Technical Bulletin

Document Number:

TB-000019

Category:

Design

Subject:

Section VIII, Division 1 Joint Efficiency Rules

Abstract:

A Discussion of Section VIII, Division 1 Joint Efficiency Requirements

Body:

Vessels built under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1 are designed using calculations for
a cylindrical shell and other components that apply a factor of "E", representing the
efficiency of the joint in question. UG-27 is where the cylindrical shell formulas are found,
and defines "E" as follows:
E = joint efficiency for, or the efficiency of, the appropriate joint in cylindrical or spherical
shells, or efficiency of ligaments between openings, whichever is less. F o r w e l d e d
vessels, use the efficiency specified in UW-12. For ligaments between openings,
use the efficiency calculated by the rules given in UG-53.
S e a m l e s s s h e l l s have no Category "A" long seams within them. At either end there will
be either Category "B" or "C" seams attaching heads, additional shell courses, flanges, or
tube sheets. Since the shell has no longitudinal weld seam within it, it appears E = 1.0.
While the efficiency is theoretically 100%, UW-12(d) states that a seamless shell "shall be
considered equivalent to welded parts of the same geometry in which all Category A
welds are Type No. 1." When calculating circumferential stress in the shell, we must
assume that a Type 1 long seam exists within the vessel, even though it clearly does not.
For a Category A weld seam with a Type 1 joint design, E = 0.70 when no radiography is
applied. This appears to be the value of "E" for this situation.
However, UW-12(d) goes on to tell us "For calculations involving circumferential stress in
seamless vessel sections or for thickness of seamless heads, E = 1.0 when the spot
radiography requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) are met. E = 0.85 when the spot radiography
requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) are not met, or when the Category A or B welds connecting
seamless vessel sections or heads are Type No. 3, 4, 5, or 6 of Table UW-12."
So, for a seamless shells, E = 0.85 (i n m o s t c a s e s ) unless spot radiography
p e r U W -11(a )(5)(b ) h a s b e e n a p p l i e d . UW-11(a)(5)(b) states "Category B or C butt
welds [but not including those in nozzles or communicating chambers except as required
in (2) above] which intersect the Category A butt welds in vessel sections or heads shall,
as a minimum, meet the requirements for spot radiography in accordance with UW-52.
Spot radiographs required by this paragraph shall not be used to satisfy the spot
radiography rules as applied to any other weld increment."
A s i n g l e c o u r s e s e a m l e s s s h e l l w i t h s e a m l e s s e l l i p t i c a l h e a d s attached by
Type 1 or 2 weld seams is calculated by using E = 0.85 when no radiography is applied. If
spot radiography per UW-52 is applied to the Category B or C seams intersecting the
Category A seams, as stated in UW-11(a)(5)(b), then E = 1.0. Remember, for a seamless
shell we are "pretending" that a Category A seam is present, so the Category B seams will
be intersecting seams. If the head to shell attachment is a Type 3, 4, 5, or 6 weld joint, E =
0.85, since the efficiency of these joints cannot be improved by radiography.
The provisions of UW-12(d) were added to the Code when Section VIII adopted a "design
by joint" philosophy in the 1980s. While developing the rules, it became obvious that

since circumferential seams only needed to be half as strong as long seams, the
circumferential stress (longitudinal seam) calculations would usually be the limiting factor
in thickness calculations. This meant that calculations for a seamless shell, and for a
seamless vessel with integral heads, resulted in the same required thickness. The
Committee believed that vessels without welds should be treated more favorably than
welded vessels, even if the welds are circumferential seams. As a result, these provisions
apply a " quality factor" , using the assigned values for " E " g i v e n i n p a r a g r a p h
U W -12(d ). They are not truly joint efficiencies, since they do not necessarily represent an
actual joint.
W h a t i f a s h e l l s e c t i o n i s m a d e f r o m E R W w e l d e d p i p e ? Should E = 0.85, even
though the allowable stress values for ERW pipe include a 0.85 joint efficiency applied to
the stress value for seamless pipe? The answer is, "Yes." It seems like a double penalty
to do so, but that is the intent of the Code. (See Interpretation VIII-1-89-97)
What if the shell is welded to a flat head or tube sheet with a corner joint?
UW-11(a)(5)(b) applies spot radiography to butt welds only. Corner joints are a Category 6
weld, and cannot be radiographed under the rules of Section VIII, Division 1. Since you
cannot perform radiography of the Category C weld attaching the flat head or tube sheet,
the Committee decided not to penalize the designer, and decided that E = 1.0. (See
Interpretation VIII-1-89-144) This also applies to Category C welds such as slip on flange
attachments using double fillet welds. (See Interpretation VIII-1-89-227)
W h a t a b o u t h e m i s p h e r i c a l h e a d s ? The head to shell attachment weld is part of the
head. If the hemispherical heads are otherwise seamless, the head to shell attachment
weld is a Category A weld. The required thickness for the head is calculated using a value
for "E" selected from Table UW-12, depending on the Type of joint. If there are any
seams within the head, they need to be considered as well, with the lowest determined
value of "E" being the controlling factor.
H o w s h o u l d t h e s p o t r a d i o g r a p h y b e a p p l i e d ? A small vessel could possibly have
a total running length of circumferential welds that is less than 50 feet. If the same welder
deposited all of these welds, it would be considered within the same increment. Can a
single spot radiograph represent both circumferential welds if deposited by the same
welder? The answer is "Yes." (See Interpretation VIII-1-92-32)
Since the increment is based upon length, and the number of welders involved, what if
another welder makes a repair in the weld? Does this repair introduce another
increment, requiring another spot radiograph to maintain the joint efficiency? The answer is
"No." (See Interpretation VIII-1-98-37)
If designing a vertical vessel subject to wind loads, where circumferential stress is no
longer the controlling stress, what value of " E " is applied to the circumferential
s e a m f o r c a l c u l a t i o n p u r p o s e s ? The efficiency of the circumferential joint is
dependant upon the Type of joint and degree of radiography [other than the
UW-11(a)(5)(b) spot] that is applied. UW-11(a)(5)(b) states in the last sentence, "Spot
radiographs required by this paragraph shall not be used to satisfy the spot radiography
rules as applied to any other weld increment." A UW-11(a)(5)(b) spot radiograph applied
to meet the requirements of UW-12(d) establishes a "quality factor", and cannot be used to
determine weld joint efficiency. This is reinforced by the words of UW-51(b)(4), which state
"Radiographs required at specific locations to satisfy the rules of other paragraphs, such
as UW-9(d), UW-11(a)(5)(b), and UW-14(b) shall not be used to satisfy the requirements
for spot radiography."

References:

Note:
These interpretations were transcribed by HSB from the official ASME published
volumes. Although every effort was made to accurately reproduce the interpretations, use
of this information should be limited only to the discussion of this Technical Bulletin. It is
strongly recommended that the official ASME interpretation publication be used for actual
Code construction.

Interpretation:
VIII-1-89-97
Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1986 Edition, 1988 Addenda), UG-27
Date Issued:
May 10, 1989
File:
BC89-085
Question: An ERW pipe is butt welded to a 2:1 elliptical head forming a single full
penetration joint with a backing strip left in place or forming a butt joint as specified in Fig.
UW-13 sketch (k). No radiographic examination is conducted on the butt joint, and the
pressure vessel will be used for internal pressure without provisions for human
occupancy. Is the joint efficiency E in the equations in UG-27 for:
(a) the circumferential stress equal to 1.00; and
(b) the longitudinal stress equal to 0.65?
Reply:
(a) No, a quality factor needs to be applied in this case.
(b) Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Interpretation:
VIII-1-89-227
Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition), UW-11(a) and Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (m)
Date Issued:
September 26, 1990
File:
BC90-412
Question (1): A one piece seamless pipe (SA-53 Grade B) is welded to a bolting flange at
each end, where the weld is of full penetration and forms a Category C corner joint as
shown in Fig. UW-13.2 sketch (m) in Section VIII, Division 1. Assuming no radiographic
examination is required by the Code, would any radiographic examination of this corner
joint affect the joint efficiency used in calculating the required thickness for the seamless
shell under internal pressure?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): With no radiography of this corner joint, would the joint efficiency of the
seamless shell used in calculations be E = 1?
Reply (2): Yes.
Question (3): Would the requirements of UW-11(a)(5)(b) ever need to be met for the
corner joint described above?
Reply (3): No.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Interpretation:
VIII-1-92-32
Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1989 Edition, 1990 Addenda); UW-11(a)(5)(b),
UW-12(d), and UW-52
Date Issued:
December 6, 1991

File:

BC91-518

Question (1): A vessel is constructed of a seamless pipe for the shell and a 2:1 elliptical
head on each end, each attached by a full penetration Type No. 1 Category B joint. The
total weld length is 50 ft or less. Must both Category B joints be spot radiographed, as a
minimum under the provisions of UW-11(a)(5)(b), to claim the joint efficiency factor of E=1
for both heads?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): If the vessel in Question (1) was fabricated with a welded shell, would each
Category B joint be required to be radiographed?
Reply (2): No.
Question (3): If the spot selected per UW-11(a)(5)(b) fails and the tracers required by
UW-52(d)(2) on the examined joint also fail, must the entire weld increment represented
by the spot be removed or fully radiographed as permitted by UW-52(d)(2)(b)?
Reply (3): Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Interpretation:
VIII-1-98-37
Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (1995 Edition, 1997 Addenda); UW-52(b)(2)
Date Issued:
July 21, 1998
File:
BC98-246
Question: A weld joint accepted by spot radiography under the rules of UW-52 in Section
VIII, Division 1 develops a pinhole leak during the hydrostatic pressure test. The leak is
repaired, and the vessel is subjected to a repeat of the hydro test for final acceptance.
Prior to repeating the pressure test, is it required to perform spot radiography to
determine acceptability of the repair?
Reply: No.
Links: