Piping vibration

Save to read list Published by Callum O'Reilly, Senior Editor Hydrocarbon Engineering, Monday, 28 August 2023 14:00

Piping vibration is a leading cause of loss-of-containment and downtime in the oil and gas, petrochemical, and fertilizer sectors. In addition to environmental and personnel safety, piping vibration often impacts profitability by constraining flow rates.

The majority of process piping design in refining and petrochemical facilities is governed by thermal code compliance rules of the ASME B31 codes. Most design codes provide qualitative guidance on the importance of designing against vibration fatigue without specific methods. Following code design rules without best practices can lead the designer to focus on flexibility at the expense of vibration susceptibility. In cleaner lower temperature services, such as LNG and pipeline facilities, piping vibration can be the most persistent damage mechanism. Most challenging is that once detected, the current body of API/ASME and international standards is inconsistent in the evaluation approaches of in-service piping vibration. Once identified, assessments usually require subject matter expertise involvement because traditional assessment methods are usually conservative.1, 2, 3, 4

Figure 1 shows a collection of commonly used vibration assessment screening criteria. All the curves have been converted into RMS velocity units for comparison. Current evaluation methods for piping vibration have demonstrated limitations:

Figure 1. Commonly used vibration assessment screening criteria.

Vibration testing of machinery is a well-developed predictive maintenance strategy with four levels of ANST and ISO certifications (ISO 18436-2). While high-quality training is offered by specialty consulting firms (E2G Included), surprisingly, most machinery vibration certification programs do not provide adequate technical coverage of this topic. For example, too often machinery analysts do not collect sufficient data to measure severity and characterise piping vibration signals, particularly in cases of random vibration with dominant frequencies in the 2 - 10 Hz range. This is just one example of why formalised training and procedural guidance is needed.

The API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (API 579) Standard is a 14-part international standard for the fitness-for-service evaluation of pressure-containing equipment subject to various in-service damage mechanisms.

The newest part, Part 15 – Piping Vibration, has been under development for over 10 years and is aimed at unifying existing approaches with systematic procedures while including guidance to ensure vibration data quality. Currently, the method is in its final draft form and will be submitted for ballot this fall. Prior versions of the draft have been reviewed by the committee, as well as outside vibration experts in the industry, and generally well-received.

How does Part 15 compare to the current Part 14? Part 14 is the general fatigue methodology and applies to thermal or mechanical fatigue assessment, typically seen in the low- to mid-cycle regime (< 107 cycles). A 1 Hz vibration for one year will accumulate 1.35 x 107 cycles, and the majority of piping vibration problems have frequencies higher than 10 Hz. To complicate this, very little experimental justification exists for any S-N fatigue model (allowable alternating stress [S] vs allowable stress cycles [N]) in the very high-cycle or giga-cycle fatigue regime (cycles > 107). The available test data has substantial statistical scatter and uncertainty, making remaining life predictions using S-N-based models difficult if not impractical without providing sufficient conservatism.

The existing welded joint fatigue curve of Part 14 and ASME B&PVC, Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 has been developed by fitting of experimental test data up to 107 cycles using a straight-line extrapolation. However, the set of data used to fit the Master S-N curve primarily consists of cases where failure was observed in less than 107 cycles. Few data points in the set have lives beyond 107 cycles, and no data points have lives beyond 108 cycles. As a result, the utilisation of the Master S-N curve for vibration assessment can lead to overly conservative risk assessments and costly mitigation measures, so much so that performing piping vibration assessments per Part 14 can often suggest failure should have already occurred. Instead of evaluating a remaining life using an S-N curve, Part 15 will provide an assessment of fatigue based on the endurance limit concept. Endurance limit concepts for welded joints have been successfully used in European codes and standards for decades, such as BS 7608 and other published literature.5, 6, 7 While published experimental justification of these limits is still lacking, the concept of an alternating stress range low enough not to propagate a crack is a well-understood concept used in elastic fracture mechanics and also an accepted principle for crack-like flaw analysis in BS 7910 and API 579 Part 9.

Similar to other API 579 parts, Part 15 provides a three-tiered system of evaluation:

The flexibility offered by these three levels can lead to more accurate and targeted evaluations, allowing for more informed decision-making.

With the publication of Part 15, consideration of vibration into a mechanical integrity programme is made more relevant. Inspection for vibration or vibration surveys of facilities can become a formalised inspection strategy using Level 1 and Level 2 approaches as needed. Part 15 is a highly anticipated improvement to our industry standards and reflects the industry's continuous commitment to innovation.

Written by Michael F.P. Bifano, Ph.D, P.E., and ISO VCAT-IV, The Equity Engineering Group Inc., (E2G).

Read the article online at: https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/special-reports/28082023/piping-vibration-the-underestimated-damage-mechanism/

Embed article link: (copy the HTML code below):

This article has been tagged under the following:

Downstream news