CHIEF ENGINEER DIRECTIVE NO.

62
U

The paragraph structure from the original note has been changed in order to make
the technical content easier to read. None of the actual wording has been changed.

CHIEF ENGINEER DIRECTIVE

Number 62
03 January 2006

LOW FREQUENCY FLOW INDUCED VIBRATION IN PIPING SYSTEMS

KBR have been aware of flow induced vibration causing fatigue failures in piping
systems for some time. We addressed one aspect of this overall subject, Acoustically
Induced Vibration (AIV), in 1994. This phenomenon presents itself as high frequency
shell excitation and guidelines for identifying and mitigating its effects are given in Chief
Engineer Directive Memo No. 50.

Recently we have encountered pipe fatigue failures caused by another type of

fluid/structure interaction, Low Frequency Flow Induced Vibration. This phenomenon
presents itself as line movement (vibration) driven by significant internal dynamic
shaking forces.

Both of these phenomena are characterized by high flow velocity and pressure drop often
encountered when venting into low pressure and flare systems such as occurs for pressure
relief and pressure letdown systems.
Background information, screening and analysis methods for avoiding fatigue failures
resulting from low frequency flow induced vibration are included as an attachment to this
directive.

Guidelines for implementation of these methods have been established and are being
issued concurrently with this directive to all KBR offices through the GDLT and
engineering management distribution systems.
The guidelines are established for screening for:

• potential problems during the P and I D development phase

• piping components to be used in vulnerable systems,
• analytical methods to evaluate stresses during detailed engineering
• mitigation treatment when analysis indicates a potential for vibration.

Implementation of these guidelines requires a multi-disciplinary approach involving the

P&ID development, control valve sizing, piping isometrics, pipe support details and the
detailed pipe specifications.

KBR noise specialists are expected to provide a coordinating role in implementation of

these guidelines. It is expected that the requirements of these guidelines will be
implemented in our normal work processes. It is very important to identify early in the
project where there is a possibility of low frequency flow induced vibration. Where it is
identified that fatigue failures are possible, the appropriate design details provided in the
guideline shall be incorporated.

It is the responsibility of the GDLTs of the affected disciplines to incorporate the

provisions of these guidelines into their work processes. It is expected that the GDLTs
will assure consistent implementation of these guidelines within each office as applicable
to the scope of their project execution. Engineering Management is expected to support
the required consistent application on projects of the required work processes for all the
KBR Offices.

If there are any questions related to this issues please advise me.

Urey Miller
Chief Engineer – Director
Office of the Chief Engineer

Attachments
• Low Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in Piping Systems; Background,
Screening and Analysis
Low Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in Piping Systems; Background,
Screening and Analysis
21 Dec 05

Attachment to CED No 62
Dated 03 January 2006

Low Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in Piping Systems

Background, Screening and Analysis

Introduction

KBR has been considering acoustically induced vibration (AIV) since 1994. This is now
a relatively mature design issue for all KBR operating centers with a governing Chief
Engineer Directive1 and a solid background of experience on projects covering a range of
process technologies.

In recent months KBR has addressed failures in piping systems that have been attributed
to the closely related, but distinctly separate, phenomena of flow induced vibration (FIV).
This paper summarizes the investigations and analysis following these failures drawing
on the experience and guidelines available from the Marine Technology Directorate2 in
the UK and analysis and recommendations prepared for KBR by Southwest Research
Institute.

Flow Induced Vibration – Background

The basic flow parameters that contribute to AIV, flow rate, pressure drop and flow
velocity also contribute to FIV, but they result in a different vibration generation
mechanism and type of vibration in the piping.

FIV is a flow velocity driven phenomena that tends to affect smaller diameter (<10”
diameter) more flexible piping systems in venting service. The source for vibration force
in these smaller diameter flexible vent systems is boundary layer separation at elbows
and simple high velocity turbulent mixing.

The pressure pulsation energy produced by these mechanisms is nominally broadband,

but the majority of the excitation is concentrated at low frequencies (typically below 100
Hz). This leads to excitation of the low frequency vibration modes of the pipe work, in
many cases causing visible motion of the pipe and, in some cases, the pipe supports.

Experience has shown that the fatigue failure due to FIV invariably occurs at the branch
connection, where the highest levels of stress are found. Control of stresses at this
location, through configuration changes, control of the upstream elbow movements and
general stiffening of the system is an effective method for reducing the potential for
fatigue failures.
The primary source for low frequency FIV is the fluid dynamic “dipole” developed from
the shedding of vortices due to a surface separation at valves, elbows, tees or other
obstructions. Even though these components are stationary flow separation vortex
interaction can result in a very significant pulsating “dipole” energy source. If the
separation occurs eccentrically, there will be a drag and lift due to the unbalanced stream.

When dipole sources are generated in the interior of a piping system, the pipe wall forms
“guides” which tend to support the drag and suppress the lift thereby supporting plane
wave propagation down the axis of the pipe. Dipole energy is particularly apparent in the
presence of an acoustical resonance in which flow-acoustic interaction magnifies the
amplitude of the pulsating pressure. The pulsating pressure in conjunction with area
coupling produces significant mechanical shaking forces affecting the piping system.

AIV, addressed in CED Memo 50, results in high levels of high frequency acoustic
energy generated by a pressure reducing device (PSV, CV, depressuring valves etc.).

AIV is driven by high flow rates and pressure drop at the point of flow restriction, usually
with choke and shock wave conditions present. This results in an intense area for
turbulent flow pressure fluctuations immediately down stream of the point of flow
restriction. It generates acoustic energy that propagates down the pipe as an acoustic
wave together with propagating structure borne vibration energy within pipe wall. The
propagating acoustic wave invariably has higher order modes that tend to couple well
with exciting vibration in the pipe wall as the wave propagates. AIV is a high frequency
phenomenon that excites circumferential vibration in the pipe wall.

AIV, therefore, is a flow rate and pressure drop driven phenomenon that excites high
frequency
circumferential shell mode vibration in the piping. FIV, on the other hand, is flow
velocity driven and excites low frequency structural bending vibration in smaller
diameter, flexible systems.

Low frequency FIV is visible as shaking or vibration of the piping. High frequency AIV
results in small, high frequency pipe wall deflections and is typically not visible to the
naked eye. Systems at risk from high frequency AIV have short times to fatigue failure,
often measured in minutes. Systems at risk for low frequency FIV typically have longer
times to failure measured in hours or days.

Screening and Analysis Options (MTD and SwRI)

Marine Technology Directorate (MTD) was a study funded by major oil companies in the
UK with a significant emphasis on companies working offshore in the North Sea. The
MTD, report addresses all aspects of flow and acoustic induced vibration and provides
basic screening procedures for system analysis.
While providing general screening guidelines and procedures MTD does not provide a
way to isolate a specific problem area of a given piping system nor definite
recommendations for corrective action for systems at risk. For example, the MTD
screening procedures for AIV are consistent with those defined in CED Memo 50.
However, apart from some general references to reinforcement of asymmetric
discontinuities, MTD does not provide detailed guidelines on how to modify a piping
system at risk from AIV.

MTD is currently the only real collated industry specific material on flow and
acoustically induced vibration in the public domain.

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is an internationally renowned research

organization based in San Antonio, Texas. KBR has worked closely with SwRI for many
years. SwRI has considerable field and theoretical experience with piping vibration
generally. KBR commissioned SwRI to provide a review of FIV forces in piping systems
and provide a screening procedure for identifying potential systems at risk.

In general, dynamic pressure can be related to turbulent velocity squared and gas density
(ρv2). The classical mechanical stream energy related to jet flow is proportional to mass
P P

flow and gas velocity squared (Mv2). Both the analysis procedures developed by SwRI
P P

and MTD are based on a ρv2 energy evaluation.

P P

MTD consider basic piping parameters (diameter, wall thickness, flexibility) to develop a
Likelihood-of Failure (LOF) assessment for the system for a range of piping flexibilities.
MTD stress that their LOF numbers represent a conservative assessment to be used for
screening purposes. LOF is not an absolute probability of failure nor is it an absolute
measure of failure. The calculations are based on simplified models to ensure ease of
application and are necessarily conservative and draw on MTD collated field data and
experience.

The value of MTD screening is that it facilitates a comparison of one system against
another and is a simple evaluation of the severity of one system compared to another. A
good analogy in this context would be the use of the Carruci/Mueller design curve in
CED Memo 50 for AIV screening where comparison of the calculated internal pipe
sound power levels positions that system relative to the Memo 50 design curves and gives
a first comparison of the severity of one system compared to another.

The SwRI procedure takes the basic energy (ρv2) screening a step further by providing a
P P

method for the calculation of the vibration forces at the elbows affecting a branch
connection at risk.

The pulsating drag force on the pipe due to the separation of flow due to valves and
elbows (i.e. dynamic dipole) is characteristic of the following:
 Fpdf = Pulsative drag force (lbf)
B B

ρ = Gas density (lbf/cu ft)

v = Gas flow velocity (ft/sec)
g = Gravity (32.174 ft/sec2)
K = Loss factor
D
fL
B B

D = Pipe inside diameter (ft)

Qa = Acoustical magnification factor (~ 12)
B B

Ctcf= Turbulent acoustic coupling factor (~0.15)

B B

The preceding force equation is the product of several factors:

• Pressure drop due to obstruction form (do not include friction)
• K = 0.228 (form loss factor standard piping welding elbow)
• Area of pipe cross section
• Acoustical magnification factor (~ 12)
• Turbulent acoustic coupling factor (~0.15)

Frsf = Fpdf (Qm Cmcf )

B B B B B B B B

Frsf = resultant mechanical shaking force (lbf)

B B

Fpdf = Pulsative drag force (lbf)

B B

Qm = Mechanical magnification factor (~ 15)

B B

Cmcf = Transverse mechanical coupling factor (~

B B

0.35)

The final mechanical force equation is the product of three factors:

• Pulsative drag force

• Mechanical magnification
• Mechanical coupling factor (transverse)

If the acoustic response frequency of the line is coincident with the mechanical response
frequency, there is a high probability that the acoustical response (and the corresponding
standing wave) will add significantly to the dynamic energy in the piping system.
Therefore, it is important that any screening technique includes some evaluation of
acoustical resonance.
 n = the modal number
a = velocity of sound (ft/sec)
l = distance from valve to branch connection (ft)

The prevalence of acoustic responses in the same general frequency zone as the
mechanical responses will lead to significant increased risk.

The distance to the first elbow can then be combined with the mechanical shaking force
to allow a calculation of the estimated stress level at the branch.

σ b= Bending stress (psi)

B B

F rsf = Mechanical resultant shaking force (lbf)

B B

l = Moment arm (in)

c = Neutral axis radius (in)
I = Branch pipe moment of inertia (in4)
P P

When the dynamic bending stress is greater than 3000 psi, the system should be
considered vulnerable to severe vibration and possible failure may result. Modifications
to the system can be used to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

Conclusion

The use of screening criteria to prevent excessive risk associated with pressure reduction
systems is a desirable objective. In cases were multiple causes and sensitive inducing
factors are apparent, the use of screening may not assure the acceptable design quality.
Amplitude predictions are always plagued with assumptions concerning damping and
fabrication influences on mechanical damping.

The risk of failure is greatly reduced by the use of techniques which limit flow velocities,
minimize stress concentrations, reduce bending moments at branch connections, and
increase robustness and stiffness of questionable piping systems.

1 Chief Engineer Directive Memo 50 – “Criteria for Avoiding Fatigue Failures from
Acoustically Induced Vibration in Piping Systems”
(27 Jul 94)
2 MTD 99-100 “Guidelines Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue in Process
Pipework” (1999)