Comparison of the ASME, RCC-M and ISO Requirements for Welding Qualifications and Welding Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comparison between the requirements for the qualification of welding procedures, welders and welding operators, as well as for welding supervision/coordination and welding quality according to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel code (ASME BPVC Sections III and IX), the Afcen RCC-M code (France) for nuclear plant components, and ISO standards referenced to by the latter. The work was carried out within an international project that included other major codes and standards applied in the Nuclear sector, ie CSA (Canada), JSME (Japan), KEPIC (Korea) and Rostechnadzor PNAE G-7 (Russia), as part of a larger effort towards harmonization of nuclear pressure-boundary codes and standards. The comparison work aimed at identifying significant differences, as well as areas of current or potential convergence and future harmonization of the abovementioned codes and standards. A line-by-line comparison was carried out, using the ASME BPVC as the baseline. Corresponding requirements in the different codes and standards were identified and categorized as ‘identical’, ‘equivalent’, ‘technically different’ or ‘not specified’ (when addressed by the ASME BPVC only). The most significant differences are discussed and the main findings are presented, including upcoming code and standard changes that may affect harmonization. Concluding remarks are provided with regard to the future effort required for harmonization of the codes and standards considered, through convergence and/or reconciliation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".