Proceedings of the ASME 2016 PVP PRESSURE VESSELS & PIPING CONFERENCE
PVP2016
A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO MITIGATE THE EXCESSIVE VIBRATION OF A PIPING SYSTEM
SUBJECTED TO FLOW-INDUCED EXCITATION
Reza Azizian
Engineering & Inspection Services
Metairie, LA, USA
ABSTRACT
Vibration is a common problem in industrial facilities which
may lead to the propagation of undesired high stress levels
induced by the deflection of a component as well as the
interaction between different metallic components. In a piping
system, a long term excessive vibration may cause fatigue and
fretting-wear which may result in system failure. In the present
work, excessive vibration problems in a piping system were
explored in greater detail. Different sources of vibration, as well
as proper approaches to evaluate and assess the integrity of the
system, were investigated. A case study of a piping system
subjected to flow-induced excitation was assessed. This
assessment was established based upon both numerical modeling
of the system utilizing CAESAR II software and vibration
readings of the piping system while operating in an industrial
facility. Furthermore, an experimental modal analysis was
implemented using MEscope software to calibrate the numerical
model. Theoretical and operational modal analyses were
performed in order to adopt proper modifications to mitigate the
excessive vibration.
1. INTRODUCTION
Mechanical failure of a system due to excessive vibration can
lead to grave environmental, economic or human health
consequences. Data gathered in the UK sector of the North Sea
has shown that over twenty percent of pipe failures were caused
by vibration and fatigue [1]. Fixed equipment in industrial plants
such as piping systems, pressure vessels and steel structures can
suffer from excessive vibration [2-4] . Long term excessive
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, BC, Canada
PVP2016-63088
Paolo Torrado
Engineering & Inspection Services
Metairie, LA, USA
vibration may lead to fatigue crack propagation and
consequently may cause system failure. It is imperative that once
a vibration problem is identified an assessment be performed in
a timely fashion. For this reason, it is necessary to educate
industry of the current assessment technologies and to further
improve upon existing assessment techniques.
Fixed equipment vibration is considered a multidisciplinary field
which requires knowledge in process engineering, fluid
mechanics, fluid-structure interaction, rotating equipment
vibration, structural vibration, and acoustic vibration. A
vibration assessment consists of five main steps [5]: (1) diagnose
the troubled system by measuring vibration levels and
frequencies, (2) utilize recognized standards to identify areas of
concern, (3) identify possible excitation sources, particularly
flow-induced vibration (FIV) (4) model system to determine
fundamental vibration parameters including: natural frequencies,
mode shapes, and system dynamic response, (5) investigate
possible system modifications to eliminate or attenuate excessive
vibration.
Excessive vibration may occur when the natural frequency of a
system coincides with the frequency of an excitation source. The
physical behavior of a troubled system needs to be measured in
order to quantify damage and determine a proper course of
action. It is important to perform a thorough diagnosis of a
system by measuring different parameters such as pressure
fluctuation, acceleration, and dynamic strain. The proper choice
of method and type of measuring equipment will depend on the
system response and excitation mechanisms.
1 Copyright 2016 by ASME
The vibration technician should consider several factors before
system behavior is measured. Some of these include identifying
critical locations to take the measurements, installing sensors
properly, adopting mounting solutions for high temperature
equipment, and defining proper signal conditioning parameters.
Measuring of the system behavior will help to quantify the level
of vibration but more importantly it will provide valuable insight
in identifying the system modes that have been exited and the
source of this excitation. Vibration sources can be categorized as
low frequency (<30 Hz), medium frequency (30 Hz to 300 Hz),
and high frequency (>300 Hz). Classification of the excitation
frequency allows identification of the excitation mechanisms [3,
6]. Some of the phenomena within these categories that can
cause excessive vibration include flow-induced excitation,
pressure pulsation, and high frequency acoustic-induced
vibration. Flow induced vibration is usually initiated due to
geometric constrains in the system. Vortex-shedding and
turbulence excitations are the most common type of flow-
induced excitations [7]. Pressure pulsation may be caused by a
piece of rotating equipment and generate distinct frequencies
which are integral multiples of the equipment operating speed
[6]. Furthermore, a loosely supported piping system may
experience interactions between the pipe and its supports [8-10].
This may subsequently lead to the propagation of high frequency
vibration due to impact and friction [11, 12].
Azizian and Torrado [5] have recently provided insights into the
vibration of fixed equipment including piping system subjected
to flow-induced vibration. In current study, excessive vibration
problems in a piping system were explored in greater detail. The
criteria to assess the integrity of a piping system experiencing a
high level of vibration due to flow-induced excitation were
investigated. An experimental program was conducted to acquire
vibration data including dominant frequencies and acceleration
levels. For this purpose, a portable multi-channel vibration
analyzer and industrial uni-axial accelerometers were utilized.
Different sources of vibration including pressure pulsation
caused by rotating equipment, high frequency acoustic,
turbulence, and vortex shedding excitations were investigated. In
addition, a modal analysis was performed utilizing piping stress
analysis software, CAESAR II [13]. This analysis provided
corrective actions to reduce the excessive vibration by
maintaining a twenty percent separation between the natural
frequencies of the system and the likely excitation frequencies.
The corrective modifications may increase thermal stress on the
piping system which enforced the necessity to evaluate the
piping thermal stress.
2. SOURCE OF VIBRATION
The first step in evaluating and assessing a piping system
experiencing high levels of vibration is to identify the source of
vibration. This step may be intricate due to different types of
mechanism involved as the source of excitations. In this research
a piping system, experiencing a high level of vibration in an
industrial facility, was chosen as a case study. Figure 1 illustrates
a schematic of the concerned piping system and the likelihood
excitation mechanisms. The excitation mechanisms were then
categorized as flow-induced vibration (FIV), acoustic-induced
vibration (AIV), pressure pulsation vibration (PPV), and two-
phase flow induced vibration (TPV) [3, 5].
Flow-induced vibration (FIV) inside of a piping system may
occur as a result of oscillating flow, multi-phase flow, and
geometric constraints [5]. The most common types of flow-
induced excitation are turbulence and vortex-shedding. A piping
system may also experience high levels of vibration caused by
releasing high frequency energy downstream of a pressure
reducing device such as control valves and relief valves. This
type of excessive vibration is categorized as acoustic induced
vibration (AIV) [1].
Pressure pulsation may also cause to excessive vibration in a
piping system. The pulsation could be initiated by a piece of
rotating equipment as well as a pressure drop as a result of
geometrical constraints [5]. The pulsation frequencies may be
generated at integral multiples of the pump-operating speed and
multiples of the number of pump plunger, blades or vanes [6].
This pulsation may lead to an excessive vibration when its
frequency coincides with the systems acoustic and structural
natural frequencies. The excessive vibration due to pressure
pulsation could be reduced by utilizing a discharge dampener or
suction stabilizer [6].
Figure 1 A schematic of a piping system and sources of vibration
classifications [5]
Figure 1 shows a schematic of a piping system experiencing a
high level of vibration. This schematic illustrates two lines of
fluid including gas (blue line) and liquid (yellow line). These two
lines are then mixed and form a two-phase flow (Red line).
Different possible source of vibration are highlighted in the
schematic. These sources of vibration are not generally taken
into consideration in a preliminary design stage and may not be
evaluated until a visual excessive vibration or a failure occurs
[3].
2 Copyright 2016 by ASME
2.1 Flow-Induced vibration
Modeling of a structure conveying flow may be dependent upon
the type of a flow regime as well as the type of coupling between
a structure and a flow. A flow regime could be categorized as
steady or unsteady [7] . Fluid structure interaction (FSI) is an
event which a structure is excited with an unsteady-flow. In this
event, a coupled relationship between a structure and a flow are
considered as result of their interaction forces [14]. Flow induced
vibration (FIV), however, is an occasion which a structure is
excited with a steady-flow. In this type of vibration, an
uncoupled condition is assumed between a structure and a flow
[14].
Modeling of a structure based upon the FSI concept is
challenging due to the difficulties to model the fluid forces as
well as to model the coupled reaction between the fluid forces
and the structure response. Considering a detailed modeling as
per FSI usually leads to a more precise results. On the other hand,
modeling of a structure using the FIV concept is simpler to
implement due to considering an uncoupled condition. This type
of structural modeling is less time consuming in terms of
computation. However, the uncoupled simplification may affect
the accuracy of the simulation result.
Figure 2 Regions experiencing flow-induced excitation:
(a) Tee-connection (b) Dual elbow (c) Reducer [5]
Turbulence and vortex shedding are examples of FIV or FSI in a
piping system. These events may occur in tee-connections,
valves, reducers, shallow cavities, or elbows as a result of a flow
separation and re-attachment as well as pressure fluctuations due
to flow experiencing geometrical constraints [15]. Vortex-
shedding frequency (f) is determined using Strouhal number (St),
flow velocity (U), and obstruction characteristic length (D) based
on the following equation:
= / (1)
The vortex-shedding excitation, usually in tandem with
turbulence excitation, may lead to an excessive vibration when
its exclusive frequency coincides with an external resonator
frequency. The resonator frequencies could be fluid acoustic
natural frequencies or structural natural frequencies. Figure 2
illustrates the regions experiencing turbulence in tandem with
vortex shedding in a piping systems geometrical constraints
including a tee-connection, a dual elbow, and a reducer.
The energy flux due to a turbulent excitation can be quantified
using a factor called pressure resistant coefficient (tot) as follows
[15]:
= , (2)
2 2
where Pin is the total pressure of the systems inlet, Pout is the
mean static pressure of the systems outlet, is the density of
fluid and U is the mean velocity in the piping system.
Turbulence excitations, inside of a piping system, may be
categorized based on their nature of propagation including: (1)
propagation due to geometrical constraints, and (2) propagation
caused by the flow characteristic (phase and energy) as well as
the type of rotating equipment which drives the flow inside of
the piping system.
Shiraishi et al. [15] classified the turbulence flow inside of a
piping system considering the system geometrical constraints as
follows:
(1) Turbulence initiated due to the piping systems inlet and
branch conditions,
(2) Turbulence propagated in the boundary layer of the pipe
wall,
(3) Turbulence associated with separation and
reattachment of the flow inside of a piping system, and
(4) Turbulence propagated in the outer region of an elbow.
In general, flow kinetic energy, 2 2, may represent the
likelihood of the turbulence excitation. However, the phase of
flow, as well as the type of rotating equipment (such as
reciprocating machinery, positive displacement pumps and
centrifugal compressors), may affect the assessment concerning
the likelihood of excitation.
2.2 Two-Phase Flow Induced Vibration
Excessive vibration in a piping system may be initiated as a
result of a two-phase flow (gas and liquid). This event may occur
due to reaction forces cause by intermittent movement of large
3 Copyright 2016 by ASME
bubbles. Figure 3 classifies flow patterns inside of a horizontal
pipe. These classifications characterize the severity of excitation
force due to a non-homogenous flow distribution [2].
Figure 3 Flow classification in horizontal piping (Nakamura et al. [2])
(Reproduced by permission)
This classification of a flow pattern allows the excitation level to
be quantified [7]. As shown in Figure 4, Weisman [16] developed
a flow pattern map based upon the superficial liquid flow
velocity (VSL) and the superficial gas velocity (V SG). Two
correction factors, 1 and 2, were also adopted to account for
the physical property and pipe diameter variations. The
superficial velocities are given by [16]:
= (1 ) , (3)
= , (4)
where is the void fraction, UG is the gas mean velocity and UL
is the liquid mean velocity.
The flow-rate of gas and liquid should be controlled to avoid a
two phase flow turbulence caused by an intermittent flow
including plug flow, slug flow or forth flow. On the other hand,
the initial distribution between gas and liquid phases in a piping
inlet and outlet connections may also contribute the level of the
excitation forces. This could be regulated using a proper angle of
connection and a distribution system.
Figure 4 Flow classifications in a horizontal pipe [16], (Reproduced by
permission)
2.3 Acoustic Induced Vibration (AIV)
A piping system may experience a high frequency excitation as
a result of flow passing through pressure reducing devices such
as relief valves, compressor recycle valves, depressurizing
valves, or restriction orifices [1]. This type of event is
categorized as acoustic induced vibration (AIV). A broad-band
high frequency between 300 Hz to 1500 Hz may be initiated in
downstream of the pressure reducing devices while AIV is
propagated in a piping system. Figure 5 illustrates the shell
vibration of a piping system experiencing AVI at 650 Hz [5].
Figure 5 Shell mode vibration of a 6 pipe subjected to AIV at 650 Hz
using ABAQUS [5, 17]
Carucci and Mueller [18] developed an empirical design
guideline based upon the generated sound level and pipe
diameter. The sound level occurring immediately downstream of
a pressure reducing device may be quantified using Equation 5
[18]:
12 3.6 1.2
= 10 [2 ( ) ( ) ] + 126.1, (5)
1
where is the sound power level, M is the mass flow-rate, P1
is the upstream pressure, P2 is the downstream pressure, T is the
temperature and W is the molecular weight. Figure 6, shows the
Eisinger fatigue allowable limit [19] for a piping system
experiencing AIV. This allowable limit was established based on
the relationship between sound power level (as quantified in
Equation 5) and a dimensionless ratio of the pipe diameter to
wall thickness.
Figure 6 Eisigner fatigue allowable for acoustic induced vibration [18, 19]
(Reproduced with permission)
4 Copyright 2016 by ASME
In addition to Eisinger guideline [19], Health and Safety
Executive [20] and the Energy Institute [3] also developed
guidelines using the concept of the likelihood of failure (LOF) to
determine acceptable design criteria for piping systems subjected
to acoustic induced vibration (AIV) [5].
3. PROBLEM DEFINTION AND VIBRATION
ASSESSMENT
A piping system experiencing high levels of vibration while
operating in an industrial facility was chosen as a case study in
this paper. A vibration audit program should be implemented to
assess the integrity of the piping system concerning the
acceptable level of vibration. Furthermore, the excessive
vibration should be studied in greater detail using a numerical
model. The vibration study may then provide recommendations
to reduce the excessive vibration levels. As shown in Figure 7, a
step-wise assessment procedure was adopted to implement the
vibration audit (Figure 7-A) and to perform the vibration study
(Figure 7-B). The acceptability of vibration levels, identification
of probable excitation sources, and updating the numerical
Figure 7 Step-wise flowchart to assess and mitigate excessive vibration: (A) Vibration Audit; (B) Vibration Study [5]
model are three important aspects of this assessment [5].
Adopting a proper vibration measurement approach plays a vital
role in this step-wise assessment. For instance, using dynamic
strain gauges is the proper method to capture a high frequency
vibration while for a low frequency vibration utilizing
accelerometers is recommended [3, 6]. However, there are
limitations to utilize the aforementioned sensors based upon the
operating conditions of the system as well as the sensors
mounting solutions. In addition to examining the vibration level,
vibration measurement may be performed to extract modal
parameters of a system including natural frequencies, mode
shapes and damping ratios. This estimation of system
identification is called experimental modal analysis (EMA) [21].
This could be achieved by implementing an output-input modal
analysis utilizing the excitation force (input) of a calibrated-
hammer test as well as a system response (output) using
accelerometers. However, a proper implementation of EMA for
a piping system while operating in an industrial facility is
challenging due to the
5 Copyright 2016 by ASME
necessity of ceasing the operation in order to take the vibration
measurement [5]. The EMA method could only be implemented
on an stationary system (non-operating system) which may lead
to neglecting some of the effect associated with a system
operation including neglecting fluid mass, active or non-active
support conditions and pipe pre-tension conditions [5]. The
aforementioned EMA methods restrictions lead to the
development of a new type of analysis, known as operational
modal analysis (OMA) [22]. The OMA method only requires a
systems out-put response to extract its modal parameters.
Therefore, this method could be implemented on a system while
it is operating in an industrial facility. The modal parameters
determined by the EMA or OMA method can be subsequently
utilized to calibrate an FEA model [5].
Figure 8 CAESAR model of a piping system and measurement locations [5]
3.1 VIBRATION MEASUREMENT
Vibration readings were taken along the piping system while the
unit was operating. As shown in Figure 8, fifteen critical
locations (config.1 to config.15) along the piping system were
identified to measure the level of vibration. For each location of
concern, acceleration was measured in three orthogonal
directions including: north-south (X), west-east (Z), and vertical
(Y) directions (see figure 9).
The data were acquired using an OROS systems portable multi-
channel vibration analyzer and industrial PCB uni-axial
accelerometers with 100 mV/g sensitivity. The accelerometers
were attached to curved surface magnets and mounted on the
piping system as illustrated in Figure 9.
6 Copyright 2016 by ASME
 Accelerometer-1 Table 1 shows the measured dominant excitation frequencies.
These results indicated that the frequncy of 6.25 Hz, 8.125 Hz,
10 Hz, 11.88 Hz, 34.38 Hz and 63 Hz are the dominent
excitation frequencies along the piping system. Table 2 shows
the average spectrum velocities associated with the measured
dominant excitation frequencies. These results reported a
Accelerometer-2 maximum spectrum velocity of 0.67 inch/sec at the measurment
location of C.5.

Table 1 Measured dominant excitation frequencies (Hz) [5]

Accelerometer-3 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8
x-dir. 25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
y-dir. 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 63 6.25 34.38
z-dir. 6.25 6.25 11.88 11.88 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
C.9 C.10 C.11 C.12 C.13 C.14 C.15
x-dir. 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 22.5 10
y-dir. 34.38 6.25 6.25 34.38 8.125 6.25 6.25
z-dir. 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25
Figure 9 Accelerometer configuration and mounting direction
The resultant measurements were then post processed by Table 2 Measured average spectrum velocities (inch/sec) associated with
calculating FFT average spectrum, overall RMS velocity and the dominant frequencies (Table 1) [5]
zero-up crossing frequency. For each point of measurement, a C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8
comparative figure was constructed (as shown in Figure 10). The
x-dir. 0.30 0.47 0.65 0.61 0.67 0.68 0.59 0.64
figure consists of EI vibration limits [3] and the recorded average
spectrum. For FFT average spectrum computation, 1601 spectral y-dir. 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05
lines of frequency resolution were adopted with a frequency
z-dir. 0.35 0.21 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.36 0.34 0.53
range of 0 to 1000 Hz. A linear spectrum averaging method with
26 frequency averages was also utilized. For each measurement C.9 C.10 C.11 C.12 C.13 C.14 C.15
location, time domain responses and averaged spectrums of three
parameters including acceleration, velocity and displacement x-dir. 0.63 0.56 0.64 0.57 0.04 0.05 0.19
were recorded. y-dir. 0.044 0.042 0.063 0.047 0.097 0.07 0.09

z-dir. 0.636 0.65 0.311 0.137 0.164 0.187 0.64

The measured dominant excitation frequencies could be

utilized to identify the likely frequency ranges associated with
the sources of vibration.

Table 3 classifies the common sources of vibration in a piping

system based on their range of frequencies. These classifications
identify the distinct frequencies associated with rotating
equipments pulsation, cavitation, acoustic vibration, and flow-
induced vibration. Low frequencies of 6.25 Hz, 11.88 Hz, and a
band of 25-30 Hz were detected as flow-induced frequencies.
Furthermore, a band of 60-65 Hz, likely attributed to a piece of
rotating equipment, was identified.

Figure 10 comparisons between velocity average spectrum and Energy Institute

vibration limits

7 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 Table 3 Source of vibration categorization [5] Therefore, the vortex-shedding frequencies were calculated for
Possible Source of Criteria Associated Dominant the aforementioned locations having the flow-rates of 4,000
Vibration Frequencies
lbs/hr and 137,000 lbs/hr for the gas and the liquid lines,
Rotating Equipment Rotating equipment speed A band of 60-65 Hz respectively. Furthermore, a 5 percent corrosion allowance was
pulsation and its integral multiples considered in the calculations. The calculated vortex-shedding
Cavitation and flushing High frequency response No frequencies and the associated dominant measured frequencies
(>300Hz) are listed in Table 3.
High frequency Acoustic High frequency response No
(associated with Relief (>500Hz) Table 3 Vortex shedding frequency calculation
valve & Control valve ) Calculated Associated measured
frequency frequency
Turbulence and Vortex Frequency less than 30Hz 6.25 Hz, 11.88 Hz, a (Vortex-Shedding )
Shedding band of 25-30 Hz Dual elbow
11.90 11.88
3 to 1.5
Figure 11 compares the measured vibration level, along the reducer 23.81 Range of 25-30 Hz
piping system, against the Energy Institute (EI) guideline [3].
This guideline classifies the severity of vibration level in three 1.5to 6 piping
6.84 6.25 Hz
main categories based on the risk of fatigue-damage occurring in
a piping system. Vibration levels are categorized as either
problem, concern or acceptable. Based on the
Figure 12 illustrates the trends and the levels of RMS velocities
aforementioned classifications, the vibration levels associated
for the dominant measured excitation frequencies for the fifteen
with the frequency band of 60-65 Hz were categorized as
measurement locations along the piping system. These trends
acceptable while the frequencies associated with 6.25 Hz,
provided valuable insights into the possible source of vibration
11.88 Hz and 25-30 Hz were classified as concern. According
and their dissipative behavior along the piping system. The trend
to EI guidelines [3], the problem zone has a high risk of fatigue
indicated that the highest vibration levels are attributed to a
damage, while the concern zone has a potential risk for fatigue
frequency of 6.25 Hz and are mostly located in x-direction of the
damage.
measurement locations (3) to (12). Figure 3-b and 3-c shows the
trends for dominant excitation frequencies of 11.88 Hz and 25
Hz, respectively. These trends indicated that the vibration levels
were reduced along measurement locations (3) to (14). Figure 3-
d exhibits the trend for a frequency of 60 Hz which has a
negligible contribution to the overall vibration level [5].

Figure 11 Energy Institute vibration levels allowable [3] and measured

velocities (Flowchart taken from Guidelines for the avoidance of vibration
induced fatigue in process pipework published by the Energy Institute)

As mentioned earlier, vortex shedding in tandem with

turbulence excitation may resonate the structural natural
frequencies. Therefore, it is important to identify the critical
locations that are potentially creating excitation frequencies due
to vortex shedding. These points of concern are listed as follows:

(1) Dual elbow (Figure 8: config.3 and config.4)

(2) 3x1.5 reducer, (Figure 8: config.1)
(3) 1.5 to 6 piping connection (Figure 8: before config.1)

8 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 some of the excessive vibration in existing piping systems were
associated with loosely supporting conditions. Therefore, a
detailed piping support modeling ensures a precise estimation of
the system vibration parameters such as natural frequencies and
mode shapes. To obtain a realistic modal parameters, the
numerical simulation was calibrated utilizing an experimental
modal analysis (EMA). An operational modal analysis (Output-
Only) was performed utilizing MEScope software as shown in
Figure 13. A set of ODF-FRF measurements was constructed by
using the amplitude of the Auto Power Spectrum (APS) and the
phase of Cross Power Spectrum (CPS) [22]. Consequently the
FRFs were curve fitted to estimate the natural frequencies of the
system as listed in Table 4.

Reference Point
(Z-direction)

Figure 13 The MEscope model to perform OMA

Table 4 Measured natural frequencies

Modes of Measured natural
Vibration frequency (Hz)
Mode 1 6.21 Hz
Mode 2 7.76 Hz
Mode 3 11.89 Hz
Mode 4 14.82 Hz

Figure 12 RMS Velocity versus measurement locations Mode 5 16.67 Hz

along the piping system [5] Mode 6 19.73 Hz
4. Modal Analysis and Corrective Modifications Mode 7 22.23 Hz
Figure 8 shows a 3-D piping systems model. CAESAR II
Mode 8 25.31 Hz
software [13] was utilized to model and analysis the system. It
is very important to carefully model all details of the piping Mode 9 28.31 Hz
system particularly the support specifications. The support
direction, stiffness and the length of the piping spans may greatly Mode 10 30.49 Hz
affect the analysis result. The Sukaih study [23] indicated that

9 Copyright 2016 by ASME

In this study, the dominant frequencies of 6.25 Hz, 11.88 Hz and
25-30 Hz were measured in the system frequency response.
Furthermore, the likely excitation frequencies were classified to
find a correlation between the measure frequencies and the
possible source of excitation frequencies. This classification
categorized the aforementioned dominant frequencies as the
flow-induced excitation category. Therefore, the vortex-
shedding frequencies were calculated at a tee connection, a
reducer, and a dual elbow with frequencies of 6.8 Hz, 23.8 Hz
and 11.9 Hz, respectively. The modal analysis of the piping
system also indicated that the 1st, 3rd and 7th natural frequencies
were located near the calculated vortex-shedding frequencies.
This situation may lead to the existing excessive vibration in the
system [5].
To reduce this level of vibration, two strategies should be
adopted: (1) Elimination of the source of vibration, (2)
Separation between the excitation frequencies and the systems
natural frequencies by a minimum of twenty percent as per the
Energy Institute guidelines [3].
Figure 14 shows the corrective actions based on the
aforementioned strategies. The tee-connection and the reducer,
associated with the dominant measured excitation frequencies,
were replaced by a pipe with a larger diameter. This modification
will decrease the initiated vortex-shedding frequency. On other
hand, additional supports were incorporated into the model to
increase the natural frequencies of the system and ensure a
twenty percent separation between the excitation frequencies and
the systems natural frequencies. As shown in Figure 13, these
support modifications consisted of adding three additional
supports at the locations 1, 2 and 3, fixed in the X and Z
directions, as well as anchoring and fixing the existing support
at the location 4.
Figure 14 Piping system highlighted corrective modifications
CONCLUSION
In this study, likely excitation mechanisms in a piping system
transmitting fluid were discussed such as flow-induced vibration
(FIV), acoustic-induced vibration (AIV), and pressure pulsation.
Different parameters which can quantify the excitation
mechanisms were investigated including two-phase flow
classifications, turbulence flow intensity, vortex-shedding
frequency, and sound level intensity for acoustic induced
excitation. The vibration reading results indicated a strong
correlation between the dominant excitation frequencies and the
calculated vortex-shedding frequencies as the likely source of
vibration. Furthermore, an assessment procedure was adopted to
mitigate the excessive vibration in the piping system. This
procedure includes a step-wise flowchart to measure and
evaluate the level of vibration as well as further numerical
analyses to implement corrective actions [5].
A piping system, operating in an industrial facility, was chosen
for a case study. Experimental and numerical modal analyses
were conducted to identify the likelihood excitation mechanisms
and adopt the proper corrective actions to eliminate the source of
vibration and reduce the level of vibration.
NOMENCLATURE
f Vortex-shedding frequency [Hz]
St Strouhal number
U Flow mean velocity [in/sec]
D Characteristic length [in]
tot Pressure resistant coefficient
Flow density [lbs/in 3]
Void Fraction
VSL Superficial liquid flow velocity [in/sec]
VSG Superficial gas flow velocity [in/sec]
UL Liquid mean velocity [in/sec]
UG Gas mean velocity [in/sec]
Lw Sound power level [dB]
P1 Upstream pressure [psi]
P2 Downstream pressure [psi]
T Temperature [F]
M Mass flow rate [lbs/sec]
REFERENCES
1. Bruce, R.D., A.S. Bommer, and T.E. LePage, Solving
acoustic-induced vibration problems in the design
stage. Sound Vib, 2013: p. 8-11.
2. Nakamura, T., et al., Flow-induced vibrations:
Classifications and lessons from practical experiences.
2013: Butterworth-Heinemann.
3. EnergyInstitute(EI), Guidelines for the Avoidance of
Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure in Process
Pipework. 2008: London.
4. Azizian, R. and N. Mureithi. A Hybrid Friction Model
for Dynamic Modeling of Stick-Slip Behaviour. in
ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference.
2013. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
5. Azizian, R. and P. Torrado, Insights Into Fixed
Equipment Vibration How a Piping System Was
10 Copyright 2016 by ASME
 Affected by Flow-Induced Vibration. Inspectioneering, 23. Sukaih, N., A practical, systematic and structured
2015. 21(6). approach to piping vibration assessment. International
6. Olson, D.E., Pipe vibration testing and analysis. journal of pressure vessels and piping, 2002. 79(8): p.
Companion guide to the ASME boiler & pressure 597-609.
vessel code (Vol. Chapter 37). New York, NY: ASME,
2002.
7. Blevins, R.D., Flow-induced vibration. 1990.
8. Azizian, R., Dynamic Modeling of Tube-Support
Interaction in Heat Exchangers. 2012, cole
Polytechnique de Montral.
9. Azizian, R. and N. Mureithi, Numerical Analysis of
Fretting-Wear With a Hybrid Elastoplastic Friction
Model. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 2014.
136(3): p. 031303.
10. Azizian, R. and N. Mureithi. Numerical Analysis of
Intermittent Stick-Slip Behaviour of Tube-Support
Interaction in Heat-Exchangers. in ASME 2012
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. 2012.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
11. Azizian, R., N. Mureithi, and T. Sawadogo. Dynamic
modeling of heat exchanger tube-to-support
Interaction. in 6th CNS International Steam Generator
Conference, Toronto, Canada, Nov. 2009.
12. Azizian, R. and N. Mureithi, A Simple Empirical Model
for TubeSupport Normal Impact Interaction. Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology, 2014. 136(5): p.
051303.
13. CEASAR II, PAULIN Reseach Group. 2014: Richmond
Ave., Houson, Tx.
14. Moussou, P., et al. Industrial cases of FSI due to
internal flows. in Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Pressure
Surges. 2004.
15. Shiraishi, T., et al., Resistance and fluctuating pressures
of a large elbow in high Reynolds numbers. Journal of
fluids engineering, 2006. 128(5): p. 1063-1073.
16. Weisman, J. and S. Kang, Flow pattern transitions in
vertical and upwardly inclined lines. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1981. 7(3): p. 271-291.
17. ABAQUS, Dassault Systemes. 6.13-1(2014): 166 valey
St., Providence, RI.
18. Carucci, V. and R. Mueller. Acoustically induced piping
vibration in high-capacity pressure reducing systems. in
Mechanical Engineering. 1983. ASME-AMER SOC
MECHANICAL ENG 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK,
NY 10017.
19. Eisinger, F., Designing piping systems against
acoustically induced structural fatigue. Journal of
Pressure vessel technology, 1997. 119(3): p. 379-383.
20. HealthandSaftetyExecutive, Transient Vibration
guidelines for fast acting valves screening assessment.
2002: UK.
21. Rainieri, C. and G. Fabbrocino, Operational modal
analysis of civil engineering structures. 2014: Springer.
22. Schwarz, B. and M. Richardson, Post-processing
ambient and forced response bridge data to obtain
modal parameters. Proceedings of IMAC-XIX, 2001.

11 Copyright 2016 by ASME