PSI - Issue 45

Aditya Khanna et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 45 (2023) 12–19 Khanna and Young / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

19

8

Fig. 7. Allowable displacement limit for pressure vessel nozzles obtained in the present parametric study.

It is worth highlighting that the present parametric study utilises realistic values and combinations of nozzle geometry parameters commonly seen in the field, as per Table 3. Hence, the scatter in the allowable vibration amplitudes calculated for the various nozzle geometries in Fig. 7 is much smaller than the scatter in the results of other FE-based parametric studies on mainline piping (Bifano et al., 2018) and smallbore connections (Harper, 2014). The latter studies perform Monte-Carlo simulations and do not observe a clear relationship between the allowable vibration on excitation (resonant) frequency, compelling the authors to develop screening criteria based on the “lower bound” of the results rather than the entire randomly generated dataset. By contrast, the entire dataset of simulated results in the present study follows the EI and SWRI curves. Future work in this direction should investigate additional geometric features (reinforcing pads and gussets) and multi-tonal vibration, which is commonly seen in reciprocating compressor applications. References Bifano, M.F.P., Breaux, L., Feller, A.J., Brodzinski, R., 2018. New fatigue screening criteria for the fitness-for-service assessment of in-service process piping vibrations, Proceedings of the ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Prague, Czech Republic, paper PVP2018-84847. BS 7608:2014, 2nd Edition: Guide to fatigue design and assessment of steel products, British Standards Institution, 2014. Doerk, O., Fricke, W., Weissenborn, C., 2003. Comparison of different calculation methods for structural stresses at welded joints. International Journal of Fatigue 25(5), 359-369. EI Guidelines, 2nd Edition: Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure in Process Pipework, Energy Institute, 2008. EN 13445-3:2021: Unfired pressure vessels - Part 3: Design, European Committee for Standardization, 2021. EFRC Guidelines, 3rd Edition: Guidelines for Vibrations in Reciprocating Compressor Systems, European Forum for Reciprocating Compressors, 2012. Hamblin, M., 2003. Fatigue of Cantilevered Pipe Fittings Subjected to Vibration. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 26(8), 695-707. Harper, C.B., 2014. Integrity Evaluation of Small Bore Connections (Branch Connections), 9th Conference of the EFRC. Vienna, Austria. ISO 20816-8: Mechanical Vibration – Measurement and Evaluation of Machine Vibration – Part 8: Reciprocating Compressor Systems, International Organization for Standardization (2018). Jacimovic, N., D'Agaro, F., 2020. On Piping Vibration Screening Criteria. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 142(1), paper PVT-19-1089. Matta, L.M., Szasz, G., 2018. Vibration and Fatigue Failures at Pipeline Facilities. Proceedings of the 2018 12th International Pipeline Conference. Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, paper V001T03A036. Niemi, E., Fricke, W., and Maddox, S.J., 2018. Structural Hot-Spot Stress Approach to Fatigue Analysis of Welded Components – Designer’s Guide: International Institute of Welding Collection, Springer Nature, 2nd Edition. Norton, M.P., and Karczub, D.G., 2003. Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers, Cambridge University Press. Wachel, J.C., 1995. Displacement Method for Determining Acceptable Piping Vibration Amplitudes. ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, PVP-Vol 313-2, 197-208. Wachel, J.C., Morton, S.J., Atkins, K.E., 1990. Piping Vibration Analysis. Proceedings of the 19th Turbomachinery Symposium, 119-134. API Standard 618, 5th Edition: Reciprocating Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical, and Gas Industry Services, American Petroleum Institute, 2007.