Interpretation VIII

Document Sample
Interpretation VIII Powered By Docstoc
					            ASME SECTION VIII, DIVISION 2 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-77-10
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-77-26
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 400F of 15.5 ksi.
Since this is the only value to change since the 1971 Edition, please verify that this value is correct.

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 500F 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 500F
should be 17.9 ksi, the same as in Section VIII, Division 1. We thank you for pointing this out and this will
be reflected in a future errata.


Interpretation:         VIII-77-75
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 1 vessel 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-77-109
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-78-05
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Field Assembly of a Pressure Vessel, A-130(a)
Date Issued:    January 16, 1978
File:           BC77-580

Question:        A shop in Japan is to be the final vessel Manufacturer for a Section VIII, Division 2 vessel.
This shop, who is a Holder of a U2 Certificate of Authorization, fabricates the vessel in sections and has
these sections transported to another U2 Certificate Holder in Australia.
                 The Australian Manufacturer assembles the vessel by welding, performs radiography,
postweld heat treatment, and the final hydrostatic test for the vessel. What are the requirements of Section
VIII, Division 2 with regard to the witness of the final hydrostatic test, the application of the Code U2
Symbol to the vessel nameplate, and the appropriate Data Reports to be furnished?

Reply:         The rules applicable to the foregoing question are given in A-130(c) which require the
following:
        (1) The witness of the final hydrostatic test shall be the Authorized Inspection Agency of the
Australian Manufacturer.
         (2) The application of the Code U2 Symbol to the vessel nameplate shall be made by the Japanese
Manufacturer and witnessed by a representative of his Authorized Inspection Agency. This may be done at
the site of installation in Australia.
         (3) The Australian Manufacturer and his Authorized Inspection Agency shall complete the A-2
Partial Data Report for all Code operations performed by that Manufacturer.
         (4) The Japanese Manufacturer and his Authorized Inspection Agency shall complete the A-1
Manufacturer's Data Report Form.


Interpretation:         VIII-78-16
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, RT and PWHT Sequence
Date Issued:    January 20, 1978
File:           BC77-789

Question:       A vessel is manufactured to Section VIII, Division 2 out of P-No. 1 material, Is there any
requirement for the sequence of postweld heat treatment and radiographic examination-and, where complete
radiography has been performed subsequent to postweld heat treatment, are there any additional tests
required, such as UT, PT, or MT?

Reply:           Section VIII, Division 2 does not specify a specific sequence of postweld heat treatment and
radiography for P-No. 1 material. Where complete radiography has been performed subsequent to postweld
heat treatment, additional nondestructive testing is not required except at the discretion of the vessel designer
who may prescribe additional nondestructive testing because of the metallurgical aspects that may exist.


Interpretation:         VIII-78-22
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-160.2
Date Issued:    February 1, 1978
File:           BC77-835

Question:        What stress categories need to be considered under AD-160.2, Condition B(f) with regard to
the specified full range of mechanical loads?

The stress categories Pm, PL, Pb, Q, and F may be required to be considered dependent upon which of these
are simultaneously subject to cyclic load.

Interpretation:         VIII-78-31
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-601(e) and AD-602
Date Issued:    February 23, 1978
File:           BC77-772

Question:        Is it required to radiograph a weld attaching a nozzle neck to a vessel where the thickness of
the shell of the vessel is 2-1/8 in. and further, how does this relate to the determination of minimum
thickness of the nozzle neck?

Reply:          Since the shell thickness is 2-1/8 in., Type No. 1 butt joints or full penetration joints are not
required [see AD-601(e)] . Table AF-241.1 itemizes the required examination of all category welds, and, if
Type No. 1 butt joints are not employed, radiography is not required. The determination of minimum
thickness of the nozzle neck as outlined in AD-602 is independent of the required examination of the welds
in question.

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-78-59
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-204, AD-510, and AD-540
Date Issued:    May 8, 1978
File:           BC78-139

         Your item (1) indicated an apparent error in 4-440 and 4-432 of Article 4-4 (Section VIII, Division
2) in accordance with your calculations.

        This will advise that the "10A" should be "10A" in 4-432 and 4-440. This will be corrected in a
future Errata.

        Your item (2) correctly pointed out that the equations for the diameters given in the revised
        AD-510(a) in the Winter 1977 Addenda do not include the nominal thickness of the vessel shell (t)
under the square root sign. This will be corrected in a future Errata.

         Our understanding of Question (3) in your inquiry and our interpretive reply are as follows:

Question:         In the equation given in AD-540.2(c) can the value of zero be used for the term "te"?

Reply:            Yes.

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):     Is it permissible to use SA-240 Type 321H and 347H for Section VIII, Division 2
construction?

Reply (2):        No.


Interpretation:         VIII-78-76
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AT-202(a)(1), Weld Metal Overlay
Date Issued:    June 5, 1978
File:           BC78-320

Question:         Does AT-202(a)(1) require impact tests to be made for Type E308L weld metal overlay
cladding?

Reply:            No.

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 U-2(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-78-141
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 200°F 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-78-150
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-78-151
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Appendix 4
Date Issued:    December 27, 1978
File:           BC78-406

Question:        In Section VIII, Division 2, is the primary membrane stress Pm as given in 4-112(g) due to
externally applied load (Mo) alone (neglecting pressure) or due to the externally applied load (MO) plus
discontinuity loads (M1+ Q1)?

Reply:           The Code does not give specific rules for dividing calculated stresses into various
categories. This is the responsibility of the person making the analysis. The Code does give examples of
various kinds of stress, such as primary, secondary, and peak; and it does list the limits to which each of
these kinds of stresses may go.
         In solving a discontinuity-type problem where there is an externally applied moment, M0 , at one end
of a cylindrical shell and the shell is divided in to several thicknesses along the length, different kinds of
stresses are generated at the planes where the thickness changes. At the plane called Point “1” for example,
there must be compatibility of shears, moments, rotations, and deflections, M1 and Q1 are both made up from
terms which contain Mo, rotational effects, and deflection effects. The latter two are necessary to restore
continuity at Point “1”. As a matter of fact, if the lengths of the adjacent parts of the shell are short enough,
shears and moments at those junctions will also affect Point “1”. Since Mo is a primary load, those parts of
M1 and Q1 which are directly caused by Mo give primary stresses , and those parts which are necessary to
restore continuity of the shell juncture cause secondary stresses.


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-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-79-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Article D-5, Nozzle Openings in Flat Heads
Date Issued:    January 31, 1979
File:           BC78-689

Question (1) AD-510 of ASME Section VIII, Division 2 provides rules for circular openings not requiring
reinforcement in vessel shell or head. But requirements for circular openings in FLAT HEADS not requiring
reinforcement are not mentioned in the Code. Hence could we interpret that any size of the opening in a flat
head needs compensation as per AD-520?

Reply (1)        Article D-5, AD-500, AD-501, AD-502, and AD-510 apply to openings whether they are in
shells, formed heads, or flat heads. Although the rules of AD-510 appear to be mainly applicable to
openings in shells, there are no restrictions to shells only. With rules in terms of Rmt, the basis had to be
related to cylindrical shells. Consequently, the rules of AD-510 may be applied to flat heads; and when they
are not met, the rules of AD-530 shall be met.

Question (2): The limits of reinforcement for openings in flat heads are not specifically given in the Code.
We interpret from AD-540.1 that the following clause alone will apply for flat heads. "The parallel limit
(boundary along the vessel wall) of reinforcement on either side of the axis of the opening shall not exceed
the diameter of the finished opening in the corroded condition." Is our interpretation correct?

Reply (2):      The requirements of AD-540, AD-540.1, and AD-540.2 are applicable to openings in flat
heads as well as to openings in shells and formed heads. Again, although the rules of AD-540 appear to be
mainly applicable to openings in shells, there are no restrictions to shells only.

Question (3): Could we consider reinforcement requirements for radial openings located in the thickness
of Forged Shell Flanges (W.N. type or Reversed type) in accordance with the rules for a flat head; AD-530?

Reply (3).      As for rules when the limits of AD-530 are exceeded (that is, when the opening exceeds one-
half of the head diameter), there are none. This means that the requirements of Appendix 4 or Appendix 5
must be used.
Question (4): Limitation for distance between adjacent nozzle openings in a flat head appears to be not
specific in the Code. Could we interpret AD-501(a)(3) of ASME Section VIII, Division 2 as straight
distance instead of arc distance, in the case of openings in flat head?

Reply (4):      Since the rules of AD-501(a)(3) refer to measurements along the surface of the shell, it is
assumed that this paragraph is not applicable to flat heads. In that case, the requirements of Appendix 4 or
Appendix 5 must be used.


Interpretation:         VIII-79-25
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AF-402.3
Date Issued:    April 20, 1979
File:           BC79-153

Question:      Is it a mandatory requirement of Section VIII, Division 2 to postweld heat again after a weld
repair is made on a vessel of P-No. 1 material where the repair depth is 1 3/16 in. and preheating is
performed at 300(F?

Reply:           It is the intent of AF-402.3 of Section VIII, Division 2 that no additional postweld heat
treatment is required on a weld repair made on thicknesses up to 1-1/4 in. if preheating is applied.


Interpretation:         VIII-79-27
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Registered Professional Engineer
Date Issued:    May 12,1979
File:           BC77-448

Question:       As used in A-301.2 and A-302.3 of Section VIII, Division 2, what is the definition of "a
Registered Professional Engineer" and what criteria should be used to determine "experienced in pressure
vessel design"?

Reply:          The term "Registered Professional Engineer" means an engineer having such registration in
one or more of the States of the United States or the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada, Section VIII,
Division 2 does not define criteria for experience in pressure vessel design. Responsibility for that
determination remains with the Registered Professional Engineer.


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-79-39
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, A-301.2 and A-302.3
Date Issued:    July 6, 1979
File:           BC79-249

Question (1): May the Code Symbol stamp be applied on an item which will be installed outside the USA
and Canada, provided that it is in complete compliance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (1):      Yes; however this would be a contractual requirement between the user and manufacturer.

Question (2): If the answer to the above question is yes, what are requirements for a registered
professional engineer described in A-301.2 and A-302.3?

Reply (2):      The Code does not specify such requirements; this is left to the various States in the USA
and Provinces in Canada.

ATTENTION

       Upon further review of our reply of July 6, 1979 the following clarification is being made to our
response to Question (2).

Reply:           A revision of the subject paragraphs A-301.2 and A-302.3 has been made by the Summer
1979 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1. This clarifies that a professional engineer -is one who is
registered in one or more of the States of the United States of America or the Provinces of Canada.


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 600F temperature for charging a
furnace valid for use with the 800F 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-79-51
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. 1 to P-No. 3, P-No. 4, P-No. 5
                P-No. 3 to P-No. 3               P-No. 3 to P-No. 4, P-No. 5
                P-No. 4 to P-No. 4               P-No. 4 to P-No. 5
                P-No. 5 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-79-67
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:          Yes.



Interpretation:         VIII-79-74
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-911(b)
Date Issued:    November 19, 1979
File:           BC79-701

Question (1) In AD-911(b) of Section VIII, Division 2, does the phrase "attachment of parts not
exceeding 1 1/2 in. (38 mm) thickness" refer to the thickness of the attached nonpressure part or to the
greater thickness of the nonpressure part and the pressure part?

Reply (1):      This phrase places a limit on the thickness of the attached nonpressure part.

Question (2): Is the thickness limitation of AD-911(b) on the attached nonpressure part applicable at the
location of the attachment weld to the pressure part or everywhere throughout the nonpressure part?

Reply (2):      This thickness limitation is applicable at the location of the attachment weld.


Interpretation:         VIII-79-77
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Expansion Joints
Date Issued:    December 5, 1979
File:           None

Question:       Under what basis may an expansion joint be designed as an integral part of a Section VIII,
Division 2 pressure vessel?

Reply:           Where specific design rules are not provided for the shape of a pressure vessel part, as might
apply to an expansion joint, the design provisions of AD-100(b) shall be followed. All applicable
construction requirements of Section VIII, Division 2, such as the restrictions on welded joints of Article D-
4, shall be satisfied. Such an integral expansion joint would not fall under the classification of a piping
component as described in A-121(e).


Interpretation:         VIII-79-80
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-912.1 Support Skirt Welds
Date Issued:    December 7, 1979
File:           EC-79-320

Question:       May a support Skirt which is attached to a head for 355 deg. of the circumference to permit a
5 deg. opening for a pipe be considered as meeting the "continuous weld" requirement of Fig. AD-912.1 of
Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply:          Yes, as long as the weld is continuous.
        A continuous weld in this case in addition to attaching the skirt to the head for 355 deg. must attach
the edges of the opening to the head or continue around through the opening. The designer must assure
himself that he has a continuous weld. The designer must be sure to meet the requirements of AD-911
including footnote 2.
Interpretation:         VIII-79-82
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, A-301.2 and A-302.3
Date Issued:    December 7, 1979
File:           BC79-719

Question (1): What is meant by the term "A registered professional engineer" in A-301.2 and A-302.3 of
Section VIII, Division 2, and with whom or which organization is he registered?

Reply (1):      A revision of A-301.2 and A-302.3 has been made by the Summer 1979 Addenda to Section
VIII, Division 2. This clarifies that a Professional engineer is one who is registered in one or more of the
States of the United States of America or the Provinces of Canada.

Question (2): How is this requirement for registration met in the case of a user of a manufacturer of a
country outside the U.S.A.?

Reply (2):       The user or manufacturer would need to obtain the services of an engineer who is registered
in the U.S.A. or in the Provinces of Canada.

Question (3) Will scrutiny and certification by a third party inspection agency satisfy the requirements of
A-302.3 in the case of manufacturers of countries other than U.S.A.?

Reply (3):      No, not in lieu of certification by a professional engineer as defined in A-302.3.

Interpretation:         VIII 80-08
Subject:        Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2, UG-21 and AD-120 Design Pressure
Date Issued:    February 1, 1980
File:           BC-79-758

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-80-11
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-80-19
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-80-28
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-80-31
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AD-150 and AD-151.1
Date Issued:    April 28, 1980
File:           BC-80-141

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-80-38
Subject:        Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2, Design Rules, UG-22 and U-2(g)
Date Issued:    May 13, 1980
File:           BC-79-122

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:           BC-79-122

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-80-40-122
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, Part AD and Appendix 4
Date Issued:    May 13, 1980
File:           BC-79-122

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 > O.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 Manufacturer’s 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. AD-612.1,
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 4-613(e), the
tabulated stress indices in 4-612 are not applicable.


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-80-50
Subject:        Section VIII-Divisions 1 and 2, Attachment of Studs or Thermocouples to Vessel
Date Issued:    June 5, 1980
File:           BC-79-332

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-80-537
Subject:        Section VIII-Divisions 1 and 2, UW-35(a)(2) and AF-221.1(b)
Date Issued:    June 10, 1980
File:           BC-80-292

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:           Yes.

                                                 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-80-58
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, A-100(b)(1) and A-301.1
Date Issued:    July 3, 1980
File:           BC-80-188

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 A-301, are
satisfied for each vessel


Interpretation:         VIII-80-82
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, Table AD-155.1, Note (5)
Date Issued:    August 25, 1980
File:           BC-80-422

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-80-89
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-80-95
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:           BC-80-381

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-80-98
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AT-203(a)
Date Issued:    October 8, 1980
File:           BC-80-547

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-80-105
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AD-912(b), Nonpressure Attachments
Date Issued:    October 23, 1980
File:           BC-80-511

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-80-109
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AT-112
Date Issued:    October 30, 1980
File:           BC-80-548

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-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-81-14
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-81-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Nameplate Marking
Date Issued:    April 10, 1981
File:           BC81-20

Question:       AS-100 and Fig. AS-137.1 require that the marking for a Division 2 vessel include the
design pressure as follows:

____________psi at ___________F
(Design Pressure)

       If desired by the user for operational reasons, could a lower operating pressure be substituted in the
marking for the design pressure, provided the design pressure was shown on the Data Report?

Reply:           The operating pressure cannot be substituted in the marking for the design pressure as
described in the Question. However, additional data that is factual and applicable to the vessel could be
shown below the Code required markings.


Interpretation:         VIII-81-23
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Appendix 8 and Article 9-2
Date Issued:    June 2, 1981
File:           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-81-25
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 -20F?

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 35
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AT-203
Date Issued:    June 3, 1981
File:           BC81-71

Question (1): For a vessel designed under the rules of Division 2 that has several longitudinal seams
(Category A) in the top and bottom heads to be welded by a qualified welding procedure, is the following
interpretation of AT-203 correct?
         A test plate shall be welded as an extension of a longitudinal seam in either top or bottom head. The
test plate need not be welded concurrently with the first seam of production nor with the first head, provided
that it shall be welded concurrently with one seam selected during the production welding from the several
seams in both heads.

Reply (1):      Yes.
Question (2): Can a test plate under AT-203(b) which is welded concurrently with the production welding
of a circumferential seam (Category B) in a shell represent both Category A joints in heads and Category B
joints in shells under the condition described below?
         (a)      The shell for the vessel mentioned in Question (1) above has no longitudinal seam (Category
A), but only circumferential seams (Category B) which are welded by the same qualified welding procedure
as for the head mentioned in Question (1) above.
         (b)      The shell thickness is more than 8 in,, e.g., 9 in. The head thickness is 5 in.
         (c)      The test plate welded with a head as mentioned in Question (1) above is less than 9 in.
divided by 1.1 and cannot qualify the thickness range of the shell.
         (d) The test plate welded with a shell joint can qualify the thickness range of the heads.

Reply (2):      Yes.

Interpretation:                 VIII-81-49      (Void, see VIII-81-49R)
Subject         Section VIII-Division 2, Table ABM-1
Date Issued:    July 1, 1981
File:           BC-80-725

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-81-49R-5
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Table ABM-1
Date Issued:    July 26, 1982
File:           BC80-725*

Question:        Does Table ABM-1 refer to raised face and flat face flanges with metal-to-metal contact
outside the bolt circle?

Reply:          Table ABM-1 has allowable bolting stresses for flanges designed in accordance with
Appendix 3. ASME 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
Appendices 4 and 5. For such designs, allowable bolt stress intensities are taken from Table ABM-2 for
determining the minimum bolting area [see 4-140(a)].



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-81-70
Subject:               Section VIII, Division 2, External Pressure Design-Cones
Date Issued:    September 22, 1981
File:           BC80-55

Question:      May the design rules of Division 1 be used to satisfy the design requirements of Division 2
when no design rules are given in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply:        Not unless the design condition is covered by Code Cases, such as 1473-1,1489, or 1490
Otherwise when no design rules are given in Division 2, the requirements in AD-100(b) of Division 2 shall
be met.

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-81-77
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, Table ACS-1, Elevated Temperature Values
Date Issued:    October 8, 1981
File:           BC-81-257

Question:        Is it permissible under Division 2 rules to use material and elevated temperature stress
intensity values for SA 336 F22 forgings containing 0.02% to 0.05% silicon, even though the silicon is
specified in the material specification as 0.50 maximum?

Reply:          Yes, if all of the requirements of SA-336 are met.

Interpretation:         VIII-81-83
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AT-200(b)
Date Issued:    October 9, 1981
File:           BC-81-313

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-81-92
Subject:        Section VIII-Divisions 1 and 2, ISO (Metric) Bolting Standards for Pressure
        Retaining Equipment
Date Issued:    October 13, 1981
File:           BC-81-265

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 1, 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-81-94
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AF-223.2(c)(2) and Table AF-241.1
Date Issued:    October 13, 1981
File:           BC-81-312

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:          The reference to the 6 in. diameter applies to the diameter of the finished opening in the
shell.


Interpretation:         VIII-81-115
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, UT Examination Versus RT for Closure Seam
Date Issued:    November 30, 1981
File:           BC81-460

Question:        Is it permissible under Division 2 to substitute UT examination for RT on a final closure
seam of a vessel when the examination facility is not of adequate size and the RT source cannot be used
outside of the facility?

Reply:          No. See Note (3) to Table AF-241.1.

Interpretation:         VIII-82-11
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AF-420, PWHT After Repair
Date Issued:    January 21, 1982
File:           BC-81-432

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-82-14
Subject :       Section VIII-Divisions 1 and 2, Design Stress Criteria
Date Issued:    January 22, 1982
File:           BC-81-276

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-82-22
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AD-602
Date Issued:    January 25, 1982
File:           BC-81-649
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-82-27
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AG-301.1 (a)
Date Issued:    March 18, 1982
File:           BC-81-75

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 700F 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-82-39
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, 4-138
Date Issued:    March 19, 1982
File:           BC-81-368

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-82-55
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, AF-810.20(b)(4)
Date Issued:    June 2, 1982
File:           BC-81-687

Question:         The last sentence of AF-810.20(b)(4) seems to contradict the requirements of AF-810.20
(b)(l), (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 AF-
810.20 (b)(1), (2), and (3) relate to layers that are welded to the previous surface.
Interpretation:         VIII-82-59
Subject:        Section VIII-Division 2, Appendix 5, Design Fatigue Curves
Date Issued:    June 3, 1982
File:           BC-82-28

Question (1):   Do the fatigue curves of Appendix 5 consider the effect of prestressing for multilayer
vessels?

Reply (1):      No.

Question (2):   How may the fatigue curves be modified for multilayer vessels?

Reply (2):      The fatigue curves of the Code may not be modified by users of the Code.


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 (1):      No.

Question (2):   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-2-83-01
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AM-204
Date Issued:    July 26, 1982
File:           BC81-362

Question:       Under the requirements of AM-204, would the portion of a support structure skirt or saddle
welded to the vessel be regarded as a structural member essential to structural integrity?

Reply:          Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-02
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 8-3 and 9-220 in
Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2?

Reply:          Yes.
Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-41.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-03
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 record-
keeping made by a data processing computer is available?

Reply (3):       No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-45.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-04
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AG-130 and AI-101, Authorized Inspection
Date Issued:    October 6, 1982
File:           BC82-548

Question:      Is it permissible under the requirements of AG-130 and AI-101 to have a vessel field
fabricated by welding and have it stamped with a U2 Stamp when no inspections were performed by an
Authorized Inspector during fabrication?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-05
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-1-83-62.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-06
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UCS-56(f), AF-112.1, and AF-420
Date Issued:    December 29, 1982
File:           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, NB-
4622.9, 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):       No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-59.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-07
Subject:        Section VIII-2, 5-110.3(a)
Date Issued:    December 29, 1982
File:           BC82-680

Question:      Is the magnitude value of Saltij referenced in 5-110.3(a) a stress intensity amplitude which has
been determined by the maximum shear stress theory in accordance with the definition of 4-112(a)?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-08
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Table ABM-1
Date Issued:    March 3, 1983
File:           BC80-725

Question:        Is the use of Table ABM-1 of Section VIII, Division 2 limited to raised-face flanges and
flanges with full face gaskets?

Reply:           No. See Appendix 3, 3-400 and 3-500(b).

Errata
Volume 13 Interpretation VIII-2-83-09 Correct File to read BC82-861

Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-09
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-550(0 and Table AMG-1
Date Issued:    March 3, 1983
File:           BC82-861

Question:      Shall the "Nominal Composition" listed in the Tables of Design Stress Intensity Values be
used with the Notes to Table AMG-1 of Section VIII, Division 2 to determine the Material Group to be used
in Table AMG-1?

Reply:           Yes.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-10
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 (l): 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 (l):      Yes.

Question (2): In Division 2, paragraphs 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):      Yes.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-128.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-11
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Article 4-3, Spherical Shell Discontinuity
Date Issued:    June 17, 1983
File:           BC80-526

Question (l): Is Eq. (1) of 4-342 in Section VIII, Division 2, an approximation which should only be
acceptable for 0 <  <  m/2 where m is an appropriate limit?

Reply (l):      No.

Question (2):   If Question (1) is true, will the phrase "at any meridional location" of 4-342 be revised?

Reply (2):       No. Equation (1) of 4-342 results in solutions which are within acceptable engineering
accuracy for all meridional angles within the stated limits. The phrase "at any meridional location" of 4-342
need not be changed.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-136(a)(2) and AR-200(b), Permanent Set of Pressure
                Relief Valve Springs
Date Issued:    June 17, 1983
File:           BC81-583

Question (l): In UG-136(a)(2) and AR-200(b) of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, what is meant by
“presetting at room temperature"?

Reply (l):      This means that a spring has been previously compressed to its solid height at room
temperature.

Question (2):   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 in the spring material.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-129.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-13
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Appendix P and Fig. 4-130.1
Date Issued:    June 17, 1983
File:           BC81-717

Question (l): 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 (l):       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 hr?

Reply (2):       No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-130.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-14
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-900(c)(1)
Date Issued:    June 20, 1983
File:           BC82-208

Question:       Are the requirements of AD-900(c)(1) of Section VIII, Division 2 applicable to lifting lugs
not used during the operation of the vessel?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-15
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Nozzle Location
Date Issued:    June 21, 1983
File:           BC82-296

Question:        Are there any restrictions in Section VIII, Division 2 on the distance a nozzle may be located
from a gross structural discontinuity?

Reply:           Yes. See AD-140 and AD-510(c).


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-16
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Fig. 4-130.1
Date Issued:    June 23, 1983
File:           BC82-584

Question:       In determining the stress intensity limit for the local primary membrane stress PL in Fig. 4-
130.1 of Section VIII, Division 2, should Pm + PL be used in the rectangle where currently is shown PL for
which the allowable stress intensity is 1.5 kSm?

Reply:         No. The local primary membrane stress PL is derived from the average value across the
thickness of a section produced by design pressure and specified mechanical loads. Thus, the general
primary membrane stress Pm, is included in calculating PL, and should not be added twice. (See 4-132.)


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-17
Subject:        Calibration of Welding Equipment, Sections I, 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:           No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as I-83-45, IV-83-22, and VIII-1 -83-146.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-18
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, ULW-16(b) and AD-110(a)
Date Issued:    August 23, 1983
File:           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 1 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):       Yes.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-151.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-19
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Use of SA-105 Material for Section VIII, Division 2
Date Issued:    August 23, 1983
File:           BC83-135

Question:      Does the inclusion of SA-105 in Tables ACS-1 and ACS-2 of Section VIII, Division 2,
permit the use of this material for vessel components other than flanges, fittings, valves, or similar parts
within the boundaries of Section VIII, Division 2 vessels, as indicated on the Data Report by the vessel
manufacturer?

Reply: Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-20
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):       Yes.

Question (2):    Can AD-210 of Section VIII, Division 2, be applied to offset cones?

Reply (2):       No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-153.


Interpretation:        VIII-2-83-21
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, PWHT of 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:           Yes.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-155.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-22
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-132.2
Date Issued:    August 24, 1983
File:           BC83-245

Question:        AD-132.2 of Section VIII, Division 2, states, "The maximum primary shear under design
conditions, exclusive of stress concentration at the periphery of a solid circular section in torsion, shall be
limited to 0.8Sm." What shall be the limiting shear stress values at the periphery of a solid circular shaft at
the location of a stress concentration?

Reply: The rules of Appendix 5 apply.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-23
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):        Yes. As an example, see Note (3) to Table UHT-23 and Footnote 11 to Table AQT-1.

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):        No.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-163.


Interpretation:           VIII-2-83-24

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 1050F 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 1 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-1-83-165.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-25
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, and
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?

Reply (1):        Yes, provided the individual is in full compliance with the hiring company's written practice.

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 in the Manufacturer's Quality Control System (Appendix
10 and Appendix 18, respectively).

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-166.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-26
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AG-110 and Table AD-150.1
Date Issued:    October 27, 1983
File:           BC83-221

Question (1): In AG-110 of Section VIII, Division 2, what is the specific pressure which is the lower
bound of "very high pressure"?
Reply (1):      There is none.

Question (2): In Table AD-150.1 of Section VIII, Division 2, is it necessary to consider wind load or
earthquake load when considering the operation and test conditions?

Reply (2):       For the operation condition, the actual load conditions are considered which may include
wind load or earthquake load when applicable. Essentially, Table AD-150.1 is used with Fig. 4-130.1. For
the test condition, wind load or earthquake load need not be considered.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-27
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-11(a)(1) and AM-105.1(a), Weld Caps Used for Heads
                in Pressure Vessels
Date Issued:    October 27, 1983
File:           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-1-83-174.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-28
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 overlaid 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 (1):      No.

Question (2):   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.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-189.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-29
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Material Usage, SA-540
Date Issued:    December 21, 1983
File:           BC83-385

Question:     May SA-540 B23 Cl. 3 which is listed in Table ABM-2 of Section VIII, Division 2, be used
in Table ABM-1.2 if the allowable stresses are calculated from Appendix 1-120.2?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-30
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AF-200(b) and AF-540, Use of Electroslag Welding for Overlay Cladding
Date Issued:    December 21, 1983
File:           BC83-540

Question:       Is it permissible to use an electroslag welding process for depositing weld overlay under the
provisions of Article F-5 in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply:          No. See AF-200(b) and AF-540.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-31
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AF-402, AF-630, and AF-820
Date Issued:    February 22, 1984
File:           BC83-341

Question:       Must the more restrictive requirements for postweld heat treatment as given in AF-402 and
AF-630 of Section VIII, Division 2, apply for a girth weld joint between a solid wall flange of SA-350 LF3
material and a multi-wall shell of SA-203 Gr. E and SA-533 Gr. B Cl. 3 materials when the exemption
provisions of AF-820 are not met?

Reply:          Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-32
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Article F-8, Impact Testing
Date Issued:    February 22, 1984
File:           BC83-641

Question:       Welding procedure qualifications for layered vessels are given in Article F-8 of Section VIII,
Division 2. Are these layered vessels exempt from impact testing of the welding procedure and production
test coupons representing the long seams of wraps?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-33
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-400, Welded Joint Categories
Date Issued:    May 31, 1984
File:           BC80-606

Question:        Figure AD-610.1(c) illustrates a nozzle being attached to a vessel wall by a full penetration
weld through the wall thickness, and Fig. AD-613.1 (c-1) illustrates a saddle type nozzle being attached to a
vessel wall by a butt weld. What "category" is assigned to these two attachments?
Reply:           Category D applies in both cases. The term "category" is used in the Code to define a
location of a joint in a vessel and does not dictate the type of joint to be used. The type of joint will be set
forth specifically by rules elsewhere in the Code.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-34
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UG-42, AF-229.1, and Article T
Date Issued:    May 31, 1984
File:           BC83-652A

Question (l): 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 (l):      No.

Question (2):   Is Article T-2 applicable at all design temperatures in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (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):      See Question and Reply (2).

Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-250.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-35 (VOID, SEE 83-35R2, VOL.16 PG. 45)
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-160, and Fig. 4-130
Date Issued:    May 31, 1984
File:           BC83-653

Question (1): If fatigue analysis is not required per AD-160 in Section VIII, Division 2, is it still required
to determine Q under operating conditions and have PL + Pb + Q limited by 3Sm as in 4-134 and Fig. 4-
130.1?

Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2): Figure 4-130.1 requires that Q and F be determined using operating loads. Does this imply
that Q and F shall be determined using only operating loads throughout Section 2?

Reply (2):      No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-36
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, UW-39 and AF-234, Peening
Date Issued:    May 31, 1984
File:           BC83-683

Question (l): 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 (l):      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 shot blast,
rotary wire wheels, and/or flapper wheels.
Question (2):   What are the controls implied in "controlled peening" in AF-234 of Section VIII, Division 2?

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 craftsman.

Question (3):   Does "weld metal," in the paragraphs given in Question (1), refer only to the metal added by
welding?

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):   Is it permissible to peen the heat affected zone and sections of the base metal?

Reply (4):      The Code does not prohibit the peening from being carried on into the heat affected zone.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-255.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-37
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AM-203.2
Date Issued:    May 31, 1984
File:           BC83-687A

Question (l): Are Section VIII, Division 2 vessels exempt from the AM-203.2 requirement for angle beam
examination for the rings, flanges, and other hollow forgings if they have an outside to inside diameter ratio
of less than 2.0 to 1.0 and are not required to be angle beam examined per material specification SA-388?

Reply (l):      No.

Question (2): Does AM-203.2 allow the use of alternative ultrasonic methods which utilize distance
amplitude corrections, provided that the acceptance standards are shown to be equivalent?

Reply (2):      No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-38
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-160.2
Date Issued:    June 29, 1984
File:           BC83-644

Question (l): AD-160.2 in Section VIII, Division 2, reads: "the expected number of operating pressure
cycles in which the range of pressure variation exceeds 20% of the design pressure." Design pressure is
defined in AD-121.1 as follows: "Design pressure is the pressure at the top of the vessel..." If the top of the
vessel is designed for 100 psig and the bottom for 125 psig, and the pressure change at the top is negligible
while the bottom pressure changes by 22 psig, does this constitute an operation pressure cycle?

Reply (l):      No.

Question (2): For the situation in Question (1), but with the top pressure going from 100 psig to 90 psig
and the bottom pressure going from 122 psig to 92 psig, would this constitute an operating cycle?

Reply (2):      Yes.

Question (3): AD-160.2 also states: "Pressure cycles caused by fluctuations in atmospheric conditions
need not be considered." If the pressure variation exceeds 20% of the design pressure only when ambient
temperature changes cause some of the pressure variation, does this constitute an operation pressure cycle?

Reply (3):      No.
Question (4):   What constitutes an operational cycle in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (4):      An operational cycle is defined in 4-112(m).


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-39
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-540.2(a) and AD-550, Limits of Reinforcement
Date Issued:    June 29, 1984
File:           BC84-138

Question (l): With regard to Fig. AD-540.1 sketches (a) and (b) in Section VIII, Division 2, should the
limits of reinforcement normal to a vessel wall be restricted in all circumstances by the smaller value of 2.5t
or L + 2.5tp?

Reply (l):      For Fig. AD-540.1 sketches (a) and (b), the reinforcement limit normal to the wall is the
larger of:

        0.5 rmtn + K or 1.73x + 2.5tp + K  2.5t or ≤ L + 2.5tp

Question (2): Is it permissible to ignore the area of tapped holes falling within the boundary limits in
reinforcement calculations for studded connections, provided that they are located off center of the center
line of the vessel?

Reply (2):      No. All planes shall be examined including those planes which pass through tapped holes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-35R (VOID, SEE BELOW)
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-140.1, AD-160, and Fig. 4-130.1
Date Issued:    June 29, 1984
File:           BC83-653*

Question (1): If fatigue analysis is not required per AD-160 in Section VIII, Division 2, is it still required
to determine Q under operating conditions and have PL + Pb + Q limited by 3Sm as in 4-134 and Fig. 4-
130.1?

Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2): Figure 4-130.1 requires that Q and F be determined using operating loads. Does this imply
that Q and F shall be determined using only operating loads throughout Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (2):      Yes.

Note: This interpretation should have appeared in Interpretations No. 15 - Section VIII-2, covering
interpretations issued from January 1, 1984, through June 30, 1984, and revised interpretations issued from
January 1, 1984, through August 6, 1984.

Revised interpretation follows.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-35R-2
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AD-140.1, AD-160, and Fig. 4-130.1
Date Issued:    October 1, 1984
File:           BC83-653**

Question (1): If fatigue analysis is not required per AD-160 in Section VIII, Division 2, for secondary
stresses not covered by AD-140.1, is it still required to determine Q under operating conditions and have P L
+ Pb + Q limited by 3Sm as in 4-134 and Fig. 4-130.1?
Reply (1):       Yes, except as permitted by 4-136.2(b) and 4-136.7.

Question (2): Figure 4-130.1 requires that Q and F be determined using operating loads. Does this imply
that Q and F shall be determined using only operating loads throughout Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (2):       Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-40
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:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-83-301.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-41
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AM-203.2(b)(2), 45 deg. Angle Beam Examination
Date Issued:    November 19, 1984
File:           BC84-339

Question:       In order to assure complete volumetric examination, may search units specified in para. 7.3.2
of SA-388 for angle beam examination of rings, flanges, and other hollow forgings be used to supplement
the requirement for a 45 deg. transducer in AM-203.2(b)(2)?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-30R
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AF-200(b) and AF-540, Use of Electroslag Welding for Overlay Cladding
Date Issued:    May 23, 1985
File:           BC83-540*

Question:       Is it permissible to use an electroslag welding process for depositing weld overlay under the
provisions of Article F-5 in Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply:           Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-42
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-1-83-334.
Interpretation:          VIII-2-83-43
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AF-415(e), Cooling Rate for PWHT
Date Issued:    April 1, 1985
File:           BC84-371

Question       (1): AF-415(e) allows cooling from 800F to be done in still air during postweld heat
treatment. Does this imply that no further control is needed?

Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2):   Does the Code require cooling below 800F in still air?

Reply (2):      No.

Question (3):   With regard to the provision mentioned in Question (1), is cooling in rain permitted?

Reply (3):      It is not prohibited. However, in all cases of closed chambers and complex structures,
consideration should be given to avoiding structural damage due to excessive thermal gradients.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-44R
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-2-83-44R 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-2-83-44R also appears as VIII-1-83-361R.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-45
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AF-820, PWHT of Buttered Weld Overlay Material in Layered Construction
Date Issued:    June 24, 1985
File:           BC84-003

Question:        AF-820(b)(2) in Section VIII, Division 2 reads, "The finished joint preparation of a solid
section or solid nozzle which is required to be postweld heat treated under the provisions of AF-402.2 or AF-
630 shall be provided with a buttered layer of at least 1/8 in. thick welding material not requiring postweld
heat treatment." How shall it be determined whether a material of the buttering weld overlay joint
preparation requires postweld heat treatment?
Reply:           PWHT of a layered vessel is not required after welding the solid part of the layered section
when the weld metal of the buttering weld overlay joint preparation is a material for which the Code does
not require PWHT, provided each of the layers of the section also meets the exemptions from PWHT. There
are factors to be considered in addition to the material of the buttering weld metal.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-83-46
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-1-83-365.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-01
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Appendix 4, 4-136.7(b), Sa
Date Issued:    September 26, 1985
File:           BC85-218

Question:        For the simplified elastic-plastic analysis given in Appendix 4, 4-136.7, is the value which is
entered in the design fatigue curve equal to [PL + Pb + Q + F)/2] multiplied by the factor Ke?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-02
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 AF-
810.20(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-1-86-21.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-01R
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Appendix 4, 4-136.7(b)
Date Issued:    May 1 5, 1986
File:           BC85-218*

Question (1):    For the simplified elastic-plastic analysis given in 4-136.7, how is Ke determined?

Reply (1):       Ke is determined by the appropriate formula in 4-136.7(b) using a value of Sn which is equal
to the range of primary plus secondary stress intensity or essentially the range of the quantity (P L + Pb + Q).
Question (2):    What value is used for entering the design fatigue curve?

Reply (2):       KeSa, where Sa is the stress intensity as described in 4-135 and includes PL, Pb, Q, and F
terms.


Interpretation:        VIII-2-86-03
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): Does the Charpy impact test temperature reduction criteria given in Section VIII, Divisions 1
and 2, apply to UHA and AHA materials respectively?

Reply (2):       No.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-86-40.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, Part ULW and Article 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:           Yes, provided all requirements for layered vessels in Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, are
met.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-86-59,


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-05
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 (AIA) 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-1-86-72, and X-86-01.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-06
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Appendix 20, 20-230 and Fig. AD-701.1, Sketch (b)
Date Issued:    January 9, 1987
File:           BC86-377

Question:        Will the intent of 20-230 be met if the "after machining" examination in accordance with
SA-388 is performed in the axial and radial direction before the butt weld profiles are machined per Fig. AD-
701.1, sketch (b)? It is not possible to obtain a meaningful examination by using the straight beam technique
in the areas of butt weld profiles.

Reply:          Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-07
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Appendix 11, 11-101(b)
Date Issued:    February 3, 1987
File:           BC86-082

Question:       For vessels constructed in accordance with Appendix 11 of Section VIII, Division 2, are all
flanges and nozzles of Categories C and D subject to the requirements of 11-101 ?

Reply:          Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-08
Subject:        Section VIII-2, Appendix 20, 20-230, UT of Flame Cut Flat Heads
Date Issued:    February 19, 1987
File:           BC86-376

Question:        If the outside diameter of the head is flame cut, will the intent of the "before machining"
requirement of 20-230 of Section VIII, Division 2, be met if the material supplier performs the examination
in the axial direction only, since it is not possible to examine it in the radial direction due to the flame cut
edge?

Reply:          No. It is the intent of the Committee that the phrase "before machining" does not prohibit
such surface preparation as is necessary to perform the required examination.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-86-09
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AM-203.2
Date Issued:    April 6, 1987
File:           BC87-065

Question:        AM-203.2 requires ultrasonic examination in accordance with SA-388 for hollow forgings 4
in. and over in nominal thickness. Is the angle beam technique to be used for hollow forgings 4 in. and over
in nominal thickness and having an O.D. to I.D. ratio exceeding 2:1?

Reply:          Yes (see Interpretation VIII-2-83-41).

Interpretation:          VIII-2-86-10
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AM-203.2 and AF-572.2
Date Issued:    April 6, 1987
File:           BC87-066

Question (1): Are vessels exempt from the requirement of AM-203.2 for angle beam examination for
rings, flanges, and hollow forgings if they have an O.D. to I.D. ratio exceeding 2:1? These materials are not
required to be examined by the angle beam method by SA-388.
Reply (l):       No (see Interpretation VIII-2-83-41).

Question (2): Does AF-572.2(c) allow a completed alloy weld deposit to be examined by the liquid
penetrant method provided the base plate joint has been radiographically examined?

Reply (2):       Yes, provided all other requirements of AF-572.2 are met.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-11
Subject:        Section VIII-2, AG-120(a)
Date Issued:    May 22, 1987
File:           BC86-073

Question:        A vessel designed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 2, contains internal piping that
forms part of the vessel's pressure boundary. Is the piping within the scope of Division 2 of the Code?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AM-201.4
Date Issued:    September 22, 1987
File:           BC87-026

Question:      For forgings exceeding a thickness of 2 in., may the test coupons be located in accordance
with either AM-201.4(b) or AM-201.4(c)?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-13
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.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-86-162.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, Design Stress Intensity Values
Date Issued:    October 21, 1987
File:           BC87-195

Question:        When applying Case 1489-1 to the material of Case 1961, is it permissible to interpolate
between 23.8 ksi at 850F in Table 5 and 17.5 ksi at 900F in Table 4 to obtain a Division 2 design stress
intensity value?

Reply:           Yes.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-15
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.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-86-172.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-16
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) and
AT-112 of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 require hardness testing to be performed on the test specimens
representing the material after heat treatment?

Reply:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-86-194.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-100
Date Issued:    January 15, 1988
File:           BC87-427

Question:        According to the vessel designer/manufacturer's vessel design drawing, a manway opening
in the center of one of the hemispherical heads does not contain the reinforcement area required by AD-520
and a nozzle elsewhere in the same head violates the minimum required arc separation distance from the
manway as specified in AD-501(a)(3). The vessel designer/manufacturer contends that he is allowed to
deviate from these requirements, provided he justifies his vessel design per Appendix 4 and Appendix 5
analyses. With regard to Part AD, Article D-1, AD-100, is the vessel designer required to comply with
Article D-5 [specifically AD-501(a)(3) and AD-520] if both an Appendix 4 stress analysis and an Appendix
5 fatigue analysis are performed?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-86-18
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-520
Date Issued:    May 11, 1988
File:           BC88-079

Question:         Article AD-500 states: "The rules contained in this Article provide for a satisfactory design
in the vicinity of openings in the pressure shell ... provided a fatigue analysis is not required." If a fatigue
analysis is performed and the vessel meets the stress limitations and other requirements of Section VIII,
Division 2, is it required to meet the area replacement requirements of AD-520?

Reply:           No.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-01
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, 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 as 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) of Section
VIII, Division 1, and AD-100(b) of Section VIII, Division 2.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-200
Date Issued:    September 20, 1988
File:           BC87-298

Question:       May the exception allowed by AD-200(b) of Section VIII, Division 2, be applied to a
complete circumferential band of reduced thickness in a cylindrical shell and the limit analysis methods of 4-
136.3 be used to evaluate this local thin region?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-03
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AF-635
Date Issued:    September 20, 1988
File:           BC88-126

Question:        Are the requirements of AF-635 applicable to the heat treatment used to develop the
specified mechanical properties for a forging produced to SA-723 Class 2, which is to be used in a Section
VIII, Division 2 vessel?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AF-320
Date Issued:    December 13, 1988
File:           BC88-213

Question:      A tube-to-tubesheet weld is being made on a vessel to be fabricated in accordance with the
requirements of Section VIII, Division 2. Must the welding procedures used for this weld be qualified in
accordance with AF-320 and Section IX?

Reply:          No, only the requirements of AF-320 are to be met.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-89-05
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2, AD-451
Date Issued:    April 6, 1989
File:           BC89-008

Question (1): Are there any specific stress intensity limits for local primary membrane stress intensities for
the hydrostatic test condition?
Reply (1):       No.

Question (2):    Is it necessary to determine local primary membrane stress intensities for the hydrostatic test
condition?

Reply (2):       No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-06
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 UG-34(c)(2) and AD-702(a)(2) but not less than 0.25 in.?

Reply:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-89-99.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-07
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), AD-540.1(b)
Date Issued:    September 19, 1989
File:           BC89-22 7

Question:       In AD-540.1(b), for two-thirds of the required reinforcement of a flathead, is Rm equivalent
to t/2, where Rm is the mean radius and t is the thickness of the flathead?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-08
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), AT-203
Date Issued:    December 4, 1989
File:           BC89-288

Question:       A welding procedure has been qualified in accordance with the rules of Section IX,
including all supplementary essential variables required for notch toughness required by Section VIII,
Division 2. Do the rules of Section VIII, Division 2, require a separate vessel (production) test plate for
Category B joints which are welded using the same qualified WPS as that used to produce the vessel
(production) test plate(s) welded as an extension of the Category A weld(s)?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-09
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), AG-301.1
Date Issued:    December 4, 1989
File:           BC89-356

Question:       In accordance with the requirements of Section VIII, Division 2, may a purchase order be
issued by an agent of the user directly to a Manufacturer through an authorized sales agent?

Reply:           Yes; see AG-301.1 and Footnote 1 of the same paragraph.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-10
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition), AF-563
Date Issued:    February 12, 1990
File:           BC89-399

Question:      Is it the intent that welders and welding operators qualified in accordance with the
requirements of Section IX, in lieu of the performance qualification requirements of AF-563, may perform
composite groove welds and corrosion resistant overlay welds for Section VIII, Division 2, construction?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-11
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), AM-203.2
Date Issued:    February 12, 1990
File:           BC89-412

Question:       Is a cup shaped forging, such as a heat exchanger tubesheet with integral channel barrel,
where part of the overall forging is hollow, considered a hollow forging requiring UT examination using the
angle beam technique? The hollow part of the forging has a wall thickness in excess of 4 in.

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-12
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):       Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-89-189.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-13
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition), AF-111
Date Issued:    May 22, 1990
File:           BC90-344

Question:        Is it permissible under AF-111 of Section VIII, Division 2, to cold form heads fabricated out
of carbon steel plates?

Reply:           Section VIII, Division 2, does not address methods of forming heads.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition), 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 de-
termination of thickness for blind and reverse flanges under external pressure?

Reply:           There are no specific provisions which address the design conditions described; see U-2(g)
in Section VIII, Division 1.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-89-204.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-15
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), Use of Division 1 Material and
                Allowable Stresses in Division 2 Applications
Date Issued:    August 24, 1990
File:           BC90-525

Question:        May SA-179 tubes, with allowable stresses up to 700F taken from Table UCS-23 in Section
VIII, Division 1, be used in Division 2 fabrication?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-16
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AD-1101(b)
Date Issued:    September 27, 1990
File:           BC90-533

Question:        Is it permissible under AD-1101(b) of Section VIII, Division 2, to use the effective thickness
formula for a layer in which its stress intensity value of the material is lower than those of other layers?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-16R
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AD-1101(b)
Date Issued:    June 5, 1991
File:           BC90-533*

Question (1): Is it permissible under the requirements of Section VIII, Division 2, to use a layer whose
stress intensity value is different from other layers?

Reply (1):       The Code does not address this subject.

Question (2): Is it permissible to consider the effective thickness of a layer, with different mechanical
properties, as part of the total wall thickness in layered construction by using the thickness formula for the
inner shell in AD-1101(b) of Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (2):       No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AD-520
Date Issued:    October 22, 1990
File:           BC90-654
Question:        For reinforcement calculations done in accordance with the requirements of Section VIII,
Division 2, 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-2-89-18
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AF-820
Date Issued:    December 13, 1990
File:           BC90-729

Question:       Is it permissible under the requirements of AF-820 in Section VIII, Division 2, to use a P-
No. 5, Grade 1 material such as SA-387 Gr. 22 Cl. 2, in either 1/4 in. or 5/16 in. thickness, as a liner for
layered materials when no postweld heat treatment is performed?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-19
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), U-l(e)(1)(a) and AG-
                120(a)(1)
Date Issued:    January 2, 1991
File:           BC90-652

Question (1): Process equipment is enclosed by a Section VIII, Division 2 vessel. Section 1 and ANSI
piping is used to transport the working fluid to and from the process equipment across the vessel's 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):       Yes.

Question (2):    Does Reply (1) apply to Section VIII, Division 1, geometric scope as referenced in U-
l(e)(1)(a)?

Reply (2):       Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-89-261.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-20
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AT-203(a)
Date Issued:    January 31, 1991
File:           BC90-862

Question:        A group of vessels, four, are being manufactured to Section VIII, Division 2. The base
material is not exempt from impact testing requirements, and the same qualified welding procedure is used
for all Category A and B joints. Is it permissible under AT-203(a) to use one vessel test plate, from one of
the heats of one of the vessels, to represent all four vessels?

Reply:           Yes.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-21
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda), AG-130
Date Issued:    March 4, 1991
File:           BC90-775

Question:        Interpretation VIII-1-89-150 addresses requirements for field sites in Section VIII, Division
1. Does this also apply to Section VIII, Division 2 fabrication?

Reply:            Yes. See AG-130 in Section VIII, Division 2.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-22
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition), AT-202(b)
Date Issued:    March 14, 1991
File:           BC90-341

Question (1): Under the requirements of AT-202(b) of Section VIII, Division 2, when impact tests are
required for the welding procedure but the material(s) is exempt from impact test, is the test material
required to be material of the same specification, including type and/or grade, used in the vessel?

Reply (1):        Yes.

Question (2): Under the requirements of AT-202(b), when impact tests are required for the welding
procedure joining different specifications (e.g., SA-312 pipe and SA-240 plate) of the same type (e.g., Type
304), may the test material be either of the specifications (e.g., SA-312 Type 304 or SA-240 Type 304)?

Reply (2):        Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-23
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda), Segmental Hemispherical Heads
Date Issued:    May 1, 1991
File:           BC91-175

Question:       Is it permissible to fabricate hemispherical heads from segments per ASME Section VIII,
Division 2, provided all design, fabrication, and nondestructive requirements are met, regardless of pressure
and temperature conditions?

Reply:            Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-89-24
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition), Appendix 9, 9-320 and 9-320(b)
Date Issued:    June 6, 1991
File:           BC91-106

Question (1): Are linear and volumetric imperfections rejectable only when both their amplitude and
length exceed the requirements of 9-320 and 9-320(b) in Section VIII, Division 2?
Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2): If the amplitude of an imperfection exceeds the reference level for only a portion of its total
length, must the portion of the imperfection which is below the reference level be included in determining
acceptance or rejection under the rules of 9-320(b)?

Reply (2):        No.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-89-25
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:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-89-307.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-01
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:           No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears in Section VIII, Division 1 as VIII-1-92-07.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); AT-300
Date Issued:    September 13, 1991
File:           BC91-514

Question:         Under the provisions of AT-300 in Section VIII, Division 2 may the ratio (Sm test
temperature /Sm design temperature) be used in the calculation of the required hydrostatic test for bolting
material if it results in the lowest ratio for the material when: (1) bolted flange connections are designed per
Appendix 3 of Division 2? (2) bolted flange connections comply with an ANSI product Standard or a
Manufacturer's standard as permitted in AD-710 and AD-712 in Division 2?

Reply:           (1) Yes. (2) No; the limiting hydrostatic test pressure shall be established in accordance
with the applicable standard.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-03
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); AF-145(a)
Date Issued:    December 6, 1991
File:           BC91-465

Question:     Is it permissible under the requirements of AF-415(a) in Section VIII, Division 2 to have a
minimum heating rate below 100F/hr when the furnace temperature is above 800F?

Reply:           Yes, but it need not be less than 100F/hr.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda); AT-203
Date Issued:    March 26, 1992
File:            BC92-050

Question:      Is it required under the provisions of AT-203 of Section VIII, Division 2 to perform
production impact test on Category C or D weld joints?

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-05
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, Division 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-1-92-76.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-06
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 0) and AD-204.4?

Reply:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-92-79.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-07
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1989 Edition, 1991 Addenda), AT-203(a)
Date Issued:    August 4, 1992
File:           BC92-221

Question:        For two or more vessels of identical design, does AT-203(a) of Section VIII, Division allow
testing of one set of production test plates to cover all vessels?

Reply:          Yes, provided that the welding procedures, the equipment to be used, the base materials, and
the welding materials are the same for all vessels, and the test plate is from one of the heats of steel for the
group of vessels.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-08
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, 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 as VIII-1-92-105.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-09
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, are tack weld procedure specifications and procedure qualification tests required to include impact
testing and PWHT even though such welds are removed completely?

Reply:           No.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-92-110.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-10
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition), AF-805.1(a)(2)
Date Issued:    December 21, 1992
File:           BC92-109

Question:        Is it permissible in construction of a layered vessel to use welding procedures qualified for
longitudinal joints of a single 2 in. thick layer of the shell, to weld the circumferential joint between two
layered shells each 8 in. in thickness?

Reply:           No. AF-805.1(a)(2) of Section VIII, Division 2 requires test plate of at least two layers for
circumferential joints of layered vessels.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-11
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition), AD-520(a)
Date Issued:    January 4, 1993
File:           BC92-384

Question:       In meeting the provisions of AD-520(a) in Section VIII, Division 2, are there any
requirements for adjusting the area of reinforcement required when the material used for the nozzle wall has
a lower design stress value than that used for the vessel wall?

Reply:           Yes; see AD-551(b).


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), AD-204.3 and AD-204.5
Date Issued:    May 20, 1993
File:           BC93-347

Question:        Are the thickness requirements for attached cylindrical shells given in AD-204.3 of Section
VIII, Division 2 applicable when 2:1 ellipsoidal heads have integral head skirts as given in AD-204.5?

Reply:           Yes. However, the (Rt) distance is measured from the tangent line and includes the length
of the integral head skirt.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-13
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), Fig. AD-540.1, Sketch (a)
Date Issued:    September 29, 1993
File:           BC93-416

Question (1): In determining the limits of reinforcement under AD-540.2 in Section VIII, Division 2, when
h > 2.5t, would Fig. AD-540.1, sketch (a) permit a slope transition from a thick to a thin nozzle wall, where
the change in wall thickness occurs along the exterior profile by a sloping angle of  = 60 deg.?

Reply (1):       No.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is "no," can the 60 deg. slope be acceptable if a suitable
computerized stress analysis, which provides detailed stress distribution, is performed?

Reply (2):       Yes; see AD-100(b).


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), UG-91, UG-120(a), AI-
                102(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:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-92-179.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-15
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), UG-84(i)(1) and AT-203(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:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-92-181.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-16
Subject:        Section 1, PG-105.4 and A-300; Section VIII, Division 1, UG-117(e) and Appendix 10; 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:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as 1-92-91 and VIII-1-92-203.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), Use of U Stamped Pressure Part for
                Division 2 Construction, AF-210.1(b)(2) and AT-203
Date Issued:    May 20, 1994
File:           BC94-107

Question (1): Is it permissible under the requirements of Section VIII, Division 2 to allow the use of a
forged manway and cover, both with partial weld overlay, which was contracted and designed under the
rules of Division 2, but which was supplied with a U part stamp by a subcontractor who does not hold a U2
stamp?

Reply (1):       No.

Question (2): Is it permissible under the requirements of AF-210.1(b)(2) to use a welding procedure which
was later found to be lacking supplemental essential variables, required for impact testing, and was then
revised by requalification?

Reply (2):       No.

Question (3): Is it permissible under the requirements of AT-203 to use a detached extension of a
production weld for the SMAW process using the same weld procedure?

Reply (3):       No, unless it is impracticable and the extension is made immediately prior to production
welding.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-92-18
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), AM-202, Table AF-402.1 Note (5),
                and AT-113
Date Issued:    June 28, 1994
File:           BC94-278

Question (1): In meeting the provisions of AT-113 in Section VIII, Division 2, may the nominal heat
treatment temperature for the test specimen be specified at a temperature value equal to the maximum value
of PWHT temperature range specified for the vessel?

Reply (1):       Yes.

Question (2): In meeting the provisions of AT-113, may the heating and cooling rates specified for the
material specimen be slower than the maximum heating and cooling rates specified in PWHT procedure for
the vessel?

Reply (2):       Yes.

Question (3): A P-No. 3, Group No. 3 plate material in stock is certified with simulated PWHT at 1200F.
The plate material was tempered at 1240F. Do Table AF-402.1 Note (5), AM-202, and AT-113 require
additional testing of the test coupons if the plate material is to be used to fabricate a vessel with a PWHT
temperature range of 1100F to 1180F?

Reply (3):       No.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-01
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), Applied Coating Prior to Hydro
Date Issued:    September 9, 1994
File:           BC94-409

Question:        Are there any requirements in Section VIII, Division 2 which would limit the thickness of an
external paint coating on a vessel at the time of hydrostatic test?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda), AS-130(a) and AS-110
Date Issued:    October 25, 1994
File:           BC92-382A

Question (1): Is it the intent of AS-130(a) in Section VIII, Division 2 to allow the attachment of the
nameplate to a pad, bracket, or structure which is welded directly to the vessel, provided the nameplate is
located within 30 in. of the vessel?

Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2): Is it the intent of AS-110 in Section VIII, Division 2 to allow the ASME Code symbol to be
preapplied to a nameplate attached to the vessel after the final fabrication and examination sequence, but
before the hydrostatic test or pneumatic test, provided the procedure for the sequence of stamping is
described in the Manufacturer's accepted Quality Control System?

Reply (2):      Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-03
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), AD-102
Date Issued:    November 21, 1994
File:           BC94-617

Question:       In complying with the requirements of AD-102 in Section VIII, Division 2, may an
intermediate head be attached as detailed in Fig. UW-13.1, sketch (f) of Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply:        Section VIII, Division 2 does not address this method of attachment of intermediate heads.
The Manufacturer shall determine an acceptable detail which satisfies all applicable Code requirements.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), Forewords, Table W-3 Note
                13, and Table 1-220 Note 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-1-95-29.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-05
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 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 seams in Section VIII, Division
2 similar to those of UW-9(d) in Section VIII, Division 1?

Reply (2):       No.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-95-53.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-06
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), AT-200(b)
Date Issued:    August 4, 1995
File:           BC95-217

Question:       Do the words "test plates" as given in AT-200(b) of Section VIII, Division 2 refer to both
procedure qualification test plates and vessel test plates (production test plates)?

Reply: Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-06
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), AT-200(b)
Date Issued:    August 4, 1995
File:           BC95-217

Question:       Do the words "test plates" as given in AT-200(b) of Section VIII, Division 2 refer to both
procedure qualification test plates and vessel test plates (production test plates)?

Reply:           Yes.

Note:    This interpretation appeared prematurely in Volume 37.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-07
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition), AT-115.1
Date Issued:    October 20, 1995
File:           BC95-316

Question (1): A Section VIII, Division 2 vessel is constructed, and requires postweld heat treatment. The
nozzles are made of P-No. 1, Group 2 material, e.g., SA-350 LF2. The nozzles are normalized and tempered
by the Supplier. In complying with the requirements of AT-115.1, would the representative test specimens
for the nozzles be required to be supplied in the normalized, tempered, and postweld heat treated condition?

Reply (1):      No.

Question (2): The same as Question (1), except that the nozzles are made of P-No. 4, Group 1 material,
e.g., SA-336 F11?

Reply (2):      Yes.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-95-08
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-1-95-97.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-09
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition), One Corporation With Multiple Shop
                Certificates
Date Issued:    June 20, 1996
File:           BC95-465A

Question:        For ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2, may one location of a multi-location
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 is
appropriately signed by the representative at the location performing the work?

Reply:          No; see UG-117(b) of Section VIII, Division 1.

Note:           This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-95-106.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-95-10
Subject :       Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda), AT-201(a) and (b)
Date Issued:    June 20, 1996
File:           BC96-127

Question:       When procedure and/or production impact testing are required on material over 1 1/2 in.
thick and the material is not exempted from impact testing, are three sets of impact specimens, two sets from
the weld and one set from the heat affected zone, required?

Reply:          Yes.

Interpretation:        VIII-2-95-11
Subject:               Section VIII, Division 2 (1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda), Table AF-226.1
Date Issued:    August 2, 1996
File:           BC94-422
Question(1): Do the requirements of Table AF-226.1 in Section VIII, Division 2 prohibit nozzles with
integral reinforcement from being installed per AD-610?

Reply(1):       No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-12
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 multi-location 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 Manual?

Reply(1):       No.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-95-126.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-13
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-1-95-127.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-13R
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), UG- 117(b) and AS-201
Date Issued:    July 25, 1997
File:           BC96-128*

Question:        May an S, H, U, or U2 Code symbol stamp holder whose location includes field site
extensions fabricate code items at a location other than that identified on the Certificate of Authorization or
the point of final installation of stamped items?

Reply:          No, except at a temporary, intermediate site required for assembly of parts to be installed at
the final, permanent field location.

Note:           This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-95-127R.


Interpretation:       VIII-2-95-14
Subject:              Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda), AT-510
Date Issued:    November 8, 1996
File:           BC96-377
Question (1): Under the provisions of AT-510 in Section VIII, Division 2 for calibrating test gages, is the
requirement for testing every 6 months satisfied if the calibration is done in a fixed month with 6 month
intervals, which would then be repeated every year?

Reply (1):      Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-15
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-1-95-131.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-95-16
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda), AS-120 and AS-130
Date Issued:    March 4, 1997
File:           BC96-537

Question (1): In complying with the provisions of AS-120 in Section VIII, Division 2, does the code
prohibit the required markings to be stamped directly on the pressure part?

Reply (1):      No.

Question (2): May required markings be stamped directly on portions of a completed vessel other than that
permitted by the provisions of AS-130?

Reply (2):      No.



Interpretation:          VIII-2-95-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1995 Addenda), the cover page of interpretations
                volumes and page iii of Each Section of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
Date Issued:    April 9, 1996
File:           BC96-134

Question:        The cover page of interpretations volumes and page iii in each section of the code state,
"Interpretations are not part of the Code or Addenda." Do interpretations establish new code rules?

Reply:           No. The quoted statement refers to the publication and distribution service for
interpretations. Interpretations explain or clarify rules in specific editions or addenda of the code.

Note:   This interpretation was inadvertently omitted from Volume 39 of the interpretations.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-01
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), Examination Requirements for
                PWHT Vessels
Date Issued:    December 5, 1997
File:           BC97-264
Question:        In performing required nondestructive examinations for vessels that have been postweld heat
treated (PWHT) under Section VIII, Division 2, except for the specific rules under AF-220, does the code
specify the timing of performing NDE, whether it precedes or follows the PWHT?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), Table AD-150.1 and
                AD-340
Date Issued:    December 5, 1997
File:           BC97-511

Question:      Are the stress intensity k factors in Table AD-150.1 applicable to the allowable compressive
stress computed in AD-340?

Reply:          Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-03
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), Use of SA-553 Type I Plate
                Material
Date Issued:    March 20, 1998
File:           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 -275°F?

Reply:          Yes.

Note: This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-25.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), AM-203.2
Date Issued:    April 24, 1998
File:           BC98-052

Question:        Is the nominal thickness requirement for forgings in AM-203.2 in Section VIII, Division 2
the radial thickness of the thickest part of the forging after machining is complete?

Reply:          Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-05
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), Fig. AD-613.1, Sketch (d) and AM-
                201.4(c)
Date Issued:    May 8, 1998
File:           BC98-051

Question (1): A vessel will be fabricated using welded nozzle attachments that can be radiographed as
shown in Fig. AD-613.1, sketch (d) in Section VIII, Division 2. May the nozzles be machined from a hollow
cylindrical forging, without an integrally forged lip for the weld connection portion of the nozzle to be
welded to the shell?

Reply (1):      Yes.

Question (2): If the reply to Question (1) is yes, do the provisions of AM-201.4(c) require that the test
specimens be taken in transverse direction in relation to the axis of the forging?
Reply (2):       No.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-06
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), AF-223.2(c)(2)
Date Issued:    May 11, 1998
File:           BC98-053

Question:       Does the word opening in AF-223.2(c)(2) of Section VIII, Division 2 refer to the nominal
inside diameter of the nozzle being installed?

Reply:           Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-07
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda), AF-221.2 and AF-222.3
Date Issued:    July 20, 1998
File:           BC98-228

Question:       When fabricating a tube-to-tube butt welded joint in superheater and evaporator coils for
Section VIII, Division 2 construction, is full radiography required?

Reply:           Yes. See AF-221.2 and AF-222.3.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-08
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda), UG-90(c)(1) and AG-303
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 or
she 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 or she has witnessed and verified all operations listed in UG-90(c)(1) and AG-303 of Section VIII,
Divisions 1 and 2, respectively?

Reply (2):       Yes.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-35.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-09
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:           Yes.

Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-41.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-10
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda), Appendix 8, 8-120(b))
Date Issued:    October 9, 1998
File:           BC98-049

Question (1): If an indication is determined to be relevant by the requirements of 8-120(b) in Appendix 8
of Section VIII, Division 2, is it a Code requirement to document the location of this indication?

Reply (1):      No.

Question (2): If an indication due to size is determined not to be relevant in accordance with 8-120(b) of
Appendix 8, may it be excluded from further review when found in grouped or clustered indications?

Reply (2):      Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-11
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda), UCS-67(a)(2) and AM-
                218.2(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-218.2(a)(2)
that welds be exempt from impact testing when they are made with welding consumables classified by
impact tests in the applicable SFA specification at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT?

Reply:          Yes.

Note: This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-52 and was inadvertently omitted from Volume 44 of the
Interpretations.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda), Appendices 10 and 18,
                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 Holder's
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-1-98-66.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-13
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda), AG-120(a)(3)
Date Issued:    June 8, 1999
File:           BC99-275

Question:       In meeting the requirements of AG-120(a)(3) in Section VIII, Division 2, 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-2-98-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda), AM-121(e)
Date Issued:    October 25, 1999
File:           BC99-273

Question:       May Manufacturer exclude a long weld neck flange and joining weld (Category D) from the
scope of Section VIII, Division 2 [i.e., AG-121(e)] if they are properly described on the vessel drawing and
the Manufacturer’s Data Report Form clearly designates that the vessel scope ends at the weld preparation to
this piping component.

Reply:           No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-15
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):       Yes, provided the results are reported in both systems and meet the requirements of both
systems.

Question (2):    May SA-516M be specified on the Manufacturer’s Data Report Forms?

Reply (2):       The Data Reports should report SA-516 Grade 60 followed by SA-516M Grade 415 in
parentheses.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-88.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-16
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 1998 Addenda); UG-90(b)(6) and AI-
101(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 Inspector’s concurrence prior to using what is known as a “preliminary release” of material
to fabrication, when there are problems with the material supplier’s documentation or markings?

Reply:          No. However, “preliminary releases” are at the Manufacturer’s risk, since even concurrence
by the Inspector does not bind him or her to final acceptance and certification of the completed vessel if the
problems are not fully resolved.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-98-92.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-98-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); AM-10l, Certification of Materials
Date Issued:    June 2, 2000
File:           BC00-288
Question:        For a material that was originally manufactured to a specification not permitted by Section
VIII, Division 2, is the vessel Manufacturer permitted to certify that the material complies with an equivalent
specification that is permitted by Division 2?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:                 VIII-2-98-18
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition); AM-311.2, Impact Test Specimen Location
Date Issued:    June 9, 2000
File:           BC98-366

Question:        Is it the intent that the orientation of a Charpy impact specimen for forgings be transverse to
the direction of major work in accordance with AM-311.2 of Section VIII, Division 2, instead of longitudinal
in accordance with Fig. AM-311.2, sketches (c-1) and (c-2)?

Reply:          Yes.

Volume 49 Interpretations

Interpretation:                 VIII-2-01-01
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); AT-202.3(b)
Date Issued:    March 9, 2001
File:           BC01-097

Question:       Paragraph AT-202.3(b) in Section VIII, Division 2 requires weld procedure test plates to be
in the same heat-treated condition as the material to be used in production. Would test pieces for procedure
qualification (PQR) need to undergo all material heat treatments per the material specification in Section II,
Part A?

Reply:           Yes. As stated in AT-200(b), the PQR test plate must have been subjected to the same boat
treatments as the actual material used in production; this includes heat treatments required by the material
specification, as well as any additional heat treatments applied during fabrication.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); AS-320(a)
Date Issued:    March 9, 2001
File:           BC01-102

Question:        In complying with the requirements of AS-320(a) of Section VIII, Division 2, do RT and UT
reports require retention by the Manufacturer subsequent to the completion of the Manufacturer’s Data
Report Form?

Reply:          No.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-03
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda); AT-200(b) and AT-202.3(b)
Date Issued:    March 9, 2001
File:           BC01- 190

Question (1): May a welding procedure specification, qualified on test coupons that have been water
quenched in lieu of normalizing, tempered (air cooled), and impact tested, be utilized on base material that
has been normalized (air cooled) and tempered (air cooled), requiring impact testing?

Reply (1):      No.

Question (2):   May the same welding procedure specification be utilized on base material that has been
water quenched and tempered (water quenched), requiring impact testing?

Reply (2):      No


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition. 2000 Addenda); Appendix 3, 3-320 and Appendix 4,
4-140
Date Issued:    April 10, 2001
File:           BC01- 195

Question:         Paragraph 4-140 of Appendix 4 in Section VIII, Division 2 specifies that the allowable stress
intensity for bolting material be obtained from Table 4 of Section II, Part D. Paragraph 3-320 of Appendix 3
specifies that the allowable stress for bolting be taken from Table 3 of Section II, Part D. Is Table 4 of
Section II, Part D allowed to he used to obtain the allowable stress intensity for bolting only when a detailed
stress analysis, in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 4 (see AD-100), is done for the flange
assembly?

Reply:          Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-05
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); Appendix 4, 4-136.7
Date Issued:    April 10, 2001
File:           BC01-206

Question:        When performing a simplified elastic-plastic analysis in accordance with Appendix 4, 4-
136.7 of Section VIII, Division 2, the range of primary plus secondary stress intensity, excluding thermal
bending stresses, is required to be less than 3Sm. Are the bending stresses at a nozzle-to-shell attachment due
to external loads produced by thermal expansion of a piping system considered to be thermal bending
stresses described in 4-136.7(a)?

Reply:           No. The thermal bending stresses referred Appendix 4, 4-136.7(a) are the bending portion of
the thermal stresses as defined in 4-112(1)(1).


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-06
Subject:                Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); AM-203.2, Ultrasonic
Examination of Hollow Forgings
Date Issued:    June 11, 2001
File:           BC01-217

Question:        Paragraph AM-203.2 of Section VIII, Division 2 references SA-388 of Section V for UT
examination of forgings, and also provides specific examination instructions and acceptance criteria. When
differences exist between SA-388 and AM-203.2 requirements, which Code Section shall take precedence?

Reply:          Section VIII, Division 2.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-07
Subject:                Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); AP-402
Date Issued:    June 13, 2001
File:           BC01-316

Question:       In meeting the requirements of AF-402 in Section VIII, Division 2, is postweld heat
treatment required when welding P-No. 4, Group Nos. 1 or 2 tubes to a tubesheet?

Reply:          Yes.
Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-08
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); UG-22, UG-23(c), Appendix
3-2, 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 I?

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, 4-142 of Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (5)       Yes.

Note:   This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1- 01-70.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-09
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 he
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 starts here

Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-10
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); AG-121.1, Unfired Steam Boilers
Date Issued:    November 15, 2001
File:           BC01-404
Question (1): A heat exchanger in a chemical process plant is used to cool a process gas, resulting in steam
being produced on the shell side of the unit. Per AG-121.1 of Section VIII, Division 2, is this heat exchanger
classified as an unfired steam boiler?

Reply (1):       No.

Question (2): May this heat exchanger and the steam drum immediately following it be constructed and
stamped per the rules of Section VIII, Division 2?

Reply (2):       Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-11
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition); AF-334
Date Issued:    December 20, 2001
File:           BC01 -792

Question:        In meeting the requirements of Section VIII, Division 2, is it permissible for an exposed
section of a tube-to-tubesheet weld to contain an unfused root, if it otherwise meets all the examination
requirements of AF-334?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda); AD-150 and Table AD-l50.1
Date Issued:    December 20, 2001
File:           BC01-822

Question:         When using the load combinations as defined in Table AD-150.1 of Section VIII, Division 2,
shall the stress intensity include the radial stress component due to pressure in combination with the wind
and earthquake conditions?

Reply:           Yes; see Appendix 4, 4-120.


Volume 51

Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-13
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-1-01-111.

Volume 52

Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-14
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition); AG-301 .2
                Date Issued:    December 3, 2002
File:           BC02-3285
Question:      Is it permissible by the rules of Section VIII, Division 2 for the Professional Engineer,
required by AG-301 .2 to certify the User’s Design Specification, to be employed by the user?

Reply:           Yes.

Volume 53 Starts Here

Interpretation:         VIII-2-01 -15
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2001 Edition); UG-99(f), UG-100(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-355 be repaired and hydrostatically retested using a device that seals the part without
requiring a full hydrostatic retest of the vessel?

Reply:           No.

Note:    This Interpretation also appears as VIII-1-01-139.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-16
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (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
1/4 in. (6 mm), in place of the U.S. customary values?

Reply:           No; see p. 464 (SI Units introductory paragraph).

Vol 54 Starts Here

Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-01
Subject:        Section VIII. Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda); AD-900
Date            Issued: October 14, 2003
File:           BC03-l249

Question:       Do the requirements of AD-900 apply to fillet welds or partial penetration welds that are
used only for sealing or locking of closures on a Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessel?

Reply:           Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); AF-810.20(d) and Fig. AF-810.l
Date Issued:    December 18, 2003
File:           BC03- 1646

Question:        In meeting the requirements of AF-810.20(d) of Section VIII, Division 2 when
radiographing a layered section to a layered section (or a layered section to a solid section), is it required to
interpret or evaluate for acceptance a slag inclusion identified to be different from layer wash but falling
within the “Not judged” layer interface zone as shown in Fig. AF-810.1?

Reply:           No.

Vol 55 Starts Here
Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-03
Subject:        Section VIII. Division 2 (2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda); AD-9l2
Date Issued:    March 22, 2004
File:           BC04-271

Question:        A vessel head, which is attached to a cylindrical shell of the same thickness, may have a
short cylindrical section beyond the tangent line of the head. In order to comply with the requirements of
AD-912(a) of Section VIII, Division 2 for determining the distance from a lightly loaded attachment to a
gross structural discontinuity, shall the distance limitation he taken from the attachment to the tangent line of
the head and not from the attachment to the head-to-shell weld junction?

Reply:            Yes.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-04
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; U-l(c)(2)(c) and AG-121(e), Pulp Refiners
Date Issued:    April 7, 2004
File:           BC03- 1277

Question:        Is a pressurized pulp refiner exempt from the scope of Section VIII, Division I 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)(1) and footnote 1 to AG-100.

Note:    This interpretation also appears as VIII-1-04-33.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-05
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); AF-815.1
Date Issued:    May 28, 2004
File:           BC04-060

Question:         During construction of a layered vessel, gaps are found between layers that do not meet the
requirements of AF-815(d) of Section VIII, Division 2. In applying the alternative rules of AF-815.l, the
circumference at the midpoint of each shell course is measured at zero pressure and also at design pressure
following the application of hydrostatic test pressure, to determine the difference in measurements at each
location. Is the average middle circumferential expansion, em determined by averaging the difference in
measurements from each individual shell course, as opposed to averaging the circumferential measurements
themselves?

Reply:            Yes.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-06

Subject:          Section VIII. Division 2 (2001 Edition. 2002 Addenda); Appendix 4, 4-136.7(a)
Date Issued:      June 16. 2004
File:             BC03-773

Question:       When performing a simplified elastic-plastic analysis in accordance with Appendix 4, 4-
136.7 of Section VIII, Division 2, the range of primary plus secondary stress intensity, excluding thermal
bending stresses, is required to he less than or equal to SPS. Does the term “thermal bending stress” include
the bending stress that results from the restraint of differential thermal expansion between adjacent parts,
such as that which occurs at a nozzle-to-shell or shell-to-tubesheet connection when the components are at a
different temperature or have different coefficients of thermal expansion?

Reply:            Yes.
NOTE: Upon reconsideration, Interpretation VIII-2-04-06 has been rescinded by the SCVIII
committee.

Vol 56 Starts Here


Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-07

Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition. 2003 Addenda); AD-151.1, Upper Limit of
Hydrostatic Test Pressure
Date Issued:    January 14, 2005
File:           BC04-1553

Question:       Do the hydrostatic test allowable stress intensity limits of AD-151.1 of Section VIII,
Division 2 apply to stainless steel material even if the design allowable stress intensity is based on 0.9 of the
specified minimum yield strength?

Reply:            Yes.

Vol 56 2006 Addenda Starts Here

Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-07
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); AD-151.1, Upper Limit of
Hydrostatic Test Pressure
Date Issued:    January 14, 2005
File:           BC04-1553

Question:        Do the hydrostatic test allowable stress intensity limits of AD-151.1 of Section VIII,
Division 2 apply to stainless steel material even if the design allowable stress intensity is based on 0.9
of the specified minimum yield strength?
Reply:            Yes.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-08
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); AS-100, Required Marking
for External Pressure
Date Issued:    July 26, 2005
File:           BC03-1819

Question (1): Is it required by the rules of Section VIII, Division 2 that the external design 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 design pressure, this value be entered in the Manufacturer's Data Report Forms A-1 and A-2?
Reply (2):        Yes.
Question (3): If a Manufacturer chooses to indicate an external pressure rating of "Full Vacuum"
on a Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessel, is it the intent to allow the use of the abbreviation
"FV"?
Reply (3): Yes.


Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-09
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2004 Edition); Appendix 4, 4-134
Date Issued:    July 26, 2005
File:           BC05-678

Question:        When the design by analysis rules of Appendix 4 are used for a Section VIII, Division 2
vessel, does the primary plus secondary stress intensity range limit specified in 4-134 have to be satisfied
if AD-160 exempts the vessel from a detailed fatigue analysis?
Reply:          Yes.

Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-10
Subject:          Section VIII, Division 2 (2004 Edition); Appendix 4, Table 4-120.1
Date Issued:      August 17, 2005
File:             BC05-680
Question:        For an opening in a Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessel, is the
membrane plus bending stress intensity across the vessel wall due to pressure and external
load categorized as "primary plus secondary" regardless of the relative size of the opening
to the vessel shell?
Reply: Yes.

Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-11
Subject:         Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); Use of EN-473 for
Certification of NDE Examiners
Date Issued:     November 18, 2005
File:            BC03-1819
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) the Manufacturer has a written practice describing the use of EN-473 knowledge
examinations and skills demonstrations to meet the guidelines of SNT-TC-1A (current
Code-accepted edition)
  (b) the training, experience, and demonstration requirements of the written practice meet
the guidelines of SNT-TC-1A
  (c) the Manufacturer retains written certification of NDE personnel to be compliant with
the guidelines of SNT-TC-1A

Interpretation:          VIII-2-04-12

Subject:          Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); AD-100(c)
Date Issued:      June 15, 2006
File:             BC04-650

Question 1:     Do the provisions of AD-100(c) permit the Designer to use stress analysis
instead of any of the provisions in Articles D-1 and D-4?

Reply 1:          No, except as provided for in AD-101 and AD-420.

Question 2:      Do the provisions of AD-100(c) permit the Designer to use stress analysis in
accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 and 5 in lieu of the rules in AD-210 for
transition sections?

Reply 2:          Yes.

Question 3:     Do the provisions of AD-100(c) permit the Designer to use stress analysis in
accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 and 5 in lieu of the rules in Article D-5 for
nozzles and other connections?

Reply 3:          Yes.
Question 4:     Do the provisions of AD-100(c) permit the Designer to use stress analysis in
accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 and 5 in lieu of the rules in Article D-7 for flat
heads, bolted and studded connections?

Reply 4:        Yes.

Question 5:    Do the provisions of AD-100(c) permit the Designer to use stress analysis in
accordance with the requirements of Appendix 4 and 5 in lieu of rules in Article D-8, D-9 or D-
10?

Reply 5:        No, except for AD-911, AD-912 & AD-940.


Volume 58 Starts Here

Interpretation:         VIII-2-01-17
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition), AF-110
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-1-01-157.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-04-12
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda), AM-211, Fig. AM-211
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-2-07-01
Subject:        Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda), AG-121
Date Issued:    February 6, 2007
File: 06-1272
Question: Is it prohibited by the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 or 2 for a vessel to be
constructed to the rules of either Division 1 or 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-1-07-19.


Interpretation:         VIII-2-07-02
Subject:        Section VIII, Division 2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda), AD-160
Date Issued:    June 21, 2007
File: 07-1016

Question:       If the expected range of operating pressure variations does not exceed 20% of
the design pressure when using AD-160.2 and 15% of the design pressure when using AD-160.3,
may these pressure cycles be neglected when evaluating the exemption from fatigue analysis
even though the number of cycles may be much greater than 106?

Reply:           Yes.

Section VIII-2 – Interpretations Vol. 58 (July 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007)

Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-03
Subject:      Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; 1.2.5 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.


Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-04
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2; AS-120 Partial Data Reports
Date Issued:     August 23, 2007
File:            07-170

Question:       Is it required by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 2, AS-310, for a
Parts Manufacturer, providing a pressure vessel part for a Manufacturer of the completed
vessel, to indicate the Design Pressure and Design Temperature on the Manufacturer’s
Partial Data Report, Form A-2, when the Parts Manufacturer has not performed any
design work on the part?
Reply:         No.

Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-05
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2, 2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda; AD-160.2, AG-
301.1(a)
Date Issued:   December 3, 2007
File:          07-1881

Question (1): When applying the provisions of AD-160.2 Condition A, is there a
temperature limit (similar to the temperature limit given on the fatigue curves that are
used in AD-160.2 Condition B) provided that the design temperature does not exceed the
maximum temperature allowed for the material in Tables 2A or 2B of Section II Part D?

Reply (1):     No.

Question (2): The User Design Specification for a vessel specifies that a fatigue analysis
shall be performed. Some of the cycles required to be considered occur at an operating
temperature exceeding the maximum temperature allowed by the fatigue curves of
Appendix 5. If a fatigue evaluation is performed using the rules of Section III, Part NH,
may this vessel be “U2” stamped?

Reply (2):     No.


Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-06
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2 (2004Edition, 2006Addenda) Appendix 3,
Reverse Type Flanges
Date Issued:   December 12, 2007
File:          04-462

Question:       Since Appendix 3 of Section VIII, Division 2 does not have requirements
for reverse flanges, are reverse flanges allowed for a vessel manufactured to Division 2?

Reply:         Yes, see 3-400.

Volume 59 Starts Here

Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-07
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2, 1.2.4.2
Date Issued: February 15, 2008
File:         07-1263
Question:        Paragraph 1.2.4.2 provides the definition of classes of vessels not
considered to be within the scope of Section VIII, Division 2. Is it required to apply the
ASME Code symbol [U-2] to equipment that is not listed in the scope exemptions or only
partially satisfies the provisions of 1.2.4.2 for a specific item?

Reply:           See 1.2.4.1. 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-1-07-43 and VIII-3-07-04.

Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-08
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2 (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda), AD-204 and AF-
105.1
Date Issued: June 2, 2008
File:         08-773

Question:      After forming, a head is found to have a minimum thickness less than that
required by AD-204. If the actual thickness of the formed head is equal to or greater than
the thickness permitted by the undertolerance provisions allowed by AF-105.1, may the
head be used at the full design pressure corresponding to the calculated minimum
required thickness in AD-204?

Reply:         Yes.


Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-09
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2, Annexes 2.A and 2.B
Date Issued: September 30, 2008
File:         08-778

Question (1): Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 2, Part 2, Annex A,
for a person who performs engineering in a manner permitted by the jurisdictional
authorities who govern his engineering practice, to certify a User's Design Specification
even if the person is not a Registered Professional Engineer in the U.S. or Canada?

Reply (1):     Yes, provided the requirements of 2.A.2 have been met.

Question (2): Is it permitted by the rules of Section VIII, Division 2, Part 2, Annex B, for
a person who performs engineering in a manner permitted by the jurisdictional authorities
who govern his engineering practice, to certify a Manufacturer's Design Report even if
the person is not a Registered Professional Engineer in the U.S. or Canada?

Reply (2):    Yes, provided the requirements of 2.B.2 have been met.

Question (3): Is it prohibited by the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 2,
Annex B for an engineer as described in Question (2) to certify a Manufacturer's Design
Report for a Certificate Holder operating in the U.S. or Canada?

Reply (3):    No.


Interpretation:      VIII-2-07-10
Subject:      Section VIII, Division 2, AM-101 and 3.2.6.1; Material Certification
Date Issued: December 1, 2008
File:         07-1955

Question:     Does an EN 10204 3.2 Certificate satisfy the material certification
requirements of AM-101?

Reply: Yes, provided the provisions of AM-101 are met.