Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA

PVP2014-28260
STRAIN BASED AIV EVALUATION
J. Adin Mann III
Emerson Process Management
Marshalltown, Iowa, USA

Allen C. Fagerlund
Emerson Process Management
Marshalltown, Iowa, USA

ABSTRACT
A framework for Acoustic Induced Vibration (AIV)
evaluation is outlined which is based on estimating the pipe
surface strain for an evaluation framework of structural fatigue.
Critical to this approach is that the assessment is implemented
with frequency based formulations. The frequency based
formulation allows for more accurate determination of the
pipes structure response and combining different sources, such
as the valve and piping elements. The approach relies on
internationally recognized standards as the core technology, in
particular the IEC 60534-8-3 control valve aerodynamic noise
prediction standard and the fatigue assessment in design codes,
such as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code. These are
augmented with system noise predictions using a nondimensional testing based model for piping component noise
predictions. Components of this approach have been described
in previous papers and are presented here in a more complete
form.

INTRODUCTION
Acoustic Induced Vibration (AIV) can cause catastrophic
failures in piping systems downstream of noise generating
segments of the piping.1,2 Noise generating segments include
valves, expansions, elbows, and tees. Any assessment scheme
needs to (a) predict the noise internal to the pipe, (b) predict the
impact of the noise on the pipe wall, and (c) compensate for
fabrication and reinforcement methods.
A criteria based on a maximum sound level has been used3.
One of the most widely used approaches to assessing the
potential impact of AIV has been to use a set of criteria curves
based on an approximate noise prediction equation, commonly
called the Carucci-Mueller method.1,4,5,6 In this approach, the
impact of the noise on the pipe wall is estimated by a single
curve which has been developed from evidence of failures in
field data. This method has been considered sufficiently
conservative for many applications, but concerns have been
raised about the extension of the method to pipe sizes for which
failure data is not available. The design curve for pipe sizes
that are outside of the available data have been addressed by
several people with their rational for how the failure curve

Daniel Eilers
Emerson Process Management
Marshalltown, Iowa, USA

should be extended.7-10 However, this approach is reliant on an

approximate noise prediction curve and incomplete knowledge
of the conditions for each of the published failures.
AIV assessment can be improved if it were to include (1)
more accurate noise predictions, (2) noise predictions from a
variety of piping elements, (3) accurate prediction of the pipe
wall vibration from the internal noise, (4) means to compensate
for construction geometry and quality, and (5) a fatigue based
criteria which would allow for a fatigue life assessment.
This paper proposes a framework for AIV assessment
which contains all the elements mentioned above. Many
elements of the framework have been presented previously and
are compiled here. Additional work is needed to further
develop several of the elements of this approach and then
evaluate the instances where this approach provides
advantages.

NOMENCLATURE
a
Pipe internal radius
Internal pipe diameter
Di
Center frequency of frequency band i
fi
FSRF Fatigue Strength Reduction Factor
Sound level decay for source n
LDrn
Lpe,1m IEC external sound pressure 1m from pipe surface
External sound pressure on the pipe wall surface
Lpe,S
Total external sound level with all sources and decay
LpeT
LpeT_REV Total external sound level revised for fatigue
strength reduction and stress concentrations factors
Internal sound pressure generated by valve trim
Lpi
Internal sound pressure generated valve outlet
LpiR
expansion
Valve noise inside the pipe
LpiS
Molecular weight
MW
P
Pressure drop across valve
Valve inlet pressure
P1
Reference sound pressure (20x10-6 Pa)
pref
External sound pressure on the pipe wall surface
psurf
PWL Carucci-Mueller Internal Sound Power Level
r
Distance downstream of the noise source
SCF
Stress concentration factor

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME

Sp
Spectral density from a piping element
SPLREV Sound level revised to include fatigue strength
reduction and stress concentration factors
T
Temperature
TL
Transmission Loss
Pipe wall thickness
ts
U
Average velocity
W
Mass flow rate
f
Frequency band range

Density of gas in pipe

Non-dimensional noise spectrum of a piping

element

Non-dimensional frequency

CURRENT AIV NOISE PREDICTION

The equation used in the current AIV assessment approach
is the acoustic power definition which is associated with the
Carucci-Mueller data5,

P 3.6 T
W 2
PWL = 10 log10
P1
MW

1.2

+ 126.1 (1)

Eq. (1) is commonly applied to valves. However, consider

the example of two valves with the same flow conditions. One
is a 4 inch (line size) valve with a 2 inch drilled-hole trim and
the other was a 2 inch (reduced bore) valve with the same trim.
Under the same flow conditions (P, P1, W) Eq (1) would
predict the two valves generate the same noise level. With
identical trim the valves are expected to generate the same trim
noise, however as testing shows, the outlet noise needs to be
considered.
Tests were performed with the two valves placed in a 4
inch schedule 40 pipe, with the only difference being a 1:2
reducer immediately upstream and downstream of the 2 inch
valve. Both valves were operating at 100% travel. The inlet
pressure was 250 psi, the outlet pressure was 12 psi, and the
mass flow rate of air was 1.7x105 scfh. The external sound
measurements down stream of each valve (on the 4 inch pipe)
showed that the line size valve had an A-weighted sound level
that was 8dBA lower than the reduced bore valve. (NOTE: The
IEC sound prediction method to be discussed later predicted an
8 dBA difference.) The additional noise in the case of the
reduced bore valve is generated at the valve outlet by the
turbulent flow in the expansion from the reduced bore diameter
to the line diameter. These effects can be exacerbated by
downstream piping elements that are too near the valve outlet.
Thus, Eq. (1) can under-predict the noise by significant
amounts and in the example just discussed, will not distinguish
between the two valves despite the measured 8 dBA difference.
The potential impact is that the results from Eq (1) can lead to
the conclusion that a line size valve and a reduced bore valve
both have low AIV risk, but in reality the reduced bore valve

could produce a noise level that exceeds the AIV design

criteria.
IEC SOUND PRESSURE MODEL
The current IEC Control Valve Aerodynamic noise
standard11 has improved the accuracy of the noise prediction.
In verifying the current standard, the IEC-WG9 compiled
predictions from the revised and previous IEC standard
compared to test data from over 1700 valves from different
vendors.12 The percentages of predictions which are within
5dB of the measured values have increased by over 40% and
the predictions are less often conservative. The technology
improvements from the time when the Carucci-Mueller
equation (Eq (1)) was developed includes improved means to
measure the internal sound pressure as well as advances in the
prediction of the transmission of that sound to the external
sound radiation.
The IEC method is focused on external noise level
predictions,

D + 2t s + 2
(2)
L pe,1m ( f i ) = L piS ( f i ) + TL( f i ) 10 log10 i
Di + 2t s
but has separated the formulation into three components:

L piS ( f i ) sound pressure inside the pipe generated by

TL( f i )

the valve
transmission of the internal sound pressure to
the sound pressure on the outside surface of
the pipe

D + 2t s + 2
radiation from the outside pipe
10 log i
Di + 2t s
surface to 1m from the pipe wall
Thus, the formulation allows one to use the components as
needed. For the application of AIV, only the first two terms
will be used to predict the sound pressure on the surface of the
pipe outside wall:
(3)
L pe ,s ( f i ) = L piS ( f i ) + TL( f i )
The formulation also breaks the internal sound level from
the valve into two components:

L piS ( f i ) = 10 log10 10

L pi / 10

+ 10

L piR / 10

(4)

where

L pi ( f i ) sound pressure inside the pipe generated by

the valve trim noise

L piR ( f i ) sound level inside the pipe generated by the

valve outlet or expander (if present)
Thus the IEC formulation includes the outlet noise so that it can
be accounted for, but also so that the impact of the outlet noise
on the AIV assessment can be evaluated. This allows one to

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME

TRANSMISSION LOSS
One of the central points of the investigations to extend the
Carucci-Mueller approach to new facility designs has been
extending the design curve to larger and thinner pipes as well as
smaller pipes. The key issue has been determining the
dependence of the pipe wall vibration on the ratio of the
diameter and wall thickness. Various theories have been applied
to the criteria, resulting in different criteria curves. The IEC
prediction methodology, however, presents an opportunity to
use the transmission loss theory that takes into account the
frequency based behavior of how the internal sound couples to
the vibration in the pipe wall. In different frequency ranges, the
transmission loss has a different dependence on the diameter
and wall thickness. Thus, the appropriate model depends on the
dominant frequency range of the noise generated within the
pipe. This depends on the pipe dimensions, but also the
characteristics of the pipe. Thus by using the IEC transmission
loss model the appropriate dependence on diameter and wall
thickness is automatically included, and the impact on pipe wall
vibration depends on the frequency characteristics of the
internal noise.
The data13 in Figure 1 were taken at the Fisher and Gulde
laboratories as well as from the literature14 on a variety of pipes
near the first internal coincidence frequency. This is only for
air as the internal and external fluid under static flow
conditions, however, it indicates the concept that there are
ranges where (t/D) and (t/D)2 are appropriate scaling
parameters. The approximate dividing point is at (t/D)=.03 for
an air-steel-air system. All of the pipes in the Carucci&Muller
study are below this point and track with (t/d), while the pipes
in the Chiyoda study8 are above this and (t/d)2 is preferred.

The transmission loss equation needs to be further

evaluated for its appropriateness to the largest pipe sizes in
many AIV applications.
SOUND GENERATED BY OTHER PIPING ELEMENTS
Other piping elements can include expansions (not part of
the valve), elbows, and tees. Each one of these can generate
noise because of the turbulence (shear flow) generated by each.
TL ~ (t/D)2

TL ~ (t/D)
75

70

65
Transmission Loss

make design and cost tradeoffs between valves with low outlet
noise compared to fabrication of the downstream piping.
A significant improvement with the current IEC noise
prediction is gained because the formulation is frequency
based. Each term is predicted in frequency bands and then the
results added to obtain the overall sound level. This allows one
to choose the frequency weighting, as will be discussed later.
The application to AIV can be seen when considering two
valves that generate the same internal sound level inside a pipe,
but the first valve produces its highest noise levels at
frequencies where the transmission loss is lowest. Then the
first valve will produce higher pipe wall vibration levels and
subsequently have a higher AIV risk.
The current IEC standard has a default spectrum for the
internal noise. The accuracy of the default spectrum for
pressure relief valves needs to be evaluated through testing.
However, the IEC standard does allow for measured spectra to
be used. And thus, if the internal noise spectrum from a
pressure relief valve is not adequately represented by the
default spectrum, then the more accurate measured spectrum
can be used so that the other advantages of the IEC standard
can be used.

60

55

50

Data

45

TL Model

40

0.01

0.1

Thickness/Diameter

Figure 1: Transmission Loss data and model.

Norton15 provides a means to determine these internal sound
levels as a function of frequency,

2U 3 apf

Sp( f ) =

()

(5)

This formulation uses a non-dimensional representation of the

frequency, ,

2fa
U

(6)

Figure 216 shows curves generated from test data and from
Norton15 for various piping elements. The noise generated by a
piping element can be calculated using Eqs. 5 and 6

S ( f )
L pi ( f i ) = 10 * log10 p 2 i
p

ref

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

(7)

Copyright 2014 by ASME

Figure 3 shows an example of measured and predicted noise

levels for a 2:1 expansion. The expansion was from a 6 inch to
12 inch schedule 60 pipe. In the throat of the expander the flow
was Mach 0.45. The sound pressure was measured 1 m downstream of the expander and 1 m away from the 12 inch pipe.
The measurements and predictions are the external noise level,
and thus use the internal noise prediction of Eq. (7) and the IEC
transmission loss model. The frequency spectra track well and
the overall sound levels are within 1 dB.

N (L L )/10
L peT ( f i ) = 10 log10 10 pin Drn + TL( f i )
n=1

(9)

The spectral data can then be weighted and summed over

frequency to calculate a weighted overall sound level. A
frequency weighting specific for AIV could be developed and
should be investigated.

Figure 2: Non-dimensional sound prediction curves for

various piping elements.

TOTAL SURFACE EXTERNAL SOUND GENERATED

Since all the potential noise generating elements are
different distances from the AIV assessment site, the sound
decay is also represented. Currently, the typical models do not
represent the decay as a function of frequency. One such model
for the sound decay is5

LDr = 0.06

r
Di

(8)

where D is the pipe inner diameter and r is the distance from

the sound source to the point of AIV evaluation.
The total sound pressure on the external pipe surface at the
point of AIV assessment due to N noise generating elements is
therefore,

Figure 3: Measured sound external to a 1:2 expansion and

the prediction using the non-dimensional models.
As a first attempt, the A-weighted, C-weighted, or unweighted total sound levels were calculated.
While Aweighting was developed for predicting human hearing loss at
low sound levels and C-Weighting for high sound levels, they
are commonly available on commercial sound measuring
equipment, and therefore were investigated here.
The weighting has the effect of including data from
different frequency ranges. In the case of A-weighting, the
levels below 1000 Hz are attenuated the most heavily and C-

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME

weighting attenuates the very low frequencies. AIV is typically

considered an event caused by vibration above 1000Hz and
Flow Induced Vibration (FIV) considered an event caused by
vibration below 1000 Hz. Therefore it is hypothesized that Aweighting may be considered as an indicator of AIV and Cweighted17 may be considered as an indicator of AIV and FIV.
This assumption will need to be confirmed through tests.
SURFACE SOUND PRESSURE AND PIPE STRAIN
With the dynamic sound pressure at the external pipe wall
surface obtained by Eq. (9), the result can be related to the
dynamic pipe wall strain as it is pipe wall strain that is typically
directly related to fatigue life.
Unger18 shows that dynamic strain of a vibrating structure
is proportional to the surface sound pressure. This relationship
applies as a function of frequency, and can therefore be used for
narrow band or overall sound levels. Karczub and Fagerlund19
have shown how to directly calculate the surface strain from the
surface sound pressure and the advantages of a strain based
analysis.
While one could convert the sound pressure level to a
strain value, because of the typical uncertainty in the sound
level estimations, it is recommended that the evaluation
continue with sound pressure level, so that the known
variability in dB is consistently considered.
By using strain, the evaluation can then be performed
based on fatigue life predictions. Additional work is needed to
show that the approach to convert fatigue life data from stress
as a function of cycles to surface sound pressure as a function
of cycles is valid.
ACCOUNTING FOR STRESS CONCENTRATIONS AND
FABRICATION QUALITY
Various design and post construction codes are available
for correlating the predicted strain to the expected life of a
structure. Since the surface sound pressure is proportional to
strain, then these fatigue life prediction methods can be utilized
in the AIV assessment. Two aspects of performing life
predictions are to predict the effect of fabrication and geometry.
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code20 provides
guidance in terms of the (1) fatigue strength reduction factor
and (2) stress concentration factor.
Fatigue strength reduction factors (FSRF) are used to
account for fabrication quality, in particular welds, by adjusting
smooth bar fatigue data to the expected fatigue life of the actual
fabrication. The stress concentration factor (SCF) is used to
predict the peak stress level caused by a geometry discontinuity
using stress estimates that do not include the discontinuity.
Both are applied by multiplying the calculated stress by the
FSRF value and SCF value:

(FSRF SCF p )
(p )

SPLREV = 10 log10

surf

ref

(10)

(p )
(p )

L peT = 10 log10

surf

(11)

ref

then Eq. (10) can be rewritten as

L peT _ REV = L peT + 20 log10 (FSRF ) + 20 log10 (SCF ) (12)

Thus the FSRF and SCF can be viewed as sound penalties for
AIV assessments. The penalty can be applied in each
frequency band or to the overall level.
Table 5.11 in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code17
provides FSRF values for a range of weld types and qualities.
Table 1 contains these values converted to a sound penalty,
20log10(FSRF). The appropriate value would then be added to
the predicted external surface sound pressure level. These
values range from 0 dB to 12 dB and could provide guidance to
choose the appropriate weld quality for a given application.
Table 1:

Fatigue Strength Reduction factors expressed as a

sound pressure level penalty.

The SCF values would be applied similarly. The SCF

factor can be determined by detailed Finite Element Analysis,
test data, or published values. It is recommended, that
fabrication choices, such as the Tee geometry or using a full or
partial reinforcement wrap, be included in the SCF. This may
require testing to determine the SCF values for specific AIV
applications.

where the pipe wall surface pressure, psurf, comes from

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME

EXAMPLE DATA
The primary data set available to evaluate an AIV
assessment approach is the Carucci-Mueller data1. However,
because the paper provides insufficient details regarding the
valves, piping geometry, and piping fabrication standards,
assumptions need to be made to use the data set. It was
assumed that each case had a line size standard globe valve and
the piping geometry at the AIV assessment point and the
fabrication quality was not considered. The results will be
different if the valves were of different design and not line size
valves.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the calculated A-weighted, Cweighted, and un-weighted overall sound pressure values
calculated at the pipe wall surface. The figures have cases
which had known failures as red circles and cases which had
not yet failed as black circles. The figures also have a red
shaded band between 125 and 130 dB, which is proposed as a
design limit. This band is set in the region of transition
between the failures and non-failure points. The band is used
rather than a sharp line, because the uncertainty in the sound
calculations is 5dB. Thus the red zone is used to indicate the
band where failure is likely and that other information, such as
past experience can be used to estimate the susceptibility of the
design to AIV failure. More work will be needed to define the
center value and range of the red band.
The difference between the A-weighted and C-weighted
values are particularly noticeable at one failure point, while
there is little difference between the C-weighted and unweighted values. The one failure point around 600 mm pipe
diameter, is below the criteria in the A-weighted plot (Fig. 4)
and in the red zone of the C-weighted plot (Fig. 5). Further
review of the flow data shows that this point has the highest
kinetic energy in the pipe flow as defined by the Energy
Institute Guidelines.4 Thus, one would expect the potential of
FIV damage in this case. It is hypothesized, that this shows that
the failure in this one case was likely a combination of AIV and
FIV. Further examples and testing are needed to determine if it
is possible to differentiate as well as perform a combined AIV
and FIV assessment by comparing the results with different
frequency weighting.
CONCLUSIONS
A strain based framework is proposed for AIV evaluation
of piping systems that is focused on using the prediction
technology contained in international standards. There are
several pieces of the framework that need to be further
developed and tested. The procedure is more complex than the
current AIV assessment approaches, but has potential to offer
more means to include the influence of various factors, and thus
reduce the safety factor required in the evaluation criteria.
The framework is based on the sound pressure on the
surface of the vibrating pipe wall being proportional to the
surface strain. This relationship allows one to bring the
evaluation approach into a fatigue based evaluation which
allow other evaluation tools such as fatigue strength reduction
factors and stress concentration factors to be utilized.

The IEC aerodynamic noise prediction model is used for

the internal sound prediction from valves, and a nondimensional noise prediction method is used for additional
piping elements. These prediction methods are frequency
based and therefor the excitation of the pipe wall can be
determined using a transmission loss model which has
frequency dependence. Thus the frequency content of the
internal pressure excitation is included and the transmission
loss model contains pipe diameter to wall thickness dependence
that is applied on a frequency basis. These aspects of the IEC
aerodynamic noise prediction approach address many of the
potential deficiencies in current AIV assessment approaches.
Additional work is needed. Stress concentration values for
typical piping elements need to be determined, the assumption
of AIV and FIV being included in a C-weighted value needs to
be evaluated, and more information on the Carucci-Mueller
data or additional data is needed with sufficient information to
perform a complete analysis. After further development of the
framework presented in this paper then a careful comparison to
the current AIV evaluation approaches can be made to assess
the advantages and applications for the different methods.
REFERENCES
1
Carucci, V.A. and Mueller, R.T., Acoustically Induced
Piping Vibration in High Capacity Pressure Reducing
Systems, ASME 82-WA/PVP-8, 1982
2
Evans, G., Baker, J., and Swindell, R., Operator experience
with using the Energy Institute Piping Vibration Guidelines
to prevent Acoustic Induced Vibration fatigue failures,
Proceeding of Internoise 2012, New York, August 2012
3
Fagerlund, A.C., Recommended Maximum Valve Noise
Levels, Proceedings of the ISA/86 International Conference
and Exhibit, Houston, Texas, October 13-16, 1986, pp14831492
4
F. L. Eisinger, Designing Piping Systems against
Acoustically-Induced Structural Fatigue, ASME 1996, PVPvol. 328; 1996
5
Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue
Failure in Process Pipework, Energy Institute, London, 2008
6
Swindell, R., Acoustically induced vibration - development
and use of the 'Energy Institute' screening method,
Proceedings of Internoise 2012, New York, August 2012
7
Bruce, R.D., Bommer A.S., and LePage, T.E., Solving AIV
problems in the design stage, Proceedings of Internoise
2012, New York, August 2012
8
Nishiguchi, M., Izuchi H., Hayashi, I., and Minorikawa, G.,
Flow Induced Vibration Downstream of Tee Connection,
10th Proceedings of the International Conference on FlowInduced Vibration, Dublin, July 2012
9
Cowling, F., Design Strategies for Acoustically Induced
Vibration in Process Piping, Proceedings of Internoise 2012,
New York, August 2012
10
Bruce R.D., Bommer A.S., and LePage T.E., Solving
Acoustic-Induced Vibration Problems in the Design Stage,
Sound and Vibration, Vol 47, No 8, August 2013 pp8-11

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME

11

IEC 60534-8-3 Industrial-process control valves Part 8.3:

Noise considerations Control Valve aerodynamic prediction
method, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2010
12
IEC-WG9, Working Group on Final Control Elements
13
Fagerlund, A.C., Pipewall Transmission Loss as Used in
Valve Noise Prediction, Proceedings of Internoise 1999
14
Holmer C.I. and Heymann, F.J., Transmission of Sound
Through Pipe Walls in the Presence of Flow, J. Sound and
Vibration (1980) 70(2), p275-301
15
Norton, P.M. and Bull, M.K., Mechanisms of the generation
of external acoustic radiation from pipes due to internal flow
disturbances, J. Sound and Vibration, (1884) 94(1), p105
146
16
Mann, J.A., Fagerlund, A.C., and Eilers D., Predicting pipe
internal sound field and pipe wall vibration using statistical
energy approaches for AIV, Proceedings of Internoise 2012,
New York, August 2012
17
Wachel, J.C., Morton, S.J., and Atkins, K.E., Piping
Vibration Analysis, Proc of the 19th Turbomachinery
Symposium, 1990. p119-134
18
Unger E.E., Maximum Stresses in Beams and Plates
Vibrating at Resonance, ASME Journal of Engineering for
Industry, 1962, p.149-155
19
Karczub, D.G. and Fagerlund, A.C., Dynamic Stress
Predictions of Acoustic-Induced Pipe Vibration Failures,
Proceedings of OMAE, Halkidiki, Greece, 2005
20
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII
Division 2, 2010

140

IEC Sound Pressure at Surface (dBC)

Failure
No Failure
135

130

125

120

115

110
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pipe OD, (mm)

Figure 5: C-weighted IEC sound pressure at the pipe wall

surface for Carucci-Mueller conditions.

IEC Sound Pressure at Surface Surface (dB)

140

140

IEC Sound Pressure at Surface (dBA)

Failure
No Failure
135

130

125

120

115

Failure
No Failure
135

130

125

120

115

110
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pipe OD, (mm)

110
0

200

400

600

800

Figure 6: Un-weighted IEC sound pressure at the pipe wall

surface for Carucci-Mueller conditions.

1000

Pipe OD, (mm)

Figure 4: A-weighted IEC sound pressure at the pipe wall

surface for Carucci-Mueller conditions.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2014 by ASME