Common Problems Using Burst Testing
PVEng has registered hundreds of fittings using burst testing. Based on our own experience and reports
from our customers, these are the most common burst test fitting registration problems.
LINK
Common Problems Using Burst Testing
PVEng has registered hundreds of fittings using burst testing. Based on our own experience
and reports from our customers, these are the most common burst test fitting registration
problems, starting with the most frequent:
1) Burst test pressure is not correct (4.5x factor used).
This is the most common problem people have CRN registering parts in Canada by Burst
test. Many applicants have been told by a jurisdiction that they can register fittings by burst
testing the parts to a 4.5x factor of safety. Typically they are told this by phone, occasionally
by email, it does not matter which. The problem starts after the burst test is complete and
the fitting is being registered. Four problems can occur:
i) The company doing the burst test did not ask or did not understand that the 4.5x factor does
not include other required reductions like temperature, corrosion or casting or weld efficiencies.
ii) the fitting goes to a different reviewer at the same jurisdiction who does not agree with using
the 4.5x factor – the job is rejected.
iii) the registration is accepted by the first jurisdiction but rejected by another jurisdiction which
would prefer rules from the code books or:
iv) The job gets registered across Canada, but as the CRN expires at the 10 year anniversary,
the original burst test results are not accepted for renewal and new tests or reports are required.
It is not uncommon to require a burst test pressure 6-7x operating to meet all of the
requirements of UG-101(m). This 4.5x factor is still out there – be careful!
2) Not enough pull tests have been performed on the parts.
See UG-101(j)(2) for the rules covering the yield/tensile test coupons. Three to four test
specimens are supposed to be taken from an un-yielded location of the part that has been
tested. This can be difficult for small fittings, and then the tests have to be taken from
another part from the same heat batch.
VIII-1 UG-101(j)(2): Yield or tensile strength so determined shall be the average
from three or four specimens cut from the part tested after the test is
completed. The specimens shall be cut from a location where the stress during
the test has not exceeded the yield strength. The specimens shall not be flame
cut because this might affect the strength of the material. If yield or tensile
strength is not determined by test specimens from the pressure part tested,
alternative methods are given in (l), (m), (n), and (o) below for evaluation of
proof test results to establish the maximum allowable working pressure.
Equation UG-101(m)(2)(a)(#2)
Some material specifications provide a maximum and minimum allowed tensile and yield
range. These materials can be burst test with only 1 pull test. The trade-off is that the
required burst test pressure based on the maximum strength is likely to be higher than if the
three tests were taken and the results averaged.
The ABSA document in the previous section does a lot to clarify this issue.
3) The witnessing of burst test is not being accepted.
Companies not located in North America are sometimes using inspectors other than
National Board certified Authorized Inspectors to witness burst tests. VIII-1 UG-91 specifies
who the qualified inspector is:
All Inspectors shall have been qualified by a written examination under the
rules of any state of the United States or province of Canada which has
adopted the Code.
The inspectors that meet this requirement are National Board certified. Make sure they put
their National Board serial number after their signature on the burst test report. See the new
Alberta guide in the previous section for more on the report.
4) Using burst tests to prove parts that could also be proven by code calculations
Proof tests are not allowed to be used to replace code rules – see UG-101(b). You might
need the proof test to show the strength of part of your fitting, but if other portions can be
calculated to code, then they must be.
Also, the proof test cannot be used to provide a higher operating pressure for those parts
that can be calculated.
5) Not enough tests have been done to prove a complete range of parts
Often, to prove a range of parts for CRN registration by code calculations the smallest,
largest and a size at mid-range are analyzed and the results are interpolated for the other
sizes.
This is often inadequate. Detailed geometric information is required to prove that the
calculations are accurate or conservative for all the sizes not computed. VIII-1 UG-101(d)(2)
requires that at least 5 burst tests be done covering the range with good spacing of the data
points. Even if VIII-1 is not your code of construction, do not be surprised if you are required
to comply with this.
It takes a lot of geometric data to prove that the design scales uniformly between the
smallest and the largest. It can be more practical just to test all sizes.
6) Burst tests used to justify materials not tested
UG-101(d)(2) specifies when one material can be used to justify another based on
similarities like greater tensile strength + equal P number + same or tougher material
grouping – read carefully. Typically if a product is available in multiple materials, then
multiple burst tests will be required. Although it is possible to use code calculations of weak
materials to prove the strength of otherwise identical fittings made from stronger materials,
this is not allowed in burst testing.
Alternatives to Burst Testing – the requirements of 6 and 7 above can make it more
economical to use methods such as finite element analysis instead of burst testing, even on
small parts.
7) Lastly, the report is occasionally a problem.
VIII-1 UG-101(b) specifies that the report:
VIII-1 UG-101(b): The report shall include sufficient detail to describe the test, the
instrumentation and the methods of calibration used, and the results obtained.
Also refer to the useful Alberta requirements form the previous section.
Pressure Vessel Engineering Ltd.
120 Randall Drive, Suite B
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
N2V 1C6
519-880-9808
