Proceedings of the ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP 2018
PIPING EVALUATION OF FLOW INDUCED VIBRATIONS USING HARMONIC LOADS
Anestis Papadopoulos MSc, PE
Engineering Group Supervisor
Power Generation Engineering
and Services Company. (PGESCo.)
New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt
Email: apapadop@PGESCo.com
ABSTRACT
When vibrations occur in an operating power plant or
petrochemical plant, the first step is to perform an inspection
of the piping system to determine the severity of vibration
and to identify the pipe segments and pipe spans with the
highest vibration level. Vibration measurements are taken at the
locations of highest vibration amplitude and an evaluation of
the measurement is made using simplified techniques such as
the ones presented in standard OM3 [1] and in the published
paper by J.C. Wachel [2].These methods provide the relationship
between vibration amplitude or velocity and stress, using simple
uniform beam configurations. These screening methods which
are based on simplified beam models, are very conservative and
lack accuracy since they do not consider the actual geometry
and frequencies of the entire piping system. For the cases where
the system vibration characteristics are complex , to ensure pipe
safety, especially when the pipe operates at high temperature
and pressure, a more rigorous dynamic analysis must be per-
formed, to determine the acceptability of the vibration levels.
Rigorous dynamic analysis and the modeling of the vibration
signal can be very complex , time consuming and in most cases
must be performed by experts and vibration specialists.
This paper presents to the practicing pipe stress engineer
an alternate, more rigorous but simple method, based on
computer dynamic analysis of the entire (or truncated) pipe
system. The proposed method uses harmonic loads to simulate
the dynamic flow induced vibrations , run the dynamic analysis
1 Copyright
July 15-20, 2018, Prague, Czech Republic
PVP2018-84028
Mohamed I. Abou El Ella MSc
Hydraulic Transient and Dynamic Group
Deputy Engineering Supervisor
Power Generation Engineering
and Services Company. (PGESCo.)
New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt
Email: miaboul@PGESCo.com
and compare the velocity response to the measured vibration
velocity of the real system. If the response velocity Vc and the
measured velocity VM do not match, a scale factor is used to
scale the amplitude of the harmonic load F = Asinωt up or
down to force the Vc and VM to match.
Once the dynamic load on the piping system is simulated
accurately, the maximum induced stress, due to the vibration
velocity, is calculated using standard stress analysis program
like CAESAR II [3] and is compared with the material endurance
limit.
INTRODUCTION
When vibrations occur in an operating power or petro-
chemical plant, the first step is to perform a walk down of
the entire piping system to determine the severity of vibration
and to identify the pipe segments and pipe spans with the
highest vibration level. Vibration measurements are taken at the
locations of highest vibration amplitude and an evaluation of the
measurement is made using simplified techniques such as the
ones presented in standard OM3 [1] and in the published paper
by J.C. Wachel [2].
The simplified techniques included in [1] and [2] are based
on determining the severity of vibrations using relationships
between piping vibrations displacement or velocity and maxi-
mum pipe stress, using straight pipe spans and simple bent pipe
c 2018 by ASME
configurations. These evaluations which are based on simple
beam analogies are known to be very conservative and in some
cases inaccurate since they do not account for the actual pipe
geometry, boundary conditions and concentrated weights of a
complex piping system. For the cases where the system vibration
characteristics are complex , to ensure pipe safety, especially
when the pipe operates at high temperature and pressure, a more
rigorous dynamic analysis must be performed, to determine the
acceptability of the vibration levels. Rigorous dynamic analysis
and the modeling of the vibration signal can be very complex ,
time consuming and in most cases must be performed by experts
and vibration specialists.
The relationship between Displacement, Velocity and Ac-
celeration is presented in the following sections, to determine
why velocity is the best indicator for pipe vibrations measure-
ments. Additionally, the relationship between displacements
and stress and velocity and stress is presented to conclude that
velocity is a better indicator in vibration screening, since it
makes the assessment relative insensitive to the piping system
layout and end conditions.
The evaluation method which is presented uses velocity as
the critical parameter in the evaluation of flow induced vibra-
tions. The dynamic analysis is performed for the entire piping
system (or a truncated model), using harmonic loads to simulate
and match the dynamic response of the real piping system. The
maximum induced stress due to the vibration, calculated by
the program CAESAR II [3], is adjusted to conform to OM3
stress criteria and checked using the material endurance stress
limit. Considerations for additional frequency peaks, different
directions and locations are discussed in detail.
The recommended method is applied in detail for a typical
example, using a piping configuration similar to problems
encountered in operating plants. The example is further in-
vestigated for a case where the vibration response stresses
exceeds the material endurance limit. The dynamic model, with
the simulated load, is used to alter the pipe frequencies and
response, by adding a new restraint to bring the pipe stresses
within the material endurance stress limit.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VELOCITY AND MAXIMUM
PIPE STRESS
The simplified techniques included in [1] and recommended
to be used for vibration screening of piping systems are based
on determining the severity of vibrations using relationships
between piping vibrations displacement or velocity and maxi-
mum pipe stress using straight pipe spans and simple bent pipe
configurations.
2 Copyright
In an ideal beam, the dynamic stress as a function of vi-
bration Deflection Amplitude and as a function of vibration
velocity amplitude are given in [2].
The dynamic bending stress Sbd due to vibration displace-
ment amplitude ∆(0 − peak) is presented in equation (1).
E pi2 D
Sbd = C2 K2 ×CED × × 2 ×∆ (1)
2 L
C2 K2 = stress index factor roughly equal to twice the stress
intensification factor in ASME B31.1,that is C2 K2 = 2i
CED = Coefficient relating to end conditions of the beam with
respect to displacement. It ranges from 0.356 for a cantilever to
2.835 for a fixed beam
L = span length,
D = pipe diameter ,
E = modulus of elasticity
The equation for Sbd is not very easy to apply due to diffi-
culties encountered in obtaining the end conditions, CED and the
span length L. In a general piping system, because the allowable
displacement is inversely proportional to the square of effective
span length, the uncertainty of selecting the correct span length
is a roadblock in applying the equation for Sbd [2].
The dynamic bending stress Sbv due to vibration velocity
V (0 − peak) is presented in equation (2).
Sbv = 1.874 ×C2 K2 ×CX ×CEV ×
p p
CW × E.ρ ×V (2)
CX = Concentrated weight factor
CEV = Coefficient relating to end conditions with respect to
velocity. The CEV value vary from 0.80 to 1.35 from simply
supported beam, cantilever, fixed beam, U-shape and Z shape)
CW = Sum of pipe weight plus content weight
The equation between bending stress and velocity Sbv is
more reliable and easier to apply since the vibration velocity
is fairly insensitive to piping geometry and end conditions
CEV factor. Therefore, the use of velocity is a better indicator
in vibration screening since it makes the assessment relative
insensitive to the piping system layout and end conditions.
c 2018 by ASME
 FIGURE 1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISPLACEMENT, VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISPLACEMENT, VELOC- by an accelerometer (portable vibrometer) and plotted as an

ITY AND ACCELERATION
For steady state harmonic vibration the peak values (0-peak)
of displacement D, velocity V and acceleration A are related by
natural frequency by the following relationships [4].
acceleration vs. frequency can be converted into a plot of
velocity vs. frequency. Similarly, a signal plotted as a velocity
vs. frequency can be converted into a plot of acceleration vs.
frequency. The relationship between Displacement, Velocity and
Acceleration is shown graphically in Figure 1 [5] .

V As can be seen in Figure 1, the displacement becomes

D= (3)
2π f smaller at high frequencies and the accelerations becomes
smaller at low frequencies. Velocity lies between displacement
and acceleration and thus covers a broader frequency range.
In a piping system appreciable displacements only occur at
V = 2π f D (4) low frequencies, therefore displacements measurements are
of limited value and can only be used in low frequency pipe
vibrations. Piping vibrations typically occur in a more central
frequency range i.e. 5 to 200 Hz which makes vibration velocity
the industry standard parameter for pipe vibrations.
A = (2π f )2 D (5)
Figure 1 indicates why velocity is used for common mea-
surements in the frequency range of 5 to 200 Hz. If a piping
Based on the above equations (3,4,5), a vibration signal captured

3 Copyright

c 2018 by ASME

FIGURE 2. VIBRATION ANALYSIS SEQUENCE
system vibrates with a velocity x mm/sec at f=100 Hz, as the
frequency increases the displacement will decrease and the
acceleration increase while the velocity will remain constant.
In the range 5-2000 Hz, Velocity amplitude is a better measure
(curve is flat) and is related more to fatigue failure. Even
at a small displacement amplitude at 200 Hz under repeated
motion can cause fatigue failure. Above the 2000 Hz the failure
normally is force related and is best represented by Acceleration
vs. frequency.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD
In the proposed method , a dynamic analysis for the entire
(or truncated) piping system is performed , using a standard
pipe stress analysis program like CAESAR II, to calculate the
vibration induced stress due to the maximum measured velocity.
4 Copyright
The significant improvement of the proposed method, compared
to the simplified methods, relies in the accuracy of the dynamic
analysis model. In the CAESAR II model the boundary condi-
tions, concentrated weights , pipe contents, pipe properties and
applied vibration load are modeled accurately and provide more
accurate results.
In the proposed method a dynamic Harmonic analysis is
performed to determine the response of the piping, under steady
state sinusoidal (harmonic) loading F = Asinωt, to simulate the
vibration of the real piping system under a given frequency. The
method uses a scale factor to scale up or down the amplitude A
of the forcing function, until the pipe response matches the mea-
sured velocity. The following steps describe the method in detail:
See Analysis Sequence of Figure 2
Step-1: Take measurements of maximum velocity.
Take measurements at at the location where high vibra-
tions is noticed in one or more directions.
The measurement, for each location and direction, must be
processed as a velocity frequency spectra similar to the one
shown in figure 5. From each spectra the maximum peak
velocity VM and corresponding frequency peak fM is selected.
In most cases a single peak can be representative of the
velocity spectrum. However, for the case where the spectrum
show more than one significant peaks, additional considerations
must be made and included in the analysis.
Step-2: Review the free modal analysis frequencies with
the spectrum peak frequencies.
Prior to the harmonic analysis, a run of free vibration modal
analysis is performed to obtain an understanding of the dynamic
characteristics of the model. A review is required to check if
the spectrum peak frequencies fM in the velocity spectrum in
the area investigated, coincide with the modal analysis main
frequencies fn .
Based on the review of the mode shapes, a location for the
harmonic force is selected, which most likely is near the velocity
measurement location.
Step-3: Apply a Force spectrum, using a unit load.
Apply a Force spectrum to simulate the measured vibra-
tion in the real piping system. The dynamic force is applied,
in the same direction as the measured velocity VM , using the
spectrum of Dynamic Load Factor versus frequency. The DLF
c 2018 by ASME
is calculated in the following equation as in [4].
Γ = Mass participation factor for mode n (Based on F= 1000 N)
un = Mass normalized mode shape displacement
v
1 + (2ζ ωωMn )2
u
Step-4: Compare the unit Force spectrum analysis results
u
DLF = t (6)
(1 − ωωMn )2 + (2ζ ωωMn )2 with the response of the real system

If the response velocity Vc and the measured velocity VM

ωn = Main system frequency in the critical mode of vibration do not match, the applied load F is scaled up or down, with a
scale factor SF, to force the Vc and VM to match.

ωn = 2π fn (7)
SF = Scaling f actor = VM /Vc (11)

ωM = Forcing frequency of measured vibration

The adjusted Force amplitude is:

ωM = 2π fM (8)
Fad j = (SF)F (12)

ζ = ratio of system damping to critical damping

Step-5: Repeat the analysis using the adjusted Force amplitude
The initial analysis is performed using a unit load Fad j .
(i.e. F = 1000 N) and the calculated DLF applied as
a spectrum, in the frequency range of fM − 0.1 Hz and Run the dynamic spectrum analysis using the adjusted force
fM + 0.1 Hz , see Figure 7. amplitude and DLF calculated in step 3. From the results of the
analysis, the response velocity Vad j is calculated and compared
This method of application of DLF Force versus frequency is to VM
equivalent to applying a Harmonic load (F = A sinωM t) with
amplitude A = 1000 N and frequency ωM equal to the forcing
frequency of measured vibration.
Vad j = Dad j ωn = 2π fn Dad j (13)
The unit load 1000 N is selected as a trial in the first run
and is adjusted in the next steps to match the system response
and measured velocity. Vad j = Velocity based adjusted load Fad j
Dad j = Displacement based adjusted load Fad j
Using the results of Unit Force Spectrum analysis , calcu-
late the response Velocity Vc using the equations:

Dad j = Γun (14)

Vc = Dc ωn = 2π fn Dc (9)

Γ = Mass participation factor for mode n (Based on Fad j = 1000

Vc = Velocity based on unit load F = 1000 N
N)
Dc = Displacement based on unit load F = 1000 N
un = Mass normalized mode shape displacement

Step-6: Evaluation of vibration induced stresses and compare

to endurance limit
Dc = Γun (10)

5 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
In most standard programs like Caesar II [3], the pipe bending
stresses are calculated according to ASME B31.1 [6] at each
data point. The following adjustment is required to calculate the
alternating stress Salt according to OM-3 standard [1].

ASME OM-3 provides the following equation for calculat-

ing alternating stress Salt

C2 K2 M Sel
Salt = < = 7690 psi (46815 K pa) (15)
Z a

ASME B31.1 provides the following equation for occasional FIGURE 3. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ALTERNATING
loads (with pressure taken as zero) STRESS S AND NUMBER OF CYCLES (FROM FIG 1.9.1 OF BVP
CODE SEC.III)

0.75iM
SB31.1 = < 1.2 Sh (16)
Z peaks can be easily combined by SRSS and the resulting stress
from all peaks compared with the endurance limit.

For cases where measurements in different directions are

The index factors C2 K2 = 2i, therefore, the stress output
from Caesar II analysis must be adjusted to the following
equation in order to conform to OM3
SOM−3 = 2 (SB31.1)/0.75 = 2.67 (SB31.1) < 46815 K pa
(17)
C2 and K2 are stress index factors defined in BPV code
section III
M = 0 to peak moment from vibration only
Z= pipe section modulus
Sel= 0.8 SA where SA is alternating stress at 106 cycles from
Fig 1.9.1 of BVP code sec. III Figure 3
a= Allowable stress reduction factor equal 1.3 for material
covered in Fig. 1.9.1.
For CS pipe Sel/a = 0.8(12500)/1.3 = 7692psi(46815K pa)
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL FREQUENCY
PEAKS
In the case where the velocity spectrum shows more than a
single peak , the steps 3 through 5 must be performed for each
additional peak frequency by applying harmonic loads at the
peak frequency considered. The stresses due to each peak is
compared to the endurance limit to check if the peak is important
relative to the induced stress. The stresses from all important
considered (for the same location n), the steps 3 and 4 must
be performed for each direction independently. The evaluation
of vibration induced stresses can be performed applying both
harmonic forcing functions simultaneously in both directions at
location n.
In the case where there is a second vibration measurement
VM−k ,for different pipe location k, the steps 3 and 4 must be per-
formed same as for location n. A forcing function Fk = Asinωk t
is applied and VC−k , and Aad j−k are calculated according to
same procedure. The evaluation of vibration induced stresses
can be performed applying both harmonic forcing functions
simultaneously at location k and n.
EXAMPLE-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed method is applied to a typical piping con-
figuration in thermal power plants. Figure 4 shows a 12inch
extraction steam piping from steam turbine connection to Heater
No 6. The piping is designed with rigid restraints and guides at
data points 60 (X and Y), 100 (Y), 120 (X) and 146 (Y and Z).
The piping was observed to vibrate excessively during nor-
mal operation with significant oscillations near the elbow at data
point (130).
In order to resolve the vibration problem, the following
steps as described in the flowchart of figure 2:

6 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
 FIGURE 4. TYPICAL PIPING MODEL

FIGURE 5. VELOCITY SPECTRUM (VELOCITY VERSUS FRE-

QUENCY)

FIGURE 6. TRANSMISSIBILITY FACTOR Sn

Step-1: Take measurements VM and fM

Based on visual inspection and measurements with a portable

accelerometer, the highest vibration was found to occurs at the
bend data point 130 in the Z direction. The measured peak
vibration velocity in Z direction at DP 130, from Figure 5, is:
VM = 120 mm/sec (0 − peak) at fM = 2.2 HZ (18)
Step-2: Review the free modal analysis.
A review of the free modal analysis of the piping system
mode shapes and frequencies is performed and compared with
the spectrum peak frequency. The first piping frequency fn =
2.16 Hz is in Z direction at the bend data point 130 and is very

7 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
close to the measured frequency fM =2.2 Hz.

Step-3: Apply force spectrum using unit load of 1000 N

to calculate VC
Dc = Γun = (2.82)(0.1955) inch = 0.55 inch = 13.98 mm (24)
The dynamic force spectrum is applied in the Z direction
at data point 130. The inial spectrum analysis is performed
using a unit load (i.e. F = 1000 N) and a Dynamic Load Factor
DLF calculated using Equation 7. The spectrum is applied in Step-4: Compare the unit Force spectrum analysis results
the frequency range of fM − 0.1 Hz and fM + 0.1 which is equal with the response of the real system
to (2.1 to 2.3 HZ), see Figure 6
The calculated velocity Vc = 195 mm/s is higher than the
The DLF is calculated using equation 6 measured velocity VM = 120 mm/s, since Vc and VM do not
match, the applied load F is scaled down, with a scale factor SF.

ωM = 2π fM = 6.28(2.2) = 13.8 rad/sec (19)

SF = Scaling f actor = VM /Vc = 120/195 = 0.615 (25)

ωn = 2π fn = 6.28(2.16) = 13.56 rad/sec (20) The adjusted Force amplitude is:

Fad j = (SF)F = (0.615)(1000) = 615 N (26)

ζ = 0.04 (21)

Step-5: Repeat the analysis using the adjusted Force amplitude

The calculated DLF = 12.428
A dynamic analysis was performed for the piping using a
harmonic forcing functions, applied near the bend 130, in Z
direction, to simulate the vibration level of the real piping
system.
Fad j .
Run the dynamic spectrum analysis using the adjusted force
amplitude Fad j and same DLF calculated in step 3. From the
results of the analysis, the response velocity Vad j is calculated
and compared to VM
For the first frequency fn = 2.16 HZ, the following data is
extracted from the mode shapes results:

F = Asinωt (22) Mass participation factor Γ = 1.742 (Based on Fad j )

Mass Normalized Mode Shape Displacement at DP 130 un =
0.1955 inch
For the first frequency fn = 2.16 HZ, the following data is
extracted from the mode shapes results:

Mass participation factor Γ = 2.82

Mass Normalized Mode Shape Displacement at DP 130 un = Vad j = Dad j ωn = (8.65)(13.56) = 120 mm/s (27)
0.1955 inch

Using the results of Unit Force Spectrum analysis , calcu-

late the response Velocity Vc using the equations:

Dad j = Γun = (1.74)(0.1955) inch = 0.34 inch = 8.65 mm

Vc = Dc ωn = (13.98)(13.56) = 195 mm/sec (23) (28)

8 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
 Step-1 Step-3 Step-4 and 5
D.P VIBRATION SPECTRUM ANALYSIS BASED SPECTRUM ANALYSIS BASED
MEASUREMENTS ON AMPLITUDE 1000N ON SCALED AMPLITUDE 615N
Measured Measured Applied force Velocity
SF = Aad j = SF(A) Vad j
Velocity VM Frequency fM Amplitude A Response VC
VM /VC (N) (mm/s)
(mm/s) (0-peak) (Hz) (N) (mm/s)
130 120 2.2 1000 195 0.615 615 120
TABLE 1. CALCULATION OF SCALE FACTOR SF AND ADJUSTED VELOCITY VC

Step-6
D.P
Calculated stress per ASME B31.1 Calculated stress per OM-3 Endurance Limit
SB31.1 = 0.75iM/Z (Kpa) SOM−3 = 2.67(SB31.1 ) (Kpa) Sel /a = 0.8(SA)/1.3 = 46815 Kpa
39 18788 50137 46815
TABLE 2. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM STRESS VS ENDURANCE LIMIT

Case 3: Analysis with restraint at DP 140 with K = 10000 N/cm

Step-6: Evaluation of vibration induced stresses and compare
to endurance limit
The B31.1 stress analysis results from Caesar II analysis
must be adjusted to the following equation in order to conform
to OM3
SOM−3 = 2.67(SB31.1 ) = 2.67(18788) = 50137 > Sel = 46815 K pa
(29)
(SB31.1 ) = 18788 Kpa is taken from CAESAR II stress
analysis output
Table 1 and 2 present a summary of steps 1 through 6 in
tabular form.
The stress analysis results, presented in Table 2, shows
that the maximum stress exceeds the endurance limit. In order
to reduce the pipe response at DP 130, a rigid restraint is added
at data point 140, in Z direction (see Figure 7). The following
two cases were investigated: First a restraint with stiffness
K = 1500 N/cm and a second case using a higher stiffness
K = 10000 N/cm. Table 3 summarizes the results for 3 cases:
Case 1: Analysis without the restraint at DP 140
Case 2: Analysis with restraint at DP 140 with K = 1500 N/cm
Based on the results of Table 3, it can be seen how the
added restraint affected the system response and reduce the
maximum stresses
a) The added restraint, increased the system frequency
from fn = 2.2 Hz to fn = 2.3 Hz (case K = 1500 N/cm)and
fn = 2.5 Hz (case K= 10000 N/cm). The effect of changing
the system frequency was to decouple the system from the
applied load frequency of fM = 2.2 Hz
b) shifting and decoupling of the system frequency from
the applied frequency reduced the participation factor Γ from
1.742 to 0.897 (K= 1500 N/cm) and 0.0 for case K = 10,000
N/cm. This effectively reduced the system response velocity
from 120 mm/s (case 1), to 45 mm/s (case 2) and 0 mm/s for
case 3. See Figure 8.
As a result the maximum stresses were also reduced from
50137 Kpa (case 1), to 18233 Kpa (case 2) and 0 Kpa for case
3. Therefore, the added rigid restrain was very effective to alter
the response of the piping system and reduce the velocity and
the stress levels to acceptable levels.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A method was presented to allow the practicing stress
engineer to simulate the vibration load using the standard pipe
stress analysis program like CAESAR II. The advantage of the
proposed method is that it provides the stress analyst with a

9 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
 FIGURE 7. TYPICAL PIPING MODEL WITH ADDITIONAL RESTRAINT AT DP 133

Restraint Applied Calculated

Added Piping Force Calculated
stiffness Participation force Stress Endurance
Restraint frequency Amplitude DLF Velocity Vc
K factor Γ Frequency SOM3 limit (Kpa)
DP (140) fn (Hz) A (N) (mm/s)
(N/cm) fM (Kpa)
No N/A 2.2 1.742 615 2.1-2.3 12.42 120 50137 46815
Yes 1500 2.3 0.897 615 2.1-2.3 8.76 45 18233 46815
Yes 10000 2.5 0 615 2.1-2.3 4.24 0 0 46815
TABLE 3. THE EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL RESTRAINT AT DP 140 IN REDUCING PIPING RESPONSE AND PIPE STRESS

rigorous method which he can use to:

a) Perform a dynamic spectrum analysis to screen and identify if
vibration stresses exceed the allowable and
b) find solutions when the vibration exceeds the endurance limits.

When the vibration stresses exceed the material endurance

limit, the proposed method can be used to lower the pipe
response, by relocating or adding restraints. Pipe restraints can
be added or relocated to alter the frequency of piping to lower
the vibration response velocity and bring it within the allowable
stress limits.

FIGURE 8. CHANGE IN VELOCITY RESPONSE WITH ADDED

RESTRAINT

10 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] OM3, A., 2010. “Operation and maintenance of nuclear
power plants”. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
[2] Wachel, J., Morton, S. J., Atkins, K. E., et al., 1990. “Piping
vibration analysis.”. In Proceedings of the 19th turboma-
chinery symposium, Texas A&M University. Turbomachin-
ery Laboratories.
[3] CAESARII, 2017. User GUIDE. COADE Engineering Soft-
ware Inc.
[4] Chopra, A. K., et al., 1995. Dynamics of structures, Vol. 3.
Prentice hall New Jersey.
[5] Aleva Bilosova, J. B., 2012. Vibration Diagnostics. esf,
eouropean scocial fund.
[6] B31, A., 2014. Power Piping: ASME Code for Pressure
Piping, B31. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

11 Copyright
c 2018 by ASME