The spirit/intent of UG-101(c)

[user1234]

Hello everyone,
I'm new to the forum. I have what I hope is a quick question. I am having a hard time understanding how UG-101(c) applies to a burst test using UG-101(m). It makes perfect sense that a strain based proof tested vessel should not have been previously subjected to any potential for yielding since permanent strain percentage is the measured and determining factor in the assignment of the MAWP and you would want strain measurement to begin in a stage where the vessel has not seen prior permanent strain.

However, it seems that a burst tested vessel would only be more conservatively assigned a calculated MAWP from a vessel that has had a few runs to a relatively high pressure.

Am I missing the spirit/intent of UG-101(c) for burst tested vessels?

Thank you for any help you can offer!

 

[Don56]

The formula in UG-101(m) includes a minimum 4:1 safety factor plus whatever the ratio of tensile properties yields. Why muddy the water with additional strains. There is nothing in the Code to prevent you from certifying the vessel to a lower MAWP supported by your proof test results if you feel the need to be more conservative.