ASME Code Interpretation

[NRP99]

I have just gone through ASME Sec VIII Div 2 code interpretations and I am curious why code committee uses standard "Yes" or "No" reply to the enquired interpretation. Any background/foreground explanation other than simple Yes/No would enhance the proper understanding of code to the enquirer. At least pointing towards more information is always appreciated.

 

[XL83NL]

Review the introduction of the Code, which states the following:

1 INTRODUCTION
(a) The following information provides guidance to Code users for submitting technical inquiries to the committees.
See Guideline on the Approval of New Materials Under the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code in Section II, Parts C
and D for additional requirements for requests involving adding new materials to the Code. Technical inquiries include
requests for revisions or additions to the Code rules, requests for Code Cases, and requests for Code Interpretations, as
described below.
(1) Code Revisions. Code revisions are considered to accommodate technological developments, address administrative
requirements, incorporate Code Cases, or to clarify Code intent.
(2) Code Cases. Code Cases represent alternatives or additions to existing Code rules. Code Cases are written as a
question and reply, and are usually intended to be incorporated into the Code at a later date. When used, Code Cases
prescribe mandatory requirements in the same sense as the text of the Code. However, users are cautioned that not
all jurisdictions or owners automatically accept Code Cases. The most common applications for Code Cases are:
(-a) to permit early implementation of an approved Code revision based on an urgent need
(-b) to permit the use of a new material for Code construction
(-c) to gain experience with new materials or alternative rules prior to incorporation directly into the Code
(3) Code Interpretations. Code Interpretations provide clarification of the meaning of existing rules in the Code, and
are also presented in question and reply format. Interpretations do not introduce new requirements. In cases where
existing Code text does not fully convey the meaning that was intended, and revision of the rules is required to support
an interpretation, an Intent Interpretation will be issued and the Code will be revised.
(b) The Code rules, Code Cases, and Code Interpretations established by the committees are not to be considered as
approving, recommending, certifying, or endorsing any proprietary or specific design, or as limiting in any way the freedom
of manufacturers, constructors, or owners to choose any method of design or any form of construction that conforms
to the Code rules.
(c) Inquiries that do not comply with these provisions or that do not provide sufficient information for a committee’s
full understanding may result in the request being returned to the inquirer with no action.

2 INQUIRY FORMAT
Submittals to a committee shall include:
(a) Purpose. Specify one of the following:
(1) revision of present Code rules
(2) new or additional Code rules
(3) Code Case
(4) Code Interpretation
(b) Background. Provide the information needed for the committee’s understanding of the inquiry, being sure to include
reference to the applicable Code Section, Division, edition, addenda (if applicable), paragraphs, figures, and tables.
Preferably, provide a copy of the specific referenced portions of the Code.
(c) Presentations. The inquirer may desire or be asked to attend a meeting of the committee to make a formal presentation
or to answer questions from the committee members with regard to the inquiry. Attendance at a committee meeting
shall be at the expense of the inquirer. The inquirer’s attendance or lack of attendance at a meeting shall not be a
basis for acceptance or rejection of the inquiry by the committee.

.....

5 CODE INTERPRETATIONS
(a) Requests for Code Interpretations shall provide the following:
(1) Inquiry. Provide a condensed and precise question, omitting superfluous background information and, when
possible, composed in such a way that a “yes” or a “no” Reply, with brief provisos if needed, is acceptable. The question
should be technically and editorially correct.
(2) Reply. Provide a proposed Reply that will clearly and concisely answer the Inquiry question. Preferably, the Reply
should be “yes” or “no,” with brief provisos if needed.
(3) Background Information. Provide any background information that will assist the committee in understanding
the proposed Inquiry and Reply.
(b) Requests for Code Interpretations must be limited to an interpretation of a particular requirement in the Code or a
Code Case. The committee cannot consider consulting type requests such as the following:
(1) a review of calculations, design drawings, welding qualifications, or descriptions of equipment or parts to determine
compliance with Code requirements;
(2) a request for assistance in performing any Code-prescribed functions relating to, but not limited to, material
selection, designs, calculations, fabrication, inspection, pressure testing, or installation;
(3) a request seeking the rationale for Code requirements.

Your answer lies in 5(b).

 

[metengr]

Perhaps it has always been formatted this way considering the Code Committee has served the user community for 100 Years.

 

[jte]

Actually if you read some of the early (and by that i mean ~1980's) interps they sometime add much more than the simple "yes" or "no" replies. But many times a request for interpretation comes in and the committee will wordsmith it to fine tune their reply.

 

[NRP99]

OK. Thank you XL83NL, metengr and jte for your reply.