Piping design according to international codes to prevent

acoustically induced vibration fatigue failures

Giuseppe Squadrone1, Edoardo Brunazzo2, and Emanuele Piccione3
1,2,3
TECNIMONT S.p.A.
Via Gaetano De Castillia 6A, 20124 Milan, Italy

ABSTRACT
Since the issue of pipe fatigue failures caused by acoustically induced vibrations (AIV) was
formerly recognized, analyzed and widely documented by Carucci and Müller in 1982, on the basis of
their experiences on operating industrial plants, progresses have been made both in the elaboration of
more reliable methodologies for risk assessment and in the optimisation of preventive measures.
At present, there are two majorly recognised methodologies for AIV risk assessment. First one
employs the criteria of Sound Power Level “Limit Curve” versus pipe geometrical parameters and the
latter is based on the “Likelihood Of Failure”’ criterion, with or without the support of FEM analysis
at pipe discontinuity.
Other assessment methodologies have been developed taking into account the piping dynamic local
stress or the overall piping system modal response and are proficiently practised by various
acknowledged companies.
Above methodologies are customarily applied by Tecnimont in AIV risk assessment. Additionally
this contribution discusses how the combined use of dedicated international codes such as ASME Sec.
VIII, enables to carry out piping design, in terms of stress, number of cycles to fatigue failure and
appropriate stress concentration factors, both for connections and fo r supports.
Keywords: Acoustic Induced Vibration, Piping Fatigue, Oil and Gas plant design

1. INTRODUCTION
In industrial plants, process piping subjected to the vibrations induced by high frequency acoustic
excitation of high pressure letdown devices, associated with large-flow gas systems, may led to fatigue
failures within few minutes or hours.
This mechanism is well known as Acoustically Induced Vibration (AIV). It was formerly
recognized, documented and analyzed by Carucci-Müller [1] at early 80’s. They proposed safe design
limit curve, plotted as theoretical sound power level inside pipe (Lw) versus pipe diameter. In the late
90’s the Marine Technology Directorate (MTD) encouraged deeper investigation on this subject and,
as an outcome, a guideline, then improved by Energy Institute (EI) [2], was published containing most
accurate risk assessment criterion, based on the mechanical parameter Likelihood Of Failure (LOF).
Acoustically induced vibration in process piping system is an important issue and should be

1
g.squadrone@tecnimont.it
2
e.brunazzo@tecnimont.it
3
e.piccione@tecnimont.it

1
addressed early during engineering phase for any gas process project.
This is because, any potential failure of piping due to AIV in gas process facilities not only
represents cause for millions of dollars in economic losses or environmental pollutions, but also
adversely influences the safety levels of workers and thus increasing the risk of injury or fatalities
[3,4].
It is also important to highlight that the application of AIV screening procedures and methodologies
is strongly driven by aggressive project schedules. Hence AIV risk assessment and control shall be
performed at early stage, sometimes even before the availability of consolidated design data. Main
concern is the need to define larger pipe sizes and corresponding wall thicknesses at the earliest to
allow their procurement in time. Possible approach is to work with preliminary process data,
disregarding layout information which is not reliable at project beginning and assuming conservative
margins derived from previous experiences to ensure thorough and robust decisions. It shall be noted
that, with early definition of pipe wall thickness along with support and branch reinforcement
requirements, the design effectiveness is improved. Thus future interventions are limited to no or very
few situations, giving positive impact on the project schedule.

2. BACKGROUND
AIV is a phenomenon generally caused due to high flow rate and pressure drop at pressure reducing
devices of gas systems, such as Pressure Safety Valves (PSV), Control Valves (CV) or depres surizing
valves, and results in high sound levels of high frequency acoustic energy; typical dominant
frequencies are between 500 to 2000 Hz. AIV is usually characterized at the point of flow restriction
by choked flow and shock wave conditions resulting in an intense area for turbulent flow pressure
fluctuations immediately downstream of the point of flow restriction. This generates acoustic energy
that propagates inside the pipe as an acoustic wave together with propagating structure borne vibration
energy within pipe wall. The propagating acoustic wave has high order modes that tend to couple well
with the pipe wall flexural modes exciting circumferential vibrations. AIV failures occur at geometric
asymmetries and stress raisers in the piping system including branch connections, small vent and drain
connections - Small Bore Connections (SBC) -, pipe supports and guide locations. The effects related
to piping system vibrations are piping fatigue and fretting. Piping fatigue lead to cracks may evolve in
wall fractures and pipe ruptures, the most sensitive locations are welded joints. Fretting is the simple
contact between surfaces in cyclic relative motion, where one or both of the surfaces will be worn away,
leading to potential fluid leak.

3. PROCEDURE AND METHODS FOR AIV RISK ASSESSMENT

The procedure to limit AIV fatigue in process piping is mainly organized in two steps: risk
assessment and corrective action on piping system. The AIV risk assessment is then split in two stages:
the screening and the detailed analysis. In any case, it shall be noted that the whole activity shall be
carried out provided that process and piping mechanical design have been conducted by applying the
good engineering practices and other standardized design rules. As an example, following criteria for
gas discharge velocities (as Mach number Ma) are generally adopted by Process Specialists to size the
piping for a flare system:
 PSV branch lines Ma ≤0.7
 Flare header Ma ≤0.5
In case of higher gas velocities in the discharge branch or header line, pipe internal diameter will be
increased. Calculations are performed by assuming steady state flow conditions. Where new discharge
branches are added to existing flare system, a check of Mach numbers at different pipe sections along
the whole piping is also carried out to detect chocked flow conditions, if any. In such cases, parallel
discharge lines are planned where necessary, unless some relaxation i s stated.
Piping mechanical design actions, which positively affect the response of pipe-work to acoustic
induced vibration, can be adopted on different areas.
 Line length and routing
 Pipe wall thickness and D/t ratio
 Circumferential discontinuities as main fatigue sensitive locations
On these general action fields, the following good design practices can be adopted for piping design
and material selection with respect to acoustic induced fatigue:
 Local Circumferential Discontinuities should be minimized in proximity of PSV.

2
  Unreinforced fabricated tee should be avoided (full wrap around reinforcement
recommended). Tees should be forged welded type or extruded outlet type.
 Diameter of small bore at the connection with the main line should be maximized.
 Threaded connection should be avoided
Subsequently, to select piping systems asking detailed analysis, screening is conducted by means of
questionnaires or by analysing specific process parameters independently or in combinations,
depending on the released vibrational energy. The data requirement of screening step is very limited..
However, any additional details can enhance result accuracy and can be useful for subsequent steps.
According to Energy Institute (EI) screening criteria, following piping systems are not subjected to
AIV risk:
 liquid or multiphase flow lines;
 gas systems with no likelihood of chocked flow or sonic flow velocities.
Further to above conditions, Carucci-Müller screening method (along with ones given by Eisinger
[5] and Norsok Standard L-002 [6]) includes additional criteria to identify piping systems not
subjected to AIV risk:
 gas systems discharging directly to the atmosphere through a short tail pipe;
 single pressure let downs where the discharge pipe has a nominal diameter (DN) 6” or
smaller for full length;
 piping connected to valves with estimated sound pressure values less than 110 dBA, at 1 m
downstream of the valve and at 1 m from the pipe.
Second level is detailed risk assessment, where, analysis is performed by means of calculations
using process and pipe geometry parameters as an input.
Consecutive subchapters contain comprehensively summarised features of AIV risk analysis
methods, available to date.

3.1 Carucci-Müller Method

The first paper discussing AIV was presented in 1982 by Carucci and Müller. The original study
defined a safe design curve based on reference internal pipe stream power, calculated at letdown
device, and normally accepted range of thin-walled pipe diameter used in flare and depressurizing
systems. Figure 1 shows the original data set of the 36 analyzed cases, plotted as Lw versus pipe
internal diameter (D int ) and the proposed “Safe Design Curve”. The internal pipe stream power, in
terms of internal pipe sound power level, can be calculated by means of the following equation:
  P1  P 2 3.6  T 1.2 
Lw  10 Log W 2
10       126.1 (1)
 P1   MW  
 
Where,
Lw - internal pipe sound power level (dB); W - gas flow rate (kg/s);
P1 - upstream pressure (Bar abs); P2 - Downstream pressure (Bar abs);
T - upstream gas Temperature (K); MW - Molecular Weight of flowing gas;
It shall be noted that above calculated Lw does not represent the actual sound power level inside
pipe, but gives only reference value to be used for AIV risk assessment. Hence, this Lw is not related
to the predictable control valve sound pressure level at 1m from the downstream piping. The Lw value,
obtained downstream of pressure release valve, propagates along the pipe to sections where the
circumferential discontinuities are located, if any. This propagation is obviously corrected by factors
for distance attenuation, piping material, connection type and dimensions. Calculated sound power
levels for all cases were plotted against main pipe diameter, and a design limit line was drawn below
all the failure/high-vibration points. The principal limitation of Carucci/Müller method is, it does not
consider effects of pipe wall thickness, branch connection size and/or fitting type.
Another constraint, the data set is limited to piping with diameter between 10" and 36". Therefore Lw
limit for pipe of D int outside this range are not defined. However, Lw limit for higher D int can be
extrapolated reasonably. As no risk exists for smaller D int , the AIV assessment shall not be performed.
The wall thickness of pipes analyzed by Carucci-Müller was between 5.6 to 11.2 mm; pipe failures
have also been observed for some of pipes with wall thickness up to 7.9 mm.
The maxima gas flow rate and calculated Lw of the original Carucci-Müller data set, were respectively
430000 kg/hr and 176 dB, not relevant to the same case.

3
 Figure 1 – Carucci-Müller Safe Design Limit Curve [1]

3.2 Eisinger Method

The first modifications to the Carucci-Müller screening Method, were introduced and patented by
Eisinger [5] in 1997.

Figure 2 – Eisinger Safe Design Limit Curve based on Carucci-Müller data [1]

4
 Eisinger plotted the original Carucci-Müller data set as a function of the ratio of main line diameter
to wall thickness, D int /t rather only D, in order to produce a new recommended design limit curve.
Figure 2 shows the Carucci-Müller data plotted as Lw versus D int /t graph and the proposed new design
limit criterion.
The Eisinger formula for allowable internal sound power level Lw A in dB is below shown:
LwA = 173.6 - 0.125 (Dint /t) (2)
Where: Dint is the internal pipe diameter and t is the pipe wall thickness.
Like the Carucci-Müller method, the Eisinger method is also limited by the data set to piping with
a D int /t ratio between 46 and 115 and does not consider branch connection size or fitting type.

3.3 Further methods utilizing limit curves Lw versus pipe geometry parameters
To overcome the AIV risk assessment limitations imposed by the narrow data set available in the
original Carucci-Müller work, curves based on field experiences, theoretical studies or modelling have
been developed for piping system design. Basically these design curves give limit Lw at main pipe
critical sections by proposing the modified risk assessment criteria assumed by Carucci -Müller and
Eisinger. Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), for example, brought a change for D int /t ratios below 80, by
increasing the Lw limit in this region, so that an area where the “True D int /t fatigue curve” is expected
to be positioned is suggested [7]. Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) re-analyzed the Eisinger Lw
versus D int /t graph, shifting position of some points by correcting them in accordance to the original
Carucci-Müller data set, thus deriving “Eisinger modified curve” for the allowable Lw [8]. Different
approach has been adopted by CSTI acoustics which proposed a design criterion curve of Lw as
function of the ratio D int /t2, since this parameter is proportional to the pipe wall vibration amplitude at
coincidence [9].

3.4 MTD (Marine Technology Directorate) and EI (Energy Institute) Method

In 1999 The MTD published Guidelines for AIV fatigue in Proces s Pipework. In 2008 the Energy
Institute (EI) reissued and produced these guidelines.
The EI guidelines again are based on the Carucci-Müller design curve and internal Pipe Sound
Power level equation used in their recommended analysis/screening methodology.
They expanded the assessment to include consideration of fatigue life curves for a range of pipe
fittings and piping materials.
Applying the EI method, a complex calculation has to be performed, using piping system length,
diameter and thicknesses, branch connection and pipe material types, dynamic stress versus cycles to
failure graph and other details to obtain the comprehensive LOF number.
The AIV risk assessment is then obtained by comparing LOF number with unity: if LOF<1 then
remedial actions are suggested, if LOF≥1 then remedial action shall be applied. If LOF<0.3 no AIV
risk exists.

3.5 Piping Dynamic Stress Method

Dynamic stress assessment of AIV, using control valve noise prediction models, is outlined and
employed by Karczub and Fagerlund [10, 11]. Although practical rules to easily apply the method are
not provided, it gives engineers the tools to employ conventional engineering analysis to acoustic
induced vibration (such as ASME stress concentration factors and high -cycle fatigue life curves).
The dynamic stress approach to acoustic induced fatigue was fostered by Norton [12] through in
late 80’s and the following decades. Over the years, calculations to estimate dynamic stress have been
applied to different practical design issues including transient relief scenarios, superimposed effects of
static and thermal stress and material selections considerations (316SS, duplex SS, LTCS, etc).
The dynamic stress method is based essentially on the conversion of Lw into pipe wall vibration
velocity at piping geometric asymmetries, obtaining then the stress acting on the material, in MPa, and
finally comparing them with the allowable ASME limits. The complexity of this method is due to the
difficulties in the estimation of the actual Lw downstream the valve . Additionally it is not been
officially standardized yet, therefore its application is very limited.

3.6 Piping System Response Statistical Approach Method

All previously described AIV risk assessment methods are performed by calculating the Lw,
released at pressure letdown devices, propagated along the piping system and finally evaluating the
fatigue failure risk at critical pipe sections. Though this process, derived from heuristic analysis, is not

5
very accurate, it is worldwide utilized by companies. To support comprehensive AIV fatigue damage
risk assessment, Jacobs [13] then proposed a robust analysis method based on the ability of the piping
system to respond to a vibration source. This innovative AIV risk assessment procedure is basically a
“reverse” method to proceed with the screening analysis. In this method given piping systems are
statistically evaluated to determine their aptitude to fatigue damage when AIV are loaded. Statistically
AIV assessment would be based on the known condition and a premise that not all piping systems fail
when exposed to AIV loading. This is because, either it’s not responsive enough to be impacted by any
acoustic excitement or though AIV responsive, the acoustic power level is insufficient to induce
fatigue. Just to outline the method, first, FEM analysis to piping systems is applied to define the
resonance frequencies leading to the highest pseudo displacements. Subsequently, a statistical analysis
of system behaviour is carried out at resonance frequencies, by applying a set of vibration forcing
functions with constant amplitude at specific points along the whole piping. The resulting dynamic
stress distribution over the piping system allows identification of both, highest stress area and relevant
value achieved. At this point, Jacobs recommends an assumption that the PSV piping systems check
covers 97.5% confidence interval and the 2.5% higher response systems shall be further investigated
by means of additional Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) coupled with Finite Element Methods
(FEM) analysis.

3.7 Experimental Methods

AIV risk assessments based on experimental methods, exclusively applicable on operating plants or
during start-up of individual systems, are depicted here below. Since 1970’s [14], piping vibration
severity screening chart, as displacement amplitudes versus frequency has been developed. It is based
on experiences in petrochemical plants, which are proficiently used to manage high piping vibration
levels. The chart gives allowable curves useful for the survey of operating piping, especially piping
connected to gas compression system. But the frequency range is limited to 300Hz only, less than
range of AIV due to relief valves. In 1986, Fagerlund [15] published a guideline for acceptable sound
pressure levels (SPLs) at the external pipe wall obtained by measured SPLs and dynamic strain
amplitudes. Based on these measurements a maximum SPL of 120dB at the pipe wall was
recommended (reduced to 110 - 115dB at a standard distance of one meter from the pipe wall, as also
supported by Beranek [16]). In 2001 a paper was published [17] indicating that Fagerlund's limit was
overly conservative. It was noticed that a near-field SPL up to 124dB is acceptable for most piping
systems, corresponding to a dynamic strain amplitude of 100 microstrain peak-to-peak. As last update
on the subject, Energy Institute guidelines [2] propose “Concern” and “Problem” curves of vibration
velocity RMS amplitudes versus frequency up to 300Hz. For High Frequency Acoustic Excitation
(HFAE), dynamic strain measurement shall be compared with the fatigue life curves given in BS7608
standard [18] or PD5500 specification [19].
To summarise, it shall be noted that, while these guidelines based on experimental data are helpful,
the data can only be gathered after the piping system has been fabricated and then the methods are not
useful as a design tool. Furthermore, due to the high frequency content of the acoustic excitation,
AIV-induced fatigue failures may occur very quickly (within minutes or hours of operating time). Th us,
experimental screening methods are not a recommended approach for preventing AIV-induced failures
due to High Frequency Acoustic Excitation typical observed in Relief systems.

4. METHODS FOR AIV RISK AVOIDANCE

In accordance with EI, remedial actions to prevent AIV risk, are grouped in two areas: Actions
reducing the excitations mechanism, to be applied first and Actions affecting the piping response.

4.1 Main Line Excitation Mechanism Changes

4.1.1 Reduction in mass flow rate
An effective method of reducing noise levels at source is to reduce the mass flow rate. This is
possible with valve design, either by use of multiple valves or extending the relief or blow down time.
4.1.2 Change of valve trim
Piping systems are not subjected to AIV risk when estimate of SPL are below the value of 110dBA.
Use of multi stage pressure drop internal trim in a control valve can help to reduce noise levels at
source and therefore reduce the risk of an acoustic fatigue failure.
Nevertheless, the use of low noise trim is not always an option, especially for PSV.

6
4.1.3 Change in line length –Attenuation with distance
Line length change can also be considered at the design stage taken into consideration that typical
sound power attenuation along pipe length is 3 dB per downstream length of 50 times pipe diameter.
This solution obviously involves additional associated cost and weight implications.
4.1.4 Acoustic Silencers
Acoustic silencers may be used when the Lw can be reduced below the Design Limit. This solution
generally is not recommended because the success rate and durability is limited.

4.2 Main Line Response Changes

4.2.1 Change in wall thickness
Increasing the local pipe wall thickness, or reducing the D/t ratio, is an option for a new design.
This reduces the resulting high frequency dynamic stress levels at circumferential discontinuities.
Alternatively, full wrap-around reinforcement can be used to achieve the same objective.
4.2.2 Removal of circumferential discontinuities
Circumferential discontinuities (such as SBC, weldolets or welded/stabbing tees) should be
designed out or removed as these will be the main fatigue sensitive locations . Otherwise, they can be
changed into symmetric discontinuities (for example, by using a full wrap-around reinforcement as
outlined previously) or connections such as contoured forged or extruded tees can be used.
4.2.3 Use of circumferential stiffening rings
The use of localized circumferential stiffening rings has been found to be effective in some cases.
They change the high frequency structural characteristic of the pipe walls, resulting in lower dynamic
stress levels at sensitive connections to the main line.

5. PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR AIV RISK ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN

The proposed procedure is substantially based on the EI risk assessment method and it maintains
control of the LOF at branch/header connections and other main pipe discontinuities. The method for
AIV risk avoidance can be therefore classified among the modifications of piping system response and
applies to welding connections. Before the description of the method, underlying assumption on
piping welded connections and discontinuities are discussed below.

5.1 Welding connections fatigue life

As widely documented in literature, AIV can induce failure at pipe welded connections (both
bore-through branches and welded pipe supports) due to geometric structural discontinuity that causes
an increase in local stresses.

Table 1 – Fatigue strength reduction factor K for welded surfaces according to ASME Code [20]
Stress
Quality
Reduction Definition
Level
Factor K
Machined or ground weld that receives a full volumetric examination and a
1.0 1
surface that receives MT/PT and a VT examinations
As-welded weld that receives a full volumetric examination and a surface that
1.2 1
receives MT/PT and VT examinations
Machined or ground weld that receives a partial volumetric examination and a
1.5 2
surface that receives MT/PT and VT examinations
As-welded weld that receives a partial volumetric examination and a surface that
1.6 2
receives MT/PT and VT examinations
Machined or ground weld surface that receives MT/PT examination and a VT
1.5 3
examination (visual), but no volumetric examination inspection
As-welded or ground weld surface that receives MT/PT and a VT (Visual)
1.7 3
examinations, but the weld receives no volumetric examination inspection
Weld has received a partial or full volumetric examination and the surface has
2.0 4
received VT examination, but no MT/PT examination
2.5 5 Weld surface VT examination only; neither volumetric, nor MT/PT examination
3.0 6 Volumetric examination only
4.0 7 Weld backsides that are non-definable and/or receive no examination

7
 These stresses are further increased due to notch effect, produced by the weld geometry. The notch
effect of a fillet weld (i.e. weld toe stress intensification at a reinforcing pad) results in higher stresses
compared to full penetration weld (i.e. sweepolet style fittings or stub-in type fitting). On the other
hand the failure probability can be substantially reduced through non -destructive inspections, like
visual test (VT), liquid penetrant test (PT), magnetic particle test (MT) and volumetric examinations,
aimed to verify the absence of defects and cracks. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Sect. VIII
div. 2 (see Table 1) addresses these issues by a “fatigue strength reduction factor” K which can be
effectively used for the definition of a design method in the AIV scenario.
The focus of this approach is therefore on the identification of specific improvements (weld
geometry and “non destructive inspection”) for structural discontinuities in order to increase the
expected number of Cycles to failure N up to a safe level.

5.2 Cycles to failure number N and Likelihood Of Failure LOF indicator

According to the EI risk assessment procedure, sound power levels can be associated to eac h
discontinuity in the piping discharge system under analysis, applying below rules :
1) Lw is calculated for each relief valve (or other letdown device) by means of formula (1)
2) Lw is propagated - valve downstream - to the branch connection, or any other welded
discontinuity, taking into account the branch length acoustic attenuation with formula
Ldis
Lwdis=Lw-60 (3)
Dint
Where, Lw dis - internal pipe sound power level at welded discontinuity (dB),
Lw - internal pipe sound power level at source (dB),
L dis - distance from valve to discontinuity (m),
Dint - internal pipe diameter (mm).
3) Lwdis,tot ,sum up of all simultaneous source contributions, is calculated with the formula:
Lw1dis Lw2 dis
Lwdis,tot=10 Log[10 10
+10 10
+...+] (4)

Where Lwdis,tot is the total sound power level at welded discontinuity and Lw 1dis , Lw 2dis, are single
sound power levels at discontinuity due to the different sources. Each welded discontinuity is
identified as a “node” and included in a matrix together with corresponding cumulative Lw dis,tot .

Figure 3: Fatigue design S-N curves for different weld classes (from BS7608 [18])

At each node the calculation of N (cycles to failure), according to EI formulas, is carried out
considering piping geometrical parameters: external diameter and thickness of piping header and
branch (Dext and T for header and d ext and t for branch), along with the above mentioned weld surface
fatigue strength reduction factor K. The latter depends on material, junction type, welding class and

8
relevant quality level of examination (see Table 1). From cycles to failure N, LOF indicator is derived
to assess the AIV failure risk. According to EI guidelines the maximum allowable LOF is 0.99 [2, 8],
namely "less than unity". Since safety valve operations are considered occasional and for short period
of time, all connections are designed to have a maximum LOF less than 1, due to the potential impacts
associated with designing to lower LOF values. Based on the LOF value obtained by EI risk
assessment procedure, following design actions can be considered:
 if LOF is ≤ 0.99 the piping system is assumed to be within design limits
 if LOF ≥ 1 then design actions are implemented to increase cycles to failure N up to safe
value.
The analysis is conducted through the ASME BPVC [20], which includes S -N curves specific for
pressure equipments and piping and constitutes a worldwide known industry reference in plant design.
It shall also be noted that ASME code S-N curves are originated by the same fatigue master curves
adopted by BS7608 standard (see Figure 3) that have been employed as reference for the definition of
LOF values in the EI guidelines. Through a comparison in the procedure adopted by these two codes,
ASME BPVC code fatigue assessment procedure results to be more conservative .

5.3 Piping AIV failures avoidance design under ASME BPVC Sect.VIII division 2 basis
In EI guidelines the LOF factor can be interpreted as a transfer function which convert s the number
of cycle to failure N in an indicator (LOF) enabling the verification of the failure probability. In fact,
the guideline establishes that LOF equals 1 for a type of joint F2 in correspondence to the value N = 10 7
in the S-N curve of BS7608 (see Figure 3). In this code the joint type F2 is defined as butt welding with
fracture onset, a configuration which corresponds to an ASME code fatigue strength reduction factor
equal to 4 (see ASME BPVC Sect.VIII - Div. 2 part 5 ), actually the maximum value provided by code
and definitely located on a conservative side.
The design process starts from the value of N obtained by EI guidelines and finds the corresponding
level of stress S local by ASME code S-N curves. This level of stress is reduced through the
implementation of design actions which increase the connection quality level and finally yield an
increased number of cycles to failure N, through the same curves. Consequently the level of stress is a
basis for design of the circumferential discontinuity, since it is linked first to the number of cycle to
failure N through the S-N curve and then to LOF factor through the formulas available in the
guidelines developed by EI, formerly MTD.
Although EI guidelines suggest the use of FEM analysis for the stress evaluation of piping
discontinuities at AIV risk, many reference papers in recent literature [21] have raised concerns about
the FEM approach for such specific analyses. Different from these studies, the simplified approach
proposed here is based on use of code S-N curves, which lay on large experimental datasets included in
ASME code. Based on the analysis and consequent improvement of piping discontinuities, the
proposed procedure considers both the geometrical features (function of D ext , T, dext , t) and those
related to “fatigue strength reduction factor” K (depending on material, junction type, welding and
control class), instead of cycles-to-failure corrective factors based on FEM analysis. This approach
seems to be more reliable because it makes direct use of widely recognized benchmarks such as the
number of cycles to fatigue failure N provided by ASME.

5.4 Piping design modification at discontinuities for AIV fatigue design

For piping discontinuities relevant to PSV discharge piping systems in which LOF ≥ 1, the
proposed analysis is carried out checking the level of local stress S local which corresponds to the
calculated fatigue life expressed as N in the node. Subsequently, possible corrective actions are
considered and evaluated, including:
1) Weld-surface fatigue strength improvement (to reduce S local) through the application of the
ASME code “fatigue strength reduction factor” K in function of the type of welding and the
additional non-destructive examinations to be carried out (see Table 1)
For this key point of the proposed AIV risk assessment and design, it is assumed that, through the
imposition of additional examination on welds and subsequent reduction of K, a new S local can be
recalculated generating a new N and then a new LOF which can be compared with the allowable limits.
This step can be performed assuming a starting K value to enter the S-N curve at first. This starting
value can be assumed as the K factor relevant to welds with backside non definable and no
examination (K = 4 according to ASME code) so that it is possible to further reduce it by means of the

9
improvements on welding controls qualified by code. If this action would not give allowable LOF
values the piping system can be modified as follow.
2) Increase of header pipe thickness at the discontinuity (node) through the use of local
reinforcement (full encirclement reinforcement).
3) Use welding “T” and extruded "T" to be installed at the connections with 100% exa mination of
all welds
In case a LOF ≤ 0.99 were not possible, or too many welded “T” should be installed, the last plant
design option would be a complete re-design of the piping system with an overall increase in pipe size
and thickness.

6. CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing existing state of art AIV analysis and corrective actions for risk avoidance, we
have introduced a piping discontinuity design criteria involving ASME code, combined with EI
guideline procedure. The proposed method is a valuable alternative to FEM analysis for fatigue life
improvement in order to avoid AIV failures and reduce computational costs aspect. Supported by well
established standards, piping systems fatigue life design by means of ASME code followed by EI LOF
calculation for acoustic fatigue assessment has proved both more reliable for this type of pro blem and
less questionable, especially in case of contradictory with qualified client representative .

REFERENCES
[1] Carucci V.A., Müller R.T.: Acoustically Induced Piping Vibration in High Capacity Pressure Reducing
Systems, ASME Paper 82-WA/PVP-8 (1982)
[2] Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure in process Pipework, Energy
Institute, second edition (2008)
[3] Offshore hydrocarbon release statistics and analysis, HSR 2002/002, HSE (2003)
[4] The 100 Largest losses 1972-2009, Marsh Energy Practice (2010)
[5] Eisinger F.L.: Designing Piping Systems Against Acoustically Induced Structural Fatigue, Journal of
Pressure vessel technology 119 (1997), 379-383
[6] Norsok Standard L-002: Piping system layout, design and structural analysis, Edition 3 (2009)
[7] Cowling J., "Design Strategies for AIV in Process Piping", InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA,
2012.
[8] Evans N. et al., "Practical application of AIV analysis methods for screening, qualification, and redesign
of complex piping systems", InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA, 2012.
[9] Bruce R. et al., "Solving AIV problems in the design stage", InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA,
2012.
[10] Karczub D. et al., "Fatigue life design for acoustic-induced vibration in high-capacity flare systems",
InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA, 2012.
[11] Karczub, D.G. and Fagerlund, A.C., “Dynamic Stress Predictions of Acoustic-Induced Pipe Vibration
Failures”, Proceedings of OMAE, Halkidiki, Greece, 2005, Paper OMAE2005-67515
[12] Norton, M.P., “Acoustically Induced Structural Vibration and Fatigue – A Review”, Third International
Congress on Air- and Structure-borne Sound and Vibration, Montreal, Canada, 1994
[13] Shelton M. S. et al., "An assessment of the state of AIV management technology while presenting a
possible alternative statistic approach", InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA, 2012.
[14] Wachel J. C. et al., "Piping Vibration Analysis", 19th Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M
University, September 1990
[15] Fagerlund A.C., "Recommended Maximum Valve Noise Levels," InTech, pp. 47-50 (1986).
[16] Beranek-Ver, “Noise and Vibration Control Engineering”, Wiley Interscience, 1992, pag. 550
[17] Jungbauer D.E. and Blodgett L.E., "Acoustic fatigue in large turbocompressors and pressure reduction
systems," Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 60-68 (August 2001).
[18] BS7608, “Code of Practice for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures”, BSI 1993.
[19] PD 5500, “Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure vessels”, BSI 2006
[20] “ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2: Alternative Rules, Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessels,” 2007 Ed., ASME, New York, 2007.
[21] Allison T. C. et al., "An efficient finite element method for acoustic induced vibration analysis",
InterNoise 2012, New York City, USA, 2012.

10