Combustible Dust Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify dust explosion & reactivity hazards

Flammable Gas & Vapor Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify explosion hazards for vapor and gas mixtures

Chemical Reactivity Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify reactive chemical hazards, including the possibility of material incompatibility, instability, and runaway chemical reactions

DIERS Methodology

Design emergency pressure relief systems to mitigate the consequences of unwanted chemical reactivity and account for two-phase flow using the right tools and methods

Deflagrations (Dust/Vapor/Gas)

Properly size pressure relief vents to protect your processes from dust, vapor, and gas explosions

Effluent Handling

Pressure relief sizing is just the first step and it is critical to safety handle the effluent discharge from an overpressure event

Thermal Stability

Safe storage or processing requires an understanding of the possible hazards associated with sensitivity to variations in temperature

UN-DOT

Classification of hazardous materials subject to shipping and storage regulations

Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Biological

Model transport of airborne virus aerosols to guide safe operations and ventilation upgrades

Radioactive

Model transport of contamination for source term and leak path factor analysis

Fire Analysis

Model transport of heat and smoke for fire analysis

Flammable or Toxic Gas

transport of flammable or toxic gas during a process upset

OSS consulting, adiabatic & reaction calorimetry and consulting

Onsite safety studies can help identify explosibility and chemical reaction hazards so that appropriate testing, simulations, or calculations are identified to support safe scale up

Mechanical, Piping, and Electrical

Engineering and testing to support safe plant operations and develop solutions to problems in heat transfer, fluid flow, electric power systems

Battery Safety

Testing to support safe design of batteries and electrical power backup facilities particularly to satisfy UL9540a ed.4

Hydrogen Safety

Testing and consulting on the explosion risks associated with devices and processes which use or produce hydrogen

Spent Fuel

Safety analysis for packaging, transport, and storage of spent nuclear fuel

Decommissioning, Decontamination and Remediation (DD&R)

Safety analysis to underpin decommissioning process at facilities which have produced or used radioactive nuclear materials

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Bespoke testing and modeling services to validate analysis of DD&R processes

Nuclear Overview

Our Nuclear Services Group is recognized for comprehensive evaluations to help commercial nuclear power plants operate efficiently and stay compliant.

Severe Accident Analysis and Risk Assessment

Expert analysis of possible risk and consequences from nuclear plant accidents

Thermal Hydraulics

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Environmental Qualification (EQ) and Equipment Survivability (ES)

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Testing and modeling services to support resolution of emergent safety issues at a power plant

Adiabatic safety calorimeters (ARSST and VSP2)

Low thermal inertial adiabatic calorimeters specially designed to provide directly scalable data that are critical to safe process design

Other Lab Equipment (DSC/ARC supplies, CPA, C80, Super Stirrer)

Products and equipment for the process safety or process development laboratory

FERST

Software for emergency relief system design to ensure safe processing of reactive chemicals, including consideration of two-phase flow and runaway chemical reactions

FATE

Facility modeling software mechanistically tracks transport of heat, gasses, vapors, and aerosols for safety analysis of multi-room facilities

Blog

Our highly experienced team keeps you up-to-date on the latest process safety developments.

Process Safety Newsletter

Stay informed with our quarterly Process Safety Newsletters sharing topical articles and practical advice.

Resources

With over 40 years of industry expertise, we have a wealth of process safety knowledge to share.

Recent Posts

A Rule of Thumb for Vibration (Velocity) Limits for Plant Piping Systems

Posted by The Fauske Team on 01.06.17

By: Jens Conzen, Director Plant Services, Fauske & Associates, LLC

Typical power and process plant systems will always vibrate under operation. This is due to various reasons such as turbulence, acoustics, or due to the excitation from rotating equipment, for example. Hence, it is important to monitor vibration levels to assure that the levels are not a safety concern. One major question that arises is: At what level pipe vibrations become severe and what parameter(s) should be measured?

It is the objective of this article to provide a simple rule of thumb to plant engineers, vibration engineers, and managers that are facing a vibration issue at their power or process plant. Vibration issues on piping systems can occur during commissioning of a new plant, after power uprate, or after major equipment replacement.

Vibration data is typically captured by acceleration sensors (i.e. accelerometers – Figure 1). In that case, it would be simplest to present the data in the format of acceleration versus time or acceleration versus frequency. In some cases other parameters might be more important such as clearance. For example, in rotary machinery it is not uncommon that the shaft displacement is monitored with proximity sensors near the bearing points. Displacement becomes smaller at high frequencies and acceleration becomes smaller at low frequencies. Vibration velocity is the derivate of acceleration and the integral value of displacement. Hence, it lies midway between displacement and acceleration and, thus, covers a broader central frequency range. Piping vibrations typically occur in a more central frequency range i.e. 10 to 1000 Hz, which makes vibration velocity an attractive parameter. Most importantly, it also relates to dynamic stress. For any linear structure vibrating at resonance the following correlation can be used:

Equation - Ref 1.png(Ref. 1)

The maximum dynamic stress equals to the ratio of maximum vibration velocity (Vmax) to the speed of sound in the material times the Elastic Modulus (E) times some constant (the proportionality factor). The constant is not expected to vary greatly, even over a wide range of system size, geometry, vibration mode and frequency. NUREG-1061 suggests a range of 1 to 3 for simple practical structural elements. The correlation works for any flexural vibration of beams (i.e. pipes) and plates with any practical section shapes and boundary conditions so that vibration velocity becomes an appropriate parameter to address the severity of structural vibration. What is an acceptable level? The allowable limits are somewhat dependent on system size, layout and mode of vibration. Hence, an acceptance criterion is best derived from a pipe stress report or seismic analysis. For cases where this information is not readily available, a rule of thumb would be convenient to have. The best way to develop a rule of thumb for vibration velocity as general severity criterion for pipe vibration is to correlate actual field experience data. The cases should cover a wide range of power plant and process plant piping systems.

Before we consider field experience, let’s first take a look at the governing design standard for vibration velocity limits for piping in nuclear plants i.e. ASME ANSI-OM3. This standard provides an allowable zero-to-peak velocity, which is derived from the linear stress-velocity relationship above. Engineers from EdF (Électricité de France) performed a study to verify if a general screening criterion of 12 mm/s would conservatively bound typical plant piping geometries by applying ASME ANSI-OM3 to 181 different piping setups. The setups covered most of the configurations that one would encounter inside a plant. All setups had adequate static and seismic designs that met regulatory design rules. 99.7% of the analyzed geometries displayed allowable velocities above 12 mm/s, which makes the proposed screening level appear very conservative.

On the other hand, NUREG-1061 considers field experience. It states that for typical power and process plant piping systems, including appended equipment and supports, the allowable level is approximately 40 mm/s. This is clearly a much higher allowable level than the theoretical value. One reason for the difference might be the use of linear boundary conditions in the analysis that have a tendency to cause higher stresses due to the rigidity of the model. Field experience likely provides a better value.
FAI's Nuclear Technical Bulletins - Subscribe Today

Since the age of a plant, operational wear, and general deterioration will have an effect on the fatigue strength as well, it is suggested to take that into consideration somewhat. Based on the experience at Fauske and Associates, LLC (FAI), it is recommended to use an allowable peak level of 25 mm/s for screening purposes.

Based on our field experience, vibration levels below this threshold should cause few, if any, problems. Vibration levels near this threshold are considered a rough running configuration. Small bore pipes have a tendency to undergo damage first. That is in particular true for unsupported configurations such as drains (drip legs) or sampling lines. These lines exhibit little damping and are easily excited. Tieback supports can provide quick remedy. Safety related equipment that is installed on the pipe line (e.g. automatic isolation valves) should be evaluated separately and is likely to require a lower allowable level.

IMG_4908.jpg

                                                        Figure 1 FAI Engineer Measuring Vibration Data on a Steam Valve Stem

In summary, vibration velocity is considered as an adequate general indicator of vibration severity and distress for piping systems. It can be used as acceptance criterion to assess the severity of piping vibration. The threshold at which the vibration levels are classified as unsafe must be derived from a stress analysis report. In the absence of a detailed analysis, it is recommended to use 25 mm/s peak vibration velocity as screening criterion. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to our blog.Subscribe Now

The text of this article was compiled with information and passages from the listed references.

References
1. NUREG-1061, Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – Piping Review Committee, Evaluation of Other Loads and Load Combinations,
1984 FAI.
2. Sebastien C., A 12 mm/s Screening Vibration Velocity for Pipes Using ANSI-OM3 Standard and Regulatory Design Rules, ASME Pressure Vessels and
Piping Division Conference, 2005
3. ASME ANSI-OM3, Requirements for Preoperational and initial start-up vibration testing of nuclear power plant piping systems, 1982

For more information or to discuss, contact: Jens Conzen, Director, Plant Services, Fauske & Associates, LLC, conzen@fauske.com, (630) 887-5203, www.fauske.com

 

 

 

Topics: nuclear plant, pipe vibration, plant piping

cta-bg.jpg

Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now