How Does One Find Out Whether An Interpretation Is Still Valid Or Not?

[ethan18]

I wonder if someone else has faced this. When you go through historical interpretations hosted on the ASME interpretations website, how does one know whether it is still valid or not? The question is constantly asked by skeptical customers when an interpretation is presented to them.

I know that the web page (just below the search fields such as edition, keyword, subject, etc.) says that unless an edition number is mentioned on the interpretation, it applies either to the latest edition or the edition applicable at the time of issuing it. What does that even mean?

My understanding, having gone through a good number of interpretations, is this:

1. Not all historical interpretations appear on the site; some serial numbers are missing. ASME publishes only the interpretations which are currently valid, on the website (the website apparently came into being only in 2013, prior to which there were only hard copies of code publications). Those that have already been published, but have become invalid consequent to a recent change in code, are removed periodically. (They do not do this work with much sincerity however, because there are many interpretations that are clearly wrong, according to the current edition.) This is of course only my hunch. I welcome anyone to confirm or deny this.

2. There is no other way anyone can tell otherwise whether or not an interpretation is valid according to the latest edition or not. If someone knows a way, would love to hear it. Because once an interpretation has been understood to be clearly not correct, the entire credibility of having interpretations as a tool to dispel doubts of customers, goes out of the window.

Apologies for long post, regards
PS: I can cite a couple of examples of interpretations that I think are wrong.
PS2: I have used the terms 'invalid' and 'wrong' interchangeably.

 

[LittleInch]

Post length is fine.

Some examples would be very useful.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[ethan18]

Hello, thanks for replying. Here is an example, following qs was asked in IX-81-38:

Question: A test coupon is prepared as follows: A 1 in. thick plate has an 1/8 in. step machined from its top. A plate 1/8 in. thick is placed into the section of the 1 in. thick plate that has been machined and is then butted to the unmachined portion. This forms a dissimilar thickness joint, which is welded using the GTAW process. The coupon then satisfactorily passes the qualification testing. Would the joint described above qualify for a base metal thickness range of 1/16 in. to 2 in. and deposited weld metal thickness range of 1/16 in. to 1/4 in.?
Reply: Yes.

Reading the question, the test coupon looks like the figure i have shown in the attached file (or very close to it).

Now, the procedure qualification shown in figure would support a WPS with base metal thickness range of 1/16 in. (1.5 mm) to 1/4 in. (6 mm) on one side welded to 5/16 in. (5 mm) to 2 in. (50 mm) on the other side, not 1/16 in. (1.5 mm) to 2 in. (50 mm)?

There are several other interpretations, issued before and after 1981 (year of issue of above interpretation), which give off this manner of reckoning that i just described. From i think 2021 onwards, QW-202 has introduced a line that confirms it unambiguously.

The reply given by ASME in the above interpretation IX-81-38, therefore, in my opinion, is wrong.

 

[ethan18]

Here is another example. Following qs was asked in interpretation IX-89-47:

Question: When preparing welder or welding operator qualification records for the SMAW process, is it required that deposited weld metal thickness with F-No. 3 and F-No. 4 electrodes be recorded separately, i.e., F-No. 3 = 0.125 in.; F-No. 4 = 0.750 in.? The process is the same.
Reply: No.

Now, thicknesses deposited with different essential variables have to be counted as different qualifications. F-No. is an essential variable. A welder qualified with F-No. 3 cannot weld with F-No. 4. But the above interpretation says that thicknesses deposited with F-No. 3 & 4 need not be recorded separately (and therefore by implication entire thickness can be considered as part of one qualification).

This is not consistent with the present day edition of Section IX. Which is what made me ask the original question. Maybe this understanding was valid in 1981; we have no way of verifying this, because 1981 edition is not exactly lying around. I hope you get my point.

 

[ethan18]

I have come across several interpretations which i believe have been wrongly answered. These two are the ones i could come up with, presently.

 

[DekDee]

Ethan,
Not sure what the issue is - interpretations become code changes all the time.
Obviously the interpretation cannot be current if a later edition of the code says something completely different.
At the time of writing (1989) the interpretation was correct (measurement of different processes only)- it seems it was changed in the 1990 or 1993 editions to include F-numbers.
Have a look at this website - specifically the "Summary of Changes to ASME IX". It goes back to 1990 and will answer most of your questions.

https://www.sperkoengineering.com/html/asme.htm

 

[ethan18]

DekDee
I am familiar with Walter Sperko. His articles are a goldmine.

The problem is that interpretations are frequently used as a credible tool to establish an understanding, at my workplace. But doubting customers keep going - 'how do i know this interpretation is currently valid or not?'

I find no way to conclusively answer this question, other than mumble that all interpretations hosted on website are valid to current edition if no edition is mentioned on the interpretation (like it says on the homepage of int. website). This has been proven to be false however, as i cited in a couple of examples above.

Would it not be useful to have a way to conclusively answer whether or not an interpretation is currently valid or not? Without knowing this, of what good is an interpretation? Reading interpretations remains only an academic exercise of no practical use, if we don't know whether it is valid or not. One way for ASME would be, according to me, host only those interpretations on website, which are currently valid. That would solve the issue. I hope you get my point.