ASME_Ch49_p001-066.
qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 191
FRENCH CODES DEALING WITH
PRESSURE EQUIPMENT
Francis Osweiller, Alain Bonnefoy, Jean-Marie Grandemange,
Gerard Perraudin, and Bernard Pitrou
49.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter presents the basic philosophy of the French Codes
listed below and explains how they are linked to the Pressure
Equipment Directive (PED), which is mandatory in the European
Union (see Chapter 47); a comparison with the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code is provided. The presentation of nuclear
codes will be limited to those applicable to pressure equipment.
All of the acronyms used are provided at the end of this Chapter.
In France, two important organizations are responsible for the
implementation of pressure equipment Codes:
(a) SNCT, which stands for Syndicat National de la
Chaudronnerie, Tolerie et Tuyauterie (pressure vessel and
piping manufacturers association), develops codes for the
non-nuclear sector.
(1) CODAP (Code de construction des Appareils à
Pression) for pressure vessels
(2) CODETI (Code de construction des Tuyauteries
Industrielles) for industrial piping
(3) COVAP (Code de construction des generateurs de
Vapeur) for boilers
(b) AFCEN, which stands for French association for design,
construction, and inservice inspection rules for nuclear
island components, develops codes for the nuclear sector.
(1) RCC-M (design and construction rules for mechanical
components of PWR nuclear islands)
(2) RCC-MR (design and construction rules for mechanical
components of FBR nuclear islands)
(3) RCC-E (design and construction rules for electrical
equipment of nuclear islands)
(4) RCC-C (design and construction for fuel assemblies of
nuclear power plants)
(5) RSE-M (in-service inspection rules for mechanical
components of PWR nuclear islands)
(6) RCC-G (design and construction rules for civil works
of PWR nuclear islands)
The French Codes pertinent to the current discussion are pre-
sented in Table 49.1.
CHAPTER
49
49.2 OVERVIEW OF FRENCH CODES
DEVOTED TO THE NON-NUCLEAR
SECTOR
49.2.1 General
SNCT [1] is a private organization that is supported and man-
aged by French pressure equipment manufacturers who pay a fee
to be a member of the organization. SNCT develops and publishes
pressure equipment Codes for the non-nuclear sector. Other activ-
ities are devoted to training courses and consulting.
49.2.2 Scope
CODAP applies to unfired pressure vessels and covers the same
scope as ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 2. CODAP is based
on the concept of construction category, which enables the con-
struction quality of a vessel to be adapted and consistent with its
future working conditions. CODAP is structured in six.
CODETI applies to industrial piping (i.e., piping intended for
industrial plants) and covers the same scope as ASME B31.1 and
B31.3. CODETI is based on the concept of construction category,
which enables the construction quality of a piping to be adapted
and consistent with its future working conditions. The structure of
the Code is similar to that of the CODAP with five parts: general
rules, material, design (including flexibility analysis), fabrication
and installation, and testing and inspection.
COVAP applies to steam boilers, superheated water boilers, and
thermal fluid boilers and covers approximately the same scope as
ASME BPVC Section I. This Code Covers any pressure equip-
ment that can be assembled by a manufacturer to constitute an
integrated and functional whole subject to overheating risk. In
addition to chapters covering material, design, and fabrication and
testing, specific chapters have been developed to cover water
quality and repairs and modifications.
49.2.3 Organization
CODAP, CODETI, and COVAP are developed by SNCT. Each
Code is under the responsibility of a Management Board who has
representatives from manufacturers, material producers, third-
party organizations, customers, and French regulatory authorities.
They make all the decisions concerning the strategic aspects of
the Code. The technical development of the Code is devoted to
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 192

192 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.1 FRENCH PRESSURE EQUIPMENT CODES

Technical Committees (General, Design, Material, Fabrication,
Testing-Inspection, and Safety Devices) who are each in charge of
one part of the Code.
All decisions are made by consensus in these committees and
must be endorsed by the Management Board. When a new text is
ready, it is reviewed by a reading committee of about 25 members.
The comments are reviewed by the relevant Technical Committee
and the text is finalized for publication.
The duration for this process can extend from 1 to 2 years,
depending on the importance on the text. Figure 49.1 shows this
organization for CODAP.
49.2.4 Link With PED and European Harmonized
Standards
CODAP, CODETI, and COVAP have been reviewed in 2000 to
comply with the requirements of Pressure Equipment Directive
97/23/EC. These Codes are private Codes, developed by a private
organization, contrary to French Standards, which are developed by
the French Standardization Organization (AFNOR–Association
Française de Normalisation). AFNOR publishes the French ver-
sion of the European Standards, known as EN Standards.
Manufacturers are free to use for the fabrication of their pressure
equipment either the relevant SNCT Code or the EN Standard.

SNCT

CODAP MANAGEMET BOARD

(15 members)

"GENERAL "PRESSURE RELIEF

"MATERIAL" "DESIGN" "FABRICATION" "INSPECTION"
REQUIREMENTS" DEVICES"
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
M C F I
G S

READING
COMMITTEE
(25members)

FIG. 49.1 CODAP COMMITTEE STRUCTURES

ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 193
COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 193
49.2.5 Structure
CODAP, CODETI, and COVAP are generally divided into six
main parts as follows:
(a) Part G: the general outlines of the Code (scope, conditions
of applicability, general requirements, link with PED, and
main concepts)
(b) Part M: material requirements
(c) Part C design rules (design by formula and design by analysis)
(d) Part F: fabrication requirements
(e) Part I: testing and inspection requirements
(f) Part S: safety devices requirements
Each Part is divided in to Sections and Chapters. Appendices
may fall into one of three categories: mandatory, nonmandatory,
or informative. These Codes comply with the European
Regulations (PED) and provide an Annex Z, which states how the
PED requirements are satisfied in the Code. The Codes rely on
the concept of construction categories, which is based on the
assessment of the potential risks of failure of the vessel and the
consequences of a failure. Each category is based on a severity
level for the vessel, which has consequences on the level of
requirements contained in the various Parts of the Codes.
49.2.6 Publications, Updates, Interpretations,
and Inquiries
CODAP, CODETI, and COVAP are published by SNCT every
5 years in a loose-leaf edition. Addenda are generally published
every year on January 1. Errata may be published at any time as
necessary. Interpretations and inquiries must be forwarded to
SNCT (SNCT : Syndicat National de la Chaudronnerie, Tôlerie,
Tuyauterie Industrielle 92038 Paris La DÈfense Cedex France.
Web site: www.snct.org).
49.3 OVERVIEW OF FRENCH CODES
DEVOTED TO THE NUCLEAR
SECTOR
49.3.1 General
In the early 1970s, France had decided to launch an important
construction program of PWRs under a Westinghouse licence.
From 1971 to 1974, when preparing the regulatory requirements
that had to be imposed on the main primary system of these plants
[1], the group in charge of the writing of these requirements took
the precaution to ensure that they were globally compatible with
the American license, considering at the same time the French
regulatory and industrial practices.
Thus, the 900 MWe and the first series of 1300 MWe plants
were built according to the ASME III code as far as design was
concerned, completed by additional rules to comply with the reg-
ulation and according to the French EDF electricity utility manu-
facturing and examination requirements. When building the South
African Koeberg 900 MWe plant, it appeared necessary for for-
eign applications to gather in a self-contained document all the
design and construction rules that were applied according to the
above rules. Acceptance from EDF to refer to these new prescrip-
tions as well as a strong incentive from the French Administration
constituted favorable conditions for the preparation of this Code,
which started beginning of 1978. The process leading to RCC-M
is shown in Fig. 49.2.
US regulations, codes French and European
and standards for the rules, regulations and
general design of systems practices for the
and components construction of plants
PWR technology progressively
adapted to French industrial and
regulatory context
RCC-M
FIG. 49.2 INITIAL PRAGMATIC APPROACH FOR
ESTABLISHING RCC-M
A first edition was ready in 1980 for the construction of the sec-
ond French 1300 MWe series. From the end of 1978 and before
official issuing by AFCEN in 1981, the text was submitted to the
main manufacturers of nuclear-related products and discussed in
parallel with the French Safety Authority, leading to the first issue
of the Fundamental Safety Rule RFS V.2.c (in 1981, later revised
in 1986 [2]) approving the use of the RCC-M. The 1981 adden-
dum of the RCC-M was applied to the Korean Ulchin 9-10 project.
Successive editions of the RCC-M followed in 1983 (1984 adden-
dum referred to for N4 series contract), 1985 (edition applied to
the Chinese Daya Bay 1 and 2 contract), 1988, 1993 (1994 adden-
dum referred to for Ling Ao 1 and 2 contract), and 2000 (2002
addendum applied for Finland Olkiluoto 3 project). Following the
issue of PED and leading to a new 2007 edition, updating of
RCC-M did continue to incorporate answers to project needs and
consequences of regulatory evolutions in the nuclear field.
When developing the EPR in the context of a French-German
collaboration, a comparison of the French RCC-M and German
KTA provisions was conducted and the bases of an ETC-M (EPR
Technical Code – Mechanical Components) were prepared [3].
This work did lead to modification requests to update the RCC-M
practices, which are proposed for the EPR project.
In the case of fast breeder reactors, the process was similar.
Following recommendations from the RAMSES committee created
by the French CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) in
1977, the work conducted for the RCC-M preparation as well as
the ASME III BPVC Section III and N-47 Code Case for high-
temperature application were considered in addition to specific
developments managed within a tripartite committee grouping
CEA, EDF (ElectricitÈ de France), and Novatome (now a division
of Areva-NP). The RCC-MR Code was first issued in 1985 for
application to replacement parts and future LMFBR reactors. A
second edition was issued in 1993. In the context of the European
Fast Reactor (EFR) studies, a Design and Construction Rules
Committee (DCRC) was constituted to conduct precodification
studies, which did lead to a compendium of DCRC recommenda-
tions that constituted valuable inputs for the preparation of modi-
fication requests to be evaluated by the tripartite committee and
then within the AFCEN organization. After the cancelling of the
FBR projects in Europe, the decision was made by AFCEN to
issue a 2002 edition of the RCC-MR, to record the result of this
huge development effort [16]. This edition constituted a sound
basis for developments of new applications in the high tempera-
ture field. It was then updated to conform with the regulatory evo-
lutions and completed to cover evolutionary projects needs, in
particular ITER vacuum vessel construction, leading to a new
2007 edition [16], [38].
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 194

194 • Chapter 49

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: IN-SERVICE SURVEILLANCE:

Nuclear Islands
Mechanical components
RSE-M

Fire Protection System Design Safety

RCC-I classification
RCC-P

Safety related Components

Mechanical
components
PWR: RCC-M Civil Works
FBR:RCC-MR RCC-G

Electrical
Fuel
components
RCC-C
RCC-E

FIG. 49.3 ORGANIZATION OF FRENCH NUCLEAR CODES

In 1985, after initial operating experience based on ASME
BPVC Section XI–inspired programs, adapted to French context
and taking into account risk and consequences for equipment sur-
veillance and periodic inspection, EDF developed the first RSE-M
rules for inservice surveillance with the support of Framatome.
This had the objective of following the French practice, which
could also be used in the preparation of the inspection programs
for the Daya Bay Chinese plants. The result was the first 1990
edition, quickly edited by AFCEN and then updated within the
framework of the AFCEN organization, the AFCEN society
extending its scope and organization to cover the inservice sur-
veillance aspects. The RSE-M was then updated and adopted in
the 1997 edition [17] and subsequently updated by the December
1998 and 2005 addenda.
49.3.2 Scope
During the period from 1978 to 1980, Framatome-EDF teams
prepared the RCC rules. In October 1980 AFCEN was established
among Framatome, Novatome (now a division of Areva-NP), and
EDF.1
The AFCEN scope covers the following codes:
(a) RCC-M for mechanical components of light-water reactors
(b) RCC-E for electrical components
(c) RCC-C for nuclear fuel
(d) RCC-MR for mechanical components of fast breeder
reactors
(e) RSE-M for inservice surveillance of mechanical compo-
nents of light-water reactors
AFCEN is also in charge of the edition of the RCC-G on civil
works, although its content is not prepared within the organization.
Other codes on fire protection (RCC-I) and system design
(RCC-P) are issued by Areva-NP and EDF teams but are not pub-
lic documents and are not edited by AFCEN. The general organi-
zation of RCCs is shown on Fig. 49.3.
49.3.3 Organization
AFCEN is established according to the French 1901 law on
associations, with a board of directors, a general secretary, a
writing committee, and dedicated writing subcommittees in
charge of the various codes covered by AFCEN (Fig. 49.4).
Below the RCC-M Subcommittee, working groups are estab-
lished covering design and analysis, materials and procurement,
welding and manufacturing, and nondestructive examination. The
general parts (QA, general organization) are handled directly by the
subcommittee. Similar groups are established for the RCC-MR and
working groups within the SE-M subcommittee cover the following:
(a) Group 1: field of application, hydraulic testing, inspection
programs and quality
(b) Group 2: nondestructive examinations
(c) Group 3: mechanical analyses and tables of defect accep-
tance
(d) Group 4: interventions on the plants, including repairs
The global sharing of responsibilities within AFCEN organiza-
tion is defined as follows: the chairman of the board is from EDF
and the general secretary is from Areva-NP. The chairman of the
editorial committee is from EDF and the secretaries of the sub-
committees are from Areva-NP for fuel and construction and from
EDF for the inservice surveillance and electrical equipment. Each
working group is managed by two group leaders, one from EDF
and one from Areva-NP.
49.3.4 Structure
The general structure of the RCC-M is presented in Table 49.2.
In compiling the RCC-M, an analogy was deliberately created
between its structure and that of the ASME BPVC Section III,
Division 1 (and related sections), so that persons working with
either of these codes could find the correspondence between them
with a minimum of confusion. Differences come essentially from
the fact that the RCC-M scope is reduced compared to the ASME
Code. The ASME Code scope includes components outside the
nuclear island as mentioned in Table 49.3, which addresses the
correspondence with non-nuclear codes applicable to conventional
boilers and pressure components in France.
When correspondence is given with RCC-M sections (for mate-
rials, welding, and NDE) in Table 49.3, this applies only for

1
AFCEN mailing address: Tour Areva, 92084 Paris La Défense Cedex, France.
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 195

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 195

BOARD General Secretary

Editorial committee

RCC-C Sub RCC-E Sub RCC-M Sub RCC-MR Sub RSE-M Sub
committee committee committee committee committee

WG General Design General Inspection

Qualification Material Design NDE

Design Technology Material Flaw Analysis

Softwares Examination Fabrication Repair

Installations

Examination

FIG. 49.4 STRUCTURE OF AFCEN ASSOCIATION

equipment of nuclear islands. For other components (conventional
boilers, pressure vessels, and piping), these topics are covered in
the applicable non-nuclear AFNOR/SNCT Codes (EN, COVAP,
CODAP, or CODETI).
The various subsections of RCC-M Section I have the same
general structure and refer to applicable provisions on procure-
ment, manufacturing, examination, or technical appendices, as
shown in Fig. 49.5.
The RCC-MR structure is very similar to the RCC-M structure,
as shown in Table 49.4.
49.3.5 Publications, Updates, Interpretations, and
Inquiries
The RCCs were initially based on the photography of the
industrial practice as applied to the PWR or FBR nuclear islands,
taking into account design and construction and inservice experi-
ence. Modification requests may be issued by every user or by the
AFCEN members themselves depending on industrial needs.
In preparing the code evolutions, the AFCEN committees rely
on development results [4] and integrate plant experience feed-
back, taking advantage of the centralized organization of the
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 196

196 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.3 COMPARISON OF ASME CODE STRUTURE AND FRENCH CODES

French nuclear industry [5]. The CEA was associated to the
developments through the AFCEN consultative scientific commit-
tee [6], more particularly as far as fast breeder rules development
was concerned. The role of this committee was to give its mem-
bers a general overview of the research and development pro-
grams, undertaken with respect to RCC codification activities, to
help them examine the correspondence between these programs
and the needs and, consequently, make recommendations on the
programs that should be initiated, so that AFCEN can be provided
with the results it needs to perform its task correctly.
Updating the Code is a continual process. In particular, the
RCC-M refers to more than 200 covering materials, processes,
qualifications, tests, and examination. These standards are con-
stantly evolving, with more and more standards becoming
European or International. Codes shall evolve in parallel to
remain consistent with the industrial needs, while keeping the
overall consistency of the rules.
Codes also evolve following regulatory evolution. In particular,
the issuing of the European PED [7] has led to updating the regu-
lation in the various European countries. Even if the nuclear

1000 chapters Subsection A

. Scope
. Documentation
. Identification
2000 chapters
. Prevention of corrosion Section 2Materials
. Applicable procurement
specification
Subsection Z
3000 chapters
. Sizing
. Analysis
Section 3 Examination
4000 chapters
. Manufacturing and Section 4 Welding
examination Section 5 Fabrication
5000 chapters
. Hydrostatic tests

6000 chapters
. Overpressure Protection

FIG. 49.5 STRUCTURE OF SUBSECTIONS OF THE RCC-M AND

RELATIONS AMONG SECTIONS
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 197
COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 197
TABLE 49.4 CONTENTS OF THE RCC-MR CODE
equipment is not addressed in this directive, the nuclear industry
uses practices based on the approach; the nuclear regulations
issued in the various European countries generally refer to these
practices as minimum requirements to which specific nuclear pro-
visions may be added. In France, this approach was followed
under the form of a specific Order referring to PED provisions
and completing them depending on safety aspects and potential
radioactive releases [34], [35].
Modification requests or interpretation may be prepared by
Code users or at the initiative of AFCEN working group mem-
bers. Requests are first analyzed by the dedicated working group
depending on the topic (design, procurement, manufacturing,
examination) addressed, then discussed and approved by the RCC
subcommittee. In case an agreement is not reached on the work-
ing group proposal, a revised instruction sheet is issued and ana-
lyzed again by the working group.
When an agreement is reached in the RCC subcommittee, a
modification sheet to the code is prepared by the technical secre-
tary of the subcommittee on the basis of this agreement. This
sheet is verified by the working group leaders and the subcommit-
tee secretary and then approved by the president of the writing
committee; it is issued by the general secretary by delegation of
the AFCEN board of directors. Discussion by the board is only
needed in cases of significant revisions (e.g., the issuing of a new
section).
All these activities are conducted according to rules described
in the AFCEN Quality Manual. Each modification sheet issued is
distributed to concerned users and can be applied to projects sub-
jected to the condition that an agreement among the subcontrac-
tor, the contractor, and the client is obtained. Sets of modification
sheets are transmitted for information and remarks to the Safety
Authority.
Periodically, the set of issued modification sheets are gathered
in an addendum that is published. The addendum lists the modifi-
cation sheets that are included as well as the concerned chapters.
There cannot be a single modification, even on details, included in
RCC addenda unless it has been subjected to the complete
process of modification request/modification sheet instruction.
From time to time, where judged appropriate by the AFCEN
board, a new edition of the code is issued. A new edition is the
sum of the previous one as modified by the successive addenda
(which means by the successive modification sheets). Addenda
are issued with a periodicity that depends on the contract needs
and the amount of modifications. RCC-M addenda were issued
every 6 months in the 1980s; the frequency progressively
decreased to one every 2 years for the 2000 Edition. Modification
frequency is likely to increase with projects needs for the 2007
edition.
All these processes are conducted in the French language; con-
sequently, the only official AFCEN version is the French edition,
as mentioned in the first page of the English edition. The transla-
tion of the RCC editions and of every subsequent modification
sheet is done according to the AFCEN procedure. In case of
doubts, the French edition shall be considered; in case of transla-
tion error, the appropriate approach is to correct the RCC-M fol-
lowing the erratum process. Errata are applicable retroactively.
These revisions are presented periodically to the French Safety
Authority, leading to an update of the Fundamental Safety Rule
dedicated to each code or to the issuing of a Safety Authority
Decision, as was the case on July 10, 2001 [8], for the use of the
RCC-M 2000 Edition. Eventual conditions expressed in these
decisions are taken into account in the next addendum, as was the
case in the 2002 addendum to the RCC-M for the above decision.
Conditions for code evaluation in the context of the new regula-
tion is still under discussion.
The working groups discuss interpretation requests; they issue
an answer directly to the requestor. Instructions are periodically
presented a posteriori to the RCC subcommittee. Interpretations
are not edited, although this may be necessitated depending on
user needs. There are no RCC Code cases in case of new materi-
als or processes, because a specific agreement may be reached
through the equipment specification. Nevertheless, the concept of
a transitory modification sheet was integrated in the AFCEN pro-
cedures to anticipate the need for a code case approach for foreign
applications. It was used only once to allow a new procurement
possibility.
Some modification requests may necessitate an evaluation of
their consequences. This is particularly time when a reference to a
new standard is proposed, or for the development of a new rule. In
such a case, a specific inquiry may be addressed to potential sup-
pliers and, where appropriate, an AFCEN development study may
be decided according to the provisions discussed above.
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 198
198 • Chapter 49
49.4 PRESENTATION OF CODAP®
49.4.1 Scope
Originally published in 1980, CODAP is reissued every 5 years
(1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005).
CODAP® was entirely revised in 2000 by the French organiza-
tion of pressure vessel and piping manufacturers association
(SNCT) to comply with the new common regulation adopted in
the European Union in May 2002 (PED). However, the rules of
the Code can also be applied to construction of vessels which are-
structured in two Divisions (see Table below):
However, the rules of CODAP can also be applied to construc-
tion of vessels which are structured in tow disvisons as shown in
the following table:
49.4.2 Links With PED
(a) CODAP® 2000 is in full conformity with the PED due to the
following:
(1) Integration of PED hazard categories (Article 9, Article
10, and Annex II) in Part General
(2) Integration of PED conformity assessment procedures
(Article 10 and Annex III) in part Testing and Inspection
(3) Conformity with the PED essential safety requirements
(Annex I) in the relevant parts of CODAP®
(b) Regarding hazard categories, Figs. 1 to 4 given in Annex II
of the PED for unfired pressure vessels have been included
in § G6 of CODAP Division 1 & 2 (see Fig. 49.6.). These
figures show four hazard categories (I, II, III, IV in ascend-
ing order) depending on the following four parameters:
(1) nature of the fluid (gas or liquid)
(2) dangers of the fluid (flammable, explosive, toxic,
oxidizing)
(3) volume of the vessel, V (liters)
(4) operating pressure, P (bar)
Determination of the hazard category of a vessel should not be
considered as a hazard analysis, which, in other respects, is
required by Annex I of the PED.
49.4.3 Main Concepts
49.4.3.1 Failure Modes. The failure modes to which the vessels
are likely to be subjected are classified into two types.
(a) Failure Modes of the Primary Type. Failure modes of the
primary type are modes for which the failure results from
the application or maintenance of a loading of a given inten-
sity as follows:
(1) gross plastic deformation
(2) plastic instability (bursting)
(3) elastic and elastic-plastic instability (buckling)
(4) creep rupture
(5) brittle fracture
(b) Failure Modes of the Secondary Type. Failure modes of the
secondary type are modes for which the failure results from
repeated variations in loadings as follows:
(1) incremental collapse
(2) fatigue cracking
49.4.3.2 Construction Categories. The concept of construction
categories enables the construction quality of a vessel to be adapted
and consistent with its future working conditions.
This concept, already used in the earlier editions of the Code,
has been significantly modified to be consistent with the concept
of PED hazard categories.
(a) In CODAP® 2000, the determination of the construction
category of a vessel is based on the following:
(1) The hazard category of the vessel obtained from the
PED (I, II, III, or IV).
(2) The assessment of the potential hazards of failure that
are governed by eight criteria; this assessment is com-
pleted by the assessment of the consequence of a failure
that are governed by five criteria.
These 13 risk assessment criteria (listed in Table 49.5 for a ves-
sel falling within the scope of the PED) must be evaluated one by
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 199

FIG. 49.6 DETERMINATION OF HAZARD CATEGORY FOR A VESSEL CONTAINING A DANGEROUS GAS PS ⫽ MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (BAR) V ⫽ VOLUME (LITER)
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 200

200 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.5 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PRESSURE VESSELS FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PED
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 201
COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 201
TABLE 49.6 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PRESSURE VESSELS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PED
one by the customer, who is the only one to know how the vessel
will be operated. From these individual evaluations, a global level
of risk assessment is obtained for the vessel, which may be low,
moderate, high, or very high.
For a vessel beyond the scope of the PED, in addition to the 13
criteria listed in Table 49.5, the four criteria given in Table 49.6
shall be assessed.
Table 49.7 shows how the combination of hazard category and
global level of risk assessment determines the construction cate-
gory A, B1, B2 or C (where applicable). Each construction cate-
gory is associated with a severity level of the various technical
requirements of the Code (e.g., material, design, and fabrication).
Category A corresponds to the highest severity level implying a
high level of quality. The fourth lowest, construction category D,
has been added in CODAP® 2000 to cover vessels falling below
hazard category I (covered by Article 3.3 of PED). All categories’
A, B1, B2 or C (where applicable) ensure the same reliability for
the pressure vessel. Category Ex (for exceptional) is the same as
category A with additional requirements from the Customer.
(b) The selection of the construction category has significant
consequences on the construction of the vessel, the most
important being the following:
(1) The type of certificate for the material (r1 ⫽ specific
testing; r2 ⫽ nonspecific testing)
(2) The safety factors applied on tensile strength and on
yield strength to obtain the nominal design stresses (see
Table 49.8).
(3) The weld joint efficiency: z ⫽ 1.0 (implying 100%
NDT); z ⫽ 0.85 (implying 20% NDT including nodes
or 10% including nodes); and z ⫽ 0.7 (implying visual
examination).
These requirements are summarized in Table 49.9.
49.4.4 Part Material
(a) This part is devoted to the materials that are covered in the
following sections:
(1) M2: rules applicable to nonaustenitic and nonstainless
steels
(2) M3: rules applicable to austenitic stainless steels
(3) M4: rules applicable to austenitic-ferritic stainless steels
(4) M5: rules applicable to ferrous and nonferrous material
clad steel plates
(5) M6: rules applicable to martensitic stainless steels
(6) M7: rules applicable to ferritic and semiferritic stainless
steels
(7) M9: rules applicable to steel bolting
(8) M12: rules applicable to nickel and nickel alloys
(9) M13: rules applicable to aluminum and aluminum alloys
(10) M14–Rules applicable to titanium and titanium alloys.
(b) The rules of these sections must be applied in addition to the
following general rules:
(1) M1: rules applicable to all ferrous materials
(2) M11: rules applicable to all nonferrous materials
(c) Section 10 covers welding consumables. According to the
grouping of materials defined in EN ISO/TR 15608: 2000,
the selection of a material and acceptance criteria depends on
the construction category and on the maximum permissible
thickness (see Table 49.11). Materials covered in European
Standard as well Materials covered by other specification
(i.e., ASTM) are considered by this new issues of CODAP.
These rules are completed by the following annexes:
(1) MA1: aging of nonstainless and nonaustenitic steels
(2) MA2: prevention of risk of brittle fracture based on
frac-ture mechanics
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 202

202 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.7 DETERMINATIN OF THE CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY IN CODAP® DIVISION 1 AND DIVISION 2

(3) MA3: behavior of steels in the presence of pressurized
hydrogen
(4) MA4: prevention of risks of corrosion
(5) MA5: product specification
(6) MA6: particular material appraisal for material recog-
nized as being safe
This Annex allows the use of materials not covered in
European Standards but covered in other recognized standards
(i.e., ASTM/ASME standards, French standards).
49.4.5 Part Design
The Code provides two complementary types of design rules:
specific design rules (DBF ⫽ design by formula; Division 1 and 2)
and general design rules (DBA ⫽ design by analysis; Division 2
only).
(a) The specific design rules cover the most usual components
and welded joints subject to common loadings (i.e. pres-
sure). The thickness of each component is determined by a
direct formula or the strength of the component is checked by
formulas or graphs. Only static loadings are taken into
account in the specific design rules, except for Section C8
dealing with expansion bellows. No other justification is
necessary if these rules are used in accordance with their
conditions of applicability.
The following components are covered by specific
design rules listed in Table 49.12.
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 203

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 203

TABLE 49.8 NOMINAL DESIGN STRESS IN CODAP® 2000 (EXCERPT)

TABLE 49.9 PERMITTED TYPE OF ACCEPTANCE, DESIGN STRESS AND WELD JOINT EFFICIENCY ACCORDING
TO CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY OF A VESSEL (DIVISION 1 & DIVISION 2)
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 204

204 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.10 MATERIAL TABLES DIVISION 1 OR DIVISION 2 (EXCERPT)

(Category C is not applicable in Division 2 and the “greyish” grades are permitted only in division 2)
AQ: Plese
provide
Table 49.10
callout
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 205

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 205

(b) The general design rules are intended to be used when the spe-
cific design rules do not apply. In these rules, which are cov-
ered in Section 10, the check of the strength is carried out by
complying with criteria regarding stresses or stress ranges.
Section C10 deals with stress analysis and permit the check of
the strength of the various components of a vessel subjected to
loadings mainly of static nature. Sections C11 permit the
check of the strength of the various components of a vessel
subject to variable loadings likely to lead to failure by fatigue
cracking. Sub-section C11.2 provides rules for simplified
fatigue analysis, sub-section C11.3 provides rules for detailed
fatigue analysis (Division 2 only). Use of rules C11.2 and
C12.3 need to perform the determination of the stresses either
numerically, analytically or experimentally.
Annexes complete these sections; Annex FA1 defines the per-
missible welded joints, which depend on the construction catego-
ry of the vessel (see Table 49.14).
49.4.6 Part Fabrication
This part deals with fabrication of pressure vessels or vessel
components made from ferrous or nonferrous materials according
to the following sections:
(a) F1: rules applicable to all ferrous materials
(b) F2: rules applicable to nonaustenitic and nonstainless steel
constructions
(c) F3: rules applicable to austenitic stainless steel construc-
tions

TABLE 49.11 MATERIAL TABLES DIVISION 1 OR DIVISION 2 (EXCERPT)

(Category C is not applicable in Division 2 and the “greyish” grades are permitted only in Division 2)
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 206

206 • Chapter 49

TABLE 49.12 DESIGN RULES

(d) F4: rules applicable to austeniticferritic stainless steel con-
structions
(e) F5: rules applicable to fabrication of ferrous and nonferrous
metal clad steel plates
(f) F6: rules applicable to martensitic stainless steel construc-
tions
(g) F7: rules applicable to ferritic and semiferritic stainless steel
constructions
(h) F1 1: rules applicable to all nonferrous metals
(i) F12: rules applicable to nickel and nickel alloy construc-
tions
(j) F13: rules applicable to aluminum and aluminum alloy con-
structions
(k) F14: Rules applicable to titanium and titanium alloy con-
structions.
(l) F20: construction rules for tube sheet heat exchangers
Each section is divided into chapters that cover design of welded
joints, forming, welding, tolerances (see Table 49.13), and post-
welded heat treatment.
49.4.7 Testing and Inspection
The sections of this part define the testing and inspection oper-
ations to which the vessels must be subjected.
49.4.7.1 Testing. The testing shall be carried out by a testing
body or department independent of the production department of
the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer, under his responsibility, shall
define the testing type and extent, which shall meet as a minimum
the requirements provided for in the Code for the construction cat-
egory under consideration (see Table 49.15).
49.4.7.2 Inspection. The construction supervision shall be car
ried out by an inspection body appointed by the customer (named
ASME_Ch49_p001-066.qxd 2/24/09 2:59 PM Page 207

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 207

TABLE 49.13 TOLERANCES ON BRANCHES (EXCERPT)

Principal in CODAP). (c) a department of the Manufacturer in charge of performing

The inspection body may be any of the following: all or part of the supervision of the construction, under the
responsibility of the Manufacturer when a certified quality
(a) the inspection department of the Principal system of the Manufacturer is implemented and after agree-
(b) a specialized body selected by the Principal ment between the parties involved