Safety Valve Set Pressure Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC84-602 Question: UG-134 specifies the set pressure tolerances for pressure relief valves used in Section VIII, Division 1 construction. At the time of initial adjustment by the Manufacturer or an assembler, may a hydraulic or pneumatic lift device be used to check opening pressure and valve function in lieu of a full pressure test of the valve? Reply: A hydraulic or pneumatic lift device may be used to apply an auxiliary lifting load on the valve spring to establish the set pressure of a pressure relief valve, provided calibrated testing equipment and testing procedures are followed. While actual valve blowdown and valve performance characteristics cannot thus be verified, valve set pressure may be determined to an acceptable degree of accuracy using this testing technique. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-351 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-78, Examination of Material Repairs Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC84-676 Question: If UW-42 does not apply, does UG-78 require a PT or MT examination for material with pitted areas and gouges that are repaired using an approved WPS? Reply: No. However, the Authorized Inspector may require such examination in his review of the Manufacturer's method of repair. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-352 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Part UCI, Repairs of Cast Iron Vessels Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-016 Question (1): For cast iron pressure vessels, built under Part UCI, are surface defects acceptable when the remaining wall thickness under the defect is less than that required by Code calculations? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. What is the minimum spacing allowed between adjacent plugs? See the formula in UCI-78(a)(9).

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-353 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(c), Local Heating of Shell Plate Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-025 Question: UCS-85(c) describes some cases of local heating which are not to be included in heat treatment. Is it intended that local heating above the lower critical temperature for the hot forming of shell plate be included in heat treatment?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-354 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix AA, AA-5 Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-028 Question: If the channel and/or shell are of layered construction per Part ULW, can te in Appendix AA, AA-5, be calculated using the total shell thickness (ts)and/or total channel thickness (tc) less any corrosion allowance? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-355 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-101(m) and Fig. UG-34 Sketch (e), Joint Efficiency of Seamless Shell With flat Heads Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-066 Question: A burst test is to be performed on a vessel which is seamless except for double fillet welds (Fig. UG-34 sketch (e)] between the shell and flat heads. Should a joint efficiency of 1.0 be used in the formula in UG-101(m)(2)(a)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-356 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Hubbed Flanges Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-074 Question: Appendix 2, 2-7(b), gives stress formulas for loose type flanges with hubs when the designer chooses to do calculations without considering the hub. If the hubs are not considered in the calculations but are used in construction, may the material requirements in Appendix 2, 2-2(d), be waived? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-357 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-13(d), Use of ERW Pipe Date issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-096 Question: Do the requirements of UW-13(d) apply to ERW pipe if the pipe is used as a shell and is offset as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch(k)? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-83-358

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG-46(f), Attachments in Inspection Openings May 20, 1985 BC85-124

Question: Would the requirements of UG-46(f)(2) be satisfied by providing two threaded openings not less than 2 in. pipe size from which piping, instruments, or similar attachments can be removed, if the openings meet the requirements of UG-46(f)(7)(a) and (b)? Reply: No. UG-46(f)(7) applies to flanged connections only.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-359 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37 and Fig. UG-37.1, A1 and F Factors Date Issued: May 20, 1985 File: BC85-138 Question (1): For the calculation of A1 in UG-37, is tn = 0 when a pipe nipple is screwed into a flat head a distance which is not the full thickness of the head? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Is the F factor in Fig. UG-37 equal to 1.0 for the case of a flat head? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-360 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(c)(2) and UW-52(b)(1), Multiduplicate Vessels Date Issued: June 20, 1985 File: BC85-187 Question: Vessels are identical in every detail, except that fittings are in different locations, the shell lengths vary from one order to another, or the brackets are different. May these vessels be grouped together when considering the 50 ft requirements of UW-52(b)(1)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-361R Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Appendices 11 and 15, Code Stamping of Hyperbaric Vessels Date Issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC77-701 * Question: In accordance with Appendix 15 of Section VIII, Division 1, and Appendix 11 of Section VIII, Division 2, may a pressure vessel incorporating a cylindrical acrylic shell be stamped as complying with Section VIII, provided the Manufacturer's Data Report includes a comment that the nonmetallic shell is made of a material not covered by the Code rules and, therefore, the shell is not part of the Code construction? Reply: This request was considered by the Subcommittee on Pressure Vessels, and it was concluded that since Section VIII does not include the nonmetallic material and does not have design and fabrication rules to cover the acrylic shell, the completed vessel cannot be stamped with the Code symbol stamp. For the record, the rules do not prohibit metallic parts from being constructed to the Code rules and stamped as parts, provided design, material, fabrication, inspection, and testing are in accordance with the rules.

Note: The interpretation that VIII-1-83-361R supersedes was issued on December 6, 1977, and should have appeared in Interpretations No. 2, covering interpretations issued from July 1, 1977, through December 31, 1977. It was published as an errata item and without an assigned number in Interpretations No. 6, covering interpretations issued from July 1, 1979, through December 31, 1979. VIII-1-83-361R also appears as VIII-2-83-44R. Interpretation: VIII-1-83-362 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12, UG-31, and UG-37(b), Shell Thicknesses Date issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC83-559 Question (1): For vessels built to the rules of UW-12(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, does the 80% stress reduction factor apply in determining the shell thickness when the shell is made from tube or pipe and the rules of UG-31 are applied? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the vessel described in Question (1), do the rules for calculating t, as described in UG-37 for determining the minimum required thickness of a seamless shell for reinforcement calculations require the application of the 80% stress reduction factor? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-363 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13 and UG-34, Design of End Closure Date Issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC84-643 Question: No explicit design rules are written in Appendix 13 for rib-stiffened end closures for noncircular vessels. May such an end closure be designed using commonly accepted methods of engineering mechanics with no proof test required? Reply: Yes; however the requirements of U-2(g) must be met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-364 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Foreword and UG-93, Certification of Material Date Issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC85-179 Question(1): May an ASTM material, which was not certified by the Material Manufacturer to a specific edition of the ASTM specification, be used without further testing or certification, provided the Code required certification, per UG-93, indicates the material meets the requirements of the applicable specification for the designated material? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Is the Manufacturer required to establish the equivalency? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-83-365 (See Below) Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Packed joints for Lethal Service Applications Date Issued: June 24, 1985 File: BC85-194 Question: Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 or Division 2, prohibit the use of packed joints in vessels constructed to lethal service requirements [for example, UW-2(a)]? Reply: No; however, consideration of the appropriateness of such connections in a particular installation is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent [for example, U-2(a)]. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-83-46.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-01 Subject: Sections 1 and VIII-1, Qualification of NDE Personnel to a Qualification Program Other Than SNT-TC-1A, 1980 Edition Date Issued: July 11, 1985 File: BC83-535A Question: Under what conditions may a manufacturer make use of an NDE personnel qualification standard other than SNT-TC-I A for Sections I and VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, construction? Reply: Para. PW-51.5 in Section I, para. UW-51(a)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, and para. Al-501(c) in Section VIII, Division 2, establish the requirements for NDE certification. Each Manufacturer is required to have an approved written practice for training and certification of NDE personnel. SNT TC-1A shall be used as the guide to develop the written practice; however, a written practice developed in conformance to another standard may also contain the elements necessary to satisfy SNT-TC-1 A. Provided the Manufacturer demonstrates to the review team considering the issuance or renewal of a Certificate of Authorization that his written practice includes all of the elements that would be required using SNT-TC-1A as a guideline, that practice can be accepted for the issuance of the applicable Certificate of Authorization and used in Code construction under Section I and/or Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. Any changes to the written practice following the issuance or renewal of the Certificate of Authorization must be reviewed and accepted by the Authorized Inspector. Note: This interpretation also appears as 1-86-06.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-20, Appendix 5, and U-2(g), Axial Compression of Cylinders at Elevated Temperatures Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC79-696 Question: Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 1, for design temperature limits when determining maximum allowable longitudinal compressive stress? Reply: There are no specific provisions in Section VIII, Division 1, for determining design temperature limits for maximum allowable longitudinal compressive stress, except what is provided in UG-20(a) and (b), which allows the values in Appendix 5 to be used. When the temperatures exceed those given in Appendix 5, the provisions of U-2(g) shall be used.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1, 1-6, Pressure on Convex Side of Dished Floating Head Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-223 Question: A spherically dished cover as shown in Fig. 1-6(d) has pressure on the convex side. For the head thickness calculations in Appendix 1, 1-6(g)(1), does the pressure P need to be multiplied by the factor of 1.67 given in UG-33(a)(1) when the dished head is treated as a torispherical head? Reply: Yes. See Appendix 1, 1-6(a). UG-33(a)(2) shall also be met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-2(g) and UW-32(a), Scale on Welding Joint Preparation Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-227 Question: Is it permissible under UW-32 to perform procedure qualification weld tests with tight and clean mill scale, left on the test plate, with 1/2 in. for ferrous materials and 2 in. for nonferrous materials if the physical test results meet the requirements of Section IX? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Fig. UW-13.4 and Fig. UW-16.1, Tapered Transition Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-229 Question (1): Reply (1): Is the taper angle of Fig. UW-16.1(g) limited to 45 deg.? No.

Question (2): For nozzles without a bolted flange (nozzle neck is welded directly to attached piping), is it acceptable to add a 45 deg. transition taper of the nozzle reinforcement to the tapered transition detail of Fig. UW-13.4? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-56, PWHT of P-No. 1 Material Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-245 Question (1): A vessel having a 1 1/4 in. shell of P-No. 1 material has a 5/8 in. nozzle welded to it with a 3/8 in. fillet weld as shown in Fig. UW-16.1(a). The vessel does not fall under the requirements in UW-2 or UCS-67. According to UCS-56 and Table UCS-56, is postweld heat treatment required, since the groove weld of the nozzle is over 1/2 in.? Reply (1): Question (2): No. When postweld heat treatment is required, must it be applied to the entire vessel?

Reply (2): Postweld heat treatment may be required for a pressure vessel, pressure vessel part, or particular welds. See UCS-56(a). Interpretation: VIII-1-86-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-101, Proof Test for External Pressure Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-283 Question: May UG-101 be used to establish the maximum allowable working pressure of an external pressure vessel? Reply: No, except for UG-101(p).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-3 and UW-12, Joint Categories and Efficiencies for Brazed Construction Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-284 Question(1): A brazed aluminum plate fin exchanger includes a nozzle, a header, and a core. Do the joint categories in UW-3 apply? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. What joint efficiencies apply for the configuration in Question (1)? See UB-14.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13, Rectangular Vessels Longitudinally Reinforced by Combination Welded-on Members and Stays Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-285 Question: Is it permissible within the provisions of Appendix 13, 13-1(c), and U-2(g) to design vessels of rectangular cross section which are reinforced in a plane parallel to the long axis of the vessels by a combination of continuous welded-on members and widely spaced stays? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UW-12, Joint Types Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-286 Question: May a single welded, full penetration butt joint, less backing, be considered a Type No. 1 joint, as given in Table UW-12, for diameters less than 24 in. O.D. if the requirements of UW-35 and UW-37(d) are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-16(d), Actual Pipe Thickness Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-287 Question (1): Does UG-16(d) allow the selection of nominal pipe size material which has an actual minimum thickness which is equal to or greater than the calculated minimum wall thickness, regardless of the fact that the undertolerances provide material which is less than that required? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does UG-16(d) require that the nominal thickness less the manufacturing undertolerance be equal to or greater than the minimum thickness required? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-127(b)(4), Telltale indicators Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-290 Question(1): Is it necessary to provide more than one of the telltale indicators given in UG-127(b)(4) to satisfy its requirements? Reply (1): No,

Question (2): In applications involving toxic gases, does UG-127(b)(4) require that a specific type of telltale indicator be employed? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(c)(6), Liquids Other Than Water Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-291 Question: Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-84(b)(2), Impact Testing Temperature Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-294 Question: Does the inability to locate a lab that is able to safely test a specimen at the temperature given in UG-84(b)(2) waive this requirement? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-15 Does U-1(c)(6) apply to any liquid other than water?

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d)(3), Part Thickness September 26, 1985 BC85-319

Question: In UCS-79(d)(3), does the 5/8 in. mean that the thickness of the part before cold forming exceeds 0.625 in. or that the nominal thickness of the part, after taking into account the mill undertolerance, exceeds 0.625 in.? Reply: The 5/8 in. refers to the nominal thickness of the part.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHA-33(b), Required Radiography of High Alloy Vessels Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-321 Question: UHA-33(b) requires radiography for vessels made of certain types of materials. Does spot radiography satisfy this requirement? Reply: No. Full radiography is required.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56(c), PWHT of P-No. 1 to P-No. 8 Materials Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-323 Question: Does UCS-56(c) require postweld heat treatment for the attachment of a nozzle, made of P-No. 8 material, to a flat head, made of P-No. 1 material lined with P-No. 8 material? Reply: No, provided the P-No. 8 is welded to the P-No. 8 material and/or the weld sizes are exempt under Table UCS-56. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37, UG-40, and UW-16, Use of Reinforcing Saddles Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-324 Question: Do UG-37, UG-40, and UW-16 prohibit the use of contoured reinforcing saddles which are attached to the shell and nozzle neck with full fillet welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(c)(l-) and UW-51(a)(3), Authorized Inspector Review of Radiographs Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-326 Question: As the Authorized Inspector must ensure that NDE results are acceptable, is it permissible for a Certificate Holder to allow the Authorized Inspectors review to constitute the only

interpretation of the radiographs (assuming the Authorized Inspector is fully qualified in accordance with his employer's written practice and SNT-TC-I A 1980)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 14, Table 14-10.4.1, Thickness Limitations Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-327 Question: deducted? Reply: Are the thicknesses t1, in Table 14-10.4.1, the minimum after corrosion allowance is No. They are the actual minimum and maximum material thicknesses as fabricated.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-21 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, ULW-52(a), ULW-54(a), and AF-810.20(b), Examination of Welded Layers Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-330 Question: Is it permissible under ULW-52(a) and ULW-54(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, and AF810-20(b) of Division 2 to weld and magnetic particle examine each layer separately in lieu of testing the entire completed joint if staggered seam construction is used? Reply: Yes, for the individual layers. However, the inner shell requires 100% radiographic examination according to ULW-51. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-86-02.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116(c), Marking of Seamless Head With Welded Plug Date Issued: September 26, 1985 File: BC85-334 Question: Is a head considered seamless according to UG-116(c) if it has a hole which is plugged and radiographed? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13, Obround Pressure Vessels Date Issued: October 22, 1985 File: BC84-591 Question (1): Appendix 13, 13-11(b), states that all reinforcement members have the same moment of inertia. Is it permissible to design a vessel with reinforcement members having differing moments of inertia, provided the minimum moment of inertia is used for all calculations? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): A short, obround pressure vessel member (nozzle) is reinforced at one end by a weldedon flange which follows the contour of the vessel member, and at the other end by passing through the vessel wall, where it is also welded. May this be designed using the rules of 13-11? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): 13-11(b) states, "For any other type of reinforced obround cross section vessel, see U-2." Does this apply to an obround nozzle? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-35(d) and U-I(e)(1)(b), Material for Pressure Warning Devices Date Issued: October 22, 1985 File: BC84-600 Question: As required by UG-35, a pressure warning device is installed on a quick-actuating closure for the purpose of warning the operator if the device is pressurized prior to opening. The pressure warning device is threaded directly into the quick-actuating closure and is subjected to internal pressure, May the pressure parts of the pressure warning device be constructed of materials not identified with a specification permitted by Section VIII, Division 1, but which satisfy the conditions given in UG-10? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Hubbed Flanges Date Issued: October 22, 1985 File: BC85-464 Question (1): Are the flanges in Figs. 2-4(7), (8), (8a), and (9) considered hubbed flanges due to the attachment welds at the back of the flanges? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the fillet weld at the back of the flange in Fig. 2-4(7) is removed, would this be considered a hubbed flange? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UHT-18 and UW-13(g), Recessed Nozzles Date Issued: October 22, 1985 File: BC85-466 Question: Do nozzles designed per UHT-18 and conforming to Fig. UHT-18.1 sketch (f) have to meet the requirements of UW-13(g)? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-86-27 (Void, see VIII-1-86-27R)

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(b), Hot Forming and Heat Treatment December 6, 1985 BC85-140

Question: For vessels built to the rules of UCS-85(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, does the term "heat treatment" include heating for the sole purpose of hot forming? Reply: treatment." No. See ASTM Definitions E 44, the second sentence of the definition of "heat

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-27R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UCS-85(b), Hot Forming and Heat Treatment Date Issued: December 3, 1992 File: BC85-140* Question: For vessels built to the rules of UCS-85(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, does the term "heat treatment" include heating for the sole purpose of hot forming? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-51(b), Incomplete Fusion or Penetration Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-289 Question (1): Is reduction in base metal thickness adjacent to a weld (undercut) considered incomplete fusion or penetration according to UW-51(b)? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Question (3): No. Is concave root surface (suck-up) considered incomplete penetration? No. Is melt-thru considered incomplete penetration?

Reply (3): Melt-thru could result in incomplete penetration or could be rejected because of excessive reinforcement. Question (4): Reply (4): Is hollow bead welding considered incomplete penetration? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-5(b), Tack Welding of Nut to Bolt Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-451 Question: Does UCS-5(b) prohibit the tack welding of a stud bolt of more than 0.350% carbon to nut consisting of more than 0.35% carbon? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-119 and Appendix 14, 14-50, Adhesive Attachment of Nameplates Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-487 Question (1): Appendix 14, 14-51(a)(3), limits the adhesive attachments of nameplates to clean, bare metal surfaces. is a surface considered to be clean and bare if it is aluminum flame sprayed or galvanized? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any limitations on when and where a vessel nameplate may be attached, provided complete identification and traceability of the vessel is maintained in accordance with a quality control system acceptable to the Authorized Inspector? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-46, Inspection Openings Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-488 Question: Under the requirements of UG-46(c), is it required that the alternate inspection openings in a 7 ft diameter vessel in noncorrosive service be two 4 in. by 6 in. handholes? Reply: No. See UG-46(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-23, Allowable Stress for ERW Pipe Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-496 Question: When allowable stresses for ERW pipe given in Table UCS-23 are used in design calculations, is it necessary to multiply the listed allowables by the 0.85 factor given in Note (27)? Reply: No. However, your attention is directed to the note in the table heading and UW-12 for additional stress multipliers that may apply, depending on examination of butt welds that may exist in the vessel. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-125 and UG-133, Pressure Relief Devices Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-502 Question: A vessel is pressurized by a centrifugal pump, and the shut-off head of the pump plus its maximum suction pressure exceeds the MAWP of the vessel by less than I0% of the MAWP, or 3 psi, whichever is greater. A relief valve of size 1/2 in. NPS is provided on the vessel and set at the MAWP of the vessel. Does this conform to the rules in UG-125 and UG-133?

Reply:

Yes, but other sources of overpressure must be considered, such as external fire.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-11(c) and UG-120(c), Partial Data Reports for Manway Assemblies Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-503 Question: A manway assembly is supplied by other than the vessel Manufacturer for installation. Parts for this assembly include a rolled and welded ring used for pressure retaining. According to UG-11(c) and UG-120(c), does this assembly require a Partial Data Report? Reply: No, provided the requirements for Manufacturer's standards in UG-11(c) are satisfied.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-1(h), Directly Fired Vessels Date Issued: December 6, 1985 File: BC85-522 Question: May a fired vessel which generates steam by mixing water with hot combustion products as they exit the vessel into a piping network be built under U-1(h)? Reply: Yes. See footnote 1 of the Introduction.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-16(b)(2),. Minimum Wall Thickness Date Issued: March 5, 1986 File: BC85-599 Question: Are full welded heat transfer plates of plate-type heat exchangers exempted by UG-16(b) (2) from the 1/16 in.(see errata page 633). minimum wall thickness requirements? Reply: Errata Volume 19 Interpretation VIII-1-86-36 Yes.

In the second line of the Question, correct 1/6 in. to read 1/16 in.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85, Heat Treatment Date Issued: March 5, 1986 File: BC85-606 Question: During the fabrication of a nonimpact tested pressure vessel made from SA-516 Grade 70 that is 5 in. thick, normalization of the material is conducted by the fabricator as a part of a hot forming process. In order to satisfy the requirements of UCS-85: (a) are mill test specimens required to have the heat treatment associated with the hot forming simulated?

(b) is it required that the manufacturer define for the mill the anticipated cooling rate from the critical temperature during the hot forming operation? Reply: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-4, Material Test Reports Date Issued: March 5, 1986 File: BC85-608 Question: Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1, that the manufacturer of Code items shall examine the material test report or certificate of compliance (when these documents are required) and shall determine that it represents the material and meets the requirements of the material specification? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-35(a)(2), Undercutting Date Issued: March 5, 1986 File: BC85-610 Question: Is reduction in thickness adjacent to the weld considered to be lack of fusion when applying the requirements of UW-35(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-40 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UHA-51, AD-121.2, and AM-211.3, Impact Testing Requirements Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-145 Question(1): Welded joints of AHA-1 or UHA-23 material are subjected to design temperatures which are not required to be impact tested. If the average material temperature goes below the limits given in UHA-51 or AM-213, is impact testing required? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do the Charpy impact test temperature reduction criteria given in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, apply to U HA and AHA materials respectively? Reply (2): Note: No. This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-86-3.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Table UCS-56, PWHT of P-No. 1 Material Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-468

Question: Welded joints are made of all P-No. 1 material and the connections do not form ligaments requiring increased shell thickness. Also, the service requirements of UCS-67 and UW-2(a) are not applicable. Does Table UCS-56 require postweld heat treatment for the weld joints described below? (a) A Schedule 160, NPS 2 nozzle (2.375 in. O.D. X 0.344 in. wall) is attached to a 0.75 in. thick shell using 200F preheat and the attachment detail shown in Fig. UW-16.6 sketch (a). (b) Same as (a), but preheat is less than 200F. (c) Same as (a), but using detail shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (e). (d) A cylindrical welding forging with a 1.5 in. I.D. and 0.625 in. wall thickness at the point of welding is attached to a 0.75 in. thick shell using 200F minimum preheat and the attachment detail shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (a). Reply: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-90(c)(1)(i), Duties of the Authorized inspector Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-591 Question (1): Do the requirements of UG-90(c)(1)(i) require the Inspector to review all radiographs for the vessel that he inspects? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If he is not required to review all radiographs, what percentage should be reviewed by the Inspector to assure the results of the examination are acceptable and in compliance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): The Code does not specify the percentage of radiographs to be reviewed; however, the Inspector must review a sufficient number to verify the examination was performed and the results are acceptable. Question (3): If the Inspector is required to verify the examination, does he have the authority to refuse to accept radiographs, for legitimate cause, that have been accepted by a Level II or III radiographer? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-50 and UW-51, (UW-51 and UW-52) Tungsten Inclusions Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-592 Question: When the GTAW process is used to fabricate a vessel, are tungsten inclusions revealed by radiography to be evaluated in accordance with the acceptance criteria of UW-51 or UW-52? Reply: Yes for UW-51; no for UW-52.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-50. Welded Joint Examination Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File; BC85-593 Question: Since SA-53 Type S and SA-53 Type E are identical in chemical and physical requirements, can SA-53 Type E be used under the provision of Code Case 1518-2 if the longitudinal weld zone is excluded for any openings? Reply: No,

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-85(b), Heat Treatment of Test Specimens Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-602 Question: May the test specimen requirements of UCS-85(b) be waived for flued openings in a shell made by the following conditions? (1) The vessel is not used to contain a lethal substance. (2) The material is SA-576M Grade 415, and does not require impact testing. (3) Diameter of shell is approximately 900 mm, and opening diameter is over one-third of the shell diameter. The distance between openings is not less than 2.5 times the opening diameter and nominal thickness of shell before forming is less than 10 mm. A nozzle is welded to the formed opening. Reduction in thickness due to forming is compensated by the reinforcement calculation for opening. (4) Only the surrounding area of opening to be formed is preheated locally by using a gas burner at 950C-1100C (above the lower critical temperature of material), and forming is done by dropping the die immediately after preheating. (5) All weldments of the vessel shell are sufficiently distant from the opening, and the temperature of the weldments does not exceed the critical temperature during preheating for forming. The vessel does not require postweld heat treatment. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-46-238 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-25, Minimum Wall Thickness Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-605 Question (1): A vessel designed in accordance with UCS-25 and UW-12(a) or (b) has a wall thickness less than 1/4 in. Must a corrosion allowance be provided for in-nozzle reinforcement and loading calculations? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. If the answer to Question (1) is yes, what factors are used in determining the allowance? Tr and Tm = the lesser of (t + 1/6) or 1/4 in.

Question (3): If the wall thickness is equal to or greater than 1/4 in., must a corrosion allowance be provided in nozzle reinforcement and loading calculations?

Reply (3):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116, Marking Requirements Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC85-607 Question (1): vessels? Reply (1): May the marking requirements of UG-116(k) be varied for high volume produced No.

Question (2): May the marking requirements of UG-116(m) be varied for removable pressure parts of high volume produced vessels? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-79(d) Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC86-068 Question: Is heat treatment required for heads formed from P-No. 1, Gr. No. 1 or 2 material, when the extreme fiber elongation is less than 40% and the conditions listed in (1) through (5) of UCS-79(d) do not exist? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 1 and UG-32 Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC86-069 Question: May a torispherical head under internal pressure be calculated according to Eq. (3) of 1-4 of Appendix 1 when L is greater than Do and L/r is between 1 and 16? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-37(c) Date Issued: March 21, 1986 File: BC86-079 Question: When calculating the area required for nozzle reinforcement under external pressure, is the equation referenced in UG-37(c) used where the required thickness for external pressure is substituted for tr and the equation is multiplied by 50%? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-86-51 (Void see 86-51R page 253)

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII-1, UG-90 March 21,1986 BC86-086

Question: Must the Authorized Inspector examine surfaces (i.e., longitudinal and circumferential seams, nozzle openings, etc., prior to welding (generally performed at fit-up inspection) on vessels that involve cutting, and preparation f material edges during fabrication? Reply. No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-52 Subject: Sections I, IV, and VIII, Division 1, Capacity Testing of Safety Valves Manufactured at Separate Locations Date Issued: April 23, 1986 File: BC85-489 Question: Is it permissible for a manufacturer to apply the test results of initial capacity certification determined at one location in accordance with PG-69 in Section I (or HG-402.3 in Section IV, or UG-131 in Section VIII, Division 1) to valves of identical design manufactured by the same organization at a different location? Reply: Yes, provided the following conditions are met: (1) Each manufacturing location has met the requirements of PG-73.3 in Section I [or HG-401.3 in Section IV or UG-136(c) in Section VIII, Division 1] and holds valid ASME Certificates of Authorization for the "V" (or "HV" or "UV," as appropriate) Code Symbol stamp as a manufacturer, issued to the same company. (2) The manufacturer certifies to an ASME designee that the valve design is identical to the originally certified design and that the same production drawings are used at each location. (3) The manufacturer shall have and maintain a quality control system to assure that all Code requirements shall be met. This system shall include provision to provide for the control of drawings and specifications between each location. (4) Valve nameplates uniquely identify the location of manufacture. This interpretation also appears as 1-86-23 and IV-86-11.

Note:

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Code Case 1667-1 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-106 Question: Forged materials for the end caps of an accumulator were purchased, certified, and accepted in 1983 under the provisions of Code Case 1 667-1. Since the purchase of the material, the Code Case was annulled. Can these forgings be machined into finished end caps and used in the assembly of an accumulator meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, after the expiration date of the Code Case? Reply: Yes, provided the purchase order for the vessels preceded the annulment date.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, 2-4(a)(1) Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-113

Question: May socket weld flanges, attached to nozzle necks by a single (hubside only) fillet weld, be used in Section VIII, Division 1 fabrication? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UCS-56 and Table UCS-56 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-114 Question: Are the requirements of postweld heat treatment, as stated in UCS-56 and Table UCS-56, based on design thickness or actual thickness? Reply: The requirements for postweld heat treatment in Table UCS-56 are based on the nominal thickness of the welded joint as defined in UW-40(f). Interpretation: VIII-1-86-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 13 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-198 Question: Is the calculation procedure of 14-20 directly applicable to openings in the rectangular vessels described in 13-2(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-125, UG-129(a), and UG-136(a), Liquid Relief Valves Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-199 Question (1): A relief valve is to be installed in piping attached to a vessel for the purpose of relieving thermal expansion of liquid within a pressure vessel. Does the relief valve require a "UV" stamp? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does a relief valve for relieving expansion of water caused by ambient temperature changes (ambient temperature less than 140 F) require a lifting device if operating temperature of the vessel exceeds 140 F? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-37 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-200 Question (1); Can a welding procedure for manual SMAW joining P-No. 8 Gr. No. 1 to P-No. 8 Gr. No. 1, DC reversed polarity, qualify for a double weld butt seam on pressure boundary material? The first weld will not be back gouged to remove unfused metal (lack of penetration) of the weld prep land.

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Can a welding procedure for automatic SAW joining P-No. 1 to P-No. 1 and P-No. 8 Cr. No. 1 to P-No. 8 Cr. No. 1 qualify for a double weld butt seam on pressure boundary material? The first weld will not be back gouged to remove the unfused metal (lack of penetration) of the weld prep land. Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-59 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part ULW and Appendix D, D-1 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-201 Question: In the fabrication of multilayer vessels in accordance with Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, is it permissible to utilize a spirally wound design using strip and sheet material? Reply: met. Note: Yes, provided all requirements for layered vessels in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, are This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-86-4.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; U-I(g) Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-211 Question: May a steam drum of an unfired steam boiler as defined in U-1(g) be stamped with the "U" Code Symbol stamp if the purchaser or a jurisdiction waives the special requirements of UG-116(d), UG-120(d), UG-125(b), and/or UW-2(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Fig UW-16.1 Sketch (v) Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-212 Question: May a configuration similar to sketch (v) of Fig. UW-16. 1, where the nozzle, is inserted into a solid hub with integral reinforcement, welded to the vessel wall rather than directly into the vessel wall, meet the requirements for openings and reinforcements in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UC-10(a) Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-218 Question: Material is being manufactured in accordance with ASTM A 519 Grade 4130 seamless to meet the chemical and mechanical properties of ASME SA-372 Type 5, Class B, of Section II. The

material is produced to meet a forging specification, but does not go through a forging process. The SA372 specification requires a magnetic particle examination for all quenched and tempered forgings. Can ultrasonic examination, in accordance with ASTM E 213, be used in lieu of magnetic particle examination and have the material meet the requirements of UG-10(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-33 and UW-35 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-234 Question: The shell of a vessel undergoes a rolling operation. A check of the alignment of the longitudinal seam shows the plate was not sheared square. UW-33 and UW-35 do not cover misalignment in which the longitudinal seam is not perpendicular to the circumferential joints. Can a fabricator of a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel use a shell with such misalignment? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Computer Programs Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-236 Question: Computer programs are being written for use in the design calculations for Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 vessels. Does Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, require documented verification of such programs that is to be made available to the Authorized Inspector? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; SA-312 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-237 Question (1): When using SA-312 welded pipe for a shell with no butt welded joints and no radiography, must the allowable stress shown in Table UHA-23 be multiplied by 0.80 in UG-27 to determine the thickness of the shell? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When using SA-312 welded pipe for a shell with no butt welded joints and no radiography, must the allowable stress shown in Table UHA-23 be reduced in the UG-37 nozzle reinforcing calculation? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99 Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-238

Question: Is it permissible to have a paint coating, not exceeding 2 mil in thickness, on a fine grain blast cleaned, carbon steel pressure vessel at the time of the hydrostatic test required per UG-99? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG--16(c) Date Issued: May 13, 1986 File: BC86-240 Question: A stainless steel pressure vessel is being fabricated with no corrosion allowance specified. The plate material ordered is equal to the design thickness. Can the plate material be accepted and used in the vessel with the mill undertolerance values given in UG-16(c) if the thickness is less than required by the calculations of UG-27? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-12(c), Weld Detail Date Issued: May 15, 1986 File: BC85-208 Question: Is it permissible to build a two-compartment pressure vessel meeting Section VIII, Division 1 requirements, having a continuous shell, and both inner heads concave to pressure, attached by fillet welds only to the inside of the shell? The space between the inner heads is vented to atmosphere. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (3), Hubless Plate Flange Date Issued: May 15, 1986 File: BC85-228 Question: May the attachment detail illustrated in Fig. 2-4 sketch (3) apply to a hubless plate flange calculated as a loose-type flange? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII 1-86-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Optional Type Flanges Date Issued: May 15, 1986 File: BC85-230 Question: Do the dimensions for the groove and fillet welds between the flange back face and the shell given in sketch (8) of Fig. 2-4 also apply to sketches (8a) and (8b)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-99, Hydrostatic Testing of Multichamber Vessel With Vacuum Date Issued: May 15, 1986 File: BC85-329 Question: A heat exchanger has a shell side design pressure of 150 psig, a channel side design pressure of full vacuum, and a tubesheet design pressure of 164.7 psig (150 + 14.7 = 164.7 psig). Will a minimum hydrostatic test pressure of 1.5 X 150 (Stest/Sdesign) for the shell side satisfy UG99(e)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-72 Subject: Sections I, IV, VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, and X, Authorized Inspection Agency of Record Date Issued: June 16, 1986 File: BC86-230 Question (1): Do Sections I, IV, VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, and X permit a Code Symbol stamp holder to concurrently have more than one authorized inspection agency of record at one location? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do Sections I, IV, VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, and X permit a Code symbol stamp holder to use an Authorized Inspector employed by other than the AIA of record? Reply (2): Yes; however, such a stamp holder shall have a quality control manual that defines how this arrangement will be controlled and who is responsible for such activities. Note: This interpretation also appears as 1-86-24, IV-86-18, VIII-2-86-5, and X-86-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-25R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Hubbed Flanges Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC85-464* Question (1): Are the flanges in Fig. 2-4 sketches (7), (8), (8a), and (9) considered hubbed flanges due to the attachment welds at the back of the flanges? Reply (1): No, but the attachment weld may be considered as a hub in the design calculations.

Question (2): If the fillet weld at the back of the flange in Fig. 2-4(7) is removed, would this be considered a hubbed flange? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-51R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90 Date Issued: October 16, 1986 File: BC86-086*

Question: Is the Authorized inspector required to inspect all surfaces (i.e., longitudinal and circumferential seams, nozzle openings, etc.) prior to welding (generally performed at fit-up inspection) on vessels that involve cutting and preparation of material edges during fabrication? Reply: No, however the inspector shall comply with UG-90(c)(1).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-9(d), Radiography at Weld intersection Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC85-189 Question: UW-9(d) states: "Except when radiographed 4 in. each side of each welded intersection, . " Does this apply only to the longitudinal joints on each side of the intersection with the circumferential joint? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-27(b) Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-251 Question: UW-27(b) allows resistance pressure welding to be used in the construction of pressure vessels. However, resistance pressure welding is not one of the welding processes specifically addressed in Section IX. Consequently, Article 11 of Section IX does not give essential, supplementary essential, and nonessential variables for the resistance pressure welding process. Is it, therefore, the responsibility of the vessel manufacturer to identify the essential, supplementary essential, and nonessential variables for the resistance pressure welding process, and to use these variables in developing the Welding Procedure Specifications and Procedure Qualification Records in accordance with Section IX? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-100(a)(2) Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-252 Question: Material specification SA-53 requires a hydrostatic pressure test on all pipe manufactured according to that specification. UG-100(a)(2) allows the use of a pneumatic test in lieu of the hydrostatic test for vessels not readily dried that are to be used in services where traces of the testing liquid cannot be tolerated. May vessels manufactured according to Section VIII, Division 1, be constructed of pipe which complies with all the requirements of material specification SA-53, except that the pipe has been tested pneumatically at the test pressure specified in material specification SA-53, rather than hydrostatically, if the pipe cannot be readily dried and if the vessel constructed of the pipe is to be used in services where traces of test liquid cannot be tolerated? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-76 (Void see 86-76R page 275) Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-12 Date Issue July 16, 1986 File: BC86-253

Question (1): Do UG-12 and UHA-12 allow the use of bronze bolts (SB-98, Alloy 651, 655, or 661) with stainless steel nuts (SA-194)? Reply (1): No

Question(2): Do UG-12 and UHA-12 allow the use of bronze bolts (SB-98; Alloy 651, 655, or 661 in stainless steel flat heads with threaded holes (SA-240 Type 3162)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 1, 1-4(d) Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-254 Question: Does the inclusion of the formula for torispherical heads designed in accordance with 1-4(d)? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-119(c)(1) Date issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-258 Question: Does the requirement of UG-1 19(c)(1) that the required nameplate marking of UG-116 shall be in characters not less than 5/32 in. high include letters and numerals such as "INT. PRESS " "PSI " YEAR BUILT " and the manufacturer's name? Reply: Yes, except as provided for pressure relief devices. M override the limitations of UG-32(j) for

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(b) Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-259 Question: Does U-2(b) allow a Certificate Holder to subcontract the welding of pressure parts to another qualified shop provided all the controlling provisions of UW-26 and UW-31 are fully complied with? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, PWHT of Seal Welds on Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints Date Issued: July 16, 1986 File: BC86-268 Question (1): Is postweld heat treatment required for seal welds on tube-to-tubesheet joints on an all carbon steel heat exchanger designed for low temperature service on the shell or tubeside? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is postweld heat treatment required for seal welds on tube-to-tubesheet joints in heat exchangers in which the tubes are stainless steel and the remaining material is carbon steel? These heat exchangers are designed for low temperature service on the shell or tubeside. Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-27 Date Issued: August 27, 1986 File: BC86-334 Question: May flux cored arc welding (FCAW) be used as a fabrication welding process for a pressure vessel constructed in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-120 and Appendix W, Data Report Forms and Partial Data Report Forms Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC85-320 Question: UG-1 20(c) requires that when Form U-2 or U-2A is used, it shall be attached to the associated Form U-1 or U-1A by the manufacturer of the completed vessel. Is it also required that information concerning materials, welds, etc., that has been recorded on Form U-2 or U-2A be repeated on the associated Form U-1 or U-1A? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(c)(2), Distance From Reinforcement Plate to Nozzle Neck Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC85-465 Question: Do the rules of UW-16(c)(2) permit the use of a reinforcing pad that is not welded to the adjacent nozzle neck? Reply: No. The pad shall be attached by welds at the nozzle neck periphery if there is a nozzle neck adjacent to the pad. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(a)(1) Date issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC86-286 Question (1): A flange is welded to a nozzle in a vessel for lethal service. is the construction shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (m) permissible? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): A flange is welded to a nozzle in a vessel intended for lethal service. Is the construction shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (7), (8), (8a), (8b), and (9) permissible? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-I(c)(5) Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC86-292 Question: The manufacturer is producing a compressed air distribution manifold of square cross section. The smallest manifold is 6 in. by 6 in. with a 20 in. long chamber, the largest is 8 in. by 8 in. with a 36 in. long chamber. Can this square tube be considered a piping component per U-1(c)(5) and therefore outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided this equipment is generally recognized as a piping component.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(f)(3)(a) and UCI-23(b) Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC86-293 Question (1): Is it permissible to attach a nozzle consisting of a pipe welded to an ANSI bolted flange at one end and attached at the other end to a vessel, using a fillet weld deposited from the outside only in lieu of using a threaded fitting as shown in Fig. UW-16.2 sketch (1), if the attachment meets the limitations specified in UW-16(f)(3)(a) and is not designed for lethal service? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When designing a cast iron flange to Appendix 2, is it permissible to use 1 1/2 times the allowable stress values in tension from Table UCI-23 for the allowable flange stress Sf? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(g) and Material Specifications Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC86-295 Question (1): May an unfired steam coil generator (boiler) be designed to Section VIII, Division 1, per U-1(g) and follow the provisions of the Preamble of Section I? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible to specify industrial quality nuts and bolts to fasten handhole covers and immersion heaters on pressure vessels? The stress values of these fasteners will be derated to 80% of the equivalent ASME listed national specification. Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(e) Date Issued: August 28, 1986 File: BC86-300 Question: May the minimum required thickness of the spherical portion of a torispherical head be calculated in the same manner as a spherical shell? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16 and Fig. UW-16.1, Nozzle Fillet Welds Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC84-169 Question (1): In Section VIII, Division 1 construction, is it acceptable to attach a nozzle neck that projects past the inner vessel surface [similar to Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (h)] with a full penetration groove weld and fillet weld on the outside only [similar to Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (c)]? Reply (1): Question (2): weld? Reply (2): Yes. Would the use of the inside nozzle projection as reinforcement require an inside fillet No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-13 and Taper at Mismatch Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC85-225 Question: Is it the intent that any offset within the allowable tolerance provided in Table UW-33 shall be faired at a three-to-one taper? Reply: Yes. See UW-33(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCI-101 Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-235 Question: UCI-101(b) has been revised to require the average tensile strength from three test specimens for use in the formula of UCI-101(a). Does the revision require retesting of designs based on destructive testing with use of less than three test specimens made before the effective revision date? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(a)(3) Date Issued: September 24, 1986

File:

BC86-255

Question (1): Pipe fittings of the following sizes are to be welded to a thermowell: (a) a coupling of 1/2 in. nominal size (1 1/4 in. O.D. and 2 in. length); and (b) a coupling of 3/4 in. nominal size (1 1/2 in. O.D. and 1 1/2 in. length). The thermowell is welded to the shell of a pressure vessel. Are these couplings considered to be "parts of small size" per UG-11(a)(3)? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Are "parts of small size" as defined in UG-11(a)(3) required to have identifying marks? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116 Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-256 Question: Does UG-116 allow a Certificate Holder to list on his nameplate a geographical location which is different from the company's physical plant location? Reply: UG-116 does not list the company's geographic location as one of the required markings.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-257 Question: Do U-1(c)(3) and/or U-1(c)(5) exclude from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, the following types of vessels? (a) U-shaped screw conveyor having a flat cover and an internal conventional central helical screw; (b) cylindrical (or conical) screw feeder with internal central helical screw; (c) chute or pipe interconnecting such a screw conveyor and screw feeder. Reply: Manufacturers and/or users are responsible for classifying of pressure vessels and determining if Code stamping is required. See U-1, footnote 1. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, 2-2(d,) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-267 Question: Is it permissible to use a ring that has been cut or burnt from plate material as an optional type flange without a machined hub? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34 and UW-13

Date Issued: File:

September 24, 1986 BC86-270

Question (1): A heat exchanger has a steam bell closure of irregular shape welded to its top. The steam bell has end closures of flat plates without reinforcement that are attached as shown in sketch (h) of Fig. UG-34. How should the long span D and the short span d be determined? Reply (1): UG-34 is not applicable; the design should be per U-2 or UG-101.

Question (2): What E value of Table UW-12 is applied to Fig. UG-34 sketch (h) and Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (c) if these details are used to attach the end closures described in Question (1)? The heat exchanger will not contain lethal substances. Reply (2): No E factor exists for an angle joint.'

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-and UG-77(c) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-273 Question(1): A seamless formed head is to be furnished under the provisions of UG-11(b) and UG77(c) without a Manufacturer's Partial Data Report or part stamping. Cracks are found in the head after forming, which require weld repair. Can this repair be considered a repair of defects in material subject to the requirements of UG-78? Reply (1): Question (2): weld repair? Reply (2): Yes. Is a Manufacturer's Partial Data Report or part stamping required upon completion of the No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(7)(a) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-301 Question: U-I(c)(7) exempts hot water supply tanks from the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, provided the limitation given in that paragraph is not exceeded. For the purpose of satisfying U-1(c)(7)(a), must the heat exchange take place inside the vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1, Scope Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-313 Question (1): A Manufacturer's Certificate of Compliance on Form U-3 must be completed and signed by the Manufacturer for each pressure vessel marked with the Code UM symbol. Since vessels

fabricated in accordance with U-1 are exempted from inspection, is the Inspectors signature required on Form U-3? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): A vessel has an inside diameter of less than 6 in. and therefore is outside the scope of the Code. If such a vessel can be fabricated in accordance with U-1(k), may it be stamped with the Code UM symbol even though exempted from such stamping? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-135(b) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-317 Question: Frequently, nonreclosing relief devices are not available in small sizes (e.g., 1 in. diameter) at set pressures less than I00 psig. If a small nozzle (e.g., I in. diameter) can be shown to be adequate to prevent overpressure in accordance with UG-125, is it permissible to increase the pipe size after the nozzle and install a nonreclosing relief device larger than the nozzle diameter? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-77 Date Issue September 24, 1986 File: BC86-320 Question (1): UG-77(a) and UG-99(a) use the phrase "when the vessel is completed" and completed vessel." Are these terms used with the same meaning? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it acceptable to verify and record the required material markings from the vessel by a method described in the Quality Control Manual, then perform operations, such as sand blasting, that cause the physical markings to be lost on the vessel prior to hydrostatic testing? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): When small items are welded into the vessel and lose their identity (e.g., small couplings where the final exposed surface is too small to record trace numbers), is it acceptable to verify and record the markings by a method described in the Quality Control Manual after tack welding but prior to welding over the required marking? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Must the coded marking described in UG-77(a) appear on the part or may alternate methods described in the Quality Control Manual be used such as as-built sketches or tabulations? Reply (4): Alternate methods that assure traceability may be used.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-43(d) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-322 Question (1): For a bolted pad connection as shown in UW-16.1(p), may the drilled hole penetrate the shell provided the requirements of UG-43(d) are met? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the measurement of one-fourth of the wall thickness from the inside of the vessel after deducting the corrosion allowance to be taken from the tip of the apex from the standard drill bit, or is it assumed to the distance resulting from the use of flat bottom drill? Reply (2): The thickness of the remaining metal at the bottom of the drilled hole shall not be less than one-fourth of the wall thickness measured from the inside of the vessel after deducting the corrosion allowance. Question (3): UG-43(d) states that drilled holes that are to be tapped shall not penetrate within onefourth of the wall thickness from the inside of the vessel after deducting corrosion allowance. Does this mean one-fourth of the minimum wall thickness of the vessel shell or head, one-fourth of the minimum thickness of the studded flange or plate, or one-fourth of the actual thickness of the studded flange or plate that is used after the stud length requirements of UG-43(g) have been satisfied? Reply (3): UC-43(d) requires the material thickness at the bottom of the hole to be 1/4 t of the total thickness exclusive of corrosion allowance. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-6 Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-370 Question (1): A vessel being designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, consists of a cylindrical shell and dished heads complying with UCS-6(b)(1) through (4). Can structural steel conforming to SA-36 and/or SA-283 be used for the shell and head of this vessel? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. What additional inspection is required for such vessels described in Question (1)? See UG-90(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-31(d) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-372 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1, prohibit the use of welding and/or grinding of the plate surfaces to meet the fit-up tolerances required of UW-33 and Table UW-33? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the plates at the joint are of different thicknesses, does the thickness difference need to be considered as part of the alignment tolerance? Reply (2): UW-33. No. The abutting plates must be tapered to meet the requirements of UW-33 and Table

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-105 SubjectSection VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-379 Question: Is it necessary to identify the manufacturer who produced material that has lost its identifying markings before it can be considered acceptable under the requirements of UG-10? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UG-34 sketch (n) Date Issued: September 24, 1986 File: BC86-381 Question: Is it permissible to fabricate a flat head in accordance with Fig. UG-34 sketch (n) from SA-790 UNS S31803 or SA-789 UNS S31803? Reply: No; however, see Code Case 1978 for other product forms.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-28 Date Issued: November 18, 1986 File: BC86-447 Question: The design length of the vessel section L is diagrammatically shown in Fig. UG-28 as the distance between schematically drawn bolted flanges. Does this length L apply if the bolted flanges are loose type flanges per Fig. 2-4 sketch (1) or (1)(a), assuming the flanges meet the requirements of UG-29 for stiffening rings? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(b)(1) Date Issued: November 18, 1986 File: BC86-448 Question: A vessel is designed to operate at a temperature below 20 F and impact tests are required. UG-116(b)(1)(a) states that the words "minimum allowable temperature" are to be included in the stamping. Can "minimum allowable temperature" be abbreviated "Min. Allow. Temp." in the stamping? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-11(b) Date Issued: November 18, 1986 File: BC86-451 Question.Die formed heads are being marked with the name or trademark of the head manufacturer along with the markings serving to identify them with the accompanying material identification. May these markings be applied to the head using a hand held vibrating engraver? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116 Date issued: November 26, 1986 File: BC86-202 Question: Can a recognized abbreviation be used as the "name of the manufacturer" to meet the marking requirements of UG-116? Reply: Yes, provided the abbreviation is listed on the manufacturer's Certificate of Authorization. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-76R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-12 Date Issued: April 14, 1987 File: BC86-253* Question (1): Do UG-12 and UHA-12 prohibit the use of bronze bolts (SB-98 Alloy 651, 655, or 661) with stainless steel nuts (SA-194)? Reply (1): No.

Question(2): Do UG-12 and UHA-12 prohibit the use of bronze bolts (SB-98 Alloy 651, 655, or 661) in stainless steel flat heads with threaded holes (SA-240 Type 316L)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-31(d) and UW-33 Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC86-512 Question: Are the requirements for alignment given in UW-31(d) and UW-33 applicable to the corner joint shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (n) where the weld sizes are a + b= 3tn and tp = 1/4 in. or greater and c = tn? Reply: No

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Repairs to Formed Heads

Date Issued: File:

February 19, 1987 BC86-513

Question (1): A formed head or segment of carbon or low alloy steel is to be supplied under the provisions of UG-11(b) or UG-77(c) without a Manufacturer's Partial Data Report and part stamping. Indications and/or under thickness are detected after forming which require welded repairs and/or welding to restore thickness. The material is located at the plant of the head manufacturer where the repairs are to be made. May the head or segment still be considered material? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is agreement between the head manufacturer and purchaser all that is required to permit weld repair or weld build-up per SA-20? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Does compliance with Section VIII, Division 1 require agreement from the Inspector prior to effecting welded repair or weld build-up? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Is the head manufacturer required to complete a Partial Data Report on completion of weld repair or weld build-up to restore thickness? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): Is part stamping by the head manufacturer required upon completion of welded repairs or weld build-up? Reply (5): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(c)(2) Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC86-522 Question: A Manufacturer operates under the requirements of UG-90(c)(2) and runs a single 8 hr shift per day, 5 days per week, using the services of one full-time Authorized Inspector. If the Manufacturer adds a second 8 hr shift, is he required to employ a second Authorized inspector? Reply: No. UG-90(c)(2) establishes that all Code requirements must be met, but does not detail the method used to assure such compliance. The method must be developed by the Manufacturer and accepted by the Authorized Inspector, the legal jurisdiction, and an ASME Designee. The need for an additional Authorized Inspector will depend on the provisions of the quality control system and the number of pressure vessels produced. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-100 Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-001 Question: What pressure is to be used when conducting pneumatic testing of cast iron or cast ductile iron pressure vessels parts?

Reply:

These materials are required to be hydrostatically tested in accordance with UCI-99.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, 3-1(b) Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-004 Question: For a horizontal vessel meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, must the additional pressure due to the static head of liquids be considered when determining the thickness of any specific part? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Backing Strips Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-005 Question (1): Are backing strips left in place after completion of the vessel considered to be material subject to stress due to pressure? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are backing strips, whether removed or left in place, considered nonpressure parts, such as skirts, baffles, and supporting lugs? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it permissible to use backing strips, whether removed or left in place of low carbon steel plate, 1/8 in. thick, and not produced to a specification permitted in Section VIII, Division 1 without any additional testing provided a qualified Welding Procedure Specification is available? Reply (3): Yes, unless impact testing of the material is required.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-35 and Appendix 2 Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-006 Question: A 1 in. flanged connection has been designed which meets the requirements of Appendix 2. When determining whether this design complies with UG-35, is it required that the connection be provided with a minimum of four bolts? Reply: UG-35 does not apply to multibolted connections.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Material Specifications Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-007

Question: Is it permissible to construct a pressure vessel in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 using a material whose mill test report reflects dual certification, e.g., a material test report certifying the material meets SA-106 Grade B, SA-53 Grade B, ASTM A 53 Grade B, and API 5L? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(i) Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-009 Question: Can a holder of a Certificate of Authorization for a U Code Symbol Stamp, with an extension to field sites in the scope of authorization, assemble and test vessels to be stamped with the UM Code Symbol Stamp at field sites? Reply: No; see UG-116(n).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Electric Power Circuit Reclosers Date Issued: February 19, 1987 File: BC87-018 Question: A Manufacturer produces a medium voltage automatic circuit recloser which employs SF6 gas for internal insulation and arc interruption. The device normally operates at a pressure of 60 psi and is capable of withstanding a pressure of 575 psi. Does this device fall within the Scope, of ,Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply: Yes; however, the need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user, manufacturer, or jurisdictional authority. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-20 and UG-21, Coincident Pressure and Temperature Date Issued: March 12, 1987 File: BC84-598 Question: For establishing design conditions, may either the pressure or the temperature of a vessel be considered to exceed the stamped conditions on the vessel data sheet or nameplate? Reply: The pressure may be exceeded only for the conditions specified in UG-125. Under normal operating conditions, the temperature may not be higher than the stamped temperature. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 Date Issued: April 6, 1987 File: BC86-505 Question: Are the requirements of UG-99 pertaining to hydrostatic testing applicable to pressure vessels made from UHT materials, e.g., SA-517 Grade E? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84 Date Issued: April 6, 1987 File: BC87-074 Question (1): A vessel designed for operation at 50 F is to be fabricated using SA-333 Grade 6 for the shell and SA-516 Grade 70 for the head. When performing the production impact tests for this vessel for the Category B head-to-shell joint, is it required to use both materials when welding the test specimen? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Would impact tests also be required for the heat affected zones of both materials? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-I(g) Date Issued: April 13, 1987 File: BC87-071 Question: Is it permissible to construct a hot water heating boiler under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, when the pressure vessel is not contacted by the fuel combustion (or flue gas) which takes place in an adjacent and completely separate chamber? The vessel in question and adjacent combustion chamber are in intimate contact and heat passes to the vessel by conduction through the combustion chamber wall. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-85 and UCS-85 Date Issued: April 24, 1987 File: BC87-019 Question: A pressure part requiring PWHT is being fabricated from P-No. 1 Group Nos. 1 and 2 materials in the rolled (not annealed) condition. In accordance with UG-85 and UCS-85, is a simulated PWHT required for test specimens representing the materials used in this part? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125(a) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC86-215 Question (1): Do pressure vessels stamped with the U Code Symbol Stamp require the use of pressure relief valves stamped with the UV Code Symbol Stamp when such valves are chosen as the vessel protective device? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Must pressure relief valves that are built in accordance with the requirements of UG-125 through UG-136 be stamped with the UV Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (2): Yes, when installed to protect a Code U Stamp vessel or vessels.

Question (3): May pressure valves not bearing the UV Code Symbol Stamp be used to protect pressure vessels bearing the U Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-127 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(a) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC86-285 Question (1): Does a vacuum furnace with a differential pressure of 15.5 psig to 85.5 psig and a water flow water jacket fall under the exclusion of U-1(c)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Under the requirements of UG-28(e), would the minimum external design pressure for the jacketed portion of the vacuum furnace be 85.5 psi? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply(3): Yes. Must both the vacuum furnace and jacket be marked with their oven MAWP's? Yes. See UG-116(k) and 9-1(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-128 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-14 Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-043 Question: Does UG-14 prohibit the use of bored rolled bar as a means of producing the main body of a pressure vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(b)(6) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-045 Question: Does application of the requirements of UG-90(b)(6) and the referenced paragraphs allow a Certificate Holder to use what is known as a "conditional release" of material to fabrication when material test reports are not received in a timely fashion so long as the Quality Control Manual provides controls for this activity? Reply: The Code does not specify at what point material test reports are to be verified with the requirements of Section II material specifications.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(i)(3)(b) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-046 Question (1): Several vessels are constructed of a combination of SA-517 Grades B and F material, welded within a 3 month period at one location, plate thickness does not vary by more than 1/4 in. or 25% (whichever is greater), and vessel production impact test plate is made from the combination of the SA-517 Grade B and F materials only. Does this vessel impact test plate qualify as per UG-84(i)(3)(b) for 400 ft of joints between the SA-517 Grade B material to the SA-517 Grade F material if the same procedure is used? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Would this vessel impact test plate qualify as per UG-84(i)(3)(b) for 400 ft of joints between the SA-517 Grade B to SA-517 Grade B material or joints between the SA-517 Grade F provided the same procedure is used? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-131 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-97 Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-079 Question (1): UG-97(a) states "When conditions permit entry into the vessel, as complete an examination as possible shall be made before the final closure. When conditions do permit entry, what must be examined? Reply (1): UG-90(c)(1)(k) and (l) describe some of the required inspections and verifications to be performed. Other inspections may also be necessary to assure the vessel meets all Code requirements. Question (2): What types of examination are required to comply with UG-97(a)?

Reply (2): The Code does not specify what examinations must be performed; however, the Inspector may require those examinations necessary to assure the vessel meets all Code requirements. Question (3): May the manufacturer's manufacturing personnel perform the examinations required by UG-97(a) or must the examinations be performed by the Manufacturer's QC personnel? Reply (3): Inspector. The examinations required by UG-97(a) are listed in UG-90(c)(1) as a duty of the

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-132 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(k) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-107 Question: A vessel is to be built with the following operational characteristics. (a) The vessel operates at atmospheric pressure. (b) The maximum water temperature is 180F at or near the water outlet.

(c) The water enters the vessel via a spray nozzle and passes through a metal mist pad where it is dispersed before raining through the products of combustion created by a fossil fuel flame. (d) The heated water is utilized for heating/supply applications. May such a vessel be constructed and stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-133 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(m) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-109 Question: Is the marking requirement of UG-116(m) met if it can be established that the permanently marked removable parts have been manufactured to the Code by their identification (unique number and/or letter codes), and traceable to the vessel through the manufacturing records which are traceable to the assembly drawing identified in the Manufacturer's Data Report (U-1 or U-1A)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-134 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-25 Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-112 Question: A seamless head, which has a required minimum thickness of less than 1/4 in. and is to be used in compressed air service, is welded to a shell containing a longitudinal joint designed in accordance with UW-12(c). No radiography is performed on any part of the assembly. Does UCS-25 require a corrosion allowance to be added to the required minimum thickness of the seamless head? Reply: No. See Code Case 2009-1. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-113 Question: Is it required to use either magnetic particle examination or liquid penetrant examination on the joint shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) when the flat plate is 5/8 in. thick and the value of Ts = 3/8 in. thick? Reply: Yes; the extent of the examination for the joint shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) is given in UG-93(d)(3) and (d)(4) Interpretation: VIII-1-86-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1, Indirect-Fired Storage Water Heaters Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-116

Question (1): For an indirect-fired storage water heater, does the heat input limitation in U-1(c)(7)(a) mean the maximum heat input from the heat exchanger under maximum temperature difference and flow conditions at a stored water temperature of 210F? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Would an indirect-fired storage water heater with a heat exchanger capacity of less than 200,000 Btu/hr be considered within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 when its heat source is a heating boiler with input above 200,000 Btu/ hr? Reply (2): No; however, the need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user, manufacturer, or jurisdictional authority. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCI-78(b)(3) and UCI-101 Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-117 Question (1): In accordance with the requirements of UCI-78(b)(3), can mild steel drive plugs be used to remove surface imperfections in a cast iron pressure vessel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When a pressure vessel is tested to destruction by the parent company, can a subsidiary company manufacture an identical pressure vessel part without repeating the destructive test? Reply (2): Yes, provided direct operational control is established in their quality control systems.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 sketch (8) Date Issued: May 22, 1987 File: BC87-120 Question (1): When a hubless flange of the design shown in Fig. 2-4 sketch (8) is designed as a loose type flange, is the groove weld with a minimum depth of c required on the back side? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the design described in Question (1), may the back side fillet weld have a minimum throat dimension of 0.7c? Reply (2): ERRATA The following interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Interpretations Vol. 20, which includes interpretations issued from July 1, 1986, through December 31, 1986. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-139 (This printing error was corrected by errata) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11(a)(4) Date Issued: November 13, 1986 File: BC85-152 No; however, the throat dimension may not be less than 1/4 in.

Question: intended? Reply:

In UW-11(a)(4), 1986 Addenda, was the deletion of the reference to UW-11(a)(2) No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-125R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-85 and UCS-85 Date Issued: November 3, 1987 File: BC87-019* Question: A pressure part requiring PWHT is being fabricated from P-No. 1 Gr. Nos. 1 and 2 materials in the as-rolled condition. Are simulated PWHT test specimens, in accordance with UCS85(b), required when the heat treatment during fabrication is limited to PWHT at a temperature below the critical temperature of the steel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-57 Date Issued: July 14, 1987 File: BC87-171 Question (1): Do the requirements of UCS-57 apply to nozzle pipe to nozzle flange butt welds where the nozzle neither exceeds 10 in. nominal pipe size nor 1.125 in. wall thickness? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do the requirements of UCS-57 apply to nozzle pipe to nozzle flange butt welds when the nozzle either exceeds 10 in. nominal pipe size or 1.125 in. wall thickness? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-27(a) Date Issued: July 14, 1987 File: BC87-172 Question: Is it permissible to use electrogas welding to fabricate welded ferritic steel vessels meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-142 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(9) Date Issued: August 4, 1987 File: BC87-161 Question: Would a pressure vessel in the configuration of a T consisting of 4 in. pipe meet the exemption of U-1(c)(9) of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: Yes; however, the need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(9) Date Issued: August 4, 1987 File: BC87-165 Question: Does a tube in a tube ammonia desuperheater/water heater with no parts exceeding 6 in. I.D. fall within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No; however, the need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user or his designated agent. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40(b) Date Issued: August 4, 1987 File: BC87-167 Question (1): Do the requirements of UG-40 allow the outer fillet weld joining the reinforcing element to be located outside the limits of reinforcement? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the fillet weld is located as stated in Question (1), can the area of this weld be included in calculations for required reinforcement? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: August 4, 1987 File: BC87-169 Question: A spiral jacketed vessel is to be fabricated with the following characteristics. (1) The inner vessel has an internal volume that does not exceed 5 cu ft and a design pressure that does not exceed 15 psig. (2) Per zone, the jacket volume does not exceed 5 cu ft, the inside width of the cross section does not exceed 6 in. and the design pressure exceeds 30 psig. Are the jacket and inner vessel considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No; however, the need for determining if Code construction is required is the responsibility of the user or designated agent. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(f) Date Issued: August 27, 1987 File: BC87-158

Question (1): Is RT 4 the proper designation for a pressure vessel in which the longitudinal seam is spot-radiographed and the circumferential seam is visually examined? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is RT 3 the proper designation for a pressure vessel in which both the longitudinal and circumferential seam are spot-radiographed? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-147 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-45 Date Issued: August 27, 1987 File: BC87-159 Question (1): A 36 in. O.D., 6 ft high access opening with a blind flange is welded on the top torispherical head of a pressure vessel. Three process nozzles are also connected to this neck. Shall this neck be designed using UG-45(b)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): The nozzle neck described in Question (1) is attached to a 10 in. long stub which is welded to the head of the vessel. The thickness of the stub is calculated using UG-45(a). Shall the remaining neck be calculated using UG-45(b)? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): The bottom section of the vessel has a reducing conical section. The small end of the conical section is connected to a 4 in. O.D., 6 ft long sump. There are several process nozzles connected to the sump. Is this sump required to be designed to UG-45(a)? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(f) Date Issued: August 27, 1987 File: BC87-162 Question: A pressure vessel is being built in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 and has the following characteristics: (1) the vessel will not contain lethal substances; (2) the least nominal thickness at any butt joint does not exceed the thicknesses indicated in UW11(a)(2); (3) the vessel is not an unfired steam boiler; (4) there is no electroslag welding in the vessel; and (5) the vessel design is based on joint efficiencies permitted by UW-12(a) and the radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(a) and (b) have been met. Does this vessel satisfy the requirements of UW-11(a), and should it have RT 1 placed under the Code Symbol? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-16(c) Date issued: August 27, 1987 File: BC87-168 Question: Is it permissible to attach a nozzle to a shell as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (h) if the length of the nozzle wall projection beyond the inner surface of the vessel shell is zero? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2 Date issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC86-194 Question (1): In Fig. 2-4 under optional flange, it is stated: "Loading and Dimensions Not Shown Are the Same as for Sketch (2) for Loose-Type Flanges or (7) for Integral-Type." Is it correct to assume the above statement means any dimensions not specifically given for optional flanges shall be taken from either sketch (2) or (7) as appropriate? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is tn, as used in Appendix 2, the actual thickness or the calculated thickness of the shell or nozzle wall? Reply(2): 2-3 defines tn follows: nominal thickness of shell or nozzle wall to which flanges or lap is attached less corrosion allowance, in. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-151 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Total Weld Load Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-110 Question (1): Is equation W = [A - (d - 2 tn)(E, t1 - Ftr)]S correct for determining the total load carried by the nozzle attachment welds for a nozzle with a nozzle neck inserted through the vessel wall? Reply (1): Question (2): vessel wall? Reply (2): Yes. Does Fig. UG-41.1 sketch (b) depict a nozzle detail with the nozzle neck abutting the Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCI-101 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-164 Question: The test to destruction required in UCI-101 can be terminated when the test pressure reaches the point required to establish the maximum allowable pressure. If the vessel does not fail during this test, may it be stamped and put into service?

Reply: The Code does not address the termination of the pressure test prior to failure and subsequent use of the vessel. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-153 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(d) Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-166 Question: To satisfy the requirements of UW-12(d), should E = 0.85 be used to calculate the thickness of a seamless head attached to a shell when both the longitudinal Category A joint and the Category B head-to-shell butt weld are visually examined? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(9) Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-175 Question: A pressure vessel has an inside diameter, width, height, or cross-section diagonal of less than 6 in., a length greater than 6 in., and operates at a pressure of 800 psig. Is this vessel outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, as given in U-1(c)(9)? Reply: Yes; however, see footnote 1 of Section VIII, Division 1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-155 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-36(c)(3)(b) Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-183 Question (1): Does the phrase "not greater than 2 in. pipe size" in UG-36(c)(3)(b) refer to the outside diameter of standard weight pipe (2.375 in.)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is a pressure vessel with a MAWP in the range of 70 psig to 150 psig considered to be subject to rapid pressure fluctuations if the pressure in the vessel can be varied between 0 psig and MAWP at a rate of up to 30 psi/min? Reply (2): The Code does not define "rapid fluctuations in pressure."

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Proof Testing Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-189 Question (1): When conducting proof tests based on yielding using strain gauges, is the 0.2% limit on permanent strain for steels applicable to areas with highly localized and secondary stresses? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When conducting the tests described in Question (1), are the strain gages to be located at the most highly stressed parts or the most critical areas, but only in regions of primary stress? Reply (2): Yes; see the Note included in UG-101(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-127 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-190 Question: A single rupture disk has been chosen to provide overpressure protection for a vessel. In accordance with UG-127, should the device be selected in such a manner that no point within the design range of the bursting temperature-pressure curve for the disk exceeds the MAWP of the vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 1, 1-8 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-191 Question (1): A reducer section, under external pressure, has excess thickness to meet the area of reinforcement requirement without an additional ring (Ae, > Ar,).In this case, is it also required by Appendix 1, 1-8 to meet the moment of inertia requirement at the cone-to-cylinder junction? Reply (1): Yes

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, is it permissible to utilize the excess thickness (without adding a ring) to meet the moment of inertia? Reply (2): Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-159 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-11 and UW-12 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-192 Question (1): A Category B or C butt weld (not including those in nozzles or communicating chambers) is to intersect a Category A butt weld in a vessel section or head or connects a seamless vessel section or head. In order to satisfy the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b), a spot radiograph must be included in the weld increment represented by the Category B or C weld. Where around the circumference shall the spot radiograph be taken? Reply(1): The location of the spot radiograph shall be in accordance with UW-52(b)(3).

Question (2): A vessel section with a Category A butt weld is to intersect a Category B or C butt weld connecting a seamless vessel section or head. In order to apply UW-11(a)(5)(b) to satisfy UW-12(d) for increasing E of the seamless component from 0.85 to 1.0, must the Category A butt weld be spot radiographed (per UW-11(b)] as a minimum degree of radiography? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Case 2005 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-194 Question(1): Does Code Case 2005 require the pressure vessel manufacturer to obtain customer acceptance to construct a pressure vessel over 12 in. and up to and including 36 in. diameter that will utilize the threaded inspection opening for piping, instrumentation, or similar attachments? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Code Case 2005 require the pressure vessel manufacturer to install plugs of Code material in the completed pressure vessel that will be shipped to the customer? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-161 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(j) Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-197 Question: U-1(j) exempts inspections by Inspectors (UG-91) for vessels meeting the requirements of and marked with the UM Code Symbol Stamp. Does U-1(j) also exempt monitoring by an Inspector (UG-91) for the Quality Control Programs of manufacturers which produce vessels meeting the requirements of and marked with the UM Code Symbol Stamp? Reply: Agency. Yes; however, see U-2(h) regarding the annual review by the Authorized Inspection

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-162 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Restamping of Pressure Vessels Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-199 Question: A new pressure vessel (i.e., one which has never been placed in service) has been stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 Is it the intent of the Code that the Section VIII, Division 1 stamp may be removed and replaced with a Section VIII, Division 2 stamp provided it is demonstrated to the Authorized Inspector by the original Manufacturer that all the requirements of Division 2 are met at the time of restamping? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-163 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-202 Question: Steam chambers operating at a pressure of 70 psi and a temperature of 302F are to serve as tire curing molds. Three ring shaped molds of the following dimensions are to be built: (1) 0.47 in. wide by 14.17 in. wide;

(2) 4.45 in. wide by 1.18 in. high; and (3) 6.14 in. wide by 0.98 in. high. Do the three steam chambers described above fall within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-164 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(7) Date Issued: September 22, 1987 File: BC87-291 Question: Would an indirect-fired storage water heater whose heat input exceeds 200,000 Btu be considered within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-165 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Code Exemptions Date Issued: October 21, 1987 File: BC87-250 Question: May vessels exempt from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 based on the size exclusions of U-1(c)(9) be stamped UM in accordance with U-1(j) and (k)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-166 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Allowable Stress Values Date Issued: October 21, 1987 File: BC87-251 Question: A Manufacturer is fabricating a pressure part from an SA-266 Class 2 forging having a specified minimum tensile strength of 70,000 psi. Tests on the material show the tensile strength of the forging ranges between 66,000 psi and 69,000 psi. The dimensions of the part do not permit downgrading the material to SA-266 Class 1. Is it permissible for Section VIII, Division 1 construction to use a forging satisfying the chemical composition of SA-266 Class 2, but having a minimum tensile strength of 65,000 psi? An allowable stress of 16,250 psi will be used in Code calculations, and the lower value will be noted in the Manufacturer's Data Report. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-167 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-119(g)(i) Date Issued: October 21, 1987 File: BC87-255 Question: May the nameplate stamping requirements of UG-116 and UG-118 be satisfied as stated in UG-119(g)(1) if the information is directly die stamped into a guard that is permanently welded to the tank? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-168 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 Date issued: October 21, 1987 File: BC87-289 Question(1): When h = 2.5tn in UG-37, is tn of an inwardly projecting nozzle considered to be the nozzle nominal wall thickness minus twice the corrosion allowance, since the inwardly projecting nozzle neck is exposed to corrosion on both inside and outside surfaces? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If a reinforcing pad is used on the external surface of a vessel and 2.5 tn + te governs the external limit of reinforcement parallel to the vessel wall, can this same limit be used on the inside projection of the same nozzle or is h limited to 2.5tn? Reply (2): The reinforcement limit is 2.5tn

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-169 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Record Retention Date Issued: October 21, 1987 File: BC87-299 Question: Are Manufacturers of Section VIII, Division 1 vessels required to retain job files that contain drawings, calculations, material test reports, and purchase orders after the Manufacturer's Data Report has been certified by the Manufacturer and Authorized Inspector? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-170 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79, Cold Bent, Small Diameter Tubing Date Issued: October 26, 1987 File: BC84-170 Question: tube? Reply: In Section VIII, Division 1 do the requirements of UCS-79 apply to bending pipe or No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-171 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, 2-2(d)(1), Use of Bar for Manufacture of Hubbed Flanges Date Issued: October 26, 1987 File: BC85-177 Question(1): Does Appendix 2-2(d)(1) permit the use of forged bar in the manufacture of hubbed flanges if the axis of the finished flange is parallel to the long axis of the original forging? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does Appendix 2-2(d)(1) permit the use of hot rolled bar in the manufacture of hubbed flanges if the axis of the finished flange is parallel to the long axis of the original bar? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-172 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-23(c), and Division 2, Fig. 4-130.1, Thermal Expansion of Piping Date Issued: October 26, 1987 File: BC85-288 Question: Are loads caused by the thermal expansion of piping considered as causing a secondary stress (self-limiting) when applying the rules of UG-23(c)? Reply: The method to consider this type of loading and stress category is not given in Section VIII, Division 1, although these loads are required to be considered according to UG-22. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-173 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2 Date Issued: October 26, 1987 File: BC86-247 Question: Is the gasket loading point equal to the outside gasket (contact) diameter less twice the effective gasket seating width b for facing sketch (2) of Table 2-5.2 when bo is greater than 1/4 in.? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-174 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(d) Date Issued: October 26, 1987 File: BC86-417 Question: Heads having D/2h = 2 have equivalent torispherical properties of a torisphere of L/D = 0.9 and r/d = 0.17. Does a head with two distinct radii with these ratios, that is, designed in accordance with UG-32(d), comply with the requirement of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-175 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-32(j) Date Issued: November 25, 1987 File: BC87-302 Question(1): Does a torispherical head satisfy Code requirements if the inside crown radius exceeds the outside diameter in the corroded condition but meets the requirement of UG-32(j) in the noncorroded condition? Reply (1): No; see Appendix 1-4.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) above is no, which paragraph of the Code should the thickness of the torispherical head be calculated?

Reply (2):

The torispherical head must meet the requirements of UG-32.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-176 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-43(e) Date Issued: November 25, 1987 File: BC87-383 Question: Is it acceptable under the requirements of UG-43(e) to use threaded connections of less than 1/2 in. pipe size in threaded holes in the wall of a vessel? Reply: The Code does not address this subject; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-177 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12 Date Issued: November 25, 1987 File: BC87-390 Question (1): When calculating the required thickness of a seamless shell attached with a corner joint to a nonextended tubesheet as shown in sketches (a) through (g), or to an extended tubesheet as shown in sketches (h) through (l) of Fig. UW-13.2, is the value for the joint efficiency equal to 1.0? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When a seamless shell is attached to a flange as shown in sketches (m) and (n) of Fig. UW-13.2 or sketches (3), (4), and (8) of Fig. 2.4, is the value for the joint efficiency equal to 1.0? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): In reinforcement calculations, when both ends of the seamless shell are attached as described above and no radiography is performed, would the value for the joint efficiency still be 1.0 when calculating the required thickness of a seamless nozzle attached to this shell? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-178 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-34 Date Issued: November 25, 1987 File: BC87-391 Question: UG-34(d) states that for sketch (k) of Fig. UG-34, the net cover plate thickness under the groove or between the groove and outer edge of the cover plate shall not be less than d1.9WhG / Sd Can this equation also be used for sketch (j)? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-179 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(b) and (c)

Date Issued: File:

December 14, 1987 BC87-073

Question: A vessel is comprised of a seamless shell with seamless formed heads, other than hemispherical, all connected with Type 1 or 2 butt welds (see Table UW-12). The Category D welds are corner joints. If the butt welds connecting the vessel sections and heads meet the spot radiography requirements of UW-52, may a joint efficiency of 1.00 be employed in the calculations to determine the shell and head thickness? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-180 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UW-12 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-203 Question (1): A 72 in. diameter horizontal vessel with a 42 in. diameter vertical communicating chamber is being designed in accordance with the Summer 1983 Addenda to the 1983 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1. The Category D attachment weld between the main shell and the communicating chamber is of the type shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (a) or (a-1), except that the only opening in the main shell within the area circumscribed by the communicating chamber is comprised of several 4 in. to 6 in. diameter holes which allow flow from the main shell into and out of the communicating chamber. Does the Category D joint as described fall under this scope of Table UW-12 where joint efficiencies as a function of type of joint and degree of radiography are Code mandated considerations? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is no, does the lack of radiographic examination of the Category D joint between the main shell and communicating chamber affect the joint efficiency of any of the remaining welded joints in the vessel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-181 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(d) Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-245 Question (1): Does UW-12(d) permit the use of a value for E of 0.85 for calculation of thickness for a seamless head when the longitudinal joint of the vessel shell is spot radiographed and the circumferential joint attaching the head is not radiographed? The joints are made by different welders. Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does UW-12(d) permit a value of 1.0 for E for calculations of thickness for seamless ellipsoidal or torispherical heads when the vessel joints are spot radiographed except that the circumferential joints attaching the heads are separately spot radiographed per UW-11(5)(b)? (UW-11(a)(5)(b) see errata page 521) The longitudinal and circumferential joints are made by different welders. Reply (2): Yes

Question (3): In the case of multiple-duplicate vessels, does UW-12(d) require that every intersection as described in Question (2) be radiographed? Reply (3): No.

Errata Volume 22 Interpretation VIII-1-86-181

In third line of Question (2), correct UW-11(5)(b) to read UW-11(a)(5)(b)

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-182 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Alternative Rules for Noncircular Vessel Design Date issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-381 Question: In designing noncircular vessels in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13, may analyses which account for the effect of deformation to reduce stresses be used instead of the Code rules? Reply: No; when a design is one for which rules are provided, these rules must be used.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-183 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-33 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-385 Question: A vessel contains a Category B joint joining two shell courses of 1/2 in. thick material. This joint is fit up and butt welded with a 1/4 in, offset. The offset is corrected by adding additional weld metal to provide a 3 to 1 taper. Does this joint meet the requirements of UW-33 and Table UW-33? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-184 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-9 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-387 Question: A heat exchanger with fixed tubesheets is being designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 and the TEMA standard. The heat exchanger is provided with a bellows type expansion joint. May the bellows type expansion joint be attached by a full penetration groove weld to a tapered transition on the shell in accordance with the requirements of UW-9? This tapered transition is integrally part of the calculated portion of the bellows type expansion joint which is designed by the method given in the EJMA standard. Reply: No. See Appendix BB and Code Case 1177-9.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-185 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Form U-1 Date Issued: December 14, 1987

File:

BC87-398

Question: A manufacturer produces a unique heat exchanger for which he wishes to use a computer generated Manufacturer's Data Report Form U-1. The Form U-1 will be modified to be more applicable to this unit. Would such a modified Form U-1 meet the requirements of the Code? Reply: No. The arrangement and content of the form must be identical, without addition or deletion, to the Forms shown in Appendix W of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-186 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 14, 14-10.5 and SA-193 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-405 Question (1): Maximum allowable working pressure of a pressure vessel may be determined as per UG-101, by a proof test, in lieu of calculations. In 14-10.5, MAWP is stipulated to be the lowest pressure established by proof testing and calculations, in accordance with UG-101. In this case, is it possible to establish MAWP for pressure vessel designs fabricated as per 14-10.1(a)(1) (as shown in Fig. 14-10.2) with proof test calculations per UG-101(m)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If both calculations and proof tests are required for MAWP, does "plain plate" as described in 14-10.5(b)(1) mean flat, unembossed plate? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): In Section VIII, Division 1, SA-193, Grade B7, the material is described as having two different compositions depending on the diameter of the bolting, 1/5 Mo or 1/2 Mo content. In Section II, SA-193, Grade B7 has only one molybdenum content range of 0.15% to 0.25% (i.e., 1/5 Mo); is this a typographic error in Section VIII? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-187 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-1 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-424 Question: Stainless steel materials have been received from suppliers with dual markings and dual certifications for 304/304L and 316/316L. Material test reports show that the material meets all the chemical and physical requirements of Section II, Part A for the specific material. May this material be used in the design and construction of both plain grade and low-carbon grade stainless steel vessels? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-188 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-425

Question: Can materials produced to a specification other than those permitted in Section VIII, Division 1 and Section II (e.g., BS, DIN, etc.) be used in a Code stamped pressure vessel provided the requirements of UG-10 are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-189 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99 Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-426 Question (1): When fabricating a carbon or low alloy steel vessel, does the Code require radiographic examination to be done before or after PWHT? Reply (1): The Code does not specify the order in which these procedures are to be conducted.

Question (2): Is the hydrostatic test the final step in the fabrication of welded vessels prior to the application of the Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Is it the Inspectors duty to check the quality of gaskets used in bolted connections prior to the hydrostatic test? Reply (3): Question (4): Reply (4): Question (5): Reply (5): No. What are the acceptance criteria for leaks from gaskets during the hydrostatic test? The Code does not address a leak acceptance criteria. For purposes of hydrostatic testing, is the gasket considered part of the pressure vessel? Yes.

Question (6): With the concurrence of the owner/user, is it permissible to use gaskets in the required hydrostatic test that have physical characteristics similar to the gaskets used in the design calculations? Reply (6): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-190 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix L, L-1, Example (6) Date Issued: December 14, 1987 File: BC87-428 Question: In Example (6) of L-1, is it to be assumed that the spot radiography requirements of UW11(a)(5)(b) have been met for the Category B joints used to attach the seamless parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-191 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-22 Date Issued: December 15, 1987

File: Question(1): Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2):

BC87-313 Is it the intent that the static head is to be considered in the design of horizontal vessels? Yes; see U-2(a) and UG-22. Does Division 1 of Section VIII provide specific rules for considering this static head? No; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-192 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-26 Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC85-094B Question: May a Non-Certificate Holder's welders be used in his shop, provided that they are under the control and supervision of a Certificate Holder under the conditions and requirements of UW-26(d) and UG-116(n)(1), to make weld repairs either on pressure parts in a new vessel or on new vessel parts which are to be stamped with the ASME Section VIII, Division 1 symbol? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-193 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Geometric Scope for Piping Connections Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC85-222 Question: A nozzle for a piping connection to a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel consists of a nozzle neck joined by a butt weld to a section of piping which is joined by another butt weld to a welding neck flange. May the vessel Manufacturer include the section of piping and the welding neck flange in his construction, but exclude the section of piping, the welding neck flange, and their joining welds from the Scope of this Division? Reply: Yes. See U-1(e)(1)(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-194 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(b), and Division 2, AT-112 Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC86-105 Question: If hardness testing is a requirement of the original material specification, do UCS-85(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 and AT-112 of Division 2 require hardness testing to be performed on the test specimens representing the material after heat treatment? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-86-16.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-195 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Multichambered Vessels Date Issued: January 15, 1988

File:

BC86-361

Question: Under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, may a series of interconnected, nonisolable (from each other) chambers be considered a single vessel for Code identification and stamping purposes? Reply: Division 1. Yes, provided the interconnecting components meet all the requirements of Section VIII,

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-196 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix Z, Z-4 Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC86-527 Question: Should the last term in Eq. (3) of Z-4 be changed from tan(((+ ) to tan ((-) for a selfenergizing o-ring gasket since no gasket preload is required? Reply: No. This term is a function of the direction of the friction force component at the hub-toclamp interface and not the gasket preload. See Fig. Z-3.1 sketch (c). Interpretation: VIII-1-86-197 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCI-23 Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC87-070 Question: Reply: Are Classes 45 and 55 specifically excluded in the scope of UCI-3(b)? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-198 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-79(b) Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC87-108 Question(1): Under the requirements of UG-79(b), the adjoining edges of longitudinal joints of cylindrical vessels shall first be shaped to the proper curvature by preliminary rolling or forming in order to avoid having objectionable flat spots along the completed joints. What is an objectionable flat spot? Reply (1): An objectionable flat spot is one that results in out-of-roundness in excess of that permitted in UG-80. Question (2): If an objectionable flat spot occurs after full welding of a longitudinal joint, may it be rectified by rerolling? Reply (2). Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-199 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-9(d) Date Issued: January 15, 1988 File: BC87-475

Question: by welding? Reply:

Do the requirements of UW-9(d) apply to the joints of a hemispherical head fabricated Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-200 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-120 Date Issued: January 25, 1988 File: BC87-473 Question: A Manufacturer fabricates an essentially complete vessel consisting of a shell, heads, manways, and fittings. Can this Manufacturer supply this essentially complete vessel as a pressure vessel part, meeting the requirements of UG-120(c), to another Manufacturer who adds accessories, conducts a hydrostatic test, and certifies the vessel in accordance with UG-120(a)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-201 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(g) Date Issued: January 25, 1988 File: BC87-486 Question(1): Are vessels in which steam is generated as described in U-1(g), except those known as an unfired steam boilers, required to meet the special requirements of UG-116(d), UG-125(b), and UW-2(c)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is no, who determines if a vessel as described in U-1(g) is defined as an unfired steam boiler or one of the other "vessels in which steam is generated"? Reply (2): See footnote 1 of the Introduction.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-202 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: February 10, 1988 File: BC87-408 Question (1): Must the welded joints shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (b), (c), and (d) be examined by full or spot radiography when the vessel in which they are included is subject to the full radiography requirements of UW-11? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. If the reply to Question (1) is no, are these joints required to be ultrasonically examined? No.

Question (3): Do the welded joints shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (b), (c), and (d) belong to one of the types of joints listed in Table UW-12? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-203 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(c) Date Issued: February 16, 1988 File: BC86-196 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 require volumetric examination to verify the extent of defects revealed by visual examination for vessels fabricated under the provisions of UW-12(c)? Reply (1): No. For welds which require only visual examination, the requirements of UW-38 apply.

Question (2): When radiographic examination is not required under the provisions of UW-12(c), can radiographic examination be performed under a contractual agreement between the user and manufacturer to determine the extent of a weld defect revealed by visual examination? Reply (2): The Code does not prohibit contractual agreements between the user and Manufacturer which address requirements in addition to those of the Code. Question (3): If nondestructive examination in excess of Code requirements is performed by agreement between the user and Manufacturer, what acceptance criteria should be applied? Reply (3): If nondestructive examinations are performed in excess of Code requirements, the evaluation of the results of such examination is beyond the Scope of the Code. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-204 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56, PWHT of P-No. 5 Material Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC85-509 Question: According to Table UCS-56, is postweld heat treatment required when a strip of P-No. 5 material having a nominal thickness of 5/8 in. is welded to a tubesheet of P-No. 5 when a 1/2 in. fillet weld joins them and a preheat temperature above 300 F is applied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-205 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-136(b)(3) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC86-378 Question (1): Is a threaded inlet connection connecting the primary pressure piping to the body of a relief valve, and not contained within the external structure of the valve, considered to be part of the nozzle under UG-136(b)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is a threaded inlet base, not contained within the external structure of the valve, connecting the primary pressure piping to the body of the relief valve considered to be part of the body of the relief valve? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-206 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(b) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-069 Question: A welded vessel is designed to operate at temperatures below -20 F and is exempt from production impact tests since it meets the requirements of UHA-51(a) and (b)(5). Is this vessel to be marked as required by UG-116(b)(1) or (2)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-207 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table UCS-56 Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-290 Question (1): Is postweld heat treatment required by Table UCS-56 for a 3/4 in. thick shell attached by a groove weld to a 2 in. thick base using the weld joint geometry of UW-13.2(d)? All materials are P-No. 1 and the requirements of UW-2(a) and UCS-67 are not applicable. Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. Same as Question (1), but the shell is 1 in. thick. No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-208 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84 Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-429 Question (1): Charpy impact testing is being done on weldments in SA-240 Type 304 material intended for low temperature service (below -20 F). In addition to meeting the lateral expansion acceptance criteria in UG-84(c)(4)(b), is it also necessary to have the absorbed energy value exceed 75 ftlbf as required by UG-84(c)(2)(a)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For the Charpy impact test described in Question (1), is the minimum absorbed energy value for a standard test specimen (10 mm x 10 mm) 75 ft-lbf as required by UG-84(c)(2)(a)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-209 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-8(a) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-474 Question: Do UG-8(a) and footnote 3 allow the use of commercially produced SA-53 Grade B

(ERW) pipe, 30 in. and less in diameter, and SA-312 pipe welded without filler metal (without Partial Data Reports) for shells and other parts of pressure vessels fabricated in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-210 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-28 Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-496 Question: Can SFA-5.1 E7024 covered electrodes be used to weld a pressure retaining joint for a vessel to be built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided the Certificate Holder has a Welding Procedure Specification qualified in accordance with Section IX for the applicable joint geometry. Interpretation: VIII-1-86-211 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(a) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-007 Question (1): Is the "cross-sectional diagonal" measurement of U-1(c)(9) applicable to circular vessels with attached circular nozzles? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is the "cross-sectional diagonal" measurement of U-1(c)(9) applicable only to vessels of noncircular cross section? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): In applying the exemptions of U-1(c)(9) to vessels composed solely of circular components, for example, a circular cylinder with attached circular inlet(s) and outlet(s), does the diameter of the single largest component determine whether the vessel is exempt from Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Is a vessel not exceeding 6 in. I.D., with a 3 in. I.D. inlet and outlet, exempt from Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (4): Yes; however, see footnote 1 to U-1.

Question (5): Is a vessel consisting of a tee whose run and branch connections are less than 6 in. I.D. exempt from Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (5): Yes; however, see footnote 1 to U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-212 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-31(d) and UW-33 Date Issued: February 18, 1988

File:

BC88-008

Question: A vessel has been fabricated from carbon steel plate of 5/8 in. thickness for both the shell and semiellipsoidal heads. After completing the circumferential seams, it is noted that the plate offset does not meet the tolerances specified in UW-31(d) and UW-33. The offset varies around the circumference from a minimum value of zero to a maximum of 1/4 in., with the shell being a smaller diameter than the head. Is it permissible to add 1/4 in. of weld overlay in the inside of the head straight flange to increase its thickness to 7/8 in., such that the maximum offset between the head plate and the shell plate becomes equal to 1/8 in.? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-213 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-84(i)(3)(b) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-010 Question: For the purposes of applying the requirements of UC-84(i)(3)(b), may SA-553 Type 1 and SA-353 be considered the same specification and grade of material? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-214 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-16(b) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-011 Question: Does the 3/32 in. thickness limitation established by UG-16(b) apply to an oil and compressed air pressure vessel? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-215 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-90(c)(2) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-027 Question: Under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2), is it permitted to fabricate multiple duplicate pressure vessels on a regular set schedule which is less than 5 days per week provided the specific schedule is maintained uninterrupted and acceptance is obtained from the Inspection Agency, legal jurisdiction, and ASME designee? Reply: The Code does not address this subject.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-216 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, 2-3 Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-028 Question: Is it permissible to use the nominal root diameter of the thread to calculate the crosssectional area of a fully threaded bolt as defined in 2-3 for Ab?

Reply:

Yes; see ANSI B1.1-1974 on Unified Screw Threads.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-217 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-35 Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-029 Question: Is "reduction in thickness due to the welding process" as used in UW-35(b) synonymous with the term "undercut"? Reply: Yes; see UW-35(b)(1) and (2) for the tolerances.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-218 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12(c) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC88-043 Question: Is it the intent of the new stress multiplier rules that, for a vessel consisting of an ERW pipe shell with seamless ellipsoidal or torispherical dished heads and no radiography of the Category B seams, the stress values from Table UCS-23 for ERW pipe be multiplied by E = 0.85 for calculations involving circumferential stress in the shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-219 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(g) Date Issued: February 18, 1988 File: BC87-047 Question (1): Is the term "unfired steam boiler" in U-I(g) applicable only when the design pressure exceeds 50 psi? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is no, must the vessel meet the other "unfired steam boiler" requirements of UG-116(c) and UW-2(c)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-220 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(d) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC87-041 Question(1): May controlled-rolled plate material, with a thickness less than that for which normalizing is required by the material specification, be used for vessels designed for service at temperatures below -20 F if all the notch toughness requirements of UG-84 are met, and the material manufacturer has certified the notch toughness as required by UG-84(d)(1)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May controlled-rolled plate material, with a thickness less than that for which normalizing is required by the material specification, be qualified for use for the construction of vessels designed for service at temperatures below -20 F in accordance with the provisions of UG-84(d)(2) (1986 Edition with no Addenda)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-221 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (l) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC87-042 Question: Is the allowable circumferential stress requirement satisfied at the head-to-taper intersection in the case of a hemispherical head, Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (1)? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not require a local stress evaluation of head-to-shell transitions when the taper transition design complies with Fig. UW-13.1. See also UG-23(c). Interpretation: VIII-1-86-222 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-79 Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-048 Question: A 2:1 semielliptical head is hot formed by pressing at temperatures in the normalizing range, from SA-516, Grade 70 plate 1.38 in. thick. Is it required that the head be postweld heat treated after forming? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-223 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(a) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-049 Question: The 1987 Addenda contained a revision to UG-116(a) adding as required marking on the nameplate the minimum design metal temperature at a specified pressure. Manufacturers are also required to mark the maximum allowable working pressure at a specified temperature on the nameplate. Is it permissible to combine the data required by UG-116(a)(3) and (a)(4) into one line of marking? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-224 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-1 Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-051 Question (1): A bladder type accumulator has an opening for a "proprietary mechanical connection" for external oil piping on one head and another for gas charging on the other head. In such a case, does the first sealing surface as referred to in U-1(e)(1)(d) mean the surface of the head opening prepared for sealing?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Does U-1(e)(1)(d) exclude components constituting a proprietary connection beyond the first sealing surface from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): May hydraulic piston type accumulators be constructed and Code stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): If the reply to Question (3) is yes, may the piston which is movable within the cylinder and which does not retain pressure in the sense of containment be exempted from the Code rules for material and design? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-225 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UC-23(d) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-053 Question: Does UG-23(d) permit the use of the 1.2 multiplier for the maximum allowable stress for a general primary membrane stress when computing the wall thickness of a pressure vessel subject to flood conditions? Reply: The Code does not address this situation [see U-2(g)].

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-226 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-13(c) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-076 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UW-13(c)(1) and (2) to make use of the Type 1 or 2 head-to-shell attachment shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (D for shells larger than 24 in. in diameter? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-227 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Table (Tube) to-Tubesheet joints. Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-082 Question: When calculating the test efficiency of a tube-to-tubesheet joint according to the formula given in A-4(a) for joint types a, b, c, d, and e, is it permissible to substitute L (test) for 0.8L (test) in the numerator? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-228 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UB-6 Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-083 Question: to SFA-5.8? Reply: Do the requirements UB-6 prohibit the use of brazing filler metals which do not conform Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-229 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-085 Question: If a reinforcement pad is used on the external surface of a vessel and 2.5(tn- Corrosion Allowance) + te governs the external limit of reinforcement parallel to the vessel wall, is the limit to be used on the inside projection of the same nozzle limited to 2.5(tn - 2 X Corrosion Allowance)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-230 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(b) Date Issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-086 Question: Is the reduction in minimum design metal temperature without impact testing per UCS66(b) applicable to rotating vessels? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-86-231 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-20(f) Date issued: May 11, 1988 File: BC88-117 Question(1): Given that cap screws are machined from SA-354 Grade BD and are less than 1 in. nominal thickness, are they exempt from impact testing when the vessels in which they are to be used have a minimum design metal temperature of -20 F? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is no, and the operating temperature below +20 F will result from seasonal atmospheric temperature, does the SA-354 Grade BD bolting require impact testing? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If the reply to Question (2) is yes, is impact testing required for only the bolting material and the test temperature need not be lower than -20 F? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1(c)(8) Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-119 Question: Does a vessel containing water at pressures of 15 psi or less at temperatures up to 239F come under the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 for pressure vessels? Reply: No; however, see footnote 1 of U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-93(a)(2) Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-122 Question: Do the requirements of UG-93(a)(2) allow for cut lengths of pipe, such as SA-53 Grade A or SA-106 Grade B, to be acceptable for Code use provided each piece is marked by the Manufacturer or processor with the specification designation, including the grade, type, and class if applicable? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1 Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-123 Question: The design, materials, construction, and workmanship of filter tanks for pressure service in the swimming pool industry is governed by the National Sanitation Foundation Standard 50. May a vessel functioning as such be exempted from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: The Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 does not specifically exempt such a device; see footnote 1 to U-1. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Table UW-12 Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-124 Question (1): The longitudinal joint of a vessel is fabricated as follows. (a) A backing strip, which is to remain in place, is welded to the inner portion of the joint by the SMAW process. (b) The weldment is to be completed by two passes of the SAW process. Is this joint considered to be a Type No. 2 joint in accordance with Table UW-12? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): The longitudinal joint of a vessel is fabricated as a double-welded butt joint. The inner portion of the joint is welded using a single pass of the SMAW process, and the weldment is completed

by either one or two passes of the SAW process. Is this joint considered to be a Type No. 1 joint in accordance with Table UW-12? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Fig. UW-16.1 Sketch (h) Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-128 Question (1): A vessel is being fabricated which is subject to full radiography. A nozzle is welded to the shell as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (h). Is this welded joint a Category D joint? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the weldment described in Question (1) a butt weld subject to the full radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-22 Date Issued: July 1, 1988 File: BC88-137 Question: Can the photoelastic strain measurement method be used to evaluate the stresses resulting from the loadings required to be considered by UG-22? Reply: be evaluated. The Code does not specify how the loadings required to be considered by UG-22 are to

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UC-10 Date Issued: September 8, 1988 File: BC87-430 Question: A Material Test Report is received from a material manufacturer. The identification on the certificate reads ASTM A 106 Grade B; however, the year of manufacture has been omitted. The report details (mechanical/chemical properties) conform to the 1986 Edition of Section II, Part A, SA106 Grade B. In terms of UG-10 can the vessel manufacturer endorse the report/certificate as follows: "Identical to SA-106 Grade B 1986 with editorial differences only," with the concurrence of the Authorized Inspector, and use the material in fabrication? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-2(h), Demonstration of Quality Control System Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC84-268

Question: A Manufacturer uses rolled and welded plate as well as seamless pipe for vessel shells. In this case, do the requirements of U-2(h) and UG-90(h) allow the Manufacturer to demonstrate his system using only a vessel of seamless pipe construction, as long as the Manufacturer can show that the full scope of actions required by the written description can either be implemented within his facilities or that he has the necessary controls over the work performed by others (e.g., subcontracted services)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix P, Rounding of Data Values Date issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC84-661 Question (1): When the specified minimum tensile and yield strength values for materials in Section II and the 1983 SI Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 are not in agreement, which Code Section takes precedence? Reply (1): Section II.

Question (2): For purposes of determining conformance with a particular Section II material specification, how are the calculated minimum tensile and yield strength values rounded? Reply (2): In accordance with the individual specification of Section II.

Question (3): How are the maximum allowable stresses listed in Subsection C of the 1983 SI Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 established? Reply (3): The basis on which the tabulated maximum allowable stress values have been established is in Appendix P. Rounding of these values is determined by the Committee. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-22 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC87-160 Question: A pressure vessel is to be designed and constructed to Section VIII, Division 1 as a stock item. Is the Manufacturer responsible for external nozzle loadings when these are unknown? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Flange Design Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC87-198 Question: A bolted flange connection is to be designed for an expansion joint on a pressure vessel. Is it permissible to design the flange based on the actual longitudinal load transmitted by the expansion joint instead of the full longitudinal pressure reaction load? Reply: The Code does not provide complete rules to cover this design detail. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix 4 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC87-204 Question (1): A vessel is being designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 2 to operate continuously at a certain elevated temperature and goes through a startup-shutdown cycle less than 1 time per year. Should the quantity 3Sm be based on elevated temperature alone or based on the average of atmospheric and elevated temperature (i.e., the lowest and highest temperatures in the cycle) Reply (1): 4-130.1. The quantity 3Sm is determined in accordance with the requirements of Note (1) of Fig.

Question (2): When considering peak stress in using the fatigue curves of Appendix 5 in Section VIII, Division 1, do the temperature limits of 4-136.7 apply? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-16(f) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC87-254 Question: Is it permissible to attach an unthreaded 3 in. pipe size or smaller nozzle, which is inserted into or through the vessel wall, with a weld deposited from the outside only, as long as the other requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a) are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-27(c)(1) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC87-297 Question: A vessel shell is to be made from SA-53 Grade B ERW pipe. The vessel has dished heads and no radiography has been performed. With regards to formula in UG-27(c)(1) and Table UCS23 Note (26), if the value of S taken from Table UCS-23 is 12,800 psi, is the value of E in the formula equal to 1.0? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix Y-3 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-077 Question: Reply: Interpretation: Is there a formula for M and Q in Y-3 of Section VIII, Division 1? No. VIII-1-89-16

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Impact Testing September 20, 1988 BC88-081

Question (1): May a vessel manufacturer perform impact tests of the base metal and heat affected zone of each length of ERW pipe exceeding 1/2 in. thickness, for which the SA specification does not require impact tests, and fulfill all the requirements of UCS-67 and UG-84(i) for impact testing? Reply (1): Yes, the above impact tests would cover the qualification of both procedure and production requirements. Question (2): Must additional impact testing of the base metal and heat affected zones be performed on each length of ERW pipe exceeding 1/2 in. thickness to meet the requirements of UG-84(i), if the material was impact tested in accordance with SA-333? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Do the definitions for the governing thickness specified in UCS-66(a)(1) apply when determining the thickness to be considered in UG-20(f)(2)? An example would be a corner joint of 1 1/2 in. plate and 3/4 in. plate with the weld penetrating through the 3/4 in. plate. Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-66(c) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-087 Question (1): May ferritic steel long weld neck flanges that comply with the design and rating requirements of ANSI B16.5 be used at design metal temperature no colder than 20 F (-20 F see errata page 421) without impact testing. Reply (1): Yes. Question (2): May pressure vessels that satisfy the requirements of UG-20(f)(1)(3)(4) and (5), but pneumatically tested in accordance with Code Case 1518-2, be exempted from impact testing by UG20(f)? Reply (2): Errata Volume 24 Interpretation VIII-1-89-17 No.

In Question (1), correct 20 F to read-20 F

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-18 Subject Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-119(e) Date issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-106 Question: A nameplate is attached in the following manner: a bracket designed to hold the nameplate is tack welded to the vessel wall; the nameplate is slid into the bracket and held in place by hammering the open ends. Does this method of attachment comply with the requirements of UG-119(e)?

Reply: Note:

No. A revised Interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-18R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-119(e) Date Issued: December 14, 1988 File: BC88-106* Question: A nameplate is attached in the following manner: a bracket designed to hold the nameplate is tack welded to the vessel wall; the nameplate is slid into the bracket and held in place by hammering the open ends. Does this method of attachment comply with the requirements of UG-119(e)? Reply: This method of nameplate attachment will meet the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, provided the removal of the nameplate requires the willful tampering or destruction of the attachment system. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-85 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-120 Question: A vessel made from P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2 material is to undergo two heat treatments during fabrication, i.e., normalizing above the critical temperature and a postweld heat treatment. If the coupon representing the material undergoes only the normalizing above the critical temperature heat treatment, do the test results obtained from this coupon satisfy the requirements of UCS-85? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix AA Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-125 Question: The formula given in AA-4, Step 4 appears to be based on an equivalent round tube bundle to calculate the tubesheet thickness for shear. If the actual tube bundle is not round, as in the case of no tube in the window design, this formula may be excessively conservative. Is it permissible to calculate the tubesheet thickness for shear under these circumstances using formulas which consider the actual tube bundle shape in lieu of that prescribed by the above-mentioned formula? Reply: AA-1 states that Appendix AA covers fully tubed circular tubesheets; for other types of tubesheets, AA-6 refers to U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-89-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-84(h)(3) and UG-120(d) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-134

Question (1): When procedure and/or production impact testing are required on material over 1 1/2 in. thick and the material is not exempt from impact testing, are two sets of impact specimens from the weld and heat affected zones required? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When impact testing (welding procedure and/or production impact test) is required for parts, shall the minimum design metal temperature and the paragraphs of special requirements compiled with, be shown on the U-2 or U-2A Data Report Forms? Reply (2): Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-116(a)(1)(b)(4) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File-. BC88-135 Question: May the pressure vessel nameplate marking "minimum design metal temperature" as required by UG-116(a)(1)(b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1 be abbreviated by the letters MDMT? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-67(b) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-142 Question: Is impact testing required for the welds in SA-53 Type E ERW pipe under the following conditions? (a) When the thickness at the weld exceeds 1/2 in. for all minimum design metal temperatures? (b) When the thickness at the weld exceeds 5/16 in. and the minimum design metal temperature is lower than 50 F? Reply: Yes to (a) and (b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Fig. 2-4, Sketch (3a) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-143 Question: When a hubless flange of the design shown in Fig. 2-4 sketch (3a) is designed as a loose type flange, are only two fillet welds with a minimum throat dimension of 0.7c required for the attachment? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix Z Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-164

Question: Are the design rules for clamp connections in Appendix Z applicable in the case where an ACME type thread is used in place of the hub and clamp elements for the purposes of supporting the axial loads and compressing the seal gasket? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-28 and UW-29 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-165 Question (1): Both sides of a shell and tube heat exchanger are built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 (the shell side has a MAWP of 300 psig and the tube side has a MAWP of 850 psig). Are seal welds connecting tubes to tubesheets or tubes to plugs considered to be within the Scope of the Code? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, do the requirements of UW-28 and UW-29 apply to the welds described above? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-99(a) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-175 Question: In UG-99(a), does the term completed vessels mean vessels on which no further welding will be done after the final hydrostatic test? Reply: Yes, but cosmetic grinding, machine operations, weld preparations, etc., which could not be performed prior to the hydrostatic test, are acceptable operations. Note: A revised Interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-27R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-99(a) Date Issued: December 14, 1988 File: BC88-175* Question (1): In UG-99(a), does the term completed vessels mean vessels on which no further welding will be done after the final hydrostatic test? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May operations such as weld end preparation, which could not be performed prior to the final hydrostatic test, be performed after the test but prior to the signing of the Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-15 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-182 Question: According to the provisions of UG-15, may UNS S32304 plate conforming to the chemical and physical properties, heat treatment requirements, and using the maximum allowable stresses of SA-789, but otherwise conforming to the requirements of SA-240, be used under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1(e)(1)(c) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-189 Question: U-1(e)(1)(c) states that the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 is limited to the face of the first flange for bolted, flanged connections where external piping is to be connected to the vessel. In the case where a load bearing, pressure containing part (e.g., a textile dry can trunnion) is attached to the vessel by a bolted flanged connection, does the Scope limitation of U-1(e)(1)(c) still apply? Reply: Yes; however, see footnote 1 of U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Table UCS-56 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-192 Question: A P-No. 1 Gr. No. 2 plate has a specified nominal thickness of 1 1/2 in. It has a measured maximum thickness which exceeds this value, but is in accordance with the tolerances permitted in Table A1.1 of SA-20 in Section II, Part A. Is this plate exempt from postweld heat treatment by Note (2)(a) of Table UCS-56, provided the preheat is performed as required by this Note? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1(i) Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-201 Question: If a gas fired jacketed kettle is fabricated in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, does U-1(i) require construction in accordance with Appendix 19? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-28 Date Issued: September 20, 1988 File: BC88-202

Question: Do the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the use of the rules in either Section III, Division 1, NX-4350 or Section VIII, Division 2, Article F-3 to be used to qualify a tube-totubesheet welding procedure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-3 Date Issued: October 26, 1988 File: BC88-245 Question: A welding neck flange is welded with a butt weld at the tapered end of the flange extension to the pipe nozzle. Is this joint a Category C joint by location in UW-3(a)(3)? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1(c)(6) Date Issued: October 26, 1988 File: BC88-246 Question: Footnote 2 to U-1(c)(6) allows the use of additives to water provided the flash point of the aqueous solution at atmospheric pressure is 185 F or higher. Are additives which produce an aqueous slurry of insoluble matter and otherwise meet the requirements of this footnote also permitted? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix 2 Date Issued: October 26, 1988 File: BC88-250 Question: In Appendix 2, 2-3, dimension G is defined for all flange configurations with the exception of the loose type with lap shown in sketch (1) of Fig. 2-4. Does the exception to the definition of G given in 2-3 apply to sketch (la) as well as sketch (1)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UC-41 Date Issued: November 21, 1988 File: BC88-183 Question: In calculating nozzle wall shear for strength of connection elements, can the allowable stress value of the nozzle be used even if this value is greater than the vessel wall allowable stress value? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-36

Date Issued: File:

November 21, 1988 BC88-249

Question: When there is a corrosion allowance required on the inside surface of a vessel which has inward projecting nozzle, are calculations to be made with both the nozzle wall and fillet welds in the corroded condition? Reply: Yes. See UG-16(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (b) Date Issued: November 28, 1988 File: BC88-389 Question: A double full fillet weld joint of Type No. 4 of Table UW-12 is used to attach a torispherical head to a cylindrical shell as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (b). The head has a thickness of 1 1/2 in., the shell has a thickness of 5/8 in. and the joint satisfies all the conditions of Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (b). Does the joint shown above meet the requirements of UW-13? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UF-30 Date Issued: December 5, 1988 File: BC88-411 Question: Are the provisions for localized thin areas in UF-30 applicable to integrally forged vessels designed and fabricated in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 22? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Corner Joint Detail Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC87-218 Question: May a partial penetration weld be used to attach a shell, head, or other pressure part to a forged or rolled plate to form a corner joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (q)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-I(c) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-015 Question: Are water heating shell and tube, or tube in tube heat exchangers, within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, unless exempted by provisions of U-1(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UHA-51(b) Date issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-071 Question (1): Must the heat affected zone of a foundry performed repair weld on a CF3 pressure vessel casting be impact tested per UHA-51(b)(4) and (6)? The casting is to operate at below -20 F and the minimum thickness is less than 2 1/2 times the coincident pressure thickness. Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are impact tests of the casting repair heat affected zone required if such repairs are performed by the certificate holder? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Does the Code require separate heat affected zone impact tests for each welding process used for such repair? Reply (3): Question (4): processes? Reply (4): Yes. Does UHA-51(b)(5) require impact tests of deposited weld metal for all welding Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-35(d) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-080 Question: To meet the requirements of UW-35(d), is it permissible to determine root concavity or convexity by radiography on welds requiring such examination when these conditions cannot be determined by usual examination, provided the effects of weld reinforcement on the opposite face are considered? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-111 Question: Reply: Is SA-285 Grade C assigned to Curve A of Fig. UCS-66? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Jacketed Vessels Date Issued: December 13, 1988

File:

BC88-139

Question: Do the requirements of UW-2(c) for unfired steam boilers apply to kettle jackets in which steam is generated as a result of heat from an electric immersion element but is not used at a location external to the jacket? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-1(c)(3) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-174 Question: Are the spiral case and stay ring of a hydraulic turbine excluded from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 by U-(1)(c)(3)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Tubesheets Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-207 Question: May forged SA-105 blind flanges complying with ANSI B16.5 in pressure classes 150 through 600 be utilized as heat exchanger tubesheets for Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-212 Question (1): May the impact test exclusion be applied to either a multibolted or quick-opening closure supplied as a Code stamped part for use on a vessel when the Manufacturer of the vessel satisfies the requirements of UG-20(f)? Reply (1): Question (2): Form? Reply (2): Yes. Question (3): If the reply to Questions (1) and (2) is yes, may the impact test exclusion of UG-20(f) be applied to quick-opening and multibolted closures built for stock if properly noted on the U-2 Partial Data Report Form? Reply (3): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-89-49 Yes. If the reply to Question (1) is yes, should this be noted on the U-2 Partial Data Report

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-41 December 13, 1988 BC88-221

Question (1): May a nozzle reinforcing ring be made from two pieces of plate and joined by a full penetration butt weld? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are any further calculations required for the reinforcing ring described in Question (1) beyond those required to ensure adequate reinforcement? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Must the orientation of the weld seams joining the two pieces of the reinforcing plate be at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the vessel? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): May the weld seams joining the two pieces of reinforcing plate form an attachment with the vessel shell or head? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-23 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-358 Question: Stress-relieved Monel tubes are supplied with annealed ends in accordance with an option in the material specification. Since the allowable stresses of the two tempers are different, the tube wall thickness will be based on the stress-relieved temper allowable stresses. The annealed area will be limited to the portion of the tube contained within the tubesheet of a heat exchanger. The tubesheet provides the necessary support for the annealed portion of the tube, the remainder remains in the stressrelieved temper. Does the above satisfy the requirements of UG-23 and UG-27? Reply: The Code does not address this subject.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-99 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-363 Question: A vessel has been fabricated and hydrostatically tested, and the data report form has been signed. During preparation for shipment an arc strike is detected on the vessel wall. The subsequent grinding to remove the arc strike reduced the vessel wall thickness to a value below the calculated minimum. In accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 the vessel does not require PWHT. The thickness is restored by welding using a qualified welder and a qualified welding procedure. The surface metal buildup is examined in accordance with UW-42. The Inspector was notified prior to the performance of the repair. Must the vessel be hydrostatically tested again and a new data report form prepared and signed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UHA-51(b)(5) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-375 Question (1): For a vessel constructed of Grade 304 material listed in Table UHA-23 and designed for a MDMT of -100 F, does UHA-51(b)(5)(b) require impact testing at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT per UG-84(h) for each welding procedure to be used in production, regardless of the welded joint category? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): To satisfy the requirements of UHA-51(b)(5)(d) must impact tests be made on each lot of SMAW electrodes to be used in production welding? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-66 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-387 Question (1): A Manufacturer is fabricating a cylindrical vessel with a seamless flat head welded to the shell per Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d). The shell material is SA-240 Type 304 (P-No. 8), 1/2 in. thick, and the head material is SA-515 Grade 70 (P-No. 1), 1 1/2 in. thick, not normalized. When determining the thickness limitation for the flat head per UCS-66(a)(1)(b), must the P-No. 8 shell be considered to be the same material as the head, thus requiring 1/2 in. to be plotted on Curve A of Fig. UCS-66 for the design metal temperature of the head? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): A cylindrical vessel is being manufactured with a stainless steel shell, stainless steel slipon flange attached per Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 sketch (3a), and a bolted carbon steel seamless flat head without nozzles. The shell material is SA-240 Type 316 and 1/4 in. thick; the flange material is SA-240 Type 316 1 1/2 in. thick; and the head material is SA-515 Grade 70, 1 1/2 in. thick, not normalized. When determining the thickness limitation for the bolted flat head per UCS-66(a)(3), must the stainless steel (P-No. 8) shell material be considered to be the same material as the flat head, thus requiring 1/4 in. to be plotted on Curve A of Fig. UCS-66 for the design metal temperature of the head? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-90(c)(1)(i) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-390 Question: A vessel is being fabricated which requires one spot radiograph. Does UG-90(c)(1)(i) require the Inspector to verify the required radiograph was made and the result is acceptable? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 7 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-19 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-392 Question: attachment of Reply: Is it prohibited to completely fill with weld metal the slot and plug welds used for the nondimpled/nonembossed jacket plates per Fig. UW-19.2? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Appendix 1, 1-6 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-395 Question (1): For the dished covers shown in Fig. 1-6 sketch (d), is the term Hrhr to be included in the total flange moment for the gasket seating condition? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In the equation for the factor F in 1-6(g)(2), should the pressure be set to 0 for the gasket seating condition? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-99(g) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-412 Question: Vessels are produced to Appendix 22 of Section VIII, Division 1 and tested at pressures exceeding 10,000 psi. May the water jacket volumetric expansion method and test apparatus described in the Compressed Gas Association pamphlet C-1 be used in lieu of the requirements in UG-99(g), provided all other Code requirements are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UF-53 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-413 Question: Does UF-53 require the Inspector to witness selection, place identifying stamps, and witness testing of these specimens? Test specimens would include required tests of SA-372 and Appendix 22. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-10 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-422 Question (1): Is a pressure vessel for refrigerant use defined by the tubes, tubesheets, and heads of a shell and tube heat exchanger, where the heads have an I.D. greater than 6 in., within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? The shell side of this vessel is not within the Scope of the Code per U1(c)(6). Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is Yes, is a multichambered pressure vessel for refrigerant use defined in Question (1), where a divider in the heads is the common wall for two independent refrigerant circuits, within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 if the overall diameter of the heads is greater than 6 in. but less than 12 in.? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-10 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-423 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-10 for a steel service center/processor to certify material to a specification recognized by Section II, Part A by using the chemical analysis performed by the material manufacturer (the mill) and the physical test performed by the service center, provided all test results comply with the particular Section II requirements? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of UC-10(a) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UW-16 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-424 Question (1): Do the requirements of UW-16(f)(2) and (3) apply to internally threaded, externally threaded, socket welded, and butt welded fittings? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): A copper tubing adapter is machined to ANSI B16.22 from SA-106 Grade B Schedule 80 pipe. The full weight pipe is welded to the vessel with the machined end extending outside the weld joint area for field brazing of copper tube. The material is identified under UG-8. In accordance with the requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a), can this part be attached by a fillet weld from one side only? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-427

Question: Is the nominal thickness referenced in UG-20(f)(1) considered to be the same as the nominal thickness defined in UCS-66(a)(1)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-56 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-428 Question: Are the requirements for postweld heat treatment given in Table UCS-56 applicable to the welded joints of a pressure vessel fabricated from P-No. 1 material with a thickness of 2 1/4 in.? These joints are welded with a flux-cored electrode, classified as E71T8-k6, which is resistant to cracking. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Table UW-12 Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-429 Question: A Manufacturer produces stainless steel pipes conforming to SA-312, SA-299, SA-358, and SA-409. They are manufactured by one of the following processes: (a) continuously formed, welded autogenously using the GTAW process, and solution annealed; (b) continuously formed, welded autogenously using the GTAW process, cold drawn, and solution annealed. Would the maximum allowable joint efficiencies for these pipes be determined in accordance with a Type No. 1 joint as shown in Table UW-12? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), Dual Stamping of Materials Date Issued: December 13, 1988 File: BC88-437 Question (1): May products identified as dual grades be used as either grade in the construction of pressure vessels built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. May products identified dually as TP 304/TP 304L be used above 1000 F as TP 304? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UCS-6

Date Issued: File:

December 13, 1988 BC88-439

Question: A vessel that meets the requirements of UCS-6(b)(1), (2), and (3) requires stiffening rings per UG-29. May SA-36 plate over 5/8 in. thick be used for these rings? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-67 Subject:. Section VIII, Division 1, UW-12 and UG-81(a) Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-163 Question: The longitudinal seam of a vessel will be welded from the inside using the GMAW process. After back-gouging and grinding, the seam is welded from the outside using the SAW process. Is this joint considered to be Type No. 1 joint in accordance with Table UW-12? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-51 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-176 Question (1): May SA-312 welded pipe, conforming to one of the grades given in UHA-51(a) and meeting all requirements of UHA-51, be used at a metal temperature between -20 F and -325 F without Charpy impact tests? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May SA-403 WP-W or WP-WX 300 series, welded pipe fittings be used at a metal temperature between -20 F and -325 F without Charpy impact tests? Reply (2): See UHA-51.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-193 Question (1): If plates that have been normalized, and qualified on the basis of test specimens taken from the plates after normalizing, are subsequently heated to equivalent temperatures above the lower transformation temperature during hot forming, are additional test specimens representative of the second thermal cycle required by UCS-85? Reply (1): No, provided all other requirements of UCS-85 are met.

Question (2): If plates supplied in the as-rolled condition with qualification based upon simulated normalizing of test coupons are heated for forming to a temperature within a reasonable tolerance of that used to qualify the test coupons, are additional test coupons required? Reply (2): No, provided all the other requirements of UCS-85 are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-1 25(c) Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-386 Question: The 1962 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125(c) states All unfired pressure vessels other than unfired steam boilers shall be protected by pressure relief devices that will prevent the pressure from rising more than 10 per cent above the maximum allowable working pressure, except when the excess pressure is caused by exposure to fire or other unexpected sources of heat." The comparable paragraph in the 1986 edition, UG-125(c)(2), cites the exception to the 10% rule to be "exposure of a pressure vessel to fire or other unexpected sources of external heat........ Is the exception to the 10% maximum pressure rise rule in either the 1962 or 1986 Editions applicable to a process upset scenario where a pressure increase results from heat caused by an internal exothermic reaction? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-93 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-459 Question: A pressure vessel was fabricated and hydrostatically tested, but the Data Report Forms were not signed nor was the nameplate attached. Due to an emergency, the vessel was then used for 1 day as an atmospheric storage tank, not as a pressure vessel. May the Authorized Inspector sign the Data Report Form, and the Manufacturer apply the nameplates after the vessel has been used as described? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-37 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-467 Question: For a head or shell where the original plates thickness may be reduced from the nominal wall thickness to a minimum thickness because of fabrication process, what is the shell wall thickness that shall be used in determining the area available for reinforcement of an opening in accordance with the formulas in UG-37.1? Reply: The minimum specified thickness shall be used in the reinforcement calculations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UF-7 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-471 Question: Is the seal weld at the body/trunnion interface stated in SA-649 paragraphs 1.1 and 4.6 a mandatory requirement for forged steel rolls manufactured to the specification and U stamped in accordance with the requirements of UF-7? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-79 and UCS-79 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC88-472 Question (1): Heads are being fabricated from materials listed in Section II by a gradual pressing and spinning process. Does UG-79(a) require any mechanical testing to be performed to demonstrate the properties of the material have not been unduly impaired? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. Is it necessary to heat treat formed heads fabricated from carbon or low alloy steels? See the requirements of UCS-79(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-10 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-004 Question: Do the requirements of UG-10 allow a steel service center/processor to recertify material to a permitted specification without furnishing to the customer a copy of the certification from the material manufacturer (steel mill) containing the chemical analysis performed by the mill? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-66(c) Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-005 Question: Closure rings are used to terminate heating/cooling jackets on cylindrical vessels. While these are not ANSI B1 6.5 ferritic steel flanges, they are designed in accordance with the requirements of this Standard. Are these closure rings exempt from impact heating by UCS-66(c) if they are used at temperature no colder than -20 F? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(a) Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-016 Question: If a single working pressure is required or desired over a specified working temperature range, is it permissible for the nameplate to state the following? (a) A single "maximum allowable working pressure, PSIG" based on the lessor of a) the maximum allowable working pressure at the maximum design temperature and b) the maximum allowable working pressure at the minimum design temperature. (b) "Working temps F max. and min." based on the specified working temperature range.

Reply: UG-116 and Fig. UG-118 set forth the requirements for terminology and dual marking (appropriate abbreviations). Interpretation: VIII-1-89-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UHT-34 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-018 Question: For pressure vessel with hemispherical heads, constructed of UHT materials, with reference to UHT-34 and Fig. UW-13.1 sketches (1) and (n), can the shell plate center line be on either side of head plate center line. Reply: Yes; see the note to Fig. UW-13.1 sketches (1) and (n).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UW-26 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-027 Question: Can a Certificate of Authorization holder subcontract welding operations, within the controls of UW-26, to a welding subcontractor who does not possess a Certificate of Authorization? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, SA-350 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-036 Question: May SA-350 be used as a tubesheet material in a heat exchanger to be fabricated and stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Form U-2 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-039 Question: In accordance with Note No. 47 of Table W-3, if the completed vessel is to be registered with the National Board, does the U-2 (or U-2A) Partial Data Report Form require the Authorized Inspectors National Board Commission number? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-19 Date Issued: February 15, 1989 File: BC89-056

Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction and certification, if nonmetallic, non-Code tubes are used in heat exchangers of the fixed tubesheet, floating head or U-tube types, whereby the operating pressure on the tube side is greater than the operating pressure, fluid and mix effects on the shell side, but the shell and associated pressure relief devices are designed to withstand the highest design pressure associated with the tube side, and the outside pressure boundary parts are treated as a single chambered vessel making UG-19 inapplicable, may such a single chambered vessel be stamped as complying with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 Date Issued: March 23, 1989 File: BC89-060 Question: A pressure vessel with an inside shell diameter of 42 in. has a 28 in. diameter circular opening into which a nozzle will be inserted. This opening is located such that the limits of reinforcement measured parallel to the vessel wall will extend to the dished portion of the head. Do UG40(a) and (b) permit the limits of reinforcement to extend to the dished portion of the head? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-23 Date Issued: March 23, 1989 File: BC89-064 Question: Do the provisions of UG-23 permit the bending stresses in the vessel wall due to combination of pressure and earthquake/wind loadings to be ignored? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-133(d) Date Issued: April 6, 1989 File: BC89-009 Question: UG-133(d) states Heat exchangers and similar vessels shall be protected with a relieving device of sufficient capacity to avoid overpressure in case of an internal failure." What constitutes an internal failure: (1) tube leakage; (2) tube cracking; (3) tube break; or (4) multiple tube breaks? Reply: boundary. An internal failure is a condition that would lead to an overpressure of the pressure

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-86 (Void, see VIII-1-89-86R) Subject Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116

Date Issued: File:

April 6, 1989 BC89-046

Question: The marking required by UG-116 for a pressure vessel is to be applied directly to the vessel in accordance with UG-118. When the vessel is registered with the National Board and the "NAT'L BD" number is marked first and above all required ASME markings, is it acceptable to omit the "manufacturer's serial number" [UG-116(a)(5)] from the fourth line of the required marking? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-86R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-116 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-046* Question: The marking required by UG-116 for a pressure vessel is to be applied directly to the vessel in accordance with UG-119. When the vessel is registered with the National Board and the "NAT'L BD" number is marked first and above all required ASME markings, is it acceptable to omit the "manufacturer's serial number" [UG-116(a)(5)] from the fourth line of the required marking? Reply: Yes, provided this method of marking is in accordance with the Manufacturer's written Quality Control System. Note: This revision was inadvertently omitted from Volume 25 of the Interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UHT-18(b), Recessed Nozzle Inserts Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC85-600 Question: Do recessed nozzles machined from plate material and similar in detail to Fig. UHT-18.1 sketch (f) need to comply with Note (2) of Fig. UW-13.3? Reply: No. Note (2) of Fig. UW-13.3 does not apply to this detail of construction; see U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-89-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-38 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC86-519 Question: Does UW-38 prohibit all visible surface porosity in welds?

Reply: The Code has no specific requirements in this regard. The Manufacturer shall establish workmanship criteria consistent with the material and/or service requirements. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-125(e) Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC88-208 Question (1): Is a pressure indicating gage as described in UG-125(e) a mandatory requirement?

Reply (1): Question (2):

No. If a pressure indicating gage is installed per UG-125(e), what range should it cover?

Reply (2): The pressure gage should span the set pressure of the relief device and should have an upper limit between 1.25 times the set pressure and 2 times the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Testing of NDE Personnel Date issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC88-354 Question (1): When a new edition of SNT-TC-1A is referenced by Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, must an employer revise his written practice to account for new or revised requirements in the new edition? Reply (1): No. These Sections of the Code reference SNT-TC-1A only as a guideline for establishing the employer's written practice for qualification of NDE personnel; therefore, the manufacturer should review new editions of SNT-TC-1A to determine whether any revisions effect the written practice relative to the specific types of examinations being performed. Question (2): If a written practice for qualification of nondestructive examiners is revised, must the employer immediately requalify examiners in accordance with the revised practice? Reply (2). No. Examiners shall be requalified as required by the employers written practice,

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-074 Question: Does UG-20(f)(1) permit only materials equal to 1/2 in. or 1 in. nominal thickness to be exempt from impact testing or does it permit materials equal to or less than 1/2 in. or 1 in., respectively, to be exempt from impact testing? Reply: P-No. 1, Gr. Nos. 1 or 2 materials of nominal thickness of 1/2 in. or less listed in Curve A of Fig. UCS-66 and 1 in. or less listed in Curve B, C, or D of Fig. UCS-66 are exempt from impact testing, provided the requirements of UG-20(f) are met. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Tube-to-Tubesheet Welds Qualification Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-076 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 have requirements for the qualification of welding procedures automatic welding machines with rotating heads set up specifically to weld tube-to-tubesheet welds Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the use of either Section III, Division 1, NX-4350 or Section VIII, Division 2, Article F-3 to qualify a tube-to-tubesheet welding procedure? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-46 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-078 Question: Are inspection openings required, per UG-46 of Section VIII, Division 1, in tanks equipped with a heavy duty rubber bladder which is intended to prevent water from coming in contact with the steel vessel? These tanks are used for expansion in heating systems. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-90(c)(2) Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-081 Question: Are the requirements of UG-90(c)(2) being satisfied when an AI inspects multiple duplicate vessels for 4 hr on the day shift and 4 hr on the evening shift? Reply: UG-90(c)(2) establishes that all Code requirements must be satisfied, but does not detail the method used to assure such compliance. The method must be developed by the manufacturer and accepted by the Authorized Inspection Agency, the legal jurisdiction, and the ASME designee. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-8 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-082 Question (1): The owner's specification for a pressure vessel requires full radiography. The owner's specification also allows the fabricator to fabricate the shell by using seamless or welded pipe construction conforming to one of the specifications given in Section II. The pressure vessel fabricator elected to make the cylindrical shell from welded pipe without filler metal. The pipe' was purchased by the pressure vessel fabricator, and the whole length of the weld joint was not fully radiographed by the pipe manufacturer. Is the pressure vessel fabricator required to fully radiograph the pipe? Reply (1): The Committee cannot offer an interpretation of contractual responsibilities.

Question (2): Under what conditions is a pipe manufacturer or supplier required to furnish a Partial Data Report in accordance with UG-120(c)? Reply (2): See Note 3 to UG-8.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-11(b)

Date Issued: File:

May 10, 1989 BC89-084

Question: A head manufacturer is supplied with a flat, circular welded plate by a Manufacturer holding a valid Certificate of Authorization. This plate is delivered with a Partial Data Report as required by UG-120(c). This plate is then formed by the manufacturer to the required shape. Must the head manufacturer supply the purchaser with another Partial Data Report covering the forming operation or may it be supplied in accordance with UG-11(b) with the Form U-2 or U-2A furnished by the Manufacturer supplying the welded plate. Reply: The formed head may be supplied in accordance with U-2(b)(2) with the Form U-2 or U-2A furnished by the Manufacturer supplying the plate. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-27 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-085 Question: An ERW pipe is butt welded to a 2:1 elliptical head forming a single full penetration joint with a backing strip left in place or forming a butt joint as specified in Fig. UW-13 sketch (k). No radiographic examination is conducted on the butt joint, and the pressure vessel will be used for internal pressure without provisions for human occupancy. Is the joint efficiency E in the equations in UG-27 for: (a) the circumferential stress equal to 1.00; and (b) the longitudinal stress equal to 0.65? Reply: (a) No, a quality factor needs to be applied in this case. (b) Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-93 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-111 Question: pipe which Reply: Is a Manufacturer required by the Code to provide the Inspector with a mill test report for is to be used as the jacket or shell of a vessel? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-99 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Code Case 1986-2 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-112 Question: Does Code Case 1986-2 limit the remaining wall thickness of a vessel to a thickness which satisfies the requirements of UC-34(c)(2) and AD-702(a)(2) but not less than 0.25 in.? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-89-06.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-114 Question: If a vessel satisfies all the requirements of UG-20(f), may the vessel be stamped with minimum design temperature of -20 F? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-101 (Void, see VIII-1-89-101R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-116(e)(4) Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-115 Question (1): A two-piece, 2:1 ellipsoidal head is fabricated as a PART and fully radiographed to the requirements of UW-51. Is the Manufacturer's nameplate marked "RT-1 " or "RT-4"? Reply (1): The part should be marked "RT-4."

Question (2): A shell and tube heat exchanger is fabricated to the rules of this Division. The shell side is radiographed to the requirements of UW-51. The tube side is radiographed to the requirements of UW52. Is the Manufacturer's nameplate marked "RT-4" or shell side "RT-I," tube side "RT-3"? Reply (2): The vessel should be marked: shell side, "RT-1," tube side "RT-3"?

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-101R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda); UG-116(e)(4) Date Issued: December 15, 1994 File: BC89-115* Question (1): A two-piece, 2:1 ellipsoidal head is fabricated as a part and fully radiographed to the requirements of UW-51 in Section VIII, Division 1 Is the parts Manufacturer's nameplate marked "RT-1" or "RT-4"? Reply (1): Neither "RT-1" nor "RT-4" are required markings for parts. The required marking for parts is found in UG-116(h)(1), (2), and (3). Question (2): A shell and tube heat exchanger is fabricated to the rules of this Division. The shell side is radiographed to the requirements of UW-51. The tube side is radiographed to the requirements of UW52. Is the Manufacturer's nameplate marked "RT-4" or shell side "RT-1", tube side "RT-3"? Reply (2): The vessel should be marked: shell side, "RT-1", tube side "RT-3".

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Buried Pressure Vessels Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-117 Question: Mounded storage is a system in which cylindrical pressure vessels are laid in a prepared bed or foundation, and an earth or sand mound is raised around and above the vessels. May the pressure

vessels used in such a system be manufactured and stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 or 2? Reply: 2. Yes; however, see footnote 1 to U-1 in Division 1 and footnote 1 to AG-100 in Division

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Soft Soldered Joints Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-125 Question (1): May soft solder be used to attach extended heat transfer surfaces to the 'internal parts of pressure vessels to be fabricated and stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Question (1)? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): The Code does not address the use of soft solder. Are there any service temperature restrictions for the soft soldered joints described in The Code does not address the use of soft solder. May soft solder be used for the joining of pressure parts? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-11 Date issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-126 Question: May electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe be used as nozzles in a pressure vessel whose longitudinal seam is fully radiographed with no radiography on the longitudinal seam of the nozzles? Reply: Yes, provided the reduced allowable stress for the ERW pipe is used in the calculations for the nozzle, and there are no service restrictions per UW-2. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UC-84 Date Issued: May 10, 1989 File: BC89-158 Question: Do the rules of UCS-66(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 require that the nonwelded end plates of a plate and frame heat exchanger be Charpy impact tested per UG-84? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 19 Date Issued: June 26, 1989 File: BC89-169

Question: Is the material thickness requirement of 19-4(b) applicable to carbon steel piping and tubing material used for heat transfer and water or steam circulation within the jacket when attached by welding? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 24, 24-2(e) Date Issued: June 26, 1989 File: BC89-185 Question: Appendix 24, 24-2(e) states the minimum diameter for bolts and studs shall be 1/2 in. On small clamped connections, a 1/2, in. diameter bolt appears to be oversized and creates mechanical interference problems. Can a bolt smaller than 1/2 in. be used if calculations and/or testing proves a smaller bolt is acceptable? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-32 Date Issued: June 26, 1989 File: BC89-188 Question: May a formed head with excess thinning be provided with a pad over the area of interest to meet the required minimum thickness provided the following conditions are met? (1) a butt or fillet weld procedure qualified in accordance with Section IX is in use; (2) a telltale hole is provided on the pad; and (3) the welding is performed by the vessel manufacturer. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-35 Date issued: July 7,1989 File: BC89-159 Question: UW-35 if: Does a single welded circumferential butt weld without a backing strip comply with

(1) the joint has complete penetration and full fusion for its entire length with both surfaces free from coarse ripples, grooves, overlaps, and abrupt ridges and valleys; (2) the root of the weld groove falls below the adjoining surface with a smooth contour; (3) the thickness of the weld at any point is at least equal to both the minimum required thickness, and the nominal thickness of the thinner member being joined; and (4) the thickness of the weld reinforcement on either surface does not exceed the requirements of UW-35(d)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1(c)(5) Date Issued: July 7, 1989 File: BC89-167 Question: A vessel is to be fabricated from 24 in. diameter pipe and pipe cap ends having a capacity of over 200 gallons. The vessel will receive steam condensate. Is this vessel outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(5)? Reply: No; however, see footnote 1 of U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Form U-1A Date Issued: July 7, 1989 File: BC89-170 Question: Item 10 in Form U-1A of Appendix W is for nozzles, inspection, and safety valve openings. Is it required that a fitting attached to a pressure vessel in accordance with UW-l6(f)(3)(a) be listed, if used to attach a gage only? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1(e) Date Issued: July 7, 1989 File: BC89-186 Question: Is a clamp which fastens a piping component to a pressure vessel nozzle included in the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No; see U-1(e)(1)(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-82(b) Date Issued: July 25, 1989 File: BC89-168 Question: Is it permissible to put a qualified seal weld over a pressure boundary weld sealing bracket notched to clear a pressure boundary weld as described in UG-82(b)? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of UG-90(c)(1)(i) and visual examination of the area of interest are completed and acceptable to the Authorized Inspector before the seal weld is made. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1(c)(8) Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-044 Question: Must the portions of a partially jacketed vessel not enclosed or influenced by the jacket be designed to Code requirements when the jacket pressure exceeds 15.0 psi, and the shell pressure is less than or equal to 15.0 psi?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1(e) Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-202 Question: Two vessels were fabricated by a Manufacturer in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 and were stamped accordingly. Nozzles with weld end connections were provided on the vessels. Are the field welds for the connections to these nozzles considered within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No, see U-1(e)(1)(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-93(a)(1) Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-204 Question (1): Are mechanically assembled plate type heat exchangers, using alternating layers of thin heat transfer plates and gasket material, exempted from the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 if no welding is used? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are material test reports [as per UG-93(a)(1)] required for the thin heat transfer plates of plate type heat exchangers that are mechanically assembled without welding. Reply (2): Yes, if the plates are pressure boundaries.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-125(a) Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-205 Question (1): Does UG-125(a) require pressure relief devices for the protection of water-containing vessels fabricated and stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 and having a design pressure of less than 300 psig and a design temperature of less than 210 F. Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2) : Does UG-125(a) require that protective devices must be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with UG-125 through UG-136 on all water-containing vessels, fabricated and stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, irrespective of size or pressure? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-127

Date Issued: File:

August 25, 1989 BC89-207

Question: May breaking pin devices as described in UG-127(b) be used as the sole means of overpressure protection provided these devices are tested and marked in accordance with UG-127? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-24 Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-228 Question (1): Is a casting quality factor of 80%, as described in UG-24, applicable to pressure stressed but not pressure containing quick actuating closures fabricated from SA-216 WCB castings? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are the materials used in fabricating quick actuating closures to conform to a specification given in Section II? Reply (2): Yes; see UG-4(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-36(c)(3)(a) Date Issued: August 25, 1989 File: BC89-231 Question (1): A vessel, not subject to rapid fluctuations in pressure, has a single nozzle whose neck is made from 3 in.) XXS pipe (bore 2.300 in.). The vessel wall is over 3/.8 in. thick and the nozzle is attached similarly to Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (j) (i.e., full penetration corner joint). Must this opening be checked for reinforcement per UG-37? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the welded joint in the vessel described in Question (1) were changed to one similar to Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (j) (i.e., not a full penetration corner joint), would UG-36(c)(3)(a) require that the opening be checked for reinforcement per UG-37? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-28, UG-33; UG-80 Date Issued: September 17, 1989 File: BC88-121 Question (1): UG-33(i) addresses the length of a skirt on a formed head subject to external pressure; by what rules is the required thickness of the skirt computed? Reply (1): The skirt is considered a part of the vessel shell, and is included in the calculations required by UG-28; for that cylinder.

Question (2): Except for conical heads and sections, is the formed head thickness calculated according to UG-33 always adequate when the head is used as a stiffening point in the design of the cylindrical shell, regardless of the distance to the next line of support along the shell? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): UG-80(b)(2) provides rules for the value of e when the points fall above or below the curves of Fig. UG-80.1. There are no rules stated for Fig. UG-29.2 when the points fall below or to the right of the curves. Is a value of Do/t = 10 to be used for values of Do/t less than 10, and a value of 0.390 Do to be used for points falling to the right of the 0.390 Do curve? Reply (3): Question (4): UG-80(b)(2)? Reply (4): Yes. Is the head skirt nominal thickness used as the value of t in fulfilling the requirements of Yes.

Question (5): The symbol L is defined as, "(1) The distance between head-bend lines plus one third the depth of each formed head if there are no stiffening rings (excluding conical heads and sections)." In this definition, is a toriconical head considered to be a conical head rather than a formed head? Reply (5): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-43(e) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC86-380 Question: When designing a threaded hole in a vessel wall according to UG-43(e), may a National Standard or International Standard for pipe threads other than ANSI B1.20.1 be used? Reply: The Committee recognizes that its Codes and Code stamped equipment are used in countries where thread standards other than ANSI B1.20.1 may be required. Thread standards which do not conform to ANSI B1.20.1 may be used by agreement between User and Manufacturer under the provisions of U-2(g) of the Code provided all other Code requirements for threaded connections are met. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Fig UW-16.1 sketch (g) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC87-295 Question: Figure UW-16.1 sketch (g) in the 1986 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1 illustrates a sloping transition from a thick to a thin nozzle wall where the change in wall thickness occurs along the exterior profile, but does not indicate any limitations on the slope or on rounding or chamfering the corners where the sloping part intersects the nozzle wall. Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit a configuration as described from having an abrupt zero slope with sharp 90 deg. intersections with the nozzle wall? Reply: Interpretation: There are currently no explicit requirements. VIII-1-89-124

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1, Jacketed Vessels September 19, 1989 BC88-139

Question (1): Do the requirements of UW-2(c) for unfired steam boilers apply to kettle jackets in which steam is generated as a result of heat from an electric immersion element but is not used at a location external to the jacket? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does the requirement of UG-16(b)(4) for minimum thickness of shells and heads of unfired steam boilers apply to kettle jackets made of austenitic stainless steel in which steam is generated? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Can the external pressure charts, e.g., Fig. 5-UHA-28.1 or .2, be disregarded for a vessel made of austenitic stainless steel which has had its properties changed by work-hardening during fabrication and the MAWP established instead by a proof test in accordance with UG-101(p)? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): Is the proof test at three times the desired MAWP in accordance With UG-101(p) required for each and every vessel manufactured? Reply (4): No; see UG-101(c) and (d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix Y Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC88-162 Question: Is it permissible to omit the force H, and moment arm hr in calculation for flange design in Appendix 2 and Appendix Y of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-25 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC88-242 Question: Is it the intent that the full corrosion allowance of one-sixth of the required minimum thickness as specified in UCS-25 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the steam-wetted external surfaces of the 1 3/4 in. O.D. tubes in a Section VIII, Division 1 heat exchanger in which steam will be generated by the use of heat resulting from operation of a processing system as described in U1(g)(2). The required minimum thickness of the tubes is less than 0.214 in. not including corrosion allowance. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-127 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f)

Date Issued: File:

September 19, 1989 BC88-430

Question (1): In a pressure vessel meeting the requirements of UG-20(f), the minimum design metal temperature is 20 F and the maximum design temperature is 650 F. Will the SA-414 Grade G (any PNo. 1 Gr. Nos. 1 and 2) material used for the cylindrical shell and formed head require impact tests when they are less than 3/8 in. thickness? Reply (1): No; see UG-20(f)(1).

Question (2): Is a reverse type SA-516 Grade 70 flange ring having a thickness less than 4 in. and attached to the shell with weld detail as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) exempt from impact testing? Reply (2): Yes; see UCS-66(a)(1)(b) and UG-20(f)(1).

Question (3): Will a SA-516 Grade 70 bolted flat cover top closure plate having a thickness less than 6 in. require impact tested material? Reply (3): Question (4): Reply (4): No; see UCS-66(a)(3). Are the cap screws made from SA-354 Grade BD exempt from material impact testing? No; see General Note (e) in Fig. UCS-66.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-128 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-47 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-042 Question (1): Is the radial dimension from the inside of a cylindrical shell to the midsurface of a hollow stay the pitch dimension to be used to determine the minimum thickness of a flat circular head stayed by a single hollow tubular stay located at the center of the head? Reply (1): Section VIII, Division 1 does not address this type of construction.

Question (2): Is the depth of the groove weld in Fig. UW-19.1 sketch (f) designated as tmin' determined by the minimum thickness equation in UG-47? Reply (2): Section VIII, Division 1 does not address this type of construction.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Electrogas Welding Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-118 Question: Do all electrogas butt welds in ferritic steels and austenitic stainless steels require ultrasonic examination, in addition to full radiographic examination required per UW-11(a)(6)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UHA-51(b)(5)(b)

Date Issued: File:

September 19, 1989 BC89-127

Question: Are the requirements of UHA-51(b)(5)(b) applicable to the longitudinal weld seam in SA-312 welded pipe of the type listed in UHA-51(a) that is to be used at a metal temperature between -200 F and -325 F? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-131 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 1, 1-2(a)(1) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-151 Question: Is there in an inequality with the equations of Appendix 1-2(a)(1) and (a)(2) in solving for Z when t is known and P is desired? Reply: No, provided the correct radius and thickness are used.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-132 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-160 Question (1): A vessel intended for cyclic service is designed using Article 4-2, Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 of Section VIII, Division 2. The vessel is to be stamped in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1. Is it mandatory that the fatigue analysis from Section VIII, Division 2 be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer? Reply (1): The use of Section VIII, Division 2 to satisfy the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 is a contractual matter, not a Code requirement. Question (2): Is it permissible for the owner/user of a vessel to specify to the manufacturer that the impact testing exemption of UG-20(f) not be used, but that the minimum design metal temperature and impact testing exemption shall be as prescribed in UCS-66(a) and (b)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-133 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-189 Question: A pressure vessel has been fabricated and stamped in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 for a MAWP of 500 psi at 650 F. If the inside surface of the vessel is insulated in such a manner that the metal temperature will not exceed 650 F, can the vessel be subjected to gases or liquids at temperatures above 650 F? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-89-134

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-99 September 19, 1989 BC89-190

Question (1): May the water jacket volumetric expansion method and test apparatus described in DOT 49 CFR, Section I78.37 be used in lieu of the requirements in UG-99(b) and (g)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is "no," would the requirements of UG-99(g) be met if after the water jacket volumetric expansion test is conducted at 5/3 the marked service pressure, the vessel is removed from the jacket and inspected at a pressure equal to 6/10 the original test pressure? Reply (2): Yes; see UG-99(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-135 Subject: Subject VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UF-32(b) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-206 Question: Do the requirements for radiograph, magnetic particle, and liquid penetrant examination, postweld heat treatment, and of UF-32(b) and UF-37 apply to thermocouple attachment welds applied to forgings after quenching and before tempering? The thermocouple attachment welds affect the base metal to a maximum depth of 0.011 in., and these affected areas would be completely removed by grinding prior to vessel fabrication. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-77 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-208 Question (1): Are the requirements of UG-77 for the transfer of material identification applicable to nonpressure retaining material which is welded to pressure retaining material? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is "no," need any identification be transferred during fabrication to individual pieces of nonpressure retaining material provided the material is identified at receiving inspection in accordance with UG-93(a)(3)(a) or UW-5(b)(2) and the handling and storage requirements of UG-93(a)(3)(b) are met? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f)(1) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File-. BC89-209 Question: Is the nominal thickness used to consider impact testing exemption in UG-20(f)(1) determined in accordance with UCS-66(a)(1), (2), and (3)?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date IssuedSeptember 19, 1989 File: BC89-217 Question(1): May the exemption of UG-20(f) be applied for if a pressure vessel is constructed of PNo. 1 and any other UHA or UNF material combination? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are the minimum design metal temperature requirements applicable to nonpressure retaining attachments that are welded to pressure retaining parts? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-138R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: October 5, 1990 File: BC89-217* Question: If a vessel is constructed of a combination of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2 materials and other materials listed in Subsection C, may the rules of UG-20(f) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to the portion that is constructed of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-139 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendices 1 and 5; UG-99(b) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-218 Question (1): Es, Ec and Er are defined as the elastic moduli of different materials. May these values be taken from ASME Code tables for elastic moduli, such as Section III, Division 1, Appendices Table E6.0 and Section VIII, Division 2, Table AMG-2, or must the values be taken from the curves of Appendix 5? Reply (1): The values for elastic moduli may be obtained from any recognized source and shall not be taken from Appendix 5. Question (2): UG-99(b) requires that the hydrostatic test pressure be determined by multiplying 1 1/2 times the design pressure by "the lowest ratio (for the materials of which the vessel is constructed) of the stress value S for the test temperature on the vessel to the stress value S for the design temperature." Are the bolts or loose flanges of a bolted joint which falls within the scope of the vessel included in the materials for which the stress ratio is determined? Reply (2): Yes:

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-85 Date Issued: September 19, 1989

File:

BC89-224

Question: Is simulation heat treatment of test specimen required for specially designed cast or wrought fittings in the nonannealed condition conforming to one of the specifications listed in P No. 1, Gr. Nos. 1 and 2 of QW-422? The heat treatment during the fabrication process will be limited to postweld heat treatment at a temperature below the lower transformation temperature for the material. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-66 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-229 Question: Are any of the impact test exemption curves of Fig. UCS-66 applicable to SA-372 Type V Grade 1 Class B liquid quenched and tempered forgings. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-142 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-84(h)(2)(d) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-235 Question: identical? Reply: In UG-84(h)(2)(d) are the terms "steel making grain size" and "steel making practice" No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-22 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-238 Question: Must the design loads, shear and bending stresses which are applied to a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel's shell due to the reaction of damage protection devices attached to the vessel wall be considered in determining the thickness and reinforcement requirements for the vessel? Reply: Yes; see UG-22.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-12(c) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-240 Question: A pressure vessel is made from ERW pipe. Flat plate end closures are attached as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (c). What stress multiplier is to be applied to the stress values obtained from Table UCS-23 for ERW pipe for calculations involving circumferential stresses in the shell of the above vessel?

Reply:

An E factor of 1.0 is to be used.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (I986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-11(a) Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-242 Question: In accordance with UG-11(a) may manufacturer A manufacture standard pressure parts (flanges) to manufacturer B's manufacturer's standard? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 2 and UG-93 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-251 Question (1): Does 2-2(d)(2) prohibit the use of plate for the fabrication of optional type flanges which have been calculated as hubbed flanges provided the plate satisfies the requirements of UG-93? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does UG-93 specifically address the inspection of flanges fabricated from plate for all types of flanges (except hubbed) without exemption to configuration? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May a flange be manufactured and subsequently welded into an assembly as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (n) without further restrictions if made from plate material thicker than 1/2 in. which has been properly PT inspected? Reply (3): Yes, provided all other Code requirements are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-147 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1 Date Issued: September 19, 1989 File: BC89-255 Question: A Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel contains an inner chamber of proprietary construction connected to the inlet and outlet openings in the outer chamber of the pressure vessel. The outer chamber and the inlet and outlet nozzles are designed and constructed to contain the most severe conditions of pressure and temperature of either the outer or inner chambers. The inner chamber is designed for pressure and temperature conditions that are less severe than those for the outer chamber. May the inner chamber be considered exempt from Section VIII, Division 1 requirements while the outer chamber is rated and stamped as a single chamber pressure vessel complying with the Section VIII, Division 1 requirements? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), SB-637

Date Issued: File:

September 19, 1989 BC89-265

Question: May precipitation hardening alloy UNS N07718 sheet material be used in a pressure vessel fabricated in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-37 Date Issued: October 9, 1989 File: BC89-304 Question: For reinforcement calculations done in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, is the material added for corrosion allowance to be subtracted from the thickness of the vessel wall and added to the inside diameters of openings? Reply: Yes; all dimensions used in calculations are in the fully-corroded condition.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-2(i) Date Issued: October 24, 1989 File: BC89-278 Question (1): A Manufacturer holds a valid Certificate of Authorization permitting construction and stamping of Code items complying with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1. The Certificate specifies the Manufacturer's plant location "And Field Sites Controlled by this Location." The approved Quality Control Manual has provisions for Field Operations with the requirement for Authorized Inspection services. Are "Field Sites" limited to the location where the vessel will be installed and used? Reply (1); No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is "No," is it permissible for the Manufacturer to activate an idle shop facility on a temporary basis to construct and certify Code items under the provisions of U-2(i)? Reply (2): Yes, with the approval of the Authorized Inspection Agency.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-151 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-116(a) Date Issued: October 31, 1989 File: BC89-269 Question: A Manufacturer is fabricating cast iron pressure vessels from SA-278 material in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1. Neither UCI-3, Table UCI-23, nor SA-278 specifically address minimum temperature requirements other than the Table UCI-23 reference of "Subzero to 450 F" for maximum allowable stress values, May the Manufacturer mark "Not Applicable" for the minimum design metal temperature at a specified pressure on the Data Report Form and the required marking for the vessel? Reply: No. See UG-20 for the factors to consider in determining the minimum design metal temperature at a specified pressure.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 22, 22-3 Date Issued: October 31, 1989 File-. BC89-275 Question: Do the words "a maximum allowable stress value of one-third the specified minimum tensile strength of the material" in Appendix 22, 22-3 refer to the room temperature ultimate tensile strength listed for the appropriate material in SA-372? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-153 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-120 Date Issued: October 31, 1989 File: BC89-281 Question: The Certificate of Shop Compliance on the Manufacturer's Data Report for Pressure Vessels requires the signature of a representative of the Manufacturer. Does the responsibility of the individual signing in this capacity extend only to his knowledge of the information contained on the Data Report? Reply: The Certificate of Shop Compliance is to be signed in accordance with the organizational authority defined in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System Manual Interpretation: VIII-1-89-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Part Modification Date Issued: October 31, 1989 File: BC89-285 Question: A Manufacturer has moved locations and transferred parts of a vessel, without Partial Data Report Forms, to the inventory of the new location. These parts include a vessel head with a flange welded to it. The flange and weld are to be removed from the head and a new flange welded in its place in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1. May the new assembly be stamped and considered as meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-155 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-66(c) Date Issued: November 7, 1989 File: BC89-312 Question: May integrally reinforced forged nozzles and studded outlet connections which comply with the design and rating requirements of ANSI B16.5 be used at design metal temperatures no colder than -20 F without impact testing? Reply: Note: No. A revised interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-155R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, UCS-66(c) Date Issued: May 24, 1990 File: BC89-312* Question: May integrally reinforced forged nozzles (except standard long weld neck flanges) and studded outlet connections which comply with the design and rating requirements of ANSI B16.5 be used at design metal temperatures no colder than -20 F without impact testing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-I-89-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-2(c) and UG-16(b)(4) Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC88-052 Question: Do the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to an electric boiler constructed under the provisions of PEB-3 of Section I? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 8 Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-302 Question (1): Is it required to measure the size of an indication (bleed-out) for evaluation and acceptance or rejection of imperfections detected by liquid penetrant examinations required by Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes; see B-4(d) of Appendix 8.

Question (2): Is it permissible to use techniques and/or definitions other than those contained in Section V for Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (d) Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-313 Question: A pressure vessel requires the installation and access for periodic maintenance of a large diameter cartridge type internal. May the closure for the one end of the vessel be designed under the rules for flat heads in Fig. UG-34 sketch (h) and UG-39(c) if the opening in the end closure is then closed with a bolted flat cover plate with a compressible type full face gasket or compressible type gasket inside the bolt circle meeting the rules for flat heads similar to those shown in Fig. UG-34 sketches (p) or (j)? The requirements of UW-13, Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d), and UG-93(d)(4) are satisfied in the construction. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-159 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Table UW-12 Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-331 Question: If a pressure vessel is fabricated without butt welded joints, using a shelf of electric resistance welded pipe, and having end flanges per Fig. 2-4 sketch (3), (3A), (4), (4A), (8), (8A), or (9A), should the joint efficiency of 100% be recorded on the U-1 Form, Line 7, per Note 24 of Table W-3. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Tensile Strength Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-373 Question: To determine the MAWP of a pressure vessel meeting all requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, may the tensile value given in the mill test report be used instead of the specified minimum tensile strength given in stress tables in Subsection C? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-161 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Heli-Coils. Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-374 Question: A shell for a pressure vessel meeting all requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 has been drilled to accommodate 48 head bolts and subsequently tapped for M24 metric bolts. These tapped holes must be changed to accept 1 in.-8 UNC-2B bolts. May these holes be redrilled and a heli-coil inserted to accept the correct 1 in. bolt? The heli-coil number is 1185-16CN 1500 and is made from 18-8 cold drawn stainless steel. Reply: The Code does not address this detail of construction [see U-2(g)].

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-162 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-85(d) Date Issued: December 4, 1989 File: BC89-375 Question: A nozzle made from SA-335 Grade PS material with dimensions in accordance with ANSI B36.10 is welded to the wall of a vessel. is simulated heat treatment of test specimens required of the nozzle neck when the heat treatment of the vessel is limited to PWHT at a temperature below the lower transformation temperature of the material? Reply: Yes; see UCS-85(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-163 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1 Date Issued: December 4, 1989

File:

BC89-438

Question: A Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel contains an inner chamber of proprietary construction connected to the inlet and outlet openings in the outer chamber of the pressure vessel. The outer chamber and the inlet and outlet nozzles are designed and constructed to contain the most severe conditions of pressure and temperature of either the outer or inner chambers. The inner chamber is designed for pressure and temperature conditions that are equal or less severe than those for the outer chamber. May the inner chamber be considered exempt from Section VIII, Division 1 requirements while the outer chamber is rated and stamped as a single chamber pressure vessel complying with the Section VIII, Division 1 requirements? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-164 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1. (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-27 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC89-411 Question: Should the 12 1/2% undertolerance be used as part of footnote 15 in UG-27(c) when determining the required thickness or design pressure? Reply: No, the undertolerance is only a consideration when selecting the schedule of pipe to be ordered after determining the required thickness. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-165 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 9 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC89-413 Question: In the fabrication of a jacketed vessel in accordance with Appendix 9, a hole is drilled through both the heads in which the outer head encounters excess material removal to facilitate nozzle insertion. A patch is then placed around the nozzle, extending over the head base material and attached using fillet welds. Is it permissible to place a patch over a drilled hole in which the patch extends beyond and replaces the original base material, and attach this patch utilizing a fillet weld? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-166 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC89-414 Question: Is impact testing required if all conditions of UG-20(f) have been met except the design temperature exceeds 650 F? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-167 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-51(a)(1) Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC89-415

Question: UW-51(a)(1) has been revised to require a Manufacturer to retain radiographs of a vessel until the Manufacturer's Data Report for a vessel has been signed by the inspector. Can radiographs for vessels fabricated prior to this revision to Section VIII, Division 1 be discarded or must they be retained for 5 years as previously required? Reply: The Foreword to the Code states: "After Code revisions are approved by ASME, they may be used beginning with the date of issuance shown on the Addenda." Therefore, radiographs for vessels completed prior to the date of issuance for the 1987 Addenda must be retained for at least 5 years. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-168 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Geometric Scope Date issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC89-437 Question: Are the rules for the make-up connections described in U-1(e)(1)(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 within the Scope of the Code? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-169 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCI-101 and UCD-101 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-003 Question: May a Manufacturer ascertain the maximum allowable working pressure of a vessel or vessel part made of cast iron or cast ductile iron by performing only a finite element analysis in lieu of performing Code calculations or a proof test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-170 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 12, 12-3(b) Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-005 Question: 12-3(b) reads Other imperfections are unacceptable if the indications exceed the reference level amplitude...Does the "reference level amplitude" refer to responses greater than 20% of the reference level or 100% DAC reference level? Reply: In 12-3(b) "reference level amplitude" refers to 100% DAC.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-171 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-37 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-006 Question: In reinforcement calculations is the joint efficiency used in calculating the required thickness of the vessel wall tr and the required thickness of the nozzle wall trn 1.0 regardless of the joint

efficiency determined for the vessel wall and nozzle wall from the rules in UW-12 provided the nozzle does not pass through a weld? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-172 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Fig. UW-13.1 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-009 Question: Is the configuration shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f) meant to exclude the configuration shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (e) for use with intermediate head construction? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-173 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-93 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-010 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-93 what documentation must the supplier of cast materials supply with SA-278 and SA-S95 castings? Reply: The marking requirements for SA-278 must comply with the requirements of UG-93(a) (3), while SA-395 must comply with the requirements of UG-93(a)(2). Interpretation: VIII-1-89-174 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Welded Attachments Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-012 Question: If the weld around a nonpressure part, either load-bearing or non-load-bearing, being attached to a pressure part intersects the longitudinal or circumferential weld of a pressure part, must the weld attaching the nonpressure part be interrupted at these intersections? Reply: No [see UG-82(b)].

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-175 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 1, 1-4 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-023 Question: A nozzle is welded to a seamless 2:1 ellipsoidal head as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (g). Must this Category D joint be fully radiographed in order that a joint efficiency of E = 1.0 can be used in the formulas of 1-4(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-176 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), U-1(c)(3) Date Issued: February 15, 1990

File:

BC90-020

Question: Is a pressurized groundwood mechanical grinder where the pressure container is part of a cylinder in which a hydraulic piston forces wood against a grinding stone exempt from Section VIII, Division 1 by U-1(c)(3)? Reply: Yes; however, see footnote 1 to U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-177 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-120(a) Date Issued: February 15, 1990 File: BC90-021 Question: May mirror symmetric vessels which meet the requirements of UG-120(a)(2) through (4), and which are manufactured to the same drawing and completed on the same day be regarded as identical and reported on a single Data Report? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-178 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), SA-105 Date Issued: March 20, 1990 File: BC90-224 Question: May forged SA-105 blind flanges complying with ANSI B16.5 in pressure Classes 150 through 600 be utilized as heat exchanger tubesheets for Section VIII, Division 1 construction provided that both flange and tubesheet calculations are performed to verify that the thickness and bolting meet the requirement of the Code? Reply: No. (See para. 1.1 of SA-105 for scope limitation.)

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-179 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-33 and UW-42 Date Issued: March 20, 1990 File: BC90-262 Question: Is it permissible to apply the requirements of UW-42 in Section VIII, Division 1 when fitted butt joints in Categories A, B, C, and D deviate from the required tolerances given in UW-33? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-180 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: March 22, 1990 File: BC90-025 Question: May a flat plate used to form a corner joint be ultrasonically examined in accordance with SA-435 in lieu of the magnetic particle or liquid penetrant examination required by UG-93(d)(3)?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-181 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-93 Date Issued: March 22, 1990 File: BC90-226 Question: Are material test reports in accordance with UG-93(a)(1) required for plate used as reinforcement plates for nozzles in pressure vessels? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-182 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: March 22, 1990 File: BC90-236 Question: Reply: Does the term "flat plate" in UG-93(d)(3) refer to flat plate as rolled by the mill? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-183 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-115(b) Date Issued: March 22, 1990 File: BC90-239 Question: Is it the intent that the word "certified documents" in UG-115(b) be applied to PQR's (Procedure Qualification Record), WPQ's (Record of Welder Qualification Test), and CMTR's (Material Test Report)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-184 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-32(g) Date Issued: April 3, 1990 File: BC90-193 Question: Under the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, how is thickness determined for a cone without a knuckle when the half-apex angle is greater than 30 deg. Reply: See 1-5(g) and U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-185 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Appendix 2, 2-2(d)(2) and Fig. 2-4 Sketch (11) Date Issued: April 3, 1990 File: BC90-243 Question (1): Is a flat plate flange fabricated with the rolled grain perpendicular to the shell axis, which is designed per the requirements of Fig. 2-4 sketch (11) of Section VIII, Division 1, and welded per the

requirements of Fig. UW-1 3.2 sketch (m) or (n) and inspected per the requirements of UG-93, considered a "fabricated hubbed flange" as described in 2-2(d)(2)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is "No," then when performing design calculations for this flange can the dimension h be taken as equal to the fillet leg parallel to the axis of the flange, and g equal to the other fillet leg plus g when calculating the optional type flange using an integral type calculation? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-186 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Nominal Thickness Requirements to Comply With PWHT Procedures Date Issued: April 3, 1990 File: BC90-305 Question: In using the attachment detail of Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) in Section VIII, Division 1, can the weld joint thickness of a shell to tubesheet attachment be considered the maximum metal thickness in determining the rate of heating and cooling for postweld heat treatment? Reply: No. See UW-40(f)(5)(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-187 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Appendix 12, 12-3(b) Date Issued: April 9, 1990 File: BC90-303 Question: Do the acceptance/rejection standards given in 12-3(b)(1), (2), and (3) of Appendix 12 in Section VIII, Division 1 refer to imperfections which produce responses above 20% of the reference level? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-188 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UW-29 and AF-210, Mass Testing of Welders Date Issued: April 12, 1990 File: BC88-426C Question(1): In accordance with the subject paragraphs, can several contractors or assemblers simultaneously conduct the performance qualification test(s) of a welder? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In accordance with the subject paragraphs, can a welder simultaneously weld performance qualification test coupons in accordance with a welding procedure specification of several contractors or assemblers when the essential variables are documented as identical? Reply (2): Note: Yes. This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-89-12.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-189 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Table UW-12, Backing Ring Date Issued: April 18,1990 File: BC90-306 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 to have an in-place rolled backing ring with a tight fit in lieu of welding either edge? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-190 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: May 1, 1990 File: BC90-261 Question: Reply: Does Curve B in Fig. UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to casting materials? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-191 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-11(a) Date Issued: May 9, 1990 File: BC90-350 Question (1): Do Category D butt welds [e.g., Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (f-1) through (f-4)] require full radiographic examination under the requirements of UW-11(a) and UW-12(a) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do Category D corner welds [e.g., Fig. UW-16.1, all except sketches (f-1) through (f-4)] require full radiographic examination under the requirements of UW-11(a) and UW-12(a) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May E = 1.0 be used in the formed head design formulas in UG-32 if Category D corner welds are employed and all requirements of UW-11(a) and UW-12(a) are met? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-192 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-16(f)(3)(a) Date Issued: May 9, 1990 File: BC90-359 Question: Reply: Do the requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 also apply to pipe? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-193 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-116 and UG-119 Date Issued: May 9, 1990 File: BC90-393 Question: Is it the intent of the marking provisions in UG-116 of Section VIII, Division 1 to allow for both English and another language to be used when all of the criteria in UG-116 and UG-119 are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-194 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-15 Date Issued: May 21, 1990 File: BC90-345 Question: May alloy 317L (UNS S31703) be used in bar form (SA-479), pipe (SA-312), and tube (SA-249) when the alloy is available under plate (SA-240) and fittings (SA-403), if all of the requirements of UG-15 of Section VIII, Division 1 are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-195 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-9(d) Date Issued: May 21, 1990 File: BC90-400 Question: Do the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 set a limit on the number of longitudinal seams permitted in a single shell or course? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-196 (Void see VIII-1-89-196R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-36(c)(3)(a) Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-234 Question: Are strength calculations required in accordance with UG-41 for nozzles complying with the requirements of UG-36(c)(3)(a)? Reply: Yes, unless exempt by the provisions of UW-15(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-196R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-36(c)(3)(a) Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC90-234* Question: Are strength calculations required in accordance with UG-41 for nozzles complying with UG-36(c)(3)(a)? Reply: No, except as required by UW-16(f)(2)

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-197 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UHA-1 Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-255 Question: Stainless steel materials have been received from suppliers with dual marking and dual certification for 304/304H. Material test reports show that the material meets all the chemical and mechanical requirements of Section II, Part A for the specific material. May this material be used in the design and construction of both plain grade and high-carbon grade stainless steel vessels? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-198 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-10(a)(2) Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-294 Question: Does UG-10(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the recertification of SA-106 Grade B material to SA-106 Grade C by a vessel or parts manufacturer? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-199 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-20(f) and UCS-66 Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-314 Question (1): May both UG-20(f) and UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used to establish impact test requirements for vessels fabricated of two or more carbon steel materials? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): A carbon steel vessel is made up of a 3/4 in. thick shell of curve B material and has 3 in. thick welded flat covers also of curve B material. Can UG-20(f) be used for the shell material and UCS66(a) and (b) be used for the flat covers to establish impact test requirements for the vessel? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-200 (Void see VIII-1-89-200R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Appendix 2, 2-4 and 2-13(a) Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-325 Question: A circular flat closure similar to that shown in Fig. 2-13 of Mandatory Appendix 2 is connected to a shell by a welded attachment identical to that shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d). The flange faces are not raised and the upper element is a blind flange. The ratio of outside diameter of the flange to the inside diameter of the flange is equal to a K factor of 1.21. Is this construction permissible under the requirements of 2-13(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 for K factors less than 2? Reply: No, Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) is for tubesheets without the bolting flange.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-200R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Appendix 2, 2-4 and 2-13(a) Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-325* Question: A reverse flange as shown in Fig. 2-13 of Appendix 2 is connected to a shell by a welded attachment identical to that shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d). The flange faces are not raised and the upper element is a blind flange. The ratio of outside diameter of the flange to the inside diameter of the flange is equal to a K factor of 1.21. Is this construction permissible under the requirements of 2-13(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 for K factors less than 2? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-201 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Table UW-12 Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-326 Question: Is the joint thickness limitation per Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1 for Type 4, Category B joints based on the shell thickness? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-202 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-78, UW-40, and UCS-56(f), Repair of Steel Castings Date Issued: May 22, 1990 File: BC90-388 Question: Are defects repaired by a vessel or part Manufacturer in steel castings ordered to SA-352, with Supplementary Requirement S4, subject to the requirements of UG-78, UW-40, and UCS-56(f) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-203 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), U-1(j) Date Issued: May 23, 1990 File: BC90-257 Question: In determining the volume limit for a heat exchanger for exemption from inspection by an Authorized Inspector per Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(j), is it required that the tube side internal volume be the summation of the channel heads (or distribution headers) tubes, tube return bends, and other miscellaneous pressure parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-204 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-11(a)(2) and UG-44, Use of ANSI B16.5 Flanges Date Issued: June 20, 1990 File: BC90-435

Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-11(a)(2) and UG-44 in Section VIII, Division 1, can an ANSI B16.5 flange, using the rated pressure and temperature specified in the Standard, be used without additional calculations per UG-34 and Appendix 2? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-205 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition), Appendix 2, 2-11 and AD-702 Date Issued: June 20, 1990 File: BC90-436 Question: Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 which allow the determination of thickness for blind and reverse flanges under external pressure? Reply: There are no specific provisions which address the design conditions described; see U2(g) in Section VIII, Division 1. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-89-14.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-206 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-34 Date Issued: June 20, 1990 File: BC90-439 Question(1): Do the requirements for unstayed flat heads in UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply only to internal pressure? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 which allow the calculation of minimum thickness for unstayed flat heads under external pressure? Reply (2): There are no specific provisions which address the condition described; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-207 (Void see VIII-1-89-207R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-102(a) Date Issued: July 3, 1990 File: BC90-405 Question(1): Do the requirements of UG-102(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 mandate that the indicating gage be physically located on the vessel? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do the requirements of UG-102(a) mandate that the indicating gage be physically located at the highest point on the vessel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-207R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-102(a) Date Issued: October 10, 1990

File:

BC90-405 *

Question(1): Do the requirements of UG-102(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 mandate that the indicating gage be physically located on the vessel? Reply (1): No. It shall be directly connected to the vessel with no intermediate valves.

Question (2): Do the requirements of UG-102(a) mandate that the indicating gage be physically located at the highest point on the vessel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-208 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-15(d) Date Issued: July 3, 1990 File: BC90-467 Question: Are reinforcing plates of nozzles having open telltale holes and meeting the requirements of UW-15(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 considered pressure retaining parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-209 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-32(o) Date Issued: July 3, 1990 File: BC90-482 Question: Is it the intent of UG-32(o) in Section VIII, Division 1 that Formula (1) of UG-34(c)(2) be used to calculate the maximum diameter of a flattened spot or surface on a torispherical, ellipsoidal, or hemispherical head, where d would represent the maximum diameter, C = 0.25, and P, S, t, and E would be as defined in UG-34(b)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-210 (Void, see VIII-1-89-210R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-116(e) and UW-12(d) Date Issued: July 9, 1990 File: BC90-418 Question: Which of the marking requirements under UG-116(e) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply for a vessel that consists of seamless ellipsoidal or torispherical heads when the vessel joints are spot radiographed and after the circumferential seams attaching the heads are separately spot radiographed per UW-11(5)(b)? Reply:: RT-3".

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-210R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-116(e) and UW-12(d) Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC90-418*

Question: Which of the marking requirements under UG-116(e) apply for a vessel that consists of seamless ellipsoidal or torispherical heads when the vessel joints are spot radiographed and after the circumferential seams attaching the heads are separately spot radiographed per UW-11(a)(5)(b)? Reply:: RT-4

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-211 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-99(h) Date Issued: July 9, 1990 File: BC90-480 Question: Is it mandatory that the metal temperature be 30 F above the minimum design metal temperature during the hydrostatic test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-212 (Void see VIII-1-89-212R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCS-56 Date Issued: July 9, 1990 File: BC90-493 Question: Is it required by UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1 to postweld heat treat attachment welds joining austenitic bellows to pressure vessel shells of any size and thickness in P-Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 when the bellows material thickness 1/8 in. and the attachment weld is made with austenitic weld materials? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-212R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCS-56 Date Issued: October 4, 1990 File: BC90-493* Question: Is it required by UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1 to postweld heat treat attachment welds joining austenitic bellows to pressure vessel shells of any size and thickness in P-Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 when the bellows material thickness 1/8 in. and the attachment weld is made with austenitic weld materials? Reply: Yes for P-Nos. 4 and 5, and no for P-Nos. 1 and 3.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-213 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-37(d) Date Issued: July 9, 1990 File: BC90-495 Question: Under the requirements of UG-37(d) in Section VIII, Division 1, is t used to calculate A determined by the rules for external pressure? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-214 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-120 Date Issued: July 9, 1990 File: BC90-498 Question (1): Under the requirements of UG-120 in Section VIII, Division 1, must a parts Manufacturer supply a U-2 or U-2A Manufacturer's Partial Data Report Form for heat exchanger tube bundles which do not have seal welded or strength welded tube-to-tubesheet attachments? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Must tubesheets manufactured by other than the heat exchanger manufacturer be supported by a U-2 or U-2A Manufacturer's Partial Data Report Form? Reply (2): No, unless welding is performed during the fabrication of the tubesheet.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-215 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-43(d) Date Issued: July 17, 1990 File: BC90-291 Question: Do the requirements of UG-43(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to tapped holes, which do not penetrate any adjacent shell sections, in a reverse flange as shown in Fig. 2-13? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-216 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCS-66 Date Issued: August 17, 1990 File: BC90-399 Question: Under the requirements of UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1, must the hydrostatic test temperature be a factor in determining impact test exempt criteria? Reply: No. [See UG-99(h) regarding metal temperature during hydrotest.]

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-217 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCS-66(a)(3) Date Issued: August 17, 1990 File: BC90-496 Question: Are lifting lugs, supports, ladder and platform clips, etc., exempted from the requirements of UCS-66(a)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-218 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-2(b) and UHA-51(b)(5) Date Issued: August 17, 1990 File: BC90-520

Question: For a shell and tube heat exchanger, where the material is of 304 stainless steel and the tube side design temperature is -320F, does the exemption provision in UHA-51(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 void the requirements of UW-2(b) for weld joints? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-219 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Seal Weld for Corner Joint, Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (g) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC88-466 Question: A noncircular pressure vessel is constructed with a corner joint as shown in Fig. UW13.2 sketch (g). Does Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the use of a seal weld between welds a1 and a2 to form a continuous sealing surface? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-220 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-16(f)(3)(a) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC89-161 Question: A steel fitting is machined to ANSI B16.22 from SA-106 Grade B Schedule 80 pipe. The fitting is welded to the vessel with the machined end extending outside the weld joint area for field brazing of copper tube. If the requirements of UW-16(f)(3)(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met, can this part be attached by a fillet weld from the outside only? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-221 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-13(b)(4)(c) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-510 Question: Can radiographic examination, under the requirements of UW-51, be used as an alternative for magnetic particle examination requirements in UW-13(b)(4)(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-222 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-13(b)(4)(b) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-522 Question: Is it the intent of UW-13(b)(4)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to allow the use of real time radioscopic examination in lieu of magnetic particle examination for the longitudinal weld in the shell of a pressure vessel after being offset and before the attachment of the heads or next shell)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-223 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-2(f)(3) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-53S Question: May a Certificate Holder of a U Code Symbol whose scope includes field extensions, fabricate Code items at a facility owned or leased by the Certificate Holder which is not identified as the primary location on Certificate of Authorization? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-224 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-116(e)(4), UW-11(a)(5)(b), and UW-11(b) Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-543 Question (1): If a constructed vessel satisfies both the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) and UW-11(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, would the required marking under the Code Symbol be "RT-4? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it required under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 to indicate under Remarks on the Manufacturer's Data Report that the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) have been met? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-225 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UCS-66 Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-544 Question: Are the requirements of UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to a carbon steel base ring which is welded to a carbon steel support skirt, which in turn is welded to a vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-226 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Appendix 24 Date Issued: September 7, 1990 File: BC90-545 Question: A continuous one piece clamp band similar to the cross-sectional view A-A of Fig. 24-1 in Section VIII, Division 1, but utilizing parallel bearing surfaces, is used as a holding element for connecting a head to a cylindrical vessel or connecting two cylindrical vessel sections. The clamp band is used with two hubbed flanges and is usually fitted with an over-center toggle to open and close the clamp band so that a head may be opened as a quick actuated closure, meeting the requirements of UG-35. Occasionally two bolts are used to hold the ends of the one piece clamp band together for infrequent opening. Do the rules of the mandatory Appendix 24 apply to the above described clamp connections?

Reply:

No. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-227 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-11(a) and Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (m) Date Issued: September 26, 1990 FileBC90-412 Question (1): A one piece seamless pipe (SA-53 Grade B) is welded to a bolting flange at each end, where the weld is of full penetration and forms a Category C corner joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (m) in Section VIII, Division 1. Assuming no radiographic examination is required by the Code, would any radiographic examination of this corner joint affect the joint efficiency used in calculating the required thickness for the seamless shell under internal pressure? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): With no radiography of this corner joint, would the joint efficiency of the seamless shell used in calculations be E = 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Would the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) ever need to be met for the corner joint described above? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-228 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-116(a)(4) Date Issued: September 26, 1990 File: BC90-427 Question: For a vessel where the design pressure is used, as the maximum allowable working pressure, can the value of the pressure corresponding to the minimum design metal temperature, as required by UG-116(a)(4) in Section VIII, Division 1, be less than the design pressure? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-229 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition), UW-40(a)(5) Date Issued: September 26, 1990 File: BC90-438 Question: Due to service conditions, a vessel is required to have PWHT in accordance with UW2(a) in Section VIII, Division 1, and the vessel's dimensions allow heating it as a whole in an enclosed furnace. Is it permissible under UW-40(a)(5) to apply only local PWHT to the vessel and nozzle seams at different times? Reply: Yes, provided that the requirements of PWHT for parts are satisfied.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-230 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-13(b)(4)(b) Date Issued: September 26, 1990

File:

BC90-440

Question: For a shell where the longitudinal seam is welded from both sides and prepared prior to offsetting, are the requirements of UW-13(b)(4)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 satisfied when after offsetting, either magnetic particle or liquid penetrant examination is performed on the outside of the shell weld only? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-231 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), U-1(c)(3) Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-479 Question: May a vessel which is not part of rotating or reciprocating equipment, used to contain two liquids under a differential pressure, separated by a floating piston be considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-232 (Vois, see VIII-1-89-232R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Table UCS-56.1 Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-481 Question: May interpolation be used between temperature values listed in Table UCS-56.1 in Section VIII, Division 1 to arrive at minimum holding time at the decreased temperature? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-232R (See errata on page 500) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Table UCS-56.1 Date Issued: September 27, 1990 (January 3, 1991) File: BC90-481* Question: May interpolation be used between temperature values listed in Table UCS-56.1 in Section VIII, Division 1 to arrive at minimum holding time at the decreased temperature? Reply: Errata Volume 28 Interpretation VIII-1-89-232R Yes.

Correct Date Issued to read January 3, 1991

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-233 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-37 Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-490

Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-37 in Section VIII, Division 1 to use a nominal head thickness t when calculating A (A1 By errata, page 670) for openings in heads? Reply: Errata Volume 28 Interpretation VIII-1-89-233 Yes.

In the second line of the Question, correct A to read A1

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-234 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-120(c) Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-497 Question: Under the requirements of UG-120(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 must a parts Manufacturer supply the original Partial Data Report Form U-2 or U-2A as one of the two forms required to be furnished to the vessel Manufacturer? Reply: No; however the original may be required for vessel registration.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-235 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-1(j) Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-534 Question(1): In determining the volume limit for the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger under the requirements of U-1(j) in Section VIII, Division 1, may the volume of the tubes be deducted from the total volume when the tube side is exempted from Code requirements? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Same as Question (1), but the tube side is not exempted from the Code? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-236 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-11(b) Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-625 Question: May the die formed thin heat transfer plates of plate type heat exchangers, that are mechanically assembled without welding, be produced by Manufacturers in accordance with the requirements of UG-11(b) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-237 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Table UHA-23, Note (1) Date Issued: September 27, 1990 File: BC90-627

Question: When designing a flange per Appendix 2, using SA-240 plate, may the value for the allowable design stress for material of flange at design temperature S be the lower maximum allowable stress value shown in Table UHA-23 in Section VIII, Division 1 due to the reference to Note (1)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-238 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-115(b) Date Issued: October 2, 1990 File: BC90-464 Question(1): Is it the intention that the term "certified documents" in UG-115(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 include fabrication drawings? Reply (1) No. See also Interpretation VIII-1-89-183.

Question (2): May fabrication drawings be in the units selected by the Manufacturer provided that the Authorized Inspector is satisfied that the Manufacturer's Data Report, per UG-115(b)(1) or (2), accurately describes the vessel to be marked with the Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-239 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UCS-66(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1990 File: BC89-162 Question (1): In addition to primary membrane tensile stresses, must peak, bending, or secondary stresses be included when determining the stress in tension as defined by footnote 5 to UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No, only primary membrane tensile stresses are considered.

Question (2): For Part UCS components of stationary vessels, where the ratio of design stress in tension to allowable tensile stress is equal to or less than 0.4, may a 105 F credit be taken per Fig. UCS66.1 for minimum design metal temperatures of -50 F and warmer? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): For Part UCS components of stationary vessels, where the ratio of design stress in tension to allowable tensile stress is equal to or less than 0.4, and for minimum design metal temperature colder than -50 F, are impact tests required? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-240 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UCS-67(a) Date Issued: October 9, 1990 File: BC89-226

Question(1): Does UCS-67(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 require production impact testing of welds and heat-affected zones in accordance with UG-84 when: (a) the minimum design metal temperature for the material is below the applicable curve of Fig. UCS-66 for the governing thickness even after applying any adjustments per UCS-66(b) or UCS-68(c)? (b) the end-user requires impact testing of the material even though the conditions described in Question (1)(a) do not apply? Reply (1): (a) Yes. (b) Not required by Code rules.

Question (2): Is it the intent that UCS-67(a) requires production impact testing of welds and heataffected zones in accordance with UG-84 when the SA specification for the material used (e.g., SA-333 Gr. 6) requires impact testing but neither the conditions described in Questions (1)(a) nor (1)(b) above apply? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-241 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 9, 9-7 Date Issued: October 9, 1990 File: BC89-237 Question (1): A pod type partial jacket, as shown in Fig. 9-7 in Section VIII, Division 1, without stays or penetrations, meets the limitations of 9-5(c)(1). May it be closed all around including the longitudinal sides with a single fillet weld in accordance with Fig. 9-5 sketch (a)? Reply (1): Yes, provided a proof test is performed in accordance with UG-101(p).

Question (2): For the jacket described in Question (1), may an unreinforced hole of any size and shape be provided through the shell under the jacket, so that the shell pressure and jacket pressure are equalized at all times? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-242 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Appendix L-7 Date Issued: October 9, 1990 File: BC90-404 Question (1): A nozzle wall has a Category A joint with a joint efficiency of 0.85. The nozzle is not through a Category A joint of the vessel shell. In determining the area of excess thickness in the vessel wall available for reinforcement A1 in UG-37(a) in Section VIII, Division 1, is the value of E1 equal to 1.0? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If a two piece reinforcing pad is provided for the nozzle in Question (1) and no radiographic examination is performed for the weld joining the two pieces, must A1 in Question (1) be recalculated using E1 = 0.7? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-243 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-10(a) Date Issued: October 22, 1990 File: BC90-651 Question: A subcontractor of forming services cut A 825, Grade C plate material and transferred only the heat number. A review of the MTR demonstrates that the chemical properties of the heat and the mechanical properties of the heat and the mechanical properties of each test piece are in compliance with the material specifications. Is this sufficient to demonstrate compliance with UG-10(a) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-244 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Use of SA-105 Material Date Issued: October 22, 1990 File: BC90-656 Question: May the body flanges and hubs of carbon steel pressure vessels that will be built in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, with inside shell diameters larger than 24 in., be made from SA-105 forgings? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-245 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-90(c)(1)(1) Date Issued: October 29, 1990 File: BC90-649 Question (1): Vessels fabricated of SA-372 Type V Grade 1 Class B are forged by a material manufacturer as seamless unibody vessels. All requirements of SA-372 are met. The forgings are based on design drawings that show the MAWP and hydrostatic test pressure, supplied by the Stamp Holder. May the material manufacturer perform the required hydrostatic test on these vessels and certify the test pressure as part of the material test report? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Must the Code Symbol Stamp Holder take responsibility for performing the hydrostatic test, and have it witnessed by the Inspectors as required in UG-90(c)(1)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-246 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-2(i) Date Issued: October 29, 1990 File: BC90-650 Question (1): When a vessel Manufacturer designs and fabricates a large vessel in two sections and ships them to a field location for final assembly by another party, is the vessel Manufacturer the party required to complete the U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report for the "Certificate of Shop Compliance" portion?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Must the vessel Manufacturer apply the U Stamp to the vessel after completion of the field assembly? Reply (2): Yes. See U-2(i)(3).

InterpretationVIII-1-89-247 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-26(d) Date Issued: October 30, 1990 File: BC90-689 Question (1): May a Manufacturer, who holds a valid ASME Certificate of Authorization and Code Symbol Stamp, contract a non-Code stamp shop to build vessels requiring the ASME Code Stamp when the shop's welders are qualified under the Certificate Holder's WPS'S, and all provisions of UW-26 in Section VIII, Division 1 are met, and be under the control of the Certificate Holder's quality control manager? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If Reply (1) is yes, can an employee of the non-Code shop be assigned as a field quality control representative if the Certificate Holder's quality control manager takes full responsibility for the vessels? Reply (2) Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File: Yes. VIII-l-89-247R Section VIII, Division 1; UW-26(d) September 12, 2002 BC02-2474*

Question: May a manufacturer, who holds a valid ASME Certification of Authorization and Code Symbol Stamp, contract a shop, which does not hold a valid ASME Certification of Authorization and Code Symbol stamp, to fabricate vessels requiring the ASME Code Stamp when the non-Code shops welders are qualified under the Certificate Holders WPSs, and all provisions of UW-26(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met, and are under the control of the Certificate Holders Quality Control manager? Reply: Note: No. This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 52 of the interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-248 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-20(f) Date Issued: October 30, 1990 File: BC90-690 Question: May pressure vessels that satisfy the requirements of UG-20(f)(1), (3), (4), and (5) in Section VIII, Division 1, but are pneumatically tested in accordance with Code Case 1518-3 or 2055 be exempted from impact testing by UG-20(f)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-249 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Fig. 2-4 Date Issued: November 9, 1990 File: BC90-653 Question: For pressure vessels that are also operated under vacuum, can the internal fillet weld on the flanges shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (3), (3a), (4), and (4a) in Section VIII, Division 1 be stitch welded rather than continuously welded? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-250 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-90(b) Date Issued: November 12, 1990 File: BC90-725 Question: Would the provisions of UG-90(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 allow a production worker, such as a welder, to verify the manufacturing operation of weld joint fit up and weld contour? Reply: Yes, provided that the written Quality Control System accounts for such implementation, is fully implemented at all times, and that the completed vessel meets Code requirements. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-251 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-51(b) Date Issued: December 4, 1990 File: BC90-743 Question (1): Are the provisions of UW-51(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 satisfied when a radiograph, taken after repair, meets all of the requirements of Article 2 in Section V including the minimum density limitations, even when the density differs considerably from that of the initial radiograph for the same weldment? Reply (1): Question (2): performed? Reply (2): Yes, as long as all other requirements of UW-51 are met. Can a weld seam be accepted after such a procedure as described in Question (1) is Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-252 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 22, 22-3 Date Issued: December 7, 1990 File: BC90-686 Question: Is it the intent that the maximum allowable stress value for design in 22-3 in Section VIII, Division 1 be determined using the minimum tensile strength specified in the material specification (Section II) for the Type, Grade, and Class used? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-253 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-19 Date Issued: December 13, 1990 File: BC90-484 Question (1): May the minimum weld size per Fig. UW-19.1 in Section VIII, Division 1 be based on the required thickness of the thinner stayed plate instead of the nominal thickness when an opening is located in the stayed plate and the welded staybolt is outside the area of reinforcement? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May the end of the staybolt that protrudes into the stayed plate be beveled to reduce the bevel needed on the stayed plate and still meet the requirements of UW-19(a)(1) and Fig. UW-19.1? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May backing material that is left in place be used to achieve full penetration welds of welded staybolts as shown in Fig. UW-19.1 sketch (e)? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-254 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-127(a)(3)(b) Date Issued: December 13, 1990 File: BC90-542 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-127(a)(3)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use a rupture disk in combination with a pressure relief valve when the disk's bursting pressure is 300 psig and then the set pressure (pop action) of the valve is 400 psig? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-255 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-25(e) Date Issued: December 13, 1990 File: BC90-655 Question: Do the rules of UG-25(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 require the depth of a telltale hole to be at least 80% of the minimum required thickness of a seamless shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-256 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Appendix 1, 1-5(e) Date Issued: December 13, 1990 File: BC90-688 Question: The equation for Aes, Formula (4) in 1-5(e) in Section VIII, Division 1, uses tr in the second half of the formula. Is tr the tr of the small end of the cone, based on the small diameter? Reply: Yes, tr is the required thickness of the cone at the point being considered.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-257 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-101(m)(2)(c) and 175(a)(1) Date Issued: December 13, 1990 FileBC90-772 Question: When using the formula noted in UG-101(m)(2)(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 for a burst test on a dimpled panel per 17-1(a)(1) and (e), may a 0.80 efficiency be used as specified in 17-5(a)(1) provided UW-19(c) and UG-47 have been met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-258 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Fig. 2-4 Sketch (3) Date Issued: December 13, 1990 File: BC90-773 Question: May ANSI B16.5 slip on flanges, utilized as described in Interpretation VIII-77-17, be attached as shown in Fig. 2-4 sketch (3) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-259 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UCS-79(d) Date Issued: December 18, 1990 File: BC90-746 Question: May a forming subcontractor take exception to one or both of items (1) and (2) of UCS79(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 if it is unknown at the time of forming whether or not they are applicable? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-260 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UHT-18 and UHT-28 Date Issued: December 20, 1990 File: BC90-732 Question(1): A pressure vessel is to be fabricated from SA-508 Cl. 4 material, and will accommodate both external and internal attachments (e.g., insulation clips, internal supports, instrumentation leads). Weld build-up pads will be used, which meet all Code requirements. Are the proposed vessel attachments exempt from the requirements of UHT-18 and UHT-28 in Section VIII, Division 1 regarding the specified minimum strength requirements? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is capacitor discharge welding permitted in Section VIII, Division 1 for the attachment of instrumentation leads to the vessel's inside diameter? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-261 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions I and 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-I(c)(5) and AG-121(e) Date Issued: January 2, 1991 File: BC90-652 Question (1): Process equipment is enclosed by a Section VIII, Division 2 vessel. Section I and ANSI piping is used to transport the working fluid to and from the process equipment across the vessel boundary. A thermal sleeve type connection whose inside diameter is greater than 6 in. is used to attach the piping to the Section VIII, Division 2 vessel. The connection consists of the vessel reinforcement forging, the thermal sleeve (a length of pipe used to connect the reinforcement forging to the knuckle forging), and the knuckle forging which connects the thermal sleeve to the penetrating process pipe, The sleeve sees the vessel pressure which is in excess of 15 psi. The vessel pressure is not equal to the pressure within the process pipe. May, under the provisions of AG-120(a)(1), the thermal sleeve and knuckle forging be considered to be outside the geometric scope of the Division 2 vessel? Reply (1): Question (2): (1)(a)? Reply (2): Note: Yes. Does Reply (1) apply to Section VIII, Division 1 geometric scope as referenced in U-1(e) Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-89-19.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-262 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-126(b) Date Issued: January 8, 1991 File: BC89-109 Question(1): electronic? Reply (1): In a self-actuated pilot operated pressure relief valve, may the self-actuated pilot be No

Question (2): May a pilot operated pressure relief valve with self-actuated pilot conforming to UG-126 also be equipped by the valve manufacturer with a parallel electronic pilot to improve accuracy and control of opening and closing pressures? Reply (2): Yes, provided the electronic pilot does not interfere with the normal operation of the selfactuated pilot. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-263 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-90 Date Issued: January 8, 1991 File: BC89-129 Question: A pressure vessel is fabricated and hydrostatically tested per the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, and the Authorized Inspector verified Code compliance during the manufacturing and testing process. Must the Authorized Inspector immediately sign the Manufacturers Data Report Form and the Manufacturer apply the nameplate?

Reply: The Code does not address the time frame during which the Manufacturer's Data Report Form must be signed. However, UG-90 makes it the responsibility of the Manufacturer to apply the nameplate and assure the Manufacturer's Data Report Form is signed by the Authorized Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-264 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-81 and UW-33 Date Issued: January 8, 1991 File: BC89-234 Question(1): Are the requirements of UG-81(a) to be measured as the distance from the edge of a template of the specified dish radius plus or minus the allowance specified? Reply (1): UG-81(a) specifies the tolerances to which the head must be formed. The method of checking the formed head is at the discretion of the Manufacturer. Question (2): Are the requirements of UG-81(b) to be measured using templates of the specified dish radius plus or minus the allowance specified? Reply (2): UG-81(b) imposes additional requirements when formed heads are designed for external pressure. UG-80(b)(2) describes the method to be used for checking the plus or minus deviation from true circular form. Question (3): Is there a limit below which the present requirement of UW-33 and Table UW-33 need not be applied and for which a somewhat greater alignment tolerance can be applied? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): For metal thicknesses 3/16 in. and below, may butt weld edge offsets greater than 1/4 t be tapered by use of weld metal build-up without the need for examination in accordance with UW-42(b) (2)? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): UW-33(b) indicates that offsets within the limits of Table UW-33 must be tapered, whereas UW-9(c) notes that only sections which differ in thickness by greater than 1/4 t or 1/8 in. need the 3:10 (3:1 taper see errata page 633) taper. What is the distinction? Reply (5): UW-33 refers to alignment tolerances only. UW-9(c) and UW-33 are design requirements which specify taper transition requirements when welding sections of different thicknesses. Both requirements must be met. Errata Volume 29 Interpretation VIII-1-89-264

In the third line of Question (5), correct 3:10 taper to read 3:1 taper

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-265 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), Appendix 9. 9-5(c)(1)-(5) Date Issued: January 8, 1991 File: BC89-239 Question: Are the jacket closure bars designed to the requirements of Appendix 9, 9-5(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) adequate as stiffening rings, as stated in UG-29(f), when there is a pressure in the jacket?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-266 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-136(b)(2) Date Issued: January 8, 1991 File: BC90-187 Question: Section VIII, Division 1 UG-136(b)(2) requires that springs for safety and safety relief valves shall be corrosion resistant material or have a corrosion resistant coating. Does corrosion resistant paint, appropriate for the service intended, meet the requirement for a "corrosion resistant coating" for safety and safety relief valve springs? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-267 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-84(g)(2), UG-20(b), and UCS-66(c) Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC89-253 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide rules on what atmospheric temperature (minimum, mean) to use in establishing the minimum design metal temperature? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide any rules in locating an impact specimen notch other than that given in UG-84(g)(2)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-268 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-20 Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC90-225 Question: Is it permissible to design a vessel for operations below the minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) stamped on the nameplate provided the reduction in MDMT for the coincident design stress in tension results in a temperature that is no colder than that permitted by Fig. UCS-66.1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-269 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Table UHA-23, Dual Marking Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC90-256 Question(1): May dual stenciled 304/304L plate products with appropriate mill test reports be used as either 304 or 304L material at design temperatures of 1000 F and lower? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May dual stenciled 304/304L plate product with appropriate mill test reports be used as 304 material at design temperatures greater than 1000 F [Note (8) of Table UHA-23 applies]? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-270 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-20(b) Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC90-295 Question(1): Is autorefrigeration a consideration in determining the minimum metal temperature used in design? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-20(b).

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1 include requirements on how autorefrigeration is to be considered, other than that given in UG-20(b)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-271 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(2)(a) Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC90-300 Question: Reply: Are the tensile tests in 17-7(a)(2)(a) to be performed in accordance with Fig. 17-6? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-272 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-16(b) Date Issued: January 22, 1991 File: BC90-792 Question: Reply: Are the symbols defined in UW-16(b) to be applied in the corroded condition? Yes. See UG-16(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-273 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UCS-67(a) Date Issued: January 31, 1991 File: BC90-770 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UCS-67(a) to use an E 7018 electrode, under SFA 5.1, for SMAW without including impact tests in the WPQ, when the base metal (SA-516 Grade 70, normalized) is exempted from impact testing by Fig. UCS-66? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-274 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued; January 31, 1991 File: BC90-861 Question: Reply: Figure. Do the impact exemption curves in Fig. UCS-66 apply to forgings? Yes, Curve B of Fig. UCS-66 is applicable unless exempted by other Notes to the

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-275 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-2(g) and UG-29(b) Date Issued: February 13, 1991 File: BC91-011 Question: When a stiffener ring extends completely around the outside circumference of a cylinder and intersects a nozzle, may a connection between a nozzle and stiffener be made if the required moment of inertia of the ring shell section is maintained through the nozzle per UG-29(b) and design and construction details are submitted and accepted by the Authorized Inspector per U-2(g)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-276 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-36(b)(1) Date Issued: February 13, 1991 File: BC91-014 Question: Do the opening size limits of UG-36(b)(1) apply to the finished opening size when the finished and unfinished opening sizes are different? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-277 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UG-10 Date Issued: February 26, 1991 File: BC91-013 Question: May nonexpanded API 5L Grade X52 be used for Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel construction when certified in accordance with UG-10? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-278 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Appendix 9, 9-7 Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-747 Question: A pod type partial jacket, as shown in Fig. 9-7, without stays or penetrations, meets the limitations of 9-5(c)(1). May a reinforced opening be provided through the shell under the jacket so that the shell pressure and jacket pressure are equalized at all times? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-279 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCS-66(a) Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-771 Question: Is it the intent of the Code that a fabricated tubesheet made out of SA-204 Grade B plate, which is 8 in. thick, has a minimum design metal temperature of 120 F or warmer, and contains a butt joint, be exempted from impact testing under the requirements of UCS-66(a)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-280 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-11(a)(1) and UG-93(a)(1) Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-774 Question(1): Do the thin heat transfer plates of a mechanically assembled plate type heat exchanger constitute a pressure boundary? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If Reply (1) is "yes," can these plates be considered "standard pressure parts" if they meet all the requirements of UG-11(a)(1)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-281 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Hydrostatic Test of Completed Vessel Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-787 Question(1): A vessel is to be fabricated for nonlethal service and is comprised of two shell courses joined by a bolted flanged connection. May each shell course be hydrostatically tested separately and the completed vessel, when attached, be Code Symbol stamped as a single vessel? Reply (1): Question (2): Question (1)? No. Are separate Code Symbol Stamps required for each shell course as described in

Reply (2): Each shell course may be U-Part stamped, but the completed and bolted together halves shall be hydrostatically tested as one unit before the U-Code Symbol Stamp may be applied. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-282 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-11 Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-791

Question: May a welded pipe fitting, manufactured in accordance with one of the referenced ANSI Standards listed in UG-44, or of materials specifically listed in an ANSI product standard, meeting all applicable welding and examination requirements of Division 1, be utilized as the shell of a pressure vessel without the issuance of a Partial Data Report? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-283 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-11(a) Date Issued: March 4, 1991 File: BC90-865 Question: Under the requirements of UW-11(a) is radiography mandatory for Category B and C butt welds where the values of NPS and/or wall thickness exceed 10 and 1 1/8 in., respectively? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-284 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Table UCS-56 Date Issued: March 6, 1991 File: BC90-863 Question: Is it permissible to manufacture a pressure vessel using P-No. 1 material, with a thickness greater than 1 1/2 in., without performing postweld heat treatment per Table UCS-56 if postweld heat treated groove faces buttered with ASME SFA 5.1 classified electrodes are used? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-285 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UW-13(e)(4) and Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (g) Date Issued: March 6, 1991 File: BC91-048 Question: A noncircular pressure vessel is constructed with a corner joint as shown in Fig. UW13.2 sketch (g). Do the requirements of the Code allow the beveling of the shell thickness such that the sum a1 + a2 + groove weld = 2ts? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-286 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), U-2(h) Date Issued: March 7, 1991 File: BC89-303, BC86-250B Question: Under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, may a Certificate of Authorization be issued with the scope restricted to design without manufacturing or manufacturing without design responsibility? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-287 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-99(b) Date Issued: March 14, 1991 File: BC89-319 Question: Under the provisions of UG-99(b), may the ratio (S test temperatures design temperature) for the bolting material be used in calculating the required hydrostatic test pressure if it results in the lowest ratio for the material of which the vessel is constructed for: (1) bolted flange connections designed per Appendix 2? (2) bolted flange connection which comply with an ANSI product standard or a Manufacturer's standard as permitted in UG-11? Reply: (1) Yes. (2) No; the limiting hydrostatic test pressure shall be established in accordance with the applicable standard Interpretation: VIII-1-89-288 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-40(a)(3) Date Issued: March 14, 1991 File: BC90-437 Question (1): Do the rules of UW-40(a)(3) permit the local PWHT of longitudinal weld seams in shell sections by means of heating elements placed longitudinally along the weld seams without heating the total circumference of the shell course? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do the rules of UW-40(a)(3) permit the local PWHT of longitudinal weld seams in a completed vessel by any method that isolates the heated area to the weld and a zone adjacent to the weld, without heating the total circumference of the shell? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-289 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Table UCS-56 Date Issued: March 14, 1991 File: BC90-693 Question: Reply: Does Note (4) of Table UCS-56 for P-No. 3 material apply to P-No. 3 Group No. 3? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-290 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-84(c)(4)(a) and (b) Date Issued: April 5, 1991 File: BC90-342, BC90-442

Question: For Table UCS-23 materials, whose specified minimum tensile strength is 95,000 psi or more and for Table UHA-23 materials, is it the intent that the requirements of UG-84(c)(4)(a) apply in addition to the requirements of UG-84(c)(4)(b)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-291 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(1) Date Issued: April 9, 1991 File: BC91-045 Question: Under the provisions of 17-7(a)(1), must each welding operator, using the same weld procedure for spot welding a dimpled plate to a plain plate, perform a separate pressure proof test? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-292 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UW-51 Date Issued: April 9, 1991 File: BC91-046 Question: When radiographing a butt weld in a pipe joint containing a permanent backing ring (strip), does the butt welded joint in the backing ring (strip) have to be of the same radiographic quality as the weld in the pipe joint, in accordance with the requirements of UW-51? Reply: Yes (see Section V, Article 2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-293 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Table UCS-56, Note (2)(a) for P-Nos. 1 and 10C Material Date Issued: April 9, 1991 File: BC91-049 Question: In Table UCS-56, Note (2)(a) for P-Nos. 1 and 10C materials, does the reference to "material over 1 1/2 in. nominal thickness" refer to: (a) base metal only; (b) to the welded joint thickness as defined in UW-40(f). Reply: (a) No. (b) Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-294 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UG-102(c) Date Issued: April 15, 1991 File: BC91-056 Question: Is it necessary under the requirements of UG-102(c) to verify pressure gauge calibration on a daily basis if one's Q.C. Manual outlines a gauge calibration program which requires annual calibration or sooner if the gauge is suspected of being out of calibration?

Reply: The method of verification of calibration of a gauge as required by UG-102(c) shall be given in the QA/QC program as described in 10-12. Interpretation: VIII-1-89-295 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UCS-66(a) Date Issued: April 15, 1991 File: BC91-083 Question: For a pressure vessel designed for low temperature service (-40 F) where a flat head with thickness of 0.9843 in. is attached to a shell of thickness 0.2520 in., using the detail in Fig. UW13.2, sketch (d), is the shell thickness the governing thickness per UCS-66(a)(1)(b)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-296 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-80(a)(2) Date Issued: April 19, 1991 File: BC91-051 Question: If two openings of identical size are directly across from one another, can 2% of each opening, be added together, and this amount then added to the 1% referred to in UG-80(a)(1) and still meet the requirements of UG-80(a)(2)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-297 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UW-35(b) Date Issued: May 1, 1991 File: BC91-168 Question: If two pieces of stainless steel are welded together using resistance spot welding, and a reduction in thickness due to the welding process is observed, are the requirements of UW-35(b)(1) and (2) applicable for determining the remaining metal thickness? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-298 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Appendix 17, 17-3 and Table 17-3 Date Issued: May 9, 1991 File: BC91-047 Question: May SA-240 Type 317L stainless steel material be used in the construction of a dimpled assembly, as shown in Fig. 17-2, using tungsten-arc spot and seam welding if all the other requirements in Appendix 17 are met? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-89-299

Subject: Date Issued: File: Question: materials? Reply:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-11(d) May 9, 1991 BC91-050 Are the requirements of UW-11(d) applicable to austenitic stainless steel, P-No. 8, No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-300 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Simulated PWHT on Test Coupons of Alloy Steel Forgings Date Issued: May 16, 1991 File: BC91-194 Question: Must simulated PWHT be performed on test coupons of alloy steel forgings when the forgings have been tempered at a temperature equal to or higher than the intended temperature for PWHT? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-301 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Appendix F Date Issued: May 16, 1991 File: BC91-209 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the application of abrasion resistant flame spray coatings in high wear areas on cast iron, or any other materials, used in pressure vessel manufacturing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-302 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (h) Date Issued: May 30, 1991 File: BC90-433 Question: A nozzle neck is welded to a blind flange with a detail similar to Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (h). This neck thickness is more than needed for design. Could the weld be sized so that dimension a is three times the required nozzle thickness at the point of attachment to the cover? Reply: No. See definition of ts in UW-13(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-303 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-136(c)(4)(d) Date Issued:. May 30, 1991 File: BC90-864A Question: Under the requirements of UG-136(c)(4)(d), may an assembler, who has been granted permission by ASME to use an ASME Code Symbol Stamp, apply the Code Symbol Stamp to a pressure relief valve without the instructions of the manufacturer of the valve?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-304 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-125(c)(2) Date Issued: June 6, 1991 File: BC91-012 Question: If a single relief device is employed to protect a pressure vessel from overpressure due to process upset as well as external fire or other sources of external heat, can this relief device be sized for fire exposure on the basis of an allowed vessel overpressure of 21%? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of UG-134(b) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-305 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UCI-78 Date Issued: June 6, 1991 File: BC91-103 Question: May surface imperfections which do not permit leakage, and which are within the dimensions allowed to be repaired by a threaded plug, be left in place or repaired by metal spraying if the depth does not exceed 20% of thickness of the section, and the applicable requirements of UCI-78(a)(6) to (10) are fulfilled? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-306 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), U-1(j) Date Issued: June 6, 1991 File: BC91-107 Question: Stamp? Reply: May a part meeting the requirements of U-1(j) be furnished as a part bearing a UM Part No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-307 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Use of Shot Peening Methods Date Issued: June 6, 1991 File: BC91-116 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to use controlled shot peening, or other similar methods, during the fabrication of pressure vessels? Reply: The Code neither requires nor prohibits the application of shot peening methods to enhance surface properties. Note: Interpretation: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-89-25 VIII-1-89-308

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UCS-66(a)(1)(b) June 12, 1991 BC90-726

Question: Is the use of impact tested material mandated, as required under UCS-66(a)(1)(b), when two materials are welded together to form a corner joint and the thickness of the thicker of the two materials exceeds 4 in. while the thickness of the thinner of the two materials is equal to or less than 4 in.? Reply: Yes (No see errata on page 521) Errata Volume 29 VIII-1-89-308 In Reply, correct Yes to read No Interpretation: VIII-1-89-309 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1987 Addenda), UG-101 Date Issued: June 13, 1991 File: BC87-382 Question: For special bolted, mechanical, or quick-opening closure assemblies intended as a part of a pressure vessel to be constructed according to Section VIII, Division 1, may the maximum allowable working pressure be established by a proof test according to UG-101(m) except that the formula be revised as follows: P = 1/2BL SE/Sa or 1/2BL SE/Sm where (1) the first term replaces the term B15 in UG-101(m); and (2) BL = pressure at which test was stopped before a leak occurred or the pressure at which the first indication of a leak occurred? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-310 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-99 Date Issued: June 14, 1991 File: BC89-376 Question(1): May a tube-to-tubesheet weld of a double grooved, double rolled, and seal welded new tube be performed on a new tube-side cladded tubesheet (where credit is not taken for clad material) after performing a hydrostatic test under UG-99 without the need for a second hydrotest? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May a tube-to-tubesheet weld of a double grooved, double rolled, and seal welded new tube be performed on a single metal new tubesheet after performing a hydrostatic test without the need for a second hydrotest? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-311 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-5(b)(2) Date Issued: June 14, 1991

File:

BC90-237

Austin: Do the words "... materials specification not permitted in this Division,..... in UW-5(b)(2) include material specifications established by a Manufacturer? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-312 (Void, see VIII-1-89-312R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda UG-125 Date Issued: June 14, 1991 File: BC90-343 Question: Do the requirements under UG-125 require that every pressure vessel have a relief device to protect it from overpressure, either mounted directly on the vessel, or in the piping system without intervening stop valves except as permitted in UG-135(e)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-312R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-125 Date Issued: March 6, 1992 File: BC90-343* Question: Do the requirements under UG-125 of Section VIII, Division 1 require that every pressure vessel have a relief device to protect it from overpressure, either mounted directly on the vessel or in the piping system without intervening stop valves except as permitted in UG-135(e)? Reply: Yes; see footnote 39 of UG-125.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-313 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-40 Date Issued: June 14, 1991 File: BC90-470 Question(1): May the metal for a single nozzle reinforcement be located asymmetrically about the nozzle center line, within the stated boundaries for the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (1): the opening. Yes, provided at least half the required reinforcement be on each side of the center line of

Question (2): May the shell nozzle reinforcement area include bolted flange metal from a weld neck flange welded to the shell and located within the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): May the shell nozzle reinforcement area include metal from the straight flange portion of a dished shell cover welded to the shell and within the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (3): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-89-314

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1999 Edition), UCS-85(b) and (e) June 14, 1991 BC90-483

Question(1): Is heat treatment of test specimens under UCS-85(b) required for material listed in PNos. 3, 4, and 5 of QW-422 when: (a) the heat treatment during fabrication will be limited to PWHT at a temperature below the lower transformation temperature of the materials? (b) the heat treatment during fabrication will be limited to normalizing and tempering per the material specification followed by PWHT at a temperature below the lower transformation temperature of the material? Reply (1): (a) Yes, (b) Yes. Question (2): May a material manufacturer perform the simulated heat treatment of test specimens required by UCS-85(b)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-315 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UG-134(d)(1) Date Issued: June 14, 1991 File: BC90-631 Question: With reference to UG-134(d)(1), is the 3% set pressure tolerance for pressures above 70 psi "plus or minus" tolerance? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-316 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-18 Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC90-679 Question: May a vessel be fabricated using material for the shell conforming to UHT requirements (e.g., SA-517), and material for the head conforming to UCS requirements (e.g., SA-445), provided that all applicable requirements in Section IX for welding dissimilar metals are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-317 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UW-40(a)(5) Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC90-682 Question: Do the requirements of UW-40(a)(5) apply if a nozzle or attachment to an ellipsoidal head is locally heated in a concentric he,-it band that extends six times the head thickness beyond the reinforcing pad or weld, and the heated area does not contact any tangent or other attachment weld? Reply: No. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-318 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-116(e)(1) Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC90-685 Question: Are the minimum requirements for stamping a completed vessel RT-1 as follows: that all pressure-retaining butt welds other than Category B and C butt welds associated with nozzles and communicating chambers that neither exceed NPS 10 nor 1 1/8 in. wall thickness [except as required by UHT-57(a)] shall have been examined radiographically for their full length in the manner prescribed in UW-51? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-319 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UHA-52(b) Date Issued: June 17, 1991 File: BC91-055 Question: Reply: Do the requirements of UHA-52(b) only apply to the material stated in UHA-52(a)? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-320 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UG-11(c)(2) Date Issued: June 20, 1991 File: BC91-265 Question: Is it the intent of UG-11(c)(2) to prohibit the use of T bolt shell closures (lugs welded to the closure) that comply with UG-11(c)(2) in the construction of pressure vessels in accordance with this Division? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-321 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), UG-84(e)(3) Date Issued: June 25, 1991 File: BC90-441 Question (1): UG-84(e)(3) refers to the volume limitations of U-1(k). Is it the intent of the Code that this reference be made to U-1(j) instead of U-1(k)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are all the limitations of U-1(j) to be considered when applying the provisions of UG84(e)(3) for "small vessels"? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition); UF-32(b) and UF-37

Date Issued: File:

July 1, 1991 BC90-235

Question: Is it the intent that the requirements for radiography, magnetic particle and liquid penetrant examination, and postweld heat treatment in UF-32(b) and UF-37 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to capacitor discharge thermocouple attachments on forgings manufactured in accordance with a specification given in Section II after quenching and before tempering? The thermocouple attachment welds would be completely removed by grinding prior to completion of vessel or vessel part. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1, Sketch (g) Date Issued: July 11, 1991 File: BC90-684 Question: A vertical vessel with a conical bottom head is supported on a skirt. Is it the intent of the Code that the conical head may be attached to the shell using the detail shown in Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (g), but with the attachment weld on the other side of the cone? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-11 Date Issued: July 16, 1991 File: BC91-230 Question: Is it permissible to use investment cast wing nuts of A 351, CF 10S material, with a 304 stainless steel threaded bolt, and meet the requirements of UCS-11 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: July 30, 1991 File: BC91-283 Question: Does a double fillet lap joint such as shown in Fig. 2-4, sketch (3a), of Section VIII, Division 1 between a nozzle and a slip-on flange required to meet the provisions of UG-93(d)(3); specifically, does the exposed surface of the flange not covered by the fillet weld need to be examined by magnetic particle or liquid penetrant test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-37(a) Date Issued: July 30, 1991 File: BC91-292 Question: A nozzle in a cylindrical shell is being calculated for reinforcement. The nozzle is made from welded pipe, SA-312 TP316. In determining the value for trn, the pipe is assumed to be seamless.

Can the same assumption be made for the nozzle material when calculating the value of Sn for nozzle reinforcement per paragraph UG-37? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-11(c) Date Issued: August 9, 1991 File: BC91-270 Question: Is it the intent of UG-11(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 that the reference to heads in the subtitle be applicable to only formed or flat heads containing a Category A butt weld (i.e., segmented or two piece heads)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-07 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Material Certificate of Authorization Date Issued: August 9, 1991 File: BC91-301 Question: Does a material manufacturer, who supplies either forgings, plates, tubes, bolts, or nuts require a material certificate of authorization to produce materials being used by a fabricator who holds a valid U or U2 Certificate of Authorization? Reply: Note: No. This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-92-01

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-116(a)(6) Date Issued: August 9, 1991 File: BC91-310 Question: Is it acceptable under the requirements of UG-116(a)(6) in Section VIII, Division 1 to stamp on the nameplate the "month" the vessel was fabricated as an addition to the mandatory stamping of the "year built"? Reply: The stamping of the "month" is not part of the required markings for the nameplate; however, it may be permissible with the concurrence of the Authorized Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-09 (Void, see VIII-1-92-09R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-116 Date Issued: August 22, 1991 File: BC91-386 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-116 in Section VIII, Division 1 to mark a vessel with the Manufacturer's identifying trademark in lieu of the name of the Manufacturer? Reply: No.

Note:

A revised Interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-09R (Void, see VIII-1-92-09R-2) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-116 Date Issued: December 9, 1991 File: BC91-386* Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-116 in Section VIII, Division 1 to mark a vessel with the Manufacturer's identifying trademark in lieu of the name of the Manufacturer? Reply: Yes, provided the name on the nameplate is that as shown on the Certificate of Authorization. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-09R-2 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-116 Date Issued: February 28, 1992 File: BC91-386** Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-116 in Section VIII, Division 1 to mark a vessel with the Manufacturer's identifying trademark in lieu of the name of the Manufacturer? Reply: Yes, provided the identification on the nameplate is that as listed on the reverse side of the ASME Application for Accreditation. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-119(c) Date Issued: August 22, 1991 File: BC91-387 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-119(c), in Section VIII, Division 1 to have the stamping of the Manufacturer's serial number done with a computer driven single pin stamper, when the characters created are legible, and the provisions of UG-119(c)(2) are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-84(b)(2) and Table UG-84.4 Date Issued: September 13, 1991 File: BC91-413 Question(1): Is it permissible to use a Welding Procedure qualified in accordance with Section IX, including all supplementary requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, in the construction of a vessel using Part UCS material having a Specified Minimum Yield Strength equal to or less than 40 ksi when the specified MDMT is -60F but the procedure qualification test plates were impact tested at -50F? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For a vessel as described in Question (1), may material impact tested at -50 F (e.g., SA516 70N, SA-350 LF2) be used?

Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): For a vessel as described in Question (1), may the vessel (production) test plates be impact tested at -50 F? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): For any of the conditions described above, is it required to include "Table UG-84.4" in the Remarks section of the Manufacturer's Data Report Form? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 19, 19-3 Date Issued: September 20, 1991 File: BC91-432 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of 19-3 of Appendix 19 in Section VIII, Division 1 to use structural grade carbon steel, SA-36 and SA-283 (Grades A, B, C, and D), for pressure parts of gas fired jacketed steam kettles when these parts are not in contact with products of combustion? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-119(e) and UG-119(f) Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-210 Question(1): May a nameplate, which is located within 30 in. of the vessel, be attached to a bracket which is welded to a structure, such as a skirt support, which is welded directly to the vessel? Reply (1): Yes, provided all the requirements of UG-119(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 are met.

Question (2): Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-119(f) to include data on an additional nameplate, such as material and thickness, and mark it as "Duplicate"? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Requirements for Stamping and Partial Data Report Forms for Assemblies Made to SA-649 Material Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-220 Question(1): A material manufacturer produces both roll shell and roll/trunnion assemblies to SA-649. These parts are shipped to a corrugated paper machinery manufacturer for any required assembly, final machining and hydrotest, before being Code Symbol stamped. In the case of roll shells or incomplete assemblies made to SA-649, are Partial Data Reports required in addition to the SA-649 marking and certification provisions, which are described in SA-788? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When making an incomplete roll assembly to SA-649, is it permissible for the material manufacturer to stamp the roll with the appropriate U or UM stamp? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-15 (Void, see VIII-1-92-15R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); U-1(c) Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-232 Question: A vessel which by the provisions of U-1(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 is exempted is nevertheless fabricated to the Code and Code Symbol stamped. Must a pressure relief device, as outlined by the requirements in UG-125 through UG-136 of the Code, be installed? Reply: Note: Yes. A revised Interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-15R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); U-1(c) Date Issued: December 5, 1991 File: BC91-232* Question: A vessel which by the provisions of U-1(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 is exempted is nevertheless fabricated to the Code and Code Symbol stamped. Must a pressure relief device, as outlined by the requirements in UG-125 through UG-136 of the Code, be installed? Reply: Yes, see footnote 39 of UG-125.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-15 Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-255 Question: According to the provisions of UG-15, may solution-annealed SA-351 Grade CF10S MnN cast wingnuts conforming to the chemical and mechanical properties of SA-193 Grade B8S, be used under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 provided that all other applicable requirements of UG-15 are also met? Reply: No, see UCS-11(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-40(c)(2) Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-268 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-40(c)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, is the maximum area available for reinforcement set by the height determined by adding te, as defined in Fig. UG-40, plus 2 1/2tn? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UG-10(a)(1) Date Issued: September 27, 1991 File: BC91-399 Question: Does UG-10(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, allow for recertification by independent organizations other than the AIA? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1, Sketch (k) Date Issued: October 1, 1991 File: BC91-171 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 permit an extension of hemispherical head material from the tangent line of sufficient length to accomplish the offset and the 1 1/2t in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (k) when the required thickness of the cylindrical shell projects to the tangent line of the head? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-66 and Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: October 7, 1991 File: BC88-240 Question (1): Reply (1): What is the governing thickness of a casting if it is welded to a plate? See UCS-66(a)(2).

Question (2): When a comer weld detail per Fig. UW-13.2 is used to weld a seamless flat plate with thickness greater than 4 in. to a shell with thickness less than 4 in., is the governing thickness the thickness of the shell ts? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-66 and Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: October 7, 1991 File: BC89-037 Question (1): For parts covered by UG-11 for use in the construction of pressure vessels under Section VIII, Division 1, do the rules of UCS-66 override the rules of UG-11(a)(1) and (b)? Reply (1): Yes. See Note (b)(4), Fig. UCS-66

Question (2): May nonwelded parts, conforming with UG-11(a)(1) made from SA-216 Grade WCB steel castings, be used for minimum metal temperatures not colder than -20 F without impact testing? Reply (2): No, unless permitted by UCS-66 and Fig. UCS-66, Note(b)(4), or UG-20(f).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-90(b)(3) and UG-90(b)(6) Date Issued: October 7, 1991 File: BC91-267 Question (1): Are the Manufacturer's responsibilities under UG-90(b)(3) and UG-90(b)(6) in Section VIII, Division 1 satisfied by the review and acceptance of the certificates of compliance, or material test report, once a material supplier has demonstrated through statistical process control that the material is identified and that all physical characteristics are as required and specified? Reply (1): The specific details of how the referenced Code rules are satisfied are to be covered in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System. Question (2): May a Manufacturer examine only the top plate or sheet on a skid or load, if the material supplier certifies that the entire lot meets all the identification and physical characteristic requirements, and that such lot is free of defects? Reply (2): The specific details of how the referenced Code rules are satisfied are to be covered in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System. Question (3): May a Manufacturer satisfy the provisions of UG-90(b)(3) and UG-90(b)(6) based on the review and acceptance of certificates of compliance only? Reply (3): The specific details of how the referenced Code rules are satisfied are to be covered in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 9, 9-5(c)(4) and 9-5(c)(5) Date Issued: November 7, 1991 File: BC91-433 Question: Is it required in using the formulas of Appendix 9, 9-5(c)(4) and 9-5(c)(5) in Section VIII, Division 1 to substitute 1.5S for S? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-2(a)(1)(b), UW-11(a), and Form U-1A Date Issued: November 7, 1991 File: BC91-455 Question(1): In a lethal service application a seamless 2:1 ellipsoidal head is welded by a Category B weld to a forged ring to form a quick-opening closure. The Category B joint is Type No.(1), and the full radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(1) are thereby met for the vessel part being manufactured. Is it required to also meet the spot radiographic provisions of UW-11(a)(5)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If "Full" is noted in Section 9 of Form U-2A, must it also be noted in Section 14 (Remarks) that the weld meets the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it required to note the crown radius and knuckle radius in addition to the elliptical ratio in Section I0 of Form U-2A for the head used in Question (1)? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-25 (Void, see VIII-1-92-25R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-37(a) Date Issued: November 7, 1991 File: BC91-474 Question: In calculating the values for tr and trn .in UG-37(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 when ERW pipe is being used, is it permissible to use the allowable stress values for seamless pipe from the Section VIII Tables? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-25R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-37(a) Date Issued: May 5, 1994 File: BC91-474* Question: In calculating the values for tr and trn . in reinforcing calculations of UG-37(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 when ERW pipe is being used, is it permissible to use the allowable stress values for seamless pipe from the Section VIII Tables? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-28(b) Date Issued: November 11, 1991 File: BC91-229 Question (1): In complying with the requirements of UW-28(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, would the tubesheets of a shell and tube heat exchanger be considered pressure parts? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Would the tubes of a shell and tube heat exchanger be considered pressure parts? Yes.

Question (3): If the Replies to Questions (1) and (2) are "Yes" and the tube-to-tubesheet joint is to be welded, must the welding procedure to be used be qualified in accordance with Section IX as per paragraph UW-28(b)? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-38, UW-51(b), and UW52(d)(2)(c) Date Issued: November 25, 1991 File: BC91-516 Question: A welded joint in a vessel is radiographed and found not to be acceptable by the requirements of UW-51, or UW-52 of Section VIII, Division 1. Do the provisions of UW-38, UW-51(b), or UW-52(d)(2)(c) limit the number of weld repairs and subsequent examinations needed when the weld continues to show unacceptable indications? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Fig. UW-16.1, Sketch (v) Date Issued: December 5, 1991 File: BC91-530 Question: Is the diameter limitation of NPS 6 given in UW-16(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to Interpretation VIII-1-86-61? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Forms U-1A and U-3 Date Issued: December 6, 1991 File: BC91-466 Question: For the conditions outlined in Interpretation VIII-1-86-218, is it required to specifically record the joint efficiency factor of E = 0.85 in Forms U-IA and U-3 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-30 (Void, see VIII-1-92-30R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-3(a)(1) Date Issued: December 6, 1991 File: BC91-468 Question (1): A vessel is constructed using a 48 in. torispherical head with a 1 in. centering or "spin" hole in the center of the head from the head manufacturer. The "spin" hole is plugged using either weld metal or a metal plug, and the plug is butt welded. Does this joint constitute a Category A weld per UW3(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is "Yes," would this weld need to meet the joint efficiency criteria in Table UW-12? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-30R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-3(a)(1)

Date Issued: File:

September 9, 1994 BC91-468*

Question (1): A vessel is constructed using a 48 in. torispherical head with a 1 in. centering or "spin" hole in the center of the head from the head Manufacturer. The "spin" hole is plugged using either: (a) weld metal, or (b) a metal plug which is butt welded in place. Do either of these joints constitute a Category A weld per UW-3(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): (a) No, the Code does not categorize such a weld. The welding of this "spin" hole would constitute a repair under the requirements of UG-78 in Section VIII, Division 1. (b)Yes. Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1)(a) or Question (1)(b) is yes, would this weld need to meet the joint efficiency criteria in Table UW-12? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-32, UG-81(a), and UG27(c) Date Issued: December 6, 1991 File: BC91-517 Question: A seamless hemispherical head, concave to pressure, will be attached to a cylindrical shell with a joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (d),(th (ts). The head has an out-of-roundness that creates a flat section around the inside perimeter of the head. The out-of-roundness meets the criteria of UG-81(a). May this flat section be considered a seamless cylindrical shell section for determining thickness under the requirements of UG-27(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-11(a)(5)(b), UW-12(d), and UW-52 Date Issued: December 6, 1991 File: BC91-518 Question (1): A vessel is constructed of a seamless pipe for the shell and a 2:1 elliptical head on each end, each attached by a full penetration Type No. 1 Category B joint. The total weld length is 50 ft or less. Must both Category B joints be spot radiographed, as a minimum under the provisions of UW11(a)(5)(b), to claim the joint efficiency factor of E = 1 for both heads? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the vessel in Question (1) was fabricated with a welded shell, would each Category B joint be required to be radiographed? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): If the spot selected per UW-11(a)(5)(b) fails and the tracers required by UW-52(d)(2) on the examined joint also fail, must the entire weld increment represented by the spot be removed or fully radiographed as permitted by UW-52(d)(2)(b)? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-81(a) Date Issued: December 17,1991 File: BC90-727 Question: Does UG-81(a) require that the knuckle radius of formed heads be not less than the minimum specified in UG-32, and also stay within the permissible outside deviation 1 1/4% of the nominal inside diameter of the vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-51(b) Date Issued: December 17, 1991 File: BC91-007 Question: A weld is radiographed in accordance with UW-51 and Article 2 of Section V. The radiograph is evaluated by the Manufacturer and determined to be acceptable. The Inspector verifies that the radiography has been performed and is acceptable [(UG-90(c)(1)(i)]. The seam is radiographed again using another technique permitted by Section V, Article 2. If the second radiograph reveals unacceptable imperfections, must they be replaced and re-examined? Reply: No. There are small variations in sensitivity among the permitted radiography techniques. However, within the range of tolerable differences experience has shown them to be practically equivalent. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UHA-51(b)(5)(c) Date Issued: December 17, 1991 File: BC91-100 Question (1): Is flux-cored arc welding a permissible welding process under the requirements of UHA51(b)(5)(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the reference in Section VIII, Division 1 to UHT-6(a)(3) and UHT-6(a)(4) in UG-84(c) (4)(b) only applicable to materials that have had their tensile properties enhanced by heat treatment? Reply (2): No, the reference is only to obtain the acceptance criteria for lateral expansion.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); Appendix 12, 12-3(b) Date Issued: December 17, 1991 File: BC91-115

Question: Is an imperfection evaluated in accordance with the acceptance criteria of Appendix 123(b), Section VIII, Division 1 rejectable only if the imperfection exceeds both the reference amplitude level and relevant length in Appendix 12-3(b)(1)-(3)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-6(b), and Appendix 2 Date Issued: December 17, 1991 File: BC91-600 Question: Is it permissible to fabricate a flange per Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 sketch (7), by welding a 1 in. plate conforming to SA-36 to a 3/8 in. thick nozzle neck conforming to SA-106? The requirements of UCS-6(b)(1) through UCS-6(b)(3) have been met. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 17, 17-1(a)(1), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (e) Date Issued: January 22, 1992 File: BC91-559 Question(1): Is it permissible under the requirements of 17-1(a)(1), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (e) in Section VIII, Division 1 to weld a predimpled and embossed jacket to a shell using GTAW with the addition of filler metal? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the Reply (1) is no, then do the provisions of UW-19(c) and Section IX for fillet weld procedures govern? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-85(b) Date Issued: January 22, 1992 File: BC91-565 Question: A pressure vessel part, e.g., head, is subjected to heating between the lower transformation temperature and normalizing temperature during its hot forming process, then followed by a normalizing heat treatment above the lower transformation temperature upon completion of forming. Is it required under the provisions of UCS-85(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to have a simulation test specimen for both hot forming and normalizing heat treatment? Reply: No, a test specimen would not be required for hot forming.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-11(a) and UG-116(e)(1) Date Issued: February 3, 1992

File:

BC92-036

Question (1): A welded cylindrical shell [Category A, Type No. (1) joint] is welded to a seamless hemispherical head [Category A, Type No. (1) joint] at one end and a seamless ellipsoidal head [Category B, Type No. (1) joint] at the other end. The vessel contains a nozzle that is butt welded [Category D, Type No. (1) joint) to the shell. May this vessel be marked RT-1 if only the Category A and D butt welds are radiographically examined their full length per UW-11(a) and UW-51? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May this vessel be marked RT-1 if all Category A, B, and D butt welded joints are radiographically examined their full length per UW-11(a) and UW-51? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If Reply (2) is yes, may the hemispherical and ellipsoidal heads in the example above use an E = 1.00 in Code calculations? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-66(a)(3) Date Issued: February 6, 1992 File: BC91-044 Question: Do the requirements of UCS-66(a)(3), in the 1990 Addenda of Section VIII, Division 1, for attachments that are welded to pressure retaining components, override the rules of U-1(e)(2), UG-4(b), and UW-5(b)? Reply: ' Yes, if the attachment is essential to the structural integrity of the vessel.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-40 Date Issued: February 19, 1992 File: BC91-089 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 permit the inclusion as available reinforcement area of the cross sectional area of material which lies within the limits of reinforcement per UG-40, but is not attached to the vessel shell? Reply: No; see UW-16(c)(2) and UW-16(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-127 Date Issued: February 19, 1992 File: BC91-560 Question: Do the requirements of UG-127 in Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the fabrication of a rupture disk and a rupture disk holder by different manufacturers, and the interchangeability of such components? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Setting of Allowable Stresses, UG-23, and Appendix P Date Issued: February 19, 1992 File: BC91-564 Question (1): Is it permissible to use higher allowable stress values for materials than those specified in the Tables of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No, see UG-23.

Question (2): Is it permissible to establish maximum allowable stresses using actual tensile and yield values of a material and with Appendix P of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-9(c) Date Issued: February 19, 1992 File: BC91-567 Question: Two cylinders of different thicknesses are welded together to form part of a vessel shell. The extra thickness in the transition zone is not required to resist internal pressure, provide shell opening reinforcement, or provide strength. Since the transition is located entirely within the extra thickness, does the requirement for a 3:1 taper in UW-9(c) apply? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UCS-79(d) Date Issued: February 28, 1992 File: BC91-627 Question: Is the formula for single curvature in UCS-79(d) applicable for the cylindrical part of a formed head calculated under Appendix 1, 1-4? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 22, 22-3(d)(2) Date Issued: February 28, 1992 File: BC91-628 Question: Do the provisions of 22-3(d)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 require that the maximum central openings of integral heads be 50% of the diameter of the vessel or NPS 3, whichever is less? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-48

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-125 February 28, 1992 BC92-005

Question: Do the requirements of UG-125 in Section VIII, Division 1 provide for any specific time frame in which upset conditions can occur to satisfy the provisions for safety relief?. Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-93 Date Issued: March 6, 1992 File: BC90-004 Question: Are material test reports as required by UG-93 of Section VIII, Division 1 required to be signed by the Material Manufacturer? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UG-11(c) Date Issued: March 6, 1992 File: BC90-788 Question: Is a long weld neck flange supplied in an overlayed condition exempt from the requirements of UG-116(h) and UG-120(c) if all the requirements of UG-11(c) are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-84(h)(3)(b) Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC88-434 (BC89-465 and BC89-467) Question: Does the phrase "Same heat treated condition" in UG-84(h)(3)(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 mean that the following would be considered different heat treated conditions? as rolled annealed normalized normalized and tempered quenched and tempered Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); U-1(e) Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC90-299 (BC90-264)

Question: Are pressure retaining metallic covers, including quick opening closures, within the Scope of the Code, U-1(e), when furnished as part of a completed vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-118 Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC91-384 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-118 in Section VIII, Division 1 for a Manufacturer to utilize laser stamping or marking on fabricated pressure vessels? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-11(c) Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC91-402 Question: May hinged heads fabricated to a parts Manufacturer's standard and complying with the requirements of UG-11(c)(1) and (2) in Section VIII, Division 1 be used for vessel or communicating chamber heads without Partial Data Reports? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-5(b) and 1-8(a) Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC91-453 Question: In 1-5(b) and 1-8(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, has the joint efficiency E, in the nomenclature been included unnecessarily? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-5(b)(2) Date Issued: March 9, 1992 File: BC91-475 Question: Is it permissible to use the provisions of Appendix C, C-100.2 (Section IX) to satisfy the requirements of UW-5(b)(2) for proof of weldable quality for nonpressure parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-4(a)(3) and 27(b) Date Issued: March 12, 1992

File:

BC92-053

Question: When loose type flanges without hubs are designed under 2-7(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, are they also required to meet the provisions of 2-4(a)(3)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 12, 12-3(b) Date Issued: March 26, 1992 File: BC92-057 Question: Are any two imperfections, having indications exceeding the reference level amplitude, acceptable if individual lengths do not exceed requirements under 12-3(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 and separation can be established? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), UCS-79(e) Date Issued: April 7, 1992 File: BC91-289 Question: Is it the intent of UCS-79(e) that the parts manufacturer certify whether or not postforming heat treatment was performed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-44 Date Issued: April 7, 1992 File: BC92-077 Question: Is it permissible to use ANSI B16.5 flanges in accordance with UG-44 of Section VIII, Division 1, when used with spiral wound gaskets or any other gasket without any calculation per Appendix 2? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Part UCI Date Issued: April 7, 1992 File: BC92-098 Question: Under the requirements of Part UCI in Section VIII, Division 1, may SA-278 Cl. 45 material, produced as-cast without any stress relieving, be used to produce dryer rolls? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-92-62

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketches (3) and (4) April 7, 1992 BC92-099

Question: Are loose types flanges of the types shown in Fig. 2-4 sketches (3) and (4) of Section VIII, Division 1 required to have two fillet welds? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UCS-66(c) Date issued: April 20, 1992 File: BC92-075 Question: Are ANSI B16.5 steel flanges made of SA-105 material considered to be "ferritic" as they would apply under the requirements of UCS-66(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-20 Date Issued: April 20, 1992 File: BC92-102 Question: Do the requirements of UG-20(f)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 specify a duration of time at which ambient temperature can be below -20 F and still be classified as 'seasonal'? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-99 and UG-100 Date Issued: May 12, 1992 File: BC92-124 Question: A large vertical vessel is provided with circumferential stiffening rings. Due to transportation constraints the stiffening rings cannot be welded to the vessel until it arrives at the installation site. Would the requirements of UG-99 and UG-100 of Section VIII, Division 1 permit the application of a hydrostatic or pneumatic test on the vessel prior to the installation of the stiffening rings? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UCS-56(d)(2) Date Issued: May 20, 1992 File: BC92-054 Question: Is the 400 F/hr heating rate given in UCS-56(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 a maximum rate, where local variations would be tolerated within the hour? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-135(b) Date Issued: May 20, 1992 File: BC92-055 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-135(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to install a spectacle blind (figure 8) with a full area opening at the inlet of the PSV, between the vessel and its pressure relieving devices, provided it is identified and operated as a stop valve (see Appendix M-5)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-29(b) Date Issued: May 20, 1992 File: BC92-101 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-29(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to have a gap in a stiffening ring, without a bridge of equal or greater moment of inertia, as long as the gap is equal to or less than that shown in Fig. UG-29.2? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-69 (Void, see VIII-1-92-69R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UG-37(a) and Fig. UG-37.1 Date Issued: June 2, 1992 File: BC91-102 Question: With reference to interpretation VIII-1-89-72: if a shell is made up of a seamless pipe, then does t = nominal thickness less mill tolerance, when calculating reinforcement requirements per Fig. UG-37.1 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Note: Yes, see UG-16(d). A revised Interpretation follows.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-69R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UG-37(a) and Fig. UG-37.1 Date Issued: July 14, 1992 File: BC91-102* Question: With reference to Interpretation VIII-1-89-72, if a shell is made from seamless pipe does t = nominal thickness less mill tolerance apply when calculating nozzle reinforcement requirements per Fig. UG-37.1 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes; see UG-16(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-43(d) Date Issued: June 2, 1992 File: BC91-308

Question: May the drilled and tapped holes of a studded connection that is attached to a vessel shell or head with a full penetration weld penetrate to within 1/4t (where t is defined in UW-16), exclusive of corrosion allowance? Reply: Yes; see also Interpretation VIII-1-86-102.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-21 and UG-98 Date Issued: June 3, 1992 File: BC91-177 Question: The maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) for a vessel is determined in accordance with UG-98 of Section VIII, Division 1. May the vessel be stamped with this MAWP even though it exceeds the design pressure initially specified in accordance with UG-21? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-37(a) and UW-16(b) Date Issued: June 3, 1992 File: BC91-303 Question: Does the nomenclature for t and tn in UG-37(a) and UW-16(b), and tn in Appendix 2 of Section VIII, Division 1 represent the same dimension as defined in Appendix 3 for nominal thickness? Reply: Yes, except when a corrosion allowance is specified, then all dimensional symbols used in design formulas are in the corroded condition. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-50 and UW-50(b) Date Issued: June 3, 1992 File: BC91-401 Question: For the required examination provisions given in UW-50 of Section VIII, Division 1, must the examination be performed on both the inside and outside of the vessel where accessible? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-4(a) Date Issued: June 3, 1992 File: BC91-412 Question (1): Is it prohibited under the requirements of UG-4(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 for a Manufacturer to order materials, subjected to stress due to pressure, to an ASTM specification with year date if the current and corresponding ASME specification is identical with the ASTM specification? Reply (1): No. See the Foreword.

Question (2): Under the condition stated in Question (1), is it permissible to record on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form the corresponding ASME designation, i.e., SA, SB? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-116(e), (f), and (j) Date Issued: June 3, 1992 File: BC91-467 Question(1): In the case of a multichambered pressure vessel, specifically a shell and tube heat exchanger designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to identify the radiographic and heat treatment requirements for each chamber separately with markings in a conspicuous place on the nameplate of the completed vessel or applied to each independent pressure chamber, without the appropriate radiography and heat treatment markings directly under the Code Symbol? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In the case of a multichambered pressure vessel, specifically, a shell and tube heat exchanger designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to identify the radiographic and heat treatment requirements for each chamber separately with markings in a conspicuous place on the nameplate of the completed vessel or applied to each independent pressure chamber, in addition to the appropriate radiograph and heat treatment markings applied directly under the Code Symbol? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-76 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Use of ASME Marking Date Issued: June 2, 1992 File: BC92-152 Question: May a pressure vessel which was designed in accordance with the rules of ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 or 2 but which was not subjected to authorized inspection or Code Symbol stamping be marked on the nameplate with such information as "Design Code: ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 or 2"? Reply: No. Such use of the term "ASME" on the nameplate is not in conformance with the "Statement of Policy on the Use of ASME Marking to Identify Manufactured Items," which appears in the front of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. That policy includes the sentence: "Markings such as 'ASME, "ASME Standard,' or any other marking including 'ASME' or the various Code Symbols shall not be used on any item which is not constructed in accordance with all of the applicable requirements of the Code." Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-92-04.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-77 (Void, see VIII-1-92-77R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UW-2(b) and Fig. 9-5 Sketches (f-1) and (g-5) Date Issued: June 4, 1992 File: BC91-629

Question: Is it the intent that the configurations as shown in Fig. 9-5 sketches (f-1) and (g-5) of Section VIII, Division 1 are permissible on a jacketed vessel when the provisions of UW-2(b) are applicable to both the inner vessel and the jacket? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-77R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); UW-2(b) and Fig. 9-5 Sketches (f-1) and (g-5) Date Issued: February 11, 1993 File: BC91-629* Question: Are the configurations shown in Fig. 9-5 sketches (f-1) and (g-5) of Section VIII, Division 1 permissible on a jacketed vessel when the provisions of UW-2(b) are applicable to both the inner vessel and the jacket? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Appendix CC, CC-4(c) Date Issued: June 17, 1992 File: BC92-148 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of CC-4(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 to have longitudinal weld seams made after segments have been formed into expansion elements? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-79 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-81(a) and AF-135(a) Date Issued: June 17, 1992 File: BC92-150 Question: Is the requirement "The knuckle radius shall be not less than that specified," in UG-81(a) and AF-135(a) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, satisfied by meeting the provisions of UG-32(h) and (j) and AD-204.4? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-92-05.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UW-40(f) and Appendix 3 Date Issued: June 18, 1992 File: BC92-167 Question (1): When determining the postweld heat treatment requirements for a nozzle attachment per UW-40(f) of Section VIII, Division 1, is the thickness of the weld through the head or shell determined from the nominal thickness of the head or shell material?

Reply (1): Question (2): UW-40(f)? Reply (2):

Yes. Is the definition of nominal thickness in Appendix 3 compatible with the provisions of Yes.

Question (3): When a head is ordered and supplied to a minimum gauge thickness, can this be used for the nominal thickness? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-84(i)(2) Date Issued: June 18, 1992 File: BC92-169 Question: Would it be necessary to have vessel impact test plates made for welding procedures used on joints of Category C and D under the provisions of UG-84(i)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-11(b) Date Issued: June 18, 1992 File: BC92-171 Question: If spot radiography is specified for an entire vessel, is examination required for Category B or C butt welds when either of the limitations for NPS or wall thickness given in UW-11(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 is exceeded? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-4(b), UG-13, UCS-5(b), and UCS-11 Date Issued: June 18, 1992 File: BC92-173 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-4(b) and UCS-5(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to weld SA-194 Grade 7 nuts, with a 0.37% to 0.49% carbon content, to a pressure containing part where the nuts are being used as nonpressure attachments such as insulation supports? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-322 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition); UG-20(f) and UCS-67 Date Issued: January 9, 1991 File: BC90-683

Question: When material is exempted from impact testing by UG-20(f) of Section VIII, Division 1, must impact tests per UCS-67 be performed on the longitudinal welds of SA-53 ERW pipe in thicknesses up to and including 1 in.? Reply: Note: No. This Interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 29 of the Interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-99(a) and UG-100 Date Issued: July 9, 1992 File: BC92-220 Question: A vessel requires two circumferential vacuum stiffening rings, which due to shipping constraints cannot be welded to the vessel prior to performing a pneumatic test under the provisions of UG-100 of Section VIII, Division 1. Two circumferential bands located at the ring center lines are welded prior to the pneumatic test. The vessel is then tested and shipped to the field site. Is it permissible to weld the stiffening rings to the bands on the vessel and have a subsequent pneumatic test performed at 1.1 MAWP after which the Code Symbol Stamp would be affixed and witnessed by the Authorized Inspector? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-27(c)(1) Date Issued: August 10, 1992 File: BC92-240 Question: In determining the minimum required thickness for a seamless pipe under UG-27(c)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, is a joint efficiency of E = 1.0 the proper value to insert in Formula (1) when there is no welding performed on the pipe? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (k) Date Issued: September 1, 1992 File: BC92-248 Question(1): In Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (k) of Section VIII, Division 1, in determining the dimensional tolerance 1t min to 2 1/2t max, is the tolerance the distance from the edge of the abutting plate to the end of the offset? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When using the optional bevel in Fig UW-13.1 sketch (k), is the dimensional tolerance the distance from the root of the bevel to the end of the offset? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Table UHA-23, Note (8) Date Issued: September 1, 1992 File: BC92-249 Question: Table UHA-23 of Section VIII, Division 1 lists maximum allowable stress values at temperature. If the calculated stress above 1000 F is below the maximum stress value listed, do the requirements of Note (8) still apply? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Appendix AA Date Issued: September 23, 1992 File: BC92-170 Question (1): Noting that Appendix AA of Section VIII, Division 1 is nonmandatory, is it permissible to use other methods for the design of tubesheets, in accordance with U-2(g)? Reply (1): Question (2): AA be used? Reply (2): Yes. If Appendix AA is chosen to design tubesheets, then must all of provisions of Appendix Yes.

Question (3): When design rules are given in a Nonmandatory Appendix and alternative design rules are used, in accordance with U-2(g), must that be referenced under Remarks on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-4(b) and UW-5(b) Date Issued: September 23, 1992 File: BC92-216 Question: If nonpressure parts, such as clips and lugs, are cut out from weldable material (i.e. A 36, A 283, etc.), is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1 that the product marking be transferred to each piece? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Table UHA-23, Note (1) Date Issued: September 24, 1992 File: BC92-226 Question: When designing a flange per Appendix 2, using SA-240 plate material, does Note (1) to Table UHA-23 require the lower value for the allowable design stress at design temperature given in Table UHA-23 of Section VIII, Division 1 for the material be used?

Reply:

No

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-101(i) Date Issued: September 24, 1992 File: BC92-239 Question: UG-101(i) in Section VIII, Division 1 is used to determine the MAWP of vessels tested and completed under earlier Editions of the Code. When preparing Manufacturer's Data Reports for new vessels, where their designs were established by proof tests to Editions and Addendas prior to the 1991 Addenda, is it permissible to record under "Remarks" the MAWP and corrosion allowance calculated at the time of the tests? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-2(a) Date Issued: September 24, 1992 File: BC92-246 Question: A vessel is constructed of 316L SS and is designated for lethal service. One end closure is a carbon steel (SA-105) blind flange to which a 316L stainless steel liner covering the entire raisedface area has been attached by welding, Does the blind flange require PWHT as noted in UW-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: October 14, 1992 File: BC90-247 Question: Is there a requirement for Part UCS material conforming to SA-333 and SA-350 to be assigned to a curve in Fig. UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. The materials cited in the Question are required to be impact tested by their individual specifications; therefore, there is no need to assign them to a curve in Fig. UCS-66. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-94 (Void, see VIII-1-92-94R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-125 and M-8(b) Date Issued: October 16, 1992 File: BC92-116 Question (1): Are multiple or redundant pressure reducing valves and similar mechanical or electrical instruments either as part of a process control system or a protective safety system considered under the requirements of UG-125 in Section VIII, Division 1 sufficiently positive enough to prevent excess pressures from being developed. That is, may such reliable instrument systems be used in place of a safety relief device(s)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are multiple or redundant pressure reducing valves and similar mechanical or electrical instruments either as part of a process control system or a protective safety system considered under the requirements of UG-125 in Section VIII, Division 1 sufficiently positive enough to prevent excess pressures from being developed? That is, may such reliable instrument systems be used to reduce the required capacity of a safety relief device(s)? Reply (2): See Question (3) and Reply (3) of Interpretation VIII-1-83-29.

Question (3): Would the provision of process control or protective safety instruments which would reduce the number of relief devices discharging simultaneously be acceptable in meeting the guidelines of M-8(b) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-94R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Appendix M, M-8(b) Date Issued: April 3, 1996 File: BC92-116* Question: When sizing a common header per Appendix M, M-8(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, may the effects of process controls and other safety and operating systems, which do not reduce the relieving capacity of a safety device(s), be considered when determining which relieving devices may reasonably be expected to discharge simultaneously? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-14 Date Issued: October 19, 1992 File: BC87-296 Question: In accordance with UG-14 of Section VIII, Division 1, may shells of pressure vessels be machined from rod or bar material? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Use of Standard Couplings Date Issued: October 19, 1992 File: BC91-080 Question: May an internally threaded fitting which meets the requirements of UW-16(f) in Section VIII, Division 1, including all applicable UG-22 loadings, be used for Section VIII, Division 1 construction, whether or not it is in accordance with ANSI standards? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Table UW-12, Type No. 3 Date Issued: October 30, 1992 File: BC92-310

Question: Must the limitation requirements for Type No. (3) joints given in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1 be met to satisfy the provisions of the Table? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-116(c) and UCS-66(b) Date Issued: October 30, 1992 File: BC92-319 Question (1): May the requirements of UCS-66(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for a pressure vessel that is permanently mounted on a truck, trailer, or portable skid? The vessel is operated under pressure at a specific location for a period of several months and then moved to another location. The vessel is not pressurized during transportation. Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, does the provision of UG-116(b), in marking the vessel with the lettering NPV (nonstationary pressure vessel), apply to the vessel permanently mounted on a truck, trailer, or portable skid, when such a vessel is not pressurized during transportation to its operational site? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-135(b) Date Issued: October 30, 1992 File: BC92-321 Question: Do the requirements of UG-135(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 permit the installation of a check valve at the inlet of the PSV (between the vessel and its pressure relieving device)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda); Fine Grain Practice Date Issued: November 10, 1992 File: BC90-678 Question: 20? Reply: Is it the intent of the Code that "fine grain practice" be defined in accordance with SAYes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Appendix 17 Date Issued: November 10, 1992 File: BC92-010 Question: Is it the intent of the 1990 Addenda to the 1989 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 17, to permit the use of plasma arc welding with the thickness limits noted in Table 174.1, and

with the same controls as required for tungsten arc seam welding without the addition of filler metal per 17-1(b)(4)? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix 17, 17-1(a)(1) and (e) and Form U-1 Date Issued: November 23, 1992 File: BC92-345 Question: A plain plate is to be covered by a jacket fabricated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 17, 17-1(a)(1) and (e), of Section VIII, Division 1. Category A and B Type No. (1) weld will join the two. No radiography is to be performed, and only the jacketed surface will meet the requirements of the Code. Is it necessary to document, under Item 14 of Manufacturer's Data Report Form U-1, the joint efficiency for the inner chamber of the jacketed vessel when the provisions of UG-47 and UW-19(c) are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UHA-51(b)(5)(b) Date Issued: November 24, 1992 File: BC92-343 Question: Does the reference to "specific type base material" in UHA-51(b)(5)(b), Section VIII, Division 1 mean P-Number and Group Number as given in QW-403.5 of Section IX? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Table UCS-56, Notes (2)(a) and (2)(b) for P-No. 4 Material Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-290 Question: Tubes are welded to a tubesheet using partial penetration groove or fillet welds. For PNo. 4, Gr. Nos. 1 and 2 material, is postweld heat treatment required per UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, if the exemptions of Notes (2)(a) and (2)(b) are complied with? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-105 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition); UG-120(c) and AS-310(a) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-295 Question:Are Partial Data Reports, under the requirements of UG-120(c) and AS-310(a) in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, required in the case where seamless heads are formed, and where temporary lugs are welded to the heads, by a parts Manufacturer and supplied to the vessel Manufacturer? Reply: Yes.

Note:

This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-92-08.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-90, UG-96, and Appendices 10 and W Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-304 Question (1): Is the minimum required thickness value for heads, required as an entry on Manufacturer's Data Report Forms U-1, U-1A, U-2, and U-2A, the same value given in the vessel Manufacturer's purchase order to the head manufacturer? Reply (1): Form U-1. Minimum thickness ordered from head manufacturer may be greater than that shown on

Question (2): Does circled Note No. 28 of Table W-3 establish the requirement for verifying the minimum required head thickness after forming? Reply (2): No. See UG-90 and UG-96.

Question (3): Is it required that the methods used to verify design and fabrication criteria be included in the vessel Manufacturer's Quality Control System? Reply (3): Yes. See 10-1 and 10-15 of Appendix 10.

Question (4): Do the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 provide for the number of measurements, or locations where such measurements are taken, to satisfy provisions of UG-96? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): May the head manufacturer, acting on behalf of the vessel Manufacturer, verify and certify that the requirements of UG-81 and UG-96 have been met? Reply (5): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-12 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-317 Question: A vessel is constructed using a series of longitudinal single-welded butt joints and a closing longitudinal lap joint weld. The closing longitudinal lap is a single full fillet exterior weld without plug welds. Does this closing lap joint constitute a Category A, Type No. 6 weld under the requirements of Table UW-12 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-84(h)(3) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-334

Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-84(h)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, must the second set of impact specimens be taken as near as practical midway between the opposite surface and the center line of the test weld? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix EE Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-344 Question: A half-pipe jacket is welded to the outside of a vessel wall. The angle of intersection between the wall of the jacket and the shell is 90 deg. (similar to the upper sketch in Fig. EE-4 of Section VIII, Division 1). May this joint be considered a Category C weld joint? Reply: The Code does not categorize this type of construction; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-110 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition); UW-31(c) and AF-140.1 Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-349 Question: In complying with the requirements of UW-31(c) and AF-140.1 of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, are tack weld procedure specifications and procedure qualification tests required to include impact testing and PWHT even though such welds are removed completely? Reply: Note: No. This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-92-09.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-133(d) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-351 Question: UG-133(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 calls for overpressure protection of beat exchangers for the case of internal failure. Do the requirements of the Code address the condition of external fire for such an exchanger? Reply: Yes. See UG-125(c)(2) and UG-133(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-2(a), Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (e), and Fig. UW-16.1 Sketch (d) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-352 Question (1): Are Category C and D butt welds required to be fully radiographed when the vessel is to be stamped for lethal service?

Reply (1): Question (2): welds? Reply (2):

Yes, except for those Category C butt welds exempted under UW-11(a)(4). Are the welds shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (e) and Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (d) butt No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-118(b) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-355 Question: A 2:1 semiellipsoidal head is inserted partially through a cylindrical shell (less than a 1/4 in. thick). The portion of the shell outside the pressure boundary is used as a skirt. May the required marking of UG-116 in Section VIII, Division 1 be stamped directly on the skirt portion of the shell? Reply: Yes, see UG-119.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-2(c) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-376 Question: Is a 175 psi, 250 F hot water electric boiler, to be fabricated under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, exempted from the radiographic examination requirements in UW-2(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-99(f) Date Issued: December 11, 1992 File: BC92-389 Question: Are the requirements of UG-99(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for a single-wall vessel designed and stamped for internal pressure of 8.7 psi and full vacuum? Reply: The hydrostatic test in the vessel shall be the larger of that obtained by the rules of UG99(f) for external pressure, or UG-99(b) or (c) for internal pressure. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-37(d)(2) and Fig. 9-6 Date Issued: December 21, 1992 File: BC90-657 Question (1): Is there a conflict between the requirements in UG-37(d)(2) and 9-6(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 in so far as they pertain to reinforcement provisions? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does the Code address requirements for the situation where nozzle openings in a shell, as shown in Fig. 9-6 sketch (a), must be reinforced for external pressure due to pressure in the jacket chamber? Reply (2): Yes. See UG-37(d)(2).

Question (3): Does the Code address requirements for the situation where nozzle openings in a shell, as shown in Fig. 9-6 sketches (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), must be reinforced for external pressure due to pressure in the jacket chamber? Reply (3): No. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); UG-101 Date Issued: December 21, 1992 File: BC92-056 Question: May the MAWP of vessels of spiral wound construction be established by a proof test in accordance with UG-101 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. Rules for spiral wound layered vessels already exist in both ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Table W-3, Circled Note No. 53 Date Issued: December 21, 1992 File: BC92-104 Question: May impact testing exemptions as described in UCS-66(a), (c), and (d) of Section VIII, Division 1 be summarized under "Remarks" on the Data Report Form as "UCS-66" without adding the applicable subparagraph letters? Reply: No.

gbk Interpretation: VIII-1-89-323 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition); Appendix 2 Date Issued: February 12, 1990 File: BC90-192 Question: A hubless flange ring that has been cut from plate is to be fabricated per Fig. 2-4 sketch (8), and calculated as an optional integral type. Per General Note (b) of Fig 2-4, the loadings and dimensions not shown in sketch (8) are taken from Fig 2-4 sketch (7). When performing design calculations for this flange, is the dimension h to be taken as equal to the fillet leg parallel to the axis of the flange, and g, equal to the other fillet leg plus g.? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 27 of the Interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-37 and UG-40

Date Issued: File:

January 4, 1993 BC92-388

Question: May Interpretation VIII-81-28 be used in conjunction with the requirements of the 1992 Edition of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-11(c) Date Issued: January 4, 1993 File: BC92-405 Question: May an ANSI product standard, e.g., a blind flange, which has been modified by welding heating elements to it through drilled holes be furnished as a miscellaneous pressure part, i.e., Manufacturer's standard, if the requirements of UG-11(c)(1) through UG-11(c)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix 2, 2-9 Date Issued: January 12, 1993 File: BC92-299 Question: Are the requirements of 2-9 of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to the design of split flange assembled with a full-face spacer bar between them? Reply: Section VIII, Division 1 does not have rules for this type of construction.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Fig. UCS-66, General Notes Date Issued: February 3, 1993 File: BC92-406 Question: A Fig. UCS-66 Curve A material, SA-387 Grade 11 Class 2, is purchased normalized and to a fine grain practice. For impact test exemption requirements, the material falls under Curve B of Fig. UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 by virtue of General Note (b)(2) of Fig. UCS-66. May this material also fall under Curve C as outlined in General Note (c)(2) of Fig. UCS-66? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix W, Data Report Form U-1 Date Issued: February 10, 1993 File: BC92-454 Question: In the boxed table under item 6 of Form U-1 in Section VIII, Division 1, is the entry to be placed in the first column under "No." the numerical number assigned to the courses? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UCS-67(a) Date Issued: February 10, 1993 File: BC92-457 Question: The requirements of UCS-67(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 state that welds made with filler metal shall be impact tested when either base metal is required to be impact tested. May a WPS be used for such welds when the WPS has not been developed to include provisions for impact testing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Applied Coating Prior to Hydro Date Issued: February 10, 1993 File: BC92-458 Question: Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 1 which would limit the thickness of an external paint coating on a vessel at the time of hydrostatic test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-68 Date Issued: February 10, 1993 File: BC93-140 Question (1): May welded attachments to a shell with a MDMT colder than -50 F, and for which the rules in UCS-68 of Section VIII, Division 1 require postweld heat treatment, be attached by welding after the required postweld heat treatment? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When considering attachments by welding, does the "coincident ratio of design stress in tension to allowable tensile stress" as referenced in UCS-68 apply only to the attachment weld? Reply (2): No; see UCS-66(a)(3).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-127 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-80(a)(1) and UG-81(a) Date Issued: February 17, 1993 File: BC92-275 Question: UG-81(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 refers to deviation from specified shape. Are there any requirements for out-of-roundness limitations on a conical portion of a toriconical head if it is designed for internal pressure only? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. See UG-80(a)(1). VIII-1-92-128

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (d) and Appendix 2, 21(e)(2) February 17, 1993 BC92-383

Question: A small diameter separator has a flat head bolted to a reverse flange. The gasket is a full face compressible type. Is it permissible under the provisions of 2-1(e)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 to base the flange to shell joint on U-2(g), where the design of the joint would be made similar to that in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-84(g)(4) Date Issued: February 17, 1993 File: BC92-404 Question: Material is tested at a temperature given in Table A1.15 of SA-20, and this temperature is lower than the minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) of the vessel. Under the requirements of UG-84(g)(4) [previous to the 1991 Addenda noted as UG-84(g)(3)] in Section VIII, Division 1, do the weld procedure qualification impact tests have to be performed at a lower temperature than the minimum design metal temperature? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UW-16(f) Date Issued: February 17, 1993 File: BC92-459 Question: May a flanged nozzle, NPS 3 or less, fabricated from standard seamless or welded pipe, be considered a pipe fitting under the requirements of UW-16(f) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-131 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix 10, 10-15(d) Date Issued: February 17, 1993 File: BC93-029 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, 10-15(d), require that the Authorized Inspector to verify provisions within a Manufacturer's written procedure, which may exceed Code requirements, in particular with regard to safety activities which the Manufacturer may establish for his shop personnel in a pressure testing procedure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-132 (Void, see VIII-1-92-132R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition); Appendix M, M-5 and M-6 Date Issued: February 19, 1993 File: BC90-728

Question(1): Is a full port valve considered to be the equivalent of the full area stop valve mentioned in M-5 and M-6 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Yes. What is meant by a full port or full area valve?

Reply (2): A full port valve is defined as a valve whose minimum bore diameter is as specified in Annex A of ASME/ANSI B16.34-1988, Valves-Flanged, Threaded and Welding End. Annex A provides the inside diameter of valves and fittings as a function of their nominal pipe size and pressuretemperature rating class. Question (3): valve inlet? Reply (3): Does full area stop valve mean full area with respect to the nominal pipe size of the relief Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-132R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition); Appendix M, M-5 an M-6 Date Issued: December 15, 1994 File: BC90-728* Question (1): May a full port block valve be used as a full area stop valve as allowed in Appendix M, M-5 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, provided the full port block valve meets the requirements of UG-135(b).

Question (2): When a full area stop valve is installed between a pressure vessel and its pressure relieving device, as permitted in Appendix M, what does the term full area mean? Reply (2): It means that the minimum flow area through the stop valve must be equal to or greater than the flow area at the inlet of the pressure relief device, as required by UG-135(b). Question (3): Does a full or reduced port stop valve meet the requirements of UG-135(b) if the minimum cross-sectional area of the stop valve port is less than the cross-sectional area of the inlet to the pressure relief device? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): Is a reduced area stop valve acceptable if the cross-sectional area of the valve port is less than the cross-sectional area of the piping between the pressure vessel and the stop valve, but greater than the cross-sectional area of the inlet of the pressure relief device? Reply (4): Yes, if the system meets the requirements of UG-135(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-133 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UG-125 Date Issued: February 19, 1993 File: BC92-093 Question: Does a buckling pin emergency shutdown valve satisfy the requirements of UG-125 as an acceptable protective device for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessels?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-134 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: February 24, 1993 File: BC92-455 Question: For centrifically cast material, e.g., SA-216 Grade WCB fine grain and normalized, operating at a metal temperature of + 20F and warmer, may Curve D of Fig. UCS-66 be used to determine exemption from impact testing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UHA-51 Date Issued: February 24, 1993 File: BC92-456 Question: In using the requirements of UHA-51 in Section VIII, Division 1 for other than base materials, where the metal temperature is +20 F or warmer, may the requirements for impact testing be waived for those materials, including the welds? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-46(f)(2) Date Issued: March 9, 1993 File: BC93-031 Question: Would the requirements of UG-46(f)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 be met if a 36 in. ID vessel, operating in corrosive service, was provided with one NPS 3 and three NPS 1.5 threaded openings and no manhole, where the total area of all the openings would be equal to the required two NPS 2 threaded openings? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix 2, 2-8(a)(1)(a) Date Issued: March 17, 1993 File: BC93-041 Question: Is footnote CI:26 of Table 1A in Section II, Part D applicable in determining Sn as given in 2-8(a)(1)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Table UW-12 Date Issued: March 17, 1993 File: BC93-110

Questions: Under the limitation requirements for Type No. (3) joints given in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1, may the following be single welded and still be in compliance using only circumferential butt joints: (1) Weld a vessel that has a 3/8 in. thick wall and is 20 in. in diameter? (2) Weld a vessel that has a 3/8 in. thick wall and is 30 in. in diameter? Replies: (1) No. (2) No. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-139 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); U-1(g)(3) Date Issued: April 12, 1993 File: BC93-032 Question: Under the requirements of U-1(g)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, does the Scope require that a vessel be constructed to the Code when such a vessel is electrically heated and steam is generated in excess of 15 psi but not withdrawn for external use? Reply: Yes; however, see footnote 1 of page 1 of the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-101(m) Date Issued: April 12, 1993 File: BC93-052 Question (1): Are there any requirements in the Code which address what would constitute rupture as it pertains to the provisions of UG-101(m) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-101(a)(2).

Question (2): Does the leakage at gasketed joints due to localized yielding (flanges, etc.) constitute rupture of the vessel? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): If the Reply (2) is no, then can methods (such as using o-rings or welded plugs over openings) be employed at such areas to permit attaining higher hydrostatic pressure on the vessel walls? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-77(c) Date Issued: April 14, 1993 File: BC93-036 Question: Would the requirements of UG-77(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 be met if a self adhesive label containing all the proper marking information were used for each part? The removal of the label would require the willful destruction of the label. Reply: Yes, provided the Manufacturer's QA manual addresses this procedure.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-142 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 and UCS-67(b) Date Issued: May 11, 1993 File: BC93-104 Question(1): A heat exchanger is designed using SA-335 P11 normalized material for the shell and SA-234 WP11 fully annealed material for the head. In determining whether impact testing is required, would Curve C in Fig. UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 be the proper location for the material noted? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. See General Note (b)(3) of Fig. UCS-66. Are the requirements of UCS-67(b) applicable for the conditions stated in Question (1)? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-19(a)(1) Date Issued: May 12, 1993 File: BC93-105 Question: May the ends of the portion of welded staybolts that extend into 45 deg beveled holes in stayed plates be beveled to approximately 20 deg, where the diameter d used in design calculations is taken to be no more than the smallest diameter of the staybolt where welded to the stay plate, and meet the intent of UW-19(a)(1)? Reply: Yes. Also see Fig. UW-19.1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66, General Notes Date Issued: May 12, 1993 File: BC93-349 Question: For determining impact test exemption criteria under the General Notes of Fig. UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1, would SA-106 Grade B pipe be assigned to Curve B? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-116(h) Date Issued: May 19, 1993 File: BC93-113 Question: A welded pressure part requiring compliance to UG-120(c) is constructed. Does UG116(h) in Section VIII, Division 1 require all of the marking criteria shown in Fig. UG-118 in addition to the requirement given in UG-116(g)(1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); U-2(g) Date Issued: May 19, 1993 File: BC93-373 Question: In the use of U-2(g) provisions in Section VIII, Division 1, would it be permissible to use finite element analysis for designs not specifically covered by the rules of the Code? Reply: The rules of the Code do not prohibit the use of any design method in complying with the requirements of U-2(g) as long as the method is agreed upon by the Manufacturer, user, and Authorized Inspector. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-147 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-56 and UCS-57 Date Issued: May 19, 1993 File: BC93-418 Question: Carbon steel stiffener rings are welded to the shell of a horizontal pressure vessel supported by saddles. Are the ring splice welds required to be postweld heat treated and radiographed under the provisions of UCS-56 and UCS-57, respectively, in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-120(a) and (c) Date Issued: May 19, 1993 File: BC93-421 Question (1): Under the requirements of UG-120(a) and UG-120(c), must a Manufacturer who chooses to register a pressure vessel, constructed under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors also supply, in addition to the Manufacturer's Data Report Form, any Partial Data Report Forms when they are provided for parts used in the construction of the completed pressure vessel? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the Reply (1) is yes, must the Partial Data Report Forms accompany the Manufacturer's Data Report Form, when the parts are registered with the National Board and all required information on the Partial Data Report Forms is indicated on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form for the completed vessel? Reply (2): Yes. See UG-120(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-9 and UG-10 Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: BC93-111 Question(1): Do materials that are manufactured to an ASTM specification and are stated in the material specification in Section II, Parts A and B to be identical, and which have been adopted by Section VIII, Division 1, require recertification under the rules of UG-10?

Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Do materials that are manufactured to an ASTM specification and for which a companion ASME specification has not been adopted by Section VIII, Division 1, require recertification under the rules of UG-10? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): May welding materials conforming to an AWS specification, but not an SFA specification, be used in Section VIII, Division 1 construction, as given in UG-9, without recertification under UG-10? Reply (3): Yes, provided the provisions of the welding procedure specification are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-133(c) Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: ' BC93-112 Question: Is it a requirement of UG-133(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 that no valve(s) can be located in the piping between interconnected pressure vessels, even though means would exist to prevent the valve(s) from being closed? Reply: No. See M-5(b) for guidance.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-151 (Void, see VIII-1-92-151R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-35(d) Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: BC93-114 Question(1): Do head attachments per sketch (k) of Fig. UW-13.1 in Section VIII, Division 1 have to meet the maximum reinforcement requirements of UW-35(d)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible to use the maximum reinforcement values for circumferential joints given in UW-35(d) even when the shell of the vessel is made from rolled sheet steel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation, VIII-1-92-151R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-35(d) Date Issued: May 16, 1996 File: BC93-114* Question (1): Do head attachments per sketch (k) of Fig. UW-13.1 in Section VIII, Division 1 have to meet the maximum reinforcement requirements of UW-35(d)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible to exceed the maximum reinforcement values for circumferential joints given in UW-35(d) when the shell of the vessel is made from rolled sheet steel?

Reply (2):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-136(b)(3), UCS-10, and UCS-12(b) Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: BC93-138 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-136(b)(3), UCS-10, and UCS-12(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use SA-194 416 type nuts as bar material for use in valve body construction? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-153 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-11 and UCS-56 Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: BC93-358 Question: When postweld heat treatment is required for P-No. 5 material (5Cr-1/2 Mo) as per UCS56 of Section VIII, Division 1, is the welding process considered complete before postweld heat treatment? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-36(c)(3)(a), (3)(b), and (3) (c) Date Issued: May 20, 1993 File: BC93-359 Question (1): If any two openings in a vessel are spaced less than two times their average diameter, as given in UG-36(c)(3)(c), and one of the openings falls under the provisions of UG-36(c)(3)(a) or UG-6(c) (3)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, do the requirements of UG-42 apply? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes, except for UG-36(c)(3)(d). Given the specifics of Question (1), do the requirements of UG-37 apply? Yes, except for UG-36(c)(3)(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-155 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); Appendix 13, Fig. 13-2(a) Sketches (7), (8), (9), and (10) and Equations in 13-9 Date Issued: May 25, 1993 File: BC92-103 Question: In Fig. 13-2(a), sketches (7), (8), (9), and (10) of Section VIII, Division 1 and in the equations in 13-9, may the h dimension be greater than, equal to, or less than the H dimension? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-32(d) and UG-81(a) Date Issued: May 26, 1993 File: BC92-419 Question: For a 2:1 ellipsoidal head approximated by fabricating with a spherical radius of 0.9D and a knuckle of 0.17D, may the knuckle radius be less than that specified? Reply: No, see UG-81(a)

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-66 Date Issued: June 21, 1993 File: BC93-439 Question: May standard long weld neck flanges, which comply with the design and rating requirements of ANSI B16.5, for SA-350 LF2 material (fine grain practice and normalized) be assigned to Curve C of Fig. UCS-66? Reply: SA-350 LF2 allows the material to be used down to -50F. Thus, the Curves of Fig. UCS-66 are not applicable. See General Note (c) of Fig. UG-84.1. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Table UW-12, Type No. 1 Joints Date Issued: June 21, 1993 File: BC93-460 Question: Would welding the root pass with GTAW and using a consumable insert meet the requirements of the Joint Description for Type No. 1 joints in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided that the requirements of UW-35 are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-159 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-116(e) Date Issued: July 7, 1993 File: BC93-481 Question (1): A welded pressure vessel is fabricated with Type No. 1 joints, and the requirements of UW-11(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) are not applicable. The Category A and D butt welds are fully radiographed. There are no Category C welds. If the Category B welds are spot radiographed per the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b), would the required marking on the nameplate, outlined in UG-116(e) of Section VIII, Division 1, be "RT2"? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the vessel give (given) in Question (1), if Category B welds are not radiographed, would the required marking be "RT4"? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-32(l) and UW-13(b)(4) Date Issued: August 5, 1993 File: BC93-486 Question: A skirt is provided for a formed head as permitted under the requirements of UG-32(l) in Section VIII, Division 1. May an offset, as permitted by UW-13(b)(4), occur at the tangent line, and the head thickness in the final construction be the minimum as required by UG-32 in the formed part of the ellipsoidal or torispherical head? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-161 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-39(b) Date Issued: August 26, 1993 File: BC93-513 Question: Does UW-39(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, preclude the use of sand blasting for cleaning the surface of vessels or vessel parts? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-162 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-116(e)(2) Date Issued: September 15, 1993 File: BC93-510 Question: In constructing a vessel using a seamless shell and ellipsoidal heads where the spot radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) have been applied, would it be acceptable to mark the nameplate with either the "RT-2" or "RT-4" designation? Reply: No. The requirements of UG-116(e)(2) are applicable, and the designation "RT-2" shall be marked on the nameplate. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-163 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-98(a) and (b) Date Issued: September 15, 1993 File: BC93-540 Question: A pressure vessel is designed for internal and external pressure. Do the provisions of UG-98 in Section VIII, Division 1, require only the internal pressure be stamped on the nameplate for the MAWP? Reply: No. Both internal and external pressures must be stamped.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-164 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); U-1(c)(3) Date Issued: September 21, 1993 File: BC93-503

Question: Are filter presses, rated for MAWP's greater than 15 psi, which consist of a multiplicity of gasketed filter elements secured by mechanical or other means between a fixed and a movable cover, within scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-165 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-35(a) and Table UW-12 Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-397 Question: A Type No. 1 butt joint as described in UW-12(c) and listed in Table UW-12, Column C, is visually examined only without any radiographic examination. Does the weld comply with UW35(a) of Section III, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-166 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Reference to Dual Marked Material in Manufacturer's Data Report Forms Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-399 Question(1): May a dual stenciled material (e.g., SA-240 304/304L) be listed as SA-240 304, SA-240 304L, or SA-240 304/304L in the Manufacturer's Data Report Forms when using only one set of design allowables for the particular Grade designation? Reply (1): tables. No, the material shall be listed as the material grade chosen from the allowable stress

Question (2): If the dual stenciled material is listed as SA-240 304, may the "Remarks" section of the Manufacturer's Data Report Form contain the phrase " The shelf and bottom head material meet all the requirements of SA-240 304 and SA-240 304L"? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-167 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-26(d) Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-411 Question(1): May welding be performed at a contractor's location if all the requirements of UW-26(d) in Section VIII, Division 1, are addressed in the ASME Certificate Holder's Quality Control Manual and are met? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is "Yes," does the ASME Certificate Holder's Certificate of Authorization need to be extended to the field site? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-168 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-8 Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-448 Question: Under the provisions of UG-8 in Section VIII, Division 1, may SA-312 pipe material be used in Code construction when such pipe was weld repaired with filler metal by the material supplier in accordance with the requirements of the material specification? Reply: Yes, this is permitted by the material specification.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-169 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Appendix 4 Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-485 Question: Are rounded indications (porosity) that do not extend through the wall and do not exceed the maximum permissible size in Appendix 4 of Section VIII, Division 1 acceptable without further work? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-170 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-16(e)(2) and Fig. UW-16.1 Sketch (w) Date Issued: September 29, 1993 File: BC93-489 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UW-16(e)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 to allow the nozzle attachment weld similar to that shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (w) to be on the outside, if the same limits on the size of the fillet and gap G are maintained? Reply: The provisions of the Code would not prohibit such an attachment.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-171 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UNF-58(a) and (b) Date Issued: October 7, 1993 File: BC92-453 Question: Are laser welded lap welds as permitted by Code Case 2018-1 required to follow UNF58(a) and (b) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-172 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-4(b) and UW-4(b) Date Issued: October 8, 1993 File: BC92-460

Question: If material is identified, received, and accepted as an ASME recognized material, is it acceptable to mark temporary and nonpressure attachments fabricated from this material with only the ASME Section IX assigned P-Number? Reply: System. Yes, provided this method of identification is described in the approved Quality Control

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-173 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-67(a) Date Issued: October 20, 1993 File: BC93-591 Question: A vessel is exempted from impact testing by UG-20(f) and/or UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1, and its MDMT is -20F; may a flux/wire combination, impact rated at 0F by its manufacturer, be used in the construction of the vessel? Reply: Yes. See UCS-67(e)(1).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-174 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-35(d) Date Issued: October 20, 1993 File: BC93-604 Question: Do the reinforcement requirements of UW-35(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to weld joints other than longitudinal and circumferencial butt joints, e.g., fillet welds of nozzles and couplings? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-175 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-84 and ]Part UCL Date Issued: October 20, 1993 File: BC93-638 Question(1): Are there any requirements in Part UCL of Section VIII, Division 1, for impact testing when qualifying a welding procedure for applying corrosion resistant weld metal overlay? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any requirements in UG-84 of Section VIII, Division 1, for production impact test plates when corrosion resistant weld metal overlay is used in fabrication of a pressure vessel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-176 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-40(f)(6) and Table UCS-56 Date Issued: October 20, 1993 File: BC93-641

Question(1): Is it acceptable under the requirements of UW-40(f)(6) and Note (2)(a) of P-No. 1 in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, to perform no preheat or PWHT on repair welds up to 1 1/4 in. thick, irrespective of the thickness of the parent material? Reply (1): Yes, unless PWHT is required by Note (3).

Question (2): Is it acceptable under the requirements of UW-40(f)(6) and Note (2)(a) of P-No. 1 in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, to perform no PWHT on repair welds over 1 1/4 through 1 1/2 in. thick, irrespective of the thickness of the parent material, if a preheat of 200 F is employed? Reply (2): Yes, unless PWHT is required by Note (3).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-177 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-136(b)(2) Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File: BC93-583A Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-136(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, is the application of corrosion resistant coating by the Manufacturer to springs considered "part modification"? Reply: No, provided the coating application is part of the valve certification.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-178 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-16(b) Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File: BC93-588 Question: Does the term tmin as shown in Fig. UW-16.1, and as described in the nomenclature of UW-16(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, satisfy all Code design and fabrication requirements? Reply: No, tmin as used in Fig. UW-16.1 addresses fabrication requirements only.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-179 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-91, UG-120(a), AI102(b)(12), and AI-110 Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File: BC93-590 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-120(a) and AI-102(b)(12) in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, for an inspector, who is employed by other than the Authorized Inspection Agency of record, to sign Manufacturer's Data Report Forms if his inspection activities have been defined in the Certificate Holder's Quality Control Manual, and he has verified himself that all applicable Code requirements have been complied with? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-92-14

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-180 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-6 Date Issued: November 23, 1993

File:

BC93-627

Question: Are forgings, fabricated under SA-266, permitted for nozzle flanges and standard piping components under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Division 1. Yes, however, note that piping components are not covered by the Scope of Section VIII,

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-181 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-84(i)(1) and AT203(b) Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File: BC93-629 Question: Would a vessel test plate meet the requirements of being welded "...immediately prior to the start of production welding..." as required in UG-84(i)(1) and AT-203(b) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively, if the test plate were welded only sufficiently in advance to allow for prompt heat treatment and impact testing to be completed prior to the start of production welding? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 2 as VIII-2-92-15

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-182 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Table UCS-56, Note (3)(b) of PNo. 1 Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File: BC93-647 Question: When a full penetration groove and fillet weld is used in combination, is the exemption requirement of Note (3)(b) for P-No. 1 material in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, applicable to the thickness of the combined welds? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-183 (Void, see VIII-1-92-183R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Table UCS-56, Note (2)(a) of PNo. 4 Material Date Issued: November 23, 1993 File,. BC93-648 Question: Is PWHT a necessity under Note (2)(a) for P-No. 4 material in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, for a tube-to-tubesheet weld when the tube material is SA-213 Gr. T11 and the tubesheet material is nonferrous, e.g., Inconel? Reply: Note: Interpretation: No, see UNF-56(a). A revised Interpretation follows. VIII-1-92-183R

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Table UCS-56, Note (2) (a)of PNo. 4 Material March 8, 1994 BC93-648*

Question: Is PWHT a necessity under Note (2) (a) for P-No. 4 material in Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1, for a tube-to-tubesheet weld when the tube material is SA-213 Gr. T11 and the tubesheet material is nonferrous, e.g., Inconel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-184 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-22 Date Issued: November 24, 1993 File-. BC93-621 Question: Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1, when using the provisions of UG-22 to include stresses from vessel supports, or self-relieving secondary stresses, in determining the coincident design conditions for a vessel? Reply: UG-22 lists those loadings which shall be considered. The Code does not give the method of analysis nor the allowable stresses in many cases. This responsibility is described in U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-92-185 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Figs. UW-13.2 and 9-5 Date Issued: November 29, 1993 File: BC93-650 Question: Is it permissible to use the value of the required thickness for the dimensions and calculations shown in Figs. UW-13.2 and 9-5 of Section VIII, Division 1, instead of the actual thickness, as required by the Code? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-186 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-66 Date Issued: November 29, 1993 File: BC93-652 Question: Would it be required under UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1 to re-impact test material that requires a -10 F MDMT when it has been tested and accepted for a -40F MDMT? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-187 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-20(f) and UCS-67(c) Date Issued: December 8, 1993 File: BC93-683 Question: A pressure vessel shell is made from electric resistance welded pipe material listed for Curve B in Fig. UCS-66. It has a thickness over 1/2 in. but under 1 in. and the impact test exemption of

UG-84(g)(3) does not apply. If all the requirements of UG-20(f) are met, must the vessel Manufacturer perform impact testing of the electric resistance welded longitudinal seam weld in accordance with UCS67(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, when no impact testing was performed by the material manufacturer and an MDMT of -20 F is desired? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-188 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-125(a) and UG-126 Date Issued: December 15, 1993 File: BC92-207 Question(1): Does Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125(a) and UG-126 prohibit the use of reverse acting pilot operated safety/relief valves (i.e., system pressure to close, spring force to open) for overpressure protection? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does the use of an external power source in conjunction with a pilot operated pressure relief valve comply with Section VIII, Division 1, UG-126(b) when this power source has no influence on the main valve's ability to open fully at the set pressure? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-189 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); UG-93(a)(1) Date Issued: December 15, 1993 File: BC93-034 Question: Does UG-93(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, allow the transmittal of a transcribed copy of the material test report to the vessel Manufacturer with each "just in time" delivery of materials from a warehouse/storage facility who is in partnership with the Manufacturer, where control and retention of the MTR's has been delegated to the facility by the Manufacturer? Reply: No; see Interpretation VIII-78-104.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-190 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-119(c) Date Issued: January 7, 1994 File: BC93-145 Question: Is it the intent of UG-119(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 to require that serial numbers be applied on a nameplate only by stamping? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-191 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(1) Date Issued: January 7, 1994 File: BC93-741

Question: Does the word "...either..." in 17-7(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 imply that the representative panel could be less than 24 in. in one direction if it is at least 5 pitches in both directions? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-192 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-15 and UW-16(f)(5) Date Issued: January 20, 1994 File: BC93-717 Question: Are fillet weld strength calculations, as mandated in UW-15, required if the provisions of UW-16(f)(5) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-193 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-78 Date Issued: January 20, 1994 File: BC94-012 Question: Material specification SB-409 in Section II, Part B tinder subpara. 9.1 does not address weld repairs. Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-78 in Section VIII, Division 1 to weld repair injurious imperfections in SB-409 plate material prior to using the plate in the construction of a pressure vessel even though the material specification does not specifically address such repair? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-194 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-2(a)(1)(b) Date Issued: February 17, 1994 File: BC93-684 Question (1): A heat exchanger consisting of rectangular header boxes is designed in accordance with Appendix 13 of Section VIII, Division 1. Each header has full penetration angle joints located at the four corners. The end plates are attached by a single sided full penetration angle joint. Do these types of joints meet the requirements of UW-2(a)(1)(b) for lethal service when interpretable radiographs can be produced for the full length of the welds? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do these types of joints satisfy UW-2(a)(1)(b) if interpretable radiographs cannot be obtained, but ultrasonic examination is performed for the full length of the welds? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-195 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-34 Date Issued: February 18, 1994 File: BC93-670

Question: When calculating the required thickness of seamless flat heads attached by corner joint welds, or by bolting, using the provisions of UG-34 in Section VIII, Division 1, is the proper value of E, 0.85? Reply: No. See definition of E in UG-34(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-196 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-101(j) Date Issued: February 18, 1994 File: BC93-734 Question: A dimpled jacket is fabricated in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 17-1(c) and UW-19(c)(2) using SA-240 material, and is required to be proof tested according to UG-101(m). SA-240 does not specify maximum tensile strength. In UG-101(j)(2) is it permissible to use the average of the tensile strength values provided in the material test reports as the value S avg, when calculating the maximum allowable working pressure according to the alternative equation in UG101(m)(2)(a)? Reply: No. See UG-101(j)(2) and UG-101(j)(3).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-197 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-4(b) and UG-25(f) Date Issued: February 22, 1994 File: BC93-716 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-25(f) in Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to introduce a bevel at the lower end of the pipe to increase flow, if the lowest point of beveled end meets the 1/4 in. maximum distance? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-198 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); U-2(g) and UG-29(b) Date Issued: February 25, 1994 File: BC92-219 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide rules for the design of a stiffener ring around the inside circumference of a cylinder when the stiffener is interrupted by a nozzle opening? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-199 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Appendix W, Table W-3, Note 27 Date Issued: March 1, 1994 File: BC93-446 Question(1): A parts manufacturer orders plate from a material manufacturer in the as-rolled condition. Normalizing of the plate is a customer requirement. The plate is received with the "G" marking, as permitted by SA-20. The parts manufacturer hot forms the plate into a cylinder at the normalization temperature, observing the required cooling time and rate. Once cooled the longitudinal

scam is welded and the cylinder is inspected and Part stamped. Are there additional marking and certification requirements for the plate under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Form? Reply (2): Yes, see UG-85 and UG-93(b). Is the normalizing required to be documented on a Manufacturers Partial Data Report No, see UG-85 and UG-93(b).

Question (3): If the plate had been rolled, welded, and then normalized, would the time and temperature data be required to be recorded on the Manufacturer's Partial Data Report Form? Reply (3): No, see Reply (2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-200 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-134(c)(4) Date Issued: March 1, 1994 File: BC93-501A Question: May an assembler for Section VIII, Division 1 pressure relief valves, prior to assembly in a new valve, coat or contract to have coated a valve spring with a specified/required corrosion resistant coating? Reply: No, unless approval is obtained from the original safety valve manufacturer for the specific coating and method of application. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-201 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-20(f) and Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: March 4, 1994 File: BC94-044 Question: May pressure vessel materials be exempted from impact testing if all of the requirements of UG-20(f) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met, even though impact testing would be required under the provisions of Fig. UCS-66? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-202 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Appendix W, Table W-3, Note 20 Date Issued: March 16, 1994 File: BC94-036 Question: May data entered on Manufacturer's Data Report Form U-1 on lines covered by Note 20 of Table W-3 in Section VIII, Division 1 substitute, if available, Alloy designation/UNS number and Class/Condition/Temper when Type/Grade is not given for the material in Section II, Part D, Tables IA and 1B? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-203 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), UG-117(e) and Appendix 10; Section I, PG-105.4 and A-300; and Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), AS-204 and Appendix 18 Date Issued: April 11, 1994 File: BC94-059 Question: May a Code-accepted Quality Control Manual be revised to restructure the format to be compatible with ISO 9000 as well as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as 1-92-91 and as VIII-2-92-16.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-204 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-50, UG-99, and UG-100 Date Issued: April 13, 1994 File: BC93-765 Question(1): Is it permissible under the provisions of UG-99 in Section VIII, Division 1 when pressurizing a vessel for hydrostatic testing to use an air line from an air compressor? Reply (1): Implementation of Code rules is the responsibility of the vessel Manufacturer and shall be outlined in his Quality Control System. Question (2): Are there provisions in Section VIII, Division 1 for allowing a combined hydrostatic and pneumatic test? Reply (2): Question (3): test? Reply (3): Yes, see footnote 33 of UG-100. Would the requirements of UW-50 also apply to a combined hydrostatic and pneumatic Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-205 (Void, see VIII-1-92-205R) Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-15 Date Issued: April 13, 1994 File: BC93-775 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UW-15 in Section VIII, Division 1 to seal weld a plate to the exterior of a pressure boundary, where the plate is not attached for strength or reinforcement, and not verify the pressure integrity of the weld? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-205R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-15 Date Issued: January 11, 1995 File: BC93-775* Question: Do the requirements of UW-15 in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to a plate welded to the exterior of a pressure boundary, when the plate is not attached for strength or reinforcement?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-206 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-84(i)(1) Date Issued: April 13, 1994 File: BC94-072 Question (1): A UCS material which is nonexempted from impact testing is welded to a UCS material which is exempted from impact testing, forming a Category B butt joint and where both materials are of the same P-Number and Group Number. Under the requirements of UG-84(i)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, may the vessel (production) impact test plate be made from the same heat of material as the nonexempted material alone? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May the vessel (production) impact test plate be made from the same heat of material as the exempted material alone? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May the vessel (production) impact test plate be made from a combination of both heats of the materials? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-207 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-6(b)(3) Date Issued: April 13, 1994 File: BC94-108 Question (1): Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Do the requirements of UCS-6(b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to flat covers? Yes. Do the attachments shown in Fig. UW-16.1 constitute strength welds? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-208 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Scope Date Issued: April 27, 1994 File: BC94-114 Question (1): Are threaded plugs used in a rectangular air cooled heat exchanger considered to be within the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Would such plugs be required to be constructed of ASME approved material? Yes.

Question (3): Reply (3):

May such plugs be used in all pressure ranges? Yes, provided the plug is adequate for the given pressure.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-209 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix 24, 24-1(f) Date Issued: April 27, 1994 File: BC94-134 Question: A two piece clamp is used to retain a pressure cover. There are no additional retaining devices. Is it permissible under the requirements of Appendix 24 in Section VIII, Division 1 to use only one bolt and nut on each side of the two piece clamp? Reply: No. See 24-1(f).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-210 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (f) and Appendix 9, Fig. 9-5 Sketch [i-1(b)] Date Issued: April 27, 1994 File: BC94-137 Question: May the closure detail shown in Fig. 9-5 sketch [i-1(b)] of Section VIII, Division 1 be used as a substitute for attaching an intermediate head as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-211 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-2(a) and Fig. UW-13.2 Date Issued: April 27, 1994 File: BC94-180 Question: May any of the attachment details shown in Fig. UW-13.2 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for lethal service? Reply: No, see UW-2(a)(1)(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-212 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-115(b) and UG-129(a) Date Issued: April 27, 1994 File: BC94-190 Question: May a relief valve manufacturer supply UV Code stamped valves with nameplates that have the required units given only in metric values? Reply: Yes, but only under the provisions of Code Case 2116.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-213 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UF-31(b)(1)(a) and Appendix 6, 6-4 Date Issued: May 20, 1994

File:

BC94-003

Question: When performing magnetic particle examination as required by UF-31(b)(1)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 on vessels fabricated from SA-372 forging material to be quenched and tempered, shall the acceptance standards for evaluation be that of 6-4 of Appendix 6? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-214 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-31(c) Date Issued: May 20, 1994 File: BC94-179 Question: Forming operations on heads and shells for a pressure vessel are performed by a subcontractor who is not a certificate holder. He tack welds temporary attachments (i.e., fit up bars and lifting/handling lugs) in these operations under the provisions of UW-31(c) in Section VIII, Division 1. Is it a requirement of the Code that the fit up bars and lugs be identified? Reply: Yes, but Only as specified in the WPS and PQR in accordance with UW-5.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-215 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-1(g)(1) Date Issued: May 23, 1994 File: BC94-050 Question: May an evaporator, required to be constructed to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 by U-1(g)(1), be exempted by the provisions of U-1(c)(8) when it has a maximum allowable working pressure between 0-14 psig? Reply: jurisdiction. Yes, unless construction in accordance with the Code is required by the user or local

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-216 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-16(b)(4) and (c) Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC93-718 Question: An air tank is constructed to the minimum required thickness of 3/32, in. as given in UG16(b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1; may a formed head with a 6% undertolerance, as described in UG16(c), be used in the construction? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-217 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Appendix 9, Fig. 9-5 Sketch (d1) Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC93-764

Question: Is it permissible to attach a closure bar between a jacket and the inner shell of a vessel as shown in Fig. 9-5 sketch (d-1) of Section VIII, Division 1, except that the closure bar would not have the second inside fillet weld attaching the bar to the shell? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-218 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC93-777A Question: What process is required for SA-414 Grades B through G to be assigned to Curve B of Fig. UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: See General Note (b)(2) of Fig. UCS-66.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-219 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 and UCS-67(d) Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC94-073 Question: A hubbed-type weld neck body flange of 1 in., made of SA-350 LF2 material, is butt welded to a 1 in. thick cylinder, made of SA-516 Grade 70 normalized material. The MDMT is 40 F, and no exemption to impact testing can be taken under UG-20(f). Is the SA-350 LF2 material exempted from impact testing under the requirements of Fig. UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: SA-350 LF2 is required to be impact tested in accordance with the material specification. See also General Note (c), Fig. UG-84.1. Interpretation: VIII-1-92-220 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix 2 Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC94-109 Question(1): Is it permissible under the requirements of Appendix 2 in Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate a flange by rolling a plate strip and welding the ends, with a full penetration double butt weld, if the requirements under UCS-79, UCS-56, UCS-57, and 2-2 are met? Reply (1): Question (2): (1)? Reply 2: Yes. Is it permissible to locate a bolt hole in the weld of the flange, as described in Question Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-221 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-84(h)(2)(b) Date Issued: May 24, 1994 File: BC94-110

Question (1): A procedure qualification test plate has been welded using base material in the normalized condition, and meets the requirements of UG-84. Under the requirements of UG-84(h)(2)(b) is this PQR also applicable for a vessel production weld joining normalized material to quenched and tempered material? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is "no," then is it permitted to weld an additional procedure qualification test plate using quenched and tempered material for testing impact toughness of the heat affected zone only? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-222 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); Use of Joint Factor E in Appendix 13, 13-4(b) Date Issued: May 25, 1994 File: BC93-512 Question: In vessels with square corners constructed as shown in Fig, 13-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 with weld joints at the corners and at the stay plate (if applicable) in which the weld configuration meets the requirements of the configurations shown in Fig. UW-13.2 for corner joints, and there are no ligaments or any other weld joints of the types listed in Table UW-12 in the vessel, and the end plates are designed to meet the requirements of UG-34, may a value of E = 1.0 be used to establish the allowable stresses for the vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-92-223 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-126(b) Date Issued: June 27, 1994 File: BC94-230 Question: Is it permissible to exclude a pilot valve malfunction, the result of adhesion between the disc and the nozzle, when considering failure of some essential part of the pilot under the requirements of UG-126(b) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-45(c) Date Issued: July 7, 1994 File: BC94-217 Question: UG-45(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 limits the maximum allowable shear stress for nozzle necks to 70% of the allowable tensile stress. Does this limitation on shear stress also apply to design details other than nozzle necks? Reply: No. Where not specifically addressed in a Code paragraph, shear stress allowables are defined in Note (b) to Table IA of Section II, Part D.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-1(d) Date Issued: July 7, 1994 File: BC94-281 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of U-1(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use formulas from Section VIII, Division 2 and allowable stresses from Section II, Part D (designated for Division 2 use) when designing a vessel above 3000 psi? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-6(b) Date Issued: July 7, 1994 File: BC94-286 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UCS-6(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use SA-36 plate material in thicknesses over 5/8 in. in the construction of welded covers, similar to that shown in Fig. UG-34 sketch (g)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-3(a)(3) and Fig. UW-13.3 Sketch (a) Date Issued: July 7, 1994 File: BC94-287 Question: Is a butt weld made between a tubesheet with a hub and the main shell of a vessel similar to the one shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (a) of Section VIII, Division 1, classified under UW-3(a)(3) as a Category C joint? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-90(c)(1) Date Issued: July 7, 1994 File: BC94-288 Question: Under the provisions of UG-90(c)(1), is an Authorized Inspector required to make all inspections, other than those specifically required of him to certify that the vessel may be stamped with the U Code Symbol Stamp, before he can certify that a vessel has been designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-84(h)(2)(a) Date Issued: July 22, 1994 File: BC94-292

Question: A procedure qualification test plate consisting of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 material welded to P-No. 1 Group No. 2 material meets the impact toughness criteria for the weld and heat affected zones under UG-84(h)(2)(a). Can this test plate support the production welding of P-No. I Group No. I to PNo. 1 Group No. 1, P-No. 1 Group No. 2 to P-No. 1 Group No. 2, and P-No. 1 Group No. 1 to P-No. 1 Group No. 2 materials, assuming all other applicable requirements of the Code have been met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-33(a)(1) and Appendix 1, Fig. 1-6 Sketch (d) Date Issued: August 1, 1994 File: BC94-191 Question: In a spherically-dished cover as shown in Fig. 1-6 Sketch (d) of Section VIII, Division 1 which is under external pressure (pressure on convex side), is it required to increase the design pressure by 1.67 as given in UG-33(a)(1) before making the required thickness calculation? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 Sketches (b) and (c) Date Issued: August 9, 1994 File: BC94-221 Question: Can Category C welds shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (b) and (c) of Section VIII, Division 1 be used in lethal service if Code Case 2023 is used along with the requirements of UG-93(d) (3) and the welded joint is ultrasonically examined in addition to being fully radiographed? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-2(g) and UG-19(b) and (c) Date Issued: August 22, 1994 File: BC94-474 Question: May a toriconical head whose knuckle radius is less than 6% but greater than 0% of the skirt diameter and an angle a equal to or less than 60 deg. be used in Section VIII, Division 1 construction? Reply: Yes, see U-2(g) and UG-19(b) and (c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-53 and Appendix 13, 13-6 Date Issued: September 9, 1994 File: BC94-291 Question: May the rules in 13-6 of Appendix 13 or the rules of UG-53 injection VIII, Division 1 be used to calculate the ligament efficiency of multidiameter holes in cylindrical headers?

Reply:

No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-99(j) Date Issued: September 23, 1994 File: BC94-564 Question: UG-99(j) requires the hydrostatic test equipment to be examined for tightness prior to the application of test pressure. Does the Code require the Authorized Inspector to perform the examinations required by this paragraph? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-120(c) Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-056 Question: Is a pressure parts Manufacturer who fully assembles a pressure vessel and ships it to Manufacturer who will: (1) complete the pressure vessel by finish machining, (2) stamp the vessel with the UM Code Symbol Stamp, and (3) complete and sign the Form U-3 required to supply a Manufacturer's Partial Data Report Form U-2 or U-2A, as provided for in UG-120(c) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, if parts inspection is required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-28 and UG-29 Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-131 Question: A cylindrical vessel has a continuous spiral half-pipe jacket extending around the vessel shell, which is attached by welding. May credit be taken, in complying with the requirements under UG28 and UG-29 of Section VIII, Division 1, for this arrangement in regards to stiffening for vessels in vacuum or negative pressure service when calculating the vessel shell thickness? Reply: 22. Yes, assuming the design satisfies U-2(g) with loadings according to UG-19(a) and UG-

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-11(a)(1) Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-136 Question: May manway covers, used as replacements, made from static castings and not welded, be exempted from inspection, identification with UG-93(a) or (b), or Partial Data Reports, provided all other identification and certification required by UG-11(a)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 are met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-66(c) and UCS-68(c) Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-186 Question: For vessels installed at a fixed location, may both the allowable temperature reduction determined from Fig. UCS-66.1 and the temperature reduction permitted by UCS-68(c), where applicable, be applied to the minimum permissible temperature without impact testing as determined from Fig. UCS-66 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix Y Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-410 Question: Is Nonmandatory Appendix Y of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to flanges under external pressure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-116(b)(1) Date Issued: September 26, 1994 File: BC94-411 Question (1): ERW pipe is supplied to a vessel Manufacturer by a material supplier for the shell of a pressure vessel. The heads are welded to the shell by an arc welding process. Is the ERW seam considered a Category A joint? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is yes, does UG-116(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 require both letters "W' and "RES" to be marked on the nameplate under the Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.3 Sketch (b) and Appendix AA Date Issued: September 28, 1994 File: BC92-326 Question: If the geometry shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (b) of Section VIII, Division 1 is used for attaching a shell to a tubesheet, and if Nonmandatory Appendix AA is used to determine the required tubesheet thickness, may the value of e as defined in Fig. UW-13.3 be less than the required tubesheet thickness h as defined in Appendix AA? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-25 and Appendix 17 Date Issued: September 28, 1994 File: BC93-631 Question: Is the minimum corrosion allowance in UCS-25 applicable to a carbon steel Section VIII, Division 1 Appendix 17 assembly? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-84(j) Date Issued: September 27, 1994 File: BC94-496 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-84(j) in Section VIII, Division 1 to perform a retest without subjecting the test plate to a reheat treatment? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-11(c) Date Issued: September 30, 1994 File: BC94-494 Question: May thin heat transfer plates which am welded in pairs, separated by gaskets, and contained in a pressure retaining frame, be considered standard pressure parts if they meet all of the requirements of UG-11(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix P Date Issued: October 4, 1994 File: BC94-280 Question: of a vessel? Reply: Does Appendix P of Section VIII, Division 1 infer that the Code addresses the design life No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-43(e) Date Issued: November 21, 1994 File: BC94-416 Question (1): Are thread connections conforming to standards other than ANSI/ASME B1.20.1, as specified in UG-43(e) of Section VIII, Division 1, permitted in Code construction?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): When other standards, such as ASME B1.1, are used, what are the minimum thread engagements and minimum plate thickness requirements? Reply (2): The Code does not address the requirements; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix 2, Fig. 2-13 Date Issued: November 21, 1994 File: BC94-591 Question: May a flange with welded bolting lugs attached to the outside of the flange causing the bolt circle diameter C to be larger than the outside diameter of the shell A still be considered a reverse flange per Fig. 2-13 of Appendix 2 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No, see U-2(g) and 2-1(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix M, M-6 Date Issued: December 15, 1994 File: BC94-058 Question: When a full area stop valve is installed in pressure relief valve discharge piping, as permitted in Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix M, M-6, what does the term full area mean? Reply: It means that the stop valve meets the requirements of UG-135(g), i.e., that it must have sufficient flow area to assure that any pressure that may exist or develop will not reduce the relieving capacity of the pressure relieving device below that required to protect the vessel. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-2(h)(3) Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-106 Question: A pressure vessel is field assembled by a contractor who supplies the Form U-2 Partial Data Report, and performs the pressure test under the requirements of U-2(h)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1. May the vessel Manufacturer, with the concurrence of his Authorized Inspector, apply the ASME U Code Symbol Stamp to the nameplate at the manufacturing facility, and then ship the nameplate to the field for attachment to the vessel by the "field assembly" U-Stamp holder and witnessed by his Authorized Inspector only? Reply: Yes, so long as the Manufacturer's Quality Control program contains controls for his procedure, and the "field assembly" U-Stamp holder and his Authorized Inspector certify the attachment of the nameplate on the Form U-2 Manufacturers Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-99(b) Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-414

Question (1): Does the last sentence of UG-99(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, "All loadings that may exist during this test shall be given consideration," require that the static head that exists in a tower in the vertical position must be considered when determining the test pressure in the horizontal position? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. Does UG-99 specify in which position a vertical tower must be hydrotested? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Governing Requirements for Impact Testing Between Material Specification and Construction Code Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-470 Question: In the 1993 Addenda to Section I1, Part A under SA-649, the requirement in para. 1.2 mandates that the minimum design temperature shall be 40 F.... If the material is not being used below 40 F, is impact testing required per Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-29 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Forewords, Table W3, Note No. 13, and Table 1-220, Note No. 12 Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-502 Question (1): Are requirements of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, either in present or subsequent Editions and Addenda, applicable for pressure vessels already constructed and in service? Reply (1): Requirements for pressure vessels constructed and in service are outside the scope of the Code. As outlined in the Forewords of the Code, "The Committee's function is to establish rules deemed necessary for the new construction of pressure vessels...... Question (2): What Edition and Addenda of the Code is to be recorded on the Manufacturer's Data Report Forms? Reply (2): The current mandated Edition and Addenda of the Code at the time of contract between the user and the Manufacturer. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-04.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-91(b) Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-584 Question: Does the term "monitor" in UG-91(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 imply that the Authorized Inspector perform formal audits at predetermined intervals to verify the Manufacturer's Quality Control System?

Reply: No, this is but one approach that an Authorized Inspector may employ to satisfy the requirements of UG-91(b). Interpretation: VIII-1-95-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-116(c) Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-587 Question: Do the requirements of UG-116(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 provide for any additional marking on a nameplate, other than that mandated in UG-116(a) for MDMT, when impact testing is a Code requirement and the provisions of UG-120(d) have been met? Reply: No, except for those vessels designed and constructed to the rules of Part ULT which require the letters ULT below the U Code Symbol Stamp. InterpretationVIII-1-95-32 (Void see VIII-1-95-32R page 661) Subject Section-Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 A Date Issued: January 12, 1995 File: BC94-589 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-90(b)(8) in Section VIII, Division 1, must all defects identified in UW-38 and UF-38, for vessels under construction, including those inherent to the welding and forging processes and for which methods of repair are specified by the Code, be subjected to the Authorized Inspectors concurrence prior to making the actual repair? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-32R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-90(b)(8) Date Issued: September 6, 1995 File: BC94-589* Question: In complying with requirements of UG-90(b)(8) in Section VIII, Division 1, must all defects identified in UW-38 and UF-38, for vessels under construction, including those inherent to the welding and forging processes and for which the methods of repair are specified by the Code, be subjected to the Authorized Inspector's acceptance prior to making the actual repair? Reply: Yes; however, acceptance by the Authorized Inspector for a defined class of repairs can be preapproved if described in the Manufacturer's Quality Control manual in accordance with Appendix 10 of Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Table UCS-56, P-Nos. 1 and 4 Materials Date Issued: January 18, 1995 File: BC88-084 Question (1): Is postweld heat treatment mandatory under Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1 for fillet or fillet plus groove welds that attach tube-to-tubesheets when the tubes are 3/4 in. O.D. and 14 BWG in thickness, and all materials are P-No. 4? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Same as Question (1), except that the tubesheet is a P-No. 1 material and the tubes are a P-No. 4 material? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); Lower Limit on MDMT in Part UCI Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC91-573 Question: Are the materials in Part UCI of Section VIII, Division 1 subject to a minimum design metal temperature lower limit? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), Table W-3, Note Nos. 31, 41, 43, 46, and 50 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC93-524 Question(1): Does Note No. 31 of Table W-3 require the degree of examination to be recorded on the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report for seamless heads? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Note No. 43 of Table W-3 require threaded fittings (e.g., couplings, thread-o-lets) to be designated as a flange type on the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May the nominal pressure rating (such as Class 3000 couplings, etc.) be used instead of the nominal nozzle thickness in the location showing Note No. 46 on the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): May other than inspection openings specified in Note No. 41 be recorded in the location showing Note No. 50 on the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-126 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC93-637 Question: Does a backpressure regulator, used as an adjustable overpressurization control device, meet the definition of a pressure relief device under UG-126 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UW-40(f)(5)(c), and Tables UCS-56 and UHA-32 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC93-735 Question (1): UW-40(f)(5)(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 states that shell thickness is the controlling value for postweld heat treatment when attached to a flat head. No mention is made of material. A flat head is attached to a shell with a joint as shown in Fig. UG-34(g), with the addition of an integral backup bar. The head is 2 1/2 in. thick and made of SA-516 Grade 70, the shell is 1 1/4 in. thick and made of SA-240 Grade 304. Is it acceptable to weld the shell to head using a 200 F preheat without performing PWHT? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): The same conditions apply as in Question (1) except that the shell material is also of SA516 Grade 70? Reply (2): Postweld heat treatment is not a mandatory requirement.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix 2, Applicability for Designing Autoclaves and Hydroclaves Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC94-366 Question: Are the rules presented in Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, "Rules for Bolted Flange Connections with Ring Type Gaskets" applicable for the design of autoclave and hydroclave closures that consist of full diameter quick opening doors, with a lugged flange on the vessel head and a lugged lock ring that can rotate to allow (or prevent) opening of the door? Reply: No, see U-2(g) and UG-35.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-23 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC94-567 Question: For UCS-23 material, General Note (b) to Table IA in Section II, Part D allows the shear stress in restricted members to be 0.8 times the value permitted in the Table. Does Section VIII, Division 1 specify the allowable shear stress in a member that is not restricted? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Table UW-12 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC94-569

Question: Do the joint efficiencies for Type Nos. 4, 5, and 6 welds, defined in Table UW-12, apply to other fillet welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Table UW-12 Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC94-576 Question: For welds Type Nos. (4), (5), and (6) as defined in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1, should the allowable load on the welds be determined by weld strength calculations? Reply: No, weld strength calculations are not required for Table UW-12 joints.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-15(c) Date Issued: January 20, 1995 File: BC94-577 Question: The Note in UW-15(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 says the 49% factor for fillet welds in shear is the product of 87.5% times 80% for shear strength times the "joint efficiency factor." Is this "joint efficiency factor" the same as the joint efficiency factor given in Table UW-12 (0.45 for single fillet welds)? Reply: No, the joint efficiencies given in Table UW-12 apply only to the weld types defined in Table UW-12. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-101(m)(2)(a) Date Issued: February 6, 1995 File: BC94-666 Question (1): Is it permissible under the provisions of UG-101(m)(2)(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use the specified minimum tensile strength for Sr in the second equation for P when the material specification does not give a range of tensile strengths but specifies a minimum tensile strength only? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it permissible under the provisions of UG-101(m)(2)(a) to use the tensile strength reported on the certified mill test report, covering the material used in the test, for the value of Savg? Reply (2): No, see UG-101(j).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-I(c)(3) and UF-7 Date Issued: February 6. 1995 File: BC94-669

Question: Is a forged pressure vessel, having an inside diameter greater than 6 in. and an operating pressure over 200 psi, which is used for corrugating paper machinery exempted from construction by the requirements of U-I(c)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. See UF-7. Also see footnote (1) of U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-116(h) Date Issued: February 6, 1995 File: BC94-671 Question (1): A parts Manufacturer butt welds two flat plates which will be formed into a tank head by someone else. The formed head is returned to the parts Manufacturer who welds closed the hole in the center of the head which was needed for the forming process. Is it permissible for the parts Manufacturer to supply one Partial Data Report Form, to comply with the requirements of UG-116(h) in Section VIII, Division 1, at the end of the second welding process for the completed head as long as all of the welding processes are recorded on the Form, and the procedures are covered in the parts Manufacturer's Quality Control System? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): What type of identification for the plate and finished head is required if the plate material is 3/16 in. thick or less? Reply (2): See UG-118.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-46(a) Date Issued: February 6, 1995 File: BC94-679 Question (1): If a user specification states that a vessel is to be designed with a corrosion allowance, may this fact be sufficient verification that the vessel is intended for corrosive service? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May a vessel that has been designed with a corrosion allowance be specified under Remarks on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form "for noncorrosive service"? Reply (2): Yes, provided noncorrosive service has been specified by the user.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-116(h) Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC94-412 Question (1): For vessel parts for which Partial Data Reports are required in UG-120(c), may "RT-1" be added to the required stamping? Reply (1): No. "RT-1" marking only applies to complete vessels.

Question (2): For vessel parts for which Partial Data Reports are required in UG-120(c), are additional markings "W" and "year built" prohibited? Reply (2): No, provided all the requirements of the additional marking are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-I(h) Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC94-670 Question: Steam is generated in a processing system containing a number of pressure vessels used in the manufacture of chemical and petroleum products. When the steam generated does not provide all the steam needed for the operation of the chemical or petroleum process plant, fired auxiliary steam generation equipment, which is an integral part of the plant, is necessary for the operation of the plant. May fired auxiliary steam generation equipment that generates steam for the operation of a chemical or petroleum processing system be constructed to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, satisfying the requirements of U-1(h)? Reply: Yes, see footnote 1 of U-1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Foreword Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC94-672 Question: material? Reply: Does the term "construction" as used in the Foreword of Section VIII, Division 1 include Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-79(d) Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC94-684 Question (1): A cold formed head has to be heat treated to fulfill the requirements of UCS-79(d) in Section VIII, Division 1. Does the term "heat treated subsequently" mean just after forming and prior to any other operation? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If Reply (1) is no, then will PWHT in accordance with UCS-56 satisfy the requirements of UCS-79(d) following welding of the head to the vessel? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-35(b) and Appendix 6, 6-3 and 6-4 Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC95-046

Question (1): Is a reduction in thickness due a welding process, e.g., an "outside undercut" that meets the requirements of UW-35(b)(1) and (2), acceptable under Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Would such an indication be classified as a relevant indication when magnetic particle examination is required and performed by Appendix 6? Reply (2): No, this indication would not be considered a relevant indication, until it exceeded the acceptable requirements of UW-35(b)(1) or (2). Interpretation: VIII-1-95-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-1(e)(1) Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC95-047 Question: An aluminum weld neck flange is welded to a nozzle neck of an aluminum vessel, constructed to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1. May the Manufacturer exclude the weld neck flange and joining weld from the scope of Division 1, i.e., U-1(e)(1), if they are properly described on the vessel drawing and the Manufacturers Data Report Form? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-53 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-9(d) and AF-605 Date Issued: March 13, 1995 File: BC95-049 Question (1): Are there any requirements for heat treatment after forming in Section VIII, Division 2 similar to those of AF-605, for pressure vessels constructed of carbon and low alloy steel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are there any requirements to stagger the longitudinal weld scams in Section VIII, Division 2 similar to those of UW-9(d) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Note: No. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-05.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: March 28, 1995 File: BC93-438 Question: Is evidence required to prove that all requirements of Fig. UCS-66 in Section VIII, Division 1 are met in order to claim exemption from impact testing? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-116(h) Date Issued: March 29, 1995 File: BC93-482 Question: Is it permissible for a Manufacturer of a pressure vessel part consisting of a manway collar and removable cover to apply a nameplate bearing the ASME Code Symbol Stamp and other markings required by UG-116(h) of Section VIII, Division 1 to both the manway collar and removable cover? Both items are identified on the Manufacturer's Partial Data Report Form. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition); Appendix 10, 10-6 Date Issued: April 10, 1995 File: BC92-332 Question: Is it permissible for a Manufacturer to use electronic transfer of material certification data, verifying heat numbers and test values in accordance with purchasing specifications, to comply with the provisions of 10-6 in Appendix 10 of Section VIII, Division 1 for documentation of Certificates of Compliance or Material Test Reports? Reply: Manual. Yes, provided this system is addressed in the Certificate Holder's Quality Control

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); Requirements for Stamping and Partial Data Report Forms for Assemblies Made to SA-649 Material Date Issued: May 23, 1995 File: BC95-156 Question: A forging manufacturer (supplier) provides material in accordance with SA-649 to a corrugated paper machinery manufacturer (purchaser). This material consists of a roll shell with shrink fit trunions which are optionally seal welded (SA-649, Sections 1.1 and 4.3) to the shell body/trunnion interface. The supplier also marks and certifies the material in accordance with referenced SA-788 (general specifications), Sections 16 and 17. Is it permissible for a Certificate Holder to receive this material from a forging manufacturer (supplier) without a Form U-2A Partial Data Report? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix 1, Fig. 1-6 Sketches (b), (c), and (d) Date Issued: May 24, 1995 File: BC95-042 Question: Can spherical dished covers as shown in Appendix 1, Fig. 1-6 sketches (b), (c), and (d) of Section VIII, Division 1, which are under external pressure (pressure on the convex side), be treated as either a torispherical or hemispherical head in UG-33? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-11(a) and UG-24 Date Issued: May 24, 1995 File: BC95-050 Question: Does UG-24 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to integrally cast flanges that meet all the requirements of ANSI B16.5? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-84(i)(3)(a)(2) Date Issued: May 31, 1995 File: BC95-157 Question: If welding will be performed during production in the 2G position, will a test plate made in the 1G position satisfy the requirements of UG-84(i)(3)(a)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-77(a) Date Issued: May 31, 1995 File: BC95-158 Question: Are there any additional constraints in Section VIII, Division 1 on a Manufacturer's choice of a "...coded marking..." as required by UG-77(a), other than that given in UG-77(b)? Reply: No. Material identification shall be as set forth in a procedure as required by the Manufacturer's Quality Control System. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UCS-66(a)(1)(a) and Fig. UCS66.3 Sketch (a) Date Issued: May 31, 1995 File: BC95-161 Question: Figure UCS-66.3 sketch (a) shows the configuration and parameters for determining the governing thickness as allowed under UCS-66(a)(1)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1. Is the governing thickness tgl equal to tB when the butt welded joint uses weld metal deposit buildup to attach a shell to a head? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UCS-57 Date Issued: June 1, 1995 File: BC95-167

Question: In meeting the requirements of UCS-57 in Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to perform radiographic examination of carbon and low alloy steel welds prior to performing postweld heat treatment? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-21, UG-22(b), and UG99(b) Date Issued: June 1, 1995 File: BC95-172 Question (1): The operating liquid level in a vertical vessel is controlled so that the level can never exceed half-full. In complying with the requirements of UG-21 in Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to determine the thickness of the bottom head of the vessel for the maximum allowable working pressure plus the static head due to the operating liquid, even though the vessel is full of liquid at hydrostatic test? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Shall consideration be given to the effect of the static head during hydrostatic test of the vertical vessel described in Question (1)? Reply (2): Question (3): Reply (3): Yes, see UG-22(b) and UG-99(b). If Reply (2) is yes, shall U-2(g) be used to check the design at hydrostatic test? Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-78 Date Issued: June 19, 1995 File: BC94-067B Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1, UG-78, permit the mechanical removal of defects in material by other than the material manufacturer? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When the removal of surface imperfections results in the plate thickness being less than the required minimum thickness, may the plate be built up with weld metal? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If plate purchased to SB-409 for fabrication of a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel is weld repaired in accordance with UG-78 by the vessel Manufacturer, is re-solution annealing per para. 8.8 of SB-409 required? Reply (3): No. The rules of Section VIII, Division 1 apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda)-, Manway Assemblies

Date Issued: File:

June 19, 1995 BC95-067

Question (1): A vessel is to be built and Code Symbol stamped for Internal Pressure and Full Vacuum. The Manufacturer intends to use an elliptical manway assembly consisting of an elliptical pressed steel cover, elliptical ring, bolting and clamping bars, all supplied as standard parts by another Manufacturer, under the provisions of UG-11. If the clamping bars and bolting are subjected to stress induced by the internal or external pressure, are they considered to be pressure parts? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. If Reply (1) is yes, must the clamping bars and bolting be in conformance with UG-4? Yes.

Question (3): May the vessel Manufacturer discard the clamping bars and bolting supplied by the manway Manufacturer and substitute other materials which conform to UG-4 for these parts if the vessel Manufacturer can show by calculations or proof test (UG-101) that the design configuration meets all Code requirements? Reply (3): Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (a), and Table UW-12 Type No. (6) Joint Date Issued: June 19, 1995 File: BC95-170 Question: Is it permissible to use a single fillet lap joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (a) of Section VIII, Division 1 to attach a steel end hub casting to a shell in constructing a shell and tube heat exchanger, if the requirements of Table UW-12 for Type No. (6) joints are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UCS-66(a) Date Issued: September 7, 1995 File: BC95-233 Question: Shall vacuum stiffener rings attached by welding be considered "attachments which are essential to the structural integrity of the vessel" under the requirements of UCS-66(a) in Section VIII, Division 1, and be evaluated for impact test requirements? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-69 SubjectSection VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (8) Date Issued: September 7, 1995 File: BC95-234 Question: Is it permitted to extend the face of a flange, e.g., Fig. 2-4 sketch (8) in Appendix 2 of Section VIII, Division 1, to a distance beyond the specified maximum of c + 1/4 in., provided that the

nozzle to flange overlap dimension is a minimum of 4 times the nozzle thickness and no other limitations are exceeded? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-11(b) Date Issued: October 20, 1995 File: BC95-173 Question: May small pieces of flat plate, cut from a fully identified and traceable base plate, where they are not shaped or formed and are being supplied as nonstandard pressure parts, be marked in accordance with the requirements of UG-11(b) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-71 Subject; Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UW-52(b)(1) Date Issued: October 20, 1995 File: BC95-218 Question: Under the requirement, of UW-52(b)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, does the term "increment" mean 50 ft of linear weld or fraction thereof? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Appendix 2, 2-9 Date Issued: October 20, 1995 File: BC95-312 Question: Are the requirements of 2-9 in Appendix 2 of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to the design of a split flange which has an angled beating surface on the split flange face mating with an angled bearing surface on a tubesheet? Reply: It is the responsibility of the U Code Symbol Stamp holder to decide if the construction is the same as one for which rules are given in the text. If it is not, U-2(g) applies. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Appendix 2 and Appendix S, S-1 Date Issued: October 20, 1995 File: BC95-313 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 have mandatory requirements for allowable bolt stress during the hydrostatic test of bolted flanges designed to Appendix 2? Reply: No, see Nonmandatory Appendix S.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-I(e)(4) and U-2(a)(4)

Date Issued: File:

October 23, 1995 BC94-118

Question (1): Does U-1(e)(4) in Section VIII, Division 1 exclude from its scope, valves (other than safety valves), gages, instruments, and fittings for Division 1 pressure vessels which generate steam? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Do the requirements of U-2(a)(4), in considering the need for piping, valves, instruments, and fittings to perform the functions covered by PG-59 through PG-61 of Section I, mandate strict conformance to Section I paragraphs? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-77(c), and Section II, Part A, SA-20, 13.5 Date Issued: October 23, 1995 File: BC94-308 Question: May components/parts that are formed or machined from SA plate material by someone other than the vessel Manufacturer be supplied with an identification code traceable to the original required marking and test report to identify each piece when there is insufficient space to accurately transfer the original markings? Reply: Yes, however, when the vessel Manufacturer's Quality Control System shall provide for such marking. See UG-77(c) and SA-20, 13.5. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report, Item 7 Date Issued: October 24, 1995 File: BC94-417 Question (1): Is it required in item 7 of the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report to record an "S" in the "Type" column under the heading "Category A" for seamless heads? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it required in item 7 of the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report to record the extent of radiography in the "Full, Spot, None" column under the heading "Category A" for seamless heads? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it required in item 7 of the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report to record the extent of radiography in the "Full, Spot, None" column under the heading "Category A" for heads fabricated by welded sections? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Is it required in item 7 of the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report to record the joint efficiency in the "Eff." column under the heading "Category A" for seamless heads? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): Is it required in item 7 of the Form U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report to record the joint efficiency in the "Eff." column under the heading "Category A" for heads fabricated by welded sections? Reply (5): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); U-I(g)(1) Date Issued: October 24, 1995 File: BC94-586 Question: Is it permissible to construct a heat exchanger where one side (i.e., the shell side) is constructed to the rules of Section I, and the other side (i.e., the tube side) constructed to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided common elements meet the requirements of both Section I and Section VIII, Division 1. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-80(a)(1) Date Issued: October 26, 1995 File: BC94-111 Question: Do cross section tolerance requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-80 apply to toroidal pressure vessels? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-125(f) Date Issued: October 26, 1995 File: BC94-620 Question (1): In complying with the requirements of UG-125(f) in Section VIII, Division 1, a liquidfilled pressure vessel bearing the U Code Symbol Stamp is "otherwise protected against overpressure." For the case of hydraulic expansion when the vessel is isolated and exposed to a heat input, must the hydrostatic relief device bear the UV Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, does ASME provide the rules for certifying the capacities of liquid relief devices? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If the answer to Question (2) is yes, does ASME have a recommended procedure for determining the required capacity of a liquid relief device? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); Appendix W, Table W-3, Note 28 Date Issued: November 15, 1995 File: BC94-351 Question: Is it permissible in complying with the requirements of Note 28 to Table W-3 in Section VIII, Division 1 to record on the Manufacturer's Data Report Form, the minimum required head thickness including corrosion allowance? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-119(e) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC93-736 Question: May the nameplate as provided for in UG-119(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 be attached to an insulation jacket permanently attached to a pressure vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-22 Date Issued: December 29, 1995 File: BC95-310 Question (1): A vessel Manufacturer holding an ASME U Certificate of Authorization conducts or has conducted design calculations for the pressure vessel, complying with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1. The vessel is to be hydrostatically tested prior to the application of the ASME U Code Symbol Stamp. Is the Manufacturer required to conduct design calculations for any loadings resulting from the hydrostatic test condition? Reply (1): The ASME U Certificate of Authorization holder is responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, including the requirements in UG-22. The loadings to be considered shall include those in the list of UG-22. Design formulas, design rules, methods of analysis, and allowable stresses for many of the loadings are not given in Section VIII, Division 1. As stated in U-2(g), when rules and design details are not given, the Manufacturer, that will U stamp the vessel, is responsible for the analysis as well as any other facet of the design and construction of the vessel. Question (2): When calculations for additional loadings are conducted, would they be subject to review and acceptance by the Authorized Inspector if requested? Reply (2): Yes. The Authorized Inspector has the right to review and examine any items related to the design and construction of the vessel when the Authorized Inspector requests it. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-83 Subject; Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-38 and Appendix 6 Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-389

Question: Shall indications, such as small pin holes (porosity), that were not detected visually, but were subsequently detected using magnetic particle examination, still be considered as indications and not defects, as given in UW-38 of Section VIII, Division 1, when they meet the acceptance criteria of Appendix 6? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); U-1(h) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-390 Question: May a direct fired organic fluid heater, within which no vaporization occurs, be constructed in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, see U-1(h).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UCS-66(b) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-397 Question: May the reductions permitted by UCS-66(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to materials whose minimum design temperatures are determined by UG-20(f)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-52(d)(2) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-400 Question (1): In complying with the requirements of UW-52(d)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, must the two additional spots be taken in the same welded seam? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Would it be permissible to take the two additional spots in other seams within the same weld increment? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-52(b)(3) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-463 Question: Would the requirements of UW-52(b)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 be met if the location for performing a spot examination is chosen in agreement with the Authorized Inspector prior to the start of welding when the Authorized Inspector cannot be present after the welding increment is made?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); U-1(e)(1)(c) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-466 Question: A piping subassembly consisting of a standard pipe flange on one end, a closure or valve on the other end, and piping branch connection(s) in-between is bolted to a flanged opening on a pressure vessel. U-1(e)(1)(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 states that for external piping, the Code stops at the first flange. Does Section VIII, Division 1 require that the piping subassembly, including the closure, be constructed and Code Symbol stamped as part of the pressure vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-16(d) Date Issued: December 28, 1995 File: BC95-472 Question: Does UW-16(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit a combination of fillet and partial penetration single bevel welds, both from the same side of the vessel wall, when all other requirements are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Table UHA-23 Date Issued: January 22, 1996 File: BC93-109 Question: Is the manufacture of SA-358 pipe for Section VIII, Division 1 use limited to Manufacturers who hold the appropriate ASME Certificate of Authorization and Code Symbol Stamp? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UW-20(a) and (c) Date Issued: January 22, 1996 File: BC94-664 Question: Is it the intent that the tube-to-tubesheet welds that do not meet the requirements of strength welds in UW-20(a)(1) and UW-20(c) are acceptable when the welds are sized based on calculated axial loads in the tube-to-tubesheet joint? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-95-92

Subject:: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII. Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); Installation of Welded Refractory Material on Pressure Components January 22, 1 BC95-204

Question: Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1 that a contractor that welds refractory anchors and studs to pressure components used in the construction of pressure vessels which are required to be ASME Code Symbol stamped, by a Manufacturer holding a U Stamp, hold a valid ASME Certificate of Authorization and U Code Symbol Stamp? Reply: Yes, unless the work is performed in accordance with UW-26(d)

Interpretation: VIII-1-95.93-676 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda); UG-99(b) and (c) Date Issued: January 23, 1996 File: BC95-420 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-99 in Section VIII, Division 1 to reduce the test pressure as calculated per UG-99(c) to a value lower than that required by UG-99(b) to comply with a customers specification? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-36, UG-39, and 13-6 Date Issued: January 23, 1996 File: BC95-473 Question: May the method of determining the equivalent diameter of multidiameter holes given in 13-6 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used to determine the size of single and multiple multidiameter openings in flat heads? Reply: [see U-2(g)]. No method is given for determining equivalent diameters for use in flat head calculations

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UG-126 Date Issued: April 2, 1996 File: BC94-267 Question: Does a pilot operated valve with a buckling pin pilot meet the requirements of a pilot operated pressure relief valve as defined in Section VIII, Division 1, UG-126? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1994 Addenda); UW-40(f) Date Issued: April 2, 1996 File: BC95-164

Question: May the criteria given in UW-40(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 for determining nominal thickness also apply for determining base metal thickness when selecting a Welding Procedure Specification? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-97 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition); UG-136(d)(4) and AR-230(d) Date Issued: April 4, 1996 File: BC91-445 Question: Are the requirements of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-136(d)(4) and AR-230(d) that each valve be tested to demonstrate its set pressure met for pilot-operated pressure relief valves, if the pilot is tested separately to establish the pressure at which the pilot will actuate the main relieving device? Reply: Yes, provided the Manufacturer's or assembler's procedures include methods to verify that all components are functional, properly connected, and leak tight. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-08

Interpretation VIII-1-95-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Butt-Welded Stub Ends Date Issued: April 5, 1996 File: BC95-471 Question: construction? Reply: May butt-welded end stubs machined from plate be used in Section VIII, Division 1 No. see 2-2(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-118 Date Issued: April 8, 1996 File: BC95-474 Question: Is it prohibited under the requirements of UG-118 in Section VIII, Division 1 to include additional markings outside the required marking arrangement on a vessel nameplate? Reply: No, but the arrangement of Code required information shall be substantially as shown in Fig. UG-118 and noting that the U Stamp must be located next to the Manufacturer's name. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-13(b)(2) and Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (a) Date Issued: April 8, 1996 File: BC95-480 Question: If a shell is flared to accept a straight flange head as shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (a), do the driving fit requirements of UW-13(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); U-I(g) Date Issued: April 9, 1996 File: BC95-498B Question: An unfired steam boiler is designed, manufactured, and field assembled such that the boiler satisfies the requirements of both ASME Section I and Section VIII, Division 1. May the boiler be stamped with both the ASME S and U Code Symbols and recorded on the appropriate Manufacturer's Data Report Forms required by both Section I and Section VIII? Reply: No

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UCS-67(d) Date Issued: May 6, 1996 File: BC96-098 Question: Under the requirements of UCS-67(d) in Section VIII, Division 1. in services with an MDMT between -20F and -50F, welding SA-516 Gr. 70 normalized plate for vessel using a weld procedure that has been impact tested to -50F, but where the welding consumables used are not classified by impact tests at temperatures not warmer than -50F by the applicable SFA specification, do production welds require impact testing? Reply; Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UHA-51 Date Issued: May 30, 1996 File: BC96-201 Question: For a component fabricated of austenitic stainless steel where the base metal and welds are exempt from impact testing per UHA-51(d)(1)(a) and UHA-51(e)(2)(a) in Section VIIl Division 1, and accordingly the WPS does not have to be qualified with impacts per UHA-51(b), is impact testing of production welds required? Reply: No, see UG-84(i)(2)

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Appendix 28 Date. Issued: June 18, 1996 File: BC96-093 Question (1): In the manufacture of box headers for air-cooled heat exchangers, is it permissible to use the requirements of Appendix 28 in Section VIII, Division 1, for longitudinal welds as well as end plate welds? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): beveled? Reply (2):

Is it permissible to use Appendix 28 in Section VIII, Division 1, when both members are No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Use of Term Butt Weld Date Issued: June 19, 1996 File: BC96-104 Question (1): Does the term butt weld as used in UW-11(a)(5) have the same meaning as the term butt joint as used in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): The terms butt weld and butt joint are the same except for the added dimension of location associated with the term butt joint (see UW-3). Question (2): Does the term butt weld as used in UW-11(a)(5) have the same meaning as the term full penetration weld as used for Figs. UW-16.1 sketches (a), (b), and (c) and Fig. UHT-18,1? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Does the term butt weld as used in UW-11(a)(5) have the same meaning as the term full penetration weld as used for Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (f-1) through (f-4)? Reply (3): No.

InterpretationVIII-1-95-106 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition); One Corporation with Multiple Shop Certificates Date Issued: June 20, 1996 FileBC95-465A Question: For ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, may one location of a multilocation organization, maintaining a current Certificate of Authorization, furnish design procedures, specifications, and other documents to another one of its locations maintaining a current Certificate of Authorization, for use without further acceptance, marking, and signatures, provided the Manufacturer's Data Report Form is appropriately signed by the representative at the location performing the work? Reply: Note: No, see UG-117(b). This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-09.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-107 Subject : Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); U-1(d) Date Issued: June 20, 1996 File: BC96-122 Question: When a vessel Manufacturer uses additional design principles and construction practices for pressures over 3000 psi as permitted by U-1(d), is it permissible to deviate from using materials and allowable stress limits designated for Section III, Division 1 construction, and still apply the Code Symbol Stamp?

Reply: No, only if the vessel complies with all of the requirements of this Division may it be stamped with the applicable Code Symbol Stamp. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-90(c)(1)(m) Dow Issued: June 28, 1996 File: BC96-099 Question: If a Manufacturer's Quality Control System describes how verification that nameplates are attached to the proper vessel is accomplished, may the Authorized Inspector accept this as complying with the requirements of UG-90(c)(1)(m) in Section VIII, Division 1 without physically seeing the attachment being performed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-10 Date Issued: August 2, 1996 File: BC93-669 Question(1): May a vessel or part manufacturer recertify a proprietary alloy under UG-10 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply(1): Yes, provided all requirements in UG-10(a)(2) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-29(c) Date Issued: August 2, 1996 File: BC95-401 Question(1): Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-29(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use an internal stiffening ring having two or more unsupported shell arcs? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-20(f)(3) Date Issued: August 2, 1996 File: BC96-246 Question(1): A vessel is comprised of a single pressure chamber for which one-half is assigned a design temperature of 650F and the other half is assigned a design temperature of 750F. May the impact test exemption permitted under UG-20(f)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied for the section of the vessel at 650F, provided the other requirements of UG-20(f) are met? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-34 and UW-16 Date Issued: August 2, 1996 File: BC96-256

Question(1): Does UW-16 in Section VIII, Division 1 address the minimum requirements for attachment welds at openings for flat heads under UG-34? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-31(c) Date Issued: August 2, 1996 File: BC96-276 Question(1): May a visual examination of tack welds as required by UW-31(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 for those welds to be left in place, be performed by the Certificate Holder's production personnel, such as welders, if so identified in the Certificate Holder's written Quality Control program? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-101(l) Date Issued: August 30, 1996 File: BC96-215 Question(1): May the MAWP of a vessel be determined using the requirements of UG-101(l) in Section VIII, Division 1 if the vessel is constructed from a material that does not exhibit a definite yield point, but does exhibit a gradual elastic-plastic transition such that its yield strength may be determined by UG-101(j)? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-25(e), UG-46(a)(4), UG46(b), and UG-46(f)(3) Date Issued: August 30, 1996 File: BC96-273 Question(1): For a vessel over 36 in. I.D. where providing a manhole is impracticable, may the required handholds, as given in UG-46(f)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1, be located in the same head if approved by the authorized inspector? Reply(1): Question(2): service? No. See UG-46(f)(4). Are the provisions of UG-25(e) and UG-46(b) applicable for a vessel in non-corrosive

Reply(2): No. However as required by UG-46(a)(4), the words for noncorrosive service shall be noted on the Manufacturer's Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-116, UW-40, UCS-56, and Appendix 27 Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-129

Question(1): In complying with the requirements of Appendix 27 in Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary that the provisions of UCS-56 (i.e., rate of heating/cooling, and minimum thermocouple quantity and location) be met for a glass-lined (enameled-lined) vessel when thermal heating is performed only for the purpose of the glass-lining and not for any Code or service requirements, and the vessel is exempted from impact testing and the maximum thickness is less than or equal to 1 1/2 in.? Reply(1): No.

Question(2): When any portion of a vessel is subjected to thermal heat treatment for the purpose of, a glass-lining operation only, under Appendix 27, must the nameplate of the completed vessel be marked HT when PWHT is not a Code requirement? Reply(2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-116(b)(1) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-130 Question(1): A material to be used for the shell of a vessel has its longitudinal seam (Category A joint) welded by the material supplier. Is the manufacturer in complying with the provisions of UG116(b)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1 required to identify which welding process was used in welding the seam? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-95-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); 13-4(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-209 (BC96-228) Question(1): Under the requirements of Appendix 13, 13-4(b), in Section VIII, Division 1, is the calculated membrane plus bending stress (Sm + Sb) limited to 1.5SE when using formulas (8) and (10) in 13-7? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-45(b) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-210 Question(1): Do the minimum thickness requirements of UG-45(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 for nozzle neck apply to the thickness of the hub at the bevel of an ASME/ANSI B16.5 welding neck flange? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-119(c) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-216

Question(1): nameplate? Reply(1):

May the markings required of UG-119 in Section VIII, Division 1 be lithographed on the Yes, provided the requirements of UG-119(c)(1) and (2) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-39(b)(1) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-217 Question(1): When determining the reinforcement requirements for an opening in a flat bolted cover, must the gasket seating condition as well as the internal pressure condition be considered in applying the formula from UG-39(b)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply(1): Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-11(c) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-219 Question(1): May a subcontractor perform weld overlay on a pressure part supplied by the vessel manufacturer under the provisions of UG-11(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-37 Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-227 Question(1): When a nozzle neck is either threaded or expanded into a vessel shell in accordance with UG-43(e) or (f) of Section VIII, Division 1, and reinforcement calculations for the opening in the shell or head are required by UG-36, may credit be taken for excess area in the nozzle A2in the calculations in UG-37? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-236 Question(1): Do the provisions UG-36(c)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the internal diameter of a finished non-perpendicular nozzle? Reply(1): No.

Question(2): When applying the rules of UG-36(c)(3), is the finished opening of a nonradial nozzle measured as the chord length of the opening at the midsurface of the thickness?

Reply(2):

Yes, see definition for d in UG-37(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-12(b) and UG-43(g) Date Issued: October 9, 1996 File: BC96-249 Question(1): A tapped hole meeting the requirements of UG-43(g) in Section VIII, Division 1 has thread engagement less than 1 1/2ds,. Can the stud that is threaded into the tapped hole be provided with a threaded portion less than the 1 1/2 diameter length requirement of UG-12(b)? Reply(1): No. However, the threaded portion of the stud needs to engage the threaded portion of the tapped hole for a length only as required by UG-43(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-95-126 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition); UG-117(b) and AS-201, One Corporation With Multiple Shop Locations Date Issued: October 22, 1996 File: BC95-465B Question(1): For ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, is it permissible for a multilocation organization to have only one ASME Certificate of Authorization and extend it to all its shop locations provided the operation is adequately described in the Quality Control System (QCS) Manual? Reply(1): No.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-12. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-127 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-117(b) and AS-201 Date Issued: October 23, 1996 File: BC96-128 Question(1): May a Certificate Holder of a U and/or U2 Code Symbol whose scope includes field extensions fabricate Code items at a facility owned or leased by the Certificate Holder which is not identified as the primary location on the Certificate of Authorization? Reply(1): No, except at an "intermediate point" where the vessel is completed (e.g., shipping dock or railroad location) prior to shipping, or location of final installation. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-13. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-128 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); U-1 and UG-11 Date Issued: October 24, 1996 File: BC95-396 Question(1): Are flanged immersion heater assemblies (electric heater elements which are welded, pressed, or soldered into a bolted closure) which act as one of the main closures of a pressure vessel considered to be within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply(1):

Yes.

Question(2): Are the heater elements themselves exempted from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 as proprietary fittings per U-1(e)(4)? Reply(2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Impact Values for Filler Metals Date Issued: November 8, 1996 File: BC96-372 Question(1): A pressure vessel to be constructed to Section VIII, Division 1 has its materials and welds exempt from impact testing by the provisions of UG-20(f). If the vessel is to be rated for -20F to 650F service, must the welding filler materials conform to a specification requiring impact values at -20F? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); U-1(a) and U-1(g)(3) Date Issued: November 8, 1996 File: BC96-380 Question(1): May a generator, i.e., heat exchanger, fall under the scope, U-1(a), of Section VIII, Division 1 if the external heat source is flue gas from an independent combustor, and the vapor (steam) generated is used internal to the unit? Reply(1): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-131 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-12, UG-23, UCS-10, UHA-12, AM-100, and AM-600; Use of Rod and Bar Material for Flange Bolting Date Issued: December 17, 1996 File: BC96-306 Question(1): Is it permitted in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 to use rod and bar stock, other than that listed in Section II, Part D, Tables 3 and 4 to fabricate bolts, including swing and T-bolts, for pressure retaining applications? Reply(1): No.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-95-15. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-132 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UCS-79(b) Date Issued: December 17, 1996 File: BC96-351

Question(1): In complying with the requirements of UCS-79(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, would a "spinning process" be the sole type of forming operation used to form a head, e.g., torispherically dished heads? Reply(1): No.

Interpretation Inadvertently Omitted From Volume 40 Interpretation: VIII-1-95-133 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-45(b)(1) Date Issued: December 17, 1996 File: BC96-353 Question: Does the definition of required thickness tr, for a formed head given in the nomenclature of UG-37(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply when determining the minimum nozzle neck thickness in UG-45(b)(1)? Reply: No, see UG-32.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-134 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-40(f)(5)(a) Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-255 Question: In Interpretation VIII-1-92-80, Question (3), is the term "minimum gauge thickness used in reference to sheet or strip material that is too thin to be supplied to a nominal plate thickness? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketches (1) and (m) Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-258 Question (1): May the inside of the thicker shell section shown in Fig. UW-13.1 sketches (1) and (m) of Section VIII, Division 1 be contoured to match the head inside radius at the point of attachment and continue past the tangent line to where the head radius would match the shell inside diameter, such that below the tangent line the shell thickness becomes less than tr, the required thickness of the shell? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the shell thickness below the tangent line in Question (1) is equal to or greater than the required shell thickness tr, may the detail proposed in Question (1) be used? Reply (2): Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File: Yes, if the requirements of U-2(g) are met. VIII-1-95-136 Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Appendix 4, 4-3(f) January 2, 1997 BC96-277

Question: Is it permissible to use a magnifying glass for measuring the size of rounded indication to determine their acceptability in comparing with the requirements of 4-3(f) in Appendix 4 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-137 Subject: Section VIII. Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-2(a), UCL-34, and UCL-35 Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-334 Question (1): Are the requirements in UW-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 for performing full radiography and postweld heat treatment on vessels which are to contain lethal substances applicable regardless of the calculated pressure and thickness for the vessel? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Are the requirements of UW-2(a) superseded by the provisions of UCL-34 and UCL-35? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-2(a)(1)(c) & Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (7) Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-341A Question: Would an integral type flange shown in Fig. 2-4 sketch (7) in Section VIII, Division 1 be acceptable for lethal service if the requirements of UW-2(a)(1)(c) are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-139 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (b) Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-354 Question: Before welding, a corner joint meets the dimensional requirements as shown in sketch (b) of Fig. UW-13.2 of Section VIII, Division 1. A sample of this joint was welded and a cross section of the joint indicates that the peripheral edge of the plate tp was completely fused within the joint, but the overall cross section of the joint still meets sketch (b) of Fig. UW-13.2. Does this comer joint, as described, meet the requirements of sketch (b) of Fig. UW-13.2? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-11(a)(2) and UG-44 Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-373

Question: Is it permissible under Section VIII, Division 1 for a vessel manufacturer to use a long weld neck flange with designated pressure-temperature ratings per a manufacturers standard without doing any additional calculations per code rules? Reply: Yes, see footnote 6 of UG-11.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (la) Date Issued: January 2, 1997 File: BC96-379 Question: The note under Fig. 2-4 sketch (la) indicates "this weld may be machined to a comer radius to suit standard lap joint flanges." There is a minimum dimension of 0.7c for the fillet weld in this Figure. Is it intended that the 0.7c dimension apply prior to the machining of the comer 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-1-95-142 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UCS-79(d) Date Issued: January 3, 1997 File: BC96-352 Question: When vessel shell sections, heads, or other pressure boundary parts of carbon or low alloy steel plate are cold formed by other than the manufacturer of the vessel, may the manufacturer accept the subcontractor's certification as evidence that the provisions of UCS-79(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 have been met? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda)-, UG-127(a)(3)(b)(5) Date Issued: January 10, 1997 File: BC95-499 Question: Under the requirements of UG-127(a)(3)(b)(5) in Section VIII, Division 1, may a rupture disk which produces fragments on burst be installed between a vessel and a pressure relief valve if the resulting fragments interfere with proper functioning of the pressure relief valve? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-90(c)(2), UG-116, and UG120 Date Issued: January 22, 1997 File: BC96-240 Question: It is permissible to UM stamp vessels which are fabricated under a UG-90(c)(2) program, if the inspection and quality control procedure which oversees the UG-90(c)(2) program also meets the quality control program which was accepted for the manufacturer's UM activity?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-96-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-16(b)(1) and (b)(2) Date Issued: January 22, 1997 File: BC96-245 Question: Do the exceptions for minimum thickness of 1/16 in, given in UG-16(b)(1) and (b)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to thin-walled process tubular heaters, 1/2 in. in diameter or less, when they are included within the scope of a U stamped pressure vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-11(a)(2) Date Issued: January 22, 1997 File: BC96-376 Question: Tubesheets for tubular reactors are fabricated by welding two plates together; this is due to the required size of the tubesheets. Drilling the tubeholes affects the weld metal, so that the remaining weld metal between two tube holes is smaller than the permissible flaw size detected by RT. May ultrasonic examination be used in lieu of the required radiographic examination given in UW-11(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 for butt welds in flat tubesheets made of two plates with a thickness greater than 1.5 in. up to a maximum of 14 in.? Reply: No. See UW-11(a)(7).

Interpretation: VIII-1-96-147 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-90(c)(2) and Code Case 2046 Date Issued: January 22, 1997 File: BC96-472 Question: May a manufacturer operating under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 pneumatically test vessels solely under the provisions of Code Case 2046 without performing the NDE required by UW-50 and waiving the hydrostatic test requirements of UG-20(f)(2)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-116(h) Date Issued: March 4, 1997 File: BC96-522 Question: A drawing for pressure vessel parts shows three parts to be fabricated. The individual parts are not identified with specific part numbers on the drawing. In complying with the requirements of UG-116(h) in Section VIII, Division 1, shall each part to be certified on a U-2A Partial Data Report have a unique manufacturer's serial number and these numbers be entered on the Data Report? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Appendix 9, 9-5(c)(4) Date Issued: March 25, 1997 File: BC96-478 Question: The shell side of a heat exchanger has a bustle or belt type construction similar to Fig. 92 Type 1 in Appendix 9 of Section VIII, Division 1. Are the provisions of 9-5(c)(4) applicable. when calculating the closure bar thickness when the tubesheets are supported as defined in UW-13(e)(3)? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-11 Date Issued: March 25, 1997 File: BC96-523 Question: A rolled and welded pressure retaining ring is supplied with a U-2A Partial Data Report by a parts manufacturer and meets the requirements of UG-11 in Section VIII, Division 1. Machining of the fabricated ring removes the code required markings supplied by the parts manufacturer. Is it required that all code required markings be restamped on the part? Reply: required. No; however, a mark or marks traceable to the original U-2A Partial Data Report are

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-151 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-15(d) Date Issued: March 25, 1997 File: BC96-526 Question (1): Do the requirements of UW-15(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to an internal repad which will be provided with a telltale hole through the shell of the vessel and be left open? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No. For the condition stated in Question (1), does the code prohibit such construction? The Code does not address this type of construction.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-7(b) Date Issued: March 25, 1997 File: BC96-527 Question: Is it permissible to use limits of reinforcement per UG-40(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 to determine the amount of contribution a reinforcing pad has to a large opening designed per 1-7(b) of Appendix 1? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-95-153

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-20(a) April 28, 1997 BC96-233

Question: Do the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 require the use of a specific methodology for determining the mean metal temperatures to be used in design as referenced in UG-20(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-2(c) and Appendix 26 Date Issued: April 29, 1997 File: BC96-525 Question: May an expansion joint, meeting the requirements of Appendix 26 in Section VIII, Division 1, and attached to weld ends in accordance with Fig. 26-2, be used in an unfired boiler designed to UW-2(c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-155 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UHA-51(g) Date Issued: May 12, 1997 File: BC96-409 Question (1): For a vessel fabricated from 1/2 in. thick austenitic ferritic duplex steel not requiring impact testing in accordance with UHA-51(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, and otherwise exempted from impact testing in accordance with UHA-51(g), is impact testing required for the production welds and heat affected zones? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For the vessel in Question (1), is impact testing required for the Welding Procedure Qualifications? Reply (2): Question (3): applicable? Reply (3): No. For the vessel in Question (1), are the requirements of UW-2(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) No.

Question (4): If a carbon steel flange is welded to a nozzle neck on the vessel in Question (1), and the flange is exempted from impact testing per UCS-66, is the production weld, heat affected zone, and Welding Procedure Qualification required to be impact tested? Reply (4): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-11(a)(5) and (a)(7) Date Issued: May 13, 1997 File: BC96-336

Question: In accordance with UW-11(a)(7) of Section VIII, Division 1, may UT be applied to a nozzle butt welded per Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (f-1) through (f-4) if this weld is the final weld in the vessel and an interpretable radiograph cannot be obtained? Reply: Yes; however, the absence of suitable radiographic equipment shall not be justification for such substitution. Interpretation: VIII-1-95-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-11(e) Date Issued: May 13, 1997 File: BC96-337, BC96-368 Question: Are the requirements of UW-11(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for welded joints meeting the provisions of UW-12(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UCS-66 and UCS-67 Date Issued: May 30, 1997 File: BC97-254 Question (1): If the design of a pressure vessel satisfies the requirements of UCS-66(b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 such that no base material impact tests are required, are WPS and PQR impact tests required per UCS-67? Reply (1): No

Question (2): If the design of a pressure vessel satisfies the requirements of UCS-66(b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 such that no base material or WPS impact tests are required, are production impact tests required? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-11 Date Issued: July 11, 1997 File: BC96-536 Question: May finned tubes made of aluminum, which have their fins mechanically applied to the tubes and where no welding is performed on the tubes, be supplied by a shop which does not hold an ASME certificate of authorization and code symbol stamp to a manufacturer of air cooled heat exchangers that require code stamping? Reply: requirements. Yes, provided the tubes are made of code acceptable materials and meet all code

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: August 21, 1997

File:

BC95-461, BC96-533

Question: May multiple openings in flat heads be exempted from the requirements of UG-39(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 if they meet the provisions of UG-36(c)(3) including the spacing requirements of UG-36(c)(3)(d) and do not exceed one-fourth the head diameter? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-34(c)(1) and (c)(2) and UG36(c)(3)(a) Date Issued: August 21, 1997 File: BC96-105 Question: Are minimum thickness calculations per UG-34(c)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1 required if a circular blind flange used as an unstayed flat head, otherwise conforming to the requirements of UG-34(c)(1), has a nozzle installed in the center using full penetration welds meeting the requirements of UG-39(a) and the nozzle opening size is permitted in the flange standard referenced in UG-34(c)(1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-29 and UG-33 Date Issued: August 21, 1997 File: BC96-475 Question: For the case shown in Fig. UG-33.1 sketch (b), Section VIII, Division 1, is it required to use the cone outer surface diameter DL at the center of the attachment of the stiffener to the, cone when using the equations in UG-29(a) to calculate the required moment of inertia of the stiffening ring cross section Is, and the required moment of inertia of the combined stiffener-cone cross section I`s,? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UCS-66(b)(3) Date Issued: August 22, 1997 File: BC96-257 Question: In determining tr (required thickness) for nozzle walls for use in the Ratio in Fig. UCS66.1 of Section VIII, Division 1, must the nomenclature and notes of this Figure be used rather than the value from UG-45? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-125(e) and (g) Date Issued: August 22, 1997 File: BC96-259

Question (1): Does the note in UG-125(g) of Section VIII, Division 1 permit the use of automated controls, designed in a fail-safe mode, as an alternative mechanical relief devices? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): No, however see Code Case 2211. It is permissible to use a rupture disk(s) as a primary relief device? Yes, see UG-125(e),

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UW-2(a)(1)(c) and (a)(1)(c)(4) Date Issued: August 22, 1997 File: BC96-341b Question: If a shell of a heat exchanger is formed from rolled plate to a nonstandard size, and a lap joint stub is attached in accordance with UW-2(a)(1)(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, must the stub end still conform dimensionally to the requirements of ANSI B16.9 as stated in UW-2(a)(1)(c)(4)? Reply: No; however the construction must meet all of the requirements of this Division.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-36 and UG-45 Date Issued: December 5, 1997 File: BC97-262 Question (1): In complying with the requirements of UG-36 and UG-45 in Section VIII, Division 1, may elliptical or obround shaped nozzle necks be used in the construction of a pressure vessel? Reply (1): Question (2): vacuum? Reply (2): Yes. Are such nozzle necks described in Question (1) permitted on vessels designed for full Yes.

Question (3): Shall UG-2(g) be used for determining the required neck thickness for elliptical or obround nozzles designed for internal or external pressure, since rules are not explicitly provided in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); NDE Requirements for PWHT Vessels Date Issued: December 5, 1997 File: BC97-263 Question: For a vessel in which postweld heat treatment is a requirement, is it mandatory that all radiographic examination required by UW-11 of Section VIII, Division 1 be performed after the final postweld heat treatment? Reply: No.

Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File:

VIII-1-98-09R Section VIII, Division I; UW-11 and UCS-57 February 27, 2003 BC03-268*

Question: For a vessel in which postweld heat treatment is a requirement, is it mandatory that all radiographic examination required by UW-11 of Section VIII, Division 1 be performed after the postweld heat treatment? Reply: PWHT. No, except that UHA-33(b) and UHA-33(c) require radiographic examination after

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UCS-66(c) Date Issued: December 5, 1997 File: BC97-274 Question: Are the requirements of UCS-66(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for welding neck/socket welding-type flanges under B16.5 when the wall thickness of the attached pipe is greater than standard wall? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UW-40(c) Date Issued: December 5, 1997 File: BC97-275 Question: In complying with the requirements of UW-40(c) in Section VIII, Division 1, should thermocouples be physically attached to the vessels or vessel parts so as to obtain the true temperature readings, whether or not a single component/vessel or many are heat treated in a furnace charge? Reply: Yes, see UCS-56(d)(3).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-34(b) Date Issued: December 5, 1997 File: BC97-283 Question: In the nomenclature of UG-34(b) in Section VIII, Division 1, t, is defined as "required thickness of seamless shell, for pressure, in." When using ERW pipe for shell, may tr be calculated based upon the stress values for seamless pipe? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-95-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UCS-66(c) and UCS-68(c) Date Issued: December 17, 1996 File: BC96-378

Question: May the additional 30F reduction in Charpy impact testing exemption temperature requirement of UCS-68(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to the provision of UCS-66(c), .which allows ANSI B16.5 flanges exemption from Charpy impact requirements when the MDMT is no colder than -20F? Reply: Yes.

Note: This Interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 40 of the Interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UCS-66(a)(1)(b) and Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (3) Date Issued: January 20, 1998 File: BC96-342 Question: A vessel has a carbon steel cylinder which is welded by two circumferential welds, as per Fig. 2-4 sketch (3) in Section VIII, Division 1, to a custom forged carbon steel slip-on flange with a hub. Is the governing thickness tg for impact test exemption at these fillet weld joints the thinner of the nozzle wall thickness and the flange thickness? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UW-52(c)(3) Date Issued: January 20, 1998 File: BC96-477 Question (1): Does UW-52(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 require rounded indications that are aligned to be evaluated regarding whether the alignment and spacing is characteristic of cracks or zones of incomplete fusion or penetration? Reply (1): Question (2): 52(c)(3)? Reply (2): No. Should rounded indications be evaluated under the rules of both UW-52(c)(2) and UWNo, they should be evaluated under the rules of UW-52(c)(3).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); U-1(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) Date Issued: March 3, 1998 File: BC98-088 Question: Must a pressure vessel satisfy the description of all three categories as described in U1(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 in order to meet the requirements for exclusion from the "unfired steam boiler" classification? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-1-98-16

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Appendix 12, 12-4 March 17, 1998 BC97-440

Question: If indications or reflections produce a response greater than 50% of the reference level, shall the indications or reflections be recorded regardless of their origin? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-125, UG-135, and Appendix M Date Issued: March 17, 1998 File: BC97-443 Question: Is it permissible to have a remotely located pressure relief device which has multiple isolation valves (that are positively controlled by being locked open) and an orifice (which is part of a flow element) between the relief device and the Code vessel it protects? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-45 Date Issued: March 17, 1998 File: BC97-517 Question: If a 1 in. schedule 40 SA-106 Grade B nozzle neck meets the requirements of UG-45(b) (4) and is exempt from reinforcement calculations by UG-36(c)(3)(a) and UW-15(b), is it also exempt from calculations for required thickness due to internal pressure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(h) Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: BC97-444 Question (1): A vessel is vacuum jacketed at full vacuum. The operating pressure in the vessel is less than 15 psig. Is the vessel outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): U-1(c)(2)(h) states vessels are outside the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 if the internal or external operating pressure does not exceed 15 psi. Is this provision based on "gage pressure" or "differential pressure"? Reply (2): This provision is based on differential pressure.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 Sketch (6) Date Issued: March 18, 1998

File:

BC97-512

Question: May the tapered hub length h as shown in Fig. 2-4 sketch (6) of Section VIII, Division 1 include the flange weld when this weld is part of the hub slope? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-39 Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: BC97-514 Question: For flat bolted covers, is the term "head diameter" as used in UG-39 of Section VIII, Division 1 the same as the term d as defined in UG-34(b)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UW-52 Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: BC97-519 Question: May real time radioscopic examination be used to satisfy the requirements of UW-52 for spot examination of welded joints? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Fig. UW-16.1 Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: BC97-522 Question: May the attachment details shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketch (a) or (c) be used on a vessel intended for use in lethal service? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1974 Edition and Earlier); U-I Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: BC98-115 Question: Was it permissible to furnish a Code stamped vessel with nozzle openings, but without permanent covers? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-25 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Use of SA-553 Type I Plate Material

Date Issued: File:

March 20, 1998 BC97-317

Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 that plate produced to SA-553, Type I may be used for design temperatures below -275F? Reply: Yes.

Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-03. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); Fig. UW-13,2 Sketch (d) and Appendix 2, 2-1(e) Date Issued: March 20, 1998 File: BC97-508A Question (1): Is it prohibited by Section VIII, Division 1 to use Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) for the flangeto-shell attachment of a reverse flange? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is no, shall U-2(g) be used in the design of a reverse flange using Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (d) for the flange-to-shell attachment of a reverse flange? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-99(b); Appendix 22, 22-3(a); and Appendix W, Form U-1 (line 11) and Form U-1A (line 9) Date Issued: April 23, 1998 File: BC98-062 Question: A pressure vessel is constructed to the requirements of Appendix 22 in Section VIII, Division 1. Is it permissible when determining the value for test pressure to be entered on lines 11 and 9 of Data Report Forms U-1 and U-1A, respectively, to calculate that value based on design pressure calculations permitted under UG-99(b), where the allowable stress is calculated from the requirements given in 22-3(a) of Appendix 22? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda); UG-44(a) and (i) Date Issued: May 29, 1998 File: BC96-534 Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, must corrosion allowance, if specified, be considered when providing flanges and flanged fittings per UG-44(a) and UG-44(i)? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-98-29

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-16(f)(3)(a)(2) May 29, 1998 BC97-267

Question: In Section VIII, Division 1, does the limit given in UW-16(f)(3)(a)(2) apply to the maximum chord dimension created by the nonradial fitting? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-77(a) Date Issued: July 14, 1998 File: BC97-405 Question: A subcontractor cut and formed SA-240 Type 304 coil material into completed parts and transferred only the heat number. A review of the CMTR shows the chemical and mechanical properties of each piece is in compliance with the material specifications. Is the heat number sufficient as identification marking for pressure retaining components to meet the requirements of UG-77(a) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, if the control method to identify the material from the heat number is described in the Quality Control Manual. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-34 Date Issued: July 20, 1998 File: BC98-174 Question (1): Are the equations for rectangular bolted covers in UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 based on uniform support by bolts or studs? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the responsibility of the Manufacturer/Designer to determine if uneven or asymmetric bolting patterns provide uniform support in the design of rectangular belted covers? Reply (2): Question (3): uniformly? Reply (3): Yes. Shall U-2(g) be used in the design of rectangular bolted covers that are not supported Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Appendix 24 Date issued: July 20, 1998 File: BC98-177 Question: Is Appendix 24 in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable for the design of a clamp connection which is similar in geometry to those described in Appendix 24, but which employs a gasket design that is self-energized or has a low seating load feature?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-16(c) Date Issued: July 20, 1998 File: BC98-180 Question: Do the undertolerance provisions of UG-16(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to plate, sheets, or strip materials when they are formed to make a cylinder and welded using the ERW process? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Figs. UW-13.3 Sketch (a) and AA-1.1 Sketch (b) Date Issued: July 20, 1998 File: BC98-225 Question: A heat exchanger uses butt welded hubs for the attachment of the tubesheet to the shell and channel sections similar to that shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (a) in Section VIII, Division 1. Does this type of configuration meet the integral type of tubesheet arrangement as shown in Fig. AA-1.1 sketch (b) of Appendix AA? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-35 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition. 1997 Addenda); UG-90(c)(1) (VIII-1) and AG-303 (VIII-2) Date Issued: July 21, 1998 File: BC98-229 Question (1): Is it mandatory that the Authorized Inspector sign off for each of the operations that he is responsible to witness by subparagraphs UG-90(c)(1) and AG-303 in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does the signing of the Manufacturer's Data Report by the Authorized Inspector signify that he has witnessed and verified all operations listed in the UG-90(c)(1) and AG-303 of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, respectively? Reply (2): Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-08

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-36 Subject Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-90(c)(1)(1) Date Issued: July 21, 1998 File: BC98-241

Question: In meeting the requirements of UG-90(c)(1)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, would it be permissible for an Authorized Inspector to make the final internal inspection of a vessel prior to the completion of the internal fabrication of such vessel as long as conditions permit entry into the vessel prior to final closure? Reply: No. See UG-97.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-52(b)(2) Date Issued: July 21, 1998 File: BC98-246 Question: A weld joint accepted by spot radiography under the rules of UW-52 in Section VIII, Division 1 develops a pinhole leak during the hydrostatic pressure test. The leak is repaired, and the vessel is subjected to a repeat of the hydro test for final acceptance. Prior to repeating the pressure test, is it required to perform spot radiography to determine acceptability of the repair? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-33 Date Issued: July 29, 1998 File: BC98-176 Question: A vessel having dished beads butt welded to a cylindrical shell is to be designed for external pressure. The dished heads meet the minimum thickness requirements of UG-33 in Section VIII, Division 1. Must the thickness of the dished heads also meet the required thickness of the mating cylindrical shell? Reply: No, but any skirt supplied with the head shall meet the requirements of UG-33(i).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-39 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UCS-66(c) Date Issued: July 29, 1998 File: BC98-286 Question: May ferritic steel long weld neck flanges, including a barrel whose outside diameter does not exceed that limited by nut relief, that comply with the design and rating requirements of ASME B 16.5 be used at a design metal temperature no colder than -20F without impact testing? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-84(i)(1) Date Issued: August 19, 1998 File: BC98-227 Question: Does the phrase "in addition to the requirements of (h) above," at the beginning of UG84(i)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, only mean that a properly qualified welding procedure with impact tests of the weld and HAZ is required to be used for the fabrication of the vessel and the vessel (production) impact test plates?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-41 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition); Code Case 2235 Date issued: September 4, 1998 File: BC98-327 Question: Is it permissible to use the Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight-Diffraction (TOFD) Technique when implementing Code Case 2235? Reply: Note: Yes. This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-09

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-42 Subject Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-133(c) Date Issued: October 7, 1998 File: BC97-266 Question: UG-133(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 allows treating several vessels connected together as a single unit in determining relieving capacity of pressure safety devices to be furnished. Is it permissible to treat more than one vessel as a single unit for determining the relieving capacity if there are intervening block valves that comply with the requirements and restrictions given in Nonmandatory Appendix M, M-5(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Appendix M, M-7(a) Date Issued: October 9, 1998 File: BC98-178 Question: When calculating the inlet pressure losses to a safety valve per Appendix M, M-7(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, for a combination of a safety valve and rupture disk, shall the losses due to the rupture disk be included in the pipeline calculation? Reply: Yes. See UG-135(b)(1).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-77 Date Issued: October 9, 1998 File: BC98-242 Question (1): material? Reply (1): Are the requirements of UG-77 in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to pipe and tube Yes.

Question (2): Is the Manufacturer required to ensure traceability of pipe material to all the original product marking requirements including the heat number and manufacturer's name or brand?

Reply (2):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-98-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Requirement for Performing Hydro Test After Welding End Closures Date Issued: October 9, 1998 File: BC98-245 Question: Seamless, forged pressure vessels are constructed in accordance with Part UF and Appendix 22 of Section VIII, Division 1. Threaded end closure plugs are not welded to the vessel prior to performing the required hydrostatic test. The end closure plugs are seal welded to the vessel after the initial hydro. Is it required to conduct a second hydrostatic test, witnessed by the Al, after the seal welding is completed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-14(d) Date Issued: October 9, 1998 File: BC98-293 Question: Is a Category A, B, or C welded joint required to meet the radiographic requirements of UW-51 as stipulated in UW-14(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 if a single opening that meets the requirements of UG-36(c)(3) and UG-37 is to be placed closer than "2 in. from the edge of the weld joint for material 1 1/2 in. thick or less? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-11(a)(1) Date Issued: October 12, 1998 File: BC98-296 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-11(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1, may pressure parts that are made to order by a parts Manufacturer, and which are described in his literature with the pressure-temperature ratings to be marked on the parts, be designated as standard pressure parts complying with a Manufacturer's standard? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, (1998 Edition); Use of SA-105 for Flat Covers Date Issued: October 12, 1998 File: BC98-333 Question: A flat, bolted cover is designed in accordance with the rules of UG-34(c)(2). The cover contains multiple openings which are reinforced in accordance with UG-39(e)(1) or UG-39(e)(2). May the cover be constructed of SA-105 material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, (1998 Edition); Use of SA-350 Material for Covers Date Issued: October 12, 1998 File: BC98-334 Question: 1? Reply: May SA-350 material be used in the construction of covers under Section VIII, Division Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UHA-51(g) Date Issued: October 12, 1998 File: BC98-425 Question (1): May vessel components fabricated from materials listed in Table UHA-23 of Section VIII, Division 1 be individually exempted from impact tests per UHA-51(g) provided impact testing is not required per UHA-51(c)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, are the requirements of UW-2(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) applicable to the exempted vessel component when other components of the vessel are required to be impact tested? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-93(d)(3) and Fig. 24 Sketch (4a) Date Issued: November 10, 1998 File: BC98-288 Question: Is nondestructive examination as required by UG-93(d)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 required to be performed on a joint detail such as Fig. 2-4 sketch (4a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-89-313R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition): UG-40 Date Issued: February 25, 1999 File: BC90-470* Question (1): May the metal for a single nozzle reinforcement be located asymmetrically about the nozzle center line, within the stated boundaries for the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (1): the opening. Yes, provided at least half the required reinforcement be on each side of the center line of

Question (2): May the shell nozzle reinforcement area include bolted flange metal from a weld neck flange welded to the shell and located within the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May shell nozzle reinforcement area include metal from the straight flange portion of a dished shell cover welded to shell and within the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation Inadvertently Omitted From Volume 44 Interpretation: VII-1-98-52 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UCS-67(a)(2) and AM218.2(a)(2) Date Issued: September 18, 1998 File: BC98-086 Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-67(a)(2) and Division 2, AM-218(a)(2) that welds be exempt from impact testing, when they are made with welding consumables that are classified by impact tests in the applicable SFA specification at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT? Reply: Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-11.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-52(c) Date Issued: January 26, 1999 File: BC98-290 Question (1): Section V under T-275 speaks of an area of interest. Can this be the same as the minimum length of 6 in. given in UW-52(c) of section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Spot radiography is performed in accordance with Code rules and meets the acceptance criteria of UW-52(c) and UW-52(d)(1). If unacceptable indications are found outside the 6 in. minimum length requirement, is it required to perform two additional spot examinations as specified under UW52(d)(2)? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): May areas where unacceptable indications are found outside the 6 in. minimum length requirement be repaired at the Manufacturers discretion? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition); U-1(c)(2) and U-1(c)(2)(e) Date Issued: January 26, 1999 File: BC98-336

Question: Is it permissible to use an extruded outlet as a pressure boundary component in a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition); UG-11(a)(1) and UCS-85(e) Date Issued: January 26, 1999 File: BC98-365 Question: Would a pipe such as SA-333 Grade 3 be considered a standard item such as described in UG-11(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 if it is used as a nozzle in a pressure vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Appendix W, Note 38 Date Issued: January 26, 1999 File: BC98-367 Question: If all of the materials used in construction of a pressure vessel are exempt from impact testing per UG-20(f) of Section VIII, Division 1, and UG-20(f) appears in the Remarks section of the U1A Data Report, is it necessary to also list an additional paragraph, such as UCS-66(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); U-1(e)(1)(c) Date Issued: January 26, 1999 File: BC98-368 Question: In meeting the requirements of U-1(e)(1)(c) in Section VIII, Division 1, are proprietary bolts supplied with a flange that attaches a non-Code item to a Code nozzle within the Scope of the Code? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); U-16(b)(4) Date Issued: January 29, 1999 File: BC98-526 Question: Does the 3/32 in. minimum thickness requirement in UG-16(b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to a pressure vessel in compressed gas service when the gas is not air? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-125(g)

Date Issued: File:

February 9, 1999 BC97-398

Question (1): Does UG-125(g) of Section VIII, Division 1 permit the jacket of a vessel not to have a relief valve directly installed on it, if the only external source of pressure to the jacket is controlled by the direct spring loaded pressure relief valve set not to exceed the maximum allowable pressure of the jacket at the operating temperature? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does UG-125(g) permit the jacket of a vessel not to be protected by a relief device, if the only external source of pressure to the jacket is controlled by the maximum pressure that can be developed by the centrifugal pump and the maximum pressure does not exceed the MAWP of the jacket at the operating temperature? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UW-9(e) and Fig. UW-13.1 Sketches (a) and (e) Date Issued: February 9, 1999 File: BC97-404 Question: Is it permissible per UW-9(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 to fabricate a manhole or nozzle neck from two telescoped concentric cylinders connected by a conical section and welded with single fillet lap welds as shown in Fig UW-13.1 sketch (a) and/or Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (e)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda): UW-3(a)(2) Date Issued: March 26, 1999 File: BC98-505 Question: In making a determination of welded joint category under UW-3 of Section VIII, Division 1, is an attachment weld between a formed head manway cover and a manway neck considered to be a Category B joint when it is located in a vessel constructed under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-3 and UW-13(e) Date Issued: March 26, 1999 File: BC98-510 Question (1): A flat rectangular bolted cover plate is one of the four sides of a pressure vessel of rectangular cross-section, and is designed by the rules of UG-34(c)(3). One or more nozzles are to be attached by welding at opening(s) in the cover plate. In making a determination of welded joint category under UW-3 of Section VIII, Division 1, is the welded joint connecting a nozzle to the cover plate a Category D weld?

Reply (1): Question (2): Question (1)? Reply (2):

Yes. Are the weld attachment requirements of UW-13(e) applicable for the nozzle weld in No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UW-2(d)(2) Date Issued: March 29, 1999 File: BC97-282 Question: Is a vessel that has been lined with refractory or brick or a combination of the two, so that flame does not impinge on the metal, considered a direct fired vessel under the requirements of UW2(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-125(g) Date Issued: April 6, 1999 File: BC97-280 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-125(g) in Section VIII, Division 1, may a pilot actuated closure device incorporating a fail safe mode be considered sufficiently positive control in lieu of a pressure relief valve? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Fig. UG-34 Sketch (e) Date Issued: April 6, 1999 File: BC99-100 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 specify a minimum overlap between two parts being joined for the weld detail shown in Fig. UG-34 sketch (e)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-66 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Appendices 10 and 18, Respectively; Document Preparation and Transfer in Multilocation Organizations Date Issued: May 20, 1999 File: BC98-307 Question: Do Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 include specific requirements regarding the review, preparation, and approval of design calculations, specifications, and other documents that are prepared by parts of a multilocation organization located at addresses other than that shown on the Certificate of Authorization?

Reply: No. However, the control for such documents shall be included in the certificate Holders quality control manual. (See Appendix 10, 10-5 of Section VIII, Division 1 and Appendix 18, 18-113 of Section VIII, Division 2.) Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-12. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-11(a)(1) Date Issued: June 1, 1999 File: BC99-083 Question: Is it acceptable to use "ferrules," which are flanged tubes used in clamp connections, as nozzle necks if machined from bar stock (does not comply with Code Case 2148), and purchased as a Manufacturer's standard pressure part under the requirements of UG-11(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-11(a) Date Issued: June 1, 1999 File: BC99-218 Question (1): May pipes, made of carbon and low alloy steel materials and having dimensions per ASME B36.10, used as pressure vessel nozzle necks or cylindrical shells be designated as standard pressure parts under the requirements of UG-11(a) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No. Pipe used a nozzle neck in a pressure vessel would not fall under the provisions of UG-11, miscellaneous pressure parts, but would be procured by the vessel Manufacturer as material and would be subject to the provisions of UG-93. Question (2): Reply (2): Does the term "nozzles" as given in UG-11(a) also mean "pipes"? No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition; 1998 Addenda); fig. UW-13.3, Note (4) Date Issued: June 7, 1999 File: BC99-271 Question: A tubesheet has two butt welded hubs similar to Appendix AA, Fig. AA-2.0 sketch (a). The hubs meet the details as shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (a). Are the hub lengths required to meet the criterion of Note 94) for h in Fig. UW-13.3 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No. The requirement in Note (4) for h is only applicable to sketch (c) of Fig. UW-13.3.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-10(a) and SA-372 Date Issued: June 23, 1999 File: BC98-488

Question: May material meeting the chemistry requirements of SA-372 Gr. G Class 70, except having additions of elements that exceed the limits of the specification, and otherwise meeting all the requirements of SA-372 Gr. G Class 70, be certified to SA-372 Gr. G Class 70 per UG-10(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No, because the presence of additional elements conflicts with the requirements of the permitted specification. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-137(d)(3) Date Issued: June 23, 1999 File: BC98-522 Question: Is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-137(d)(3) that a rupture disk and its disk holder be provided by the same Manufacturer? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-4(a)(1) Date Issued: June 29, 1999 File: BC99-292 Question: Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 provide for a maximum pressure when designing loose type flanges, as denoted in 2-4(a)(1) of Appendix 2? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-125(c)(2) and (3) and UG129 Date Issued: June 29, 1999 File: BC99-293 Question: Do supplemental pressure relief devices, permitted by UG-125(c)(2) and (3) in Section VIII, Division 1, require marking, including the application of the Code Symbol Stamp, as outlined in UG-129? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-16(b)(3) and (4) Date Issued: June 30, 1999 File: BC99-269 Question: In the design of a double pipe heat exchanger, the requirements of UG-16(b)(3) and (4) in Section VIII, Division 1 are not applicable. The inner pipe of the double pipe heat exchanger extends beyond the flat closure bar to make a flanged connection to piping. The provisions of UG-16(b)(2) are applied to the inner pipe. Shall the outward extension of the pipe beyond the closure be considered "All other pressure parts of these exchangers" per UG-16(b)(2)?

Reply:

Yes, and they must meet the 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) minimum thickness requirement.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UHA-42 Date Issued: July 6, 1999 File: BC99-107 Question (1): Is the restriction on columbium given in UHA-42 of Section VIII, Division 1 in addition to any specified requirements shown in specifications of Section II, Part C? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does the restriction given in Question (1) solely apply to welds that are exposed to the corrosive action of the contents of the vessel? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1 -98-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Manufacturers Data Report Form Date Issued: July 6, 1999 File: BC99-280 Question: When preheat is used in lieu of postweld heat treatment, as permitted by the requirements of Table UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1, must the preheat conditions be recorded on the Manufacturers Data Report Form? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIIl-1-98-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UW-13(e)(3) and Appendix A, A-2 Date Issued: August 19, 1999 File: BC99-363 Question: For a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger, should the pressure load as stated in UW-13(e)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1, include the load due to differential thermal expansion between the shell and the tubes? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 Sketches (b) and (c), and Fig. UW-13.3 Sketches (a) and (b) Date Issued: August 20, 1999 File: BC99-359 Question (1): A pressure vessel is constructed of plates with corner joint details as shown in Fig. UW13.2 sketches (b), (c), or (d) of Section VIII, Division 1. A buttering weld is to be applied to the bevel of the flat plate before the completed joint is welded. May the buttering weld be considered as part of the b dimension?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): A pressure vessel is constructed with butt welded hubs similar to Fig. UW-13.3 sketches (a) and (b) of Section VIII, Division 1. Instead of machining the flat plate to obtain the hub, weld metal is deposited to the plate to achieve the hub dimensions. Do the rules of UW-13(e) and UW-13(f) apply? Reply (2): There are no specific rules for the detail described; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-8(b) Date Issued: August 25, 1999 File: BC99-358 Question: Do the rules of UG-8(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to a mechanically finned tube (aluminum fins pressed into spiral grooves cut into the outer diameter of the tube)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UCS-6(b)(3) Date Issued: August 25, 1999 File: BC99-362 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UCS-6(b)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1 to use SA-36 and SA-283 material for the side plates of a rectangular pressure vessel when the thickness exceed 5/8 in.? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); U-1(e)(2) Date Issued: September 10, 1999 File: BC99-373 Question: Are the calculations for lifting of the vessel considered a part of Code, Section VIII, Division 1, design calculations and required to be made available to the Authorized Inspector? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-8(b) and (c) Date Issued: October 21, 1999 File: BC98-172a Question: When using Appendix 1, 1-8(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, if the calculated value of factor B falls on a horizontal portion of the appropriate material and temperature external pressure curve such that multiple values of A are possible, what value of A should be used in determining the value of moment-of-inertia? Reply: The smallest value of A.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-7(b) Date Issued: October 22, 1999 File: BC99-370 Question (1): Is Appendix 1, 1-7(b) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable only when both of the following conditions exist?: (a) the vessel diameter is greater than 60 in. I.D.; and (b) the nozzle diameter exceeds the greater of 40 in. I.D. and 3.4Rt Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For cases where both conditions in Question (1) exist and the Rn/R ratio exceeds 0.7, may the rules of U-2(g) be applied in lieu of Appendix 1, 1-7(b) rules? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-16(c) Date Issued: October 25, 1999 File: BC99-222 Question: May rounding rules provided in ASTM E 29 and referred by plate general requirements SA-6 and SA-20, be used when determining compliance with the undertolerance requirements of UG16(c) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.1 Sketch (n) and UW-33(a). Date Issued: October 25, 1999 File: BC99-300 Question: May the center line misalignment of a Category B joint of materials of different thicknesses, as determined by Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (n) of Section VIII, Division 1, be increased by the amount of offset allowed for the applicable joint in Table UW-33? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-l-98-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-99(b) and (c) Date Issued: October 25, 1999 File: BC99-346 Question: Do the requirements of UG-99(b) and (c) in Section VIII, Division 1 preclude the use of a temperature recorder for the test medium during the performance of the hydrostatic test? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UW-51 and Appendix 12 Date Issued: October 25, 1999 File: BC99-457 Question: Does the reference to ASNT SNT-TC-1A in UW-51 and Appendix 12 of Section VIII, Division 1 allow the Manufacturer to use the American Society for Nondestructive Testing Central Certification Program (ACCP) as an outside agency to certify NDE personnel? Reply: Yes, provided that it complies with the employers written practice.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-88 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Use of SA-516M Grade 415 Date Issued: November 4, 1999 File: BC99-477 Question (1): May SA-516M Grade 415, which is equivalent to SA-516 Grade 60, be used in Code construction for Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2? Reply (1): systems. Question (2): Reply (2): parentheses. Note: Yes, provided the results are reported in both systems and meet the requirements of both May SA-516M be specified on the Manufacturers Data Report Forms? The Data Reports should report SA-516 Grade 60 followed by SA-516M Grade 415 in

This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-15.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(c) and (c)(2)(d) Date Issued: November 17, 1999 File: BC99-479 Question: A hydraulic manifold is used to house valve components. Its primary function is to control the movement and pressure of hydraulic fluid. May the manifold be considered outside the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 by the requirements of U-1(c)(2)(c) and (d)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Appendix M, M-5(a) and (b) Date Issued: December 29, 1999 File: BC99-447 Question (1): Does the M-5(b) wording in Section VIII, Division 1 the pressure originates from an outside source exclusively mean that the only source of potential overpressure is from a fluid contained or generated external to the vessel and connected to the vessel with piping? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When fire exposure is a consideration in the determination of required pressure relief capacities, is such consideration covered under the provisions of M-5(a)? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): One of the provisos in M-5(a) for permitting a stop valve between a vessel and its pressure-relieving device is for inspection and repair purposes only. Is inspection and repair of the pressure-relieving device the fundamental consideration driving this proviso? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Does M-5(a) permit an intervening stop valve between two vessels protected by a common pressure-relieving device for conditions, such as fire exposure or heat exchanger tube failure, if the stop valve is locked open and appropriate administrative procedures are in place? Both vessels are considered likely to be exposed to the same fire event. Reply (4): 5(a). An intervening stop valve between two vessels is not covered under the provisions of M-

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Appendix 27, UW-2(a), and UCS-56 Date Issued: January 10, 2000 File: BC99-478 Question: All P-No. 1 materials are used to construct a Type 2 jacketed glass-lined vessel under Appendix 27 of Section VIII, Division 1. The internal chamber will contain a lethal substance and has successfully passed examination in accordance with UW-11(a) and UW-51. The internal chamber will be subjected to multiple temperature cycles in accordance with 27-4(a)(3) for completion of the glassing operation. May these multiple elevated temperature cycles be substituted for the heat treatment and documentation requirements of UW-2(a) and UCS-56? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-92 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-90(b)(6) and AI101(b)(6) Date Issued: January 10, 2000 File: BC99-496 Question: Does the application of the requirements of UG-90(b)(6) and AI-101(b)(6) in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, and their referenced paragraphs require a Certificate of Authorization Holder to acquire the Authorized Inspectors concurrence prior to using what is known as a preliminary release of material to fabrication, when there are problems with the material suppliers documentation or markings? Reply: No. However, preliminary releases are at the Manufacturers risk, since even concurrence by the Inspector does not bind him to final acceptance and certification of the completed vessel if the problems are not fully resolved. Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-98-16.

estion:

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCS-66(b) and Fig. UCS-66.1 Date Issued: January 10, 2000 File: BC99-565 Question: When performing an impact test exemption/MDMT review of a backing strip to be left in place on a circumferential joint, may the longitudinal stress at the joint be used in the Alternative Ratio in Fig. UCS-66.1 of Section VIII, Division 1 for figuring the coincident ratio per UCS-66(b)? Reply: Interpretation: No. VIII-98-94

bject:

Subject:
Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-116(j)(1)

January 10, 2000 BC99-574

Question: May the required markings of UG-116(j)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to one nameplate for a combination unit consisting of multiple detachable chambers that have the same pressure and temperature rating? Reply: Yes, so long as each detachable chamber is marked so as to identify it positively with the combined unit. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UG-44 Date Issued: January 12, 2000 File: BC98-230 Question (1): An ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 raised face blind flange (or a blind flange machined to the dimensional requirements of B 16.5 or B 16.47) has its center portion drilled with an array of holes to accept immersion heater elements that are attached by welding or brazing. Is it acceptable for Section VIII, Division 1 construction to use the B16.5 or B16.47 pressure-temperature ratings of these standards without performing any additional design calculations as allowed by UG-44? Reply (1): Question (2): No. If the reply to Question (1) is no, what additional requirements apply?

Reply (2): The design of bolted circular flat heads is covered by paragraph UG-34(c)(2), formula (2). When openings that do not satisfy the provisions of UG-39(a) are present in flat heads, the reinforcement requirements of UG-39 must be satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); U-2(h) Date Issued: January 12, 2000 File: BC98-292 Question: May a Manufacturers Data Report Form U-1A be used for certification of a vessel totally fabricated at a field site controlled by the ASME Certificate Holder with an ASME Certificate of Authorization which includes field sites?

Reply: No. The Manufacturers Data Report Form U-1A as indicated in the title is only used For Single Chamber, Completely Shop-Fabricated Vessels. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-2(c) Date Issued: January 12, 2000 File: BC99-522 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, UW-2(c) permit the use of applicable exemptions in Table UCS-56 for the appropriate materials when all the restrictions for the exemptions are complied with? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UHA-51(g) Date Issued: January 14, 2000 File: BC99-596 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, UHA-51(g), exempt from impact testing all base metal, weld metal, and heat affected zones (HAZ) for vessels using materials listed in Table UHA-23 designed with a coincident ratio of less than 0.35 regardless of the MDMT, unless testing is otherwise required per UHA-51(c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCS-68(b) Date Issued: January 14, 2000 File: BC99-597 Question: welds? Reply: Do the requirements of UCS-68(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to tube-to-tubesheet Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-84, UHA-5l, UHA-5l(d)(3), and UHA-51(e)(3) Date Issued: January 14, 2000 File: BC99-598 Question (1): Are impact tests required on austenitic ferritic duplex steels when the MDMT is +32F or colder, and the thickness limit of UHA-51 (d)(3)(a) in Section VIII, Division 1 is exceeded? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When standard pressure parts, as outlined in UG-11, made from austenitic ferritic duplex steels are within the pressure temperature ratings of its standard, is it still required to perform impact testing in accordance with UG-84 and UHA-51?

Reply (2): 51(d)(3)(a). Question (3): heads? Reply (3):

Yes, when the MDMT is colder than -20F, or the thickness exceeds the limit of UHADoes the exemption given in UHA-51(d)(3) apply to rolled plate as used for shells and Yes.

Question (4): Is the value of energy absorbed, as permitted by SA-370, an acceptable value when assessing the notch ductility in accordance with the requirements of UHA-51? Reply (4): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Appendix 18, 18-1 Date Issued: February 3, 2000 File: BC99-609 Question: Would it be acceptable under the requirements of Appendix 18, 18-1 in Section VIII, Division 1, for a vessel Manufacturer to apply the adhesive to the back of a metal nameplate? Reply: Yes, if the vessel Manufacturer is also the nameplate manufacturer.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-43(d) Date Issued: February 8, 2000 File: BC99-599 Question: A Manufacturer constructs plate-type heat exchangers. When media passes through the exchanger, it is isolated from the frame plate (vessel wall) which has studded flanged connections. There is no direct pressure or contact from the media at the location of the studs. Are the requirements of UG43(d) in Section VIII, Division 1, which specify that drilled holes shall not penetrate within one-fourth of the wall thickness, applicable for the case described? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-30 Date Issued: February 14, 2000 File: BC99-611 Question (1): For the attachment of stiffening rings, Section VIII, Division 1, UG-30(a) states that the ring shall be essentially in contact with the shell. When continuous stiffening rings are attached by fillet welding them to conical or cylindrical shells in accordance with UG-30, may a gap exist in local areas between the stiffening rings and the surface of the conical or cylindrical shells? Reply (I): Yes.

Question (2): If the Reply to Question (1) is yes, what is the maximum allowed gap and the maximum allowed length over which the gap exists?

Reply (2): Section VIII, Division 1 does not specify dimensional limits for the gap between stiffening rings and conical or cylindrical shells. U-2(g) shall be used. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-8(b) and (c) Date Issued: February 29, 2000 File: File BC98-175 Question: When calculating the moment of inertia for a stiffening ring at the cone-to-cylinder junction under external pressure in accordance with the rules of 1-8(b) and (c) of Appendix 1 of Section VIII, Division 1, is it the intent that U-2(g) shall be used when FL at the large end or Fs at the small end is a negative value? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); Appendix 17, 17-7 Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC99-456 Question (1): Duplicate or geometric similar parts are referenced in Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(1)(c) of Section VIII, Division 1. Are the nominal dimension requirements of diameter, width, height, and length in UG-10l(d)(1)(c) applicable when a representative panel as defined in Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(1)(a) is pressure proof tested per 17-5(a)(1)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Except for the radius, are the nominal dimension requirements of width, height, and length in UG-101(d)(1)(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, applicable when a representative panel as defined in Appendix 17, 17-7(a)(1)(b) is pressure proof tested per 17-5(a)(2)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-33 Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC99-595 Question: Does the edge alignment of a finished butt welded joint attaching a head (1/2 in.) to a shell (3/8 in.) need to be within the 1/4t tolerances of UW-33 in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-19(c) and UNF-58(c) Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC99-608 Question: If a dimpled jacketed vessel is constructed in accordance with UW-19(c) of Section VIII, Division 1, but the base material, used as backing, falls under UNF-58(c), would the welded joint require liquid penetrant examination?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCL-51 and Table UCS-56 Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-080 Question (1): A pressure vessel is constructed of P-No. 1 and P-No. 8 materials, and is intended for lethal service. The vessel is PWHT. After PWHT, but before performing the hydrotest, the interior of the vessel has a stainless steel lining applied using plug welds. Does Note (2)(c)(5) of Table UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1 permit the liner to be applied after the vessel has been PWHT without the need to perform any additional heat treatment? Reply (1): Yes, provided that the preheat requirements are met.

Question (2): Does UCL-51 permit the liner to be repaired by welding to the P-No. 1 base material after the vessel has been PWHT without the need to perform any additional heat treatment? Reply (2): Yes, with the acceptance of the Authorized Inspector.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-109 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-1l(a)(5)(b) Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-081 Question: The thickness of a two-piece flanged-and-dished head with a straight flange is calculated using a joint efficiency of E = 1 for the Category A weld. Calculation permits an E = 0.70 to be used for the thickness of the straight flange, when the flange is calculated as a cylindrical shell. The shell of the vessel is calculated using an E = 0.70 for the Category A and B welds. Is the spot radiography requirement of UW-11(a)(5)(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 required on the circumferential weld connecting the head to the shell when per UW-11(a)(5), the design of the straight flange is not based on a joint efficiency permitted by UW-12(a)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-40(c) and UCS-56(d)(3) Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-082 Question: In complying with the requirements of UW-40(c) and UCS-56(d)(3) in Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary to have thermocouples attached to both the inside and outside surfaces of a vessel during postweld heat treatment? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-111 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-28 Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-083

Question (1): For a cylindrical shell containing an intermediate head, conforming to Fig. UW-13.1 sketch (f), may the intermediate head be treated as a line of support as described for term L in UG-28? Reply (1): shell. Yes, provided that the intermediate head is designed for the same external pressure as the

Question (2): Is the line of support to be taken at the head tangent line, or is an adjustment required similar to that made to a closing head? Reply (2): There are no Code requirements for determining this calculation. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(h) Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-096 Question: For a pressure vessel excluded from the Scope of Section VIII, Division 1 by the requirement in U-1(c)(2)(h), but that is constructed to the requirements of the Code including the application of the U Code Symbol Stamp, is it mandatory that such a pressure vessel be protected from overpressure by a UV or UD Code stamped safety relief device? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-98-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-2(a)(1)(d) Date Issued: March 22, 2000 File: BC00-100 Question (I): May reinforced pads attached with fillet welds as shown in Fig. UW-16.1 sketches (a-2) or (h) of Section VIII, Division 1, be used on vessels designed for lethal service per UW-2(a)(1)(d)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are the welds attaching pad type reinforcement to the vessel as shown in Fig. UG-40 sketches (a-1) through (a-4), with or without a nozzle neck, classified as part of the Category D joint? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If the reply to Question (2) is yes, do the Category D joints shown in Fig. UG-40 sketches (a-1) through (a-4) meet the requirements of UW-2(a)(1)(d)? Reply (3): Of the four sketches cited, only sketch (a-2) meets the requirements of UW-2(a)(1)(d).

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); UG-84(g)(2) Date Issued: March 24, 2000 File: BC93-751 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide rules on the required number or location of heat affected zone impact test specimens to qualify one or more welding processes or procedures used in one joint, other than that given in UG-84(g)(2)?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-90(b)(6) and UG-93 Date Issued: March 24, 2000 File: BC99-564 Question: A vessel Manufacturer purchases plate material to a SA specification that meets the requirements of SA-20 and UG-93. During further processing of the plate by the Manufacturer, is it required to determine if the plate thickness exceeds the maximum thickness allowed by Table A1.1 of SA-20? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-34 Date Issued: June 13, 2000 File: BC00-l55 [BC00-267] Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 permit the use of stiffeners in the design of unstayed flat circular heads, bolted covers, or flanges? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of U-2(g) are satisfied.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-37(a), Use of tr Date Issued: June 13, 2000 File: BC00-l56 Question: A nozzle is located in an ellipsoidal head, such that part of the opening or its reinforcing extends beyond the 80% limit as specified in the definition of tr in UG-37(a) of Section VIII, Division 1. Shall the required thickness of the ellipsoidal head, as determined by UG-32(d) or Appendix 1, 14(c), be used in determining the required area of reinforcement on each side of the opening for all planes? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-45 Date Issued: June 13, 2000 File: BC00-157 Question (1): Do the requirements of UG-45 in Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the external portion of the nozzle neck which is within, as well as beyond, the limits of reinforcement normal to the vessel wall [per UG-40(c)]? Reply (1): Yes, except as allowed in UW-13(g).

Question (2): If a portion of a nozzle neck extends inside a vessel wall [term ti defined in UG37(a)], do the requirements of UG-45 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the internal portion of the nozzle neck?

Reply (2):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-2(c) Date Issued: June 13, 2000 File: BC00-242 Question: In meeting the requirements of UW-2(c) in Section VIII, Division 1, is an unfired steam boiler required to have full radiography and PWHT, if required for the material used, when the design pressure exceeds 50 psi, but the design temperature limits the relative steam pressure to below 50 psi? Reply: Yes, provided the MAWP stamped on the nameplate is greater than 50 psi.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-120 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG93(d)(3) and Appendix 2, 213(a)(2) Date Issued: June 13, 2000 File: BC00-268 Question: Is nondestructive examination per UG-93(d)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 required when a reverse flange is welded to a shell per Fig. UW-13.2 sketches (c) or (d) as permitted by Appendix 2, 2-13(a)(2)? Reply: Yes.

Volume 48 Interpretations Revision to Interpretation Published in Previous Volume Interpretation: VIII-77-33R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, UCS-85(b) and (e) Date Issued: December 13, 2000 File: NA Question: Is pipe, procured in accordance to a specification in Section n 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(e)? Reply: The pipe described in the Question, where used in fabrication of nozzles, would not be covered under the provisions of UCS-85(e) 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-1-01-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-16(b) and Fig. UW-16.1 Date Issued: July 21, 2000 File: BC00-388 Question: For a nozzle made of pipe, may the pipe undertolerance be subtracted from the nominal wall thickness for the evaluation of tc in Fig. UW -16.1 of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-99(g) Date Issued: September 8, 2000 File: BC00-393 Question: A vessel is subjected to the hydro test under UG-99. During the test, a leak is detected from the gasket seat of a permanent flanged joint. In meeting the requirements of UG-99(g) in Section VIII, Division 1, may the hydro test be accepted if the flanged joint and the vessel as a whole are found to be completely tight after the pressure is reduced to not less than the test pressure divided by 1.3? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Appendix M, M-5(b) Date Issued: September 28, 2000 File: BC00-391 Question: In meeting the requirements of M-5(b) in Appendix M of Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to have a locked or sealed open full-area stop valve between vessels protected by a common relief device? Reply: Yes, provided all the other requirements of M-5(b) are satisfied. See Interpretation VIII-1-98-90. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(e) Date Issued: September 28, 2000 File: BC00-500 Question (1): May a pressure vessel, which does not contain an upper head but instead bolts directly to a piping header via a body flange be "U" stamped as a completed vessel. Reply (1): Yes. Question (2): A pressure vessel employs a bolted removable cover as part of the vessel assembly. The cover contains no welding, and may or may not be purchased as a standard pressure part. Must this cover and its bolting be included within the stamping scope of the pressure vessel, and thus satisfy all Code construction requirements including material, design, testing, and inspection? Reply (2): Yes. Question (3): A pressure vessel employs a bolted removable cover as part of the assembly. The cover contains one or more welded nozzles. Must this cover and its bolting be included within the stamping scope of the pressure vessel, and thus satisfy all construction requirements including material, design, testing, and inspection? Reply (3): Yes. Question (4): In the manufacture of multiple duplicate pressure vessels employing removable upper heads, is it permissible to separately pressure test the vessel body and the removable head in satisfying the requirements of UG-99 or UG-100?

Reply (4): No, both UG-99 and UG-100 require pressure testing of the completed vessel as a whole. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 and Appendix 28 Date Issued: October 2, 2000 File: BC00-502 Question: For Category C and D corner joints of side plates in a rectangular pressure vessel, like those shown in Fig. UW-13.2, or permitted by Appendix 28 of Section VIII, Division 1, when volumetric examination is performed, is there a need to determine a joint efficiency factor in the design of the components? Reply: Corner joints like those shown in Fig. UW-13.2 and Appendix 28 are not butt joints. Volumetric examination is not required for corner joints, but UG-93(d)(4) and material requirements, such as UHA34, UNF-58, etc., may require liquid penetrant or magnetic particle examinations. A joint efficiency of 1.0 shall be used for comer joints. Regardless of the extent of examination, the joint efficiencies given in Table UW-12 are not applicable for corner joints. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCS-66(g), UCS-67(a)(2), and UCS-67(d)(2) Date Issued: October 2, 2000 File: BC00-503 Question: May production impact tests in accordance with UG-84(i) be waived when the base material is not exempt from impact testing by UCS-66(g) or Fig. UCS-66 Curve C or D at the MDMT , but the welding consumables used have been classified by impact tests at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT by the applicable SFA specification? The MDMT would not be colder than -55F. Reply: No, since UCS-66(a)(1) controls. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-2(a) and Code Case 2211 Date Issued: October 23,2000 File: BC00-501 Question (1): Code Case 2211 clearly makes the decision to use system design for overpressure protection the User's responsibility. In the context of this Code Case, does the term "User" include his designated agent? Reply (1): No. Question (2): As stated in the Foreword of the Code, "Code Cases may be used in the construction of components to be stamped with the ASME Code symbol. .". May a Manufacturer, at his own discretion, use any valid Code Case to meet the requirements of the Code? Reply (2): Yes, provided the use of the Codes Case is acceptable to the jurisdiction, and the Code Case does not preclude otherwise. Question (3): Do the provisions of Code Case 2211 require that only the user may specify overpressure protection by system design and reference the Code Case in writing in the purchase specification?

Reply (3): Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-7 Date Issued: November 6, 2000 File: BC00-564 Question: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-42(a)(2) and UG-42(c) require the use of supplemental rules of Appendix 1, 1-7(a) and 1-7(c) for multiple openings in cylindrical shells. When reinforcing multiple openings in formed heads for internal or external pressure per UG-42, does Section VIII, Division 1 require any supplemental reinforcement rules? Reply: No. Section VIII, Division 1 does provide alternatives for single large openings in formed heads in UG-36(b)(2). Interpretation: VIII-1-01-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(e)(1)(a) Date Issued: November 6, 2000 File: BC00-596 Question: An inlet nozzle extends into the shell of a pressure vessel and makes a welded connection (tack weld) to an internal pipe fitting (malleable cast iron elbow). May this internal weld be considered outside the scope of the Code under U-1(e)(1)(a) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition); UG-125 Date Issued: December 5, 2000 File: BC98-291 Question: May a Section IV HV stamped steam safety valve be used to protect a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel from overpressure? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition. 1997 Addenda); UG-136(b)(3) Date Issued: December 5, 2000 File: BC00-047 Question: Are the hydrostatic test requirements of SA-703 for cast materials SA-216, SA-217, SA-351, and SA-352 pursuant to UG-136(b)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to bodies and bonnets used in the secondary pressure zone of pressure relief valves bearing either the "V" or "UV" symbol stamp? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-2(d), UG-19(b) and (c), UCI16, and UCD-16 Date Issued: December 5, 2000 File: BC00-131

Question: If there are no applicable Code rules in Section VIII, Division 1 for the design of a vessel or vessel part, may a finite element analysis be performed in lieu of a proof test? Reply: Yes, see U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-01-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-126 Date Issued: December 8, 2000 File: BC00-679 Question: Is it permissible under the requirements of UG-126 in Section VIII, Division 1 to have a spring loaded pressure relief valve reset, from the stamped setting, by anyone other than the valve Manufacturer, his authorized representative, or an Assembler? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(e)(2) and UW-2(a) Date Issued: December 29, 2000 File: BC00-598 Question: Do the requirements in UW-2(a) and UCS-56 for performing PWHT, and the Notes of Table UCS-56 apply to parts such as bolted covers when only welding on the part consists of the attachment of nonpressure parts such as lifting lugs? Reply: Yes. VOLUME 49 INTERPRETATIONS Interpretation: VIII-1-01-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(h) and (i) Date Issued: January 3, 2001 File: BC00-664 Question: A cylindrical tank has an inside diameter exceeding 6 in., and an internal and/or external operating pressure not exceeding 15 psi. The tank is equipped with a half-pipe jacket that has a maximum inside diameter (cross section diagonal) not exceeding 6 in. The jacket has an internal pressure exceeding 15 psi. Do the provisions of U-l(c)(2)(h) and (i) exempt both pressure chambers of such an assembly from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-135(b)(1), UG-135(f), and Appendix M, M-8(a) Date Issued: January 3, 2001 File: BC00-676 Question (1): When installing a pressure relief device, is it mandatory as a minimum that the discharge piping be at least the same size as that of the device outlet itself, even if supporting calculations have been established by or for the user justifying the installation of smaller diameter discharge piping?

Reply (1): No, unless Appendix M, M-8(a) of Section VIII, Division 1 is invoked by the authority having legal jurisdiction over the installation of the pressure vessel Question (2): When installing a rupture disk/relief valve combination, with the rupture disk being installed upstream of the relief valve with a concentric reducer and piping installed at the rupture disk discharge, is it acceptable if supporting calculations have been established by or for the user justifying the installation, provided that the reduced piping has an area at least equal to the relief valve inlet, and also provided that upon bursting that the rupture disk will not interfere with the proper functioning of the valve? Reply (2): Yes, provided the rules of UG-127(a)(3)(b) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-1 16(e)(4) Date Issued: January 3, 2001 File: BC00-680 Question: Is it required by UG-116(e)(4) of Section VIII, Division I to mark a vessel RT-4 when no radiography is performed on the vessel? Reply: No. RT Marking per UG-116(e) is only applied when any part of a vessel has been radiographed in accordance with UW-11(a) or (b) Interpretation: VIII-1-01-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.3 Sketch (b) Date Issued: January 3, 2001 File: BCOO-688 Question: For the configuration shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (b) of Section VIII, Division 1, the extent of projection of the hub beyond the face of the flat head or tubesheet is not specified. Do the requirements provide for minimum and maximum projection of the hub? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Table UCS-56 and UCS-68(c) Date Issued: January 3, 2001 File: BC00-691 [BC00-708] Question: A P-No. 1, Gr. No. 1 or 2 material with a thickness of t = 1.375 in. is welded. A 200oF preheat is applied as permitted by Note (2)(b) of Table UCS-56 in Section VIII, Division 1. Is it then permissible to apply a 30oF reduction in impact testing exemption temperature, as permitted by UCS68(c), if the vessel is also subjected to PWHT per Table UCS-56? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-39(b)(1) and Appendix 2 Date Issued: January 4, 2001 File: BC00-696

Question: May a reducing flange be designed in accordance with the rules of Appendix 2 in Section VIII, Division 1, provided that the flange parameters can be obtained from the charts shown in Fig. 2-7.1 Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-1 l6(e) and UNF-57 Date Issued: January 4, 2001 File: BC00-698 Question: A vessel is made of nonferrous material conforming to UNS N08904. The thickness limitation given in UNF-57(c) is exceeded. Full radiography is carried out on all Category A and B weld joints; however, only spot radiography is performed on nozzle to shell welded joints. The nozzle size exceeds 10 NPS. Shall the marking be applied under the Code symbol RT-4? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-1 1 and Appendix 2 Date Issued: January 4, 2001 File: BC00-703 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-11(a)(2) and UG-44 in Section VIII, Division 1, may a flange meeting the requirements of API-10000, and using the rated pressure and temperature specified in the Standard be used without additional calculations per UG-34 and Appendix 2? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-20(b), UG-99(b), UG100(b), and UG-116(a)(3) and (a)(4) Date Issued: January 8, 2001 File: BC00-084 Question (1): An MAWP and MDMT of a vessel are initially established using the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, Subsequently the rules of UCS-66(b)(1) are used to establish a second MDMT that is colder than the initial MDMT at a coincident MAWP that is lower than the initial MAWP. Based on footnote 37 in UG-116, may both the initial and second MAWPs and MDMTs be stamped on the nameplate? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If multiple MDMTs are selected to be shown on the nameplate or stamping, must each coincident pressure shown on the nameplate be identified as MAWP per UG-116(b)(4)? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If multiple MAWPs are shown on the nameplates or stamping, which MAWP is used to comply with the minimum hydrostatic test requirements of UG-99? Reply (3): The MAWP that, after applying the mandatory stress ratio (see UG-99 and UG-l00), results in the highest test pressure.

Question (4): If multiple MAWPs are shown on the nameplate or stamping, which MAWP is used to comply with the pressure relief device requirements of UG-125 through UG-137? Reply (4): The largest value; see UG-20(b).

Question (5): In the cases where multiple MAPWs are shown on the nameplate or stamping, requiring that the pressure relieving device(s) be set based on the largest value of MAWP, are Code rules available for the administrative controls associated with the lower MAWP(s)? Reply (5): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-24 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 Sketch (i) Date Issued: February 7, 2001 File: BC01-045 Question: An unsupported tubesheet is attached to the shell of a vessel as shown in Fig. (UW-13.2 sketch (i) of Section VIII, Division 1. Is the requirement that a + b be not less than 3ts determined in the corroded condition? Reply: Yes. See UG-16(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-84 and Fig. UCS-66 Note (e) Date Issued: February 7, 2001 File: BC01-056 Question: In using the criteria of Fig. UG-84.1 in Section VIII, Division 1, may SA-320 Grades L7, L-7A, and L43 bolting material in combination with SA-194 Grades 4 and 7 (Supplementary Requirements S4) be impact tested at -1500F for energy considerations, and be used without any additional tests for lateral expansion for an MDMT of 150oF and warmer? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-26 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-99(g)(1) and UG-l00(d)(1) Date Issued: February 7, 2001 File: BC01-81 Question: The requirements of UG-99(g)(l) and UG-100(d)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 specify the use of a suitable gas leak test. May the applicable provisions of Article 10 of Section V be used to satisfy the Section VIII rules? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-99(h) and Part UHA Date Issued: February 7, 2001 File: BC01-092 Question: Do the requirements for Section VIII, Division 1 specify any limits on the chloride

content of the water used in performing the hydrostatic test, so as to prevent the impairment of corrosion resistant properties of austenitic stainless steel materials? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); U-1(e)(1)(a) Date Issued: March 7, 2001 File: BC00-705 Question: UG-44(c) permits the use of ASME B16.11 Fittings. A connection of a nozzle to a pressure vessel is accomplished by having the following configuration: from the vessel wall a piece of welded pipe, then a socket-welding elbow, another piece of pipe, and finally a flange. Since the Code rules do not permit a single fillet attachment weld as applied for a socket-weld connection, is the welding end connection for the first circumferential joint the only applicable boundary condition that is covered under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, see U-1(e)(1)(a)

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-29 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); ULT-27, Table ULT-23, and Code Case 2278 Date Issued: March 7, 2001 File: BC01-094 Question: A cryogenic vessel is constructed to the rules of Part ULT of Section VIII, Division 1 and Code Case 2278. When calculating the vessel thickness per ULT-27, is it necessary to consider intermediate temperature points between saturation [ULT-27(a)] and ambient [ULT-27(b)] when the allowable stress at an intermediate temperature point is less than the values permitted at either the saturation or ambient conditions? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-34(a) and Fig. UG-34 Sketch (f) Date Issued: March 8, 2001 File: BC00-707 Question: Sketch (f) of Fig UG-34 in Section VIII, Division 1 is used for the attachment of a flat head-to-shell connection. In determining the thickness of the head per UG-34, shall the dimension d be the inside diameter of the shell in the corroded condition, instead of the uncorroded diameter of the shell in the space between the two fillet welds? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-31 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Fig UW-l3.3 Sketch (b) and Appendix 13, Fig. 13-2(a) Sketches (1), (2), and (7) to (9) Date Issued: March 8, 2001 File: BC01-074

Question (1): Figure UW-13.3 sketch (b) of Section VIII, Division 1, specifies that the dimension e is to be not less than the required thickness of a flat head or tubesheet. Is the required thickness referenced by the figure that calculated by the equations of UG-34 for a flat head or Appendix AA (or acceptable alternative method) for a tubesheet? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are the equations for membrane and bending stress in Appendix 13 for noncircular vessels based on each side of the vessel having a uniform thickness (i.e., no locally thin areas)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-32 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-36(b)(1) and Appendices 1, 1-7, and L, L-7.7 Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-079 Question: A hill-side nozzle similar to the one described in Example 7 of L-7.7 in Appendix L of Section VIII, Division I is being designed. The nozzle being designed has a major diameter of the opening that exceeds the limitation given in UG-36(b)(1). Does Appendix 1, 1-7 apply to such hillside nozzles? Reply: Yes. The requirements of 1-7(a) and 1-7(c) apply.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-33 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); 11-1(g) Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-091 Question: May a steam generator in which the heat transfer surface of the generator is subject to radiant heat and products of combustion, be constructed per the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(g), if the steam produced is used for internal use only? Reply: Yes. However, as indicated by U-1(c). we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction and as such must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UW-l6(c) Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-098 Question: Both the shell and the nozzle of a pressure vessel are to be jacketed in order to provide a contiguous annulus over the surface of both elements. The inner surfaces of the jacketed welds will not be accessible for visual examination. Does UW-16(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the weld which joins the portion of the jacket that surrounds the nozzle to the portion of the jacket that surrounds the shell? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-01-35

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-84(f)(2) March 9, 2001 BC01-104

Question: A pressure vessel requiring PWHT is constructed in two sections. All of the Category A and B weld joints are welded using the same WPS in the same position. A vessel (production) test plate is welded as an extension to one of the longitudinal seams, and represents all of the Category A and B weld joints. The two sections are PWHT separately in an enclosed furnace. The closing circumferential weld seam is locally PWHT per UW-40(a)(3). The PWHT cycle is the same for both furnace and local PWHT. In complying with the requirements of UG-84(f)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, may the production test plate undergo a single PWHT cycle, as opposed to a double cycle? Reply: Yes; however the time at temperature must be based on the double cycle.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-36 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-67(d)(2) Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-105 Question: Does UCS-67(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 allow for an exemption of production weld impact testing when welding SA-516 Grade 70 normalized materials, which are not exempted from impact testing and when using a welding consumable which has been classified by impact tests at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT by the applicable SFA specification? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-37 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Fig UCS-66.l Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-106 Question: A nozzle neck with a nominal noncorroded thickness that is heavier than that of the shell is attached to the shell with corner joint, and thus the shell becomes the governing thickness as defined in UCS-66(a)(1)(b). When evaluating the nozzle joint per UCS-66(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, are the tr and tn thicknesses those of the shell? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-4 Date Issued: March 9, 2001 File: BC01-121 Question: A flange is welded to a nozzle similar to that shown in Appendix 2, 2-4, sketch (8) of Section VIII, Division 1, except that the groove weld extends to the back of the fillet at the front face of the flange to achieve full penetration, and the fillet on the side groove weld satisfies Fig. 2-4, sketch (7). May this flange connection be classified as an integral type? Reply: Interpretation: No, the flange described is classified as an Optional Type. VIII-1-01-39

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Code Case 2235-3 March 9, 2001 BC01-125

Question: Do the requirements under subparagraph (e) of the Reply in Code Case 2235-3 allow the use of an imaginary fusion line? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.l Sketch (k) Date Issued: April 10, 2001 File: BC01-199 Question: Figure UW-13.l sketch (k) of Section VIII, Division 1 shows requirements for butt welds with one plate edge offset. Is it allowed to make a butt joint with one plate edge offset without the 1 t minimum overlap between the adjacent parts? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 28, 28-2(c), Use of Backing Strips Date Issued: April 24, 2001 File: BC0l-223 Question: In accordance with Appendix 28 of Section VIII, Division 1, may alternative corner weld joints for box headers be made with the use of permanent backing strips that make the visual inspection requirements of 28-2(c) not possible? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 13, Fig. 13-2 and Fig. UW-13.3 Date Issued: May 7, 2001 File: BC01-225 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide details that are to be used when the welds that attach the side plates of noncircular pressure vessels are to be butt welded? Reply (1): Figure 13.2(a) in Appendix 13, sketches (3), (5), (6a), and (6b) provide examples for the construction of noncircular pressure vessels where the side plates may readily he welded using butt welds. Note that any weld seams used in these sketches are classified Category A. Question (2); May Fig. 13.3 sketches (a) or (b) be used for the construction of noncircular vessels requiring the use of Type No. (1) or (2) butt welds for the Category C joints [for example, to satisfy lethal service requirements of UW-2(a)(1)(b)]? Reply (2): Interpretation: Yes, see U-2(g). VIII-1-01-43

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Lifting Lugs or Attachments May 7, 2001 BC01-276

Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 specify when lifting lugs or lifting attachments are to he provided for a vessel? Reply: No, this is considered to be a contractual matter between the purchaser and Manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-41 and UW-l5, Strength Path Calculations Date Issued: May 7, 2001 File: BC01-302 Question: Are weld strength calculations in UG-41 and UW-15 of Section VIII, Division 1, required for the case where a nozzle neck-to-vessel attachment and reinforcing pad-to-nozzle neck attachment are full penetration welded? Reply: Yes, see Appendix L, L-7.8 for an example.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-44 and Appendix 2 Date Issued: May 7, 2001 File: BC01-303 Question: May a flange defined by one of the ASME flange standards referenced in UG-44 of Section VIII, Division 1, be used at pressure-temperature conditions beyond that given by the standard if all requirements of Appendix 2 are satisfied for the higher pressure-temperature conditions? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCS-67(a)(1) Date Issued: June 5, 2001 File: BC01-192 Question: Are impact tests per UG-84 of welds made with filler metal required for welded components constructed using Fig. UCS-66 Curve A or Curve B base material that have been exempted from impact testing by the rules illustrated in Fig. UCS-66.2 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda); UG-120(c) Date Issued: June 8, 2001 File: BC97-401 Question: Is it the intent that a Manufacturer with multiple locations, each with their own Certificate of Authorization, may transfer pressure vessel parts from one of their locations to another

without Partial Data Reports, provided the Quality Control System of the Manufacturer outlines methods of identification, transfer and control of the parts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 and Form U-lA Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-194 Question (1): If a head forming process requires a normalizing heat treatment such that Fig. UCS66 curve assignment in Section VIII, Division 1 could be changed from Curve B to Curve D, may the construction rules and associated MDMT for the vessel for which the normalized head is a pressureboundary component be based on Curve B material? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For heads made of SA-516 Grade 70 plate that have been hot formed by a parts supplier using a process that conforms with material specification normalizing and tempering requirements and has been properly recorded on a Form U-2 Manufacturers Data Report, is it necessary to repeat the heat treatment information on Form U-1A, line 8? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-49 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 (1998 Edition. 2000 Addenda): UF-7, Fabrication and Inspection Requirements for Assemblies Made to SA-649 Material Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01- 196 Question (1): In meeting requirements of UF-7 of Section VIII, Division I, are the rules of construction, including the qualification of thc welding process, the welder, the MT procedure, and the examiner to be applied in the manufacture of forged steel corrugating and pressure rolls used in machinery for producing corrugated paper covered by SA-649 in Section II, Part A? Reply (1): Yes

Question (2): The rolls described in Question (1) are manufactured in accordance with SA-649, including the welding per paragraph 4.3. Is qualification of he welding process and welder required per Section IX? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): The rolls described in Question (2) are MT examined in accordance with paragraph 8 of SA 649. Is qualification of the MT examination procedure and the examiner required per Appendix 6 Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda): UG-116(h) and UG-120(c) Date Issued: June 1, 2001

File:

BC01-198

Question (1) Is it required by UG-116(h) of Section VIII, Division 1 that the parts Manufacturer mark each part described on his Partial Data Report with the information described in UG-116(h)(1), (UG116(h)(2), and UG-116-(h)(3)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permitted by UG-116(h) that only one part of several identical parts listed on the Manufacturers Partial Data Report shall be marked by the pails Manufacturer in accordance with UG116(h), when the parts Manufacturer and the Manufacturer of the completed vessel are serviced by the same Authorized Inspection Agency and Authorized Inspector? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-29(a), Certification of Welders and Welding Operators Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-215 Question: In meeting the qualification requirements for welders and welding operators per UW29(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, may a Manufacturer accept welding certification tests issued by another organization, such as a state education agency? Reply: Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File: No; see QW-300.2 of Section IX. VIII-1-0l-52 Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); IJW-40(a)(8), Local PWHT of Longitudinal Joints June 11, 2001 BC01-216

Question: May local PWHT of longitudinal welds seams be performed by any method that isolates the heated area to the weld and a zone adjacent to the weld, without heating the total circumference of the shell? Reply: Yes provided the rules of UW-40(a)(8) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-53 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-117(f) Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-222 Question: A Manufacturer holds a Certificate of Authorization for the manufacture of pressure vessels at its location and field sites controlled by that location. May the Manufacturer temporarily occupy some other manufacturing facility and, by controlling it as described in their Quality Control Manual, declare this as a Field site under the Certificate of Authorization? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-l-01-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); Appendix W, Table W-3 Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-224 Question: When supplying vessel parts, other than heads of welded construction, with a Partial Data Report Form U-2 or Form U-2A, must the joint efficiency of the welds used in the design calculations be stated on Data Report? Reply: No, see Notes 24 and 26 of Table W-3.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-55 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-99 and UG-l00 Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-226 Question (1): Is it permitted to conduct the hydrostatic test of a pressure vessel at a pressure greater than required by UG-99(b) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-99(d).

Question (2): Is it permitted to pneumatically test a pressure vessel at a pressure that exceeds 1.1 times the maximum allowable working pressure to be stamped on the vessel multiplied by the lowest ratio of stress as defined in UG-100(b)? Reply (2): Yes, provided the test pressure does not exceed 1.1 times the basis for calculated test pressure as defined in Appendix 3, 3-2. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UHA-51(c) Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-285 Question: Do the requirements of UHA-51(c) in Section VIII, Division 1 apply when a one piece elliptical cold formed head made from SA-240 Grade 304 material is solution annealed at 1040oC (1904oF)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-32(d) and UCS-79 Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-288 Question (1): A 2:1 ellipsoidal head is being fabricated from flat plate having a thickness t with a spherical radius of 0.90D and knuckle radius of 0.17D, where D = inside diameter of the head, based on UG-32(d) of Section VIII, Division 1. When applying UCS-79, where there is not an intermediate heat treatment performed during the forming operation, is the original center line radius equal to infinity and the final line radius equal to 0.17D + t/2? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does the head described in Question (1), which is manufactured as a flange and dished head, and a head formed having the exact dimensions of a 2:1 ellipsoidal shape both meet the requirements of UG-32(d)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-93(d)(2) Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-295 Question: Will visual examination meet the inspection requirements of UG-93(d)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-5 Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-296 Question: A flange is to be subjected to internal design pressure; however, the flange will also be subjected to a constant nonvarying external pressure. Using the provisions of Appendix 2 in Section VIII, Division I, what pressure should be used to determine Wm1 in paragraph 2-5(c)? Reply: See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 28, 28-2 Date Issued: June 11, 2001 File: BC01-297 Question: In the manufacture of box headers for air-cooled heat exchangers, Appendix 28 in Section VIII, Division 1 is used for the corner weld joints at the long side to short side attachments and at the long and short side attachments to the end plates. Based on the requirements of 28-2(a), shall sample corner joints be prepared for each combination of corner joint thicknesses when the different thicknesses are used for the long and short sides, and the end plates? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-45(b)(1) Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-300 Question: A nozzle is located in a shell made of welded pipe for which the allowable stress listed in Section II, Part D has a factor of 0.85 applied. When determining the minimum nozzle neck thickness in accordance with UG-45(b)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, may allowable stress for the shell material, as listed in Section II, Part D, be divided by 0.85 in order to determine the shell thickness to be used in this paragraph?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix AA, AA-2.4.l Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-313 Question: In determining the value of d* in Section VIII, Division I, Appendix AA, AA-2.4.l, the tube expansion depth ratio is calculated. For full strength welded tube-to-tubesheet joints without any tube extension, shall a value of tube expansion depth ratio of zero be used? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-11(a) and UW-12(d) Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-315 Question (1): UW-l2(d) of Section VIII, Division I specifies that calculations involving circumferential stress in seamless vessel sections shall use E = 0.85 when the Category A or B welds connecting seamless vessel sections are Type No. 3, 4, 5, or 6 of Table UW-l2. Do the requirements apply if the weld attaching seamless vessel sections is Category C? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it required that Category C joints be Type No. 1 or No. 2 of Table UW-12 when a vessel is to meet the Full Radiography requirements of UW-l 1(a)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UCS-67(a)(2) Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-317 Question: Do welding consumables which do not have a prior impact test classification in accordance with an applicable SFA specification, but are supplied by a manufacturer with certified impact test values at the MDMT or colder for each batch supplied, comply with UCS-67(a)(2) requirements in Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); UG-101(d) Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-333 Question: When using UG-10l in Section VIII, Division 1 as the design criteria, would it be acceptable to use a proof test from another stamp holder if all the design criteria remains the same and the parts conform to UG-101(d)(1) or UG-101(d)(2). Given that all other parameters are met and the current Manufacturer reviews and approves the proof test and provides for outside proof testing in the Quality Control Manual, may a proof test be transferable between stamp holders if all requirements are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01 -66 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-7, Figs. 1-7-1 and 1-7-2, and l-7(b)(4) Date Issued: June 13, 2001 File: BC01-335 Question: For nozzle connection where no part of the flange is located within the projection limits indicated in Fig. 1-7-1 Case A or B, or Fig. 1-7-2 Case A or B of Section VIII, Division 1, does the greater of the applicable cased limits in either Fig. 1-7-1 or Fig. 1-7-2 apply for bending stress calculation? Reply: Yes, see Appendix 1, l-7(b)(4).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.3 and Appendix A, Fig. A-2 Date Issued: June 15, 2001 File: BC01-301 Question (1): May a tubesheet extended as a flange use the hub details shown in Fig. UW-13.3 sketch (b) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, see U-2(g).

Question (2): Is the weld reinforcement beyond the face of the tubesheet included in the weld size dimension a in Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix A, Fig. A-2? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-90(b)(2) and UG-90(b)(l8) Date Issued: June 15, 2001 File: BC01-348 Question (1): May a Manufacturer subcontract the preparation of thc drawings and design calculations for a pressure vessel to an engineer or engineering firm that does not hold a U stamp? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, must the Manufacturer still sign the Certificate of Shop Compliance (including design) block on the Manufacturers Data Report Form? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); ULT-99 Date Issued: June 15, 2001 File: BC01-351 Question: In the construction of cryogenic vessels under Part ULT of Section VIII, Division 1, is it permitted to substitute a pneumatic test per UG-l00 (except that the ratio of stresses is not applied) in lieu of the hydrostatic test required by ULT-99, if condition UG-100(a)(2) applies? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-70 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-22, UG-23(c), and Appendix 4, 4-112 Date Issued: June 15, 2001 File: BC01-380 Question (1): Does UG-22 of Section VIII, Division 1 require that the local stress in a vessel head or shell at a support gusset, resulting from seismic or wind loadings, be considered in the vessel design? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the local bending stress in a vessel head or shell at a vessel support gusset, resulting from a mechanical load such as seismic or wind condition, a primary stress as defined in Appendix 3-2 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Does UG-23(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 limit the combination of local bending stress, such as that described in Question (2), plus the general membrane stress resulting from pressure to 1.5 times the maximum allowable stress value in tension? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): If the reply to Question (3) is no, what is the appropriate limit for the combination of the local bending stress, as described above, and the general membrane stress due to pressure?

Reply (4): Section VIII, Division 1 does not provide rules for the combination of localized bending stresses resulting from mechanical loads at supports with the general primary membrane stress resulting from pressure. See U-2(g). Question (5): If the vessel, as described in the previous questions, was designed in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 2, would the local bending stress at the support gusset be categorized as a secondary stress as defined by Appendix 4, 4-112 of Section VIII, Division 2? Reply (5): Note: Yes. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-01-08.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-34 Date Issued: June 15, 2001 File: BC01-412 Question (1): When using a welded plug to fill in a spin hole per UW-34 of Section VIII, Division 1, may the plug material be of a specification different from the head material? Reply (1): Yes

Question (2): Is it acceptable, under the requirements of UW-34, to use a plug material having an allowable stress which is lower than that of the head material to fill a spin hole? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Shall the welded plug described in Questions (1) and (2) meet the material requirements (such as impact testing) and design requirements (such as minimum thickness requirements of UG-32 or UG-33, as applicable) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-72 Subject: References to Edition and Addenda Date Issued: June 26, 2001 File: BC01-570 Question (1): The 1998 Code Edition, as published, incorporates the 1998 Addenda. When providing reference to this Code Edition and Addenda within a Code-required document, may only the Edition be listed (i.e., 1998 Edition)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the 1998 Edition only, is it necessary to revise Code-required documentation where the term 1998 Edition was used as meaning the 1995 Edition through the 1997 Addenda? Reply (2): No.

Volume 50 Interpretations Interpretation: VIII-1-01-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-85, Heat Treatment of Test Specimens

Date Issued: File:

July 2, 2001 BC01-287

Question: A hot finished SA-106 Grade B pipe is to be swaged to an elliptical shape at about 7000C 0 (1292 F) and then normalized or annealed before welding to the carbon steel vessel. The tensile test properties as shown on the Material Test Report exceed the specified minimum tensile strength per the material specification. The completed vessel is postweld heat treated per Code requirements. In meeting the requirements of UCS-85 of Section VIII, Division 1, is it required to subject the test specimens to the same heat treatment conditions as those encountered during fabrication? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); U-1(g) Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC0 1-321 Question: May a pressure vessel in which steam at pressure above 15 psi is generated for use external to itself, by the heat produced by a burner using liquid or gaseous fuel installed in a combustion chamber, be U stamped? Reply: Yes, see U-1(c)(2). However as indicated by U-l(c), we caution you that the laws at the point of installation may dictate the construction and as such must be reviewed to determine requirements that may be different or more restrictive than the Code rules. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-1 16(h) and UG-120(c), Marking of Parts and Partial Data Reports Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-377 Question (1): May two or more parts intended to be installed on a single pressure vessel be documented on a single U-2 or U-2A Manufacturers Partial Data Report? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, may only one part be marked in accordance with UG116(h) and each of the remaining parts be permanently marked in a manner that is traceable to the Partial Data Report? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix W, Table W-3, Note 10, Drawing Revision Number Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-379 Question: Is it required that the revision number of the drawing listed on line 4 of the U-1 or U-lA Data Report Forms in Section VIII, Division 1, correspond to the completed vessel at the time of Code stamping?

Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-99(b), Stress Ratio Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-406 Question: When a vessel is constructed to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 using materials with various allowable stresses, is it required by UG-99(b) that a hydrostatic test be carried out for the most severe condition, that is, the highest ratio of allowable stresses for all materials of construction provided that no materials are subjected to a stress exceeding 90% of the material yield strength? Reply: No. The requirements of UG-99(b) state the minimum test pressure to be 1.3 MAWP multiplied by the lowest ratio of stress values. Per UG-99(d), there are no upper limits on the test pressure. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-34 and Appendix 2 Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-407 Question (1): When applying formula (5) of UG-34 in Section VIII, Division 1 for the design of a cover, with a geometry as shown in sketch (k) of Fig. UG-34, is it permissible to use 1.5 times S in that portion of the equation applicable to the bolt load W instead of S? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it mandatory to use footnote 2 of 2-5(e) in Appendix 2, where the full available bolt load Ab Sa is considered as the flange design bolt load, for the design of circular or rectangular bolted covers? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 28 Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-408 Question: May the provisions of Appendix 28 in Section VIII, Division 1 be applied to weld the side plates of a rectangular box header for an air cooled heat exchanger if one or both plates has a radius at the weld groove as schematically shown in Fig. UW-l3.3 sketch (b)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-9(c) and Appendix 14, Transition Requirements Date Issued: July 2, 2001 File: BC01-411 Question (1): A bolted U-tube heat exchanger design utilizes the configuration shown on the left side of Fig. 14-1 of Appendix 14 in Section VIII, Division 1. The shell in Fig. 14-1 is the tube side channel

and the nozzle in Fig. 14-1 is the shell side shell. The integral flat head has tapped holes for the attachment of the bolted tubesheet of the U-tube bundle, which is inserted into the shell. Do the rules of Appendix 14 together with the rules of Appendix 2 apply to the design of this configuration? Reply (1): No, see U-2(g).

Question (2): For the heat exchanger configuration described in Question (1), do the requirements of UW-9(c) apply to the tapered transitions? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-81 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-45 Date Issued: August 7, 2001 File: BC01-589 Question: When the nozzle has a different corrosion allowance than the shell (or head) it attaches to, shall the shell (or head) corrosion allowance be used in applying UG-45(b)(1) and UG-45(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 1, and the nozzle corrosion allowance be used in applying UG-45(a), and UG45(b) (4)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-22(b) Date Issued: August 7, 2001 File: BC01-591 Question: Paragraph UG-22(b) in Section VIII, Division 1 requires that the additional pressure resulting from the static head of liquids be considered in the design of pressure vessels. May the effect of liquid static head that is specified be ignored if it results in a pressure that is small with respect to the vessels MAWP? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-22 and UG-23(d) Date Issued: August 7, 2001 File: BC1-592 Question: Paragraph UG-22 in Section VIII, Division 1 requires that loadings resulting from wind and seismic events be considered in the design of a pressure vessel such that the stress limits of UG-23 are satisfied. When combining the stresses resulting from wind and seismic loadings with the stresses resulting from pressure, shall the MAWP as shown on the nameplate be used for establishing the pressure stresses? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-20(f) Date Issued: August 7, 2001

File:

BC01-607

Question: May the nominal thickness used to obtain impact testing exemptions per UG-20(f)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 be calculated using the procedure described in Fig. UCS-66.2, General Note (1)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-31(d) and UW-33(a) Date Issued: September 24, 2001 File: BC01-325 Question (1): In meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, may the over thickness tolerance, as permitted by the plate specification, be excluded from the maximum offset in evaluating the alignment tolerances of UW-31(d) and UW-33? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May the maximum offset per UW-33(a) be increased by an amount equal to the difference between the actual thickness and the required thickness? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-67(a)(2) Date Issued: September 24, 2001 File: BC01-403 Question: Are Welding Procedure Qualifications, prepared in accordance with UG-84 in Section VIII, Division 1, exempt from impact testing of the welds and heat affected zones (HAZ), when materials meeting the definitions in UCS-67(a)(2) are joined by welding consumables that have been assigned an impact-test temperature classification number based on the results of impact tests at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-56(e), PWHT of Alloy 800 Materials Date Issued: September 24, 2001 File: BC01-588 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 require postweld heat treatment of pressure boundary welds and welds to pressure boundaries in vessels with design temperatures above 10000F fabricated from UNS No. N08800 (Alloy 800), UNS No. N088l0 (Alloy 800H), and UNS No. N08811 (Alloy 800HT) materials regardless of thickness? Reply (1): Yes, see UNF-56(e)(1).

Question (2): In the vessel described in Question (1), the calculated forming strains in the head exceed the limits in Table UNF-79. Accordingly, the head is solution annealed per UNF-79(a)(1) and Table UNF-79. Is subsequent postweld heat treatment per UNF-56(e)(1) required?

Reply (2): No, provided the solution annealing is in accordance with the material specification for the head plate material. Question (3): When postweld heat treatment of the vessels described in Question (1) is required, does Section VIII, Division 1 specify what cooling and heating rates are required? Reply (3): No, see UNF-56(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-99(d) Date Issued: September 25, 2001 File: BC01-635 Question: When the hydrostatic test pressure exceeds the value given in UG-99(b) or UG-99(c), as allowed by UG-99(d), do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 require that the actual stress or strain of the vessel components be monitored by strain gauges to assure that the material yield strength has not been exceeded? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-l 1(a)(5)(b) and UW-12(e) Date Issued: September 25, 2001 File: BC01-636 Question: Category C corner joints [such as shown in Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (m)] are used to attach flanges to a welded pipe that does not have circumferential butt welds in its assembly. In accordance with UW-12(e) of Section VIII, Division 1, is it correct to use E = 1.0 and the allowable tensile stress taken from the welded product values of the stress tables for calculations involving circumferential stress in the welded pipe since no Category B or C butt welds exist in the assembly? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1 -01 -90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-37 and Fig. UG-37 Date Issued: September 25, 2001 File: BC01 -639 Question (1): Is it mandatory to use the factor F, as given in Fig. UG-37 of Section VIII, Division 1, for determining the reinforcement requirements of integrally reinforced openings in cylinders and cones? Reply (1): No, the value of F = 1.0 may be used, at the designers option.

Question (2): May the factor F, as given in Fig. UG-37, be used in determining the reinforcement requirements for integrally reinforced nozzles in cylinders and cones when the nozzle is oblique or tangential to the vessel surface? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Is the angle theta, as shown in Fig. UG-37, measured with respect to the cylinder or cones longitudinal axis whereby a plane cut through the opening in the vessels longitudinal direction

results in F = 1.0, and a plane cut through the opening in the vessels circumferential direction results in F = 0.5? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Fig. UG-37 and Appendix 13 Date Issued: September 25, 2001 File: BC01-640 Question (1): Is the factor F, as given in Fig. UG-37, applicable to the reinforcement requirements for openings in rectangular box headers designed in accordance with Appendix 13? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide a design procedure that is applicable to single openings in the rectangular vessels when the opening is large with respect to width of the side plate where the opening is located? Reply (2): No, see Appendix 13, 13-4(j).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-7, Use of SA-105 Material Date Issued: September 26, 2001 File: BC01-340 Question: Is SA-105 permitted for pad-type (studding outlet) nozzles, such as depicted in Fig. UG40, sketch (a-2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-67(a)(2) and UCS67(d)(2) Date Issued: September 26, 2001 File: BC01-647 Question (1): Per UCS-67(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1, may production impact tests of welds be waived if the material being joined is not a Curve C or D material, is not exempt from impact testing, but is being joined with welding consumables classified with impact tests at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): A material being joined is a Curve C or D material with an MDMT of -50F, which is not exempted from impact testing by the appropriate curve. If the material is joined with welding consumables classified with impact tests at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT, does UCS-67(d) (2) require that production impact tests be performed? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-125(c)(2) Date Issued: September 26, 2001 File: BC01-649 Question: When a chemical reaction occurs within a pressure vessel due to an external fire, is it permissible to install a pressure relief device or devices that meet the requirements of UG- 125(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements of UG-134(b) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01~95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-136(d) Date Issued: September 26, 2001 File: BC01 -692 Question: Are the rules of UG-102 in Section VIII, Division 1 applicable to the test gages used to test safety relief devices per UG-136(d)? Reply: No, see UG-131(f).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-l36(b) Date Issued: September 26, 2001 File: BC01-701 Question (1): Is the pilot of a pilot operated pressure relief valve required to meet the rules of UG136(b)(3) and (b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is the interconnecting tubing between the relieving device and its pilot, the tube fittings and other components of a pilot operated pressure relief valve required to meet the rules of UG-136(b)(3) and (b)(4) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(h) Date Issued: October 26, 2001 File: BC00-465 Question (1): U-1(c)(2)(h) provides an exemption from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 for vessels having an internal or external operating pressure not exceeding 15 psi with no limitation on size. (a) Does this exemption apply to U- 1(h) [pressure vessels or parts subject to direct firing from the combustion of fuel (solid, liquid, or gaseous), which is not within the scope of Section I, III or IV]? (b) Does this exemption apply to gas fired jacketed steam kettles as described in U1(i)? Reply (1): (a) Yes.

(b)

No, see Appendix 9, 9-1(c) for scope limitations.

Question (2): U-1(c)(2)(b) provides an exemption from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 for vessels having an inside diameter, width, height, or cross section diagonal not exceeding 6 in. with no limitation on length of vessel or pressure. (a) Does this exemption apply to U-1(h) [pressure vessel or parts subject to direct firing from the combustion of fuel (solid, liquid, or gaseous), which is not within the scope of Section I, III, or IV]? (b) Does this exemption apply to gas fired jacketed steam kettles as described in U1(i)? Reply (2): (a) Yes. (b) Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(c) Date Issued: October 29, 2001 File: BC01-227 Question: Are pressure vessels that are integral parts of a compressor, which have external gas piping connections, exempt from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(2)(c)? Reply: Yes, provided that the primary design considerations and/or stresses are derived from the functional requirements of the device. Please note that the laws or regulations of jurisdictions where the device is installed should be reviewed to determine requirements, which may be different or more restrictive. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); U-2(g) and UG-19 Date Issued: October 30, 2001 File: BC01-326 Question (1): Do feedwater heater tubes and tubesheets constitute pressure boundaries? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, must the tubes and tubesheets satisfy all relevant Code requirements? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-1 16(j) Date Issued: November 15, 2001 File: BC01-644 Question: For a pressure vessel with two independent pressure chambers welded together via an intermediate head, may only one nameplate be used which lists one set of operating conditions applicable to both chambers? Reply: Yes, however, the nameplate should clearly indicate that the operating conditions (MAWP, Tmax , MDMT) are applicable to both chambers; in addition the maximum differential pressure shall be stated for the intermediate head.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UCS-85(c) Date Issued: December 6, 2001 File: BC01-341 Question: When test specimens are subjected to simulated heat treatment cycles according to UCS85(c) in Section VIII, Division 1, must the requirements regarding the preparation of test specimens conform to the material specification, including the referenced general specifications? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-l33(a) Date Issued: December 6, 2001 File: BC01-702 Question: Reply: Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-133(a) apply to a single relief device? No. See UG-125(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-116(a)(2), Notes 37 and 38, and Appendix 23 Date Issued: December 6, 2001 File: BC01-724 Question (1): Is it permitted by UG-20(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 to design tubes in a shell and tube heat exchanger by considering the tubes as a zone using the maximum mean metal temperature of the tube (taken through the tube wall at any point in the bundle) that is expected in operation? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, how shall this be documented on the MDR and the vessel nameplate? Reply (2): The MAWP and corresponding design temperature for each zone shall be specified on the data report and nameplate. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Appendix W, U-lA Forms Date Issued: December 6, 2001 File: BC01-793 Question: For pressure vessels constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and documented on a U-1A Form, may the term welded be used on item 10 to describe How Attached if use of this term is acceptable to the Inspector? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. See Interpretation VIII-1-83-322 for additional information. VIII-1-01-105

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-34 and UG-39 December 7, 2001 BC01-336

Question: A circular blind flange, used as an unstayed flat head, has a nozzle attached at its center using a full penetration weld, or a partial penetration weld, or a screwed connection. Are reinforcement calculations per UG-39 of Section VIII, Division 1 required for this geometry if the opening in the blind flange is of a size that is permitted in the flange standard referenced in UG34(c)(1)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-106 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-23(a), Use of Material Tensile Strength to Calculate Wall Thickness Date Issued: December 18, 2001 File: BC01-521 Question: May the tensile strength recorded on a Material Test Report be used to calculate the wall thickness of a pressure vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-107 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Fig. UG-34 Sketch (m) Date Issued: December 18, 2001 File: BC01-651 Question: Is it required that the retaining ring shown on sketch (m) of Fig. UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 be of Code material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-108 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Table U-3 Date Issued: December 20, 2001 File: BC01-795 Question (1): When fabricating vessels using components that include pipe flanges and flanged fittings, factory-made wrought steel butt weld fittings, or forged fittings, socket-welding and threaded, is it a requirement of Section VIII, Division 1 for a Manufacturer to possess a copy of ASME B 16.5, B16.9, or B16.11? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for a Manufacturer to possess a copy of ASNT SNT-TC-1A? Reply (2): Interpretation: No. See Interpretations VIII-l-83-156 and VIII-1-89-90 for additional information. VIII-1-01-109

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Fig. UG-34 and Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4 December 20, 2001 BC01-801

Question (1): The minimum required thickness t indicated on sketch (j) in Fig. UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 includes the raised face thickness. Should this raised face thickness be excluded in the calculations of a flat cover, similar to how it is handled for flanges designed per Appendix 2? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When designing a flat head with a geometry as given by Fig. UG-34 sketch (p), is it correct to use Eq. (1) of UG-34(c) for circular heads and Eq. (3) of UG-34(c) for non-circular heads? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-110 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-84(i), UCS-67 and Appendix 28 Date Issued: December 20, 2001 File: BC01-843 Question (1): For box headers with Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 28 alternative corner joints, constructed of base materials exempt from impact testing at an MDMT of -400F, welded with impact test qualified at 50oF welding procedures, are production impact tests in accordance with UG-84(i) required? Reply (1): No, production impact tests are only required for Category A and B joints.

Question (2): May a specific heat/lot of welding consumables that has been classified by impact tests at a temperature colder than the temperature listed in the appropriate part of Section II Part C be used in UCS-67 to establish a colder MDMT? Reply (2): Volume 51 Interpretation: VIII-1-01-111 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-125 and Code Case 2211 Date Issued: January 17, 2002 File: BC99-084 Question: May pressure-reducing valves and/or similar mechanical or electrical control devices be used as integral components of a system of overpressure protection under the provisions of Code Case 2211? Reply: Yes, provided these components are specifically considered in the analysis required by paragraph (c) of the Reply in Code Case 2211, and the analysis is documented and signed as required by paragraph (d)(4). Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-01-13. No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-112 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-129(e) Date Issued: January 17, 2002 File: BC99-573 Question (1): Do the requirements of UG-129(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 allow a rupture disk device to have a nameplate, which is attached to the disk by adhesive? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-119(e)(3).

Question (2): Do the requirements of UG-129(e) of Section VIII, Division 1 allow a rupture disk to have a printed ASME UD Code symbol stamp on the nameplate? Reply (2): No, see UG-119(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-113 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition); Note (2) of Fig. UG-28.1 Date Issued: March 12, 2002 File: BC00-591 Question: Is it the intent that the term each section in Note (2) of Fig. UG-28. 1 in Section VIII, Division 1, includes the conical reducer section for determining the minimum required thickness when the conical reducer section thickness meets the Note (1) requirements? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-114 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-2(b) Date Issued: March 13, 2002 File: BC01-606 Question: Is it the intent under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, paragraph 22(b) to allow production of ferritic steel flanges exceeding 3 in. in thickness from quenched and tempered material? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-115 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UW-16(f)(3) and Appendix 9, 9-6 Date Issued: March 18, 2002 File: BC01-870 Question: A threaded fitting, meeting the definition of paragraph UG-11(a) in Section VIII, Division 1, penetrates both the inner and outer wall of a jacketed vessel. May such a fitting be attached by a fillet weld deposited on the outside surface of the vessel and jacket if all the provisions of UW-16(f) (3) are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1 -01 -116 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 2

Date Issued: File:

March 18, 2002 BC01-912

Question: When designing a loose flange in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, is it required to apply a corrosion allowance to the flange dimensions? Reply: The Code does not address when a corrosion allowance is required. It is the owners (or his designated agents) responsibility to determine the need for corrosion allowance. The decision to include any corrosion allowance for a loose flange is considered to be a contractual matter between the purchaser and the Manufacturer. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-117 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-101(m) Date Issued: March 19, 2002 File: BC02-102a Question: For vessels stamped to the 2001 Edition or later of Section VIII, Division 1, is it permitted to establish the MAWP (maximum allowable working pressure) for new vessels components using the test factor of 4 currently permitted in UG-101(m)(2)(a) and UG-101(m)(2)(c) that were previously proof tested to a prior edition? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-118 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UW-2 Date Issued: March 19, 2002 File: BC02-106a Question: May SA312 Type 304 welded pipe be used for the shell of or for nozzles in pressure vessels constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and designated for Lethal Service if the requirements of UW-2 are met? Reply: also UG-8(a). Yes, provided that the longitudinal seams are fully radiographed per UW-11(a)(1). See

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-119 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-37(a) Date Issued: April 22, 2002 File: BC02-2318 Question (1): A vessel has supplemental loads (as described in UG-22) applied to it such that the longitudinal stress governs the required thickness. Must this required thickness, based on longitudinal stress, be used as "tr" when conducting the nozzle reinforcement calculations in accordance with UG-37 of Section VIII Division 1? Reply (I): Question (2): Reply (2): No. If the Reply to Question (1) is No, then what rules apply? See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-120 Subject: ection VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UW-3 Date Issued: April 22, 2002 File: BC02-2681 Question: A long weld neck flange is connected to the shell of a pressure vessel with a butt weld. In accordance with weld joint definitions of paragraph UW-3 of Section VIII, Division 1, is this weld a Category C weld joint? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-121 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-20(f), UCS-66, Fig. UCS-66, and UCS68(e) Date Issued: May 7, 2002 File: BC02-2427 Question: Is it permissible to apply the temperature reduction of UCS-68(c) to pressure vessels or pressure parts whose MDMT is determined by application of the rules in UG-20(f)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-122 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-46(g)(l) Date Issued: May 7, 2002 File: BC02-2562 Question: UG-46(g)(l) states the minimum dimensions required for elliptical or obround manholes. Is it required per ASME Section VIII, Division I that these dimensions apply to inside diameter in the uncorroded condition? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-123 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UCS-66, Marking MDMT on Nameplate Date Issued: May 20, 2002 File: BC02-2314 Question: In Section VIII, Division I, is it permitted to list as the MDMT at MAWP on the nameplate a temperature which is warmer than the MDMT determined either by test or by application of the UCS-66 exemption rules? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-124 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Appendix 13, Fig. 13-2(a) Sketch (3) Date Issued: May 21, 2002 File: BC02-2310 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 13, provide rules for non-circular vessels similar to that shown in sketch (3) of Fig. 13-2(a) except that the side plates have different thicknesses?

Reply:

No, see paragraph 13-1(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-125 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-41(b)(l) and Appendix L, Examples L7.2 and L-7.5 Date Issued: May 28, 2002 File: BC96-381 Question: In complying with the requirements of UG-41(b)(l) in Section VIII, Division 1, is it the intent that performing the outer fillet weld check as given in Examples L-7.2 and L-7.5 of Appendix L be mandatory? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-126 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-29 and UG-30 Date Issued: June 5, 2002 File: BC02-2744 Question (1): When conducting calculations in accordance with UG-29 and UG-30 of Section VIII Division 1 for determining stiffening ring size and stiffening ring attachment weld size, is it acceptable to use the nominal shell thickness (less corrosion allowance) if this value is larger than the minimum required shell thickness? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): textbooks. Yes. In example L-5.3 of Section VIII, Division I, what is the definition of the term Q? Q is the first moment of the area as defined in strength of material engineering

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-127 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Hydrostatic Test Date Issued: June 6, 2002 File: BC02-105a Question: A threaded fitting is attached to a pressure vessel per the rules of Section VIII, Division I, UW-16(f). The vessel is then hydrostatically tested per UG-99. Is it permissible under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to install an extension pipe into the threaded fitting and seal weld with no additional hydrostatic testing? Reply: Volume 52 Interpretation: VIII-1-01-128 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2001 Edition); UG-136(b)(3) Date Issued: December 2, 2002 File: BC02-3595 Yes.

Question: Is it a requirement that the materials used in the construction of bodies, bonnets or yokes of pressure relief valves pet the requirements of UG-136(b)(3) shall meet the applicable toughness rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-129 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-116 Date Issued: December 3, 2002 File: BC02-2791 Question: When constructing a plate and frame heat exchanger containing two pressure streams with the same pressure and temperature rating, is it permissible in Section VIII, Division 1 to apply the required marking of UG-116 as a single chamber only? Reply: No, any vessel which contains two or more chambers that fall within the scope of the Code must be marked in a manner to identify the required marking for each chamber. See UG-116(j). Interpretation: VIII-1-01-130 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UCS-68(c) Date Issued: December 3, 2002 File: BC02-2793 Question: When an entire vessel is postweld heat-treated at least one weld joint requires PWHT per Code rules, may individual weld joints that did not require PWHT per Code rules be permitted to use to provision of UCS-68(c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-131 Subject: Section VIII. Division 1 (2001 Edition); U-1(c)(2)(e) Date Issued: December 3, 2002 File: BC02-3353 Question: A component in a processing system serves the purpose of filtering or straining the process fluid. In accordance with the provisions of para. U-1(c)(2)(e). such components may be considered exempt from the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, provided the pressure containing parts of such components are generally recognized as piping components or accessories. If such a component is made using a special closure containing elements not generally recognized as a standard piping component, is the scope exemption allowed by para. U-l(c)(2)(e) applicable? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-132 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-44(j) Date Issued: December 5, 2002 File: BC02-2920 Question: Is it acceptable, under the provisions of para. UG-44 of Section VIII, Division 1, to use an integral flange/nozzle neck machined from a forging if the flange dimensions, including the hub, meet

the ASME B16.5 requirements and the nozzle neck meets the requirements of para. UG-45? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-133 Subject: Section VIII. Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UW-12 Date Issued: December 5, 2002 File: BC02-4004 Question: May a Joint Type 6 of Table UW- 12 (single fillet welded lap joint) be used for a Category B joint to connect two cylinders? Reply: shells. No, Joint Type 6 of Table UW-12 is only applicable for the attachment of heads to

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-134 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 (2001 Edition); Appendix 28, Fig. 28-1 Date Issued: December 9, 2002 File: BC02-2640 Question: In meeting the requirements of 28-2(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, may a butt-weld coupon he used to qualify the weld procedure, welder or welding operator, provided the tolerances of 282(a)(1) and 28-2(a)(2) are met? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-135 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UW-11(a)(5)(b), UW-12(d), and UW-12(e) Date Issued: December 9, 2002 File: BC02-4115 Question: Electric resistance welded tubes are used in a heat exchanger and are attached to the tubesheets by welding or mechanical expansion. Since there is no Category B or C butt joints associated with the tubes that would invoke the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b), is it correct to use a joint efficiency E= 1.0 in accordance with UW-12(d) and UW-12(e) when determining the required wall thickness due to internal pressure as required by UG-27 and UG-31? Reply: Yes.

Volume 53 Starts Here: Revisions to an Interpretation Published in a Previous Volume Interpretation: VIII-l-89-247R Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-26(d) Date Issued: September 12, 2002 File: BC02-2474* Question: May a manufacturer, who holds a valid ASME Certification of Authorization and Code Symbol Stamp, contract a shop, which does not hold a valid ASME Certification of Authorization and

Code Symbol stamp, to fabricate vessels requiring the ASME Code Stamp when the non-Code shops welders are qualified under the Certificate Holders WPSs, and all provisions of UW-26(d) in Section VIII, Division 1 are met, and are under the control of the Certificate Holders Quality Control manager? Reply: Note: No. This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 52 of the interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-98-09R Subject: ection VIII, Division I; UW-11 and UCS-57 Date Issued: February 27, 2003 File: BC03-268* Question: For a vessel in which postweld heat treatment is a requirement, is it mandatory that all radiographic examination required by UW-11 of Section VIII, Division 1 be performed after the postweld heat treatment? Reply: PWHT. No, except that UHA-33(b) and UHA-33(c) require radiographic examination after

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-136 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Appendix 2, 2-5 and Appendix 24, Fig. 24-1 Date Issued: August 8, 2002 File: BC01-329 Question (1): For flanges designed in accordance with Appendix 2, Section VIII, Division I using selfenergized gaskets, does the gasket diameter G extend out to the outer diameter of the groove the gasket fits? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes, see Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2, 2-5. May diameter G be set equal to diameter C when self-energized gaskets are used? No.

Question (3): Should the G dimension for self-energized gaskets used in design of clamp connections designed in accordance with Appendix 24, Section VIII, Division 1, extend out to the outer diameter of the groove as shown in Fig. 24-1? Reply (3): Yes, see definition of G in 24-3 and sketches in Fig. 24-1; also reference 2-5 in Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2. Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 52 of the interpretations.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-137 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition); UCS-66(a), Fig. UCS-66, and UHT-6 Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC99-102 Question (1): Do the requirements of UHT-6(a)(3) and UHT-6(a)(4) apply to integrally forged vessels manufactured without welded seams from SA-372 material in the quenched and tempered condition with a specified minimum tensile strength of 95,000 psi or greater?

Reply (I):

Yes, see para. UG-84(c)(4)(b).

Question (2): For an integrally forged vessel, manufactured from SA-372 material without welded seams, is the minimum required thickness of the dished head portion of the vessel the governing thickness referenced in para. UCS-66(a)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-138 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-20(a) Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC01-405 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 vessels, is it required to consider the most severe condition of coincident pressure and temperature expected in normal operation including abnormal conditions which may become a governing design condition? Reply: Yes. See UG-2(a), UG-20, and UG-21.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-139 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2001 Edition); UG-99(f), UG-l00(d), and AT-355 Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC01-774 Question: May welds in nozzles found to be leaking during visual inspection required by UG-99(f), UG- 100(d), and AT-335 be repaired and hydrostatically retested using a device that seals the part without requiring a full hydrostatic retest of the vessel? Reply: Note: No. This Interpretation also appears as VIII-2-01-l5.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-140 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Fig. UW-13.2, Sketch (c), and Appendix 28, 282(c) Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC02-2305 Question: In meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, is visual examination of the inside corner required of a joint configuration as shown in Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-141 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (2001 Edition); Appendix A, Shear Load Test Specimen Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC02- 2426 Question: If it is elected to use the provisions of Appendix A of Section VIII, Division 1 to determine the allowable tube-to-tubesheet loading for a heat exchanger, are there any provisions in the

shear load testing requirements of the Appendix that would permit reducing the number of specimens or the number of tubes required in the specimen if the tube spacing in the exchanger is large? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-142 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UW-26 Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC02-2428 Question (I): Is it permissible by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, for a Manufacturer of air-cooled heat exchangers, holding a Certification of Authorization, to send fabricated box headers to another location (shop or field site), that does not hold a Certificate of Authorization, to install tubes in the box header using a non-welded method of installation, if the controls for such activity are stated in the Manufacturers Quality Control Manual? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, to allow the completed aircooled heat exchanger to be hydrostatically tested at a location (shop or field site) that does not hold a Certificate of Authorization? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it permissible by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, for the Manufacturer to apply the Code Stamp to the completed air-cooled heat exchanger at a location (shop or field site) that does not hold a Certificate of Authorization, if the controls for such activity are stated in the Manufacturers Quality Control Manual? Reply (3): No. See UG-117(b) and Interpretation VIII-l-95-127R.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-143 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UCS-56 Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC02-2819 Question: Is there a maximum holding temperature limit when postweld heat treating in accordance with UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No; also see UCS-85

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-144 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); Use of Metric Equivalents Date Issued: February 6, 2003 File: BC02-3289 Question: Is it allowed to use the stated metric conversions for Code limits; e.g., limits expressed as in. (6 mm), in place of the U.S. Customary values? Reply: No, see SI Units in Section VIII, Division 1.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-145 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-119 Date Issued: March 3, 2003 File: BC03-179 Question: A nameplate with required markings is attached to a pressure vessel. Is it permissible by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 for a Manufacturer to place additional information, such as a suppliers name and/or logo to the left of the Code required markings but below the Code U stamp provided the required marking arrangement is substantially as shown in Fig. UG-118? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-146 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-90(c)(2) Date Issued: March 5, 2003 File: BC03-198 Question (1): Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 that a single, unique pressure vessel be constructed under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 that a single unique pressure vessel be constructed under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2) if the pressure vessel is similar to a Manufacturers standard product? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that pressure vessels constructed under the provisions of UG-90(c)(2) be limited in size? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-147 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); U-1(g), U-l(c)(1), and UG125(b) Date Issued: April 6, 2003 File: BC03-175 Question (1): An economizer that is constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 is subjected to the combustion gas turbine exhaust stream of a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) constructed according to the rules of Section 1. The HRSG contains an auxiliary burner in combination with the combustion gas exhaust stream. Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to consider the economizer as an Unfired Pressure Vessel? Reply (1): Yes, see also U-l(c)(1).

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to select the capacity of the safety relief valve per the requirements of UG-125(b)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-148 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-46(f)(3) Date Issued: April 6, 2003 File: BC03-176 Question: A vessel with an inside diameter over 36 in. (914 mm) is constructed using stainless steel and specified with zero internal corrosion allowance, but has been designated for use in corrosive service. Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the vessel have a manhole per UG-46(f)(3)? Reply: Yes. Use in corrosive service should be noted in the Remarks section of the Manufacturers Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-149 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-11 and UG-120(c) Date Issued: April 13, 2003 File: BC03-458 Question: UG-11 and UG-120(c) of Section VIII, Division 1 allow for Manufacturers with multiple locations, each with its own Certification of Authorization, to transfer pressure vessel parts between locations without Partial Data Reports. Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that each location have the same Authorized Inspection Agency? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-150 Subject: Section VIII, Division I (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UW-11(a)(5)(b), UW-l2, and UG-116 Date Issued: April 26, 2003 File: BC03-454 Question (1): A pressure vessel is constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 using ERW pipe for the shell and seamless plate for the elliptical heads, which are welded to the shell with a Type No. 1 weld per Table UW-12. All categories B and C butt welds are radiographed per UW-11(a)(5) (b). Is it required by UG-116(e) that the vessel be marked RT-2? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): When calculating the head thickness of the pressure vessel described in Question (1), per UG-32, is it permissible to use a value of E=1.00? Reply (2): radiographed. Yes, provided the head is seamless or all category A welds in the head are fully

Question (3): When calculating the shell thickness of the pressure vessel described in Question (1), per UG-27, is it permissible to use a value of E=1.00? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-151 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-101(l) and UG-101(o) Date Issued: April 29, 2003 File: BC03-l035

Question: May the MAWP of a vessel or vessel part constructed of materials that do not exhibit the type of yield behavior indicated by a sharp-kneed portion of the stress-strain diagram (e.g., austenitic stainless steel), be determined by proof tests based on either para. UG-101(1) or UG-101(o) of Section VIII, Division 1, when both test methods require the materials of construction to have a definitely determinable yield point? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-152 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-93(a)(1) Date Issued: May 10, 2003 File: BC03-659 Question: Do the requirements of UG-93(a)(1) in Section VIII, Division 1 also apply to sheet and strip material? Reply: Yes, see footnote 2 in UG-5.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-153 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendices 1 and 2 Date Issued: May 23, 2003 File: BC03-516 Question: A conical reducer (either concentric or eccentric) has a body flange attached directly to its end. Do the requirements of paras. 1-5 and 1-8 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply for such construction regarding how to satisfy the reinforcement requirements of para. 1-5 for internal pressure and/or para. 1-8 for external pressure? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-154 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Table UW-12 Date Issued: June 13, 2003 File: BC02-3288 Question: In Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1, Type No. (6) joint limitations are given relative to the required thickness of the components being joined whereas in the remainder of Table UW12 reference is made only to thickness or normal thickness. Are the thickness limits for Type No. (6) welds based on the thickness required for pressure only? Reply: No, all loads must be considered. See Appendix 3, 3-2.

Interpretation: VIII-1-01-155 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-32(d) and Appendix 1, 1-4 Date Issued: June 13, 2003 File: BC03-6l9 Question (1): When designing an ellipsoidal head with a head depth to diameter ratio different than one-fourth, must the provisions of 1-4(c) be satisfied?

Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): When designing a torispherical head with dimensions different than described by either UG-32(d) or UG-32(e), must the provisions of 1-4(d) be satisfied? Reply (2): Yes.

Volume 54 Starts Here Interpretation: VIII-1-04-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-37(a), Welding Requirements Date Issued: June 30, 2003 File: BC02-4117 Question: In meeting the requirements of UW-37(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, is it prohibited to prepare and begin applying weld metal from the reverse side of a double-welded joint before completion of the application of weld metal from the opposite side of the joint? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendix 8, 8-1 Date Issued: June 30, 2003 File: BC02-4118 Question: Are the requirements of T-140(b)(l) of Section V required to satisfy the requirements of Appendix 8, para. 8-1 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: July 2, 2003 File: BC02-2796 Question: If an opening in a formed head meets all the provisions of para. UG-36(c)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1, but the diameter of the finished opening is greater than of the head inside diameter, is this opening exempt from the reinforcement calculations of para. UG-37? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-37, UG-40(a), and UG40(b) Date Issued: July 10, 2003 File: BC03-99l Question: A nozzle is located in a dished head (torispherical or ellipsoidal) such that the limits of reinforcement, as defined in UG-40(b), extend into the adjacent cylindrical shell section. Is it allowed to

consider the excess thickness of the cylindrical shell, within the limits of reinforcement, as available area in the nozzle reinforcement calculations required by UG-37? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (d) Date Issued: August 12, 2003 File: BC03-1206 Question: For construction using Fig. UW-13.2, sketch (d), does Section VIII, Division 1 provide any requirements that would define the size of the allowed gap for the fit-up between the shell and unstayed flat head? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UW-11(a)(5)(b) and UW-42(b)(2) Date Issued: October 7, 2003 File: BC03-455 Question: Do the required examination of weld metal buildup in UW-42(d)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the completed surface of the weld buildup when multiple layers or passes are employed? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UW-33 Date Issued: October 7, 2003 File: BC03-933 Question: Do the fabrication requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 (e.g. weld alignment tolerances specified in UW-33) apply to a circumferential joint between two support skirt sections? Reply: No, since this weld joint is considered to be outside the mandatory scope of the Code. See U-1(e)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-1(b) Date Issued: October 14, 2003 File: BC03-1347 Question: Is it required by Section VIII, Division 1 that the hub thickness of an integral welding neck flange shall satisfy the minimum thickness requirements of UG-27? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendix DD, Item 2, U Code Symbol Stamp, Point 4; UG-117(c) Date Issued: October 14, 2003 File: BC03-149l Question: Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that a Manufacturer may carry out complete fabrication of a pressure vessel at the field site(s) for which the valid Certificate of Authorization applies? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); U-1(j) Date Issued: October 29, 2003 File: BCO3-1192 Question: Do the volume and pressure limitations listed in U-1(j) apply to each chamber of multichambered vessels that are rated and operated independently? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-11(a) and Appendix 24 Date Issued: October 30, 2003 File: BC01-279 Question: Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that clamp connections that comply with a Manufacturers standard per the requirements of para. UG-11(a) satisfy the requirements of Appendix 24, including paras. 24-1(f) and 24-2(e) regarding the inclusion of a bolt retainer and the minimum size of the bolts and nuts? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-16(d)(1) and Fig. UW-16.1 [sketches (y-2) and (z-2)] Date Issued: November 20, 2003 File: BC03-1585 Question: For openings of the type depicted by Fig. UW- 16.1 [sketches (y-2) and (z-2)] of Section VIII, Division 1, may separate reinforcing elements be used when additional reinforcement is required if the requirements of para. UW-16(d)(1) are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-13 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-135(d) Date Issued: November 26, 2003 File: BC03-1789

Question: Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for a full-bore, free-flow check valve to be installed between a rupture disk and its point of discharge? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-11(a)(5), UG-27(c)(2), and Appendix W Date Issued: December 2, 2003 File: BC03-1657 Question (1): A vessel consists of welded shell sections and seamless ellipsoidal heads at each end. The longitudinal and girth seams are all Type 1. The longitudinal seams (Category A) have been fully examined per UW-11(a)(5), and the circumferential seams (Category B) have been spot examined per UW-11(a)(5)(b). Is the joint efficiency to be used for the longitudinal stress (circumferential joint) calculation per UG-27(c)(2) to be taken from Column B or Column C of Table UW-12? Reply (1): Column C, since the spot X-ray taken on the Category B seam was to satisfy UW-12(d) and permit designing the shell and seamless heads with a joint efficiency from Column A of Table UW12. Based on the last sentence of UW-11(a)(5)(b), this spot X-ray cannot be used to also satisfy UW11(b). Question (2): For the case described in Question (1), is the joint efficiency to be reported on the Manufacturers Data Report under the section Circum. Joint (Cat. A, B, & C) equal to 0.70? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-46, Inspection Openings Date Issued: December 18, 2003 File: BC03-1295 Question: Are inspection openings required, per UG-46 of Section VIII, Division 1, in pressure vessels equipped with a heavy duty rubber bladder, which is intended to prevent water from coming in contact with the steel vessel when these pressure vessels are designed for non-corrosive service and are charged with air, which has had moisture removed per UG-46(a)? Reply: No, provided non-corrosive service has been specified by the user or his designated agent [see UG-25(a)], and the Manufacturers Data Report includes the statement for non-corrosive service under remarks [see UG-46(a)(4)]. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-23(d) Date Issued: December 18, 2003 File: BC03-13l9 Question: Paragraph UG-23(d) allows the general primary membrane stress to exceed the maximum allowable stress permitted by UG-23(a), (b), or (c) by 1.2 when considering wind or earthquake loads. May the 1.2 factor be used in the design calculations required by Part UHX for tubesheet design and Appendix 2 for flange design?

Reply: No. There are no provisions in Part UHX or Appendix 2 that require determination of general primary membrane stress, thus the provision for increased allowable stresses in UG-23(d) for wind and earthquake loading is not applicable. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UNF-56 and UW-40(a), Postweld Heat Treatment of UNS N08811 (Alloy 800HT) Materials Date Issued: December 18, 2003 File: BC03-1320 Question (1): A vessel is constructed of 304H and UNS N08811 (Alloy 800HT) materials at design temperatures exceeding 1000F (540C) for both materials. In meeting the requirements of UNF-56(e)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1, do the welded joints connecting the 304H and UNS N08811 materials require postweld heat treatment? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May the postweld heat treatment of the welded joints described in Question (1) be conducted by heating local areas as opposed to heating the entire vessel in an enclosed furnace? Reply (2): Yes, provided the applicable requirements of UW-40(a) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Appendix 4, 4-3(b), Evaluation of Relevant Indications Date Issued: December 18, 2003 File: BC03-1647 Question: If an indication due to size is determined not to be relevant in accordance with Appendix 4, 4-3(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, may it be excluded from further review when found in grouped or clustered indications? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-19 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX, Figs. UHX-11.2 and UHX-11.3 Date Issued: December 18, 2003 File: BC03-1648 Question: May the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 be used when ()* is less than 0.1 or greater than 0.6? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(g) Date Issued: December 19, 2003 File: BC03-915

Question: A hot water supply storage tank is heated indirectly with an internal heat exchange coil taking input hot water from multiple boilers. The heat output of the internal heat exchange coil is rated to a maximum of 200,000 Btu/hr. Per U-1(c)(2)(g), is it required that the hot water supply storage tank be constructed and marked according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No, so long as the combined input to the hot water supply storage tank is 200,000 Btu/hr or less, and the other conditions stated in U-1(c)(2)(g) are satisfied. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-51(a)(2), Certification of NDE Examiners Date Issued: December 19, 2003 File: BC03-1021 Question (1): A Level III Examiner is qualified to an earlier edition of the Code that allowed certification without examination based on education, experience, and training and has maintained certification based on continued satisfactory performance. Does this person meet the qualification and certification requirements of the current UW-51(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): Yes, provided they are in accordance with the employers written practice.

Question (2): May the Level III Examiner described in Question (1) provide subcontracted services to a manufacturer applying for an ASME Certificate of Authorization to the present Code Edition and Addenda? Reply (2): Yes, provided the qualification and certification requirements are in accordance with the employers written practice and is described in the Manufacturers Quality Control System. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-37(a), Welding Requirements Date Issued: December 19, 2003 File: BC03-1492 Question: In meeting the requirements of UW-37(a) of Section VIII, Division 1, is it prohibited to simultaneously apply weld metal to both sides of the joint? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX, UHX-11.3, Nomenclature Date Issued: December 22, 2003 File: BC03-1825 Question: Must the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 be used when the center-to-center distance between adjacent tube rows exceeds four times the tube pitch? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Vol 55 Starts Here:

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-24 Subject: UG-29(c), External Pressure (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: February 10, 2004 File: BC03-1845 Question: A pressure vessel is subjected to external pressure and utilizes internal stiffening rings that satisfy all the provisions of paras UG 29(c)(1),(2), (3), and (4). Is it required to provide either the strut member as shown in Fig UG-29.1 at location D or the external stiffener as shown in Fig. UG-29.1 at location C? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-25 Subject: Appendix 1, 1-4(f)(1)(e), Internal Pressure Formed Heads (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: March 1, 2004 File: BC04-156 Question: Reply: In para 1-4(f)(1)(e), shall the equation given for Re, be used for all values of ? Yes, only the value of c is dependent on value of .

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-26 Subject: UG-136(c)(5)( Note) and UG-130, Pressure Relief Valve Machining (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: March 2, 2004 File: BC03-1329 Question (1): Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII. Division I for a Manufacturer of pressure relief valves, as defined in the note under UG-l36(c)(5), to subcontract the machining of component parts to another organization which does not possess a Certificate of Authorization, provided the Manufacturer retains responsibility for all activities listed in the note? Reply (1): Yes, provided the requirement of UG-136(c)(1) is met.

Question (2): Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for the subcontracted organization which machines the component parts to loosely fit together the parts solely for the purpose of shipping to the Manufacturer in possession of the Certification of Authorization? Reply (2): Yes, provided the requirement of UG-136(c)(1) is met.

Question (3): If a Manufacturer who is in possession of a valid Certificate of Authorization receives parts, which have been loosely fit together solely for the purpose of shipping, is it required that the parts be separated prior to final assembly by the Certificate Holder so that the requirements of UG-130 are met? Reply (3): Yes, provided the valve type is capacity-certified in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII. Division I. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-27 Subject: UG-22(g), Load Impact (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: March 19, 2004

File:

BC04-324

Question: Paragraph UG-22(g) states that impact reactions such as those due to fluid shock shall be considered in the design of a vessel. Does this include the loads resulting from abrupt changes in fluid motion or direction that is typically referred to as water hammer or steam slugging? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-28 Subject: UHX-l3.3 and UHX-l4.3, Nomenclature; UHX-l0(a), Conditions of Applicability (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: March 23. 2004 File: BC04-043 Question (1): In Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1, is the rim the unperforated portion of the tubesheet from the equivalent diameter of outer tube limit circle, Do, to the outside diameter of the tubesheet, A? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. May the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX be used for a tubesheet that is not circular? No. See UHX-10(a) and U-2(g).

Question (3): May the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX be used for a tubesheet that is uniformly perforated in either an equilateral triangular or square pattern within a rectangular area? Reply (3): No. See UHX-l0(a) and U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-29 Subject: UG-22(i), Loads. Abnormal Pressure (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: March 23, 2004 File: BC04-325 Question (1): Does para. UG-22(i) require that abnormal pressures resulting from internal deflagrations or detonations he considered in the design of a pressure vessel if such events are specified by the user? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the response to Question 1 is yes, does Section VIII, Division 1 define acceptance criteria for internal deflagrations and detonations? Reply (2): Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix H provides guidance to accommodate loadings produced by internal deflagrations. There are no rules in Section VIII, Division 1 that would provide guidance regarding loadings resulting from internal detonations. See U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-04-30 Subject: UG-34(c)(l) and UG-44, Pressure-Temperature Ratings of Standard Blind Flanges (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: April 7, 2004 File: BC03-623

Question (1): May a raised-face blind flange, conforming to a flange standard referenced in UG-34(c) (1), be used at the pressure-temperature ratings in the respective standards, without additional design calculations, if they are altered in such a manner that their final dimensions fall outside the tolerances of the respective standard? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May a raised-face blind flange, conforming to a flange standard referenced in UG-34(c) (1) and having a corrosion-resistant overlay welded to its interior face in such a manner that the final dimensions of the base material comply with the respective standard, be used at the pressure-temperature ratings in the respective standards, without additional design calculations? Reply (2): Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-31 Subject: U-l(g)(3) and U-l(j), Steam Generator (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: April 7, 2004 File: BC03-775 Question (1): A pressure vessel with an operating pressure of 15 psi is constructed for the purpose of generating steam which is to be vented to a room at atmospheric pressure for the purpose of heating the room. Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the vessel be considered within the Scope of the Code in accordance with U-1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the vessel described in Question 1 is constructed in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and the ASME Code Symbol is affixed to the vessel, is it required that the vessel be considered an unfired steam boiler per U-1(g)? Reply (2): Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-32 Subject: UG-118, Methods of Marking (2001 Edition and 2002 Addenda.) Date Issued: April 7, 2004 Fife: BC03-777 Question: Paragraph UG-118 of Section VIII, Division 1, requires markings including the ASME Code Symbol, per para. UG-116, to be stamped directly on the vessel or on a separate nameplate. May a Certificate Holder apply the required markings in UG-116 on the external surfaces of a vessel, except for the Code Symbol, by a programmable pin marking system which meets the requirements of UG-118(b) and (c)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIll-1-04-33 Subject: U-1(c)(2)(c) (Section VIII, Division I) and AG- 121(c) (Section VIII. Division 2), Pulp Refiners (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: April 7, 2004 File: BC03-1277

Question: Is a pressurized pulp refiner exempt from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 by U-l(c) (2)(c) and Section VIII, Division 2 by AG- 121(c), provided the primary design considerations and/or stresses are derived from the functional requirements of the device? Reply: Yes. See U-1(c)(l) and Footnote 1 to AG-100.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-04-04. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-34 Subject: UHA-51(a)(4)(a)(3), Impact Testing Specimens (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date issued: April 7, 2004 File: BC04-056 Question: When evaluating lateral expansion test results for high alloy materials per UHA-51, are there any provisions to reduce the required lateral expansion opposite the notch for subsized specimens? Reply: No. The required lateral expansion opposite the notch specified in UHA-51 applies to both full-size and subsize specimens. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-35 Subject: UG-43(d) and Fig. UG-40(a-2). Attachment of Nozzles (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: June 2, 2004 File: BC04-685 Question: Paragraph UG-43(d) specifies a requirement that drilled holes to be tapped shall not penetrate to within one-fourth of the corroded wall thickness from the inside surface of the vessel. Is the wall thickness referred to in this paragraph the same as the value t shown in Fig. UG-40? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-36 Subject: UG-120(c). Partial Data Report Forms (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: June 15, 2004 File: BC04-231 Question (1): Is a Partial Data Report required, per UG-120(c), when a seamless head is supplied per the rules of UG-11(b)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that a Manufacturer may obtain a Partial Data Report for seamless heads supplied by another Manufacturer, under the rules of UG- 11(b)? Reply (2): Yes, provided the Manufacturer of the head is in possession of a valid Certificate of Authorization, Interpretation: VIII-1-04-37 Subject: U-l(c)(2)(h). Jacket (2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: June 15. 2004 File: RC04-346

Question: Per U-1(c)(2)(h), is a jacket (Type 1 through Type 5 as defined in Appendix 9) within the scope of the Code when the inner chamber operates at 15 psi or less and the jacket is at full vacuum? Reply: Yes. See Appendix 9, 9-1(c).

July 2005 Addenda Starts here Interpretation: Vlll-1-04-38 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-125(c)(2), UG-133(d). UG-135(d)(l), and Code Case 2211 Date Issued: January 23, 2004 File: BC01-910 Question (I): Per UG-133(d), is it permissible not to consider internal failure in a heat exchanger as a cause of overpressure based on an evaluation of the service conditions and heat exchanger mechanical design? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): In satisfying the provisions of UG-133(d), does Section VIII, Division 1 provide any requirements regarding the criteria or methods to be used in considering internal failure in a heat exchanger? Reply (2): No, it is the users or the users designated agents responsibility to define the criteria or methods to be used in determining the internal failure scenarios to be considered in the design of the heat exchanger. Question (3): For a heat exchanger in which internal failure can occur, must a pressure relief device be provided on the low pressure side if the maximum operating pressure that results on the low pressure side does not exceed the test pressure? Reply (3): Yes; see UG-125(a). It is the users or the users designated agents responsibility to define the internal failure scenarios to be used in determining the pressure relief capacity requirements for the heat exchanger. Question (4): Is it permissible for a vessel designed under the provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 to use Code Case 2211 to satisfy some overpressure scenarios, and a pressure relief device for other overpressure scenarios? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): Is it permissible by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to use highly reliable electrical or electronic instrumentation to meet the requirements of UC-135(d)(l)? Reply (5): No.

Question (6): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that overpressure protection be provided for an unexpected source of external heat if engineering analysis shows that the vessel will fail due to excessive temperature before the pressure relief device(s) would be activated? Reply (6): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-04-39

Subject: Section VIII, Division I (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendix W, Data Report Forms U-1 and U-1A Date Issued: June 16, 2004 File: BC02-2682 Question: Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that information regarding cyclic and dynamic reactions be included on the Manufacturers Data Report? Reply: No; however, the Manufacturer may include such information in the remarks section of the Manufacturers Data Report. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-40 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-126(a) Date issued: June 28, 2004 File: BC04-583 Question: Does a balanced bellows-type valve meet the requirement of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-126(a) if the valve conforms to the definition for a balanced direct spring-loaded PRV and includes a bellows, as presented in ASME PTC 25-2001, paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, and exhibits an operating characteristic defined for a safety, safety relief, or relief valve? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX Date Issued: July 22, 2004 File: BC04-864 Question (1): May the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 be used when the inside diameter of the shell, Ds, is different from the inside diameter of the channel, Dc? Reply (1): Yes; however, Part UHX does not provide guidance regarding the maximum allowed difference between these diameters. The equations in Part UHX are derived based on the assumption that the untubed rim acts like a ring (i.e., its cross section does not distort). Question (2): May the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 be used when the centerline of the channel is offset from the centerline of the shell? Reply (2): No; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 and Fig. 2-4 Date Issued: November 8, 2004 File: BC04-1015 Question (1): Are the flanges depicted in Fig. UW- 13.2(m) and (n) of Section VIII, Division 1 considered to be integral flanges as defined in paragraph 2-4(a)(2)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May the flanges shown in Fig. UW-13.2(m) and (n) be considered to be an optional flange and calculated as a loose flange if the limitations as defined in paragraph 2-4(a)(3) are satisfied?

Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): If the flanges shown in Fig UW-13.2(m) and (n) are considered to be an optional flange and calculated as a loose flange, must the dimensions shown in Fig UW-l3.2(m) and (n) be satisfied? Rep!y (3): Yes.

Question (4): In determining the weld size requirements for a tubesheet with bolting flange as given in Fig. UW-13.2(h) through (l), is there any consideration given to optional versus integral flanges as presented in paragraph 2.4? Reply (4): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-43 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-2(a)(4) Date Issued: November 8, 2004 File: BC04-l043 Question (1): With reference to Interpretation VIII-1-95-128, are the welds used to attach heater elements to flat covers in flanged immersion heaters classified by UW-3 as a Category A, B, C, or D joint? Rep!y (1): No.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is no, then may a fillet weld be used to attach a heater element to a flat cover in a flanged immersion heater intended for lethal service as defined in UW-2(a)? Reply (2): Yes.

Volume 56 Starts Here Interpretation: VIII-1-04-44 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX, UG-34, UG-47, UW13, and Appendix A Date Issued: January 13, 2005 File: BC04-472 Question (1): A fixed tubesheet shell-and-tube heat exchanger, meeting the description in UHX-3.2 and meeting all the scope requirements in Part UHX, transfers heat between a fluid in the shell and a fluid in the tubes through the wall of the tubes such that there is an axial differential thermal expansion between the shell and tubes. May the rules for the design of braced and stayed surfaces in UG-47 of Section VIII, Division I be used in lieu of the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX for the fixed tubesheet heat exchanger described above? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): May the rules for the design and attachment of unstayed flat heads and covers in UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for tubesheets that meet the requirements of Part UHX? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Shall the requirements for the attachment details in UW-13(e) or UW-13(f) of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for integral tubesheets that meet the requirements of Part UHX? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): May the rules for tube-to-tubesheet joints in Nonmandatory Appendix A of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for shell-and-tube heat exchangers that meet the requirements of Part UHX? Reply (4): Yes; see UHX-15.2(b).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-45 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-20, UG-99, and UCS-66(a), Hydrostatic Test Pressure Date Issued: January 13, 2005 File: BC04-1070 Question: Must the hydrostatic test be considered when establishing the minimum design metal temperature per UG-20(b)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-46 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda); Fig. UW-13.2 and Table UW-12 Date Issued: January 13, 2005 File: BC04- 1113 Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for welded joints as per Fig. UW13.2, sketches (m) and (n) to be examined by full radiography or spot radiography when the vessel in which these corner joints are included is subject to the full radiography requirements of UW-11? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Are the Category C joints as shown in Fig. UW-l3.2, sketches (m) and (n) to be considered as Type 7 from Table UW-12? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-47 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda); U-1 (c)(2)(e) Date Issued: January 13, 2005 File: BC04-l 115 Question: Is a pressure vessel intended for storage or processing of a fluid, built from piping components, exempt from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(2)(e), if none of the other exemptions listed in U-1(c)(2) apply? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1 -04-48 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-2(a), UW-3(b), and Table UW-12

Date issued: File:

January 13. 2005 BC04-1205

Background: Consider a vessel, constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, containing a cone with a half-apex angle exceeding 30 deg. The cone is attached to a cylindrical shell at its large end and a nozzle at its small end. Both ends are full penetration welds and neither contains knuckle transitions. Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 for the welds on both sides of the cone to he considered Category B? Reply (1): Question (2): Reply (2): Yes. Is it required that these welds by considered as Type 8 per Table UW-12? Yes.

Question (3): Is it permitted for these joints to be used in a vessel which has been designated for lethal service as per UW-2(a)? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIlI-1-04-49 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda): UG-130 and Form UV-1 Date Issued: January 14, 2005 File: BC04-1276 Question: When Form UV-1 is completed in accordance with UG-130 by a UV Certificate Holder whose scope is limited to assembly of pressure relief valves, may the responsible representative sign the Certificate of Shop Compliance with the understanding that the original parts fabricated by the Certificate-holding valve Manufacturer met the applicable rules for design, material, and construction? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-50 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda); UG-129(e) Date Issued: January 14, 2005 File: BC04-l369 Question: Section VIII, Division 1, UG-129(e)(9) arid (10) provide mandatory requirements for marking of rupture disks used on pressure vessels constructed to the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, Is it required that a rupture disk be marked in accordance with UG-129(e) for use on a pressure vessel that has been constructed to the latest edition of the Code? Reply: Yes,

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-51 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Appendix 13, Design of Vessels of Noncircular Cross Section Subject to External Pressure (Full Vacuum) Date Issued: January 14. 2005 File: BC04-1500

Question: Does Appendix 13 of Section VIII. Division 1 provide external pressure design rules for stayed noncircular vessels similar to those shown in Fig. 13-2(a), sketches (7), (8), (9), arid (10)? Reply: No; see 13-4(e).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-52 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX. UHX-I0, Internally Spherical-Shaped Channels Date Issued: February 10, 2005 File: BC05-005 Question: Do the rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to the design of tubesheets integral with channels that do not have a uniform cylindrical shape and thickness for a minimum length of 1.8Sqrt(Dctc) adjacent to the tubesheet? Reply: No; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIlI-1-04-53 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Part UHX. UHX-10, Tubesheets With Flexible Rims Date Issued: February 10, 2005 File: BC05-006 Question: Since the equations in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 are derived based on the assumption that the untubed rim (unperforated annular region between the shell and tubes) acts like a ring (i.e., its cross section does not distort), may alternative tubesheet design rules be used For tubesheets having flexible untubed rims (i.e., the cross section does distort)? Reply: Yes; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-54 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UHX-14, Internally Sealed Floating Tubesheet Date Issued: February 23, 2005 File: BC05-075 Question: A floating tubesheet heat exchanger with the arrangement shown in Fig. UHX-14.1(c) has an internally sealed floating tubesheet [Fig. UHX- I 4.3(d)] that is required to be much thicker than the stationary tubesheet (Fig. UHX-14.2) to accommodate the packing, lantern ring, and tube layout. Does this geometry fall within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, Part UHX? Reply: Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File: No; see UHX-14.2 and U-2(g). VIII-1-04-55 Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UHX-4(e)(1), UHX-l3.4(e)(1), UHX-14.4(f), UHX-15, and Appendix A, Tube-to-Tubesheet Joint Loads February 23. 2005 BC05-092

Question (1): UHX-4(e)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 establishes the allowable axial tube stress. When complying with the requirements of UHX-13.4(e)(1) and UHX-14.4(f), is it required to perform a shear load test in accordance with A-3 and A-4 to establish the allowable tube-to-tubesheet joint load? Reply (1): No; see UHX-15, A-2, and U-2(g).

Question (2): Does Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 contain rules to determine the stresses in the tubesheet, shell, tubes, and tube-to-tubesheet joints when test ring devices are used during hydrostatic test? Reply (2): No; see U-2(g).

Question (3): May the rules for tube-to-tubesheet joints in Nonmandatory Appendix A of Section VIII, Division 1 be used for floating tubesheet heat exchangers? Reply (3): Yes; see UHX-15.2(b) and A-l(a).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-56 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition): UW-40(f) and Appendix A, Fig .A-2. PWHT Tube-to-Tubesheet Welds Date Issued: February 23, 2005 File: BC05-093 Question: When applying the postweld heat treatment rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to tube-totubesheet welds shown in Fig. A-2, the thickness of the fillet weld, groove weld, and combined groove and fillet weld is defined in UW-40(f)(2) and (f)(3). For welds of other shapes shown in Fig. A-2, should weld dimension a be used to comply with UW-40(f)(5)(g)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-57 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UG-37 Date Issued: March 8, 2005 File: BC04-1634 Question (1): In accordance with the rules of Section VIII. Division 1, is it permissible to include weld metal build-up as available area of reinforcement, as required in UG-37, for a forged integrally reinforced nozzle neck if the provisions of UG-42 are satisfied? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is Yes, may the F factor presented in Fig. UG-37 be used in the nozzle reinforcement calculations? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): Paragraph UG-37 sets limits for nozzle reinforcement as a function of the thicknesses of the shell, nozzle, and reinforcing pad (element). For a nozzle with a configuration similar to that of Fig. UW-l6.1(g), is the reinforcement limit 2.5tn + te in Fig. UG-37.1 to be determined using tn equal to the thicker (shoulder) portion of the nozzle neck? Reply (3): See Fig. UG-40, sketches (e), (e-1), and (e-2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-58 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda): UHX-13.4(a) and UHX-14.4(b), Operating Pressure and Differential Thermal Expansion Date Issued: March 8, 2005 File: BC05-007 Question: UHX-13.4(a) and UHX-14.4(b) state it is necessary to evaluate all the anticipated loading conditions to ensure that the worst load combination has been considered in the design. Load Cases 4, 5, 6, and 7 include the effect of pressure and differential thermal expansion. When tubesheets are designed in accordance with Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1, does the use of the coincident operating pressure(s) and the differential thermal expansion corresponding to each of these load cases meet the requirement for considering the worst load combination? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-59 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Appendix W, Form U-1A Date Issued: March 8, 2005 File: BC05-078 Question: Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 to include in the Remarks section of Form U-1, U-1A, U-2, or U-2A a note stating that material used on a vessel also meets requirements of a different specification, noting any limitations, provided the material used for construction is permitted? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-60 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); U-1 and UG-22 Date Issued: March 8, 2005 File: BC05-103 Question: Does the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 include pressure vessels mounted and operated on a floating ship? Reply: Yes; see U-1(c)(1).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-61 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UHX-10(a) and UHX-14 Date Issued: June 16, 2005 File: BC05-411 Question: Do tubesheets for shell-and-tube heat exchangers having a no-tubes-in-window (NTIW) baffle design fall within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 Part UHX? Reply: No; see UHX-10(a) and U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-62 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; UG-34 and UG-36(c)(3) Date Issued: June 30, 2005

File:

BC04-517

Question (1): In UG-34(d). Sketches (e), (f), and (g) of Section VIII, Division 1, may an opening meeting all of the requirements of UG-36(c) and UG-37 be placed in the shell within a 2Sqrt(dts) distance from a flat head for values of m less than 1? Reply (1): The Code does not address this issue; see U-2(g).

Question (2): May the rules in UG-34 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used to design flat heads with multiple head-to-shell attachment details on the same head? Reply (2): No; see U-2(g).

Vol 56 2006 addenda Starts Here Interpretation: VIII-1-04-63 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-47 and Appendix 17 Date Issued: August 27, 2003 File: BC0I-777 Question: Is it the intent that the exemption from 5/16 in. (8 mm) minimum thickness in UG-47(b) for dimpled or embossed assemblies constructed under UW-19 also apply to those assemblies constructed under Appendix 17? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-64 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UW-19(c)(2) Date Issued: August 27, 2003 File: BC02-4114 Question: Is it the intent of UW-19(c)(2) that a 0.80 joint efficiency be used when calculating the maximum allowable working pressure per UG-101(m)? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-65 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-3(a), Spiral Welds Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC03-1082 Question (1): Reply (1): Is it the intent that a spiral-welded butt joint be considered a Category A welded joint? Yes.

Question (2): Is it permissible to use spiral welded shell sections made of plate material if all the applicable provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 are satisfied? Reply (2): Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-04-66

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-42(a)(2), UG-42(c) July 26, 2005 BC03-1098

Question: UG-42(a)(2) and UG-42(c) make reference to Appendix 1-7(a) and 1-7(c); however, 1-7 is entitled "Large Openings in Cylindrical Shells." Is it the intent that openings in heads are required to satisfy the provisions of 1-7(a) and (c) as referenced in UG-42(a)(2) and UG-42(c)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-67 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-27 and Appendix A Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC03-1634 Question (1): Is it required that the straight section of a flange hub where it attaches to the shell, as shown in Fig. 2-4, sketch (6a) of Appendix 2, meet the requirements of UG-27? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it required that the straight section of a flange hub constructed to UG-44 meet the requirements of UG-27? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-68 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Appendix 23 Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC03-1826 Question (1): A shell-and-tube heat exchanger utilizes tubes that fall under the scope and other provisions of Appendix 23 of Section VIII, Division I. As permitted by UG-20(a), the tubes in the heat exchanger are designed based on the maximum mean metal temperature (taken through the tube wall at any point in the bundle and not along the tube length) that is expected under operating conditions. Is it the intent of the Code that the Appendix 23 rules can be applied if the heat exchanger is operated such that the tube design temperature so determined is within the maximum limits of the Appendix, but is less than the greater of the design temperatures of the shell side and tube side? Reply (1): Yes, provided either the shell side or tube side maximum design temperature does not exceed the tube design temperature. Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, shall the tube design temperature as described above be shown separately on the Manufacturer's Data Report and vessel nameplate? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-69 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-16(b)(2) Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC03-1903 Question: Is it the intent of para. UG-16(b)(2) that pipes or tubes, not greater than NPS 6 (DN I50)

may be considered exempt from the minimum thickness requirements of UG-16(b) if they are fully enclosed and protected by a shell, casing, or duct? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-70 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Appendix M, M-5.8 Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC04-1260 Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix M, M-5.8 to allow stop valves installed for isolation of a pressure relief device, for maintenance of the device, not to comply with the requirements of M-5.6 if fire is the only source of overpressure? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-71 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Part UHX, UHX-10, Tubesheets with Welded Stiffening Elements Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC05-271 Question: Are the tubesheet design rules in Part UHX of Section VIII, Division 1 applicable when the effect of stiffening elements welded to the tubesheet are considered in the tubesheet design? Reply: No; see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-72 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UW -16 Date Issued: July 26, 2005 File: BC05-560 Question: Do para. UW-16 and Fig. UW-16.1 prohibit nozzle attachment welds that are larger than the minimum size given in Fig. UW -16.1 but also are larger than shown on the manufacturer's drawing and WPS? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-73 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Table UCS-56 Date Issued: August 17, 2005 File: BC05-032 Question (1): A pressure vessel is constructed of P-No. 3, Group 1 and 2 materials with a nominal thickness not exceeding 5/8 in. (16 mm). A satisfactory welding procedure qualification in accordance with UCS-56(a) has been made in equal or greater thickness than the production weld. The vessel is not in lethal service, nor is postweld heat treatment a service requirement. All other requirements of UCS56(a) have been met. Is postweld heat treatment required per Table UCS-56 of Section VIII, Division 1 for this vessel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For the vessel described in Question (1), is it required to preheat to a minimum temperature of 200F (95C)? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-l-04-74 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UHX-13.2 Date Issued: August 17, 2005 File: BC05-459 Question: The conditions of applicability stated in UHX-13.2 of Section VIII, Division 1 require that both tubesheets of a fixed tube sheet heat exchanger have the same edge conditions. If the two tube sheets have different diameters, are they considered to have the same edge condition? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-l-04-75 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UCS-67 Date Issued: August 17, 2005 File: BC05-563 Question: The hub of a forged tubesheet is to be welded to a shell plate. The plate material is exempt from impact testing, but the forged tubesheet is not exempt. Do UCS-67(a)(1) and UCS-67(c)(1) require that the weld between the hub of the forged tube sheet and the shell be qualified with impact tests on the weld and the weld heat affected zone (HAZ) of the forged tubesheet? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-l-04-76 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UG-27 and UW-l3.3 Date Issued: August 17, 2005 File: BC05-565 Question: A heat exchanger is manufactured with a forged tubesheet with a hub that is butt welded to the shell as shown in Fig. UW-13.3. Shall the thickness requirements of UG-27, using the maximum allowable stress for the hub material, be satisfied at all points along the hub? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-77 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Use of EN-473 for Certification of NDE Examiners Date Issued: November 18, 2005 File: BC04-626 Question: May a Manufacturer apply the knowledge, testing, and skills demonstrations performed under the auspices of EN-473 for certification of NDE examiners in fabricating pressure vessels to ASME Code Section VIII, Divisions 1, 2, and 3? . Reply: Yes, provided that:

(a) (b) (c)

the Manufacturer has a written practice describing the use of EN-473 know ledge examinations and skills demonstrations to meet the guidelines of SNT-TC-lA (current Code accepted edition); the training, experience, and demonstration requirements of the written practice meet the guidelines of SNT-TC-1A; and the Manufacturer retains written certification of NDE personnel to be compliant with the guidelines of SNT-TC-1A.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-78 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UW-16 and U-l(e)(1) Date Issued: November 18,2005 File: BC05-463 Consider a pressure vessel constructed according to the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 in which a coil passes through either the head or the shell of the pressure vessel to heat or cool the contents of the pressure vessel. The coil is attached to the pressure vessel by a weld that meets the requirements of UW16. Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division I that this coil be constructed as a part of the pressure vessel? Reply (1): Yes, up to the geometric limits described in U-1(e)(1).

Question (2): Must the pressure vessel be documented on a U-1 Manufacturer's Data report as a single chamber pressure vessel? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-79 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UG-37 Date Issued: November 18, 2005 File: BC05-623 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 have rules for the weld joints of multisegmental reinforcing elements? Reply: No; see U-2(g). Interpretation: VIII-1-04-80 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Form U-2A Date Issued: November 21, 2005 File: BC05-672 Question: A Manufacturer of pressure vessels orders 2:1 ellipsoidal heads from a Parts Manufacturer in possession of a valid Certificate of Authorization. The Parts Manufacturer provides a form U-2A Partial Data Report. Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the Parts Manufacturer include the elliptical ratio on the Form U-2A? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-81

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UHX-10, General Conditions of Applicability November 21, 2005 BC05-1101

Question: Do tubesheets containing different sized tubes fall within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, Part UHX? Reply: No; see UHX-10(a) and U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-82 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-125 Date Issued: November 21, 2005 File: BC05-1270 Question (1): The rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125 permit multiple relief devices to be installed. Is it permitted that both a pressure relief valve and a nonreclosing pressure relief device such as a rupture disk may be installed separately rather than in accordance with UG-132? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is yes, is it permitted for the rupture disk to be stamped at 105% of the vessel's MAWP and at the vessel's design temperature? Reply (2): Yes, provided the other pressure relief device is set at MAWP or lower.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-83 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-42(a) and Fig. UG-42(a), UG-40 and Fig. UG-40 (a-1) and (a-2) Date Issued: December 22, 2005 File: BC04-84l Question (l): A vessel has two openings where the limit of reinforcement measured parallel to the vessel wall, "R + tn + t" for both openings is greater than the diameter of each opening. Therefore the distance "R + tn + t" is the controlling limit of reinforcement. The nozzles are spaced at a distance greater than two times their average diameter, but the spacing is less than the sum of their limits of reinforcement and consequently the limits of reinforcement overlap. Is it the intent of UG-42(a) and Fig. UG-42 to restrict the limits of reinforcement so that no portion of the cross section can be considered as applying to more than one opening, even if the spacing is greater than two times their average diameter? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): With reference to UG-40 and Fig. UG-40 (a-1) and Fig. UG-40(a-2), is it permissible to ignore the area of tapped holes falling within the boundary limits in reinforcement calculations for studded connections? Reply (2): No.

Volume 57 starts here Interpretation: VIII-1-04-84 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-116 - Required Marking for External Pressure

Date Issued: File:

March 1, 2004 BC02-4219

Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the external maximum allowable working pressure of a vessel be marked on the pressure vessel and on the data report when not specified as a design condition by the user or his designated agent? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Is it the intent that when specified by a user to design and stamp a vessel with external maximum allowable working pressure, this value be entered in the Manufacturers Data Report U-1A? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (3): If a Manufacturer chooses to indicate an external pressure rating of Full Vacuum on a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel, is it the intent to allow the use of the abbreviation FV? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-85 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-16(b) and Appendix 17 Date Issued: November 5, 2004 File: BC03-1476 Question: Is it the intent of paragraph 17-4, in Section VIII, Division 1, to allow the construction of dimpled or embossed assemblies constructed per Appendix 17 with a plate thickness less than 1/16" (1.6mm) specified in UG-16(b)? Reply: Yes Interpretation: VIII-1-04-86 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-29(d) & UW-48(b) Date Issued: December 1, 2005 File: BC04-1348 Question: Is it the intent in UW-29(d) and UW-48(b) that the Manufacturer either sign the welder and welding operator performance qualification records, or provide some other method of control, such as an electronic database, as long as the alternative method is controlled in accordance with the Manufacturers quality system? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-87 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-99(e) Date Issued: February 3, 2006 File: BC05-1566 Question: Consider a shell and tube heat exchanger where only the shell is constructed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and to which the Code Symbol Stamp is applied. Is it required that the tubeside of this combination unit be pressure tested per UG-99(e)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-88 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-116(a)(1)(b)(4) Date Issued: February 22, 2006 File: BC05-1589 Question: Consider a multi-chamber pressure vessel consisting of an inner chamber surrounded by a jacket, in which the inner chamber is subject to both internal pressure and full vacuum. When the inner chamber is at full vacuum condition along with additional external pressure applied by the surrounding jacket, even if this condition does not govern the design of the inner chamber, is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the external maximum allowable working pressure of the inner chamber be marked on the nameplate and documented on the Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply: Yes, when it is specified as a design condition.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-89 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-136(c)(3)(c) Performance Requirements of Pressure Relief Valves Date Issued: March 13, 2006 File: BC04-1311 Question: Is it the intent of UG-136(c)(3)(c) that a pressure relief valve has failed to meet performance requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 if it exhibits chattering during operational and capacity tests, or flutter at the flow-rated pressure in a way that either would interfere with the measurement of capacity or would result in damage to the valve? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-90 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(i) Date Issued: March 13, 2006 File: BC06-95 Question: May vessels as described by Section VIII, Division 1 in U-1(g)(2) and U-1(g)(3), be exempted by the provisions of U-1(c)(2)(i) when the vessels have an internal diameter of 6 inches or less? Reply: jurisdiction. Yes, unless construction in accordance with the Code is required by the user or local

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-91 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); Table 2-4 and Table 2-5.1 Date Issued: April 5, 2006 File: BC05-1667 Question: Do the recommended minimum gasket widths of non-mandatory Table 2-4 of Section VIII Division 1apply to all the gasket styles shown in Table 2-5.1 except for self energized gaskets and ring joints. Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-92 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-16(c) Date Issued: April 27, 2006 File: BC06-357 Question: A pressure vessel that has no specified corrosion allowance is made of plate that is ordered to a thickness equal to the required design thickness. If the actual plate thickness received is less than the required design thickness, but is within the allowable under-tolerance as given in UG-16(c); may the plate be used in accordance with the rules of Section VIII Division 1? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-93 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-14 and Code Cases 2155 & 2156 Date Issued: May 24, 2006 File: BC06-507 Question: Is it permissible to use both Code Cases 2155 and 2156 for a vessel that has a flat head machined from rod/bar stock and is integral to a shell body as an alternative to UG-14? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-94 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) UG-29 and UG-30 Date Issued: May 24, 2006 File: BC06-559 Question: Stiffening rings required to resist external pressure are located on the inside of a pressure vessel. These internal stiffening rings are designed to carry the loads generated by the external pressure, and fillet welds are used only as a means of holding the rings in place. Do the weld sizing requirements of UG-30 apply to these fillet welds? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-95 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UW-11 and Code Case 2235-6 Date Issued: May 31, 2006 File: BC04-1455 Question (1): Is it the intent of Code Case 2235-6 (2235-7) that when portions of the vessel meet the requirements of UW-11(a) for full radiography and portions meet the requirements of Code Case 2235-6 for using ultrasonic examination in lieu of radiography, the vessel nameplate be stamped with RT-1? Reply (1): Yes, provided the extent of examination, joint efficiencies, and the Code Case are noted on the Manufacturers Data Report and the nameplate is marked under the Code Symbol stamp by applying "UT." Question (2): May a vessel nameplate be stamped RT-2 per the rules of UG -116 of Section VIII, Division 1, when a complete vessel satisfies the requirements of UW-11(a)(5) and when the spot radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) have been applied but when ultrasonic examination in

accordance with the provisions of Code Case 2235-6 has been used in lieu of radiography? Reply (2): Yes, provided the extent of examination, joint efficiencies, and the Code Case are noted on the Manufacturers Data Report and the nameplate is marked under the Code Symbol stamp by applying "UT." Interpretation: VIII-1-04-96 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UW-13(c)(2) & Fig. UW-13.1(e) Date Issued: June 15, 2006 File: BC04-1456 Question: If an intermediate head is not located at a cylinder to cylinder junction (i.e. a circumferential weld), and if the fillet weld is sized to carry the shear load as defined in UW-13(c)(2), may the intermediate head be attached without the butt weld as shown in Fig. UW-13.1(f)? Reply: No

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-97 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Appendix M, M-5.7 - Responsibilities Date Issued: June 15, 2006 File: BC05-1136 Question: M-5.3(i) of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix M states that, when a stop valve between a pressure relief device and the equipment it is protecting is closed, the user shall ensure that the other system components are acceptable for the potential levels of pressure established in M-5.3(g). Is it required by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 for the user to ensure that other system components are acceptable for potential levels of pressure if the stop valve(s) is closed when the measures in M-5.7(b)(3)(b) are implemented? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-98 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UW-16(f)(3)(a) Date Issued: June 15, 2006 File: BC06-273 Question: May fittings and bolting pads, in accordance with UW-16(f)(3)(a), have an opening in the shell equal to or less than 4.25 in (pipe OD of 3.5 in + 0.75 in), if that is less than one-half the vessel inside diameter, without requiring reinforcement per UG-37? Reply: Yes, See UW-16(f)(3)(a)(2) and UW-16(f)(3)(b)

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-99 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UHX-9 Date Issued: June 15, 2006 File: BC06-423 Question: May the thickness of the tubesheet flanged extension be less than the minimum required thickness calculated in accordance with UHX-9.5(b) of Section VIII, Division 1, at any point along the flanged extension?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-100 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-43(d) & UCS-6(b)(3) Date Issued: June 15, 2006 File: BC06-541 Question (1): Is it permitted by paragraph UCS-6(b)(3) of Section VIII, Division 1 to use SA-36 material for a stud pad (studded outlet) with a thickness greater then 5/8" and attached to the shell in accordance with the requirements of Fig. UG-40 (a-1) or (a-2)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When considering pressure loads only, UG-43(d) requires a studded outlet to meet the reinforcement requirements of UG-36 through UG-42, limits the distance the stud hole can be to the inside surface of the vessel, and specifies a minimum stud engagement length per UG-43(g). Does Section VIII, Division 1 contain rules for designing a studded outlet when subject to external loads such as shear and/or bending moment? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-04-101 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UW-11(a) and UW-12(d). Date Issued: June 20, 2006 File: BC05-1574 Question (1): Per UW-12(d), is E=0.85 to be used for calculating circumferential stress for a seamless vessel section welded to a flat head using Type 7 weld on one end and a seamless head with a Type 1 or 2 weld on the other end in accordance with Table UW-12 when the spot radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) have not been met? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is E=0.85 to be used when calculating the circumferential stress for a seamless vessel section welded to flat heads on each end using Type 7 welds in accordance with Table UW-12? Reply (2): No, E=1.00 provided the seamless vessel section does not have a Category B weld.

Question (3): May E=1.00 be used for circumferential stress calculation for a seamless vessel section and the thickness of the seamless head when the Category A or B welds connecting the seamless vessels sections or heads are Type 3, 4, 5, or 6 of Table UW-12 and spot radiography in accordance with UW11(a)(5)(b) is met? Reply (3): No, E=0.85 for Type 3, 4, 5, or 6 welded joints.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-01 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UHX-9, 12, 13 and 14 Date Issued: August 21, 2006 File: BC06-558 Question (1): Do the rules in UHX-9 apply to the extended portion of the tubesheet when it extends only to the outside diameter of gasket [Configurations c, d (not extended), f and C]?

Reply (1):

No, see U-2(g).

Question (2): Do the rules in UHX-9 apply to Configuration d (extended) when the tubesheet is bolted separately to the shell or channel during pressure testing and/or when a bolt load is transmitted from the shell or channel flange to the extended edge of the tubesheet during operation? Reply (2): Yes, see UHX-9.4(a).

Question (3): Do the rules in UHX-12, 13 and 14 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to Configuration d (extended) when a bolt load is transmitted from the shell or channel flange to the extended edge of the tubesheet during pressure testing and/or operation? Reply (3): No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-02 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-34 - Unstayed Flat Heads and Covers Date Issued: August 21, 2006 File: BC06-667 Question (1): Is it permitted to use "1.5 S", as provided in UG-23(c), in lieu of "S" in the equations of UG-34 in order to determine the required thickness of flat heads and covers? Reply (1): No. For those configurations for which it is appropriate to use an allowable stress equal to 1.5S, the 1.5 stress multiplier has been built into the "c" factor. Question (2): May a finite element analysis be used to determine the required thickness of a flat head or cover instead of the rules provided in UG-34? Reply (2): No. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-03 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); Appendix 26 - Design and Metal Temperatures Date Issued: August 21, 2006 File: BC06-948

Question: The rules contained in Appendix 26 are only applicable when the temperature limitations of paragraphs 26-2(e), 26-6.6.3.2(a), 26-7.6.3.2(a), and 26-8.6.3.2(a) are satisfied. May expansion joints be used in Section VIII, Division 1 stamped pressure vessels with design temperatures higher than those allowed in Appendix 26 if all other applicable provisions of Section VIII, Division 1 are satisfied?
Reply: Yes, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-04 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-79, UNF-5, and UHA-11 Date Issued: September 25, 2006 File: BC03-762

Question: Must a stainless steel component which receives a significant amount of cold forming during fabrication, and is not subjected to a final solution anneal, satisfy the mechanical properties of Code approved Section II, specification in its final formed shape? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-05 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UW-3 Date Issued: September 25, 2006 File: BC05-1586 Question (1): A long weld neck flange is connected to the shell of a pressure vessel with a Type 7 corner joint as defined in table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1. In accordance with weld joint definitions of UW-3, is this weld a Category D weld joint? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): A long weld neck flange is connected to the small end of a cylindrical transition of a pressure vessel with a Type 1, 2, or 3 butt joint as defined in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1. In accordance with weld joint definitions of UW-3, is this weld a Category C weld joint? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): A long weld neck flange is connected to the small end of a transition in diameter of a pressure vessel with a Type 8 angle joint as defined in Table UW-12 of Section VIII, Division 1. In accordance with weld joint definitions of UW-3, is this weld a Category C weld joint? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-06 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Fig. UW-13.1(k) Date Issued: October 3, 2006 File: BC06-942 Question: In Fig UW-13.1 sketch (k), there are two dimensions given for the offset plate edge that are shown as "As desired" with an additional requirement that says " 1 1/2 t minimum". Does the "1 1/2 t minimum" value only apply to the length designated as the contact zone and, thus, is not applicable to the extension of the offset edge past the contact zone for the parts being joined? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-07 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); Appendix 2 - Figs. 2-7.3, 2-7.4, 2-7.5 & 2-7.6 Date Issued: October 3, 2006 File: BC06-1047 Question: If all other applicable Appendix 2 requirements are satisfied, may the calculation procedure given in Table 2-7.1 be used to determine flange factors when g1/go exceeds a value of 5, which is the g1/go upper limit as plotted in Figs 2-7.3, 2-7.4, 2-7.5 and 2-7.6?

Reply:

Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-08 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UW-40(a)(8) Date Issued: October 10, 2006 File: BC06-1123/1124 Question (1): UW-40(a)(8) of Section VIII Division 1 permits postweld heat treatment by local area heating of configurations not addressed in UW-40(a)(1) through (a)(7), provided that other measures (based upon sufficiently similar, documented experience or evaluation) are taken that consider the effect of thermal gradients, all significant structural discontinuities (such as nozzles, attachments, head to shell junctures), and any mechanical loads which may be present during postweld heat treatment. May consideration of material properties only (e.g., thickness, material ductility or type of material) be used in lieu of the measures listed in UW-40(a)(8) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): For the local area postweld heat treatment described in Question 1, an evaluation is conducted using calculations or finite element techniques that considers the effect of thermal gradients and the subsequent mechanical stresses resulting from the thermal gradients. Would such an evaluation meet the requirements of UW-40(a)(8) of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-09 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UG-16(c) Date Issued: October 27, 2006 File: BC06-1362 Question: UW-40(a)(8) of Section VIII Division 1 permits postweld heat treatment by local area heating of configurations not addressed in UW-40(a)(1) through (a)(7), provided that other measures (based upon sufficiently similar, documented experience or evaluation) are taken that consider the effect of thermal gradients, all significant structural discontinuities (such as nozzles, attachments, head to shell junctures), and any mechanical loads which may be present during postweld heat treatment. For the local area postweld heat treatment described in Question 1, do the welding residual stresses have to be included in the evaluation of stresses during PWHT, to demonstrate that thermal gradients are not harmful? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-10 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1(2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) UG-116(e) Date Issued: November 10, 2006 File: BC06-1117 Question: A pressure vessel is constructed in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division 1 with a shell made from ERW pipe welded to seamless dished heads. The head-to-shell circumferential seams are radiographed in accordance with UW-11(a). Is it required by UG-116(e) that the vessel be marked RT4? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-11 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); U-1(f) Date Issued: November 10, 2006 File: BC06-1118 Question: A pressure vessel is used to store a final product manufactured by process which contains water as a component used to make this final product. Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(2)(f) and it's associated footnote that the final product be considered as water containing additives? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-12 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); Appendix 2-3 Notation Date Issued: November 10, 2006 File: BC06-1122 Question: For a flange with slotted bolt holes (to accommodate swing bolts), is the flange outside diameter A to be used in the design calculations equal to the diameter at the inner edge of the slotted bolt holes even though this diameter is less than the bolt circle diameter? Reply: Interpretation: Yes. VIII-1-07-13

Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-28 and UG-29 Date Issued: November 10, 2006 File: BC06-1199 Question: When performing the external pressure design calculations for cylindrical shells and tubes in accordance with paragraph UG-28 of Section VIII, Division 1 for an actual unsupported length, L, longer than 50 x Do, may L/Do=50 be used? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-14 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UW-11(a)(2) Date Issued: December 5, 2006 File: BC06-783 Question (1): Do Parts UCS, UNF or UHA nozzles larger than NPS 10 with wall thickness less than 11/8 in. and with no Category B or C butt weld in the nozzle require radiography in accordance with UW11(a)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Do Parts UCS, UNF or UHA nozzles NPS 10 or smaller with wall thickness greater than 1-1/8 in. require radiography in accordance with UW-11(a) where a Category B or C butt weld is in the nozzle?

Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): Do Parts UCS, UNF or UHA nozzles larger than NPS 10 with wall thickness less than 11/8 in. require radiography in accordance with UW-11(a) where a Category B or C butt weld is in the nozzle? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-15 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); UHX-4(e)(2) Date Issued: December 21, 2006 File: BC06-578 Question (1): UHX-4(e)(2) of Section VIII, Division 1 requires that the thickness of U-tubes after forming not be less than the design thickness. Is it considered acceptable to evaluate the U-bent portion of the tube separate from the straight portion when complying with this requirement? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1 contain rules to determine the design thickness in the Ubend for the external pressure condition? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Question (3): Does Section VIII, Division 1 contain rules to determine the lines of support for the straight portion of a U-tube under external pressure? Reply (3): Question (4): No, see U-2(g).

Does Section VIII, Division 1 contain rules to determine the amount of thinning in the Ubend after forming? Reply (4): No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-16 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-93(a)(1) and (2) Date Issued: December 22, 2006 File: BC06-1578 Question: Is it required that the pressure vessel Manufacturer perform product analysis chemistry and/or mechanical tests as permitted by the material specification in order to determine that the material and Material Test Report (if required) provided by a material supplier or manufacturer meet the material specification? Reply: No.

Volume 58 Starts Here Interpretation: VIII-1-01-156 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-45 Date Issued: July 22, 2002

File:

02-3218

Question: Do the nozzle neck thickness requirements of UG-45 of Section VIII, Division 1 apply to nozzles attached to noncircular vessels? Reply: Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 52 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-157 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition); UG-79 Date Issued: April 24, 2003 File: 02-2792 Question: In meeting the requirements of UG-79 of Section VIII, Division 1 and AF-111 of Section VIII, Division 2, is the use of heat or flame permitted to correct the shape of pressure parts, provided the use of these techniques does not impair the physical properties of the material? Reply: Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 53 of the interpretations. It also appears as VIII-2-01-17. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-158 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UW-51(b) Date Issued: April 24, 2003 File: 02-3521 Question: In meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, are the ultrasonic examination provisions of repairs as defined in UW-51(b) applicable to vessels examined by spot radiography in accordance with UW-52? Reply: No.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 53 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-159 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Appendix 1, 1-7 Date Issued: April 24, 2003 File: 02-4037 Question (1): For nozzles having integral type reinforcement as shown by Fig. UG-40(e-2), that must satisfy the requirements of 1-7(b) of Appendix 1, may the limits shown by the shaded areas in Fig. 1-7-1 Case B and Fig. 1-7-2 Case B be determined using tn as defined by Fig. UG-40(e-2)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For nozzles having integral type reinforcement as shown by Fig. UG-40(e-1), that must satisfy the requirements of 1-7(b) of Appendix 1, may the limits shown by the shaded areas in Fig. 1-7-1 Case A and Fig. 1-7-2 Case A be determined using tn and te as defined by Fig. UG-40(e-1)? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): For nozzles as described in Questions (1) and (2), may the shaded areas of Figs. 1-7-1 and 1-7-2 include all the integral nozzle material that is located within the limits established by Figs. 1-71 or 1-7-2? Reply (3): Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 53 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-01-160 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); Fig. UW-16.1, Sketch (h) Date Issued: April 24, 2003 File: 02-4124 Question (1): Does the detail shown in Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (h) represent an acceptable design for the attachment of a reinforcing plate to a nozzle neck inserted through a vessel wall? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it acceptable to install a reinforcement plate on the exterior of a nozzle configuration as shown in Fig. UW-16.1, sketch (c) by using the two fillet welds meeting the requirements as shown in sketch (h) but with the reinforcement plate chamfered to clear the cover fillet designated as tc in sketch (c)? Reply (2): Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 53 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-102 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UG-117(a) Date Issued: October 13, 2004 File: 04-853 Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the requirements for the Certified Individual include knowledge of applicable Code requirements for the item to which the Code Symbol is applied? Reply (1): Yes; see UG-117(a)(1)(b)(3) and UG-117(a)(2)(a).

Question (2): Do the duties of the Certified Individual include verification that each item to which the Code Symbol is applied meets all the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): Yes; see UG-117(a)(2)(a).

Question (3): Are the qualifications and certifications of the Certified Individual in accordance with the requirements of UG-117(a)(1)(b) subject to evaluation by ASME? Reply (3): Yes; see UG-117(f).

Question (4): Is it required that the Certified Individual appear as a company position on the Manufacturers or Assemblers organization chart in their Quality Control System manual? Reply (4): Yes; see Appendix 10, 10-3.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 55 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-103 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); UG-84(c) and Fig. UG-84.1 Date Issued: February 24, 2005 File: 03-1651 Question: Is it the intent to allow the rounding, to the nearest whole number, of the average value of the three impact test specimens as required by UG-84(c) and Fig. UG-84.1? Reply: Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 56 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-104 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); UHX-1 Date Issued: April 14, 2005 File: 04-010 Question: Are the rules of Part UHX mandatory for the design of a circular perforated plate with heating elements installed in an equilateral triangle or square pattern, such as used for the end closure of a flanged immersion heater? Reply: No; see UHX-1.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 56 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-04-105 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1; Appendix 9, 9-2, Fig. 9-2, and Fig. 9-5, Jacketed Vessels Date Issued: May 27, 2005 File: 04-1530 Question: May the closure bar details that are permitted only for a Type I jacketed vessel, such as in Fig. 9-5, sketches (c), (d-1), (d-2), (e-1), and (e-2), be used for a jacketed vessel that has circumferentially continuous jackets confined entirely to the cylindrical shell and utilizes a stay or equalizer ring to reduce the effective length? Reply: Yes.

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Vol. 56 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-17 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 2, 2-2(d)(1) Date Issued: January 8, 2007 File: 01-648 Question: Does Appendix 2, 2-2(d)(1) of Section VIII, Division 1 allow a hubbed flange to be machined from material made to a piping specification that does not require the material to be manufactured from a hot-rolled billet, forged billet, or forged bar?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-18 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UNF-78 Clarification Date Issued: January 26, 2007 File: 06-461 Question (1): Is it the intent of UNF-78 that, by its reference to Appendix 17, resistance welding is limited to Appendix 17 construction only? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) is no, does the minimum thickness exemption of UG-16(b) (1) apply to plate-type heat exchangers, not constructed to Appendix 17, using resistance welded titanium heat transfer plates? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-19 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); U-1(c)(2) Date Issued: February 6, 2007 File: 06-1272 Question: Is it prohibited by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 or Division 2 for a vessel to be constructed to the rules of either Division 1 or Division 2 that is used to contain a gas that is heated by use of a nuclear fuel? Reply: No. However, see U-1(c)(1) or footnote 1 of AG-100.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-07-01. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-20 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-12 Date Issued: May 8, 2007 File: 07-673 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide any specific requirements for the projection of a stud or bolt beyond the back face of the nut for flanged or clamped connections? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-21 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UG-40, Opening Reinforcement for Spherical Heads Date Issued: June 4, 2007 File: 07-075 Question: In accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40(c), when determining the limit of reinforcement measured normal to the vessel wall for openings in a spherical head, shall this limit of reinforcement be taken normal to the contour of the head surface, which in this case would be a circle? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-22 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UHA-51(a)(4), FCAW-G Welding Date Issued: June 4, 2007 File: 07-418 Question: Is the FCAW-G (gas shielded flux core arc welding) process considered to be a production welding GMAW process that is permitted by UHA-51(a)(4) when the MDMT is colder than 320F (196C)? Reply: Yes; see Section IX.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-23 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); Code Case 2506-1 Date Issued: June 27, 2007 File: 07-952 Question: Is it permitted to use plate material as described in Code Case 2506-1 for the construction of fixed tubesheets in a shell and tube heat exchanger subject to pressure from both the shell side and the tube side? Reply: Yes.

Section VIII-1 Interpretations Vol. 58 (July 1, 2007 December 31, 2007)

Interpretations inadvertently left out of Volume 54: Interpretation: VIII-1-04-106

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1; UG-28 February 27, 2004 01-153

Question 1: In UG-28, for values of A falling to the left of the material curve as shown on the chart is it the intent that the value of Factor B may be calculated from the tabulated values in the table? Reply 1: Yes, provided the user applies the Factor B so determined in the formula that contains B, Pa = (4/3)B/(Do/t). Question 2: Are the inconsistencies in the values of A and B significant as visually estimated from the chart versus those interpolated from the tabulated values? Reply 2: No.

New Interpretations: Interpretation: VIII-1-07-24 Subject: Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-19 Combination Units Date Issued: July 5, 2007 File: 07-1004

Question: May a combination unit as described in paragraph UG-19(a) of Section VIII Division 1 have one independent chamber constructed and stamped to Section VIII, Division 1 and another constructed and stamped to Section VIII, Division 2 if the common element between the two satisfies all the requirements of both Divisions? Reply: Yes.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-07-03 Interpretation: VIII-1-07-25 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-84.1 & Fig. UCS-66 Date Issued: July 17, 2007 File: 07-725 Question (1): A nozzle forging that is 3 1/4 in. thick is welded into a shell that is 1 1/8 in thick. The nozzle forging material is SA-182-F11 Class 2. After applying the rules of UCS-66, this nozzle forging requires impact testing. Shall the maximum nominal thickness of the forging be used when determining the required impact test energy values of the nozzle forging taken from Fig. UG-84.1, regardless of the weld thickness used to attach it to the shell? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In order to assign the forging in question (1) above to Curve C of Fig. UCS-66 as allowed by Note (c)(2), the material shall be produced to a fine grain practice and normalized. If there is no evidence provided to substantiate that the material has been ordered and produced to fine grain practice as described in SA-788 S15, may the material be assigned to Fig. UCS-66 Curve C for determination of its minimum design metal temperature? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-26 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UW-13 Date Issued: August 22, 2007 File: 07-1262 Question: In accordance with Fig. UW-13.1(a), a head may be attached to a cylinder with a single fillet lap weld (within noted restrictions of UW-13 and Table UW-12). Is it acceptable to attach a head to a short cylinder as shown in Fig UW-13.1(a), and then attach the short cylinder to the cylindrical shell using a single fillet lap weld? Reply: No, the cylinder-to-cylinder single fillet lap weld does not meet the limitations of Table UW-12 for a Type 6 joint. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-27 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); U-4 Date Issued: August 23, 2007

File:

07-613

Question (1): When U.S. Customary units are chosen as the primary units for the nameplate markings and Manufacturer's Data Report, is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, U-4 for drawings to be made with only SI or local Customary units? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): When U.S. Customary units are chosen as the primary units for the nameplate markings and Manufacturer's Data Report, is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, U-4 for U.S. Customary units to be shown in parenthesis following SI or local customary units on the fabrication drawings? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-28 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); U-1(c)(2), UG-19(a) and UG-116(k) Date Issued: September 11, 2007 File: 07-291 Question(1): A combination unit has one chamber (Code) that falls within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 and one chamber (non-Code) that meets the exemption requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, U-1(c)(2). The common elements and their attachment to both the Code and non-Code chambers meet the design, material, fabrication, and testing requirements of Section VIII, Division 1. May the non-Code chamber be considered outside scope of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply(1): Yes; however, see U-1(c)(1) and UG-19(a).

Question(2): For the combination unit described in Question(1), may the Section VIII, Division 1 requirements for the Manufacturers Data Report and marking be applied only to the Code chamber and its common elements? Reply(2): Yes; however, the marking recommendations in UG-116(k) for the non-Code chamber should be followed. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-29 Subject: Section VIII Division 1(2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UG-43 Date Issued: September 11, 2007 File: 07-1291 Question: In a plate and frame heat exchanger, a nozzle with a flared end is inserted through an opening in a shell and the flared end of the nozzle contacts a gasket on the inside surface of the vessel. The gasket is compressed by the bolts holding the plate and frame assembly together. The nozzle neck is not otherwise expanded, welded, brazed or threaded to the vessel; do the provisions of paragraph UG-43 apply?

Reply:

No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-30E Subject: UHX-ll, UHX-13, and UHX-14 Finned Tubes (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) Date Issued: October 18, 2007 File: 07-1370 Question (1): A shell-and-tube heat exchanger containing finned tubes is to be designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, Part UHX. For geometries where the unfinned portion of the tubes extend through the tubesheet, shall the effective properties and ligament efficiency of the tubesheet be determined in accordance with UHX-l1.5.1(a) using the O.D. and thickness of the unfinned portion of the tube? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the heat exchanger described in Question (1), do the rules in UHX-13 and UHX-14 for fixed tubesheet and floating tubesheet heat exchangers provide requirements for determining the axial stiffness of finned tubes? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Note: This interpretation originally appeared in Volume 58. Questions (1) and (2) have been corrected by errata. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-30 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda); UHX-11, UHX-13 and UHX-14 Finned Tubes Date Issued: October 18, 2007 File: 07-1370 Question(1): A shell-and-tube heat exchanger containing low fin tubes is to be designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, Part UHX. For geometries where the tubes extend through the tubesheet, shall the effective properties and ligament efficiency of the tubesheet be determined in accordance with UHX-11.5.1(a) using the O.D. and thickness of the unfinned portion of the tube? Reply(1): Yes

Question(2): For the heat exchanger described in Question(1), do the rules provided in UHX13 and UHX-14 for fixed tubesheet and floating tubesheet heat exchangers consider the axial stiffness of finned tubes? Reply(2): No, see U-2(g). VIII-1-07-31

Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued:

Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda); Fig. UCS-66 Note (c) November 27, 2007

File:

06-1121

Question: May all pipe, fittings, forgings and tubing that is assigned to Fig. UCS-66 Curve B by General Note (b)(3) be assigned to Curve C if it is produced to fine grain practice and normalized? Reply: Yes, see General Note (c)(2). VIII-1-07-32

Interpretation: Subject: Date Issued: File:

Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition); UG-99(b) and UG-100 November 27, 2007 07-470

Question: Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, beginning with the 1995 Edition, to pressure test a single chamber pressure vessel containing an internal piston that separates the chamber into two sections; one section containing liquid and the other gas, by first testing the liquid side per UG-99(b), and then moving the piston to the other end of the chamber and pressure testing the gas side per UG-100? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-33 Subject: Section VIII Division 1 (2004 Edition) Mandatory Appendix 4; Indications Date Issued: November 28, 2007 File: 07-1624 Question (1): In accordance with ASME Section VIII Div.1 Appendix 4(2004), is an indication to be considered isolated if any adjacent indication is separated by a minimum distance of 1 in. on either side or no other indications exist adjacent to the rounded indication? Reply(1): Yes.

Question (2): In accordance with ASME Section VIII Div.1 Appendix 4 (2004) paragraph 4.3(c), is it required to determine the acceptable size of rounded indications for each and every thickness? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): When the thickness of interest is not listed in Table 4.1, shall the acceptable size of the rounded indication be calculated using the equations in 4-3(c)? Reply (3): Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-34 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001Edition, 2003Addenda) Appendix 2, 2-9 and 2-11 Date Issued: December 3, 2007

File:

03-1834

Question: May Appendix 2 of Section VIII Division 1 be used to design split loose flanges under external pressure if the provisions of paragraph 2-9 and 2-11 are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-35 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2004 Edition); UG-120 and Appendix W, Partial Data Reports Date Issued: December 5, 2007 File: 07-139 Question (1): A head and head blank Manufacturer with a valid Certificate of Authorization provides welded, flat circular plates that require a U2 or U2A Partial Data Report. These welded flat circular plates are provided to a second head manufacturer who may or may not be in possession of a valid Certificates of Authorization. Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that either the head blank Manufacturer or the second head manufacturer supply an additional U2 or U2A form, or list the elliptical ratio or crown and knuckle radii on the existing U2 or U2A form, when the head is formed. Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If a Manufacturer provides welded circular blanks for internal use to form heads without supplying a U2 or U2A, must one be supplied when providing the completed head to the vessel Manufacturer? Reply (2): Yes.

Volume 59 Starts Here Interpretation: VIII-1-01-161 Subject: UG-101(k) and UG-101(p), External MAWP of Bimetallic Tubes (2001 Edition) Date Issued: April 24, 2003 File: 02-3319 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 have rules to establish the external maximum allowable working pressure of a bimetallic tube that does not meet the requirements of UCL or ULW? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Note: This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 53 of the interpretations. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-36 Subject: UG-125(a) (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) Date Issued: January 16, 2008 File: 06-1323

Question: Is it the intent of Section VIII, Division 1, UG-125(a) to permit flow paths or vents, open directly or indirectly to the atmosphere, to be used to protect against over pressure for pressure vessels constructed in accordance with this Division? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-37 Subject: Appendix 2, 2-11 and 2-13 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda) Date Issued: January 17, 2008 File: 03-1846 Question: May Appendix 2 of Section VIII, Division 1 be used to design reverse flanges under external pressure if the provisions of 2-11 and 2-13 are satisfied? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-38 Subject: UHA-51(a)(4) (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) Date Issued: February 13, 2008 File: 07-612 Question (1): An ASME WPS/PQR using austenitic base materials to SA-240 Type 304L (Dual Certified) with semi-automatic GMAW butt weld using a filler metal other than Type 316L was subjected to notch toughness testing at both 320F and 452F. The base material, heat affected zone (HAZ), and deposited filler metal was able to and did pass the acceptance criteria of UHA-51(a)(4)(a)(1), (2), and (3). Does this satisfy UHA-51(a)(1) and UHA-51(a)(4) impact testing requirements as permitted in UHA-51(a)(4)(b) when the base metal, weld metal, or filler metal are unable to meet the requirements of (a) above? Reply (1): No. The requirements of UHA-51(a)(4)(a) are not met because the filler metal is not 316L. The requirements of UHA-51(a)(4)(b) are not met because toughness tests were not conducted at the MDMT in accordance with the ASTM E 1820 JIC method. Question (2): The ASME WPS/PQR described in Question (1) was changed to use nickel-based filler metal to SFA-5.14, AWS ERNiCrMo-3 and was subjected to notch toughness testing at both 320F and 452F. The base material, heat affected zone (HAZ), and deposited filler metal was able to and did pass the acceptance criteria of UHA-51(a)(4)(a)(2) and (3). ERNiCrMo-3, being a nonferrous material, does not have a Ferrite Number (FN). Does this satisfy UHA-51(a)(1) and UHA-51(a)(4) impact test requirements as permitted in UHA-51(a)(4) (b) when the base metal, weld metal, or filler metal are unable to meet the requirements of (a) above? Reply (2): No. Use of ERNiCrMo-3 does not meet the requirements of UHA-51(a)(4)(a), as this paragraph refers to the use of 316L exclusively. If ERNiCrMo-3 is used it must be tested in accordance with UHA-51(a)(4)(b). Ferrite content is not applicable for Ni alloys, and therefore references to ferrite are not applicable.

Question (3): If the ASME WPS/PQR described in the questions above using SFA-5.9 AWS ER308L or SFA-5.14 AWS ERNiCrMo-3 fillers subjected to impact testing at both 320F and 452F did not pass the acceptance criteria of UHA-51(a)(4)(a)(1), (2), and (3), may the notch toughness testing of UHA-51(a)(4)(b)(1), (2), and (3) be conducted, and if acceptable to the criteria therein, be acceptable for the UHA-51(a)(1) and UHA-51(a)(4) impact test requirements? Reply (3): Yes. PQR qualification for all filler metals other than 316L must be conducted in accordance with UHA-51(a)(4)(b)(1), (2), and (3). Question (4): If the reply to Question (3) is yes, then if SFA-5.9 AWS ER308L, filler metal with an FN >5, and the notch toughness testing of UHA-51(a)(4)(b)(1), (2), and (3) are conducted, and if acceptable to the criteria therein, are these criteria acceptable for the UHA51(a)(1) and UHA-51(a)(4) impact testing requirements? Reply (4): Yes, provided ferrite content does not exceed the FN of the test weld.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-39 Subject: UG-11(a)(1), Manufacturer's Standard Date Issued: February 14, 2008 File: 07-394 Question (1): In applying the provisions ofUG-11 for Manufacturer's standard parts, is the "Manufacturer" in this context an enterprise that develops and manufactures standard "catalogue" products for inclusion into a pressure vessel with a Code Symbol Stamp? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): May a Manufacturer of pressure vessels who holds a Certificate of Authorization produce parts to an internal standard that satisfies the intent of UG-11, and that will be installed on its Code stamped vessels? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): When the Manufacturer of a vessel to be marked with the Code symbol uses a Manufacturer's standard part, is the vessel Manufacturer responsible to satisfy himself that the part is suitable for the design conditions specified for the completed vessel in accordance with the rules of this Division? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-40 Subject: UG-116(e) Date Issued: February 14,2008 File: 07-1364 Question: In accordance with the marking requirements of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-116(e), is a pressure vessel that consists of seamless ellipsoidal heads attached to a shell

section with a longitudinal weld, and when the complete vessel is spot radiographed in accordance with UW-11(b), to be marked RT-3? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-41 Subject: UG-20(a) Date Issued: February 15, 2008 File: 02-4113 Question: Does ASME Section VIII, Division 1 require a user to consider the effects of startup, shutdown, or other abnormal conditions listed in U-2(a) when determining the design temperature as per UG-20(a), and the design pressure as per UG-21? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-42 Subject: Appendix 20, 20-2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) Date Issued: February 15, 2008 File: 07-2038 Question: Is it permissible to perform the transverse tension tests as required in Appendix 20, 20-2 on a per-heat basis instead of per plate? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-43 Subject: U-1(c)(2) Date Issued: February 15, 2008 File: 07-1263 Question: Paragraph U-1(c)(2) provides the definition of classes of vessels not considered to be within the scope of Section VIII, Division 1. Is it required to apply the ASME Code symbol [U or UM] to equipment that is not listed in the scope exemptions or only partially satisfies the provisions of U-1(c)(2) for a specific item? Reply: See U-1(c)(1). The Code does not mandate the application of the ASME Code symbol for any piece of equipment. The laws or regulations issued by the municipality, state, provincial, federal, or other enforcement or regulatory bodies having jurisdiction at the location of an installation establish the mandatory applicability of the Code rules, in whole or in part, within their jurisdiction. Those laws or regulations may require the use of this Division of the Code for vessels or components not considered to be within its Scope. Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-2-07-07 and VIII-3-07-04. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-44

Subject: Date Issued: File:

UG-90(b)(8) (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) March 4, 2008 08-105

Question: Does UG-90(b)(8) require the inspector to be involved in repairs other than the base metal repairs as addressed in UG-78? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-45 Subject: UG-28 (2007 Edition) Date Issued: March 13, 2008 File: 08-362 Question: The design length for external pressure design of a vessel section, L, is shown schematically in Fig. UG-28 as the distance between flanges. Does this length, L, apply to integral type flanges (see Mandatory Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4) if the flanges meet the requirements of UG-29 for stiffening rings? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-46 Subject: UG-10 Date Issued: March 25, 2008 File: 07-2024 Question: May castings tested for mechanical properties in accordance with the rules of EN 1563 be accepted for ASME Section VIII, Division Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-47 Subject: UG-22 and U-2(g) (2007 Edition) Date Issued: May 8, 2008 File: 08-637 Question (1): Is it permissible to construct a vessel in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 if the design is governed by cyclic loading? Reply (1): Yes, see UG-22(e) and U-2(g).

Question (2): Does the Code define any specific volumetric nondestructive examination requirements for a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel whose design is governed by cyclic loading? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): When designing a vessel in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 for cyclic pressure service, is it required to consider the effects of weld seam peaking in the fatigue analysis if such consideration would have an impact on the required fatigue life of the vessel? Reply (3): Yes. See U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-48 Subject: UW-2(d), Service Restrictions, Pressure Vessels, or Parts Subject to Direct Firing Date Issued: May 13, 2008 File: 01-378 Question: Is it required by UW-2(d)(2) to postweld heat treatment of the entire vessel when chambers, sections, or parts of the completed vessel are not subject to direct firing? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-49 Subject: Appendix 28 and Fig. UW-13.2 (2007 Edition) Date Issued: June 10, 2008 File: 08-888 Question: Mandatory Appendix 28 provides an alternative to the requirement a + b not be less than 2ts given in UW-13(e)(4) and Fig. UW-13.2. When applying the provisions of Appendix 28, is the requirement shown in Fig. UW-13.2 as tp not less than the smaller of ts or 14 in. still mandatory? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-50 Subject: UG-36(c)(3)(a) (2007 Edition) Date Issued: June 23, 2008 File: 08-909 Question: In UG-36(c)(3)(a), does the term vessel shells or heads with a required minimum thickness refer to the minimum thickness as determined by UG-27, UG-28, UG-32, and UG-33 as applicable? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-51 Subject: UG-80, UW-9(c), and UW-35, Out-of-Roundness Due to Weld Distortions (Peaking) Date Issued: June 26, 2008 File: 08-114 Question (1): In accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1, may the sections of a multisegment shell course be different thicknesses?

Reply (1):

Yes. See UW-9(c).

Question (2): Are the rules in UG-80 for out-of-roundness applicable to determine the acceptance criteria for weld distortions (such as peaking) in a cylindrical shell? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-52 Subject: Appendix 2-14 Date Issued: July 9, 2008 File: 08-716 Question: In satisfying the provisions of 2-14 for flange rigidity, shall the rigidity index be determined for both the gasket seating and operating conditions in order to establish the governing case? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-53 Subject: Appendix 28 and Fig. UG-34(g) Date Issued: August 13, 2008 File: 08-1043 Question (1): The corner joint welds between the short and long plates for a noncircular vessel shall meet the requirements of Fig. UW-13.2 or Appendix 28; do the requirements of Fig. UW13.2 or Appendix 28 also apply to a weld made in accordance with Fig. UG-34(g) that attaches a flat end plate to the inside of the noncircular vessel? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the provisions for weld joint size shown in Fig. 28-1(b) are used, is it required to prepare and qualify a sample comer weld joint in accordance with Appendix 28-2(a)? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-54 Subject: UG-36 and UG-37 Date Issued: August 13, 2008 File: 08-1081 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 require analysis or consideration of the axial thrust load due to pressure acting on a nozzle (blinded or not) in addition to satisfying the reinforcement rules of UG-36 and UG-37? Reply: No. VIII-1-07-55

Interpretation:

Subject: Date Issued: File:

UW-51, Radiographer Certification August 19, 2008 07-134

Question: According to Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 6, 6.2(a), must a Certified MT examiner be approved in the ability to distinguish and differentiate contrast among shades of gray if the Manufacturer determines that this is a technique of the magnetic particle examination method for which he is certified? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-56 Subject: UW-ll(a)(5)(b), Table UW-12(b), UW-52, UG-116(e) Date Issued: August 19, 2008 File: 08-104 Question: A group of identical pressure vessels are constructed in accordance with the rules of Section VIII, Division 1. The Category A and B welds are grouped together for spot radiography as permitted by UW-52(b)(1). The 50-ft weld increment covers more than one pressure vessel. Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 that the joint efficiency as defined in UW-12 apply to all the pressure vessels covered by the weld increment, whether or not it received radiography? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-57 Subject: UG-93(d)(3) Date Issued: August 19, 2008 File: 08-826 Question: Are the NDE provisions of UG-93(d)(3) required if a forging is used for a flat head or cover? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-58 Subject: UW-31(b) and (c), Alignment Date Issued: August 19, 2008 File: 08-838 Question: Does the Code prohibit the use of force in order to achieve the fitting and alignment requirements described in UW-31? Reply: No. VIII-1-07-59

Interpretation:

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Appendix 2-4(a)(1) and Fig. 2-4, Sketches (1) and (1a) September 23, 2008 08-1302

Question: For the design of a loose type flange, does Appendix 2 require a full face gasket that extends across the lap width as shown diagrammatically in Fig. 2-4, sketch (1) or (1a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-60 Subject: UW-2(a) and Appendix 26, Lethal Service Date Issued: October 16, 2008 File: 08-1068 Question: May an expansion joint, meeting the requirements of Appendix 26 in Section VIII, Division 1, and attached to weld ends in accordance with Fig. 26-13, be used in a vessel designed to UW-2(a)? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-61 Subject: UG-101(p) Date Issued: October 16, 2008 File: 08-1351 Question (1): A pressure vessel is to be proof tested under the provisions of UG-101(p), is it required to determine the MAWP by burst testing using the provisions of UG-101(m)? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the dimensions of a pressure vessel used in the UG-101(p) proof test do not represent the corroded condition, is the correction factor given in UG-101(i) applicable for adjusting the MAWP? Reply (2): Yes.

Question (3): If a vessel that is proof tested in accordance with UG-101(p) has a design temperature where the allowable stress listed in Section II, Part D in less than the allowable stress at the proof test temperature, is it required to adjust the MAWP as required in UG-101(k)? Reply (3): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-62 Subject: UG-37, UG-40(b), Fig. UHX-13.1(a) Date Issued: November 4, 2008 File: 08-1429

Question: May the limits of reinforcement, as given in UG-40, and the nozzle reinforcement area include metal from a tubesheet welded to the shell or channel? Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-07-63 Subject: UG-46(a) Date Issued: November 20, 2008 File: 07-543 Question: Shall all pressure vessels for use with compressed air be provided with inspection openings even when no corrosion allowance is specified or when previous experience has shown that corrosion does not occur? Reply: Yes, unless the dew point requirements of UG-46(a) are met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-64 Subject: UF-5(b) and UF-7 Date Issued: December 1, 2008 File: 08-599 Question: Is it permitted to perform seal welding of shrink-fit trunnions to roll body made of SA-649 Class 1A, 1B, 2, or 5, when by heat analysis the carbon contentof either part to be welded exceeds 0.50%? Reply: Yes, see UF-7 and 4.3 of SA-649.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-65 Subject: Nonmandatory Appendix W, Manufacturer's Data Reports Date Issued: December 1, 2008 File: 08-1042 Question: Is it required by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 that Manufacturer's Data Reports U-l and U-1A record the actual temperature and hold time for post weld heat treatment and not the Code specified. minimum requirements? Reply: Yes. See note 27 of Table W-3.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-30E Subject: UHX-ll, UHX-13, and UHX-14 Finned Tubes (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) Date Issued: October 18, 2007 File: 07-1370 Question (1): A shell-and-tube heat exchanger containing finned tubes is to be designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, Part UHX. For geometries where the unfinned portion

of the tubes extend through the tubesheet, shall the effective properties and ligament efficiency of the tubesheet be determined in accordance with UHX-l1.5.1(a) using the O.D. and thickness of the unfinned portion of the tube? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): For the heat exchanger described in Question (1), do the rules in UHX-13 and UHX-14 for fixed tubesheet and floating tubesheet heat exchangers provide requirements for determining the axial stiffness of finned tubes? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Note: This interpretation originally appeared in Volume 58. Questions (1) and (2) have been corrected by errata.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-66 Subject: Figure UW-13.1 - Dished Intermediate Head Date Issued: October 20, 2008 File: 08-1396 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 provide any details or requirements for attaching a spherically dished intermediate head to the inside of a cylindrical shell using a weld through the thickness of the intermediate head? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-67 Subject: U-1(e)(3) and UG-120(e) - Requirements for elliptical manway and handhole bolting materials. Date Issued: October 29, 2008 File: 08-1399 Question: U-1(e)(3) includes pressure retaining covers of manways, handholes and their attaching bolting and nuts within the scope of the Code, and UG-120(e) requires that pressure retaining covers and their attaching bolting and nuts be recorded on the manufacturers data report. Some manways and handholes are designed such that the cover fits on the inside surface of the vessel and the seal/ gasket is compressed by the internal pressure acting on the cover. The yoke and bolts associated with such designs are not required to resist any pressure loads and are only used to hold and position the pressure retaining cover until pressure is applied. As these yokes, bolts and nuts are not pressure retaining components, are they required to be of Code materials and listed on the Data Report? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-68 Subject: Code Case 2235-9 Date Issued: January 5, 2009 File: 08-1260

Question (1): Does Code Case 2235-9 require an ultrasonic examination plan capable of detecting indications transverse as well as parallel to the weld centerline? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Are the acceptance criteria specified in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Code Case 2235-9 applicable to indications oriented transverse as well as parallel to the weld centerline? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-69 Subject: UG-34 and UG-39 - Blind Flange Thickness Date Issued: January 5, 2009 File: 08-1562 Question: If an opening in a blind flange is greater than that allowed by provisions of ASME B16.5, is it required to use UG-34(c)(2) and UG-39 to determine the required thickness and reinforcement in lieu of the dimensions and pressure ratings that are given in B16.5? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-70 Subject: UG-37 and UG-40 Date Issued: January 5, 2009 File: 08-1725 Question (1): UG-37(a) allows nozzle reinforcement calculations to be based on the required thickness of a sphere when the nozzle and all of its reinforcement are included within the spherical part of an F&D head or within 80% of the diameter of an elliptical head. When the limits of reinforcement of UG-40 extend beyond the spherical part of an F&D head or beyond 80% of the ellipsoidal head diameter, is it acceptable to use the required thickness of the sphere if only that material within the spherical part of an F&D head or within 80% of the diameter of an ellipsoidal head is considered as reinforcement? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In the definition of "t" in UG-37(a), does the phrase "not including forming allowances" mean that any additional thickness added as a forming allowance shall not be considered in determining the value of "t"? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-71 Subject: U-2(g), UW-20, Part UHX, UHX-11.5, UHX-15 and Appendix A: Tube Expansion Depth Ratio and Tube Joint Loads

Date Issued: File:

January 30, 2009 08-1286

Question(1): In accordance with the rules given in UHX-11.5.1(a) shall the tube expansion depth ratio (rho) be equal to zero when the tubes are not expanded to the tubesheet (e.g., welded only)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question(2): Does Part UHX have rules for calculating the tube-to-tubesheet joint load? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Question (3): For tube-to-tubesheet strength welds (full or partial) defined in UW-20, do UW20 and UHX-15 require that the tube-to-tubesheet joint load be determined and compared with the maximum allowable load in either direction on the tube-to-tubesheet joint (Lmax) whether or not the Code has rules for determining the tube-to-tubesheet joint load? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): For tube-to-tubesheet joints that do not meet UW-20, does the Code have mandatory rules for determining the tube joint load and the tube joint strength of tube-totubesheet joints in shell-and-tube heat exchangers that meet the requirements of Part UHX? Reply (4): No, see U-2(g), UHX-15, and Nonmandatory Appendix A.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-72 Subject: Code Case 2235-9 Date Issued: February 10, 2009 File: 08-1259 Question (1): Per Code Case 2235-9, Paragraph (c), may a side drilled hole be used to represent a flaw for qualification purposes? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Per Code Case 2235-9, Paragraph (c), may a notch that has been machined by conventional methods on the end of a block and left open (i.e., not totally embedded so that the UT procedure cannot demonstrate detection of both ends) be used to represent a flaw for qualification purposes? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Per Code Case 2235-9, Paragraph (c), may electric discharged machined (EDM) notches be used to represent embedded or surface flaws for qualification purposes? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): Per Code Case 2235-9, Paragraph (c), for a production weld with a 60 degree included angle (e.g., 30 degree bevel angle) joint detail, must the plane of the flaws in the qualification block be oriented at a 30 degree angle to the blocks surface and parallel to the fusion line?

Reply (4):

No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-07-73 Subject: Thickness of Heat Transfer Plates in Plate-Type Heat Exchangers Date Issued: March 2, 2009 File: 08-948 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 contain design rules that may be used to establish the minimum required thickness or MAWP of the heat transfer plates in plate-type heat exchangers? Reply: No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-01 Subject: SA-182 Date Issued: August 7, 2009 File: 08-617 Question: Does Section VIII, Division 1 prohibit the use of SA-182 to fabricate a tubesheet in a heat exchanger? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-02 Subject: Applicability of UT acceptance-rejection criteria of Appendix 12, paragraph 12-3 when applying UT in lieu of RT in accordance with Code Case 2235 Date Issued: August 7, 2009 File: 09-577 Question: For Section VIII, Division 1 construction, when applying ultrasonic examination in lieu of radiography per Code Case 2235, is it required to meet the acceptance-rejection standards of paragraph 12-3 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-03 Subject: UW-16(f)(3)(a)(3)(a) Date Issued: August 7, 2009 File: 09-637 Question: A standard NPS 1-1/2 coupling with an outside diameter of 2-1/2 inches is attached to a vessel wall using a single fillet weld in accordance with UW-16(f)(3)(a); shall the minimum weld throat thickness required by UW-16(f)(3)(a)(3)(a) be based on a NPS 1-1/2 pipe when doing the UG-45(a) and (b) evaluation? Reply: Yes. VIII-1-10-04

Interpretation:

Subject: Date Issued: File:

Nonmandatory Appendix G, G-2 August 25, 2009 09-607

Question: Appendix G makes reference to several documents that may be used as guidance in the design of vessel supports and attachments. When a Manufacturer uses one of these referenced documents, such as the Manual for Steel Construction, do all the requirements of that document then become a mandatory Code requirement? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-05 Subject: Code Case 2235-9 Date Issued: September 1, 2009 File: 09-808 Question: In order to meet the flaw acceptance criteria of Table 1, shall both the limits on "a/t" and "l" be satisfied; e.g. for a subsurface flaw, "a/t" is limited to 0.143 regardless of "l", and "l" is limited to 0.25 in (6.4 mm) regardless of a/t? Reply: Yes, both criteria must be met.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-06 Subject: Appendix 1-5(e), Appendix 1-8 and UG-33 - Conical Sections Date Issued: September 10, 2009 File: 08-1546 Question (1): A cone-to-cylinder transition under internal pressure is made with a knuckle (flare) at the small end of the cone. Is it required to perform reinforcement calculations in accordance with Appendix 1-5? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Section VIII Division 1 provide rules for determining the required thickness for internal pressure of a knuckle at the small end of a cone-to-cylinder junction? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Question (3): In accordance with the provisions of UG-33, if a cone-to-cylinder junction (without a knuckle) is not considered to be a line of support, must the reinforcement requirements of Appendix 1-8 be satisfied? Reply (3): Yes.

Question (4): In accordance with the provisions of UG-33, if a cone-to-cylinder junction is considered to be a line of support, must both the reinforcement (if there is not a knuckle) and moment of inertia requirements of Appendix 1-8 be satisfied? Reply (4): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-07 Subject: UW-16(b) and UW-16 Fig 1 (g) Date Issued: October 15, 2009 File: 09-1043 Question: A nozzle that is similar to Fig UW-16.1 sketch (g) is attached such that the nozzle forging has an internal projection at some locations around the opening. For those sections of the nozzle with an internal projection, is it required to maintain the r1 dimension at the outside diameter of the nozzle forging? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-08 Subject: UHX-19.2.2 and UHX-19.3: Caution Marking and Manufacturers Data Report Information for Fixed Tubesheet Heat Exchangers Date Issued: October 30, 2009 File: 09-719 Question (1): Does UHX-19.2.2 of Section VIII, Division 1 require that nameplates used for the caution marking meet the requirements of UG-119 with respect to nameplate thickness, height of characters, and indentation depth or raised height of characters? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does UHX-19.2.2 require that the operating temperatures used to determine the mean metal temperatures and axial differential thermal expansion for Loading Cases 4 through 7 [UHX-13.4(a)(4) through UHX-13.4(a)(7)] be included in the caution marking? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Does UHX-19.3 require that the operating temperatures used to determine the mean metal temperatures and axial differential thermal expansion for Loading Cases 4 through 7 [UHX-13.4(a)(4) through UHX-13.4(a)(7)] be indicated on the Manufacturers Data Report? Reply (3): No.

Question (4): Does UHX-19.2.2 require that the mean metal temperatures used to determine the axial differential thermal expansion for Loading Cases 4 through 7 [UHX-13.4(a)(4) through UHX-13.4(a)(7)] be included in the caution marking? Reply (4): No.

Question (5): Does UHX-19.3 require that the mean metal temperatures used to determine the axial differential thermal expansion for Loading Cases 4 through 7 [UHX-13.4(a)(4) through UHX-13.4(a)(7)] be indicated on the Manufacturers Data Report? Reply (5): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-09 Subject: UG-99(a)(1) and UW-33(a) Date Issued: November 6, 2009 File: 08-1762

Question (1): Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-99(a)(1) to remove weld reinforcment meeting the requirements of UG-35(d) by grinding following hydrostatic pressure testing, and prior to the AI signing the Manufacturer's Data Report? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): Is it required to measure the maximum offset of a butt weld joint after the completion of the welding process in order to determine if the UW-33 alignment tolerance is met? Reply (2): Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-10 Subject: Part UHX and UHX-13: Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers with Conical Sections Date Issued: November 6, 2009 File: 09-586 Question (1): Do the rules provided in UHX-13 consider shell-and-tube heat exchangers having shells that contain conical sections? Reply (1): No, see U-2(g).

Question (2): Do the rules provided in Part UHX for the design tubesheets for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with integral channels or shells consider conical sections that are closer to the tubesheet than 1.8Sqrt(Dt), where D is the diameter and t is the thickness of the applicable integral section adjacent to the tubesheet? Reply (2): No, see U-2(g).

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-11 Subject: U-1(c)(2)(f) - Pressurized Air in a Vessel Containing Water Date Issued: November 6, 2009 File: 09-771 Question: Is a pressure vessel containing water with a design pressure of less than 300 psi (2 MPa) and a design temperature of less than 210 F (99 C) and is designed to be pressurized by air from an external source a class of vessel that is not included in the Scope of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(2)(f)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-12 Subject: Part UHX, Stress Criteria for Pressure Test Condition Date Issued: November 25, 2009 File: 09-594 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 require that calculations for the pressure test condition of shell-and-tube heat exchangers be performed using the applicable calculation procedure given in Part UHX with the test pressure conditions substituted for the design pressure conditions? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the pressure test condition calculations described by Question 1 are performed on shell-and-heat exchangers designed in accordance with Part UHX, does Section VIII, Division 1 provide rules to determine the allowable stress criteria for such calculations? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-13 Subject: Appendix 10, 10-13 - Record Retention Date Issued: January 11, 2010 File: 08-1207 Question: Is it required by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 10, paragraph 10-13, or ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 2, Annex 2.E, paragraph 2.E.13, or ASME Section VIII, Division 3 Appendix 2, paragraph 2-121 that records as required by the aforementioned sections be maintained in a paper form? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-14 Subject: UCS-67(a)(1) Date Issued: March 4, 2010 File: 08-1027 Question: A thin wall nozzle neck is attached to a thick wall vessel by a Category D, Type 7 corner joint. The selected material and thickness of the shell require impact testing for the desired MDMT per UCS-66(a). The longitudinal butt welded assembly of the shell requires impact testing to achieve the desired MDMT for the selected material selected, the governing thickness per UCS-66(a)(1)(a). The nozzle material does not require impact testing because of its material and thickness per UCS-66(a). The governing thickness for the welded assembly of the nozzle to shell is based upon the nozzle thickness per UCS-66(a)(1)(b). Using this governing thickness, both base metals are exempt from impact testing per UCS-66(a). Do the rules of UCS67(a)(1), require qualification with impact testing of the WPS to be used for welding the nozzle neck to the shell, since the shell material requires impact testing? Reply: Yes, unless other exemptions from toughness testing are applicable.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-15 Subject: UW-9(d), Table UW-12 Date Issued: April 30, 2010 File: 02-3088 Question (1): Does Section VIII, Division 1 restrict the number of longitudinal welded joints that may be located in a single shell course? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): Does Section VIII, Division 1 specify a minimum width between adjacent

longitudinal weld joints located within a single shell course? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): Does Section VIII, Division 1 dictate the sequence of assembly and examination in a single shell course when more than one longitudinal weld seam is employed (i.e., welding before or after rolling)? Reply (3): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-16 Subject: UG-82 Date Issued: April 30, 2010 File: 07-169 Question: When pressure or nonpressure parts extend over pressure retaining welds that are not otherwise required to be fully radiographed, is that portion of the weld to be covered required to be radiographed after being ground flush as required by UG-82(a)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-17 Subject: Code Case 2235-9 (i)(3) Date Issued: April 30, 2010 File: 09-573 Question: When implementing Code Case 2235-9, may a flaw that was detected during the initial computerized examination be evaluated using a supplemental manual technique for acceptance? Reply: Yes, provided the supplemental manual technique has been qualified and demonstrated to size similar flaws at similar material depths. Interpretation: VIII-1-10-18 Subject: UG-82 and UW-52 Date Issued: April 30, 2010 File: 10-186 Question (1): A given 50 ft increment of weld to be spot radiographed per UW-52(b)(1) is stopped before its completion, and welding does not resume for several days. May the completed increment still be represented by a single spot examination, provided such examination is made as soon as practicable after completion of the increment, and that the increment was welded by one welder? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): In the situation described in Question 1, is there a maximum time period from when a 50 ft weld increment is stopped to when welding is resumed, that would require an additional spot radiograph to represent that part of the weld increment that was made after resumption of welding? Reply (2): No.

Question (3): If the reply to Question 2 is "No", would an additional spot radiograph be required if the resumption of welding was performed by a different welder? Reply (3): Yes, see UW-52(b)(2).

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-19 Subject: Appendix 9, Heat Exchanger Distributor Belts with Shell Openings Date Issued: May 7, 2010 File: 10-354 Question (1): A heat exchanger has a distributor belt (or bustle) that is continuous around the outside of the shell. Likewise, the shell is continuous across the belt and has openings that allow flow into the shell side of the exchanger which results in equal pressure in the belt and shell. The geometry and loading are physically the same as for a Type 1 jacket given in Fig 9-2. Is it acceptable to use the provisions of Appendix 9 for the design of the closure bar and weld details for this construction, provided the longitudinal stress in the cross section of the shell with the openings does not exceed the stress criteria given in UG-23? Reply (1): Yes, see U-2(g).

Question (2): For the exchanger is Question 1, do the provisions of UG-37 apply for the openings in the shell? Reply (2): No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-20 Subject: Part UHT - Cap Screws Date Issued: May 11, 2010 File: 10-329 Question: SA-574, Gr 4140 bolts are listed in Table UCS-23 but are not listed in Note (c) to Fig. UCS-66 therefore impact testing per UG-84 is required. The acceptance criteria in UG-84 for this UCS material having a minimum tensile stress greater than 95,000 psi (655 kPa) references UHT-6(a)(3) and UHT-6(a)(4). The Scope of Part UHT states that the rules of Part UHT are applicable to pressure vessels and vessel parts that are constructed of ferritic steels suitable for welding. Are the acceptance criteria for lateral expansion as stated in UHT-6(a)(3) and UHT-6(a)(4) and referenced by UG-84(c)(4)(b) applicable to SA-574, Gr 4140, non-welded bolts? Reply: Yes

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-21 Subject: UW-52, Spot Radiography of Multiple Vessels Date Issued: June 2, 2010 File: 06-679 Question: Multiple vessels are constructed in which the shell long seam is a Type No 1 butt

joint with a joint efficiency of 0.85 per Table UW-12, and are spot radiographed every 50 ft of weld increment in accordance with UW-52. The vessels are such that the 50 ft of weld increment would encompass a number of vessels. The spot radiograph is taken on a shell the same material, diameter, joint configuration and thickness as the production vessels but approximately 12 inches long to accommodate the radiograph. The same welder performs all the welds. These shell sections are not retained after the RT has been accepted. May the approximate 12 inch long shell above be used to satisfy the spot radiograph requirements of UW-52 if the shell is not to be used for a production vessel? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-22 Subject: UW-31(c) and (d) Date Issued: June 2, 2010 File: 08-1361 Question (1): In fitting up pre-formed sections of a multi-piece vessel head, does the Code prohibit the use of means such as forming by blows, jacking, and heating of rolled section edges, or any combination thereof such that any offset of edges to be butt welded shall be within the allowable tolerances in Table UW-33? Reply (1): No, see UG-79(a), UCS-79(b) and (c).

Question (2): In fitting up circumferential joints of a head to a shell ring or shell rings together, does the Code prohibit the use of means such as forming by blows, jacking, and heating of rolled section edges, or any combination thereof such that any offset of edges to be butt welded shall be within the allowable tolerances in Table UW-33? Reply (2): No, see UG-79(a), UCS-79(b) and (c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-23 Subject: UW-34 Date Issued: June 2, 2010 File: 09-1762 Question (1): A hole (not greater than 2-3/8 inches (60mm)) was erronously drilled in a component of a quick actuating cover; is it acceptable to utilize the construction requirements of UW-34 to close the hole? Reply (1): No.

Question (2): If the reply to Q1 is "No", does the Code provide specific rules to cover such instances? Reply (2): No. See UG-78

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-24 Subject: ULW-77(d), Area Limits for Multiple Gaps Between Adjacent Layers in a Layered Vessel Date Issued: June 3, 2010 File: 04-1109

Question: A layered vessel is found to have more than one gap between adjacent layers. The sum of the gap lengths are less than the inside diameter of the vessel. Is it required by ULW77(d) of Section VIII, Division 1 that the combined area of the gaps shall not exceed the thickness of a layer expressed in square inches? Reply: No, the maximum area applies to each gap individually. Interpretation: VIII-1-10-25 Subject: UCS-56(d)(2) - Rate of Heating During PWHT Date Issued: June 3, 2010 File: 06-1195 Question: In accordance with the provisions of UCS-56(d)(2), if there are components in the assembly, such as nozzle forgings, that are thicker than either the shell or head plate, does the thickness of such components need be considered in meeting the requirements for the maximum heating rate? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-26 Subject: UW-13 Date Issued: June 4, 2010 File: 10-637 Question: A half pipe header is welded to a vessel from one side only utilizing a permanent backing strip to form a corner joint as shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (e-1); does the Code prohibit the backing strip from being an integral part of the half pipe header base material (e.g.; it is formed by machining or extruding from the header material)? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-27 Subject: U-1(e) - Adjacent or Concentric Connection Surfaces Date Issued: September 1, 2010 File: 10-171 Question: Consider a pressure vessel built in accordance with the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1. The vessel contains a nozzle that has at its open end machined surfaces for use of special fitting to temporarily close the nozzle during hydrostatic pressure testing. Following the pressure test, the temporary closure is removed, and tubing is inserted into the nozzle and brazed in place to material beyond the location of the seal provided by the temporary closure. Is it required for any nozzle portion that is beyond the brazed connection between the nozzle and the tubing to be considered within the scope of ASME Section VIII, Division 1? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-28 Subject: UG-101, Review Transfer of Proof Test Reports Between Manufacturers

Date Issued: File:

September 14, 2010 10-1329

Question: When using UG-101 in Section VIII, Division 1, as the design criteria, would it be acceptable to use a proof test from a Sister Company that is a stamp holder, when both companies having the same Authorized Inspection Agency and if all the design criteria remains the same and the parts conform to UG-101(d)(1) or UG-101(d)(2). Given that all other parameters are met and the company reviews and approves the proof test and provides for outside proof testing in the Quality Control Manual from a Sister Company. Reply: No. Interpretation: VIII-1-10-29 Subject: Appendix 10, 10-13 Date Issued: November 23, 2010 File: 09-1598 Question: Is it required by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 10-13 that finite element analyses conducted as part of the design analysis be retained for three years as design calculations? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-30 Subject: UW-50, Nondestructive Examination Date Issued: November 23, 2010 File: 10-183 Question: Is it required that the examinations, when specified by UW-50 of Section VIII Division 1, be performed prior to the pneumatic test? Reply: Yes.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-31 Subject: UW-9(c) and Figure UW-16.1(g) Date Issued: November 23, 2010 File: 10-749 Question (1): For a vessel constructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, is it permissible to weld a welding neck flange (that is included within the scope of the Code) to the neck of an integrally reinforced nozzle similar to that depicted by Fig. UW-16.1(g)? Reply (1): Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to question (1) is yes, do the requirements of Fig. UW-13.4 apply to the transition between the nozzle neck and flange? Reply (2): No, see UW-9(c).

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-32 Subject: UCL-34(a) Date Issued: November 23, 2010 File: 10-1831 Question: If a P-No. 1 base material with a butt weld thicker than 1.5 inches (38 mm) is fabricated, cladding applied, postweld heat treated, then the cladding is removed and weld metal overlay applied, is it required to repeat the postweld heat treatment of the butt weld? Reply: No.

Interpretation: VIII-1-10-33 Subject: Part UW, Table UW-12 - Joint Efficiency Date Issued: December 2, 2010 File: 09-1015 Question: Is it permitted by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Table UW-12 for a Type 1 weld joint to be assigned a joint efficiency from Table UW-12 when visual examination of the interior surface of the weld is not performed? Reply: Yes, provided the requirements in UW-35 and UW-37(d) are met.