See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242370106

Identification and prediction of piping system noise

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · September 2005

DOI: 10.1121/1.4779151

CITATIONS READS
3 2,894

4 authors, including:

Fred Catron
Clarke Industrial Engineering
10 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Noise Generation and Propagation Effects on Piping System Components View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fred Catron on 30 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Minneapolis, Minnesota
NOISE-CON 2005
2005 October 17-19

Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise

Allen Fagerlund Denis G. Karczub Tucker Martin
Fred W. Catron SVT-Engineering Consultants Fisher Controls Int’l, LLC
Fisher Controls Int’l, LLC 433 Vincent Street West 13350 International Parkway
205 South Center Street Leederville Suite 102
Marshalltown Western Australia 6902 Jacksonville
IA 50158 Australia FL 32218
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
In a power plant environment, the piping systems form a network that extends throughout the
facility. Various components in a piping system can be major sources of in-plant and community
noise, both the pipe and the contained fluid can be propagation paths, and radiation can occur
from the external surface of the pipe. Though the basics of these phenomena are often
understood, the translation into workable predictive tools has been slow. Too often, source,
propagation, and radiation effects are treated as separate entities without allowing for the
interactions that exist. The spectral characteristics of the sources will govern the type of
response by the system. Pipe transmission loss models will change in pipe to duct transition
areas. The status of these concepts will be reviewed with a discussion of current and possible
future efforts to improve predictive tools.

1. INTRODUCTION
Whether evaluating whole piping systems, (i.e. turbine bypass, duct burner, soot blower, heater
drain, vent/flare, etc.) or individual components in a system, (i.e. pumps, compressors, valves,
tees, etc.) there are basic phenomenon which must be considered. In an ideal sense, noise
generated by any component or source will propagate in the fluid and cause the pipe wall to
vibrate, with subsequent radiation from the outer surface to an observation point. In reality there
also can be a direct structureborne path from the source to the pipe which adds to both the
vibration level and to the radiated noise. Also, noise generated in the piping and inaccuracies in
the prediction methods give rise to discrepancies between predicted and measured external noise
levels. Ultimately noise propagating in the fluid may enter other systems, manifolds, tanks, or be
vented. All of these scenarios fit into the overall heading of piping system noise through a
variety of acoustic, hydrodynamic, and structural phenomena.

2. EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

Noise prediction for piping system components used to be accomplished with graphs, tables, and
at most some algebraic equations. With the ever increasing availability of computing power the
work has gone in two directions. First the old methods were programmed, with special care
taken to develop a convenient user interface for data entry. This didn’t improve accuracy,
however, it did allow virtually anyone to make a calculation without knowing the assumptions
behind it or how to interpret the results. Secondly, highly sophisticated computational methods
were developed for research and subsequently used on very specialized applications. Along the
way there has been a steady stream of improved technology in all phases of acoustics and
Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

vibrations. The problem is that industry has a poor history of translating the improved
technology into methods that can be used on a day-to-day basis. For a variety of reasons, noise
requirements have become more difficult as service conditions become more severe, and it is
imperative that we find ways to utilize the most appropriate level of technology possible.

3. INCOMPRESSIBLE FLOW
Generally liquid noise is not a problem unless cavitation occurs somewhere in a system. Since
the noise from cavitation is an indicator of potential damage to piping and equipment, it has been
more important to develop guidelines to prevent cavitation than to develop methods to predict
the level of the noise. Prediction methods that do exist should be treated as estimates since the
true vapor condition of the fluid is rarely known for certain, which has a major effect on the
acoustic impedance. Also, the proximity of the bubble collapse zone to the inner pipe surface
will be dependent on the component and system geometries.
The remainder of this paper will concentrate on compressible flow applications.

4. COMPRESSIBLE FLOW SOURCES

Compressors, valves, orifices, area expansions, spargers, etc, are all potential sources of high
level broadband noise, as well as tones.
Usually flow generated tones only become a problem if they can couple to a supportive
resonance in the system. If low frequency pulsations are able to couple well with acoustic and/or
structural resonances, then large scale vibrations are expected, since beam modes of the piping
can be excited. Generally, structural resonances would be checked in the system design phase,
however, acoustic resonances may not be. A fix is either to eliminate or change the frequency
of the source tone or to decouple the resonance, whichever is most efficient and/or effective.
Broadband noise can also excite system resonances which makes decoupling more difficult.
Reducing the source noise levels are the main option. Predicting all potential tone problems
during either the system or component design phase is nearly impossible. Increased use of
computational methods are certainly helping and will continue to improve our understanding of
system response as shown in Eberhart et. al. [1].
A. Flow Noise - Pipe
The real concern when predicting noise levels for components in a piping system is broadband
noise. In an imaginary piping system where all the components are perfectly quiet, there would
still be a base noise level associated with fully developed turbulent flow in the pipe. All flow
disturbances, whether pipe fittings, valves, or compressors, add to the intensity of the turbulence
and therefore increase the noise levels above the base. Undisturbed pipe flow noise levels are
generated by turbulence which develops as a result of the shearing action near the wall. This
turbulence is continually decaying and reforming as the flow moves down the pipe. There are
two fluctuating pressure fields at the inner wall of the pipe. One is the fluctuating turbulent fluid
itself, and the second is the acoustic field produced by the fluid fluctuations. The turbulent field
will move downstream at the velocity of the fluid and decay as it goes, while the acoustic field
will propagate with less decay at the speed of sound. This discussion of turbulent flow applies to
a long constant area pipe. Though often discussed as a noise problem, it rarely produces
controlling noise levels as shown in Norton & Bull [2].

B. Flow Noise - Fittings

When a pipe expands to a larger size or terminates in a manifold or vessel the noise generation
may increase dramatically. Area expansion causes the exiting wall flow to accelerate rapidly,

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

creating an intense shear region in the larger area. As flow velocity increases in the smaller pipe,
the noise contribution can be significant. Even though the excess turbulence will rapidly decay,
the internal acoustic field produced will propagate down the pipe. Velocity limits for
compressible flow are often expressed in terms of Mach number. Setting the Mach number
equal to .3 is a commonly used criteria for quiet operation. However, this allows the limit to be
met with pipe velocities ranging from 100 – 225 m/s depending on the fluid. In power plants a
common fluid is high temperature steam, which will allow over twice the velocity as compared
to room temperature air at the same mach number. Reasonable external noise predictions can be
made since the internal power spectra are known from measurements, however, these methods
have not been made industry friendly. An excellent discussion and presentation of internal data
concerning noise from flow through pipe and normal fittings is found in Norton & Karczub [3]
and Norton & Bull [2]. Additional information on piping tees can be found in Karczub et. al. [4],
and Scott & Ziada [5].
C. Equipment Noise
Compressors, valves, orifices, area expansions, spargers, etc. usually control noise levels in
pipelines. Currently, valve manufacturers provide noise prediction based on experience, field or
lab testing, theoretical models, or a combination of these. There needs to be a more concerted
effort to obtain internal spectra for these sources under a variety of conditions, since this
ultimately controls the external spectra and therefore the overall levels. Other piping system
components don’t have a noise prediction method, for lack of either sufficient empirical data, or
an appropriate model to describe the noise generating process. Many of these components have
multiple sources that need to be understood before extrapolating to conditions beyond what can
be tested. As an example, a valve can have jets, interacting jets, impinging jets, jets with
crossflow, and highly turbulent flow in the outlet. They may or may not all be present at the
same time, however, the possibility needs to be understood. It is unlikely that these various
sources can be treated individually, however, an awareness that they exist should prevent overly
simplified models from being used. Au-Yang [6] gives a description of many flow-induced
vibration sources in a piping system

5. INTERNAL PROPAGATION AND COUPLING

The spectral characteristics of various sources in a pipeline are important because they dictate
how the internal noise propagates and how it couples to the pipe or other structures
There are four important frequencies that establish approximate ranges for various types of
transmission loss behavior.
1) Ring frequency - fr - the frequency at which the longitudinal wavelength is equal to the
circumference of the pipe.
2) Acoustic cut-off frequency - the lowest frequency at which transverse modes of
propagation can exist in the internal fluid.
3) Internal coincidence frequency - fo - the frequency at which the axial bending wave speed in
the pipe is equal to the axial propagation velocity in the fluid for a given circumferential mode.
4) External coincidence frequency - fg - the frequency at which the external acoustic
wave speed is equal to the velocity of a bending wave in the pipe wall.

Early work by Cremer [7] established that above the ring frequency the pipe responds as a flat
plate of the same thickness as the pipe wall, that is, the effect of curvature of the pipe wall is
negligible. The effects of stiffening cause by curvature of the pipe wall predominant below this
frequency. These results allowed later research to concentrate on effects below the ring

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

frequency. For most industrial piping, the frequencies of maximum radiation are dictated by
strong coupling between higher order internal acoustic modes and bending modes of the pipe
wall. Below the cut-off frequency sound propagates only as a plane wave moving through the
fluid, however, above this frequency sound can propagate in more complex higher order modes
which tend to travel with a spiral or helical motion. At the cut-off frequency the sound wave
spins circumferentially, and as frequency increases an axial component is added which causes
propagation through the fluid in a spiral motion. The same circumferential modes are present in
the pipe wall and also develop an axial component as frequency increases. These propagate as
helical bending waves of the pipe wall at a velocity which is frequency dependent. For each
circumferential mode order there is a frequency at which the axial bending wave speed in the
pipe is equal to the axial propagation velocity in the fluid which is called the internal coincidence
frequency. It is at these frequencies that maximum coupling occurs. The above discussion is
only for the shell modes of the pipe.

The coupling mechanism between the pipe wall and the fluid changes in the turbulent region
near the source where the fluctuating pressure field rapidly decays. There is a different
coincidence effect based on the fluid velocity instead of the axial acoustic wave speed as
described by White [8]. Further downstream the propagating acoustic field dominates. When
evaluating piping system noise, however, this is rarely taken into account, because it is time
consuming and there isn’t a standard way to approach it.

SEA has been used by Fagerlund & Chou [9] and others to calculate the pipe wall transmission
loss (TL) in the frequency range where higher modes dominate. This is effective because of the
high number of modes per frequency band which is a criteria for SEA. At lower frequencies,
and especially below the first cut-off frequency the mode count is low which makes the
extrapolation of the TL into this region inappropriate. Research continues concerning TL as
reported in Karczub [10].

Many rules of thumb have been used over the years with the usual form of (X dB) per (unit
length). ISO 15665 [11] gives a method which doesn’t take into account the internal acoustic
mode decoupling at area transitions or structural mode decoupling at flanges or other
discontinuities. In the audio frequency range the corrections are mainly useful for long welded
transmission lines, rather than plant design. The transfer of energy between the pipe and the
contained fluid at discontinuities can give misleading results.

6. EXTERNAL PIPELINE RADIATION

External shell mode radiation may be considered as a statement of the pipe surface boundary
condition, where the particle velocity of the fluid adjacent to the surface is equal to the velocity
of surface vibration. From this the acoustic pressure and subsequently the ideal radiated acoustic
power can be calculated using the acoustic impedance of the fluid. The actual acoustic power
radiated from the pipe can be calculated based on sound pressure level measurements at a point
away from the pipe surface. A radiation efficiency term can then be defined as the ratio of the
actual to the ideal acoustic power. An early study by Fahy [12] indicated that the radiation
efficiency is equal to unity above the external coincident frequency, and is directly proportional
to the frequency below coincidence. Fagerlund [13] used this to develop a method for
converting pipe wall vibrations into equivalent sound pressure levels. Though the procedure is

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

quite simple, it works well because the spectral implications of the external radiation efficiency
are addressed.

For large diameter thin wall cylinders (i.e. turbine exhaust ducts) the external coincidence
frequency can be greater than the ring frequency. Most standard and heavy wall piping will push
the external coincidence frequency below the ring frequency. These differences will change the
expected spectral shape of the TL, which in turn would change the external levels. This points
out again why the spectra associated with internal source levels and for TL need to be a part of
overall pipeline noise prediction.

Practical system noise studies on multiple valves discharging into a manifold are being carried
out as reported by Karczub et. al. [14]. This ongoing work is trying to address some of the needs
pointed out in this paper.

VDI 3733 [15] is a compendium of information on the noise generated by piping systems. The
influence of piping components as well as piping configurations are examined and presented in a
quick calculation style without having to work through a detailed explanation of the phenomenon
involved. It’s broad subject coverage makes it a unique reference.

7. ACOUSTIC FATIGUE
Acoustic fatigue refers to structural fatigue of the pipe-wall resulting from very high amplitude
vibration of the pipe-wall excited by broad-band piping system noise. Acoustic fatigue is
generally not a concern for external noise levels below 110dB for unlagged piping (acoustically
insulating the pipe to reduce noise levels below 110dB will not reduce the fatigue risk since the
pipe is still vibrating with the same amplitude). Structural failure of a pipeline due to acoustic
fatigue can occur in several hours due to the high-frequency nature of the vibration, and is
therefore a concern even if noise levels only exceed 110dB occasionally, such as during plant
startup and shutdown or pressurization operations. Acoustic fatigue predictions are based on
many of the same valve sound power and TL calculations as used for piping system noise
predictions as shown by Karczub & Fagerlund [16], and are more critically dependent on the
accuracy of these predictions due to the linear scale of vibration level and dynamic stress.
Improvements in control valve internal noise predictions and TL models are therefore of
importance to acoustic fatigue assessments, or at least an appreciation of the inherent
uncertainties.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

1. The role of velocity and mach number in predictions and as limits needs to be better defined.

2 – Internal spectra are often inferred from external measurements and approximate TL models.
Further progress on prediction methods will be difficult unless there is an increase in internal
measurements to define the spectral characteristics of many sources

3 – Currently there is little beneficial testing under realistic conditions of higher pressure and
temperature. Perhaps more cooperative work is needed.

4 – Workable methods need to show how the direct near field excitation should be taken into
account along with the propagating acoustic field.

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

5 – Structureborne noise is not a part of most prediction methods. A definition of this and an
assessment of the implications of energy sharing with the fluid needs to be developed.

6 – Industry has done a poor job of translating technical improvements into practical methods for
day-to-day use. This needs to be improved.

7 – Transmission loss models need to be used in a spectral sense without trying to reduce it to a
single number.

8 – Data based methods for predicting attenuation with distance along a pipeline need to be
documented.

9 - Work is required to confirm the appropriate dynamic stress limits based on structural fatigue
of piping materials for high-frequency random vibration

9. REFERENCES

1 – R. Eberhart, F. Catron, A. Fagerlund, D. Karczub, A. Mann, ”Piping Noise Transmission

Loss Calculations Using Finite Element Analysis”,Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, MN, October
17-19, (2005)

2 – M. Norton and M. Bull, "Mechanisms of the generation of external acoustic radiation from
pipes due to internal flow disturbances", Journal of Sound and Vibration, 94(1), pp105-146,
(1984)

3 – M. Norton and D. Karczub, Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers,
Second Edition, (Cambridge University Press. 2003)

4 – D. Karczub, F. Catron and A. Fagerlund, "The scaling of pressure fluctuations from equal-tee
piping components for in-plant noise prediction", Symposium of Flow-Induced Vibration,
ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Cleveland, OH (2003)

5 - Scott A. and Ziada S, "Flow-acoustic interations in T-junctions", ASME Fifth International

Symposium on Fluid-Structure Interactions, Aeroelasticity, Flow-Induced Vibration and Noise,
(2002)

6 – M. Au-Yang, Flow-Induced Vibration of Power and Process Plant Components, (ASME

Press, New York, 2001)

7 - L. Cremer, “Theorie der Schalldammung zylindrischer Schalen”, Acoustica, 5. S.245-256

(1955)

8 – P. White, “Transduction of Boundary-Layer Noise by a Rectangular Panel”, J. Acoust. Soc.

Am. 40, No. 6, 1354-1362, (1966)

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

 Identification and Prediction of Piping System Noise Fagerlund et. al.

9 - A. Fagerlund and D. Chou, “Sound Transmission Through a Cylindrical Pipe Wall”,

ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, 103, 335-360 (1981)

10 – D. Karczub, A. Fagerlund, F. Catron, “ Discrete Frequency Characteristics of Pipe-Wall

Transmission Loss”, Proc. Inter-Noise (2004)

11 - Acoustics — Acoustic insulation for pipes, valves and flanges, ISO 15665

12 – F. Fahy, “Response of a Cylinder to Random Sound in the Contained Fluid," Journal

Sound and Vibration, 13, 171-194 (1970)

13 – A. Fagerlund, Fisher Controls Technical Monograph 33, “Use of Pipewall Vibrations to

Measure Valve Noise”, (1974)

14 – D. Karczub, F. Catron, C. DePenning, A. Fagerlund, “Piping system noise issues – multiple

noise sources”, Proceedings of POWER 2005, April 5-7, Chicago, Illinois, (2005)

15 - Noise at Pipes, VDI 3733, 1996

16 – D. Karczub & A. Fagerlund, “Stress predictions of Acoustic-Induced Pipe Vibration

failures”, Proceedings of OMAE 2005, Halkidiki, Greece, ASME, July12-17, (2005)

Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 17-19, 2005

View publication stats