High acoustic energy has the potential to cause severe Acoustic Induced Vibration (AIV) that lead to fatigue failure in a piping system. Over the past few decades, many technical papers have been published on AIV research, and several industry codes and guidelines have been developed. However, gaps and inconsistencies exist, due to limited data and unverified assumptions. With new technologies — in continuous development — in the oil and gas industry, process conditions (such as temperature and pressure) have seen significant changes in recent industrial projects. As a result, the acoustic energy in piping system has been growing exponentially, exceeding the limits of current industrial codes and guidelines.

In this paper, a comprehensive review of AIV methodologies is conducted. Failure data reported in 1980s and 90s, as well as AIV methodologies developed in the 2000s (Carucci-Mueller curve, Eisinger curve, Bruce curve, Energy Institute Guideline, MTD Guideline, etc.) are reviewed along with their limitations and unverified assumptions (based on available data at that time) and compared to the latest research. The latest failure data from recent projects is used to demonstrate the application range for each method. Methods developed based on data in 1980s/90s were limited to sound power level (PWL) of 180 dB, while many plants designed recently have PWL greater than 185 dB, with some as high as 200 dB. Applying traditional methods to new plants with excessive PWL leads to unrealistic and overly conservative design leading to thicker piping and higher costs.

This paper hopes to close these major gaps including noise induced by sonic flow, noise attenuation, effectiveness of asymmetric reinforcement, explore fatigue limits of contour fittings and risks of welded supports. Further goal is to evaluate inconsistencies between industry codes and standards. Most AIV methodologies developed in the past focused on branch fittings with nearly no testing data on welded supports. Many fittings such as sweepolet, sweeplus®, forged tee, 45-deg fitting, and short-contour were not evaluated due to lack of testing data.

Failure modes and lessons learned during the development phase are addressed to emphasize the importance of AIV evaluation during design and operation along with the latest trend in industry codes and guidelines on AIV. In the past, AIV evaluation was often conducted as a post-event assessment, resulting in costly physical changes after the plant had already been constructed. With the latest revision of ASME B31J Code, most engineers now perform AIV evaluation early in the design phase to mitigate risks. The comprehensive review of AIV methodologies presented in this paper helps to provide a more comprehensive guideline for safe design practices and structural integrity.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.