Identifying and Understanding the Risk of Acoustic-Induced Vibration Failures

  • Home
  • Identifying and Understanding the Risk of Acoustic-Induced Vibration Failures

Identifying and Understanding the Risk of Acoustic-Induced Vibration Failures

Nathan D. Libertowski, Engineer II; Michael F.P. Bifano, Ph.D., P.E., Consulting Engineer I

Note: The following article was published in the March/April 2021 issue of the Inspectioneering Journal. Please submit the form below to access the full article. 

One source suggests that 10-15% of piping failures are a result of fatigue from vibration. Piping vibration can be caused by multiple different mechanisms such as flow-induced turbulence, slug flow, mechanical excitation from machinery, and acoustic pulsation. These mechanisms are often observed by plant operators since they present themselves during normal operation. On the other hand, acoustic-induced vibration (AIV) in pressure relief lines and downstream of control valves used for blow-down (BDV) is difficult to identify since the vibration is not readily observable unless the valves are opened. 

Often downstream of a pressure-reducing device (PRD), AIV occurs in gas systems when acoustic waves generated at flow restrictions excite natural modes of the piping, thus leading to vibration. AIV is different from most types of piping vibration because it generally occurs at much higher frequencies (300-1,500 Hz) and is the result of shell mode excitation. For this reason, AIV is typically not visible to the human eye but is noticeable by touch and transmits high-frequency audible noise outside the piping to the surrounding areas. The occasionality, combined with the high-frequency, low-amplitude vibration, allows AIV to usually go unnoticed until the vibration is heard, the pipe is touched, or a failure occurs. 

To continue reading the article, submit the form below:

Newsletter Archive

Access all of our previously published Industry Insights Newsletter articles:

Recently Published

Pipeline Defect Assessments for CSA Z662 Pipelines

Pipeline regulations in Canada differ from the ASME B31.4 and B31.8 standards used across the United States. In this article, the authors provide a detailed overview of the federally regulated CSA Z662 standard and clarify the differences between assessments (Section 10), engineering assessments (Section 3.4), and engineering critical assessments (Annex J & K). This is a must- read for any pipeline operators who wants to understand Canadian pipeline industry regulation and engineering assessment requirements.

Read More »

Effects of Friction on Rotating Equipment Compliance: Modeling Considerations in Pipe Stress Simulation

A recurring challenge is ensuring that modeling assumptions in pipe stress analysis don’t create hidden risks for rotating equipment and piping code compliance. This article explores how friction and vertical support behavior can dramatically influence nozzle load calculations, sometimes turning a compliant system into a non-compliant one. Using case studies and practical examples, the authors highlight best practices and advanced tools like SIMFLEX-IV to improve accuracy and reliability across complex operating conditions.

Read More »

Structural Engineering Applications for Fixed Equipment Analysis

Typically, maintenance teams are focused on a facility’s pressure vessels, piping, and tanks, which leaves structural infrastructure to be overlooked. In this article, Derek shares several case studies that highlight how combining structural and mechanical engineering approaches can solve several unique fixed equipment challenges.

Read More »