ASME Sec VIII, Interpretation VIII-1-04-15

[arcer]

Did anyone happen to notice the interpretation referenced above? It seemed a bit strange in that I've always been under the impression that you couldn't jump more than one level of joint efficiency in adjoining welds. The way I see the case referenced in the interpretation, a Cat A with an E of 1 could intersect a Cat B with an E of .7.

 

[metengr]

arcer;
I looked up interpretation VIII-1-04-15 (file BC03-1295) and did not find this information. According to my files, this interpretation deals with UG-46, Inspection Opening requirement for a vessel.

VIII-1-04-14 (file BC03-1657)is the one of interest. Yes.

 

[arcer]

Correct. My apologies. This was of interest to me because I've had many a discussion with our AI and others, including AI supervisors, as to how the rules for radiographing vessels should be applied, and found that the number of differing opinions, is only limited, to the number of people asked. I'd be interested in your thoughts metengr, as well as those any others may have.

 

[JoeTank]

arcer,
I have never seen anything in ASME VIII that would suggest that "you couldn't jump more than one level of joint efficiency in adjoining welds". Nor have I had colleagues or AIs suggest that fact. I think you may have inherited a Code legend.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[metengr]

arcer;
I was always under the impression in reading UW- 11 a)5 b) and UW-12 that one could move from column a to c for joint efficiency factors. The last sentence in UW-11 a)5 b) is key however, and indicates that spot RT of the weld intersection does not satisfy spot radiography examination requirements for the remainder of the weld. Thus you could have a Cat A Type 1 weld, E=1 intersect a Cat B weld having a joint efficiency factor of 0.7 (no RT) despite the spot RT of the weld intersection.