Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asme Q A
Asme Q A
File: BC-80-621
Answer: Yes, you have interpreted the rules of UCS-66(a) correctly. When you go into Figure
UCS-66, you use the so-called "GOVERNING" thickness for each material on either side of the
joint. Therefore, for your example since UCS-66(a) says to use the thinner of the two
components in a corner joint, the governing thickness would be 2". You would then go to Curve
B at 2" to assign an MDMT for the flange, and to Curve D at 2" to assign an MDMT for the
shell.
This part of the process is described in Fig UCS-66.2, Step 2 and Note (5).
These 2 values of "raw" MDMT could then each be further modified by UCS-66(b) using the
coincident ratio defined in Fig. UCS-66.1 when the ratio is less than one.
84. - Rods and Bars used as nozzles in VIII Div 1 vessels?
Question: My AI says I cannot machine rod or bar to use as nozzles in my Section VIII Div 1
vessel! Why not?
Answer: Your AI is correct, however there is a Code Cases (2148) that may allow it with some
restrictions. If you look at UG-14 in VIII Div1 you will note the restrictions on the use of rod
and bar and you will see that nozzles are not mentioned as one of the permitted applications.
The purpose of the "rod and bar" Code Case is the perceived anisotropic properties (the worst
case being laminations) of these product forms - that the properties are not the same in all 3
directions. Therefore, if a rod or bar is loaded other than along its axis, it may experience a
premature failure. This case is exemplified by a rod that is bored out and exposed to internal
pressure such that the hoop stress is not oriented along the axis of the bar.
Side note: Other rod and bar Code Cases of interest (2155 - heads, 2156 shells)
85. VIII Div 1 vessel hydrostatically tested in the vertical position
Background: An ASME VIII Div 1 fabricator is building small "UM" heat exchangers in which
the tube side is made up of a coiled tube that penetrated the shell side shell wall with an inlet and
outlet coupling. This coiled tube is less than 6 in. in diameter and contains water at 150 psi at
150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Question:
What about note 39 of Appendix W? This note states that if a vessel is hydrostatic tested in a
vertical position this must be stated in the remarks section of the Data Report. The customer was
asking why the Code required this? What is the purpose was for remarking on the Data Report if
a vessel is hydrostatically tested in the vertical position? . What is the rationale behind this? If
one were constructing a 200 ft. tower this might be information that would be of value to the end
user. But the situation with this customer is that he builds a small vessel only 13 in. tall that
does get tested in the vertical position. It does seem bizarre to have to state on the Data Report
that such a small vessel was tested in the vertical position!
Answer:
You cite a perfect example of when a generic rule makes no practical sense at all, a situation
when the nonmandatory generic guideline obviously has no structural significance and should,
with the AI's agreement, be ignored. However, there are cases when the exception to the normal
horizontal-position shop hydrotest is practical and is desirable for structural reasons, and of
course for field assembly/construction situations it is necessary. In those situations, the fact that a
vertical hydrotest test was conducted can be very useful information, information that could
prevent a dumb mistake during future( post construction ) situations. Accordingly, I think the
guideline should stay. Besides, it probably prevents us from having to develop a guideline as to
when the effects of a hydrotest head should be, and need not be, considered, a virtually
impossible task. For applications involving very tall vessels it is important for the end user to
know whether not such a vessel is tested in the vertical position. This is the problem with
writing a generic rule to cover everything from pressure cookers to 200' long towers.
86. VIII Div 1 vessel Code boundary
Question: A customer called looking for information regarding whether not the seal weld used to
attach a threaded plug to a coupling in a pressure vessel would be considered a Code weld?
Answer: The ASME Section VIII, Division 1 Code defines the pressure vessel boundary in the
Introduction chapter, paragraph U-1(e). The purpose of this paragraph is to define the Code
boundary for the vessel when it is stamped and certified by the Manufacturer. The general rules
of thumb are as follows:
Nozzles, couplings, necks, etc. and their attachment welds to the vessel are always
considered part of the Code Vessel.
When a nozzle or a coupling is connected to piping, the Code boundary ends at the weld
prep of the nozzles or coupling. The weld is not considered part of the Code stamped
vessel unless the vessel manufacturer wanted it to be. He would do this by indicating on
his drawings and on the manufacturer's data report where he intended to end the Vessel
boundary.
In the case of a threaded plug being installed into a coupling and then seal welded, if this
is done during the fabrication of the pressure vessel and prior to certification, then the
threaded plug and weld are considered part of the Coded vessel. However, if the vessel is
stamped and certified without the threaded plug installed, and this plug and seal weld are
installed in the field, then the plug and seal weld come under the jurisdiction of the
applicable piping Code such as B31.3.
In either case the seal weld would be considered a Code weld in as much as the weld
procedure and welder should be qualified to Section IX since both Section VIII and the
piping Codes use Section IX to control all welding. The one difference is that if the
threaded plug and seal weld were originally considered part of the pressure vessel when it
was first constructed, then the activity of removing and reinstalling a welded plug could
be considered a repair under the NBIC code and thus may involve the services of an NB
Commisoned Inspector.
To summarize all of the above, is the threaded plug seal weld a Code weld? Maybe. Should the
seal welding of the threaded plug to the coupling be carried out with a Section IX qualified
procedure and welder? Yes.
87. VIII Div 1 UW-11(a)(5)(b)
Background: ASME Section VIII Div 1 "U" stamp holder and their Authorized Inspector
disagree on the requirements for spot examination of a Section VIII-1 vessel. The vessel has a 40
inch diameter, single wall, seamless head and 1/2 inch wall thickness for the shell and head.
Total length of Cat A and B welds ~29 ft. All welding performed by one welder.
Question: What is the number of RT spot examinations in order to use: E=1 for the head
thickness calculation; E=.85 for the shell (hoop stress) calculation using type 1 joint?
Answer: A minimum of two 6-inch spot examination would be required: 1 for the quality factor
UW-11(a)(5)(b) and 1 for the weld increment UW-11(b).
Another issue is placement of the spot examination. The Code rules [UW-52(b)(3)] is very clear
that the AI has this prerogative, unless the AI waived his prerogative, only then may the
manufacturer designate the area to be examined.
88. Section I, PG-99, Application of Insulation Prior to Hydrostatic Test
AI is having disagreement (difference of opinion) with a boiler "A" assembler about the
quantity of insulation that is present during hydrostatic test of a boiler. ASME has issued past
interpretations, with the most recent as follows:
"Question: May portions of welded power boilers that do not contain longitudinal welded joints
made with the addition of filler metal be covered with insulation or refractory prior to the
hydrostatic test required by PG-99?
Reply: Yes; however, the Authorized Inspector may require the hydrostatic test pressure to be
maintained at the maximum allowable working pressure for an extended period of time,
sufficient to assure there is no indication of leakage. The Authorized Inspector may also require
the removal of insulation for cause."
Note: The reason for specifying the longitudinal seams is that they are usually the higher stresses
seams and more likely to fail. It is ultimately up to that AI, but if the "A" stamp holder insists on
testing with insulation present on circumferential, nozzle, etc. seams, then a much longer hold
time should be imposed, which is within the AI's right. Make it real long so you will definitely
see a pressure drop if there is a leak. You should see all (or as many as possible) seams if you
are the AI signing the Manufacturer’s Data Report.
89. VIII Div 1 purpose of final pressure test
Question: Our heat exchangers are built to ASME Section VIII, Division 1 Code
requirements and hydrostatically tested to the requirements of UG-99. UG-99
does not state a time to hold the pressure vessel at the test pressure to
check for leaks. Our standard hydrostatic test procedure states that we
will hold the heat exchangers at the required test pressure for 15 minutes
per test to check for any leaks. If a test greater than 15 minutes is
required then after the initial 15 minute period at 1.3 test pressure ratio
we drop the pressure to the maximum allowable working pressure for the
remainder of the test period. Our position is that the 1.3 test pressure ratio is a deformation
check and should not be held for extended periods of time. Can you describe
the intention of UG-99 as far as the time that is required for the pressure
test and the acceptance of our test procedure as described above.
Answer:
The purpose of the final pressure test [hydrostatic or pneumatic] is threefold:
1. It is first and foremost a safety test. It is the final opportunity to verify that there were no
gross errors in design or construction of the pressure vessel.
Although VIII-1 does not specify the length of time that the vessel must be held at the test
pressure, it is common that the vessel be maintained at the full test pressure for a least 10
minutes in order to allow the material to reach an equilibrium state, and to be able to determine if
there is going to be any gross deformation.
2. It is a leak test for the purpose of verifying no leakage through any pressure boundary welds
or any permanent gasketed joints. This inspection takes place with the vessel at a lower pressure
equal to the test pressure divided by the pressure test factor [1.3 for hydrostatic test, 1.1 for
pneumatic.
3. Finally by subjecting the vessel to a pressure equal to 1.3 times the MAWP, a small amount of
stress relief occurs as well as some crack blunting. There have been numerous studies conducted
which demonstrated the quantifiable benefits from subjecting a vessel to a pressure higher than
its original design pressure for a short period time.
In conclusion, for the purposes of conducting a final pressure test, holding the vessel at its test
pressure for a period longer than 10 to 15 minutes adds no further value to the process. But at
the same time considering the large design margin built into VIII-1, holding a vessel at the test
pressure for a period of time longer than 10 to 15 minutes should have no detrimental effect for
most pressure vessels.
90. VIII Div 1 impact test requirements for UG-11 manway assemblies.
Question is in reference to a prefabricated manhole ring for an elliptical manhole. This ring is
furnished to the vessel manufacturer with a cover as a completed item, per UG-11, for
installation in a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel. The standard ring is formed from SA-675 Gr 70
3/4" x 4" bar material and the ring is welded and stress relieved prior to machining.
This material appears to be a curve-A material and would require impact testing, based on the
3/4" thickness, for the standard -20 deg.F MDMT as a component.
The ring would be welded to a 1/2" plate SA-516 Gr 70 shell and the shell would govern under
UCS-66(a)(1)(b) for impact testing exemption.
1) Would the SA-675 bar require impact testing?
2) Should this ring be fabricated from SA-516 Gr 70 and be exempted under UG-20(f)?
Answer:
You said that this is a prefabricated manway ring under UG-11. So, per Figure UCS-66, Note
(b)(4) it is Curve B. Also per UG-11 the parts would be supplied with pressure-temperature
ratings [UG-11(c)(2) and UG-11(a)(1)] which probably say that it is good for -20F.
The manufacturer of the rings most likely takes the value from Figure UCS-66 and then reduces
it by 30F per UCS-68(c) because their PWHT is not required by Code but they do it anyway.
If you manufactured the rings yourself out of SA-675, they would have to be impact tested.
91. B31 Socket Weld Fitting Fit-Up Gap
Question : What is the rationale for mandating that a 1/16th inch gap be maintained when
welding socket welded fittings to pipe per B31?
Answer: The purpose of the gap between the end of the pipe and the bottom of the socket weld
fitting during fit-up is to ensure that any differential thermal expansion between the pipe and
fitting will not place additional stress on the fillet weld. See following B31 interpretations on this
subject, all of which state that the gap must exist during fit-up, but it need not be measured after
welding.
Interpretation: (B31.1) 19-5
Subject: B31.1, 127.3.3(A), Gap Requirements for Socket Welds
Date Issued: April 5, 1991
File: B31-91-002
Question (1): Does Para. 127.3.3(A) require that the approximately 1/16 in.
gap required during fitup exist after welding is completed?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): Does ASME B31.1 require an examination, radiographic or
otherwise, to verify that the fitup gap required by Para. 127.3..3(A) exists in
the completed weld?
Reply (2): No.
Interpretation: (B31.3) 10-19
Subject: ANSI/ASME B31.3-1984 Edition, Para. 327.4.2, Fillet and Socket Welds
Date Issued: December 2, 1991
File: B31-91-039
Question: Are socket weld joints with intimate contact before welding (i.e.,
zero gap) between the end of the pipe and the bottom of the socket weld
fitting prohibited by the Code?
Reply: Yes.
Interpretation: (B31.3) 16-06
Subject: ASME B31.3-1996 Edition, Para. 328.5.2, Welding Requirements - Fillet
and Socket Welds
Date Issued: May 20, 1997
File: B31-96-058B
Question: In accordance with ASME B31.3-1996 Edition, para. 328.5.2 and
Fig. 328.5.2c, what is the minimum gap acceptable in a socket-welded joint
after welding?
Reply: The 1/16 in. approximate gap shown in Fig. 328.5.2c is "before
welding." The Code does not provide a gap dimension after welding.
92. Question: Where in the ASME Code are international materials listed?
Answer: International materials are treated essentially no different than ASTM materials. (see
Forward to the ASME Construction and Reference Codes ...." Revisions to material
specifications are originated by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and
other recognized national or international organizations and are usually adopted by ASME."
The materials that ASME has accepted thus far are listed in:
Section II, Part A on pages xxxvii and 1473-1475, Section II,
Section II Part D on page 6 (lines 7 & 25), page 10 (lines 35 & 36), and page 14 (line 12 &13),
Section I PG-6 (page 6, SA/EN-10028-2),
Section IV Table HF-300.1 Note (19),
Section VIII, Division 1 UCS-6(b) page 177 (SA/CSA-G40.21 38W) and Table UCS-23 page
303 (SA/EN 10028-2, 3 and SA/CSA-G40.21 38W) ,
and Section IX QW/QB-422 p. 110.
93. VIII Div 1, UG-10 and identical ASTM material
Question: An ASME VIII Div 1 "U" stamp holder wants to know if they have to issue a
nonconformity (NCR) referencing "UG-10" for materials that are coming in to their shop
certified as "A" (ASTM) and not "SA" (ASME), which was how they were ordered?
Answer: The QC manual should be followed closely as there may or may not be an NCR
required depending upon the how the Manual is written. An NCR would be one way to
document the situation and corrective action taken. For "A" verses "SA" materials, the word
"identical" is the key. UG-4 states that the "SA" and "SB" material for Section VIII, Div. 1
construction are listed in Section II, Part A or B. The Foreword and Appendix A of Section II,
Part A pretty much says that material produced under an ASTM Specification may be used in
lieu of the corresponding ASME Specification as listed in Appendix A. This means IF the
ASTM material specification that is listed on the MTR is identical with the one in Appendix A
(specification year needs to be listed on the MTR to verify this) then there is no need for
"recertification" under UG-10. Recertification really means something was done to verify the
acceptance of the material - besides just scribbling on the MTR or marking an "S" in front of the
"A" on the material.
An additional note: the exceptions that ASME has taken occur in more than 95% of the
materials. Looking at Appendix A they have taken exception to something in a lot of
specifications - mostly corrections that ASTM hasn't gotten around to yet.
94: VIII Div 1 - UW-16(c) - Nozzle attachment welds, full penetration?
Question:
According to UW-16(c), when complete joint penetration cannot be verified by visual inspection
or other means permitted in this Division, backing strips or equivalent shall be used with full
penetration welds deposited from one side. Besides visual inspection and RT, are there other
means permitted by Code to verify full penetration? When it's not possible to verify complete
joint penetration and if GTAW welding is used for root pass of the joint, does it meet Code
requirements, and can the welding groove be made by gas cutting? If neither use of backing strip
or GTAW is used for root passes of the joints, can we accept it through proper fit-up inspection?
Answer:
Besides visual and RT you may be able to use UT. Although, due to the configuration (corner
joint), it is not clear how useful RT and UT will be. There is really not any other method of
verifying complete penetration of this joint. Using a specific welding technique cannot
guarantee complete penetration. Visual inspection, either direct or indirect (e.g. mirror,
boroscope, fiber optics, etc), is the best method of examination to insure complete penetration.
One main reason for the verification of the full penetration joint is that the Code does not want a
crack left on the inside of the vessel. This is a high stress concentration area and an area where
corrosion will begin.
There is nothing in the Code that tells you how to make the weld groove. UW-9(b) states that
"the dimension and shape of the edges shall be such as to permit complete fusion and complete
penetration." UW-31(a) states that "when plates are shaped by oxygen or arc cutting, the edges
to be welded shall be uniform and smooth and shall be freed of all loose scale and slag
accumulations before welding." So the Code does not specify the method of cutting but does
require that the edges be machined so that they provide a clean surface for the welding.
95: Titanium not reported as an unspecified element as required by SA-20 par. 7.1.1.1
Background: The 2002 Addenda to ASME Section II A of SA-20 SPECIFICATION FOR
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEL PLATES FOR PRESSURE VESSELS (referenced
by numerous plate material specifications), Table 1 requires Titanium to be reported on the
Material Test Report.
Question: How can material be accepted if Titanium is not reported as an unspecified element
on the MTR as required by SA-20 par. 7.1.1.1?
Answer: For right now, the only user options are Appendix A of ASME II A and Code Case
2053 (For Materials in Inventory Sections I, IV, and VIII Div 1 and 2). Code Case 2053 must be
noted on the Manufacturer's Data Report. CC 2053 expires 11-28-03.
96: ASME Section I - difference between tube and pipe
Question: May a SA-335 Seamless Ferritic Alloy Steel Pipe for High Temperature Service be used for
boiler tube? This material is listed in PG-9.1.
Answer: There is nothing in Section I that would prohibit the use of a pipe specification
material in a "tubing" application. In most cases, the only real difference (other than the
title of the specification) between "pipe" and "tube" material is the tolerance's that are listed
in the respective specification and PG-9.
As general boiler industry practice, if the primary application for the material is heat transfer
then it is usually considered to be "tubing" and the equation from PG-27.2.1 is used to
calculate the thickness. If the primary purpose is fluid conveyance with relatively little or no
heat transfer function then it is "piping" and the equation in PG-27.2.2 is used. These
paragraphs make no mention of an appropriate material to be used. In fact, both sets of
equations use the same variable, t, for the minimum required thickness. I've attached an
Interpretation that discusses the definition of "piping" and "tubing" that may help. It is
important to note that "pipe" and "tube" are material product forms and "piping" and
"tubing" are applications or functions. note: see below interpretation.
Interpretation: I-86-25
Subject: Section I, PG-27.2, Wall Thickness of Pipe and Tube
Date Issued: June 23, 1986
File: BC95-499
Question: May pressure tests required by PG-99 be conducted using water at a
temperature less than 70oF?
Reply: No.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------