Comparison between ASME and RCC-M

requirements for welding and NDT

Marcello Consonni and Peter Mudge
TWI Ltd.
Cambridge, UK
Paper presented at 20th International Conference on Nclear !ngineering. "0 #l $ " %g
20&2, %naheim, C%, U'%. Paper No. IC(N!20P(W!)20&2$*+&,0
Abstract
The t-o main designs crrentl. being applied -orld-ide for pressri/ed -ater reactors
0PW)1 are the !P)
T2
and the %P$&0003, respecti4el. based on the 5esign and Constrction
)les for 2echanical Components of PW) Nclear Islands code 0)6gles de Conception et de
Constrction des 2at7riels 27cani8es des Ilots Ncl7aires des r7acters 9 ea sos pression,
)CC 21, the :rench nclear constrction code, and on the %'2! ;oiler and Pressre <essel
Code 0referred to hereafter as =%'2!=1.
This paper presents an interpreti4e comparison bet-een the )CC$2 and %'2! re8irements
for -elding and non destrcti4e testing 0N5T1, limited to components -ithin the =nclear
island=. 5ifferences that might ha4e an impact on manfactring operations or on the long
term integrit. of the Class & -elds are discssed. The reslts are presented in the form of te>t
and tables. In addition, indi4idal clases are compared to establish if the. can be considered
e8i4alent and if not, -hich code pro4ides the most stringent re8irements.
ntroduction
This paper presents a comparati4e assessment of the re8irements pro4ided b. the )CC$2
and %'2! codes for the design and constrction of PW) nclear po-er plants, specificall.
for -elding and associated non destrcti4e testing 0N5T1 of Class & prodction -elds on
nclear island components. The std. condcted b. the athors in4ol4ed a large nmber of
detailed comparisons of re8irements for specific aspects relating to -elding and N5T of
ma?or Class & -elds for -hich there is insfficient space here. The intent of this paper is to
highlight the ma?or differences bet-een the t-o codes, as -ell as pro4iding a sefl reference
for organisations that are traditionall. more familiar -ith the %'2! code.
The docments compared -ere the %'2! 20&0 edition and the )CC$2 200@ edition,
inclding the &st %ddendm, dated 5ecember 200A, and the 2nd %ddendm, dated 5ecember
200,. These t-o codes are ine4itabl. comple> docments and the re8irements for one do not
necessaril. map directl. on to those of the other. %n e>ample -hich highlights the care -ith
-hich direct comparisons bet-een the t-o codes mst be carried ot is that the )CC$2 code,
'ection I, 'b$'ection %, Clase %+2+2 states thatB 'Welds subjected to pressure shall be
assigned the same class as the parts they join. If the parts have different class designations,
the weld shall be assigned the most severe class'. %'2! 'ection III does not identif. -elds in
relation to component class in this -a., bt Clase N;$&&"0 specifies the criteria for defining
the bondar. of the applicabilit. of 'b$'ection N; 0Class & components1. Conse8entl., a
-eld -hich ma. be deemed to be Class & b. one code ma. not be according to the other.
Nomenclature
Contractor
Indi4idal or legal entit. responsible for the design and constrction of all or
part of the nclear island
!N Prefi> that denotes a !ropean 'tandard
I'( International (rganisation for 'tandardisation
2anfactrer
Indi4idal or legal entit. responsible for the design and constrction of the
pressre e8ipment. The Contractor ma. assme the role of manfactrer for
some e8ipment items or some ser4ices
)P< )eactor pressre 4essel
'C 'team generator
Scope of t!is stud"
The re4ie- focsed on )CC$2 'ection I, 'bsections % 0Ceneral )e8irements1 and ;
0Class & components1, and 'ection I< 0Welding1, -hich broadl. correspond to 'ection III,
'bsections III$NC% and III$N;, and 'ection ID of the %'2!, respecti4el. 0Table 11. It
shold be noted that 'ection I< of the )CC$2 deals -ith all aspects of -elding. The scope of
'ection I< of )CC$2 is conse8entl. -ider than the one of 'ection ID of %'2!, co4ering
aspects contained in %'2! 'ections II and III. Therefore, the comparison considered these as
-ell. The re4ie- of non$destrcti4e testing re8irements also inclded 'ection III of )CC$2
and 'ections < and DI of %'2!. With regard to parent materials, the re4ie- -as limited to
clases applicable to 2nNi2o lo-$allo. steels, C$2n steels and stainless steels 0)CC$2
grades and e8i4alents are pro4ided in %nne> %1.
Table # Alignment of t!e rele$ant sections of t!e two codes
RCC-M ASME
'ection I $ 'bsection % 'ection III $ 'bsection NC%
'ection I $ 'bsection ;,
Class &
'ection III $ 'bsection N;
'ection I<
'ection ID
'ome elements of 'ection I< of )CC$2 appear in %'2! III
'bsections NC% and N;
'ection III
'ection <
'ome re8irements are also inclded in 'ection DI
%elding and fabrication
&eneral
The strctre of this section is based on 'ection I< of )CC$2. Unless other-ise indicated,
an. mention of =%=, =;= and ='= clases refers to the )CC$2 code and the nmbering of
paragraphs reflects that of the sections and sbsections of the code itself. When the %'2!
Code is referred to in this 'ection, the reference is limited to %'2! 'ections III$N;, III NC%
and ID.
RCC-M sections -A A'()) and -* *+)))
Clase %"*00 of )CC$2 concerns -elding docmentsE hence it does not strictl. affect the
long$term integrit. of components and -elds. ;oth clases %"*00 and ;+000 call for parts of
)CC$2 'ection I<, -hich are re4ie-ed belo-.
RCC-M section ,
S #'-) Pre!eat and interpass - required temperature. Clase '&"20 pro4ides
recommendations for minimm preheating temperatres, -hich are defined as mandator. if
re8ired in 'bsections %, ; or C. The minimm preheat temperatres re8ired b. )CC$2
are in line -ith those sggested b. %'2! 0N;$+F&01. In particlar, )CC$2 ;+++0
recommends minimm &*0 and &@*GC for the pressre retaining components of the reactor
4essel and steam generator or pressri/er, respecti4el.. These are more stringent than the min
&20GC temperatre sggested b. %'2! for e8i4alent material grades and thicHness ranges.
It is noted that, -hile preheat re8irements of '&"20 are mandator. for Class & components,
non$mandator. 0=sggested=1 in %'2! III$N; 0%ppendi> 51, e>cept for -elds e>empted from
post-eld heat treatment 0PWIT1 -hich are addressed in table N;$+F22.@0b1$&. In addition,
%'2! N;$+F&& re8ires that the minimm preheating re8irements are specified in the
-elding procedre specification, according to the 8alification re8irements of 'ection ID. %
smmar. of the preheat re8irements from the t-o codes is pro4ided in %nne> ;.
nterpass. )CC$2 re8ires 8alification 0'&"201 bt no specific re8irements on the
interpass temperatre are gi4en. %'2! re8ires 8alification 0%'2! ID1 and onl. states that
consideration shold be gi4en to 8enched and tempered materials 0N;$+F&"1.
S #'') Post!eating. Table 2 sho-s a comparison bet-een postheating re8irements. The
%'2! code does not pro4ide re8irements for postheating, e>cept for cladding or repair to
cladding e>empted from PWIT -hich are addressed in table N;$+F22.@0b1$&.
Table - Comparison between RCC-M and ASME requirement for post!eating of
pressure-retaining welds in S&/ RP, and pressuri0er.
Post!eating parameter RCC-M 1S#'') and *+++)2 ASME
2in temperatre, GC 200 No re8irementsJ
2in dration, hors 2 No re8irementsJ
J!>cept for cladding or repair to cladding e>empted from PWIT -hich are addressed in table
N;$+F22.@0b1$&.
)CC$2 0'&""01 states that -hen preheating is re8ired, then postheating is re8ired at a
temperatre e8al to or greater than the minimm preheating temperatre for min F0 mintes,
e>cept if PWIT is performed straight after -elding -ithot cooling to ambient temperatre.
%ccording to ;+++0, postheating is complsor. for -elding performance on 'C, )P< and
pressri/er, -ith minimm 200GC recommended for t-o hors.
S #'+) P%3T. The PWIT temperatre ranges in )CC$2 are identical to those specified b.
%'2! III -ith the e>ception of Carbon steels 0P$No&1, -here the ranges o4erlap in the
inter4al *,* to F2*GC. In particlar, )CC 2 specifies a significantl. lo-er minimm
temperatre for carbon steels 0**0GC 4erss *,*GC1 complies -ith that specified b. P5 **00
and !N I'( &"++*$+, -hich is harmoni/ed -ith the Pressre !8ipment 5irecti4e ,@K2"K!C.
These standards are -ell established and e>tensi4el. sed in !rope for the manfactre of
pressre 4essels. In addition, the pper limit of F2*GC set b. )CC 2 is appropriate if T2CP
steels are considered. The reason for this is that man. of the T2CP steels are accelerated
cooled to a temperatre of arond F20GCE heat treating at or close to this temperatre -ill
reslt in a sbstantial redction in tensile strength de to o4er$tempering. Therefore, the
temperatre range re8ired b. )CC$2 is not considered detrimental to the long term integrit.
of the 4essel, pro4ided that the appropriate temperatre range is specified for the steel grade
and manfactring rote considered. % smmar. of the PWIT re8irements from the t-o
codes is pro4ided in %nne> C.
S#4)) Continued $alidit" of qualifications. %'2! ID 0LW$&00."1 states that PL)s made
in accordance -ith %'2! ID &,F2 or an. later edition ma. be sed in an. %'2!
constrction. It also states that PL)s made to earlier editions ma. also be sed, pro4ided the.
meet all the re8irements of the &,F2 edition or later editions.
)CC$2 allo-s se of e>isting PL)s 8alified according to pre4ios editions of )CC$2. In
cases -here heat inpt and interpass -ere not recorded dring the 8alification, the )CC 2
re8ires that the e>isting PL)s are integrated b. preparing a test copon nder the same
condition as the original -elding procedre 8alification. This -old be sed to establish the
range of 8alification for heat inpt and interpass.
S '-)) %elding procedure qualification - general. :or the general case, )CC$2 0' "2001
re8ires -elding procedre 8alification according to !N I'( &*F&+$& and to a nmber of
additional re8irements defined in clases ' "200 and ;+2"&. %mong these, the ones -hich
are considered to ha4e the greater effect on the 8alification process and indirectl. on the
integrit. of the prodction -elds are listed belo-B
The 8alification is limited to the amperage range specified in the 8alification test or
in the 8alification data sheet as described in ' *000.
The 8alification is limited to filler materials -ith e>actl. the same geometrical
characteristics as the filler metal sed for the 8alification test piece. In this case,
=geometrical characteristics= -as interpreted as referring to electrode or -ire diameter.
In comparison, %'2! III$N;$+""0 re8ires that %'2! ID be applied and pro4ides
additional re8irements for toghness testing 0impact test and 5WT test to determine )T
N5T
1.
S '5)) %eld o$erla" cladding wit! austenitic-ferritic or Ni-based allo"s on carbon and
low-allo" steels. The 8alification practice of )CC$2 incldes the same destrcti4e and non$
destrcti4e tests re8ired b. %'2! 0'ection ID1, as -ell as additional tests. The ma?or
differences bet-een the t-o codes are listed here and tablated in %nne> 5, -hich also
incldes reference to the rele4ant %'2! clasesB
)CC$2 limits the base metal 8alification to the grade sed dring testing, -ith the
e>ception gi4en in ' "F&2, -hereas %'2! ID 8alifications are limited to base metals
-ith the same P$No.
)CC$2 re8ires that the range of 8alification for the -eld o4erla. is based on the
nmber of la.ers and the chemical anal.sis is performed at a depth of 2mm, after
grinding 0.*mm from the srface of the as$-elded o4erla. 0' "F""b1. (n the other
hand, %'2! ID 8alifications are based on the o4erla. thicHness at -hich the
re8ired chemical anal.sis has been obtained.
It shold be noted that the pro4isions of %'2! ID appl. to boilers and pressre 4essels -hich
are not necessaril. designed for nclear applications. Therefore, for nclear components, the
8alification tests not re8ired -ithin the %'2! code are sall. specified in the rele4ant
e8ipment specifications.
S '6)) Tube to !eat e7c!anger tubeplate 1tube s!eet2 welds. The procedre and
performance 8alification re8irements for tbe to tbesheet -elds are almost identical, -ith
the e>ception of the leaH test 0not re8ired b. %'2!1 and the re8ired throat thicHness -hich
is a4erage 0.A 0min 0.FF1 times the nominal -all thicHness of the tbes for )CC$2 and
minimm 0.FF for %'2! 0no re8irements on a4erage1. % detailed comparison is sho-n in
%nne> !. These re8irements onl. appl. to the 8alification of tbe to tbesheet -eldsE
therefore, it is not possible to compare the minimm throat thicHnesses re8ired b. )CC$2
and %'2! for the completed components.
S 5))) Tec!nical qualification of production wor8s!ops. Clase ' F000 describes ho- a
2anfactrer can demonstrate the technical 8alification of its -orHshop. It is not re8ired
that sch 8alification be assessed b. an independent third part.. Io-e4er, it is recommended
that an initial andKor periodic 4erification of the -orHshop 8alification are carried ot b. the
Contractor or b. an independent third part., shold the contractor also act as manfactrer.
'imilar re8irements are broadl. co4ered b. the %'2! pro4isions for obtaining N
certificates 0%'2! III, NC%$A&001, althogh these are mainl. related to 4erif.ing the
application of the 8alit. assrance manal and 8alit. assrance programme, hence otside
the scope of this re4ie-.
S 9))) Production welds. The )CC$2 re8irements for the performance of prodction
-elds are inclded in Clase ' @000, -ith sections follo-ing the fabrication se8ence. With
regard to the %'2! code, sch re8irements are inclded in 'ection III$N; for Class &
components.
S9+)) E7ecution of production welds. The re8irements for the e>ection of prodction
-elds, for instance tacH -elding, se of bacHing rings and attachments 0see %'2! III N;$
+"2&0b1, N;$+"2&.&, N;$+2+0, N;$++2&, N;$""*2 N;$++"01, are generall. similar and tend
to o4erlap for most part.
% fe- differences -ere obser4ed -ith regard acceptance criteria for 4isal and dimensional
e>amination after -elding. In 4arios clases on -elding 8alification and dring fabrication,
)CC$2 permits no nderct, -hereas %'2! III N;$++2+.&0c1 allo-s &K"2in 00.Amm
nderct1. The reason for this discrepanc. is that %'2! does not consider nderct has been
associated to an. -eld failres obser4ed so far on Class & components M&N. 'imilarl., root
conca4it. is not permitted b. )CC$2, -hereas it is allo-ed b. %'2! 0N;$++2+.&0d11,
pro4ided the minimm re8ired thicHness is obtained.
Controlled peening to minimise distortion is allo-ed b. %'2! N; ++22, ho-e4er, the same
clase does not permit the se of peening on the initial la.er, root of the -eld metal or on the
final la.er, nless the -eld is post-eld heat treated. )CC$2 does not allo- peening 0nless
for special circmstances, -ith Contractor=s appro4al1.
S95)) Repair b" welding. ;oth codes allo- -eld repairs and re8ire 8alification of
-elders, -elding operators and -elding procedres as per prodction -elds 0see %'2! III
N;$++*".21. %'2! gi4es specific e>amination re8irements for repair -elds 0N;$++*".+1.
)CC$2 restricts the nmber of repairs in the same location to ma>imm t-o, -ith frther
repairs sb?ect to anal.sis of the case of the isse and to Contractor=s appro4al. The %'2!
code does not pro4ide an. specific restrictions on the nmber of repairs. This -ill depend on
the re8ired PWIT holding time and on the total PWIT length co4ered b. the corresponding
procedre 8alification.
S95-) repair wit!out post weld !eat treatment 1temper bead2. ;oth codes permit -eld
repair -ithot post -eld heat treatment, pro4ided the temper bead techni8e is applied. Whilst
)CC$2 onl. allo-s temper bead repairs b. 22% -elding, %'2! III$N;, allo-s the
follo-ing -elding processesB '2%W, C2%W and :C%W 0CT%W is allo-ed for repair
-elds to cladding1. %s smmarised in %nne> :, the %'2! code pro4ides more specific and
stringent re8irements for the performance and 8alification of temper bead -elding.
S96)) Production test coupons. This section of )CC$2 re8ires that for main ?oints of class
&, 2 and " components, one prodction copon representati4e of prodction -elds is made per
-elding procedre 8alification, per -orHshop and per pressre retaining component. 'pecial
cases 0' @A221 are pro4ided, eg tbe$to$heat e>changer tbeplate -elds, class &, 2 and " pipe
-elds and others.
There is no mention of prodction test copons in %'2! 'ection III. Usall., for nclear
components manfactred to %'2!, pro4isions for prodction test copons are pro4ided in
the technical specifications for the particlar component.
Non-destructi$e e7amination
&eneral
This part of the std. focsed on the e>amination and N5T re8irements for prodction
-elding for the principal -eld t.pes in the proposed !P) reactor pressre 4essel and steam
generator. The assessment has been carried ot -ith reference to the manfactring
e>aminations re8ired b. both codes and the associated acceptance criteria based on
-orHmanship standards. %ssessments of pre$ and in$ser4ice e>aminations and e>aminations
carried ot as part of a determination of fitness$for$ser4ice are not inclded.
%s might be anticipated, the general re8irements for the e>amination of the 4arios t.pes of
fll penetration prodction -elds for Class & nclear components are 4er. similar for the t-o
codes. :or e>ample, sch -elds are all re8ired to ndergo a &00O e>amination b. both
srface and 4olmetric methods. The emphasis of this std. -as to highlight -here the
re8irements differ marHedl.. This e>ercise is not straightfor-ard, as the effecti4eness of a
particlar non$destrcti4e e>amination to achie4e a combination of detection and ade8ate
e4alation of discontinities in -elded ?oints is bilt p from re8irements forB
%ccess to the ?oint for e>amination 0e.g. srfaces a4ailable for scanning, ?oint
geometr., etc.1,
Weld srface condition 0srface finish, remo4al of -eld cap etc1,
!>amination methods specified,
%rea or 4olme to be e>amined 0&00O for -elds sch as these1,
!>tent of co4erage 0e.g. directions of magnetisation for 2PTE beam angles, directions
and scanning srfaces for UTE orientation of radiation beam for )T, etc.1,
'ensiti4it. settings or minimm le4els achie4ed,
)eporting le4els,
Procedres for e4alation of indications reported,
%cceptance le4els.
There is no direct mapping of each of these parameters bet-een the t-o codes in most
instances. 'ome combinations of parameters ma. .ield similar o4erall le4els of effecti4enessE
others ma. reslt in -idel. differing otcomes of the e>amination. Therefore a rigoros
assessment of the minimm -eld 8alit. le4els achie4ed -hen appl.ing one code in
comparison to the other -as be.ond the scope of this present std.. The approach adopted has
been to identif. an. clear differences in re8irements bet-een the t-o codes and to assess the
effect of each of these -here possible.
(ne significant difference bet-een the t-o codes is that the %'2! re8irements for
4olmetric e>amination are based on the se of radiograph., -ith ltrasonic testing being
sed as a spplementar. e>amination. (n the other hand, the )CC$2 code specifies
ltrasonic testing 0alongside radiograph.1 as an integral part of the e>amination re8irements.
Io-e4er, a code case appro4ed b. the %'2! standards committee in #ne 200A 0Case N$
F*,$21 permits the se of ltrasonic testing in lie of radiograph., pro4ided certain pro4isions
are met.
E7amination prior to and during welding
%'2! re8ires the edge preparation srfaces for categor. %, ;, C and 5 -elds, *0mm or
more in thicHness, to be e>amined b. magnetic particle or li8id penetrant e>amination.
<isal inspection is not mentioned. )CC$2 Clase '@"F0 states that a 4isal e>amination of
&00O of the srfaces to be -elded '...and adjacent areas' is re8ired. The acceptance criteria
areB 'The surface finish tolerances specified in the drawings and the surfaces to be welded
shall have no defect liable to affect adversely the uality of the weld.' 2agnetic particle
e>amination is re8ired b. )CC$2 for class & -elds in carbon and lo- allo. steels and li8id
penetrant e>amination for astenitic stainless steels and nicHel based allo.s. &00O of the
srface is re8ired to be e>amined in each case.
%s far as acceptance criteria for li8id penetrant or magnetic particle e>amination for
imperfections on -eld be4els are concerned, )CC$2 is more stringent. The threshold for
e4alation is P&mm 0&.*mm for %'2!1. No linear indications are permitted 0laminar
indications p to 2*mm and linear indications p to *mm long are permitted b. %'2!1. The
ma>imm si/e of permissible ronded indication is 2mm 0*mm for %'2!1. ;oth codes
specif. limits for aligned mltiple indications. %'2! states a limit of + 0p to *mm, as
abo4e1 separated b. less than &.*mm. )CC$2 states a limit of " 0p to 2mm1 separated b.
less than "mm. )CC$2 incldes an additional area$based criterion -hich is not present in
%'2!.
:or intermediate e>amination of -eld passes sing 2agnetic Particle 02PT1 or Li8id
Penetrant Testing 0LPT1. )CC$2 incldes the re8irements for srface preparation prior to
e>amination. :e- specific re8irements are gi4en in either case.
E7amination of completed welds
E7tent of e7amination. %'2! states that, for srface e>amination of btt -elds 0Categor.
%, ;, C and 5 ?oints1, the e>ternal and accessible internal -eld srfaces pls Qinch 0&"mm1
of base material on either side shall be e>amined. % similar re8irement e>ists for )CC$2,
the onl. difference being that &*mm of base material on either side of the -eld is to be
e>amined.
:or fll. penetrated -elds both codes re8ire the completed -eld to be e>amined b. a srface
method and a 4olmetric method. :or 4olmetric e>amination, )CC 2 states that the
e>amination mst co4er the base material for a distance of *mm be.ond the original
preparation on each side for thicHnesses p to "0mm and for &0mm be.ond the original
preparation for thicHnesses of "0mm and greater. %'2! does not clarif. this.
It is -orth. of note that )CC$2 states that the entire length of the -eld is to be e>amined. In
%'2! this is implied rather than e>plicitl. stated, for e>ample in Clase N;$*2&0, -here it is
stated that the ?oint concerned 'shall be e!amined...'.
% frther aspect of the e>tent of e>amination relates to the re8irements in the manfactring
specification for e>aminations -hich also partiall. flfill the re8irements for pre$ser4ice
e>amination or -hich are carried ot nder Code Case N$F*,$2. :or the %'2! code, this
in4oHes the need for additional ltrasonic testing 0N;$*&&& and 'ection DI, %ppendi> I1 and
the re8irements for performance demonstration for the procedres and personnel carr.ing
ot the e>aminations 0'ection DI %ppendi> <III1 in some cases.
Time of e7amination. The re8irements of the t-o codes are 8ite similar. The main
re8irement is to ensre that the e>aminations are performed after at least an intermediate
heat treatment or after a final heat treatment. (b4ios e>ceptions are -hen e>aminations are
performed at 4arios stages dring -elding operations.
%'2! states that if a radiographic e>amination is performed before an intermediate or final
heat treatment, then an ltrasonic e>amination is re8ired after heat treatment. % similar
pro4ision e>ists in )CC$2, -here an additional ltrasonic e>amination is re8ired if the
4olmetric e>amination is carried ot before heat treatment, e4en if it is b. UT. :rther, if
both radiograph. and ltrasonic testing are re8ired, the final e>amination shall be the
ltrasonic test. %'2! Clase N;$*&20 0c1 states that all dissimilar metal -eld ?oints shall be
e>amined after final post -eld heat treatment.
Met!ods to be applied. %'2! Clase N;$*200 pro4ides the =)e8ired !>amination of
Welds for :abrication and Preser4ice ;aseline=. The re8irements for -eld e>amination
dring fabrication in )CC$2 are gi4en in 'ection I<, Clase '@@&0.
"urface methods. %'2! Clase N;$*200 states that srface e>amination shall be b. either
li8id penetrant or magnetic particle methods. Li8id penetrant is specified for -eld metal
cladding. )CC$2 states that magnetic particle e>amination shall be sed for carbon and lo-
allo. steels. Li8id penetrant e>amination shall be sed for astenitic stainless steels and
nicHel based allo.s.
Li8id Penetrant !>amination. %'2! 'ection < contains mch more detailed
information than the )CC$2 code, -hich references N:$!N *@&.& 0%:N(), &,,@1
and %:$!N$I'( "+*2$2 0%:N() 200F1 for frther details. )CC$2 specifies srface
finish re8irements 0F."Rm )a for machined srfaces and &2.* Rm )a for castings1
-hereas %'2! does not. (n the other hand, %'2! specifies cleaning re8irements in
great detail. ;oth codes specif. similar normal temperatre ranges for penetrant
e>amination 0* to *2GC for %'2! and &0 to *0GC for )CC$21. ;oth inclde
re8irements for penetrant testing at ele4ated temperatres.
2agnetic Particle !>amination. ;oth codes pro4ide for a 4ariet. of magnetisation
methods and re8ire similar magnetisation le4els.
#olumetric methods. ;oth codes re8ire a fll 4olmetric e>amination of fll penetration
-elds. The )CC$2 code places a greater emphasis on ltrasonic testing than %'2!. :or
e>ample, for fll penetration btt and fillet -elds in the )P< and dissimilar metal =safe end=
-elds )CC$2 re8ires both ltrasonic testing and radiograph. 0Table '@@&0.& of the code1.
:or ma?or categor. %, ;, C and 5 -elds %'2! 0clase N;*2001 places a mch greater
emphasis on radiograph.. It is stated in a footnote that '$ radiographic e!amination %&'(
)111 *a+, is reuired- $ preservice e!amination %&'()111 *b+, may or may not be reuired
for compliance to the .esign "pecification %&/$(02)2 *c+,.' Io-e4er, pro4isions e>ist in the
%'2! code for the se of ltrasonic testing -here radiograph. is impractical 0Clase N;$
*2@,1. The se of ltrasonic e>amination in lie of radiograph. is frther strengthened 4ia the
Code Case N$F*,$2, -hich -as appro4ed in #ne 200A, and -here pre$ser4ice e>aminations
are re8ired.
Sensiti$it" and reporting requirements
1iuid penetrant e!amination. %'2! 'ection <, %rticle F sets ot to ensre performance is
maintained b. concentrating on control of essential parameters of the test. There are no
specific re8irements for demonstrating capabilit.. 5-ell times before cleaning are stated in
the related %rticle 2+ ='tandard test method for li8id penetrant e>amination=, as these ha4e a
ma?or inflence on sensiti4it.. )e8irements are gi4en for 4ie-ing illmination, &000 l> for
colored penetrants and &000RWKcm2 for florescent.
)CC$2, 'ection III, Clase 2C+200 states that the penetrant method mst be capable of
detecting &00O of fla-s 20Rm in length and @*O of fla-s &0Rm long. There is no stated
re8irement for 4ie-ing conditions in Clase 2C+000, bt as the code hea4il. references !N
*@&$&, the re8irements of this are implied. This standard re8ires *00 l> for colored
penetrants, -hich is one half that for %'2!, and &0WKm
2
for florescent 0-hich is identical
to &000RWKcm
2
, as re8ired b. %'2!1. These 4ales are also stated in ;' !N I'( "0*,
0;'I 200&1, reflecting general good practice for illmination conditions for both li8id
penetrant and magnetic particle inspections.

2agnetic particle e!amination. ;oth codes re8ire the se of indicators to assess the le4el of
magnetisation. %'2! 'ection <, %rticle @ incldes pie 0;erthold1 gages, shims and Iall
!ffect tangential field probes. )CC$2 also references the se of the %'2! field indicators.
Where field measrements are possible, %'2! re8ires 2+00 to +A00 %Km, -hereas )CC$2
8otes 2+00 to +000 %Km. The 4ie-ing conditions 8oted in %'2! are &000 l> for colored
inHs and &000RWKcm
2
for florescent. )CC$2 re8ires *00 l> for colored inHs and
&0WKm
2
for florescent 0S&000RWKcm
2
1 -hich, again, is as stated in ;' !N I'( "0*,.
3adiography. Whilst %'2! 'ection <, article 2 is referenced for the method to be applied for
radiograph., %rticle N;$*&&& of 'ection III places some restrictions on parameters to be sed
for Class & nclear constrctions. :lorescent screens are not permitted and alternati4e Image
Lalit. Indicators 0ILIs1 are to be sed, as stiplated in Table N;$*&&&$&. The radiographic
method is gi4en in )CC$2 'ection III 2C"000. Table 2C"&F2.& gi4es the hole and -ire ILI
sensiti4it. re8irements for -elds.
There are some differences bet-een the t-o codes. :or hole t.pe penetrameters the
re8irements are generall. comparable, althogh the step$-ise increase in hole diameter -ith
material thicHness means that %'2! re8ires a lo-er sensiti4it. 0i.e. re8ires a larger hole
diameter to be 4isible1 at &00, &*0 and +00mm thicHnesses. %'2! specifies a higher
sensiti4it. at 2*0mm thicHness. :or -ire t.pe ILIs the )CC$2 code re8ires a higher
sensiti4it. to be achie4ed, b. re8iring smaller -ires to be detected, e>cept for *0 and 2*0mm
thicHnesses -here the. are comparable. The comparison is gi4en in Table 0, belo- for a range
of thicHnesses.
Table ' Minimum penetrameter !ole and wire : si0es to be detected to meet code
requirements.
Material
t!ic8ness/
mm
ASME
!ole/ mm
N*-(###-#
RCC-M
!ole/ mm
MC'#5-.#
ASME
wire/ mm
N*-(###-#
RCC-M
wire/ mm
MC'5-.#
*0 &.2@ &.2* 0.*& 0.*0
&00 2.0" &.F0 &.02 0.F"
&*0 2.2, 2.00 &.02 0.A0
200 2.*+ 2.*0 &.2@ &.00
2*0 ".0* ".20 &.F0 &.F0
"00 +.0F +.00 2.*+ 2.00
"*0 *.0A *.00 ".20 2.*0
+00 F.&0 *.00 +.0F 2.*0
%s far as film densit. is concerned, %'2! re8ires a minimm densit. of &.A for D$)a.
e>posres and 2.0 for gamma ra.. The ma>imm acceptable densit. for an. film is +.0. )CC$
2 re8ires a minimm densit. of 2.0 regardless of sorce and a ma>imm of +.*.
There are also some differences in geometric nsharpness 4ales, Ug, permitted. %'2! does
not differentiate bet-een sorce t.pes bt 8otes thicHness bands, Table 4B
Table + &eometric uns!arpness $alues 1ASME2.
T!ic8ness/ mm ;g/ mm
T*0 0.*&
*0$@* 0.@F
@*$&00 &.02
P&00 &.@A
(n the other hand, )CC$2 8otes different Ug le4els for different sorces, bt does not taHe
thicHness into accont. The 4ales for -eld e>amination are gi4en in Table )B
Table ( &eometric uns!arpness $alues 1RCC-M2.
Source ;g/ mm
D$)a.s P+00H< and Ir &,2 0."0
Co F0 0.F0
Linear accelerator and ;etatron &.00
%s sorces sch as a linear accelerator or betatron -ill onl. be sed at large thicHnesses, it
ma. be seen that the )CC$2 re8irements for nsharpness are more stringent than re8ired
b. %'2!. TaHen together -ith the sensiti4it. re8irements gi4en in Table 0, the performance
re8irements for radiograph. in the )CC$2 code are more stringent than those re8ired b.
the %'2! code for most material thicHnesses.
5ltrasonic e!amination. T-o factors are considered here, the co4erage re8ired and the
sensiti4it. le4el. The )CC 2 code states that &+ test directions are re8ired for -eld
e>amination, t-o -ith longitdinal -a4es and &2 -ith shear. The tests are also re8ired to
e>amine for imperfections parallel and trans4erse to the -elding direction. 2oreo4er, :igre
2C2F"+.&.a sho-s that these scans ha4e to be carried ot from a combination of both top and
bottom srfaces of the -eld.
The %'2! code, in 'ection <, %rticle +, states that for scan directions are re8ired 0t-o
parallel and t-o trans4erse to the -eld a>is1. Clase T$+@2.& states that a +* degree beam 0or
angle appropriate for the configration being e>amined1 is re8ired. This sggests that
co4erage is mch less thorogh than that specified b. )CC$2. Io-e4er, this clase also
references the non$mandator. %ppendi> I to %rticle +, -hich states that +*G, F0G, and @0G 0or
other sitable beam angles1 are re8ired 0I$+@&1. If these three angles and the for scanning
directions are considered, this gi4es &2 angle beam scans, the same as for the )CC$2
re8irements. %dd to this the re8irement for straight beam scanning and the co4erage
re8irements for the t-o codes are similar. It shold, ho-e4er, be noted that the %'2!
re8irements are less specific abot the need to test from both srfaces and that the
circmstances -hen the additional beam angles identified in %ppendi> I are re8ired to be
inclded are far from clear.
The code case N$F*,$2, -hich permits ltrasonic e>amination in lie of radiograph., again
states that for angle beam e>aminations are re8ired. Io-e4er, it also states 0in paragraph
0c11 that the performance of the procedre shall be demonstrated on a 8alification blocH,
described in paragraph 0d1, -hich is re8ired to inclde planar fla-s, at least one of -hich
mst be parallel to the fsion line. N;. This is not the same as the performance demonstration
re8ired for P'I and I'I e>aminations, in %'2! 'ection DI %ppendi> <III. It shold also be
noted that the se of this additional test to demonstrate the capabilit. of the ltrasonic
e>amination procedre does not appl. to ltrasonic tests carried ot nder the %'2! code in
general, bt onl. to cases -here the Code Case is in4oHed and ltrasonic testing is sed in
lie of the radiograph. specified in Clase N;$*200.
:or test sensiti4it., both codes se a 5%C$based reference le4el. The side drilled 0'5I1 hole
targets sed to set the 5%C le4el for -eld e>amination are smaller for )CC$2 and do not
increase in diameter -ith increasing thicHness, so the base reference le4el is of higher
sensiti4it.. !rmolo4
M2N
sho-ed that the response amplitde from a side drilled hole is
proportional to the s8are root of its diameter, so that the change in sensiti4it. ma. be
calclated. The differences are sho-n in Table 6 belo-.
Table 5 Calibration side drilled !ole diameters for setting ultrasonic test sensiti$it".
T!ic8ness/
mm
SD3 diameter/
mm
ASME T-+'+
SD3 diameter/
mm
RCC-M/
MC-5'(.-
Difference
in far field
response
amplitude/ d*<
T2* 2.* 2.0 &.0
2* $ *0 ".0 2.0 &.A
*0 $ &00 *.0 2.0 +.0
&00 $ &*0 F.* 2.0 *.&
&*0 $ 200 A.0 2.0 F.0
J These figres represent the amont b. -hich the )CC 2 code reference le4el is more
sensiti4e than for the %'2! procedres.
This indicates that the reference sensiti4it. specified b. )CC$2 ma. be p to Fd; more
sensiti4e than that for %'2!. Io-e4er, both codes inclde a threshold for amplitde of
response for ltrasonic indications, abo4e -hich the. are re8ired to be e4alated and belo-
-hich the. ma. be accepted -ithot frther in4estigation.
Clase T$+A2.& of %'2! states that all indications greater in amplitde than 20O of 0i.e.
&+d; lo-er in amplitde than1 the reference le4el shall be in4estigated. :or )CC$2, 'ection
I<, '@@&+.+ states that indications e>ceeding *0O of the reference le4el 0i.e. $Fd;1 are to be
e4alated. Therefore, the )CC$2 threshold relati4e to the reference 0or 5%C1 le4el for
in4estigating signals is Ad; less sensiti4e than for %'2!. If the higher base sensiti4it. for the
reference le4el in )CC$2 0gi4en in Table F1 is taHen in to accont, it does not compensate for
the difference in reporting threshold bet-een the t-o codes, so that the amplitde threshold to
trigger the e4alation of a reflector according to )CC$2 re8irements is marginall. less
sensiti4e than for the standard %'2! procedre. This is discssed frther belo-.
%s far as scanning sensiti4it. is concerned, %'2! re8ires scanning at a le4el at least Fd;
abo4e the reference sensiti4it., pls there are recommendations for scanning to be p to &+d;
higher than the reference sensiti4it. le4el. )CC$2 re8ires as high a scanning sensiti4it. as
practical, -ithot the trace being s-amped -ith bacHgrond noise. The abilit. of the t-o
procedres to identif. indications ma. therefore be similar, bt the recommendation in )CC$
2 to scan at as high a sensiti4it. as reasonabl. practical sggests that this approach prodces
the highest achie4able search sensiti4it..
Acceptance criteria
"urface e!amination. The acceptance criteria for the t-o codes are similar. ;oth se
essentiall. the same criteria for both li8id penetrant and magnetic particle e>amination. The
threshold si/e for e4alation is slightl. larger for )CC$2, bt the acceptance le4els for non$
linear indications are more stringent for )CC$2.
3adiography. The acceptance criteria for both codes are broadl. the same. Neither allo-s an.
indication -hich is interpreted as a planar fla-. The length limits for elongated indications for
thicHnesses abo4e &,mm are appro>imatel. the same. )CC$2 is more stringent at small
thicHnesses, bt this is not rele4ant to the main pressre bondar. in the )P< and 'C. The
criteria for aligned indications are the same.
5ltrasonic testing. The acceptance criteria for ltrasonic e>amination are constrcted
differentl. for the t-o codes, so that a simple tablar comparison is difficlt. 'ome important
factors areB
&. The re8irement to in4estigate reflectors e>ceeding *0O of the reference le4el for
)CC$2, compared -ith 20O for %'2!, as discssed abo4e.
2. The )CC$2 code re8ires the =Cascade= procedre M"N to be sed to determine the
4olmetricKnon$4olmetric natre of indications. This clase also states that, as an
alternati4e, the procedre in N:$!N &@&"B&,,A ma. be sed.J
". The acceptabilit. of reflectors according to the )CC$2 code depends on both their
length and signal amplitde relati4e to the reference le4el.
J The =Cascade= procedre -as incorporated into !N &@&", -here it is termed the =flo-chart=
procedre. !N &@&" is no- sperseded b. !N I'( 2"2@,B20&0. The pro4isions remain
essentiall. the same.
:or both codes no cracHs or cracH$liHe indications 0=non$4olmetric= for )CC$21 are
permitted. The implications of this are discssed frther belo-. :or other indications, the
%'2! code, Clase N;$*""&, has relati4el. straightfor-ard criteria, based on the length of
the indication, for signals e>ceeding the reference 5%C le4el. 2a>imm permitted lengths
areB
Fmm for t U &,mm
&K"t, for &,mm T t U *@mm
&,mm for t P *@mm.
:or the )CC$2 code, there is a more complicated relationship that taHes material thicHness,
signal amplitde and length of the indication into accont. This is smmarised in Table 7.
Table 9 Acceptance criteria for non-planar flaws in full penetration welds from t!e
RCC-M code S99#+.+.
t = ()mm
The follo-ing are the ma>imm acceptable lengthsB
$ :or "K2I
r
T I
d
$ nacceptable
$ :or I
r
T I
d
U "K2I
r
$ 20mm
$ :or VI
r
T I
d
U I
r
$ "0mm
$ :or QI
r
U I
d
U VI
r
$ F0mm
t > ()mm
The follo-ing are the ma>imm acceptable lengthsB
$ :or 2I
r
T I
d
$ nacceptable
$ :or "K2I
r
T I
d
U 2I
r
$ 20mm
$ :or I
r
T I
d
U "K2I
r
$ "0mm
:or QI
r
U I
d
U I
r
$ F0mm
Notes
Ir S the amplitde from the hole in the reference blocH 02mm diameter1, see Table 6.
Id is the amplitde of response from the indication.
The criteria in Table 7, abo4e, are difficlt to compare directl. -ith the %'2! criteria.
Therefore, to e>amine the o4erall effecti4eness of the t-o sets of criteria, the thresholds 0for
non$planar fla-s1 ha4e been plotted 0for thicHnesses p to 200mm1 in 8igure 1. This sho-s
the 4arios le4els plotted against the %'2! )eference 'ensiti4it. Le4el, as determined b. the
side$drilled hole reflectors presented in 8igure 1, -hich is set at 0d;. %ll other amplitde
thresholds are plotted relati4e to this.
?igure #. Representation of t!e Reference/ E$aluation and acceptable amplitude le$els
for non-planar flaws for t!e RCC-M code in comparison wit! t!e ASME Reference
@e$el 1represented b" )d*2 and E$aluation le$el/ -#+d*
With reference to 8igure 1, first, the effect of the constant hole diameter for the )CC$2
calibration blocH 0Table 61 is e4identE the )CC$2 )eference Le4el becomes progressi4el.
more sensiti4e than that of the %'2! code -ith increasing component thicHness.
'econd, the difference bet-een the 20O 5%C 0$&+d;1 e4alation threshold for indications for
%'2! and the *0O 5%C 0$Fd;1 threshold for )CC$2 is apparent, -ith the )CC$2
threshold being @d; less sensiti4e at small thicHnesses, althogh this difference redces to
2d; for &*0 to 200mm 0the ma>imm thicHness plotted in the figre1.
Io-e4er, -hen the e4alation criteria are taHen into accont se4eral other factors are
obser4edB
Whereas the %'2! code onl. considers re?ection of indications for -hich the
amplitde e>ceeds the )eference Le4el 0i.e. 0d;1 0-ith some thicHness$dependent
length pro4isos, as stated abo4e1, indications ma. be nacceptable to )CC$2 -ith
amplitdes ?st e>ceeding the 0)CC$21 e4alation le4el if their length e>ceeds F0mm.
No indications e>ceeding "0mm long are permitted nder )CC$2 -ith signal
amplitdes greater than the %'2! )eference Le4el 00d;1.
The ma>imm amplitde permitted for an. indication deemed to be non$planar in
natre nder )CC$2 is 2.*2d; abo4e the %'2! le4el and no indications greater than
20mm long are permitted to ha4e response amplitdes greater than 0d;.
The %'2! code does not impose a ma>imm permitted amplitde for an indication.
(ne ma. arge that the mch shorter permitted indication lengths for a gi4en material
thicHness nder the %'2! Code 0see abo4e1 -ill place an effecti4e limit on the
possible amplitde from a non$planar manfactring fla-.
The main conclsion that ma. be dra-n from 8igure 1 is that the re?ection criteria for non$
planar fla-s detected b. ltrasonic testing are more se4ere nder the )CC$2 code.
.etection of planar flaws. Whilst the criteria for e4alation of non$planar fla-s are 8ite
elaborate, as discssed abo4e, both codes share a simple re8irement that does not permit
fla-s determined to be planar in natre to remain in the prodction -elds. The effecti4eness
of the se of ltrasonic testing to enable sch potentiall. significant fla-s to be remo4ed from
the prodction -elds rests, firstl., on the abilit. of the procedres applied to detect them and,
secondl., on the correct identification of an indication being from a planar fla-.
%n o4erriding characteristic of planar fla-s is that the responses are more highl. directional
than for more =thread$liHe= imperfections of more$or$less circlar cross$section 0for e>ample
slag inclsions1, for -hich the response is largel. independent of the angle of incidence. To
be sccessfl in detection of sch fla-s there needs to be, firstl., a high scanning sensiti4it.,
so that -eaH reflections from poorl. oriented fla-s ma. be identified and, secondl., a 4ariet.
of appropriate angles of incidence on to potential fla- planes 0for e>ample perpendiclar
incidence to the fsion bondar., if this can be achie4ed1 to allo- the speclar reflected
responses from the plane of the fla- to be obser4ed.
The )CC$2 code applies a higher scanning sensiti4it. than %'2!. The %'2! code re8ires
a scanning sensiti4it. -here the gain is increased b. Fd; after setting the )eference Le4el.
)CC$2 not onl. has a more sensiti4e )eference Le4el, see abo4e, bt re8ires the scanning
to be at as high a sensiti4it. as practical -ithot noise and grain scatter being a problem.
Therefore, the re8irements of )CC$2 are more liHel. to enable -eaH reflections from
poorl.$oriented planer fla-s to be obser4ed than if the %'2! procedres are follo-ed.
:rther, )CC$2 re8ires at least &2 angle beam directions, co4ering both longitdinal and
trans4erse scans and sing both top and bottom srfaces of the component, -hereas the
%'2! procedres onl. re8ire, as a minimm, for angle beam directions. This -ill redce
the liHelihood that a signal of sfficient amplitde to re8ire e4alation -ill be obtained from
a poorl.$oriented planar fla- -hen sing the %'2! procedres than -ill be the case for
)CC$2.
(n the other hand, both codes appl. an e4alation threshold, abo4e -hich it is necessar. to
in4estigate the characteristics of the indication. This threshold is lo-er for %'2! than for
)CC$2, so there is some ncertaint. as to -hether it is more effecti4e to pt more resorces
into increasing the chances of obtaining a high enogh amplitde from potential planar fla-s
to re8ire e4alation at *0O of the )eference Le4el, as in )CC$2, or to ha4e a lo-er
absolte amplitde threshold for e4alation, as in %'2!. Where the %'2! Code Case N
F*,$2 is in4oHed, there is a re8irement to demonstrate the effecti4eness of the ltrasonic test
procedre to detect planar fla-s in a test blocH, -hereas )CC$2 has no comparable
re8irement. Io-e4er, this demonstration is not re8ired for %'2! nless a case is being
made for the se of ltrasonic e>amination in lie of radiograph. nder the Code Case and
this re8irement does not generall. appl..
(ne factor that is not e>plicitl. co4ered b. either code is that the procedre for e>amination
of a specific -eld -old normall. be e>pected to be tailored to be sitable for the -eld
geometr. concerned. ;oth codes allo- a choice of ltrasonic beam angles and %'2! does
recommend a beam angle '...appropriate for the configuration being e!amined'. 0'ection <,
%rticle +, T +@21. It -old be the case for an. high 8alit. fabrication that ltrasonic test
procedres -old be appropriate for the -eld geometr. being e>amined.
It is the opinion of the athors that -hen the more e>tensi4e scanning re8irements for )CC
2 0in terms of both nmber of angles and scanning sensiti4it.1 are also taHen into accont the
ltrasonic testing re8irements for prodction -elds are more stringent than for %'2! for the
detection of planar fla-s becase the larger nmber of test directions re8ired is more liHel.
to reslt in a significant response being obser4ed from at least one of them.
Personnel qualifications. Clase N;$**00 of %'2! 'ection III specifies the %merican
'ociet. for Nondestrcti4e Testing 0%'NT1 recommended practice 'NT$TC$&% as the basis
for personnel 8alification for nondestrcti4e testing. It is identified that this is a minimm
re8irement for personnel training and 8alification. )CC$2 'ection III, Clase 2CA000
states that personnel shall be 8alified in accordance -ith N:$!N +@".
The principal difference bet-een these approaches is that the 'NT$TC$&% scheme ma. be
administered b. the emplo.er of the inspector, -hereas the !N +@" scheme re8ires the
candidate to be e>amined b. an independent bod.. The latter therefore pro4ides mch greater
assrance that a consistent standard of 8alification, and therefore competence, is achie4ed
for personnel performing non$destrcti4e tests.
It shold be noted that if pre$ser4ice ltrasonic e>aminations are re8ired nder %'2!, or if
ltrasonic testing is performed nder Code Case N$F*,$2 nder some circmstances, the
performance demonstration re8irements of %ppendi> <III of 'ection DI mst be met. This
re8ires frther assessment of the capabilities of the technician.
Conclusions
The conclsions belo- -ere obtained from an interpreti4e comparison bet-een )CC$2 and
%'2! re8irements. The athors do not intend =more stringent= re8irements as =fa4ored=.
%elding and fabrication
&. The comparison bet-een the -elding re8irements in )CC$2 and %'2! code is
smmarised in %nne> C.
2. The )CC$2 re8irements for Class & -elds in the !P) are in most instances
considered e8i4alent or more stringent than those set forth b. %'2!, -ith the
e>ception of repair -ithot PWIT 0item " belo-1.
". The %'2! re8irements for repair -ithot PWIT 0temper bead1 are more stringent
than those pro4ided b. )CC$2.
Non-Destructi$e E7amination of welds
&. In general terms the re8irements for e>aminations of fll penetration -elds are
similar and are thorogh. Io-e4er, there are differences in ho- the e>amination
re8irements are bilt p. The cmlati4e effect of the different measres on the
abilit. to achie4e an absolte le4el of 8alit. for both of the codes e>amined is
difficlt to 8antif..
2. :or e>amination of the srfaces of the prepared edges to be -elded, it appears that
)CC$2 is more stringent than %'2!.
". The re8irements for methods of e>amination to be applied to completed -elds are
similar for both codes. :or srface e>amination, )CC$2 is slightl. more specific than
%'2!, re8iring magnetic particle e>amination for ferritic steels, -hereas %'2!
allo-s either li8id penetrant or magnetic particle e>amination.
+. The sensiti4it. and acceptance le4els for srface methods appear to be similar for both
codes.
*. :or 4olmetric methods, the )CC$2 re8irements for radiograph., both in terms of
sensiti4it. to be achie4ed dring the e>aminations and in the acceptance le4els, are
more stringent than %'2!.
F. :or ltrasonic testing, )CC$2 is considered to ha4e mch better defined re8irements
for co4erage in terms of nmber of beam direction and angle combinations. The
reference sensiti4it. is also higher than for %'2!. The re8irement in )CC$2 to scan
at the highest practical sensiti4it. ma. reslt in a better detection performance.
:rthermore, a comparison of acceptance le4els in terms of the amplitdes and
indication lengths indicate that the o4erall reslts for re?ection of imperfections -ill be
more stringent for the )CC$2 code.
Ac8nowledgements
The athors -old liHe to acHno-ledge the contribtion of the colleages )ita ;anHs, #acHie
;rand, 5a4e Codfre., 'a.ee )aghnathan and %nd. Wolos/.n. This paper contains UK
pblic sector information pblished b. the UK Iealth and 'afet. !>ecti4e and licensed
nder the (pen Co4ernment Licence 4&.0.
References
&. files.asme.orgK5i4isionsKN!5K&F@,F.pdf
2. !rmolo4 I N 0&,@21 =The reflection of ltrasonic -a4es from targets of simple
geometr.=, Non$5estrcti4e Testing *, ppA@$,&.
". Institt de 'odre 0&,,@1 Classification of ltrasond -eld indications as
4olmetricKnon$4olmetric throgh the application of the =cascade= method. I' U'
"&,$2&.
+. Keshab et al, 200*B = 5esign 4erification for reactor head replacement=. &Ath
International Conference on 'trctral 2echanics in )eactor Technolog. 0'2i)T &A1
;ei?ing, China, %gst @$&2, 200* 'mi)T &A :0A F.
ANNEA A
CBMPARSBN *ET%EEN SBME RCC-M AND ASME &RADES B? @B%-A@@BC
STEE@S/ C-MN STEE@S AND STAN@ESS STEE@S ;SED N REACTBR
PRESS;RE ,ESSE@S 1RP,2/ STEAM &ENERATBRS 1S&2 AND REACTBR
CBB@ANT P;MPS 1ENTRES CBMP@ED *C T% BR :;BTED ?RBM
@TERAT;RE D(E2.
RCC-MFEN grade ASME Equi$alent E7ample of component
&F 2N5 * '%$*"" T.pe ; Class & )P< core shells
&F 2N5 *
'% *0A Crade " Class
&
)P< head flange, lo-erKpper head
&A 2N5 *
'% *0A Crade " Class
&
'C tbesheet, no//les, primar. head
20 2N5 *
'% *0A Crade " Class
2
%lternati4e to &A 2N5 * for 'C tbesheet
20 2N5 * '%$*"" T.pe ; Class 2 %lternati4e to &A 2N5 * for pressri/er 'C
shells
P"**NI $ !N&0222 '% *&F Cr @0 'C steam otlet no//le safe end
W2 CN &,.&0 '% &A2 :"0+L )P< C)52
W2 CN5 &A.&2 '% &A2 T.pe "&FL 'C and )P< safe ends
20 NC5 &+$@ X% *0A +N Class & 5isH fl.-heel 0reactor coolant pmp1
ANNEA *
RCC-M AND ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR PRE3EAT TEMPERAT;RES ?BR
C@ASS # CBMPBNENTS
Material
grade
1-2

RCC-M ASME
Requirement Reference Requirement Reference
Carbon and
carbon$
manganese 0C$
2n1 steels
2in &00GC recommended
0mandator. for class &
components1 for steels
-ith )mT++02pa in as$
-elded condition and
!
0&1
P+0mm
' &"2&
2in ,*GC sggested
forB
P$No& Cr& 0C!U0."
and tP"Amm1
P$No& Cr2 0C!U0."
and tP2*mm1
2in &20GC
sggested forB
P$No& Cr& and Cr2
0C!P0." and
tP2*mm1
2in &0GC sggested
for all other P$No&
Cr&
N;$+F&&
0"1

0mandator.1
calls for %ppendi>
5
0non mandator.1,
5 &2&0.& and "
2in &2*GC recommended
0mandator. for class &1
for steels -ith
)mP++02pa in as$-elded
condition and !
0&1
P20mm
' &"2&
Lo- allo.
steels 0e>cept
Cr and Cr$2o
steels1
2in &2*GC recommended
0mandator. for class &1
for steels -ith
)mP+*02pa or
!
0&1
P&*mm
' &"22
2in &20GC
sggested forB
P$No& Cr". P$No"
Cr" and P$No &&%
0UT'P+A*2pa or
tP&Fmm1
2in &0GC sggested
for all other cases in
this grop
N;$+F&&
0"1

0mandator.1 calls
for %ppendi> 5
0non mandator.1, 5
&2&0."
2inimm &@*GC
recommended for )P<
;+++0
2inimm &*0GC
recommended for 'C and
pressri/er
;+++0
Cr and Cr$2o
steels
2in bet-een &*0GC$
"00GC recommended
0mandator. for class &1
for steels -ith
)mP+002pa or
!
0&1
P&*mm
' &"2" 2in &*0GC
sggested forB
P$No+
0UT'P+&*2pa or
tP&"mm1
2in &0GC for all
other P$No+
2in 20*GC
sggested forB
P$No*
0UT'P+&*2pa or
CrPFO and
N;$+F&&
0"1

0mandator.1 calls
for %ppendi> 5
0non mandator.1, 5
&2&0.+ and *
tP&"mm1
2in &*0GC for all
other P$No*
Notes
0&1
!S e8i4alent thicHness according to '&"&0.
021
Cr and Cr$2o steels not inclded in the scope of -orH.
0"1
N;$+F&& re8ires that the minimm preheating re8irements are specified in the -elding
procedre specification, according to the 8alification re8irements of 'ection ID.
ANNEA C
RCC-M AND ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR P%3T
Material
grade to
RCC-M
1ASME2
P%3T temperature/ GC Minimum P%3T !olding time
RCC-M
S#'+)
ASME
N*-
+5--.#-
#
RCC-M
S#'+)
ASME N*-+5--.#-#
H#'mm#'-()mm
()-
#-(mm
I#-(mm
Carbon and
C$2n steels
0P$No &1
**0$F2*
0recommended
min *@*1
*,*$F@*
2 minKmm
0min "0
min,
ma>
&20min1
:or
thHP"0mm
"0 min 2minKmm
2h pls
&* min
each 2*m
o4er
*0mm
2h pls
0.*minKmm
o4er *0mm
Lo- allo.
steels 0e>cl
Cr and Cr$
2o steels1
0P$No "1
*,*$F@*
&hK2*mm
0min
"0min1
;e.ond 2hB
2h pls &*
min
each 2*mm
o4er *0mm
Cr and Cr$
2o steels p
to &.2*Cr$
0.*2o
0P$No +1
*,*$F@* *,*$F@*
&hK2*mm
0min
"0min1
;e.ond *hB
*h pls &*
min
each 2*mm
o4er
&2*mm
"0 min 2minKmm 2minKmm
*h pls &*
min each
2*mm o4er
&2*mm
Cr and Cr$
2o steels p
to *Cr 0.*2o
0P$No *1
F@*$@F0 F@*$@F0 &hK2*mm
0min
"0min1
;e.ond *hB
*h pls &*
"0 min 2minKmm 2minKmm *h pls &*
min each
2*mm o4er
&2*mm
min
each 2*mm
o4er
&2*mm
ANNEA D
RCC-M AND ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR C@ADDN& PRBCED;RE
:;A@?CATBN
T"pe of test
RCC-M ASME
Requirement Reference Requirement Reference
N5!
%ll N5! re8ired in
prodction 0see ' @@001
' "F"2 Li8id penetrant
LW$+*"
0Note +1
;end test
:or side bends 0t-o
parallel and t-o normal to
-elding direction1
' "F""a
:or side bends 0t-o
parallel and t-o normal
to -elding direction1
LW$+*"
0Note *1
Chemical anal.sis
2Y0.*mm belo- as$-elded
srface of cladding
0&1

' "F""b
%n. distance from -eld
interface
021

LW$+*"
0Note ,1
5etermination of Z
ferrite content
5elong diagram ' "F""c Not re8ired
0"1
$
2etallographic
e>amination
T-o macrographic
sections 0one parallel and
one normal to -elding
direction1
' "F""d Not re8ired
0"1
$
Iardness
measrement
(ne tra4erse ' I *00 Not re8ired
0"1
$
Corrosion test 'ee reference ' I F00 Not re8ired
0"1
$
Notes
0&1
Lalification rage based on nmber of la.ers 0' "F&F1.
021
The distance from the appro>imate -eld interface is the minimm 8alified o4erla.
thicHness.
0"1
2a. be re8ired b. the rele4ant e8ipment specifications.
ANNEA E
RCC-M AND ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR %E@DN& PRBCED;RE AND
PER?BRMANCE :;A@?CATBN B? S& T;*E TB T;*ES3EET %E@DS
Test piece
RCC-M ASME
Required Reference Required Reference
Welder
8alification
'i> tbes to be -elded '+"20
:i4e demonstration
mocH$ps
%'2! ID,
LW$"0".*
Procedre
8alification
!N I'( &*F&+$A %'2! ID, LW$202.F, LW$&,"
Nmber of
tbes
&0 '"A2" &0 LW$&,".&
<isal test [es '"A"+a [es LW$&,".&.&
Li8id
penetrant test
[es '"A"+b [es LW$&,".&.2
LeaH test [es, as in prodction '"A"+c Not re8ired $
2acro$
e>amination
[es, on &0 tbes
2ean -eld throat thicHness
0.Ae and no indi4idal 4ale
belo- 0.FFe 0eSnominal
tbe -all thicHness1
'"A"+d
[es, on &0 tbes
2inimm leaHage path
0-eld throat1 2K"
specified tbe -all
thicHness
LW$&,".&."
N;$+"*0
ANNEA ?
CBMPARSBN *ET%EEN RCC-M AND ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR TEMPER
*EAD REPAR
RCC-M Clause S95-) ASME Sect N*-+5--.4 and Sect A :%--4)
9ermitted if:
Temper bead process is applied
%ppro4ed b. Contractor
Contractor ma. re8ire stress
anal.sis
;eneral reuirements:
Lalified as prodction -elds
Limited to 22%
!lectrodes stored bet-een &00$
&*0GC
No specific reference to
4acm$pacHed electrodes
Lo- h.drogen electrodes,
stringer beads
2inimm preheat temperatre
P 8alification
'rface temper beads re8ired
Post heating P200GC for at least
2 hors
N5T after +A hors
9ermitted if:
Temper bead process is applied
;eneral reuirements:
'pecific re8irements for 8alification 0LW$
2,01 -ith specific essential 4ariables
Iardness re8irements more stringent than
)CC 2
Limited to '2%W, C2%W, :C%W, CT%W
!lectrodes for '2%W stored at &0*$&@*GC
No specific reference to 4acm$pacHed
electrodes
Lo- h.drogen electrodes
2inimm preheat temperatre P 8alification
'rface temper beads re8ired is sed in
8alification
Post heating 2"0$2,0GC for at least 2 hors 0P
No&1 or + hors 0P$No "1
N5T after +A hors
Pro4ides a specific repair method.
ANNEA &
CBMPARSBN B? RCC-M ,S ASME RE:;REMENTS ?BR %E@DN& AND
?A*RCATBN
Requirement
ndicates more stringent
standard or equi$alence
Reference clause
in RCC-M
Section , and
ASME
1'2

Comments
RCC-
M
1#2

RCC-M $s
ASME
1-2

ASME
1#2
Preheat temperatre \
) for some
grades % for
others
\
'&"20
N;$+F&0
N;$+F&2
N;$+F&"
N;$+F22.@0b1$&
None
Preheating method \ ) \ None
Interpass
temperatre
\ ) \ None
%ppendi> 5
Postheating \ ) >
' &""0
N;$+F22.@0b1$&
None
PWIT \ S \
' &"+0
N; +F22.&$&
None
Welding Procedre
Lalification
\ ) \
' "200
'ection ID
)CC$2 refers to I'(
standards
Weld o4erla.
cladding
\ ) \
' "F00
%'2! ID
None
Lalification of tbe
to tbeplate -elds
\
Not
applicable
\
' "A00
N;$+"*0
The reference clases
onl. appl. to
8alification, not to
completed components
Lalification of
-elders and -elding
operators
\ S \
)CC$2 refers to I'(
standards
%'2! re8ires
%'2! ID
Lalification of
-orHshops
\
Not
applicable
> ' F000 Not in %'2!
'torage and se of
-elding
consmables
\ ) \
' @200
N;$++&&
None
Preparation of
srfaces for -elding
\ S \
' @"00
N;$++&2
N;$*&"0
None
!>ection of
prodction -elds
\ S \
' @+00
N;$++22$++2F
N;$+"2&
N;$++"0
None
)epair b. -elding \ S \ ' @F00 None
)epair -ithot post
-eld heat treatment
0temper bead1
\ % \
' @F20
N;$+F22.,
%'2! ID
LW$2,0
None
Prodction test
copons
\
Not
applicable
> ' @A00 Not in %'2!
Notes
0&1
\Stopic inclded in the codeKspec, DStopic not inclded in the code or specification.
021
=)= means )CC$2 is more stringent than %'2!. =%= means )CC$2 is less stringent. =S=
means the. are considered e8i4alent.
0"1
%'2! 'ection II, nless specified.