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

Local PWHT and Weld Residual Stress: A Case Study in Welding and PWHT Simulation

A local PWHT procedure that fully complies with WRC 452 does not guarantee the residual stress relief assumed in fitness-for-service assessments, and for equipment susceptible to environmental cracking, that gap can be the difference between a successful repair and a repeat failure. This case study presents a coupled welding and PWHT finite element simulation of a fractionator head repair, comparing local PWHT outcomes against furnace treatment and identifying ramp rate as the most powerful lever for improving stress relief.

Read More »

New Guidance for the Design of Fillet-Welded Patches

The current ASME PCC-2 Article 212 guidance for fillet-welded patch repairs is known to be conservative, frequently driving patch plate thicknesses past the 1.5-inch threshold that triggers mandatory PWHT. This article presents Equity Engineering’s proposed T-min methodology, an FEA-validated alternative that eliminates unnecessary thickness penalties and reduces PWHT risk while remaining technically rigorous and grounded in ASME design-by-analysis principles.

Read More »

When Pressure Builds: The Science and Engineering of Explosion Venting

Combustible dust explosions are well-documented, well-studied, and entirely preventable, and yet they continue to claim lives, as tragically demonstrated by the July 2025 explosion at a Nebraska biofuels facility. This article introduces the engineering fundamentals of explosion venting, walking through the key parameters, calculations, and judgment calls required to design a compliant and effective deflagration vent per NFPA 68.

Read More »
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Pages
Industry Insights Newsletter Articles
Events
Library Items