Phew!!!! Well I try to be clear but I guess I should continue my life’s work on that front....

I feel your frustration!!!! That is one of the reasons I got talked into assisting the committee... and I continue to try to push for more clarity when it is desirable and somehow you can get enough votes for your proposal vs against it.

I will cite you something from my own career... I was asked to check a Dynaflex run on some thin walled high D/t ratio piping when I was in my 20's ... The analyst had use a SIF value of 1.0 for all the tees because the code values were "too high". I refused to sign off on it saying that maybe the SIFs were excessive but the real numbers had to be farther away than that of 1.0.

The system was built and for 15 years all I ever got from the clever piping designer was a lot of yapping! You’re too conservative… the code is baloney etc. Then one day one tee and then another, and another, all fatigue cracked! Was I vindicated.... not really by that time the designer and his big mouth had permanently damaged my reputation and nobody was bright enough to relate the failures to his ****py design and my correct call.

The lesson.... being right is never a move that will win friends and influence people favorably, and when pipe fails its never an over load its always bad tees bad welds etc.

Have I changed from this stupidity?? No I still try to do what I feel is appropriate knowing it will never win me fame or fortune, but also knowing that I have done my work in an ethical manner.

What to do in your specific instance???? Report the overload and the possibility that the geometry of the stations may not allow for a reliable answer as far as a simple B31 analysis is concerned. State the consequences of the overload, which is, reduced cycle life, which may or may not be a problem.