Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA

PVP2014-28325

DIFFICULTIES IN PREDICTING CYCLES OF FAILURE USING FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS OF ACOUSTICALLY INDUCED VIBRATION (AIV) PROBLEMS IN PIPING
SYSTEMS

Arindam Ghosh1 Yaying Niu Rajesh Arjunan

KBR KBR KBR
Houston, Texas, USA Houston, Texas, USA Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT results from air to commonly used process fluid are also
While finite element modeling analysis is becoming more discussed.
frequent for analyzing AIV problems, in the absence of
experimental data in large diameter pipe, there is no industry NOMENCLATURE
wide accepted methodology for representing the pressure a Pipe internal radius
excitation for the pipe so accurate cycles to failure may be am Pipe nominal radius
predicted. The assumptions involved in determining the actual c Speed of sound in fluid medium
amplitude of the acoustic excitation, which modes may develop cL Acoustic wave speed in pipe material
and how they couple with the structure all contribute to the fc Crossing frequency
overall uncertainty of the problem. fmn Structural natural frequency at mode (m,n)
Depending on the degree of correlation assumed between fpq Acoustic natural frequency at mode (p,q)
the structural and acoustical mode shapes the results vary Gd(f) Power spectral density of predicted stress
dramatically. There are also variations based on the number of h Pipe wall thickness
participating modes assumed. Relative strengths of a Km Axial component of structural wave number
Weldolet®, an Insert Weldolet® that is a variation of Kn Circumferential component of structural wave number
Sweepolet® and a Reducing Tee connection were analyzed for m Number of half structural waves in axial direction
a 24×6 inch Sch. 10S and STD connection assuming various M Mach number of mean-flow velocity
degrees of correlation and mode participation. Wide n Number of full structural waves in circumferential
fluctuations in the cycles to failure were observed based on the direction
assumptions; however, the stress ratios between the nrms Number of cycles of failure at predicted RMS stress
connections are relatively stable. This suggests the use of an value
acoustic Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) in conjunction with Ni Number of cycles allowed at stress amplitude ziS
Fatigue Strength Reduction Factors (FSRF) to determine p Number of full acoustical waves in circumferential
suitability of connections in AIV service rather than an absolute direction
value of cycles to failure. pi Excitation sound pressure at ith structural mode
Further investigation of the trends in the value of SIF as p(z) Rayleigh probability density function
the D/d (branch to header diameter) and D/t (diameter to P0 Maximum sound pressure excitation amplitude
thickness) ratios over a range of pipe diameter are required q Number of acoustical wave nodes in radial direction
before these SIF’s could be put into use. Experimental data for S Predicted RMS stress amplitude
a few controlled failure cases are required to ground the finite Urms Fatigue usage at predicted RMS stress amplitude
element prediction in reality. As the experiment is more likely xi Normalized ith modal displacement
to be conducted with air the possible pitfalls in extending the

1
Corresponding author. Email: arindam.ghosh@kbr.com

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 z Non-dimensional amplitude in Rayleigh probability
density function
αpq Roots for zero of the first order derivative of Bessel
function
β Non-dimensional pipe wall thickness parameter
ν Poisson’s ratio of pipe material
σ Standard deviation of a random process
AIV Acoustically induced vibration
FSRF Fatigue strength reduction factor
MW Molecular weight
SIF Stress intensification factor
SRSS Square Root of Sum of the Squares
SW Insert Weldolet®, a variation of Sweepolet®
RT Reducing Tee
WL Weldolet®
SEA Statistical Energy Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Finite Element (FE) method is becoming prevalent in
analyzing acoustically induced vibration (AIV) problems. Since
Eisinger conducted FE modeling to evaluate AIV of piping
systems in 1999 [1], many other engineers and researchers have
also been involved in the FE modeling approach [2-5]. For
example, Kim [2] proposed a dynamic stress calculation
method using internal sound power and structural modes of
pipe and was validated by a FE model as well as Carruci &
Mueller data [6]. The basic theory behind this proposed
approach is modal resonance between structural and acoustic
modes as documented in Ref. [7]. Allison et al. [3] built a FE
model for welded joints to evaluate piping resonance and
fatigue life predictions using structural stress method in the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [8] and Energy
Institute screening method [9]. Swindell [4] and Skailes et al.
[5] presented FE modal analysis-based AIV screening methods
that were originally proposed by Blevins in Ref. [10]. For
fatigue life predictions, a Rayleigh probability distribution is
applied to RMS stress amplitudes in conjunction with ASME
S-N curves [8]. This fatigue analysis method is also
documented in Refs. [11] and [12].
Although those FE modeling approaches for fatigue
predictions were proposed in [1-5], in the absence of
experimental results for large diameter systems, caution is
necessary in understanding resultant stress intensity and cycle
of failure values. This paper is an attempt to investigate the
effects of varying input parameters such as spatial correlation
of excitation force, participation of various structural modes
that may be excited, forcing amplitude, damping ratio, and
fluid medium. The engineering goal is to determine the
suitability of various connections in AIV service. Study of
stress intensification factors (SIF) in process piping and FSRF’s
in pressure vessels suggests that values for Reducing Tee (RT)
are smaller than those for Insert Weldolets® (SW) which are
smaller than Weldolets® (WL) [8,13]. However the fatigue
studies used to determine the SIF’s/FSRF’s are based on
uniform loading. To determine the proper nature of stress
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
intensification the connections need to be studied under loading
more akin to what actually occurs in AIV where the structural
and acoustic mode shapes match. Since the nature of matching
changes based on fluid properties, the impact of changing the
process fluid is also investigated.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
1. Branch Connections
FE models of pipe with branch connections that employ
Weldolet®, Insert Weldolet® that is a variation of
Sweepolet®, and Reducing Tees were analyzed for 24×6
inch Sch. 10S and STD thickness connections. The branch
connections used for the FE model are presented in Fig. 1.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1: 3-D models of branch connections: (a)
Weldolet® (WL), (b) Insert Weldolet® (SW), (c)
Reducing Tee (RT).
FEMAP was used as preprocessor and postprocessor for
the FE analysis. NEiNASTRAN was used as the analysis
software, both for modal analysis and forced response
analysis. The model consisted of a main line and a side
branch line with different branch connections. The main
line and the side branch line were extended to a length
equal to the diameter of the pipe with symmetry boundary
conditions. Figure 2 shows the 24×6 inch Sch. 10S RT FE
model used for the analysis. The FE model utilized both
shell elements and solid elements. Solid elements were used
at the branch connection and weld area to capture accurate
stress for each branch connection. The extended main line
and branch line were modeled using shell elements for
easier application of forces. The solid elements were
modelled with tetra (CTETRA) elements and the shell
elements with quad (CQUAD4) elements (see Fig. 2). Finer
mesh size was used at the connection, while coarser mesh
size was used away from the connection. In order to
determine the appropriate mesh size, analysis was run with
coarse, medium, and fine mesh. The difference in stress
levels was insignificant between the medium and fine mesh.
The maximum grid point stress deviation for the medium
mesh was found to be 0.2. Hence to have an optimal
computational time, medium mesh was selected for the
analysis.
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Figure 2: 24×6 inch RT model with mesh and
boundary conditions.
2. Excitation and Coincident Frequencies
AIV is generated when circumferential acoustical modes
are coincident with structural modes [1]. In the current FE
model, modal analyses were performed to retrieve the mode
shapes and modal frequencies. The resultant mode shapes
were used to create the excitation loading. Two types of
excitation forces were used for the analysis:
1) Correlated loading: Excitation force distributions are
azimuthally correlated with the structural modes perfectly.
The excitation pressure is set to 0.5psi at the location with
maximum modal displacement, and normalized to lower
values at other locations according to the corresponding
modal displacements (see Fig. 3(a)). The excitation is
oriented perpendicular to the pipe surface.
2) Uniform loading: Excitation force is distributed
uniformly in the pipe and completely uncorrelated with
structural mode shapes. Here, the excitation pressure is set
to 5psi (see Fig. 3(b)).
(a) (b)
Figure 3: Excitation loading patterns: (a) Correlated
loading, (b) Uniform loading.
Uniform loading represents the broadband excitation
when there is no particular correlation between the
acoustical and structural mode shape. Correlated loading
excitation occurs at a limited number of frequencies and is
responsible for the maximum stress response. Uniform
loading on the other hand is prevalent at a large number of
frequencies. Although the excitation pressure amplitude is
much higher (see the following results and discussions)
than the excitation for the correlated loading, the stress
response at a single frequency is much smaller. However,
the summed stresses at all frequencies may still be
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
significant. Moreover the stress ratios under correlated and
uniform loading conditions may be different. Hence both
uniform and correlated loading were considered in this
paper.
The excitation forcing function of correlated loading is
written as
0 , (1)
where xi is the normalized modal displacement at a
structural natural frequency fi, pi is the excitation pressure
amplitude at the ith mode, and P0 is a constant representing
the maximum excitation pressure amplitude, e.g., 0.5psi in
this study. According to Ref. [10], although not exactly
identical, such excitation can be treated as joint acceptance
equaling to one. The modal frequencies and loading were
used to perform forced response analysis to retrieve the
maximum stress at each frequency, at the branch
connection.
Coincident frequencies can be obtained to evaluate the
structural mode shapes and acoustical modes. Here, pipe
structural natural frequencies are calculated from the FE
modal analysis as well as the following equation in Ref. [7]:
2
1 2 4
2 2 4
2 2 4
4 , (2)
where fmn is the structural natural frequency at axial mode m
(i.e., number of half structural waves in axial direction) and
circumferential mode n (i.e., number of full structural
waves in circumferential direction), cL is the acoustic wave
speed in piping material, am is the nominal pipe radius, ν is
the Poisson’s ratio, Km is the axial component of wave
number, and K2 = Km2 + Kn2 with circumferential
component Kn = n, and β = h/(2√3am) is the non-
dimensional pipe wall thickness parameter defined in [7].
Acoustical natural frequencies are calculated by using
the following equation [7]:
2 0.5
1
2 , (3)
where p is the number of full acoustical waves in
circumferential direction, q is the number of nodal lines in
radial direction, c is the speed of sound for the investigated
fluid medium, a is the pipe internal radius, M is the mean
flow Mach number, and παpq is the root for zero of the first
order derivative of Bessel function. Here, M is set to 0.5 to
consider the impact of mean flow on the natural
frequencies.
Acoustical modes are assumed to be also sustained away
from the branch connection, i.e., AIV due to resonance is
assumed to happen in the 24 inch main header even away
from discontinuity. Resonance occurs when circumferential
modes are coincident: i.e., when n = p and fmn ≈ fpq. In
general, pipes with large D/t ratio tend to have lower
structural natural frequencies. Process gas with speed of
sound less than the speed in air also has lower acoustical
natural frequencies. In this analysis, pipes with wall
thickness of 0.25 inch (Sch. 10S) and 0.375 inch (Sch.
 STD) are used for fatigue cycle calculations. When propane
with molecular weight (MW) of 44.1 g/mol is used in the
fatigue analysis compared to air with MW of 28.97 g/mol,
lower acoustical natural frequencies are observed and
different fatigue cycles are obtained.
Three sets of frequency combinations are used for
branch connections (i.e.: RT, SW, and WL):
1) The first set is to include all the structural mode shapes
for the fatigue analysis, which will give the most
conservative cycles of failure. Only a few structural modes
can be excited by internal sound pressure fields in reality.
2) The second set is the combination of the coincident
frequencies for each connection type and pipe wall
thickness.
3) The last set is to use the coincident frequencies that have
the most dominant stress response for each of the
connections and pipe wall thicknesses.
Note that in the second set the maximum stresses at
different coincident frequencies could be located in various
spots, while the last case is focused on one natural
frequency with maximum stress at single location.
In the FE analysis, damping is chosen to be 0.25% of
critical damping as Ref. [1]. However, the commonly used
damping ratio of 0.5% is also investigated [5].
3. Frequency Range and Spectrum
Frequency range of 500 – 1500 Hz is used because
mostly that is where the first two circumferential mode
coincidences happen and the amplitudes are dominant. If
the full acoustic frequency range is to be studied statistical
energy analysis (SEA) is most appropriate [14]. This paper
is focused on investigating parameters related to FE studies.
Before the fatigue analysis, a spectrum of piping
internal sound pressure levels is calculated based on Eqs.
(1) to (19) of standard IEC 60534-8-3: 2010 in Ref. [15]. It
is assumed that there is an operating pressure reducing
device upstream of the 6-inch branch line. The calculated
sound pressure spectrum has a RMS value of 0.5psi. The
high frequency components (e.g., 1000 ~ 1500 Hz) would
gain more weighting according to the IEC standard. Since
the FE model has excitation amplitude of 0.5psi at all
frequencies, in order to simulate practical operations, the
maximum stress levels ranging from 500 to 1500 Hz are
weighted based on the calculated spectrum.
4. Fatigue Calculation Methodology
Fatigue cycles can be evaluated based on the method in
Ref. [12]. In the fatigue analysis, the stress values obtained
from the FE model are treated as RMS amplitudes. For
turbulence induced random excitations, the real vibration
amplitudes can have a distribution between 0 and zS, where
S is the predicted RMS stress value and z is the non-
dimensional amplitude in Rayleigh probability density
function.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Following the procedure described in Ref. [12], the
number of cycles associated with S can be determined by
setting the fatigue usage Urms = 1 in the following equation:
′′
∆ 2 ′
∆
∆ /
6 2
1 , (4)
where nrms is the number of cycles of failure to be
determined at the stress value S, Δz is the integration step, zi
= iΔz, p(zi) is the Rayleigh probability density function, Ni
is the number of cycles allowed at stress amplitude of ziS,
that is determined from ASME S-N curve in Ref. [8]. Note
that ziS is equivalent to ziσ, where σ is the standard
deviation for a random process. The “3σ” criterion is mostly
used in fatigue estimation but various values can be
investigated: e.g., 1σ to 4σ are used to evaluate cycles of
failure in this paper.
When the combinations of coincident frequencies or all
the structural natural frequencies are considered, S is
defined as the SRSS value of the predicted stresses, and
crossing frequency, fc is defined in the following equation in
Ref. [11]:
∞ 2
0
2
∞
0 , (5)
where f stands for any natural frequency, and Gd(f) is the
power spectral density of the predicted stress in the whole
frequency span. Definition of crossing frequency shows that
a frequency with higher stress amplitude gains more
weighting. If there is only one frequency component
included in the analysis, i.e., the last case of fatigue
analysis, the crossing frequency equals to the frequency
investigated.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 1 shows the circumferentially coincident frequencies
for the fluid media of air and propane. The coincident
frequencies for the Sch. 10S pipe are lower than those for the
Sch. STD pipe, and fluid medium propane also gives lower
coincident frequencies than air. These coincident natural
frequencies are then used for fatigue analysis as per the second
and last sets of frequency combinations as discussed in Section
2 of model description.
Table 1: Coincident natural frequencies.
Sch. 10S f (Hz) 969 1116 - ‐
Air
Sch. STD f (Hz) 980 1278 1307 ‐
Propane Sch. STD f (Hz) 661 969 1040 1292
Figure 4 shows the modal displacements at the coincident
frequencies with maximum stress levels for Sch. 10S and STD
RT configurations. Note that on either side of the 24 inch
extension lines, at the location with maximum modal
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 displacement, excitation pressure is set to 0.5psi and Figures 7 and 8 show the FE predicted stress values under
normalized to lower amplitudes in correlated loading case. correlated loading excitations for the all three connections Sch.
10S and STD piping, respectively [16]. The stress values are
plotted against the pipe natural frequencies between 500 and
(a) 1500 Hz. At each natural frequency, the stress value in the plot
is the maximum among the predicted stress field of the piping
system. In addition, the pressure spectrum obtained from Ref.
[15] gives the weighted stress results. Both Figs. 7 and 8
indicate that the general stress levels (i.e., SRSS values) for RT
connections are the lowest, while the stress values for WL
connections are the highest. Sch. STD connections have lower
stress levels than their counterparts with Sch. 10S pipe wall
thicknesses. The crossing frequencies for all the cases are
around 1000 Hz. These stress results are then used to perform
(b) fatigue analysis.

Figure 4: Modal displacements at the coincident

frequencies with maximum stress: (a) Sch. 10S Reducing
Tee, (b) Sch. STD Reducing Tee.

Figures 5 and 6 show the stress plots indicating the

maximum stress locations in red color at the coincident
frequencies for RT, SW, and WL for both Sch. 10s and STD
configurations. The coincident frequencies with those
maximum stresses are listed in Table 3(b). All three
connections show that the maximum stress responses are
located around weld lines (see the locations with red color).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5: Maximum stress locations at the coincident

frequencies for Sch. 10S connections: (a) Reducing Tee,
(b) Insert Weldolet®, (c) Weldolet®.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6: Maximum stress locations at the coincident

frequencies for Sch. STD connections: (a) Reducing Tee,
(b) Insert Weldolet®, (c) Weldolet®.

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Figure 7: Predicted stress vs. pipe natural frequency for Figure 8: Predicted stress vs. pipe natural frequency for
Sch. 10S pipe: (a) Reducing Tee, (b) Insert Weldolet®, (c) Sch. STD pipe: (a) Reducing Tee, (b) Insert Weldolet®,
Weldolet®. (c) Weldolet®.

Table 2(a) shows the crossing frequencies, SRSS stress

values, stress ratios between the connections, and numbers of
cycles to failure when using uniform loading and including all
the structural modes. The cycles of failure are calculated at 1σ,
2σ, 3σ, and 4σ. Even though the uniform loading amplitude is
5psi, 10 times of the maximum amplitude of correlated loading,
the predicted SRSS stress values are much smaller than that of
the correlated loading case in Table 2(b). The stress ratios for
uniform loading are inconsistent when pipe wall thickness
changes, while they remain stable for correlated loading case in
Table 2(b), which indicates that a separate SIF/FSRF
investigation is needed. In general, the fatigue life of the piping
structure under AIV excitation is dominantly determined by
correlated loading, which is applied in the following results.
Under the correlated loading excitation and including all
the structural mode shapes, Table 2(b) shows the fatigue
analysis results. Sch. 10S pipe has larger stress values and thus
shorter cycles are predicted than Sch. STD pipe. For different
connection types, the stress ratios remain stable as D/t changes
indicating that ranking of the connections would be reasonable:
i.e., RT provides greater fatigue resistance than SW which are
more resistant than WL (see Fig. 9(a) for the stress ratios
normalized to Sch. STD RT), but various studies on D/d and
D/t are still required.

Table 2: Fatigue analysis results with all the pipe

structural modes included: (a) Uniform loading; (b)
Correlated loading.
(a)
All modes included; Uniform loading; Air Number of cycles
Pipe Sch. Type fc(Hz) Ssrss(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
RT 1135 3.922 1 6.06E+07 4.17E+08 9.77E+10 2.59E+11
Sch. 10S SW 1106 4.581 1.168 1.46E+07 2.94E+07 1.33E+10 2.59E+11
WL 1098 6.905 1.761 1.07E+06 1.36E+06 7.27E+06 2.59E+11
RT 1078 3.011 1 2.95E+09 4.82E+10 1.18E+11 2.59E+11
Sch. STD SW 1012 4.52 1.501 1.64E+07 3.48E+07 1.72E+10 2.59E+11
WL 1011 4.726 1.570 1.14E+07 2.08E+07 7.31E+09 2.59E+11

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 (b)
All modes included; Correlated loading; Air Number of cycles
Pipe Sch. Type fc(Hz) Ssrss(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
RT 1035 58.622 1 866 941 1701 18888
Sch. 10S SW 1021 87.093 1.486 318 344 600 5825
WL 975 95.295 1.626 255 275 478 4520
RT 1041 35.505 1 3389 3726 7179 96144
Sch. STD SW 975 51.563 1.452 1213 1322 2424 28269
WL 1064 61.413 1.730 767 833 1499 16366

Although the cycles of failure are predicted, the cycles are

greatly under-estimated because only a few structural modes
can be coincident with acoustical modes in reality [1].
Therefore, the combinations of the coincident frequencies and
the coincident frequency with maximum stress value should be
applied in fatigue analysis.

Table 3: Fatigue analysis results using correlated loading

and coincident frequencies: (a) Combined coincident
frequencies, (b) Coincident frequency with maximum
stress.
(a)
Combined coincident modes; Correlated loading; Air Number of cycles
Pipe Sch. Type fc(Hz) Ssrss(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
RT 1070 16.474 1 35959 40602 87582 2.60E+06
Sch. 10S SW 995 17.242 1.047 30930 34860 74642 1.79E+06
WL 1014 21.427 1.301 15403 17222 35787 609670
RT 1270 10.78 1 156310 179930 455930 5.04E+08
Sch. STD SW 1289 12.493 1.159 92270 105360 239710 2.78E+07
WL 1296 14.519 1.347 54838 62214 135380 5.01E+06
(b)
Coincident mode with Smax; Correlated loading; Air Number of cycles
Pipe Sch. Type fmax(Hz) Smax(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
RT 1084 14.083 1 60890 69171 150960 6.32E+06
Sch. 10S SW 975 13.762 0.977 65846 74865 164250 7.71E+06
WL 980 17.763 1.261 28079 31615 67463 1.53E+06
RT 1322 7.489 1 719100 885110 3.66E+06 2.29E+11
Sch. STD SW 1333 8.364 1.117 435390 517250 1.78E+06 7.29E+10
WL 1334 10.146 1.355 197990 228740 618080 1.71E+09

Figure 9: Stress ratios for different connections and pipe

Tables 3(a) and 3(b) show the fatigue analysis results when
using combined coincident frequencies and the coincident
frequency with maximum stress response, respectively. For
both cases, the resultant frequencies are around or higher than
1000 Hz, thus the low frequency components between 500 and
1000 Hz are not contributing to the structural fatigue
significantly. The ratios of stress are also plotted in Figs. 9(b)
and 9(c) but normalized to Sch. STD RT. The stress ratio plots
also indicate that a RT is more fatigue resistant than a SW
which is more resistant than a WL, although RT and SW have
close stress values. Note that SIF’s/FSRF’s are not employed in
the current fatigue analysis. Further investigation is necessary
to determine if stress captured from the FE model is the actual
notch stress or a separate SIF/FSRF is needed.
wall thicknesses (normalized to Sch. STD RT): (a) All
structural modes included, (b) Combined coincident
frequencies, (c) Coincident frequencies with maximum
stress.
Figure 10(a) shows the cycles to failure plotted against σ
values for RT connection. As noted in the fatigue analysis
section, σ stands for the RMS stress value input, and thus for
most fatigue analysis 3σ or higher is utilized. However, for a
Sch. STD RT connection that does not have failures detected so
far, Fig. 10(a) and Table 3(b) indicate that the number of cycles
to failure is realistic only when using 1σ and the coincident
frequency with maximum stress level so that the STD RT has
significant fatigue life. However, the cycles to failure are still
low and the assumption of perfect spatial correlation is suspect.
At the 1σ case, Fig. 10(b) shows the similar result in terms of
cycles to failure as the stress ratio plots in Fig. 9.

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 connections with various D/t and D/d and damping ratio of
0.5% need to be studied by FE modeling and matched with a
few controlled experiments in order to give conclusive
suggestions.

Table 5: Fatigue analysis results for damping ratios of

0.25% and 0.5%.
Coincident mode with Smax; Correlated loading; Air Number of cycles
Damping Type fmax(Hz) Smax(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
0.25% RT 1322 7.489 1 719100 885110 3656800 2.29E+11
0.50% RT 1354 3.263 0.436 6.57E+08 1.43E+10 1.18E+11 2.59E+11
0.25% SW 1333 8.364 1 435390 517250 1777600 7.29E+10
0.50% SW 1357 3.377 0.404 3.80E+08 7.64E+09 1.18E+11 2.59E+11
0.25% WL 1334 10.146 1 197990 228740 618080 1.71E+09
0.50% WL 1355 3.837 0.378 7.64E+07 6.48E+08 1.06E+11 2.59E+11

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper, acoustically induced vibration (AIV) in three
types of piping connections (i.e., Reducing Tee (RT), Insert
Weldolet® (SW), and Weldolet® (WL)) were studied by
using finite element (FE) model and fatigue analysis. Two types
of excitation pressure distributions were applied in the model:
uniform loading that has evenly distributed pressure on the pipe
internal surface and correlated loading that has pressure
distribution proportional to pipe modal displacements. The
Figure 10: Logarithmic values of cycles of failure: (a) RT predicted SRSS stress levels show that RT has the lowest stress,
at [1σ, 4σ], (b) RT, SW, and WL at 1σ. SW has the middle level, and WL has the highest stress value.
Also, Sch. STD pipe has lower stress levels than Sch. 10S pipe.
In addition to the fluid medium air, the effect from propane The published SIF/FSRF values are obtained under the
with higher molecular weight is investigated. Table 4 shows the assumption of uniform loading. The current investigation
fatigue analysis results for both air and propane. Since propane demonstrates that stress ratios for uniform and correlated
has more coincident frequencies than that of air as shown in loadings are different. This underscores the need for separate
Table 1, the SRSS stress value of propane is also higher and research to determine appropriate SIF/FSRF values under fully
thus the fatigue life is shorter. A pipe transporting heavier fluid or partially correlated loading consonant with the problem of
is more likely to have AIV excitations particularly at low acoustically induced vibration. Further investigation is also
frequencies. required to determine if notch stress is captured correctly for all
the geometries analyzed in this publication. If the notch stress
Table 4: Fatigue analysis results for air and propane: (a) is found to be underestimated appropriate SIF/FSRF shall need
Combined coincident frequencies; (b) Coincident to be applied.
frequency with maximum stress. By using the predicted stress at the all structural natural
(a) frequencies between 500 and 1500 Hz, a fatigue analysis was
Combined coincident modes; Correlated loading Number of cycles performed by including: 1) all the structural natural
Pipe Sch. Fluid Type fc(Hz) Ssrss(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ
Air RT 1270 10.78 1 156310 179930 455930 5.04E+08
frequencies; 2) combined coincident frequencies between
Sch. STD
Propane RT 1167 12.032 1.116 105380 120540 280540 5.72E+07 circumferential acoustical and structural modes; and 3) the
(b) coincident frequency with maximum stress value. The fatigue
Coincident mode with Smax; Correlated loading Number of cycles analysis results show that stress ratios remain stable as D/t
Pipe Sch. Fluid Type fmax(Hz) Smax(ksi) S Ratio 4σ 3σ 2σ 1σ changes between the connections indicating that ranking of the
Air RT 1322 7.489 1 719100 885110 3656800 2.29E+11
Sch. STD
Propane RT 1037 7.612 1.016 665900 814690 3254900 2.12E+11
connections would be possible: a RT is more fatigue resistant
than a SW which is more resistant than a WL, even though
Table 5 shows the fatigue analysis results using different additional studies on other connections and reinforcements
damping ratios of 0.25% and 0.5%. Higher damping ratio gives (e.g., Stub-In, Reinforcement-Pad, Full-Wrap, Header-Wrap)
lower stress level and longer fatigue life as expected. In and various D/d and D/t are still required. The results also
particular, the cycles of failure of higher damping ratio case suggest that using 1σ and the coincident frequency with
indicate that using 3σ and the coincident frequency with maximum stress along with 0.25% damping ratio or 3σ with
maximum stress also could give realistic values so that the RT 0.5% damping ratio gives realistic cycles to failure so that Sch.
and SW connections do not fail. However other types of STD RT has significant fatigue life. However, the cycles to
failure under the other configurations are generally low and the

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 usage of perfect correlated loading needs more investigation. It
is thus problematic to use cycles to failure for AIV analysis
without proper experiments for validation. In addition, fluid
with higher molecular weight tends to have lower acoustical
natural frequencies and increased number of coincident modes.
Future FE studies will include additional connections and
reinforcements under different D/t and D/d conditions, and
partially correlated loading for excitations since the existing
fully correlated loading seems to over-predict stress and under-
predict fatigue life. From the large number of FE simulations at
various scenarios, the structural stress method in ASME Boiler
Code could be applied to fatigue analysis that will eliminate the
uncertainty involved in ascertaining notch stress. Proper
experiments will also be necessary to validate the FE model
and fatigue analysis.
[12] Brenneman, B., and Talley, J. Q., 1986, “RMS Fatigue
Curves for Random Vibrations,” ASME J. Press. Vess. T.,
108, pp. 538-542.
[13] 2012 ASME B31.3 Process Piping, The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[14] Mann III, J. A., Eilers, D., and Fagerlund, A. C., 2012,
“Predicting Pipe Internal Sound Field and Pipe Wall
Vibration using Statistical Energy Approaches for AIV,”
Proc. Inter-Noise 2012, New York, NY.
[15] 2010 Industrial-Process Control Valves – Part 8-3: Noise
Considerations – Control Valve Aerodynamic Noise
Prediction Method, IEC 60534-8-3.
[16] Finite Element Analysis of Piping Branch Connections
under Acoustic Induced Vibration Loading, SWRI Internal
Report to KBR, 2011.

REFERENCES
[1] Eisinger, F. L., and Francis J. T., 1999, “Acoustically
Induced Structural Fatigue of Piping Systems,” ASME J.
Press. Vess. T., 121, pp. 438-443.
[2] Kim, H.-W., 2010, “A Study on the Acoustic Induced
Vibration for the Piping of Offshore Structure using
Dynamic Stress Evaluation,” Proc. Inter-Noise 2010,
Lisbon, Portugal.
[3] Allison, T. C., Evans, N., and Poerner N., 2012, “An
Efficient Finite Element Analysis Method for Acoustic
Induced Vibration Analysis,” Proc. Inter-Noise 2012, New
York, NY.
[4] Swindell, R., 2012, “Acoustically Induced Vibration –
Development and Use of the ‘Energy Institute’ Screening
Method,” Proc. Inter-Noise 2012, New York, NY.
[5] Skailes, B., and Ngiam, S.-S., 2012, “A Finite Element
Model Analysis Approach to Assess Piping Failures due to
Acoustically Induced Vibration,” Proc. Inter-Noise 2012,
New York, NY.
[6] Carucci, V. A., and Mueller, R. T., 1982, “Acoustically
Induced Piping Vibration in High Capacity Pressure
Reducing Systems,” ASME Paper No. 82-WA/PVP-8.
[7] Norton, M. P., 1989, Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
Analysis for Engineers, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, Chapter 7.
[8] 2013 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code VIII Div 2 –
Alternative Rules, Rules for Construction of Pressure
Vessels, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York.
[9] 2008 Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced
Fatigue Failures in Process Pipework, Second Edition,
Energy Institute, London.
[10] Blevins, R. D., 1989, “An Approximate Method for Sonic
Fatigue Analysis of Plates and Shells,” J. Sound Vib.,
129(1), pp. 51-71.
[11] Au-Yang, M. K., 2001, Flow-Induced Vibration of Power
and Process Plant Components, Professional Engineering
Publishing Limited, Suffolk, UK, Chapter 11.

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/81667/ on 04/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo