Asme Section Ii, Part B Interpretations

ASME SECTION II, PART B 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-B – Interpretations Vol. 1
Interpretation: II-77-06
Subject: Section II, Part B and Section VIII, Division 1, SB-171, Gr. CDA 706
Date Issued: February 4, 1977
File: NA
Question: Should SB-171, Grade CDA 706, be furnished in the annealed condition
to the vessel manufacturer? It is noted that in Table UNF-23.2 the specification is listed
as being annealed, but there is no indication in Section II, Part B, in the material
specification that heat treatment is required.
Reply: SB-171, Grade CDA 706, does not have to be furnished in the annealed
condition to the vessel manufacturer. Ordinarily, the welding to be done on the material
performs the same function as annealing. The stress values listed for the annealed
condition in Table UNF-23.2 shall be used.
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 to an 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 are in 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.
Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-241 Alloy 5083 “F” Temper Requirements
File: BC77-845
Question: Should tubing to Alloy 5083 “F” temper of SB-241 be annealed to comply
with “O” temper for an entire lot instead of just a test piece?
Reply: There are no requirements in SB-241 stating that mill-produced material in

“F” temper, upon annealing, shall be capable of attaining or shall develop the “O” temper
properties. Even if the material producer accepts the annealing capability or is asked to
confirm the anneal response, it would still be the responsibility of the party who does the
actual annealing to make sure that the final annealed product meets all the necessary
requirements of SB-241. There are many reasons, other than manufacturing reasons to
anneal the tube. Strength consideration is not the only criteria in material selection and
design. Other characteristics such as corrosion, fatigue, etc. can be equally, if not more,
important. “O” temper product is sure to behave differently from “F” material in service
condition.
When the material is certified to meet the “O” temper properties, there is
no alternative but to have the entire lot annealed and a random sample from the lot tested
for conformance.
If there is concern about your annealing practice which may not produce a
product that will meet all the requirements of SB-241, the logical choice would be to seek
other suppliers for “O” temper of 5083.
Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-338
Date Issued: June 13, 1978
File: BC78-330
Question: A welded titanium tubing is produced of strip coils which normally are the
product of two ingots that are welded together without filler metal after hot rolling to a
thickness of 0.18 in.
Although two ingots are combined to form a single strip coil, the chemistry of
each ingot is predetermined and meets the requirement of Table 1 of SB-338. In
addition, the product from each ingot is tested to satisfy the mechanical requirements of
12 of SB-338.
Does such a processing/testing procedure as described above satisfy the
requirements of SB-338?
Reply: The process described above includes testing of the product of each chemical
analysis lot, and material is identified by both chemical analysis and mechanical testing
lot. This process will meet the requirement of SB-338, if both chemical and mechanical
test results satisfy the requirements of the specification.
No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.







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.
Subject: Section II, Parts A and B, Definitions for Tube and Pipe
File: BC81-654
Question (1): Is there a definition for pipe and tube?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): What are some of the differences between pipe 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 B36.10 and B36.19. There are no similar standards for tubing.
(b) Pipe is often used with welding or threaded fittings and tubes are generally not used
with fittings.
(c) The term tubing generally is not used to describe products over 5 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.


Interpretation: II-B-83-1
Subject: Section II, Part B, Material Certification
Date Issued: December 13, 1983
File: BC83-267
Question: Is the material manufacturer or supplier required under the provisions of

SB-169 and SB-171 to furnish the material purchaser with a Certificate of Compliance,
Mill Test Report, or both?
Reply: For SB-169 material, a Certificate of Compliance is required. For SB-171

material, both a Certificate of Compliance and Mill Test Report are required. The
Subcommittee on Material Specifications will consider revisions to make the two
specifications consistent with one another.


Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-160, Forging Quality Rod
Date Issued: March 19, 1985
File: BC84-640
Question (1): Does SB-160 cover a fitting that has been forged from SB-160 round bar?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): Is there another specification which can be used to cover Ni 200 forged
fittings?
Reply (2): SB-366 may be used.
Question (3): Are physical test results required, and if so, are they required after or
before forging?
Reply (3): Refer to SB-366.



Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-167, Centrifugally Spun Pipe
File: BC86-368
Question: Does SB-167 exclude centrifugally spun pipe which is hot worked and
conforms to the chemical and mechanical requirements of SB-167?
Reply: No.

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-359, Para. 14.1.2, Pressure Testing
Date Issued: October 27, 1987
File: BC87-86
Question: May an external pneumatic pressure test of installed tubes by the vessel
fabricator be used in lieu of the internal pressure test required by SB-359, para. 14.1.2?
Reply: No.
Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-338, Cold Forming
File: BC87-259
Question: Does material cold-formed subsequent to annealing meet the requirements

of SB-338?
Reply: No.






Subject: Section II, SB-75, Table 2
Date Issued: March 13, 1991
File: BC91-076
Question: Does SB-75 list tensile and yield strength requirements for O50 and O60
temper materials with thickness greater than 0.035 inch?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: SB-61 & SB-62, Definition of Manufacturer
File: BC92-192
Question: Does the term “manufacturer” in Sections 4.2, 8.3, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and
12.4 of Specifications SB-61 and SB-62 refer to the foundry that melts and pours the final
product form?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: Radiography of SB-366
Date Issued: July 15, 1994
File: BC94-049
Question: If SB-366, Table 1 does not list a starting welded pipe of tube
specification for a given grade of material, does Section 4.2.4.1 of SB-366 provide
exemption from radiography for fitting welds fabricated from a listed plate material made
without filler metal?
Reply: No.
Subject: SB-409
File: BC94-067
Question: SB-409, para. 9.1 requires that the surface finish of the material be free
from injurious imperfections. Does SB-409 prohibit mechanical removal surface
imperfection such as “laps”?
Reply: No, provided all requirements of SB-409 are met.

Subject: Inquiry on the Nondestructive Test Requirement in SB-75
Date Issued: May 29, 1997
File: BC97-058
Question: Is it the intent of the Committee that SB-75 require both a hydrostatic and
pneumatic pressure test?
Reply: No.
Subject: 3003 O Temper Al (UNS A93003) Maximum Allowable Stress Value
File: BC97-223
Question: Is maximum allowable stress value of 3.4 ksi for A93003 O correct?
Reply: Yes, based on experience.






Subject: Radiography of SB-366
Question: If SB-366, Table 1 does not list a starting welded pipe of tube
specification for a given grade of material, does Section 4.2.4.1 of SB-366 provide
exemption from radiography for fitting welds fabricated from a listed plate material made
without filler metal?
Reply: No.
Subject: SB-409
Question: SB-409, para. 9.1 requires that the surface finish of the material be free
from injurious imperfections. Does SB-409 prohibit mechanical removal surface
imperfection such as 'laps'?
Reply: No, provided all requirements of SB-409 are met.




Subject: Chemical Analysis Requirements of SB-265
Question: Does SB-265 require a material test report reporting the results of the
chemical analysis?
Reply: No.
Subject: Inquiry on the Nondestructive Test Requirement in SB-75
Question: Is it the intent of the Committee that SB-75 require both a hydrostatic and
pneumatic pressure test?
Reply: No.
Date Issued: May 29,1997
Subject: 3003 O Temper Al (UNS 93003) Maximum Allowable Stress Value
Question: Is maximum allowable stress value of 3.4 ksi for A93003 O correct?
Reply: Yes, based on experience.





Subject: Acceptable Limit of Unspecified Elements in Section II, Parts and B (1998
edition, 1999 addenda)
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.

Subject: SB-271 for Copper Based Centrifugal Castings, ASTM B 271-93a (1998
Edition, 1999 Addenda)
File: BC99-392
Question: Are the mechanical property requirements of SB-271 satisfied if the

properties obtained on separately cast test bars, made in accordance with Practice B-208
and meeting the sampling requirements of Section 8 of SB-271, meet the requirements in
Table 3 of SB-271?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: SB-241, Paras. 3.1.2 and 5.1 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)
File: BC99-214
Question: May tubing produced from extruded hollow ingots made by the
porthole/bridge method and drawn to its final dimensions using die and mandrel be
certified to SB-241?
Reply: No.
Subject: “Lot Definition” per Para. 8.1.2 of SB-564 (1998 Edition, 1999 Addenda)
File: BC00-394
Question: Does SB-564, para. 8.1.2 require that all items in a lot for mechanical
properties and grain testing all be of the same size and shape?
Reply: Yes.
Section II–B – Interpretations Vol. 49
Subject: Ordering Information Requirements of SB-98 (1998 Edition, 1999 and

2000 Addenda)
File: BC00-549
Question: Is it the intent of SB-98 that the ordering information requirements

for material ordered to this specification meet the requirements of Section 4 "Ordering
Information", of ASTM B 98/B 98M-98, rather than those of SB-249, the latter of which
no longer exists?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: References to Edition and Addenda
Date Issued: June 26, 2001
File: BC01-570
Question (1): The 1998 Code Edition, as published, incorporates the 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.

Subject: Ordering Information Requirements of SB-98 (2001 Edition)
Question: Is it the intent of SB-98 that the ordering information requirements

for material ordered to this specification meet the requirements of Section 4 "Ordering
Information", of ASTM B 98/B 98M-98, rather than those of SB-249, the latter of which
no longer exist?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: Ordering Materials to SA/SB Specifications (1998 Edition, 1999 and 2000
Addenda)
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, Part A or B, have material certification that identifies the ASME
Edition/Addenda to which the material is being supplied?
Reply: Yes.



Subject: Hydrostatic Test Requirements of SB-423 (2001 Edition and 2002

Addenda)
File: BC03-754
Question: Does 9.1 of SB-423 require that the hydrostatic test be completed at
apressure resulting in a stress equal to the allowable fiber stress of the material indicated?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: Hydrostatic Test Requirements of SB-423 (2001 Edition and 2002

Addenda)
File: BC03-882
Question: Is it the intent that 4.1.7 of SB-423 refer to 9.1 instead of 9.1.1?
Reply: Yes.
Subject: Using the Lost Foam Process under SB-26/SB-26M (2001 Edition with
2002 and 2003 Addenda)
File: BC03-1316
Question: Does SB-26/SB-26M prohibit the use of the lost foam process?
Reply: No.

Asme Section Ii, Part B Interpretations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Asme Section Ii, Part B Interpretations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ASME SECTION II, PART B INTERPRETATIONS

NOTE: THESE INTERPRETATIONS ARE FOR ASME COMMITTEE USE

THERE MAY BE SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THIS DOCUMENT.

Date Issued: February 4, 1977

Subject: Section II; Use of ASME Material Specifications Relative to Contract

Date Issued: September 7, 1977

Question (1): Is it possible to use materials manufactured to an earlier or later Edition or

Question (2): May SA-234 fittings be made from SA-516 plate?

Date Issued: February 24, 1978

Reply: There are no requirements in SB-241 stating that mill-produced material in

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-338

Date Issued: June 13, 1978

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, Parts A and B, Material Chemistry Deviation

Date Issued: January 5, 1982

Date Issued: January 5, 1982

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

Reply (1): No.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, Part B, Material Certification

Date Issued: December 13, 1983

Question: Is the material manufacturer or supplier required under the provisions of

Reply: For SB-169 material, a Certificate of Compliance is required. For SB-171

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-160, Forging Quality Rod

Date Issued: March 19, 1985

Reply (1): No.

Reply (2): SB-366 may be used.

Reply (3): Refer to SB-366.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-167, Centrifugally Spun Pipe

Date Issued: December 5, 1986

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-359, Para. 14.1.2, Pressure Testing

Date Issued: October 27, 1987

Subject: Section II, Part B, SB-338, Cold Forming

Date Issued: December 15, 1987

Question: Does material cold-formed subsequent to annealing meet the requirements

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

No Section II-B Interpretations listed in this volume.

Subject: Section II, SB-75, Table 2

Date Issued: March 13, 1991

Subject: SB-61 & SB-62, Definition of Manufacturer

Date Issued: December 10, 1992

Subject: Radiography of SB-366

Date Issued: July 15, 1994

Date Issued: January 14, 1994

Reply: No, provided all requirements of SB-409 are met.

Subject: Inquiry on the Nondestructive Test Requirement in SB-75