the agreement is very good which confirms that the mechanical models are sufficiently representative and that the test body acts on the test wall in a representative manner note that a large range of values for the relative indentation were investigated ranging from 56 to the original diameter of the tubes it was also possible to verify see table 3 that the agreement is very good concerning the value of the elastic rebound phenomenon of the wall rebounding when the u201c impactor u201d object is removed and the form of the damage particularly the ovalization of the tubes in the area of impact next the deformed tubes were subjected to burst testing by injecting water the following table compares the measured burst pressure right column and the burst pressure obtained by calculation at the end of step e of the method left column the results for tubes 4 and 6 are not as good due to the non incorporation of the stress concentrations due to the machining the method of the invention therefore does indeed provide a reliable parameter for mechanical performance and does not require modifying or moving the damaged structure as the tubes are only subjected to a burst test here for comparison purposes the embodiments above are intended to be illustrative and not limiting additional embodiments may be within the claims although the present invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and.