ASME SECTION II, PART A INTERPRETATIONS

ASME SECTION II, PART A INTERPRETATIONS NOTE: THESE INTERPRETATIONS ARE FOR ASME COMMITTEE USE ONLY. THEY ARE NOT TO BE DUPLICATED OR USED FOR OTHER THAN ASME COMMITTEE BUSINESS. THERE MAY BE SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THIS DOCUMENT. PLEASE REVIEW THE ACTUAL PUBLISHED INTERPRETATION FOR THE EXACT WORDING.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 1 NOTE: The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part B: II-77-06

The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part C: II-77-05 II-77-07 II-77-08

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 1 Interpretation:

II-77-01

Subject:

Section II, Part A, ASTM A 519, Grade 1026

Date Issued:

January 18, 1977

File:

NA

Question: vessel?

May ASTM A 519, Grade 1026 material be used in a Code approved

Reply: Material should be produced and documented to an ASME specification. Material produced under an ASTM specification may be designated as complying with a corresponding ASME specification providing the ASME specification is shown to be identical with the ASTM specification for the grade, class, or type produced and providing the material is confirmed as complying with the ASTM specification by material test report or certification of compliance from the material manufacturer. Since ASTM A 519 material does not comply with the above requirements it cannot be used in Code construction.


II-77-02

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-479, Paragraph 6.1.1, Use of Cold Working

Date Issued:

January 18, 1977

File:

NA

Question: With reference to paragraph 6.1.1 of SA-479, is some cold work permissible after solution annealing for austenitic stainless steels, except for specifically strain hardened type? Reply: Some cold work such as straightening or final sizing, not extensive in nature, is permissible on austenitic stainless steel after solution annealing as outlined in paragraph 6.1.1 of SA-479 to permit the material to meet the tolerance requirements of A 484, “General Requirements for Stainless and Head Resisting Wrought Steel Products,” which is the general specification applicable to SA-479.


II-77-03

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, Paragraph 4.4, Use of Forged Bar Flanges

Date Issued:

January 18, 1977

File:

NA

Question: With reference to paragraph 4.4 of SA-105, are flanges excluded from manufacturing utilizing forged bar? Reply: It is the intent of SA-105, paragraph 4.4, that all flanges are excluded from manufacturing utilizing forged bar. The stresses at the intersections of a flange are too high for the flange to bemanufactured from forged bar. Also the grain flow in a flange is undesirable for this type of manufacturer.


II-77-04

Subject: Section II, Part A, Application of Centrifugally Cast Austenitic Cold Wrought Pipe to Various ASME Pipe Specifications Date Issued:

January 19, 1977

File:

NA

Question: What is the applicability of centrifugally cast austenitic cold wrought pipe to various Code specifications? Reply: Material specifications deemed suitable for inclusion in the ASME Code are adopted from the various ASTM material specification documents. They are either adopted identically or are modified to suit the requirements of the ASME. The material specification Code Book, Section II, is a compilation of the acceptable materials that can be used in Code construction. However, it is up to the various referencing Sections of the ASME Code to accept for inclusion in their Code books the material specification they consider necessary for construction. It is acceptable to use a manufacturing method and adapt it to two different material specifications as long as all the requirements of the specifications are met, and there is a certified documentation of same.


II-77-09

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-564, Impact Requirements

Date Issued:

March 15, 1977

File:

NA 9

Question: What are the requirements for impact testing for age hardened material /16 in. and under in accordance with material specification SA-564? Reply: There are no provisions in the Code for impact testing of age hardened material, such as SA-564, Type 630material, for bar sizes ½ in. and under. For shapes, angles, tees, and channels there are provisions in SA-370 for subsize impact testing when subsize specimen dimensions can be met.


II-77-10

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-240, Type 304, Chemical Certification

Date Issued:

April 27, 1977

File:

BC77-231

Question: Can a material identified as SA-240, Type 304, in a mill test report be acceptable in Code construction when referenced as ASTM A 240-75a, and includes a listing of residual elements? Reply: A mill test report stating the chemical composition of Type 304 material in SA-240 can be accepted assatisfactory for use in ASME CodeConstruction. The ASTM designation referenced on the report does not invalidate the certification since both ASME and ASTM specifications are identical except for the deletion of two grades in SA-240 not accepted by the ASME. The inclusion of residual elements in the mill test report is acceptable since the reporting of such elements is neither required nor prohibited.


II-77-11

Subject: Bolts

Section II, Part A, SA-193, Hardness Requirements for Grade B8, Class 1

Date Issued:

April 29, 1977

File:

NA

Question: Are paragraphs 5.3 and 9.2.3 of SA-193 in conflict concerning the hardness requirements of Grade B8, Class 1 bolts, and can the supplier cold head the material after carbide solution heat treatment? Reply: Paragraphs 5.3 and 9.2.3 of SA-193 are compatible and apply to the manufacture of Grade B8, Class 1 bolts. Cold sizing, or forming operations may be performed on carbide solution heat treated material, as specified in paragraph 5.3 provided all areas of the finished bolt, including the areas affected by the sizing or forming operations meet the maximum hardness specified in paragraph 9.2.3.


II-77-12

Subject: Section II, Part A, Application of “S” or “U” Symbol to Pipe Manufactured to SA-155, SA-358, and SA-671 Date Issued:

May 31, 1977

File:

BC77-223

Question: May the “S” or “U” Code Symbol Stamp be applied to fusion welded pipe manufactured to SA-155, SA-358, and SA-671? Reply: Sections I and VIII do not permit the usage of fusion welded pipe furnished as materials to SA-155, SA-358, or SA-671. The pipe product described in these specifications might be used in Section I or Section VIII construction provided the product was furnished as a part meeting all requirements applicable to a shell fabricated from Code approved plate material including authorized inspection at the point of manufacture and Manufacturer’s Partial DataReport covering each pipe length. Such a fusion welded cylinder would require the “S” Code symbol stamp for Section I usage or the “U” Code symbol stamp for Section VIII usage. The ASME Code does not prohibit such a fusion welded cylinder, when Code symbol stamped and documented with an ASME manufacturer’s Partial Data Report Form, from also being marked with such pipe specification designation as might be appropriate. Such a pipe material specification marking, however, would have no Code significance and might be confusing because Sections I and VIII do not include these specifications (fusion welded pipe with filler metal added) in their lists of acceptable materials.


II-77-13

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-105, Heat Treatment of Valve Bodies Under 4 in.

Date Issued:

July 1, 1977

File:

BC77-339

Question: Is it a mandatory requirement of 5.1 of SA-105 to have forged steel bodies and bonnets heat treated for 1500 psi carbon steel OS&Y welded bonnet socket weld globe valves, 1 in. and 2 in. nominal pipe size? Reply: It is the intent of SA-105, 5.1, to require heat treatment of piping components only if they meet the criteria of being over 4 in. nominal pipe size and over 300 psi primary service pressure rating.


II-77-14

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-278, Casting Thickness

Date Issued:

July 25, 1977

File:

BC77-305

Question: What is the definition of the term Controlling Section on constant and varied casting thickness as referred to in SA-278? Reply: It is the intent of SA-278 that the Designer must define the governing thickness and that, in general, this will be the maximum thickness of the pressure retaining boundary portion of the casting.


II-77-15

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-351, Melting Practice

Date Issued:

August 2, 1977

File:

BC77-336

Question: What is the intent of SA-351 when it references manufacture by the electric furnace process? Reply: It is the intent of the present wording of SA-351 to include both electric arc and electric induction melting and does not preclude vacuum degassing.


II-77-16

Subject: Section II; Use of ASME Material Specifications Relative to Contract Dates of Other Book Sections Date Issued:

September 7, 1977

File:

BC77-418

Question (1): Is it possible to use materials manufactured toan earlier or later Edition or Addenda of Section II than those shown in the Edition or Addenda which apply to a specific contract? Reply (1): The specific requirements concerning the Edition or Addenda of Section II Material Specifications must be reviewed for compliance with that Section (Section I, III, IV, or VIII) referencing the Material Specifications. In general, later Editions or Addenda of Section II Material Specifications are acceptable, providing the purchaser and the Authorized Inspector arein agreement with the use of the later Edition. Earlier Editions of the Material Specifications may be employed, provided the stamp holder certifies that the requirements of the earlier Edition meet or exceed those of the Edition in effect at the date of contract and the Authorized Inspector is satisfied with the certification. Question (2): May SA-234 fittings be made from SA-516 plate? Reply (2): Code Case 1571, approved March 3, 1973, permits the use of SA-516 plate in the production of SA-234 fittings.


II-77-17

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-105 Flanged Parts

Date Issued:

October 25, 1977

File:

BC77-630

Question: SA-105 under 4.4 allows the use of hot rolled or forged bar for the machining of hollow cylindrically shaped parts except flanges. Does this restriction apply to small integrally reinforced flanged nozzles? Reply: It is the intent of SA-105 that it prohibits the machining of any type of flange(s) or flange parts from bar stock.


II-77-18

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-264, 13.1 and 13.1.1, Percentage of Bond

Date Issued:

November 15, 1977

File:

BC77-623

Questions: Is the intent of 13.1 and 13.1.1 of SA-264 that 100% bond is required on the cladding surface, and that the Material Manufacturer must repair unbonded areas by welding? Also, if the area to be repaired exceeds 3%, must approval by thepurchaser be obtained? Replies: It is the intent of SA-264 that 13.1.1 requires a 100% bond between the cladding material and base steel. The Material Manufacturer may repair defects in the cladding by welding if the repaired area will be 3% or less of the cladding surface without prior approval. If the repaired area is to exceed 3% of the cladding surface, prior approval must be obtained from the purchaser for repairs, in accordance with 13 of SA264.


II-77-19

Subject:

Section II, Part A; Use of Explosive Welding in SA-264

Date Issued:

December 26, 1977

File:

BC77-794

Question (1): Can explosive welding be used by a Material Manufacturer to manufacture SA-264 for use as pressure retaining material in a Section VIII, Division 1 pressure vessel? Reply (1): SA-264 does not prohibit the use of explosive welding to produce clad steel as long as all requirements of the Specification are complied with. Welding qualification per Section IX of the ASME Code is not required. Question (2): Is it the intent of the Code to include explosive welding in permissible welding processes of UW-27 of Section VIII, Division 1? Reply (2): It is not the intent of the Code to include explosive welding among the permissible welding processes in UW-27 of Section VIII, Division 1 as this technique is not appropriate for the fabrication of welded joints in a vessel.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 3 NOTE: The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part B: II-78-01 II-78-10

The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part C: II-78-02 II-78-03 II-78-04 II-78-05 II-78-08 II-78-09 II-78-11


II-78-06

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, 4.4, Manufacture

Date Issued:

March 28, 1978

File:

None

Question: May hollow cylindrical shaped parts be machined from hot rolled seamless mechanical tubing, to the requirements of 4.4 of SA-105, provided that the axial length of the part is approximately parallel to the metal flow lines of the stock and the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 are met? Reply: The provisions of 4.4 of SA-105 allow the manufacture of hollow cylindrical parts, except flanges from hot rolled or forged bar (including hollow bar if extruded). There is no allowance for the use of hot rolled mechanical tubing. The Code does not allow hot rolled mechanical tubing to be used since it is not considered acceptable for pressure parts.


II-78-07

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-182, 4.4 and 5.3

Date Issued:

March 28, 1978

File:

BC78-75

Question 1: Can it be inferred from 4.4 of SA-182 that blind slip-on or weld neck flanges may be machined from slices cut from the end of round bar stock without further forging? Reply 1: 4.4 of SA-182 permits machining small cylindrically shaped parts within the limits defined by A 234. A 234 covers fittings which are defined in 1.1 Scope as those covered by ANSI B16.9, B16.11, and B16.28, none of which include flanges. Therefore, the direct machining of small parts permitted by 4.4 of SA-182 does not include flanges and it was specifically the intent of the Committee not to permit flanges to be machined directly from bar. Question 2: If the process is well documented in a manner satisfactory to the purchaser, can austenitic steel forgings for flanges and fittings be quenched immediately after forging (Temperature above 1900 F) or must the forgings be reheated in furnaces to meet the intent of 5.3 of SA-182? Reply 2: It is the intent of SA-182, 5.3 to require that austenitic stainless steel forgings be furnished in the solution annealed condition and that the test required by 9 be run on samples representing the forgings. Since SA-182 does not address itself to the mechanics of the heat treating process, any heat treatment procedure that results in a forging in compliance with the specification is acceptable. This is normally done by reheating stainless steel forgings in a heat treating furnace designed for heat treating which usually provides closer control and more uniformity than obtained in furnace equipment used to heat for forging. However, there is nothing in the specification to prevent heating austenitic stainless steel material to the solution annealing temperature, forging, and water quenching provided controls are adequately instituted and monitored to assure that all the requirements of SA-182 are met. Question 3: Does the use of an ASME, Section II SA Specification on a flange or pipe fitting imply that the item has been warranted for Section III applications? Reply 3: The stamping of an SA Specification number on a flange or pipe fitting only implies that the manufacturer is certifying that the product complies with the Specification. Depending on the specific product, size, and usage, Section III may or may not have additional requirements that must be met including the requirement that the product be manufactured under an acceptable Quality Assurance Program.


II-78-12

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-476

Date Issued:

July 19, 1978

File:

BC78-470

Question: Does the statement in SA-476 which states that the castings are to be used in the as-cast condition for paper mill dryer rolls for up to 450F exclude heat treatment? Reply: It is not the intent of SA-476 to exclude heat treatment meant to assist in the application of the castings, provided that this would not degrade the mechanical properties. A change in the wording of the scope of the specification is currently under active consideration. This would change the words“The castings are to beused in the ascast condition…” to read “the castings are usually used in the as-cast condition for pressure-containing parts in the form of paper mill dryer rolls at temperatures up to 450F.” Thermal stress relieving would be considered as a beneficial heat treatment in this instance.


II-78-13

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Steels to American Standards

Date Issued:

July 25, 1978

File:

BC77-235

Question (1): Can a maximum tensile strength be imposed in SA-333? Reply (1): This question has been considered in the past and the consensus of the materials committee has been that a maximum tensile strength limit is unnecessary. Question (2): Does material with 2.1% Cr and 1% Mo meet the requirements of SA106? Reply (2): No. SA-106 covers carbon steel and the presence of 2.1% Cr and 1% Mo indicate intentional additions to produce alloy steel. Question (3): With respect to SA-420, Grade WPL 6, is it the intent of the Specification to allow carbon steel 85 ksi yield strength and 112 ksi tensile strength to be used at –46C? Reply (3): It is the intent of SA-420 that carbon steel be supplied for Grade WPL 6 and that the chemical and tensile requirements of the applicable specifications listed in Table 1 be met. Since SA-420 permits quenching and tempering, it is possible, but improbable, that fittings made from A 333 and 334, Grade 6 materials could have strength levels such as those setforth in the inquiry. SA-333 and SA-420 do notspeak to the maximum and minimum temperatures at which the various grades may be used. Question (4): Are there unwritten understandings in the United States regarding the maximum tensile strength of SA-420, Grade WPL 6 or SA-333, Grade 6? Reply (4):

No.

Question (5): Are 85 ksi yield strength and 112 ksi tensile strength acceptable variations for SA-420, Grade WPL 6? Reply (5): SA-420 does not impose maximum yield strength and tensile strength limits for Grade WPL 6. Therefore, strength levels such asthose set forth in the inquiry are not prohibited. Question (6): Can a maximum tensile strength be imposed in SA-420?

Reply (6): This question has been considered in the past and the consensus of the materials committee has been that a maximum tensile strength limit is unnecessary.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 4 NOTE: The following Interpretation is for Section II, Part C: II-78-14


II-78-15

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-515 and SA-516 Plates

Date Issued:

August 8, 1978

File:

BC78-465

Question: Do intermediate and moderate temperatures refer to the same range of temperatures, being resultant of overlapped ranges between both plates in which the use of one or the other is only dependent on nontechnical factors such as stocks, availability, and prices? Reply: The titles of SA-515 and SA-516 plates are intended to suggest service temperatures based upon the general properties of the materials. That is to say fine grained steels usually have improved notch toughness and are more suitable for low temperature than coarse grained steels. The intermediate and moderate temperatures could overlap, but the use of the materials does not really depend upon nontechnical factors like stocks, availability, etc. A material could be in service at a moderate temperature; however, if apressure vessel were to be hydrostatically tested at a lower temperature, a fine grained material could be considered as a more suitable material than a coarse grained steel. The range of temperature service for each plate cannot be specifically defined because services are very broad and overlapping is anticipated. The vessel designer or engineer should determine the material required for each specific application based upon service requirements. The materials can only be used for Code construction at temperatures for which allowable stresses are given instress tables. The tables can therefore be used as a guide for additional information.


II-78-16

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Additional Elements in SA-240 TP 316 or TP 316L

Date Issued:

October 6, 1978

File:

BC78-530

Question: Is it permissible to add titanium to SA-240 TP 316 or TP 316L in an amount not exceeding five times the percentage of carbon to act as a stabilizer provided all other chemical and mechanical test requirements are met in Tables 1 and 2? Reply: The intentional addition of elements, for the enhancement of properties, other than those listed in Table 1 of SA-240 is not intended. Titanium stabilized Types 316 and 316L would be considered to be new grades and, as such, would be subject to the Guidelines On The Adoption of New Base Materials as published in Section II.


II-78-17

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-182, Paragraph 4.4

Date Issued:

November 13, 1978

File:

BC78-388

Question: Paragraph 4.4 of SA-182 deals with the forging of products and states that the material shall be forged as close as practical to the specified shape and size. Is the method of manufacture for a valve bonnet which is outlined in the attachment acceptable for forgings made to SA-182? Reply: Yes. Cutting a multiple forging into individual lengths to make components to SA-182 is also acceptable. It should be noted, however, that the use of rolled bar stock is limited by the same rules as those which appear in ASTM A 234.


II-78-18

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-335, Sections 4.1.4 and 9.1

Date Issued:

November 15, 1978

File:

BC78-685

Question: Is it permissible, where SA-335 P-No. 2 seamless pipe is extruded directly from cast ingot, so that no intermediate bloom or billet is utilized, to satisfy the grain size requirements of SA-335, 4.1.4 and 9, by performing the grain size test on a small test ingot (up to 6 in. diameter) teemed from the parent heat and given a suitable hot working reduction to simulate the hot extrusion process prior to performing the test? Reply: It is the Committee’s opinion that the intent of the grain size test requirement in SA-335 for Grade P-No. 2 pipe would be satisfied by the procedure indicated in the question. Alternatively, it is the Committee’s opinion that the grain size test may be performed on the pipe.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 5 NOTE: The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part C: II-79-01 II-79-04


II-79-02

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-182 TP 304

Date Issued:

March 19, 1979

File:

BC78-679

Question: All other requirements being equal and complied with, can austenitic forgings tension tested to ASTM A 182-77a and the pending SA-182, Winter 1978 Addenda, be considered to also comply with the intended requirements of Paragraph 9.5 tension tests of SA-182, Summer 1976 Addenda? Reply:

Yes.


II-79-03

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-234, SA-403, and SA-420

Date Issued:

April 25, 1979

File:

BC79-176

Question: May seamless, as well as welded, fittings constructed of SA-234, SA-403 or SA-420 be used for Section I and/or Section VIII, Division 1 applications? Reply: The Preambles of SA-234, SA-403, and SA-420 are not intended to exclude the use of the materials under Sections of the Code other than Section III. The use of SA-234, SA-403, and SA-420 is not required for usage under Sections I and VIII. See PG-11 and UG-11, respectively, in those sections of the Code. Thus, material certified to either the ASTM or the ASME versions of those specifications is permitted for Sections I and VIII. For seamless products (i.e, manufactured without welding) SA-234 and A 234 are identical, so that a product which complies with one of these specifications complies with the other. Similar distinctions apply to the ASME SA-403 and SA-420 and their ASTM counterparts A 403 and A 420, respectively.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 6 NOTE: The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part C: II-79-05 II-79-06 II-79-07

II-79-08


II-79-09

Subject:

Section II, Testing Requirements in SA-450

Date Issued:

September 27, 1979

File:

BC79-378

Question: Do the provisions of SA-450 Section 19.1 (Summer 1979 Addenda) which state “Test specimens shall be taken from the ends of finished tubes prior to…being cut to length” mean that test specimens may not under any circumstance be taken from tubes cut to length? Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the SA-450 provision in question is intended to permit rather than require the taking of test samples prior to cutting to length so as not to unnecessarily force the discard of an entire tube length because of test sample removal. If circumstances require, and if contractual obligations relating tothe quantity and length of tubes are satisfied, specimens may be taken from tubes already cut to specified length. Question: Test specimens, removed from the discard end of SA-249 tubes, contain a cold drawing manufacturing flawwhich resulted in failureto pass the flattening test. We believe this cold drawing manufacturing flaw is confined to the discarded cut tube ends. In these circumstances may we discard the flattening test specimens, substituting others from the already cut-to-length tubes under the provision of SA-450, 19.2? Reply: If it can be demonstrated that failure of the flattening test was the result of a flaw introduced during cold working and is associated with cold working conditions occurring only at the discarded tube ends, other test specimens from the same lot may be substituted. The specification does not specify means by which the above may be demonstrated, but such demonstration is required before the provisions of SA-450, Section 19.2 may be used. Because specifics as to the actual flaw conditions and nature of the flattening test failure were not given in your inquiry, we are uncertain as to whether the provisions of 5.2 of SA-450 are applicable to your situation. The purpose of the flattening test is to detect less than expected ductility, laminated or unsound steel or incomplete weld and disclosure of any of these conditions constitutes failure of the flattening test. But disclosure of preexisting surface imperfections present in the test specimen prior to testing does not constitute failure of the flattening test.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 7 NOTE: The following Interpretations are for Section II, Part C: II-80-01 II-80-08 II-80-10

II-80-14


II-80-02

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, 5.1

Date Issued:

January 7, 1980

File:

BC79-785

Question: In the case of other piping components in the referenced paragraph, do the limits of 4 in. nominal pipe size and 300 psi service rating both need to be exceeded before heat treatment is required? Reply:

Yes. Both limits need to be exceeded before heat treatment is required.


II-80-03

Subject:

Section II, Hardness Requirements of SA-234

Date Issued:

February 25, 1980

File:

BC79-172

Question: 9.1 and 9.2 of SA-234 state that the hardness of fittings to SA-234 shall not exceed 197 HB or 217 HB, depending on the material. However, there is no statement as to taking hardness tests, their frequency, and no reporting requirement. What requirements, if any, apply? Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that with respect to 9 of SA-234, it is up to the Manufacturer to ensure that fittings do not exceed the required maximum hardness. The procedure used to assure this is again the Manufacturer’s responsibility. SA-234 is in the process of being revised to conform to ASTM A 234-79a, and this revision includes a new supplementary requirement S8, which will permit the purchaser to specify hardness testing of fittings. This may further help to clarify the intent of the Specification.


II-80-04

Subject:


Date Issued:

February 25, 1980

File:

BC80-135

Question: Does material supplied in accordance with ASTM A 105-76 comply with the requirements of SA-105, Summer 1978 Addenda? Reply:

Yes.


II-80-05

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, 5.1

Date Issued:

March 21, 1980

File:

BC79-468

Question: Does a primary service pressure fitting under 4 in. nominal pipe size, but rated at over 300 psi, require heat treatment? Reply: No. 5.1 of SA-105 states that all flanges with primary service pressure ratings over 300 psi have to be heat treated. Other piping components, however, need only be heat treated when the primary service pressure exceeds 300 psi and the nominal pipe size exceeds 4 in., i.e., both conditions mustbe met. Such a fitting for a pressure rating of 400 psi and a size of 3½ in., for example, would not have to be heat treated.


II-80-06

Subject:

Section II, Product Analysis Tolerances for SA-312 and SA-530

Date Issued:

March 24, 1980

File:

BC80-80

Question: May the product analysis tolerances given for stainless steel plates in SA480 be applied to SA-312 pipe? Reply: No. SA-312 requires the chemical composition determined by Product Analysis meet that which is prescribed in Table 1 of SA-312.


II-80-07

Subject:


Date Issued:

March 27, 1980

File:

BC80-81

Question: Is it permissible for an NV Certificate Holder to purchase forged, square, steel bars to the requirements of SA-105, cold hammer forge the corners until the bars are round, and then cut slices off the bars for subsequent machining into flanges for attachment to, and to become part of, the finished component? Reply:

No.


II-80-09

Subject:

Section II, SA-578, Requirement S6.5

Date Issued:

April 11, 1980

File:

BC80-46

Question: Do both of the following conditions have to exist to permit weld repair of unbonded cladding as defined in S6.5 of SA-578? 2 2 2 Condition A: that these areas total less than 20 in. (129 cm ) in any 4 ft 2 (0.37 m ) and there is not less than 12 in. (305 mm) between areas. Condition B: that the total repair area is less than 5% of the total plate area. Reply:

Yes. Both Conditions A and B must be satisfied.


II-80-11

Subject:

Section II, SA-312 With Respect to Sections 7 and 8

Date Issued:

April 22, 1980

File:

BC80-245

Question (1): Is it the intent of Section 7 of SA-312 that a pipe manufacturer may report the heat analysis made by a steel manufacturer rather than report the chemical composition determined from a product analysis made by the pipe manufacturer? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Is it the intent of Section 8 of SA-312 that a product analysis by the pipe manufacturer is not mandatory but is instead an option which may or may not be exercised by the purchaser? Reply (2):

Yes.


II-80-12

Subject:

Section II, Permissible Chromium Content

Date Issued:

April 30, 1980

File:

BC79-745

Question: Grade LF2?

What is the maximum percent chromium content acceptable in SA-350,

Reply: Material conforming to SA-350, Grade LF2, may have chromium present as a residual element. Residual elements are those which may be found in steels but which are not intentionally added to the steels for the purpose of improvement or enhancement of the mechanical properties. SA-350, Grade LF2, does not impose a maximum limit on the amount of chromium which may be present as a residual element. Grade LF2 of SA-350 is classified as a carbon steel. The intentional addition of chromium would cause a steel to be classified as alloy steel.


II-80-13

Subject:

Section II, Chemical Requirements

Date Issued:

May 8, 1980

File:

BC80-204

Question (1): Does the symbol…as found in Table 1 of SA-240, SA-312, and SA-479 indicate that the percentage of the applicable element must be nil? Reply (1): element.

No. The symbol merely indicates that there is no requirement for the

Question (2): Are residual quantities of elements (i.e., molybdenum) which are not required in Table 1 of SA-240, SA-312, and SA-479 acceptable when found in samples? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): To what extent may molybdenum be accepted as a residual element in Grades of SA-240, SA-312, and SA-479 for which there are no requirements for molybdenum? Reply (3): The Specifications do not impose a maximum limit on the amount of molybdenum which may be present as a residual element. For these particular steels, molybdenum has effects similar tochromium and is generally regarded as beneficial. For some uses, special considerations, such as weldability, may make it desirable for the user to impose a maximum limit, but such considerations are beyond the scope of the Material Specifications.



II-80-16

Subject:

Section II, Hardness of Swaged Portion of Boiler Tubes

Date Issued:

August 5, 1980

File:

BC79-382

Question: Is it required that carbon steel tubes, such as SA-210 A-1, which have undergone fabrication operations by the boiler manufacturer meet the maximum hardness specified in the Specifications? Reply: No. The maximum hardness specified in the Section II Material Specification is one of a number of requirements intended to help insure that the tubing furnished by the material manufacturer will withstand fabrication and installation requirements. Section I does not specify hardness limitsfor the tubing as fabricated and installed in a boiler.


II-80-17

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Product Analysis Tolerances for SA-312 and SA-530

Date Issued:

August 20, 1980

File:

BC80-462

Question: May the product analysis tolerances given for stainless steel plates in SA480 be applied to SA-312 pipe? Reply: No. SA-312 requires the chemical composition as determined in the Product Analysis meet that prescribed in Table 1 of SA-312.


II-80-18

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Ultrasonic Examination of Heavy Steel Forgings

Date Issued:

December 22, 1980

File:

BC80-361

Question: NB-2542.1 requires that forgings be ultrasonically examined in accordance with SA-388. ASTM E 428 is an applicable document of SA-388. Is it required that calibration notches machined into hollow-ring forgings per SA-388 (7.3.3) meet the criteria of E 428? Reply: No, it is not a requirement of SA-388 that calibration notches machined into hollow-ring forgings or calibration blocks meet the criteria of E 428.


II-80-19

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Close Coiling of SA-53 Types S and E and SA-106 Pipes, Close Coiling of SA-178 Grade A and C Tubes

Date Issued:

December 30, 1980

File:

BC80-756

Question (1a): What is the definition of “close coiling” as referred to in SA-53? Reply (1a): There is no definition of “close coiling” but a consideration of the bending requirements of SA-53 would seem to indicate thatd:D ratios of between 8 and 12 be classified as “close coiling”. For a more definitive answer, we suggest that you direct your question to ASTM. Question (1b): Should the coilingd:D ratio to be used in fabrication be specified on the order? Reply (1b): The Specification indicates that the end use is to be shown on the order. Information on critical fabrication operations to which the material will be subjected should be included in the end use information. Question (2): Should Grade A be specified for SA-178 material which isto be subjected to close coiling? Reply (2): Since there are no bending requirements in SA-178, the material manufacturer should be consulted on the suitability of thematerial for close coiling.



II-81-01

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Weld Repair of SA-216

Date Issued:

January 21, 1981

File:

BC80-692

Question: For P-No.1 materials produced to meet SA-216, does 10.3 make it mandatory to stress relieve all repair welds? Reply: If the repair welds exceed the limits of 10.3, they must be stress relieved.


II-81-02

Subject:


Date Issued:

March 20, 1981

File:

BC81-117

Question: Is it required to have the letters “MT” following the specification designation in the certified material test report for full-heat treated plates supplied to SA20 in Section II? Reply:

No.


II-81-04

Subject:

Section II, Part A, General Requirements for Tubes

Date Issued:

June 19, 1981

File:

BC81-189

Question (1): Is it required that material suppliedto one of the specifications listed in 1.1 of SA-450 meet the requirements of SA-450? Reply (1): 1.1 and 1.2 of SA-450 set forth the extent to which material supplied to one of the specifications listed in 1.1 must comply with the various sections of SA-450. Question (2): Is it correct that cold-drawn seamless austenitic tubesup to 2 in. O.D. and with wall thicknesses greater than 2% of specified outside diameter, but in any case not less than 0.020 in., shall have a permissible variation in outside diameter not exceeding the amounts prescribed in Table 5 of SA-450 and that Note B of the same table is applicable only to ovality and not to outside diameter? Reply (2): No. Note B of Table 5 of SA-450 states the maximum permissible + variation in outside diameter of cold drawn seamless austenitic tubes is-0.010 in. The effect of the Note is to substitute 0.010 in. for the values of 0.004 in., 0.006 in., and 0.008 in. in Table 5 when the product is cold-drawn seamless austenitic tubes.


II-81-05

Subject:

Section II, Part A, ERW Carbon Steel

Date Issued:

June 19, 1981

File:

BC81-191

Question:

Is it necessary that the requirements of Section 7 of SA-214 be satisfied?

Reply: Yes. All requirements of the specification must be met to be in compliance with the specification.


II-81-06

Subject:


Date Issued:

June 19, 1981

File:

BC81-224

Question: May welded pipe made from solution treated material be supplied in the as welded condition to SA-312 of Section II, Part A? Reply: No. All pipe is to be furnished in the heat treated condition per 5.4.1. As welded pipe may not be furnished under SA-312.


II-81-07

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Interpretation of Test Requirements

Date Issued:

September 4, 1981

File:

BC81-217

Question (1): May an organization that furnishestubing as material to SA-192 and SA210 elect to substitute the nondestructive electric test of SA-450 in lieu of the hydrostatic test as is provided for in 12.4 of SA-192 of SA-210? Reply (1): Tubing furnished as material to SA-192 and SA-210 must have been hydrostatically tested unless the purchaser of the material specifies that the nondestructive electric test of SA-450 may be used. Question (2): May an organization which furnishes fabricatedsections requiring ASME Code stamping and Data Reports, purchase SA-192 and SA-210 tubing for those sections with the nondestructive electric test of SA-450 in lieu of the specification hydrostatic test? Reply (2): Yes. However, the hydrostatic test requirements of the Section of the Code to which the sections are being fabricated must be met. ATTENTION

The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered, and the following corrected Question (1) sent to the inquirer: Correction Issued:

March 26, 1982

Question (1): May an organization that furnishes tubing as material to SA-192 and SA-210 elect to substitute the nondestructive electric test of SA-450 in lieu of the hydrostatic test as is provided for in 12.4 of SA-192 and 14.5 of SA-210?


II-81-08

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Composite Plate

Date Issued:

December 15, 1981

File:

BC81-522

Question (1): For material supplied to SA-263, SA-264, and SA-265, shall thetests be made in the same condition of heat treatment to which the plate is furnished or to the condition of heat treatment anticipated in the fabrication of a vessel, for example, Section VIII - Division 1, UCS-85? Reply (1): For material supplied to SA-263, SA-264, and SA-265, the test specimens are required to be in the same condition of heat treatment as that in which the composite plate is supplied. However, the fabrication code may impose additional requirements, such as those in Section VIII - Division1, UCS-85, which require that test specimens be subjected to the heat treatment that thematerial will be subjected toduring fabrication. It is not the intent of the material specifications to prohibit additional Code requirements being applied to the test specimens required by the material specifications. Question (2): For material supplied to SA-265 with SA-387, Grade 22 backing material, should the composite plate be furnished in the as-rolled condition as permitted by 3.2, or heat treated in accordance with 5.2 of SA-387? Reply (2): SA-265, 3.2, states that the composite plate will be furnished in the asrolled condition unless the purchaser and the manufacturer have agreed upon heat treatment. It is the opinion of the Materials Subcommittee that the intent of the Specification is that the base metal should conform to the requirements of the base metal Specification. Thus, in the instance cited, the composite plate should conform to 5.2 of SA-387 if no other heat treatment has been agreed upon. The purpose of the stress relieving treatment is to minimize the possibility of cracking of the plate during shipment or subsequent torch cutting of the plate. The ASTM Subcommittee having jurisdiction over A 265 has been asked to review the Specification with the intent of adopting revisions to clarify the intent of the Specification. Question (3): Would there be different requirements for roll bonded clad versus explosion clad material? Reply (3):

No.


II-82-01

Subject:

Section II, Parts A and B, Material Chemistry Deviation

Date Issued:

January 5, 1982

File:

BC81-483

Question: If the composition of a material deviates from the limits in the material specification, but the mechanical properties and all other requirements of the specification have been met, can the material be used provided the chemistry deviation is considered insignificant relative to the application, and the material meets the corrosion test requirements stipulated by the vessel manufacturer? Reply:

No.


II-82-02

Subject:

Section II, Parts A and B, Definitions for Tube and Pipe

Date Issued:

January 5, 1982

File:

BC81-654

Question (1): Is there a definition for pipe and tube? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): What are some of the differences betweenpipe and tube? Reply (2): As there is no definable difference, we can only answer this question in general terms. The primary differences are: (a) Pipe is usually furnished to standardized nominal pipe sizes and wall thicknesses in accordance with ANSI B36.10and B36.19. There are no similar standards fortubing. (b) Pipe is often used with welding or threaded fittings and tubes are generally not used with fittings. (c) The term tubing generally isnot used to describe products over5 in. O.D. Note the scope clause of SA-213, 1.3. (d) The required specification tests for tubing usually differ from those required for pipe. SA-450, for example, describes reverse flattening, flare, flange, and hardness tests, none of which are covered in SA-530.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 12 Interpretation: II-A-83-01

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-479, Table 1, Type 316 Hardness Requirement

Date Issued:

August 23, 1982

File:

BC82-379

Question: It appears that the hardness requirement for Type 316 strain-hardened material in Table 1 of specification SA-479 is in error. Is the requirement proper and intended and, if not, may it be ignored? Reply: The ASTM Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the ASTM specification has determined that the hardness requirement for Type 316 strain-hardened material in Table 1 of the specification is an error and was notintended. Action has been taken to delete the hardness specification from the ASTM specification. Hardness requirements for strain-hardened material are being developed in ASTM. Section II is also of the opinion that the requirement is an error since the minimum tensile and hardness requirements are in conflict. Action is being taken to delete the hardness requirement from SA-479. Section II is of the opinion that this hardness requirement should not apply.


II-A-83-02

Subject:


Date Issued:

September 21, 1982

File:

BC82-625

Question (1): May the tempering operation for SA-540 material supplied in the quenched and tempered condition be performed in more than one cycle in order to obtain the required mechanical properties? Reply (1): cycle.

Yes. It is permissible to perform the tempering operation in more than one

Question (2): In the case of performing tempering as per Question (1), would each cycle be considered a new heat treatment, therefore allowing only one quenching and three tempering cycles to be permitted? Reply (2): No. Paragraph 14.1 limits heat treatment to three complete quenching and tempering cycles, regardless of the number of tempering steps applied in each cycle.


II-A-83-03

Subject:


Date Issued:

January 18, 1983

File:

BC83-020

Question: Is the addition of 0.40% nickel to SA-105 material for improvement of impact properties prohibited? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-04

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, Use of Plate Material

Date Issued:

February 4, 1983

File:

BC82-716

Question (1): If plate meeting the requirements of SA-36 is used for blind flanges, is it permissible to certify the finished product as SA-105? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): If the answer to Question (1) isno, what stamping or certification of the finished product is permissible? Reply (2): was cut.

The stamping or certification applicable to the plate from which the piece


II-A-83-05

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-387, Chemical Properties of Part A Materials

Date Issued:

March 2, 1983

File:

BC82-415

Question (1): If a material specification does not set forth separate specific tolerances for product analysis, what tolerances apply? Reply (1): If a material specification does not set forth separate specific tolerances for product analysis, the applicable tolerance is zero. That is, the chemical composition limits shown in the material specification apply to both heat and product analyses. Question (2): Are different product analysis limits applicable ifsamples are taken after mechanical and thermal treatments? Reply (2): No. (It must be recognized that analysis results from material subject to certain heating operations may not properly represent its srcinal composition unless the sampling procedures are such as to ensure that the sample truly represents the material in its srcinal condition.)


II-A-83-06

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-671 and SA-672

Date Issued:

March 2, 1983

File:

BC83-057

Question: In the preamble of Section II, SA-671 and SA-672 as published from S74 to W77, is the sentence “The plate used to fabricate the pipe shall conform to SA-240” in error? Reply: Yes. This sentence was inadvertently copied from specification SA-358 and should be deleted.


II-A-83-07

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Clarification of SA-20, Section 13

Date Issued:

March 8, 1983

File:

BC83-214

Question (1): What are the lower size limitations for stampingplate material to SA-20? Do these limitations apply to ring shapes or pieces to be ground top and bottom? Reply (1): Specification SA-20 covers requirements for plates. does not cover requirements for parts or pieces cut from plates.

The specification

Question (2): Does the term “stencil” allow for marking byhand with a “paint stick” or other marker? Reply (2):

No.


II-A-83-08

Subject:


Date Issued:

March 24, 1983

File:

BC81-706

Question (1): Is SA-105 limited to standardized pipe components? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Does SA-105 require heat treatmentof computed forged girth flanges for pressure vessels and heat exchangers whose primary pressure rating is below 300 psi? Reply (2):

No.


II-A-83-09

Subject:


Date Issued:

March 24, 1983

File:

BC83-015

Question (1): For the GTAW process, must the deposited weld metal alloy content conform to either SFA-5.9, Table 1, or the base metal? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): For the SAW process, must the deposited weld metal alloy content conform to either SFA-5.9, Table 1, or the base metal? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): For either of the preceding, if an element fails to meet Table 1, but is within the permitted range of the base material, is the analysis acceptable? Reply (3): Yes. The specification permits the base metal composition range or the filler metal composition range to govern the acceptability of the alloy content of the deposited weld metal.


II-A-83-10

Subject:

Section II, Part A, A 490 and SA-354

Date Issued:

March 24, 1983

File:

BC83-105

Question: Bolts of 1 in. diameter and under are produced to A 490 and SA-354. Paragraph 7.2 of A 490 requires that bolts 1 in. diameter and less be tested full size (tensile). Is it permissible to perform tension testing of specimens machined from bar prior to fabrication of bolts, tie bolts, and U-bolts of 1 in. diameter and under instead of the full size proof load testing required by the end item bolting specifications SA-354 and A 490? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-11

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Use of Cold Pilgering Process Under SA-213

Date Issued:

July 19, 1983

File:

BC83-193

Question:

Is cold pilgered tubing acceptable under the provisions of SA-213?

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-83-12

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Use of Slotted Head Cap Screws Under SA-307

Date Issued:

September 20, 1983

File:

BC83-338

Question: May slotted head bolts be provided under SA-307 with the understanding that the geometry of the head is a contractual matter? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-83-13

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Isothermally Annealed SA-209 Tubing

Date Issued:

December 13, 1983

File:

BC83-440

Question: Is isothermal annealing permitted under SA-209, Seamless CarbonMolybdenum Alloy Steel Boiler and Superheater Tubes? Reply:

Yes.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 15 No Section II-A Interpretations listed in this volume.


II-A-83-14

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-278, Para. 9

Date Issued:

July 5, 1984

File:

BC84-257

Question: Does para. 9 of SA-278 permit the use of an indelibly marked serial number traceable to a material certificate which identifies the manufacturer and the class of material in lieu of direct indelible marking of the manufacturer and class? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-15

Subject:

Section II, Part A, General Requirements for Tubes

Date Issued:

July 6, 1984

File:

BC83-426

Question (1): Is it permissible to machine off the outside surface of the flattening test sample by 0.008 in., radially measured, in order to eliminate the surface imperfections and superficial ruptures that are referred to in paras. 5.2 and 5.3 of SA-450 before running the flattening test? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Is it permissible to prepare samples for the flaring and flange test in the same way as above if minute ruptures are present on the normal test? Reply (2):

No.

Question (3): In order to conduct the reverse flattening test as per SA-370, shall the halftube be flattened as per Fig. 27, i.e., with the srcinal inner surface of the weld located at the mid-portion of the flattened half-tube? Reply (3):

Yes.

Question (4): In order to conduct the reverse flattening test as per SA-370, shall the halftube be bent backward until the two cut edges meet the srcinal inner surface of the weld exposed on the outside of the maximum bend? Reply (4):

No.


II-A-83-16

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-363 and SA-264, Cast Roll Cladding

Date Issued:

July 6, 1984

File:

BC84-172

Question: Is the cast roll clad method (enshroud casting and rolling) permitted by SA-263 and SA-264? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-83-17

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-508, Para. 6.1.6.4, Method 4, Location of Test Specimens

Date Issued:

July 6, 1984

File:

BC84-173

Question: In SA-508 does Method 4 (para. 6.1.6.4), for the location of mechanical test specimens, require that they be taken from an area of the forging which, together with welded thermal buffers, has a heat treated cross section not less than the maximum heat treated cross section of the forging? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-83-18

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, SA-182, and SA-350, Forged to Size

Date Issued:

July 6, 1984

File:

BC84-308

Question: Specifications SA-105, SA-182, and SA-350 require that the material be forged as close as practicable to the specified shape and size. Is this requirement intended to reduce material and machining costs? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-19

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-20, Plate from Coils

Date Issued:

October 26, 1984

File:

BC84-163

Question:

Does SA-20 prohibit the production of plate from coil?

Reply:

No.


II-A-83-20

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-370, Para. 21.1.2

Date Issued:

October 26, 1984

File:

BC84-336

Question: ft-lbf?

Does SA-370 permit Charpy machines with a capacity of greater than 265

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-83-21

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-403, Para. 8, Tensile Testing

Date Issued:

November 20, 1984

File:

BC84-415

Question: For SA-403 fittings made from plate, may a record of a tension test made on the plate in the same condition of heat treatment as the finished fitting be supplied in lieu of performing the tension test described in para. 8.2? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-22

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-370, Cv Specimen Tolerances

Date Issued:

November 20, 1984

File:

BC84-627

Question: When testing in accordance with SA-370, do the tolerances specified by SA-370, Fig. 11, or E-23, Fig. 6, for Cv specimens apply? Reply:

The tolerances of SA-370, Fig. 11, apply.


II-A-83-23

Subject:

Section II, Part A, Marking of Material with “ASME”, SA-312

Date Issued:

November 21, 1984

File:

BC84-555

Question: Does the ASME Statement of Policy on the Use of ASME Marking to Identify Manufactured Items preclude marking such as “ASME SA-312 TP304” on such completed material? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-24

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-106, Section 20, Finish

Date Issued:

March 19, 1985

File:

BC84-255

Question (1): In SA-106, Section 20, Finish, does the term imperfections include cracks and cracklike conditions? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): In SA-106, what is the permissible depth of surface imperfections? Reply (2):

See para. 20.2 and para. 20.3.2 of SA-106.

Question (3): Does SA-106, Section 20, require visual examination? Reply (3):

Yes.

Question (4): Does SA-106, Section 20, require magnetic particle examination? Reply (4):

No.

Question (5): Does SA-106, Section 20, permit magnetic particle examination inlieu of visual? Reply (5):

No.


II-A-83-25

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-216, Section 10, Repair by Welding

Date Issued:

March 19, 1985

File:

BC84-688

Question: Does SA-216 have a maximum permissible size for defects in castings which will be repaired by welding? Reply:

No.


II-A-83-26

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-240, Para. 12.2

Date Issued:

June 12, 1985

File:

BC84-631

Question: Does para. 12.2 of SA-240 permit only one tension test and only one hardness test to be performed on every 100 pieces or less produced from a single heat and heat treated in different batch furnace charges? Reply:

No.


IIA-86-01

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-182, Para. 5.1

Date Issued:

July 30, 1985

File:

BC85-249

Question:

Does the term “annealed” in SA-182, para. 5.1, require full annealing?

Reply:

Yes.


IIA-86-02

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-403, Preamble

Date Issued:

July 30, 1985

File:

BC85-250

Question: Does the preamble of SA-403 require that all SA-403 fittings be produced under Section III Code requirements when the purchaser did not specify Section III compliance? Reply:

No.


IIA-86-03

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-53, Para. 21.3, Marking

Date Issued:

December 17, 1985

File:

BC85-470

Question: Does the terminology “transfer complete identification” in SA-53, para. 21.3, allow for the use of ballpoint markers? Reply:

No.


IIA-86-04

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-234, Para. 6.2.4, Heat Treatment

Date Issued:

December 17, 1985

File:

BC85-544

Question: Does para. 6.2.4 of SA-234 require postweld heat treatment of Grades WPB, WPC, and WPR which were produced by fusion welding and with a nominal thickness at the joint of less than 19 mm? Reply:

No.


IIA-86-05

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, SA-182, and SA-350, Hardness Testing

Date Issued:

December 17, 1985

File:

BC85-561

Question: If simulated PWHT is specified by the purchaser in the order, are the hardness requirements, prescribed in Table 3 of SA-105, Table 4 of SA-182, and para. 6.3.1 of SA-350, the values obtained by testing on the actual forging not subjected to PWHT? Reply:

Yes.


IIA-86-06

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-325, Bolting

Date Issued:

December 19, 1985

File:

BC85-197

Question (1): Can bolts in sizes smaller than ½ in. be manufactured to SA-325? Reply (1):

No. 3

Question (2): For diameters greater than /2 in., Note 1 of SA-325 refers the user to A 449. Can such bolts be considered as SA-325 bolts when they meet the mechanical and chemical requirements of A 449? Reply (2):

No.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 19 No Section II Interpretations listed in this volume.


IIA-86-07

Subject: Section II, Part A, SA-268 and SA-688, Welder and Weld Procedure Qualification Date Issued:

December 5, 1986

File:

BC86-325

Question: 668?

Is welder and weld procedure qualification required by SA-268 and SA-

Reply:

No.


IIA-86-08

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-312, Repair of Welds

Date Issued:

December 5, 1986

File:

BC86-369

Question:

Is it permissible to repair weld seams in SA-312 pipe?

Reply:

No.



IIA-86-09

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-240, Ordering Information

Date Issued:

October 27, 1987

File:

BC86-510

Question: May plate or sheet conforming to SA-240, Type 304 which has been procured with a purchase order not including finish, form, and preparation, be accepted as meeting the requirements of SA-480? Reply:

Yes.


IIA-86-10

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-350, Para. 11.4, Marking

Date Issued:

October 27, 1987

File:

BC87-155

Question (1): When Charpy impact tests are performed not only at the standard temperature specified in Table 5 of SA-350 but also at additional nonstandard temperatures specified by the purchaser, is it necessary to stamp the additional nonstandard temperatures in accordance with SA-350, para. 11.4? Reply (1):

Yes, in addition to the standard temperature.

Question (2): If the reply to the question above is yes, shall all the additional nonstandard temperatures be stamped? Reply (2):

Yes.


IIA-86-11

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-264, Para. 9.1.1, Elongation Requirements

Date Issued:

December 14, 1987

File:

BC87-246

Question (1): Does SA-264 require thatthe elongation be determined on the tension test on the composite plate? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Does SA-264 require that the elongation determined on the tension test on the composite plate meet the requirement specified in the specification for the base steel used? Reply (2):

Yes.


IIA-86-12

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-182, Para. 4.4, Machining of Forgings

Date Issued:

December 14, 1987

File:

BC87-392

Question: May flanges machined from individual forged rings greater than 4 in. in diameter be certified to SA-182? Reply:

Yes.


IIA-86-13

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-312, Para. 5.3.2, Solution Treated Condition

Date Issued:

December 15, 1987

File:

BC87-260

Question: In SA-312, para. 5.3.2, does the term “solution-treated” refer to the heat treatment described in para. 5.3.1; that is, heating to the specified temperature and then quenching in water or rapidly cooling by other means? Reply:

Yes.


IIA-86-14

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, Para. 1.1, Scope

Date Issued:

December 15, 1987

File:

BC87-303

Question (1): Does SA-105 provide for the manufacture of forged tubesheets? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Does SA-105 provide for the manufacture of flat covers and nonstandard flanges? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): Does SA-105 provide for the manufacture of cylinders? Reply (3):

Yes, except for shells for pressure vessels.


IIA-86-15

Subject:

Section II, Part A, SA-105, Para. 1.1, Scope

Date Issued:

December 15, 1987

File:

BC87-318

Question (1): Are tubesheets and cylindrical forgings for pressure vessel shells required to be manufactured to SA-266 only, regardless of weight? Reply (1):

No, other forging specifications may also be used.

Question (2): May end flanges and cylindrical forgings used for integral reinforc ed nozzles be manufactured to SA-105? Reply (2):

Yes.


IIA-86-16

Subject:

SA-515 and SA-20, Heat Treatment Status Marking of Plate

Date Issued:

April 18, 1988

File:

BC88-012

Question (1): If a purchaser of SA-515 platesspecifies that the platesbe furnished in the as-rolled condition but qualified on the basis of normalized test specimens, shall the plates be marked with the letter “G” in accordance with SA-20, paragraph 13.4? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): If a purchaser of SA-515 plates with nominal thickness of 2in. or less specifies that the plates are to be normalized by the plate producer, is this heat treatment requirement considered to be part of the ASME SA-515 Specification? Reply (2):

No.

Question (3): If a purchaser of SA-515 plates with nominal thickness greater than2 in. specifies that the plates are to be normalized by the plate producer, is this heat treatment requirement considered to be part of the ASME SA-515 Specification? Reply (3):

Yes.

Section II-A - Interpretations Vol. 24 Interpretation:

II-A-89-01

Subject:

SA-193, Paras. 18.1 and 18.2, Marking

Date Issued:

August 7, 1988

File:

BC88-070

Question: For T-bolts manufactured to SA-193 Grade B7 that are shipped and stored in boxes, must the marking requirements of both paras. 18.1 and 18.2 be met? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-89-02

Subject:

SA-182, Para. 4.4, Machining of Forgings

Date Issued:

November 2, 1988

File:

BC88-150

Question: SA-182?

May flanges machined from individual “pancake” forgings be certified to

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-89-03

Subject:

SA-105, Para. 5.1, Heat Treatment

Date Issued:

November 2, 1988

File:

BC88-209

Question: Do one-piece flanged valve bodies above Class 300 require heat treatment under para. 5.1 of SA-105? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-89-03R

Subject:

Section II, Part A; SA-53, Para. 21.3, Marking

Date Issued:

March 6, 1989

File:

BC85-470

Question: Does the terminology “transfer complete identification” in SA-53, para. 21.3 allow for the use of legible hand marking? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-89-04

Subject:

Section II Foreword, Identification and Certification of Materials

Date Issued:

March 6, 1989

File:

BC89-030

Question: The Foreword provides for the use of ASTM material. Must this ASTM material be shown to have been produced to the exact ASTM specification (including year date of issue) indicated in the parenthetical subtitle shown immediately below the SA or SB numerical designation on the front page of the ASME specification? Reply:

No.


II-A-89-05

Subject:

Section II, SA-516 and SA-20

Date Issued:

October 11, 1989

File:

BC89-106

Question: May the user and the producer agree on the acceptance criteria for notch toughness tests for SA-516, other than those listed in Table A1.15 (A2.15) of SA-20? Reply:

Yes, provided all other requirements are met.


II-A-89-06

Subject:

SA-6

Date Issued:

October 11, 1989

File:

BC89-194

Question:

Does SA-6 require that the year of issue be shown on the mill test report?

Reply:

No.


II-A-89-07

Subject:

SA-194

Date Issued:

October 11, 1989

File:

BC89-195

Question: 2H nuts?

May AISI 4140 starting material be used to manufacture SA-194, Grade

Reply:

No.


II-A-89-08

Subject:

Section II, SA-240, Ti Content in Stainless Steel Plate

Date Issued:

November 16, 1989

File:

BC89-197

Question: 316L?

Does SA-240 specifically address titanium composition limits for Type

Reply:

No.


II-A-89-09

Subject:

Section II, SA-358 and SA-691, Transverse Guided-Bend Weld Test

Date Issued:

December 19, 1989

File:

BC89-138

Question: Does the transverse guided-bend weld test of SA-358 para. 12.2 and SA691 para. 8.2.2 require one test of two specimens or two tests of four specimens? Reply:

One test of two specimens.


II-A-89-10R

Subject:

Section II, SA-53, SA-530

Date Issued:

March 1, 1990

File:

BC90-312*

Question:

Does SA-53 require the use of A 530?

Reply:

Yes.

NOTE: The above Interpretation was printed incorrectly in Interpretation Volume No. 27 and is reprinted here in its correct form.


IIA-89-10

Subject:

Section II, SA-53, SA-530

Date Issued:

March 6, 1990

Question:

Does SA-53 require the use of A 530?

Reply:

No.



II-A-89-11

Subject:

Section II, Dual Marking

Date Issued:

January 7, 1991

File:

BC89-419

Question (1): May a material certified and marked as meeting two strength levels or grades of a specification approved for use in an ASME construction code be used at the allowable stresses or design stress intensities of either strength level or grade? Reply (1): the design.

Yes, provided the appropriate allowable stresses for the grade are used in

Question (2): May a material certified and marked asmeeting a specification approved for use in an ASME construction code, and also marked and certified as meeting a specification not approved for use in that ASME construction code, be used in that construction code? Reply (2): Yes. The additional markings have no effect on the validity of the markings and certification of the approved material.


II-A-89-12

Subject:

Section II, SA-105

Date Issued:

January 7, 1991

File:

BC90-740

Question: Does SA-105, para. 4.4 permit cylindrically shaped parts to be classed as SA-105 that are machined directly from hot-rolled bar or seamless mechanical tubing that is neither hot nor cold forged provided the chemical requirements of Table 1 and the mechanical requirements of Table 4 are satisfied? Reply:

No. All requirements of the specification shall be met.


II-A-89-13

Subject:

Section II, SA-234, Weld Repair

Date Issued:

January 7, 1991

File:

BC90-789

Question: May an owner perform a weld repair on an SA-234 fitting without 1 performing a post weld heat treatment (PWHT) when the depth of repair exceeds 33 /3% of the nominal wall thickness and PWHT is not required by another code section? Reply:

The specification does not address the owner’s responsibility.


II-A-89-14

Subject:

Section II, SA-20, Para. 11.1.1

Date Issued:

January 9, 1991

File:

BC90-329

Question: Under the requirements of SA-20, para. 11.1.1 in Section II, Part A, must each final coil be represented by a test coupon to certify that the coil material meets the specification, regardless of the number of divisions from the master coil? Reply: Yes.


II-A-89-15

Subject:

Section II, SA-703, Investment Casting Process

Date Issued:

January 10, 1991

File:

BC90-227

Question (1): In the investment casting process when thefurnace charge is a remelt of a master heat with no additions, and the master heat is defined as a single furnace charge of refined alloy, may the master heat analysis be used to satisfy the chemical comparison requirements of SA-703 para. 5.1 for heat analysis? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): In the investment casting process when thefurnace charge is a remelt of a master heat with no addition and the master heat is defined as a single furnace charge of refined alloy, may the master heat tensile test be used to satisfy the tensile test requirements of SA-703, para. 7.1, tensile requirements? Reply (2):

No.


II-A-89-16

Subject:

Section II, SA-193, Macroetch Testing

Date Issued:

January 10, 1991

File:

BC90-648

Question: Is it a requirement of SA-193 that bolting products hot formed from bar, and subsequently heat treated, be subject to the macroetch test required in para. 4.2 of this specification? Reply:

No.


II-A-89-17

Subject:

Section II, SA-193, Heat Treatment

Date Issued:

March 29, 1991

File:

BC91-017

Question: May a material manufactured to SA-193 be heat treated immediately after rolling or forging without cooling when an intergranular corrosion test reflects that there is no precipitation of the carbide? Reply:

No.


II-A-89-18

Subject:

Section II, SA-649, Hardening Prior to Trunnion Fittings; Use of Class 2 Material

Date Issued:

March 29, 1991

File:

BC91-018

Question (1): When manufacturing pressure rolls in accordance with SA-649 para. 4.4.3, is it permissible to flame or induction harden prior to the trunnions being fitted? Reply (1):

Yes, when trunnions are fitted by shrink fitting only.

Question (2): When manufacturing pressure rollsin accordance with SA-649 para. 1.3, may SA-649, Class 1A material be used instead of Class 2 material? Reply (2):

Yes.


II-A-89-19

Subject:

Section II, SA-20, SA-516, Unspecified Elements

Date Issued:

March 29, 1991

File:

BC91-021

Question: In the construction of pressure vessels or pressure vessel parts according to the current edition of Section VIII, Division 1, is it a mandatory requirement that the chemical analysis for unspecified elements, specification SA-20, Table 1, be reported for SA-516 plates although not required or specified by the vessel manufacturer? Reply:

Yes, because SA-20 is included in SA-516 by reference.


II-A-89-20

Subject:

Section II, SA-395, Heat Treatment

Date Issued:

June 12, 1991

File:

BC91-088

Question: May material produced in accordance with SA-395 be used without any heat treatment when the mechanical properties in the “as cast” condition fulfill the requirements of SA-395? Reply:

No.


II-A-89-21

Subject:

Section II, Dual Marking of SA-515 and SA-516

Date Issued:

June 12, 1991

File:

BC91-271

Question: Is it acceptable to dual certify SA-515 and SA-516 Grade 70, provided the chemical and mechanical properties are reported on the actual mill certification? Reply:

No. Additional requirements apply.


II-A-92-01

Subject:

Use of DIN Material in Lieu of SA-240

Date Issued:

October 14, 1991

File:

BC91-393

Question: Is the austenitic steel type 1.4571, DIN Standard 17440, acceptable as the equivalent to SA-240 Type 316 Ti? Reply:

No.


II-A-92-02

Subject:

SA-240, Test Identification Number

Date Issued:

November 6, 1991

File:

BC91-382

Question: Is it the intent for the term “test identification number” in para. 2.1.1 of SA-240 to refer to the manufacturer’s heat number? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-92-03R

Subject:

SA-182, SA-479, Heat Treatment

Date Issued:

October 23, 1992

File:

BC90-548*

Question: Do small cylindrically shaped parts machined from bar, as permitted by para. 4.4 of SA-182, and heat treated before machining to the requirements of SA-479, meet the heat treatment requirements of SA-182? Reply:

Yes. See 5.2.2 of SA-182.

NOTE: The above revised interpretation was printed incorrectly in Interpretation Volume No. 32 as Interpretation number IIA-92-14.


II-A-92-04

Subject:

SA-105, Tube Sheet

Date Issued:

December 11, 1991

File:

BC91-510

Question: May SA-105 be used as the material of construction of a tube sheet made to Section VIII, Division 1 rules? Reply:

No. (See para. 1.1.or SA-105 for Scope limitations.)


II-A-92-05

Subject:

SA-178, Killed Steel

Date Issued:

December 11, 1991

File:

BC91-519

Question:

Does SA-178 require Grades A and C to be killed steel?

Reply:

No.


II-A-92-06

Subject:

SA-194, Hardness Tests

Date Issued:

December 11, 1991

File:

BC91-553

Question: Is it necessary to perform a hardness test after heat treatment as required by para. 7.1.5.2 of SA-194 when Grade 2H and 7 nuts have been converted to Grade 2HM and 7M, respectively, when these tests have already been performed on the nuts in their srcinal grade? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-89-10R

Subject:

SA-53, SA-530

Date Issued:

March 1, 1990

File:

BC90-312*

Question:

Does SA-53 require use of A 530?

Reply:

Yes.

Note: The above interpretation was printed incorrectly in Interpretation Volume No. 27 and is reprinted here in its correct form.


II-A-92-07R

Subject:

SA-20, Year Reference

Date Issued:

March 3, 1992

File:

BC91-520*

Question: Does SA-516 or SA-20 require inclusion of a year date of issuance or revision in either the marking on the material, or in the report for that material? Reply:

No.


II-A-92-08

Subject:

Dual Marking

Date Issued:

March 5, 1992

File:

BC92-001

Question:

May a pipe be certified and dual marked to both SA-53 and SA-106?

Reply:

Yes, provided the pipe meets all requirements of both specifications.


II-A-92-09

Subject:

SA-179, SA-214, Killed Steel

Date Issued:

May 13, 1992

File:

BC92-088

Question: Do paras. 9.2 of SA-179 and 8.2 of SA-214 prohibit the addition of killing (deoxidation) agents? Reply:

No.


II-A-92-10R

Subject:

Marking of 304 and 316L Materials

Date Issued:

March 15, 1993

File:

BC92-089*

Question: Does SA-312 require the prefix TP be included as part of the grade designation in the marking of the product? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-92-11

Subject:

Product Analysis for SA-537

Date Issued:

May 13, 1992

File:

BC92-166

Question: Does footnote B of Table 1 of SA-537 require a product analysis per Supplementary Requirement S2 of SA-20? Reply:

No.


II-A-92-12

Subject:

SA-649, Para. 1.3, Manufacture of Corrugating & Pressure Rolls

Date Issued:

June 16, 1992

File:

BC92-149

Question: May both corrugating and pressure roll bodies be manufactured from SA649, Class 1A or 1B? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-92-13

Subject:

SA-537, Product Analysis

Date Issued:

October 26, 1992

File:

BC92-191

Question: When the option to increase the manganese content of SA-537 is exercised, per footnote B of Table 1, is it required that a product analysis be performed? Reply: order.

No, not unless Supplementary Requirement S2 is specified in the material


II-A-92-14

Subject:


Date Issued:

December 11, 1992

File:

BC90-548

Question: When machining small cylindrically shaped austenitic (F300 series) stainless steel pipe fittings conforming to SA-182 from rolled bar, does conformance to the heat treatment requirements of SA-479 meet the heat treatment requirements of SA182? Reply: Yes, provided the bar has been liquid quenched from the solution annealing temperature.


II-A-92-15

Subject:

SA-105, Annealing and Normalizing Requirements

Date Issued:

December 14, 1992

File:

BC92-377

Question: Does heating for hot forging followed by slow cooling in the forging stock box meet the requirements for annealing or normalizing of Section 5 of SA-105? Reply:

No.


II-A-92-03R

Subject:


Date Issued:

October 23, 1992

File:

BC90-548*

Question: Do small cylindrically shaped parts machined from bar, as permitted by para. 4.4 of SA-182, and heat treated before machining to the requirements of SA-479, meet the heat treatment requirements of SA-182? Reply:

Yes. See 5.2.2 of SA-182.


II-A-92-10R

Subject:

Marking of 304 and 316L Materials

Date Issued:

March 15, 1993

File:

BC92-089*

Question: Does SA-312 require the prefix TP be included as part of the grade designation in the marking of the product? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-92-16

Subject:

Ordering Information

Date Issued:

January 26, 1993

File:

BC92-242

Question (1): Is it a requirement of the Ordering Information paragraphs of specifications SA-20 and SA-480 that all of the items covered by these paragraphs be addressed on the material purchase orders? Reply(1):

No.

Question (2): Is it the intent of specifications, such as SA-209, that all of the items listed in their Ordering Information paragraphs be addressed on the material purchase orders? Reply (2):

No.


II-A-92-17

Subject:

SA-194, Hardness Tests on Nuts Machined from Heat Treated Bar

Date Issued:

March 12, 1993

File:

BC93-033

Question: When SA-194 Grade 7 nuts are machined from heat treated bar, as permitted by para. 5.5 of SA-194, are the hardness tests described in paras. 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.2, and 7.1.5.2 required? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-92-18

Subject:

Marking of Heat Treated SA-516 Material

Date Issued:

March 12, 1993

File:

BC93-126

Question (1): Shall plate produced and tested to the requirements of SA-516 for normalized plate be marked MT, as required by para. 13.5 of SA-20, regardless of the subsequent processing by the purchaser? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Shall plate produced and tested to the requirements of SA-516 for normalized plate be marked MT, as required by para. 13.5 of SA-20, and also be marked G when the plate is additionally qualified on the basis of heat treated test specimens as requested by the purchaser? Reply (2):

No.


II-A-92-19

Subject:

O.D. Tolerances for SA-106 Material

Date Issued:

May 21, 1993

File:

BC93-380

Question: requirements specification the material purchaser? Reply:

May a manufacturer of steel pipe produce material to all applicable of SA-106, taking exception only to the O.D. tolerances required per the and/or applicable reference documents, and maintain the ability to certify to SA-106, as long as the exceeded tolerances are agreed to by the

No.




II-A-95-01

Subject:

SA-414

Date Issued:

February 7, 1994

File:

BC94-068

Question: May ASTM A 414 material, lacking identification on the certification to identify it with the acceptable ASTM editions equivalent to SA-414, as shown in Appendix A of Section II, Part A, be used in Code construction? Reply: Yes, provided the material manufacturer, or boiler vessel manufacturer, certifies with evidence acceptable to the Authorized Inspector, the corresponding requirements of ASTM A 414have been met. See page xi of the Foreword to Section II, Part A.


II-A-95-02

Subject:

Coating of Fastener Specs.

Date Issued:

March 15, 1994

File:

BC94-175

Question:

Do specifications SA-193, SA-194, and SA-320 address coatings?

Reply:

No.


II-A-95-03

Subject:

Marking Requirements of SA-20

Date Issued:

April 22, 1994

File:

BC94-262

Question: Para. 13 of SA-20 requires that the heat and slab number, and specification number and grade, class and type, where indicated in the material specification, be stamped and stenciled on each plate. Does para. 19 of SA-20 require that the slab number for each plate be shown on the test report? Reply:

No.


II-A-95-04

Subject:

Retesting of SA-387, SA-20 Material

Date Issued:

July 2, 1994

File:

BC94-468

Question: For SA-387, Grade 12, Class 2 material, ordered with test compounds heat treated after simulated heat treatment per S3 of S16 of SA-20, and failing to meet a required mechanical property minimum of the specification after tensile test, may retesting of the tensile property be permitted under the provisions of SA-370? Reply:

No.



II-A-95-05

Subject:

Heat Treatment Requirements in SA-350, Para. 6.1.2.1

Date Issued:

August 22, 1995

File:

BC94-680

Question: Is it a requirement of SA-350, para. 6.1.2.1 that the rate of heating to normalizing temperature is the same for each heat treatment load? Reply:

No.


II-A-95-06

Subject:

Interpretation of Certified Material Test Reports

Date Issued:

October 31, 1995

File:

BC93-688

Question: May a materials manufacturer, or stamp holder transfer data from a certified material test report to their own certified test report, or append additional information to a certified test report? Reply: Yes, provided that the materials manufacturer, or stamp holder, takes responsibility for the new certified material test report, or for the appended information.


II-A-95-07

Subject:

Dual Unit Marking of Material Specifications

Date Issued:

December 12, 1995

File:

BC95-262

Question: May a material certified and marked as meeting both U.S. customary and metric units be used for Code use? Reply: Yes, providing the results are reported in both systems and meet the requirements of both systems.


II-A-95-08

Subject:

SA-20, Para. 12.1.1 Impact Test Requirement

Date Issued:

December 13, 1995

File:

BC95-436

Question (1): Does paras. 12.1.1 and 12.1.1.1 of SA-20require one impact test (three specimens) for each plate-as-rolled? Reply (1):

Yes. See SA-20 para. 3.1.8 for the definition of plate as-rolled.

Question (2): For normalized plate subdivided froma plate as-rolled, does one impact test (three specimens) satisfy the impact requirements of SA-20, paras. 12.1.1 and 12.1.1.1 for all the subdivided plates? Reply (2):

Yes.



II-A-95-06R

Subject:

Interpretation of Material Test Reports

Date Issued:

October 30, 1996

File:

BC93-688*

Question: May a materials manufacturer, or stamp holder transfer data from a material test report to their own test report, or append additional information to a test report? Reply: Yes, provided that the materials manufacturer, or stamp holder, takes responsibility for the new material test report, or for the appended information.


II-A-95-09

Subject:

Criteria of Appendix 1 of Section II, Part D

Date Issued:

March 21, 1996

File:

BC95-443

Question: Does the criteria of Appendix 1 of Section II, Part D for establishing stress values in Tables 1A and 1B, imply an explicit design life for Section I construction, using the design allowable stresses in Tables 1A and 1B for materials permitted in Section I construction? Reply: No. There is neither an explicit nor an implicit design life associated with the allowable stresses in Tables 1A and 1B for Section I construction. The criteria of Appendix 1 of Section II, Part D has been established with the intention that sufficient margin is provided in the allowable stresses to preclude failure during normal operation for any reasonable life of boilers constructed according to Section I rules.


II-A-95-10

Subject:

SA-395

Date Issued:

March 22, 1996

File:

BC96-049

Question: SA-395?

Does the reference in Note 1 of SA-395 to A 536 incorporate A 536 in

Reply:

No.


II-A-95-11

Subject:

SA-105 Forging Flanges

Date Issued:

October 1, 1996

File:

BC96-324

Question: In forging flanges to SA-105 is there a requirement for the bore to be formed by hot working? Reply:

No.


II-A-95-12

Subject:

Use of SA-649 Material

Date Issued:

October 1, 1996

File:

BC96-375

Question: Does SA-649 limit the material for the trunnions of forged steel corrugating and pressure rolls used in machinery for producing corrugated paper to only Classes 3 and 4? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-95-13

Subject:

SA-20 and SA-353

Date Issued:

December 20, 1996

File:

BC95-382

Question: For SA-353 double-normalized and tempered 9% Ni alloy steel plates, which have been first normalized in the flat condition at a uniform temperature of o o 1650 F+/- 25 F, may the second normalizing treatment be omitted, if hot forming is o o performed after heating to a temperature within the range of 1450F+/-25 F? Reply:

No.


II-A-95-14

Subject:

Materials Processed from Coil

Date Issued:

December 20, 1996

File:

BC96-416

Question: Does para. 5.5.2 of SA-20 define the responsibility for testing and certifying material when such material is cut from coil? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-95-15

Subject:

SA-350 Impact Test

Date Issued:

December 26, 1996

File:

BC96-451

Question: Do paras. 6.2.3 and 6.1.3.4 of SA-350 require that impact test specimens shall have their longitudinal axis parallel to the major working axis of the test blank? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-95-16

Subject:

SA-508 Paras. 6.1.2.2, 6.1.2.3, 6.1.2.4, and 6.1.2.5

Date Issued:

March 27, 1997

File:

BC96-480

Question: In SA-508, paragraphs 6.1.2.2, 6.1.2.3, 6.1.2.4, and 6.1.2.5, is the “heat treated length”, regardless of shape, considered to be the dimension of the forging whose axis is parallel to the direction to which it is immersed into the quenching bath? Reply:

No. Tests are required as specified.


II-A-95-17

Subject:

Chemical Analysis of SA-36 Material

Date Issued:

March 27, 1997

File:

BC97-049

Question:

Does SA-36 require the reporting of residual elements?

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-98-01

Subject:

Mechanical Testing Requirements of SA-264

Date Issued:

October 21, 1997

File:

BC97-321

Question (1): Does SA-264 apply to explosively bonded clad plates? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Does paragraph 14 mean that each and every clad plate produced to SA264 shall be submitted to at least a mechanical test set? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): Is it possible to certify explosively bonded clad plates to SA-264 doing only a shear test? Reply (3):

No.

Question (4): Is it possible to certify explosively bonded clad platesto SA-264 without doing any mechanical testing? Reply (4):

Yes.



II-A-98-02

Subject:

SA-350 Para. 4.1.1

Date Issued:

October 13, 1998

File:

BC98-313

Question: reported?

Does SA-350 require that the grain size of the forgings be determined and

Reply:

No.


II-A-98-03

Subject:

Tension Test Requirement in SA-703

Date Issued:

October 13, 1998

File:

BC98-314

Question: Does SA-703 require a tension test for each heat, even if the material that is poured is from the same master ingot? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-98-04

Subject:

Clarification of Method of Construction for SA-403 Fittings

Date Issued:

January 14, 1999

File:

BC98-466

Question:

Does SA-403 address welded mitered elbows?

Reply:

No.


II-A-98-05

Subject:

SA-351, Definitions of Heat, Master Heat, or Subheat

Date Issued:

January 14, 1999

File:

BC98-506

Question: Can an investment casting supplier use the chemical and mechanical properties from a master heat ingot, which will be remelted in subheats to pour into castings, to meet the tensile requirements of SA-351? Reply:

No. Melting can change chemistry and properties.


II-A-98-06

Subject:

SA-788, Para. 8.5, Unspecified Elements

Date Issued:

January 15, 1999

File:

BC98-462

Question: May material having the chemistry of SA-372 Grade G, Class 70, except having deliberate additions of 0.40-0.70 Ni, 0.08 V max and 0.002 Bmax and otherwise meeting all requirements of SA-372 Grade G, Class 70, be certified to SA-372 Grade B, Class 70? Reply:

No.


II-A-98-07

Subject:

Test Specimen Geometry for SA-264 and SA-265

Date Issued:

January 26, 1999

File:

BC98-509

Question: cladding?

In SA-264 and SA-265, does the thickness include the base metal and the

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-98-08

Subject:

Chemical Requirements of SA-542 (1998 Edition with the 1999 Addenda) Type D of Section II, Part A

Date Issued:

December 30, 1999

File:

BC99-533

Question (1): The maximum silicon content is 0.010% on heat analysis and 0.013% on product analysis in accordance with Table 1 of SA-542/SA-542M. Are not these figures misprints of 0.10 and 0.13 respectively? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): May titanium and boron contents given in Table 1 be interpreted as 0.030 max., 0.035 max., and 0.0020 max. respectively? Reply (2):

Yes.


II-A-98-09

Subject:

Acceptable Limit of Unspecified Elements in Section II, Parts A and B (1998 edition, 1999 Addenda)

Date Issued:

January 27, 2000

File:

BC00-056

Question (1): Is there any requirement where an ellipses (…) appears in a table of chemical composition in the materials specifications in Section II, Parts A and B? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): For SA-182, SA-234, and SA-335 grades for which an ellipses (…) appears in the table of chemical composition for any element, and for which a test report indicates a content of such an element that does not violate the requirements of section 6.3 of SA-182 or section B-230 of Appendix B of Section II, Part A, for SA-234 or SA335, is the material in conformance with the respective specifications? Reply (2): Yes, provided that all of the other requirements of the respective specifications are met.



II-A-01-01

Subject: Hydrostatic Test Requirements for SA-216, SA-217, SA-351, and SA-352 in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda) Date Issued:

August 10, 2000

File:

BC99-469

Question: Do the hydrostatic test requirements of SA-703/SA-703M apply to all castings certified to SA-216/SA-216M, SA-217/SA-217M, SA-351/SA-351M, and SA-352/SA352M? Reply: Yes.


II-A-01-02

Subject:

SA-508 Para. 6.1.2.1 in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)

Date Issued:

September 20, 2000

File:

BC99-394

Question: When multiple forgings to SA-508, separated before heat treatment, are heat treated by austenitizing, quenching, and tempering in the same furnace charge does the 1000 lb weight limitation for the individual forgings from the same multiple forging as required by para. 6.1.2.1 of the specification apply? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-03

Subject:

Class Designation for SA-672 Grade C60 in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 and 2000 Addenda)

Date Issued:

September 22, 2000

File:

BC00-470

Question (1): May electric fusion welded pipe, fabricatedfrom SA-516 Grade 60 plate, and mechanically tested in the as-welded condition, and otherwise meeting all the requirements of SA-672, be certified as SA-672 Grade C60, Class 12 pipe? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): May electric fusion welded pipe, fabricatedfrom SA-516 Grade 60 plate, and mechanically tested in the post-weld heat treated condition, and otherwise meeting all the requirements of SA-672, be certified as SA-672 Grade C60, Class 12 pipe? Reply (2):

No. Such pipe shall be certified as SA-672 Grade C60, Class 22 pipe.


II-A-01-04

Subject:

Requirements for Coil Products to SA-414 (1998 Edition)

Date Issued:

December 28, 2000

File:

BC99-519

Question: Does coil product to SA-414, marked on the product as required in para. 10.2 of SA-414, but lacking a tag meet the requirements of SA-414? Reply:

No.


II-A-01-05

Subject:

SA-234 Para. 5 in Section II, Part A (1995 Edition, 1996 Addenda)

Date Issued:

January 25, 2001

File:

BC96-174

Question: Does para. 5.3 of SA-234 address the location in welds made to this specification? Reply:

No.


II-A-01-06

Subject:

Use of SA-516 Grade 60 that Fails to Meet the Minimum Silicon Requirement in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 and 2000 Addenda)

Date Issued:

February 20, 2001

File:

BC01-099

Question: May material meeting all the requirements of SA-516 Grade 60, except that the heat analysis for silicon is reported as less than 0.15%, be certified as SA-516 Grade 60? Reply: No. The material must meet all the requirements of the specification to be certified as SA-516 Grade 60.


II-A-01-07

Subject:

Product Analysis Range for Chromium Type D in Table 1 of SA-542/SA542M in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 and 2000 Addenda)

Date Issued:

May 24, 2001

File:

BC01-263

Question: Is the product analysis range for chromium Type D material in SA542/SA-542M correct as 1.08 – 2.62%? Reply:

No. The product analysis range was corrected to 1.88 – 2.62% by editorial ε

1

action in ASTM A 542/A 542M-95 .


II-A-01-08

Subject:

References to Edition and Addenda

Date Issued:

June 26, 2001

File:

BC01-570

Question (1): The 1998 Code Edition, as published, incorporatesthe 1998 Addenda. When providing reference to this Code Edition and Addenda within a Code-required document, may only the Edition be 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.


II-A-01-09

Subject:

Heat Treatment Requirements for SA-182 Grade FXM-19 and SA-479 Grade XM-19 (Nitronic 50) in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)

Date Issued:

May 18, 1999

File:

BC99-279

Question: For the 1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda and later, if SA-182/SA-182M Grade FXM-19 and SA-479/SA-479M Grade XM-19 are heat treated in accordance with their specifications, may the yield strength values listed in Table Y-1 for the materials be used for the design of threaded fasteners? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-10

Subject:

Ordering Materials to SA/SB Specifications Section II, Parts A and B (1998 Edition, 1999 and 2000 Addenda)

Date Issued:

April 26, 2001

File:

BC01-369

Question: Is it required that plate material intended for Code construction to either Sections I, IV, VIII, or X, and ordered and supplied to an SA/SB specification listed in Section II, Parts A or B, have material certification which identifies the ASME Edition/Addenda to which the material is being supplied? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-11

Subject:

Material Certification and Product Marking Requirements for SA-106/SA106M Grade B in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)

Date Issued:

June 28, 2001

File:

BC01-608

Question (1): Do the certification requirements forSA-106 seamless pipe require a specific statement on pipe manufacture or heat treatment? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): For seamless pipe manufactured to SA-106,must the heat number of the steel used in the pipe manufacture be marked on the pipe? Reply (2):

Yes.


II-A-01-12

Subject:

Product Marking Requirement in Para. 12.1 of SA-376/SA-376M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

July 26, 2001

File:

BC01-626 (BC01-740)

Question: Is it the intent of SA-376/SA-376M, when marking pipe, must the symbol “S” and the supplementary requirement number(s) be applied to the pipe when the pipe conforms to one or more of the listed supplementary requirements included in the purchase order? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-13

Subject:

Tempering in Para. 5.1 of SA-387/SA-387M in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition)

Date Issued:

March 8, 2002

File:

BC99-212

Question: May SA-387, Grade 11 Class 2, plate be ordered in the normalized condition with the tempering cycle to be completed by the fabricator as permitted by SA20/SA-20M? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-14

Subject:

Leak Tightness Testing of Seamless Boiler Tubes under SA-213/SA213M and SA-450/SA-450M in Section II, Part A (1995 Edition with the 1996 and 1997 Addenda)

Date Issued:

March 11, 2002

File:

BC98-312

Question (1): Does para. 11.5 of SA-213/SA-213M permita purchaser to specify that a nondestructive electric test may be used in lieu of a hydrostatic test? Reply (1):

Yes.

Question (2): Does para. 11.5 of SA-213/SA-213M and para.24.1 of SA-450/SA-450M permit the manufacturer to select the nondestructive electric test that shall be used in lieu of a hydrostatic test, when this substitution is permitted by the purchaser, but no specific test is specified by the purchaser? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): Does para. 4.1.10 of SA-213/SA-213M permit apurchaser to specify a particular nondestructive electric test, in addition to the other requirements of this specification, including the hydrostatic test? Reply (3):

Yes.

Question (4): Does para. 11.5 of SA-213/SA-213M require thata hydrostatic test be performed if the purchaser specifies either any electric nondestructive test or a specific nondestructive electric test, and does not specify that this test may be used instead of the hydrostatic test? Reply (4):

No.


II-A-01-15

Subject:

Applying Heat Treatment after Cold Working or Cold Drawing under SA372/SA-372M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

March 25, 2002

File:

BC01-893 (BC01-790)

Question: Is it the intent, when cold working is employed in the manufacturing procedure for a vessel being made to Specification SA-372/SA-372M, that the prescribed heat treatment be applied after completion of cold working? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-01-16

Subject:

SA-312/SA-312M and SA-358/SA-358M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

May 29, 2002

File:

BC01-787

Question: For welded austenitic stainless steel pipe made to Specification SA312/SA-312M, must the automatic welding in para. 5.1.1 conform to the requirements of Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code? Reply:

No.


II-A-01-17

Subject:

Requirements for Ultrasonic and Electromagnetic Inspection in SA53/SA-53M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

September 19, 2002

File:

BC02-2685

Question (1): It is a requirement of SA-53/SA-53M that, for welded pipe, the longitudinal weld seam be examined. For this examination must boththe ultrasonic and electromagnetic examination methods be used? Reply (1):

No, either method can be used.

Question (2): For Type E pipe, what is the test method for the electromagnetic inspection? Reply (2): ASTM E 570 “Practice for Flux Leakage Examination of Ferromagnetic Steel Tubular Products.”


II-A-01-18

Subject:

Regarding the Use of EN 10028-2 in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

September 19, 2002

File:

BC02-2711

Question: Is it acceptable to use EN 10028-2:1992 in lieu of BS EN 10028-2:1993 for the selection of flat products made of steels for pressure purposes? Reply:

No.


II-A-01-19

Subject:

Allowable Percentage for Unspecified Elements in SA-516/SA-516M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

September 19, 2002

File:

BC02-3280

Question: Are there restrictions on the presence of unspecified elements in any of the pressure vessel plate grades supplied to SA-516/SA-516M, other than those listed in Table 1 of SA-20/SA-20M? Reply:

No.


II-A-01-20

Subject:

Regarding the Deletion of SA/EN 10028-2 in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda)

Date Issued:

November 13, 2002

File:

BC02-3757

Question:

Was it the intent to delete SA/EN 10028-2?

Reply:

No.


II-A-01-21

Subject:

SA-312/SA-312M Pipe Containing Fusion Welds in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)

Date Issued:

October 11, 2002

File:

BC03-1457 (BC01-078)

Question (1): May welded pipe meeting all the requirements of SA-312/SA-312M, except that the weld is wholly made by fusion welding with the addition of filler metal be certified as complying with SA-312/SA-312M? Reply (1):

No, see para. 5.1.1 of SA-312/SA-312M.

Question (2): May welded SA-312/SA-312M pipes havinga diameter less than NPS 6 or a nominal wall thickness of less than 0.200 in., and repaired by fusion welding be certified as complying with SA-312/SA-312M? Reply (2): No. There are no exemptions from the requirements of para. 5.1.1 of SA312/SA-312M for pipe of these sizes. Question (3): May autogeneously weldedpipe having a diameter equal to or exceeding NPS 6 and a wall thickness equal to or exceeding 0.200 in., and having a weld seam whose repair length exceeds 20% of the weld seam length be certified as complying with SA-312/SA-312M? Reply (3):

No, see para. 12.2 of SA-312/SA-312M.


II-A-01-17R

Subject:

Requirements for Ultrasonic and Electromagnetic Inspection in SA53/SA-53M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition)

Date Issued:

February 20, 2004

File:

BC02-2685* (BC03-1544)

Question (1): It is a requirement of SA-53/SA-53M that, for welded pipe, the longitudinal weld seam be examined. For this examination must boththe ultrasonic and electromagnetic examination methods be used? Reply (1):

No, either method can be used.

Question (2): In specification SA-53/SA-53M, for TypeE pipe of NPS 2 [DN 50] or larger, nondestructive examination of the weld seamis required. Is it the intent of the specification that Practice E 213, E 309, or E 570 be used for this purpose? Reply (2):

Yes.

NOTE: The second question and reply of this Interpretation has been revised.


II-A-04-01

Subject:

Number of Tension Tests Required for Quenched and Tempered Plates under SA-20/SA-20M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda)

Date Issued:

October 23, 2003

File:

BC03-1371

Question: For a steel plate made to a specification that incorporates SA-20/SA-20M, when an optional quench and temper heat treatment cycle is used, must the plate be tested at both ends? Reply:

Yes.


Subject:

II-A-04-02

General Specification Requirements in Lieu of ASTM A 999/A 999M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda)

Question: Is it the intent that, until SA-999/SA-999M is published, SA-530/SA530M may be used in lieu of ASTM A 999/A 999M as the general specification for those ASME material specifications that reference A 999/A 999M, such as SA-312/SA-312M? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-04-03

Subject: Edition)

Permitted Tolerances under SA-530/SA-530M in Section II, Part A (2001

Date Issued:

December 15, 2003

File:

BC02-2686

Question: In addition to the minimum wall thickness tolerance required by 8.1 of SA-530/SA-530M, is the wall thickness governed by the weight tolerance requirements of 7.1? Reply:

No, both requirements apply independently and both must be met.


II-A-04-04

Subject: Plate Produced from Coils under SA-36/SA-36M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda) Date Issued:

December 30, 2003

File:

BC03-1937

Question:

In specification SA-36/SA-36M, section 4 “General Requirements for Delivery”, it is stated that coiled product is excluded from qualification to SA-36/SA-36M until decoiled, leveled and cut to length, and that two tension tests are required from each qualifying coil. Are the qualifying coils those designated in Table D of specification SA-6/SA-6M?

Reply:

Yes.


II-A-04-05

Subject: SA-6/SA-6M and SA-36/SA-36M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda) Date Issued:

December 15, 2003

File:

BC03-675

Question (1): Except as modified by specification A 6/A 6M, does SA-36/SA-36M para. 4.1.1 require a processor to report two test results for each coil, regardless of the number of coils produced from a single heat? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): In SA-36/SA-36M, 4.1.1, does the reference to test results in the last sentence refer to tension tests and their results? Reply (2):

Yes.

Question (3): Is plate as defined in SA-6/SA-6M consideredto be a structural product? Reply (3):

Yes.


II-A-04-06

Subject: Wall Thickness for SA-312/SA-312M TP304L Pipe in Section II, Part A (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda) Date Issued:

December 15, 2003

File:

BC00-277

Question: Table X1.1 in Appendix X1 of SA-312/SA-312M gives dimensions for seamless and welded stainless steel pipe inSchedule 5S, 10S, 40S, and80S. For the 16 NPS pipe an ellipsis appears instead of a wallthickness. Is there a specified nominal wall thickness for this size? Reply: No, a wall thickness is not specified for this size, the ellipsis means no requirement.


II-A-04-07

Subject: Marking Requirements of SA-530/SA-530M in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 12, 2004

File:

BC02-2578 (BC02-103)

Question: Does paragraph 24.3 of SA-530/SA-530M require that no detectable quantities of potentially harmful metals, or metal salts, such as zinc, lead, or copper, be present in marking materials? Reply:

No. See SA-1016/SA-1016M, para. 30.2.


II-A-04-08

Date Issued:

March 12, 2004

File:

BC03-1333

Subject: Weld Tensile Test for Welded Pipes as per SA-672, in Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 and 2003 Addenda) Question: May welded pipe be certified to SA-672, if the transverse tension tests required by para. 8.1.1 of SA-672 fail in the base material and do not meet either the specified minimum tensile or yield strength of the base plate specification used to make the welded pipe, but meet 95% of the base plate material properties? Reply: No.


II-A-04-09

Subject: Material Test Report Requirement for SA-240/SA-240M, Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued:

September 28, 2004

File:

BC04-1068

Question: For stainless steel plate, sheet or strip supplied to SA-240/SA-240M is it necessary for the certification to include the following sentence on the material test report: “The material was manufactured, sampled, tested and inspected in accordance with the requirements of SA-240/SA-240M and has been found to meet those requirements”? Reply:

No.


II-A-04-09R

Subject: Material Test Report Requirement for SA-240/SA-240M, Section II, Part A (2001 Edition w/ 2002 and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued:

September 28, 2004

File:

BC04-1068*

Question: For stainless steel plate, sheet or strip supplied to SA-240/SA-240M is it necessary for the certification to include the following sentence on the material test report: “The material was manufactured, sampled, tested and inspected in accordance with the requirements of SA-240/SA-240M and has been found to meet those requirements”? Reply:

No.


II-A-04-10

Subject: SA-577/SA-577M Requirement for Ultrasonic Examination of Plate Material, in Section II, Part A (2004 Edition) Date Issued:

March 11, 2005

File:

BC05-359

Question: When a steel plate is examined by the ultrasonic method in accordance with SA-577/SA-577M and no indications that equal or exceed the required calibration curve are found following the scan with the 45 degree angle beam search transducer, is an additional scan required using an alternate angle beam transducer? Reply:

No.


II-A-04-11

Subject: Material Test Report Requirements in SA-20/SA-20M, in Section II, Part A (2004 Edition) Date Issued:

April 12, 2005

File:

BC05-216

Question (1): Can as cast ingot or hot worked continuously castmaterial that does not meet the reduction requirements of 5.3 of Specification SA-20/SA-20M be certified to Specification SA-516/SA-516M? Reply (1):

No.

Question (2): Is certification of strand cast slab material that is supplied for hot rolling into steel plate to a product specification included in Section II-A required to include the specification number and year date? Reply (2):

No.

Question (3): For strand cast material that has been hot rolled into plate and supplied to a second supplier for certification to a Section II-A steel pressure vessel plate specification, must the srcinal manufacturer's certification indicate that the requirements of Section 5 Material and Manufacture of Specification SA-20/SA-20M have been met? Reply (3):

Yes.


II-A-04-12

Subject: Mechanical Test Requirements Concerning Multiple Forgings to SA508/SA-508M, in Section II, Part A (2004 Edition) Date Issued:

December 7, 2005

File:

BC05-611

Question 1: According to Specification SA-508/SA-508M is a multiple forging one that includes several like parts, forged as a single piece and later separated into individual components? Reply 1:

Yes.

Question 2: According to 6.1.2.1 of Specification SA-508/SA-508M is the maximum rough machined weight of each of the individual forgings in a multiple forging 1,000 lb (455 kg)? Reply 2:

Yes.

Question 3: For a multiple forging made to SA-508/SA-508M, in which the rough machined weight of the individual forgings does not exceed 1,000 lb (455 kg), does para. 6.2.1 require that the individual forgings be separated from the multiple and then heat treated in the same heat treatment load? Reply 3:

Yes.


II-A-04-13

Subject: Simulated PWHT in Accordance with Supplementary Requirement S3 of SA-20/SA-20M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition) Date Issued:

December 7, 2005

File:

BC05-612

Question: For normalized and tempered plate to SA-387/SA-387M, Grade 11, Class 2 to be used in welded construction and for a test piece representative of the plate that has undergone a simulated post weld heat treatment cycle, in accordance with Supplementary Requirement S3 of SA-20/SA-20M must the minimum tension test requirements of specification SA-387/SA-387M for the ordered grade and class be met? Reply:

Yes.


II-A-04-14

Subject:

Pipe Nipples to SA-53/SA-53M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition)

Date Issued:

December 7, 2005

File:

BC05-1041

Question:

Does SA-53/SA-53M address pipe nipples?

Reply:

No.

Section II-A – Interpretations Vol. 57

Interpretation:

II-A-04-15

Subject: Certification Requirements for SA-105/SA-105M, Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC03-1729

Question: When material for Code construction is supplied to an ASTM specification that is included in the list of Acceptable ASTM Editions in Section II, Part A, must the certification requirements include the specification year date and acceptable revision letter? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-04-16

Subject: Supplementary Requirement S2 of SA-213/SA-213M, Section II, Part A (2001 Edition, 2002 and 2003 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC04-1199

Question: In specification SA-213/SA-213M, Supplementary Requirement S2 enables the purchaser to specify that a stabilizing heat treatment be applied subsequent to solution annealing for certain listed grades of austenitic stainless steel boiler, superheater and heat exchanger tubes. Is it a requirement that the stabilization heat treatment temperature be lower than the solution treatment temperature, and be agreed between the purchaser and producer? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-04-17

Subject:

Test Report Requirements of SA-106, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition)

Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC05-111

Question: When a test report is requested in the ordering information for SA-106, must the test report address the results of all tests required by the specification and the order, including any supplementary requirement tests specified in the order, even if the required tests, such as bending and flattening, do not yield quantitative results? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-04-18

Subject: Product Tension Testing Under SA-336/SA-336M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition) Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC05-1034

Question: For alloy steel forgings supplied to specification SA-336/SA-336M, does the specification include a purchaser retest provision for the required mechanical tests similar to that for product chemical analysis? Reply:

No.

Interpretation:

II-A-04-19

Subject:

SA-135 ERW Steel Pipe, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda)

Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC05-1649

Question:

Does SA-135 address noncircular pipe?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation:

II-A-04-20

Subject: Marking Requirements for SA-213/SA-213M H Grades, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 15, 2006

File:

BC06-01

Question: Is it required to mark the heat treatment lot number on stainless steel tubes, for the grades listed in section 15 of specification SA-213/SA-213M, when the heat treatment was performed in either a batch or a continuous furnace? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-01

Subject: SA-20/SA-20M Paras. 11.5.3 and 12.1.4, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) Date Issued:

August 23, 2006

File:

BC06-47

Question: Is it permissible for heavy wall plates as per ASME Section II, Part A, SA20/SA-20M, to replace the location of the tensile test specimen as specified under para. 11.5.3 and/or the impact test as specified under para. 12.1.4 by those specimen taken from the center of the plate thickness when all other Code requirements, e.g. impact strength, lateral expansion, are complied with?

Reply:

No.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-02

Subject: Clarification of Note in Table 1 of SA-403/SA-403M, Section II, Part A (1974 Edition) Date Issued:

August 25, 2006

File:

BC06-1108

Question: For fittings produced to SA-403/SA-403M WP316L, Section II, Part A 1974 Edition, does Note (g) apply? Reply:

No, the Note (g) reference is a typographical error, Note (c) applies.


II-A-07-03

Subject: Nickel Range for Grade TP316 in SA-213/SA-213M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 8, 2007

File:

06-342

Question: For Specification SA-213/SA-213M, as published in the 2004 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, is the nickel range of 11% to 14% for the austenitic stainless Grade TP316 (UNS S31600) correct? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-04

Subject: 2005 Addenda)

SA-307 Marking Requirements, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition,

Date Issued:

March 8, 2007

File:

06-487

Question: Does the reference to 3/8 in. dimension in SA-307 para. 13.1.2 refer to the actual diameter of the end of the stud or the nominal thread size? Reply:

The nominal thread size.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-05

Subject: Edition)

SA-36/SA-36M Bend Test Requirements, Section II, Part A (1974

Date Issued:

March 8, 2007

File:

06-1426

Question: For material certified to SA-36/SA-36M in the 1974 Edition of Section II, Part A is the bend test required? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-06

Subject: (2004 Edition)

SA-105/SA-105M Certification Requirements, Section II, Part A

Date Issued:

March 8, 2007

File:

07-63

Question: Is the forging manufacturer (the organization whose identification marks appear on the finished part) prohibited from transcribing the chemical analysis from the steel melter’s test report to the manufacturer’s test report? Reply:

No.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-07

Subject: Creep Rupture Test Requirements Under SA-335/SA-335M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 and 2006 Addenda) Date Issued:

March 8, 2007

File:

07-122

Question: Is creep rupture mechanical testing a requirement of Specification SA-335/SA-335M “Seamless Ferritic Alloy Steel Pipe for High Temperature Service”? Reply:

No.


II-A-07-08

Subject: Certification to SA-649/SA-649M, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2006 Addenda) Date Issued:

February 20, 2008

File:

07-640

Question: A material manufacturer obtains forged material that is certified only to the chemical requirements for a selected grade in SA-649/SA-649M. May the material manufacturer certify the material in part to the requirements of SA-649/SA649M in accordance with 1.4 of SA-788/SA-788M or on completion of all the requirements of SA-649/SA-649M certify the forging to that specification? Reply:

Yes.

Interpretation:

II-A-07-09

Subject: SA-179/SA-179M Chemical Composition Requirements, Section II, Part A (2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda) Date Issued:

February 20, 2008

File:

07-1764

Question: Is the supply of material that specifically requires an additional maximum limit on an element that is not purposely added, other than those listed in 8.1 of SA-179/SA-179M, permitted? Reply:

Yes.

ASME SECTION II, PART A INTERPRETATIONS

Recommend Documents