Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC INTRODUCTION As we have indicated throughout this book, when failure modes, effects, causes, and analysis (FMEA) focuses on microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC), we refer to it as FMEA-MIC. FMEA-MIC sounds to be more pertinent to the failure as-is status. In other words, FMEA-MIC studies the ways by which failure has occurred (or likely to occur) due to MIC and how these failure modes can be addressed and studied. FMEA-MIC can be looked as studying the present status of a failure rooted in MIC processes to make lessons for the future. However, there is a need for failure prevention and control (FPC)-MIC as focused on MIC. In an FPC-MIC scheme, contrary to FMEA-MIC that considers present and future, it considers the past: it is within this scheme that it is tried to find how the MIC failure can be controlled (if it already has taken place) or prevented. Later, we will introduce some novel ideas that can be quite essential and instrumental in both FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC. The share of FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC in each of the sections explained later can vary: innovation is a matter that can shape both FPC-MIC (in the sense that innovative approaches can be invented to better analyze the failure and judge about its causes) and FPC-MIC (in the sense that new ways to prevent and/or control MIC are found). MIC, like any other field of science and technology, has two features that can be considered as its characteristics: it is the innovations and new findings that drive it forward and it is the uncertainty involved in interactions between corrosion-related bacteria/archaea (CRB/CRA) with other elements of corrosion process that makes things “fuzzy.” In this section, we will briefly go over two important aspects that are, in our judgment, essential to any FMEA/FPC-MIC approach toward MIC: the innovation aspect and the prediction aspect.

THEORY OF INNOVATION In Chapter 1, TRIZ and Corrosion Prevention section we introduced TRIZ. Here, we want to clear the air for some

of our corrosionist’s colleagues about why we have decided to include a section on TRIZ and ARIZ here: Our fellow researchers and colleagues may think that many of their corrosion management (CM) and corrosion knowledge management (CKM) practices are already covered with TRIZ and ARIZ outline without necessarily being branded as such. So why do we need to address these two methods or rather algorithms here. We have two reasons for that: the first is that even if a majority of what is already being done with CM and CKM could be somehow related to TRIZ, to the best of our knowledge there is no field of investigation and research within the realm of corrosion dedicated to the systematic and academic studies of TRIZ with regards to CM or CKM or both. By establishing such an interdisciplinary topic, the scattered activities will be more focused and organized. The second reason is that by combining TRIZ-ARIZ with CM and CKM procedures already in use, it is highly likely that new avenues will be opened and new Greenfields for further research and experimentation will be discovered. This would result in more added values to MIC research that at the moment, in our judgment, is stagnant and always revolving around some predictable topics. We believe that a paradigm shift is necessary in the all main three fields of MIC, that is, recognition, treatment, and monitoring. In this section, we want to develop our understanding about TRIZ and how it can be applied to FMEAMIC. For this, we need to know some important basic knowledge about TRIZ. For this section, we are using a single source1 that gives us the main ideas and concepts we need. We should not forget that the mission of this book is not to write about TRIZ but to introduce it as a means of innovation for those interested in FMEA-MIC. To explain our understanding of the algorithm of innovation, we need to know the following three definitions, or rather, approaches: Basis of TRIZ Technical system Levels of innovation

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818448-6.00005-3 Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

175

176

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

Law of idealness Contradictions Evolution of technical systems Means of TRIZ Principles Standards ARIZ (The algorithm for solving innovative problems) steps: Step 1: Analysis of the problem Step 2: Analysis of the model of the problem Step 3: Formulation of the final ideal solution Step 4: Using external items and field resources Step 5: Using data banks Step 6: Modification or reformulation of the problem Step 7: Analysis of methods that can remove physical contradiction Step 8: Application of the found solution Step 9: Analysis of the steps that have led into the solution We will analyze the aforementioned in required detail. We would like to once again reemphasize upon this matter that our aim is not to introduce TRIZ and its principles per se but trying to find patterns that may help us find ways by which MIC research, and thus any FMEA-MIC, could become more useful.a

Basis of TRIZ Technical system A technical system can be defined as anything that has a certain function. The simplest technical system includes two parts that convey energy from one part to another one. An example is the trio of chalk, blackboard, and the force applied on the chalk piece to draw or write something. Chalk þ blackboard is not a technical system because no transmission of energy takes place between the tow but the trio that we just mentioned is an example of a technical system. In a pipeline that carries oil, the technical system is the fluid, the pipe, and the sheer force induced upon the fluid to let it move. In this example, energy transfer from the fluid to the internal wall of the pipe takes place. Technical systems have subsystems too. For example, if transportation is taken as a system, the sub-

a

To the best of our knowledge, MIC researchers are not currently using TRIZ. The format of all MIC-related research has become a known procedure of such and such material showed such and such behavior against the action of such and such CRB (not even CRA!). We do hope that the likelihood of application of TRIZ in MIC research eno matter how low it could be-would make a change!.

systems are cars, roads, maps, drivers, repair shops, and gas stations. Each of these subsystems will become a system that itself has other subsystems. For example, for a technical system like a car (that itself is a subsystem of the transportation technical system) there are subsystems such as power transmission system, brakes, air condition system, steering system, and electricale electronic systems. Brakes, for example, will become a system itself that contains many other components each of which is, again, a system that does have subsystems in it. This classification be further go down to the molecules that make up the chemicals which are subsystems of pads. It is through this hierarchy that one can think of what is happening around us as technical systems that themselves contain subsystems. TRIZ identifies these technical systems and subsystems.

Levels of innovation There are five levels of innovation. In level 1, a simple improvement in the technical system occurs. The main feature of this level is that to achieve that improvement, the knowledge existing in the field of that system suffices. Level 1 of innovation is, let us assume that we are native speakers of Farsi language and want to write a book in Farsi about cooking. An exampleb to write a book in the same language (Farsi) based upon writings of others and also other books written in that area (cooking) is level 1 of innovation. As seen, there has been no huge effort and energy put into this level: you just need to have a good knowledge about what others have written about this topic. At this level, you even do not need to know another language to learn it from there. In level 2, however, an invention that needs to remove a “technical contradiction” needs to happen. To achieve level 2, one needs to be aware of the required knowledge in fields other than those related to that system. Following the example of writing a book in Farsi in cookery, level 2 of innovation is you translate a book about cookery into Farsi from another language. This way you have used skills beyond just cooking, you have used your learning and translation skills. Level 3 is identified with an invention whose goal is to remove a physical contradiction (we will get back to the meanings of technical and physical contradictions). This will require having a sound knowledge from fields other

b

All these examples about the levels of innovation belongs to Prof. M.H.Salimi, Amirkabir Techincal University, Tehran-Iran.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

than those related to the very system in consideration. The example is to translate from other cookery books and compiling them to write a new book (in Farsi). Level 4 of innovation: a new technology is invented that has a fundamental solution. To achieve this, a vast knowledge from other fields is needed. This is like an author, in addition to translate from other sources and gathering information from various references, he is himself the author of one or some chapters of the book he is publishing in Farsi about cookery. At level 4, the main process is still improvement in a technical system but the existing technical problem (contradiction) is not solved and removed. Instead, the existing technology is being replaced with a new technology (even from another generation or field) leading into solving the problem. The last but not least level of innovation, level 5, a new phenomenon is discovered. The corresponding example is that the author himself will write an innovative book that is coming from his own thoughts and ideas and is quite genuine. An example of level 5 in monitoring MIC could be application of BioGeorge probes that all together is an entirely new technology (solution) for the old problem of online biofilm formation. Only 30% of inventions are reported to be at levels and above and the rest are just frozen on level 1 and level 2. When it comes to MIC recognition and treatment, we can see that while for recognition we have arrived at new technologies such as culture-independent methods that can detect CRA, the treatment still remains within the same levels. Maybe the only exception that deserves to be designated level 5 of innovation in treatment of MIC is application of smart pigs via MFL or UT means.

177

a phone, have various other functions from being a camera to a radio! 2. Transferring the maximum number of possible functions to the element or the working part that does the final function of the system. 3. Transfer of some of the functions of the system to a supersystem or to the external field, automation of ventilation windows of a greenhouse could be an example. 4. Using other industries/skills/techniques either from internal or external fields of the system, replacing optic fibers with old telephone cables. Is there a way to define a context of idealness for the technical systems that are being used to investigate MIC? Fig. 5.1. Shows a test vessel that has been deigned to let various tests conduct concurrently: the design allows conducting slow strain rate testing in both biotic and abiotic environments (biotic environments will be media with sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) only, with iron reducing bacteria (IRB) only and mixed cultures of SRB þ IRB) as well as hydrogen charge overvoltage tests. In addition, it could hold the growth media for growing and sustaining these CRB active. This is an example of a technical system in which the law of idealness in the form of multifunctionality has been applied and is also an example of level 5 innovation. It can also be possible that we can find such examples in other fields of MIC handling, from its recognition to treatment, using qPCR can be useful for detecting both CRB and CRA but with culturedependent method such idealness is never reached. This and the like examples may serve to show to the

Law of idealness This law states that every technical system during its lifetime needs to be reliable, simple, and effective or, in other words, become ideal to the very best level that is reachable. In its ideal form, a technical system needs to have least cost, least occupying space, and least energy. For any technical system, in its ideal form, mechanisms will be demising away while its function is still in action without any need to add up a new mechanism or a new tool to the system. Take, for example, the idealness procedure that is being observed by looking at the history of changing the size of mobile phones or energy-efficient white appliances. An alternative definition of the law of idealness is trying to apply the followings to a given technical system: 1. Increasing the number of functions the system can do (multifunctionality), take as an example new generation of smart phones that in addition to being

FIG. 5.1 A multifunction cell.2 (Reza Javaherdashti, Microbiologically influenced corrosion-an engineering insight, Springer-Verlag, UK, 2008, second edition, 2017.)

178

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

reader that in handling MIC is indeed artemisia for applying TRIZ and ARIZ and by this way, new venues will be opened for researchers to make their research in this field more organized and subjected to an algorithmic discipline.

Contradictions The importance of contradictions is that the most applicable solutions put forward by an inventor happen when the inventor solves a technical problem that contains a contradiction. However, what is meant by a “contradiction” in the context of TRIZ? One way to define a contradiction is “to improve a feature (a parameter) in a technical system that, at the same time, causes degradation (weakening) of another feature (parameter).” No need to say that degradation in the context of TRIZ is not the same as we use it in the context of corrosion management. If we want to explain what is meant by the definition is that each technical system has various parameters such as weight, size, shape, color, speed, hardness, and the like. A technical problem is solved when these parameters assist in better definition and clarification of “technical contradiction.”c Actually, there are two types of contradictions: (1) technical contradictions that occur within technical systems and TRIZ offers 40 principles to solve this type of contradiction and (2) physical contradiction that happens when two contradicting features exist together within a technical system and there are four principles for solving physical contradictions. These four principles are all based on the concept of dissociation (separation). Here we do not want to even name the 40 principles used to solve technical contradictions but we still do have room to at least name the four principles formulated to solve physical contradictions. The four separation-based principles are as follows: timewise separation, spatial separation, separation based on dimensions and size of the system, and separation based on conditions. An example of a physical contradiction is the landing gear of an aircraft: the landing gear must not be available because its existence would add up more into the resistance to air and thus would increase fuel consumption of the aircraft, which is an unwanted feature of this physical system (that is, the aircraft). On the other hand, existence of a landing c

To give an example of compromising solutions that offer to solve a technical contradiction is the contradiction that exists between our wish to increase the power of an engine (which is a positive feature) and the reality that such a powerful engine needs to have a considerable size (which is a negative, unwanted feature).

gear is a must so that upon both ascending and descending and touchdown, it will help mechanical stability of the aircraft. Obviously, this is an example of a contradiction because it points out to a single issue that must and must not exist! We can use the principle of separation, for example timewise separation: the landing gear will be designed in such a way that “when” the aircraft is on the runway to start the flight, the gear will be “out” and operating and when the aircraft is airborne, the gear will be automatically inserted back into the body of the aircraft. Therefore, upon these two separate timings, the contradiction will be solved. Perhaps, our readers can themselves find a solution to address the physical contradiction of adding a phosphate-based inhibitor to a given system that is itself prone to biological growth and harboring active CRB/CRA (think about the principle of separation based on conditions, for example).

Evolution of technical systems Originally eight patterns for the evolution of technical systems were proposed by Altshuller. These eight patterns were as follows: 1. Life cycle 2. Dynamization 3. Multiplication 4. Moving from macro- to microscales 5. Synchronization 6. Uniform development of elements 7. Scale up/down 8. Automation Upon years, 35 patterns for the evolution and upgrading of technical systems and 1 pattern for upgrading and evolution of management and organizational patterns have been proposed. It may be a good idea to try to compare the management and organizational patterns with corrosion management and particularly corrosion knowledge management concepts to make them work more efficiently for both engineers and managers.

Means of TRIZ Now that we have got a rather simplified understanding of the basic notions and concepts of TRIZ, it is the time to concentrate on how TRIZ can be applied. In other words, we need to focus on the so-called “means” by which TRIZ works. These means and tools are divided into two:

Principles The main aim of principles is to avoid compromise between contradicting parameters in a system and producing solutions to address and remove (technical)

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

contradictions. As said earlier, to address technical contradictions there are 40 principles. We are not going to name all the 40 principles here but in the next sections we will name just three of them and how they can be matched with some common MIC and corrosion management practices.

Standards Standards can be defined as laws artemisia for achieving synthesis, renovation, and reconstruction of technical systems. There at least two more functions assigned to standards: 1. Improvemdent of the existing technical systems and/or making new technical systems by using methods such as synthesis. 2. Serving as the best possible graphical model (the socalled S-field) to represent a technical system. The Sfield must itself have three functions: a. These models are to be prepared within the socalled “operating zone,” that is to say, the environment in which the real challenge of the technical contradiction rests. b. The minimum requirement for an S-field model is having two elements and an energy field. In other words, a media through which energy can be transferred. c. The model must be constructed in such a way that its analysis will prove to be useful in the

assessment of necessary, required technical system changes and modifications to develop and improve it. S-field is in essence a simplified model/representative of the actual technical system that looks at the central problem (that is, the technical contradiction) without focusing too much on the details of the system itself. S-fields, however, have certain features that were mentioned earlier and these are the main features that set them apart from simple presentations that can be made to explain some features of the problem. Let us try an example to see how S-field concept can help: one of the biggest challenges in pipeline industry is top of line (TOL) corrosion. If we think about the engaged mechanism in TOL, it is the massive water condensation of the water phase of the fluid inside the pipe with the threshold being 0.25 g of water condensed per m2 per second. Obviously, it is necessary to find a solution for the two elements (water and the pipe) of the physical system in question and the existing energy field (condensation). Fig. 5.2 shows the possible S-field that can be constructed for the particular case for TOL corrosion: As seen in the figure, there are two elements (S1 and S2) of the water-bearing fluid (e.g., wet gas) and the metallic wall of the pipe carrying the fluid. The energy field (F1) is the energy contained and released through

S3

S1

S2

S1 = Technical system 1, the pipe S2 = Technical system 2, the fluid with water phase

F1= Energy transmitted to the pipe wall via condensation F2= Energy transmitted to back the fluid via temperature regulation by coating material

S3 = Technical system 3,, the coating Improved System

Existing System

F1

F1

S1

S2

S1

S3

S2

F2

FIG. 5.2 An example of an S-field for a pipe having the potential of experiencing TOL. (Drawn by Dr. Reza

Javaherdashti.)

179

180

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

condensation process. This water that is being condensed on the interior wall of the pipe, over time and under real life working conditions, becomes the electrolyte necessary for completing the anodee cathodeeelectrolyte triangle and thus induces corrosion on the top side of the pipe (TOL corrosion). In the existing system, the combination existing between the two elements and the energy field is shown. The dotted arrow is an indicative of a damaging action. However, to improve the situation, it is necessary to keep and regulate the temperature of the wall in such a way that it will not allow condensation to occur and, in a way, the energy that could otherwise be released via condensation could be kept inside the water vapor. This could be achieved in an improved system by applying external coatings (S3) that would isolate the pipe wall from exterior lower temperatures. Therefore, the energy F2 is in fact contained within the action of coating and condensation could be highly controlled. In practice, a condensation figure is almost half of the threshold limit and thus below the risk limit will be maintained by the following: • Use of polyurethane heat insulation on doglegs. • Use of 6 mm corrosion coating. • Concrete weight coating on pipelines There are 72 standards that by Altshuller were grouped into the following five groups: Group 1 standards: Construction and/or deconstruction of an S-field. Group 2 Standards: Improvement and development of an S-field Group 3: Transition from the platform, basic technical system to a macroscale supersystem or a microscale microsystem Group 4: Measurement and discovery of anything within a technical system Group 5: Explanation of how an element or a field enters into a technical system Obviously, we will not go through all these 72 standards here. However, it is advisable to observe how ongoing FMEA-MIC “contradictions” can be simplified further to find the best solution for solving them via construction of the most suitable S-fields for them.

ARIZ (The algorithm for solving innovative problems) steps Although TRIZ can be translated as “Theory of invention,” ARIZ can be translated as “Algorithm of invention.” Being as such, ARIZ can be taken as the central concept and tool in TRIZ. ARIZ has nine levels or “steps”

to handle a technical contradiction. These steps are as follows: Step 1: Analysis of the problem, the main target here is to recognize that out of existing technical contradictions, which contradiction must be focused on. In other words, how to apply modification and move from the often too technical “jargon” surrounding the problem to much simpler statements related to the existing limitations in a mini-problem.d It is during this first step that the required data for the conditions leading into contradictions (such as recognition of the parameters of technical contradictions) are being analyzed. It is here that it must be decided which contradiction must be taken into consideration. Step 2: Analysis of the model of the problem, it is the process to be taken for preparation of a simplified model that will assist in modeling the existing contradiction in the field of operation. Step 3: Formulation of the final ideal solution; in this step, the physical contradiction is revealed. Most of the time, steps 1e3 will suffice to solve the problem. These steps can be summarized as “Step 1 ¼ problem is still a vague or obscure state for the observer who is planning to offer a solution,” “Step 2 ¼ the physical problem is defined clearly,” and “Step 3 ¼ the physical contradiction is revealed.” Step 4: Using external items and field resources Step 5: Using data banks Step 6: Modification or reformulation of the problem Step 7: Analysis of methods that can remove physical contradiction Step 8: Application of the found solution Step 9: Analysis of the steps that have led into the solution If by applying steps 1e3, the problem is not solved, then steps 4e6 must be applied. Steps 7e9 are applied when the solution is found. The earlier nine steps may be considered to solve a physical contradiction problem. What about a technical contradiction problem? For that we have three stepse: Step 1: Analysis of the technical system, the main characteristic of this step is to determine the “features,” that is to say, the “parameters” that

What is meant by a mini ¼ problem is a problem in which there is (1) no degree of freedom to offer a solution and (2) maximum number of limitations, like a part that can’t be replaced. e To differentiate these three steps from the previous nine steps, we will numerate them as 2.3.1.1 and so on. d

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

explain the technical systems’ physical conditions as well as its functioning. These will be the parameters that would need to be improved. There are three “substeps” here: It is required to determine all the elements of the supersystem, the system, and the subsystem.f The root cause is determined and analyzed. Formulation of those features and parameters that need to be improved. There are two options here: (a) Improvement of an existing positive feature, that is, formulation of the improving feature (b) Removal or neutralization of a negative feature. Step 2: Determination of technical contradiction, it is the activities to be taken in this step that would determine the feature of the technical system when it is improved, it will result in the deterioration of other feature, therefore leading into the determination of the existing technical contradiction in the technical system of interest. Step: Removal of technical contradiction; in this step, the 40 principles of TRIZ and the related matrix for solving the contradiction are referred to. As it can be seen, either technical or physical contradictions to be considered, the first three steps are more or less alike and due to the organic bonds between all the elements of a given technical system, it may not be possible to draw a clear-cut line between the two contradiction types. In short, after recognition of the existing technical contradiction in the (technical) system, there are two functions to be taken: I. Use of the 40 TRIZ principles to achieve the most effective and the most useful principles and/or II. Use of the “Contradiction Matrix” by studying and checking each principle and selection of the best and most suitable of them The contradiction matrix is a 39  39 matrix! Obviously, we cannot reproduce it. However, it has a general format that can be seen in Table 5.1: The Technical Contradiction Matrix has been composed of two rows: the horizontal row consists of 39 components that are under the title “degrading parameters.” On their right side, there are 39 parameters. The vertical row also consists of 39 components that

f If we take a car as a technical system, its super-system could be the transportation system and one of its subsystems the brake system. The brake system itself could in turn be considered a supersystem to a subsystem like a pad.

181

are ordered and named “improving parameters” besides that there are 40 TRIZ principles with their corresponding names (in Table 5.1, we have not shown the names of either parameters or principles). Some of the parameters one can name are weight of the moving object, weight of the stationary object, shape, weight, and length of moving and stationary objects, area of the moving object, force, time of action for a moving object, the spent energy by a stationary object, loss of time s, harmful factors developed by an object from outside adaptability, and the like. The way the matrix works is that we determine the deteriorating and improving parameters and where they intersect, the TRIZ principles that can be used as a guide for invention are mentioned. We have exemplified some of these horizontal (deteriorating) and vertical (improving) parameters in Table 5.2 where the guiding principles have also been shown. As an example, take on the horizontal row the improving parameter numbered 19 (energy spent by a moving object) and on the vertical row the deteriorating parameter numbered 15 (time of action of moving object). This can be interpreted as if we want to shorten the time of action of a moving object, we have to spend more energy (to run a car faster, you need to consume more fuel).Obviously, we have a contradiction here, which is a technical contradiction because improving one parameter is accompanied with degrading the other parameter. However, what can we do? Most probably we can think of engineering solutions to manage the fuel economy or upgrade the engine performance. To show how powerful and useful the Contradiction Matrix could be, let us take yet another example. For this, we will take one of the examples that Altshuller uses in his book: the example of “Fish breeding tank”: The procedure at fish breeding tanks is carrying out fish breeding on an industrial level within a 12e 24 month window. To breed an industrially feasible number of fish under indoor conditions (like in a tank) more oxygen than what is already dissolved in the water must be generated. In a given such tanks, this extra oxygen is supplied via a pump through small-sized pipes lying under on the tank floor that have holes in them to allow oxygen blowing out and mixing in with the water. This system can provide, at most, 1000 ppm oxygen whereas our minimum demand is 2000 ppm (twice or even more). What could be the most feasible and yet the least harmful method to the health of the fish to generate oxygen? The approach to be taken to handle this problem is to first analyze it by looking at three possible choices we could have and the contradictions associated with each of them.

182

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

TABLE 5.1

General Format of a “Technical Contradiction Matrix.” Principles No.

Parameters No.

Degrading Parameter Parameters 36

31

26

15 28,35,

19

6,18

Improving Parameter

10,23 28,5

23

26

3,10

3,5,

13,27

9,40

31

3,5, 9,40

Constructed by Dr. Reza Javahedashti.

First Choice: It may be suggested to install an air compressor in the power house of the tank so that it would pump air through the porous oxygen pipes. This would create a technical contradiction that we can call it “Contradiction 1.” The TRIZ principles to address Contradiction 1 are the intersection of the horizontal row numbered 26 (amount of substance) with the vertical row numbered 36 (complexity of a device), which are principle 3 (local quality), principle 10 (preliminary action), principle 13 (do it in reverse or inversion), and principle 27 (cheap short-living objects). Second Choice: This option suggests that we apply chemicals into the water that could produce the required oxygen. This obviously has the risk of contaminating the fish and harming them. “Contradiction 2” here needs to address horizontal row of degrading parameters numbered 31 (harmful factors developed by

an object [from inside]) and the vertical row of improving parameters numbered 26 (amount of substance). This simply means that we can have two parameters that are in contradiction with each other: we use some substance (the chemical to be mixed with the water to produce oxygen that is good and thus an improving parameter) versus the health hazard it could put the fish to (which is obviously negative, degrading parameters). The intersection of the vertical and horizontal rows are the TRIZ principles 3 (local quality), 5 (consolidation/integration), 9 (prior counteraction), and 40 (composite material). What is meant here is that for the particular case of Contradiction 2, each of these principles can be used to find a solution. Third Choice: To have this option in place, it is observed that all the pumped oxygen is not dissolved in the water from the time the oxygen bubbles are

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

183

TABLE 5.2

Linking Corrosion Severity as per NACE Recommended Practice to Corrosion Protection Factor Range.

Constructed by Dr. Reza Javahedashti.

released from the bottom-lying porous pipes till they reach the water surface. Therefore, if we somehow reduce the velocity of ascending bubbles so that their “hanging-around time” in the bulk water increases, chances are that more oxygen will be dissolved in the water bulk. This can be achieved by reducing the air pressure. One must note that the drawback of this option will be reducing the overall efficiency of the system (more bubbles will be in the bulk water but their number will decrease). The third choice will produce the technical “Contradiction 3,” which needs to be addressed via the improving parameter of loss of substance (parameter number 23) and degrading parameter numbered 31 (capacity/productivity). The intersection of these vertical and horizontal rows on the TRIZ matrix would yield Principle 10 (prior action), Principle 23 (feedback), Principle 28 (replacement of mechanical systems), and Principle 35 (transformation of properties). Overall, it is seen that in all the three choices we could have, there are three TRIZ principles that are advised to be addressed: local quality (Principle No. 3), preliminary action (Principle No. 10), and transformation of properties (Principle No. 35). Alternatively, it can be said that TRIZ suggests three strategies: change in the water quality (Principle No. 3), taking precautions (Principle 10), and change in the concentration of the dissolved oxygen (Principle 35). The engineering action

FIG. 5.3 Illustration of essential parts of a smart pig within a pipe (Illustration by: Farzaneh Akvan). (Drawn by Farzaneh Akvan.)

to be taken here could be making a separate tank in which oxygenated water in under pressure and pump this oxygen through the porous pipes on the bottom of the tank. It is too evident that this could be just one of the many other engineering interpretations from the resulting TRIZ suggestions. At the end of this section, we want to give three examples how TRIZ principles could be useful in dealing with some MIC issues: Take the main parts of an intelligent pig, Fig. 5.3 where an example of an intelligent pig inside a pipe is illustrated. As the figure shows, all of these parts have been designed and manufactured from materials that would

184

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

allow the most possible flexibility that can be achieved for the movement of the pig inside a pipe. This feature of intelligent pig design satisfies Principle 3 (local principle). Principle 3 can be expressed in three following wordings that are essentially the same: • Change of uniform and homogenous structure of the body (system) or the outside environment (field) into a nonuniform, nonhomogenous structure • Different segments of the body (system) must have different functions and responsibilities • Each part of the body (system) must be put in conditions that are the most suitable for carrying out its functions. All the three wording styles of Principle 3 can be applicable to the design and function of a smart pig: if we define the pig as our system (or body), it does have different segments that each does a different function (from driving the pig to recording the data obtained). These various parts and segments are not homogenous and based on the flexibility it shows in its interaction with the interior of a pipe, they assume the most suitable conditions to offer their services in the form of functions they do. Another example is Principle 5 (Consolidation or combining). An example of Principle 5 is the nonoxidizing THPS. This biocide combines the biocidal effect with the chemical dissolution properties of iron sulfide. It is to be noticed that the combination of two functions not similar to each other occurs here. In other words, the aforementioned functions are not both of biocidal or both of chemical nature. They are different in this respect and that is why THPS can be taken as to be a representative of an MIC-related point that highlights one of the TRIZ principles. However, when the features of the chemical are alike, such as use and application of the so-called broad spectrum biocides, this could be related to Principle 6 (Universality also stated as multifunctionality). Principle 6 states that a body (system) can have various functions so that other elements can be deleted and removed. In case of a broad spectrum biocide that can, say, kill both CRB and fungi, there is no need to add the bactericide and the fungicide separately and therefore one broad spectrum chemical can do the work of two (or sometimes even more) other chemicals. As we tried to show earlier, TRIZ and ARIZ could be very instrumental tools in improving MIC research and application further and much more than what they are at the moment. We did not want to dedicate the whole chapter of a book on FMEA-MIC to introducing and application of TRIZ and its principles however we do believe that we are among the first who have

appreciated the power of TRIZ and ARIZ in handling the common issues as faced in MIC. The same words can also be said about our pioneering works on the application of the mathematics of uncertainty, that is to say, Fuzzy logic and calculations in dealing with MIC.

UNCERTAINTY In everyday conversations, when we talk about certainty of something, we often mean being 100% sure about that. The opposite, uncertainty, can then be defined as not being sure at all. However, simple it may seem, when we focus on it with more care, we can see that in most occasions we face with, there is an oscillation between 0 and 100, between not being sure at all and being completely sure. What, for example do we mean by saying “with a probability of 90%, such and such event will happen?” or “Your chance in this business is 50-50!“ Apart from our personal measures to measure the probability of such daily events, there are mathematical approaches toward saying with what possibility (more technically speaking, with what probability) a case of corrosion or MIC is to occur. There are mathematical models that are undertaken to study corrosion and particularly MIC: some of these models are as follows3e5: • Checworks Predictive Model • Union Electric Callaway MIC index • Lutey/Stein (L/S) MIC index • The “Ranking” Model • Javaherdashti MIC Model The above along with other related models have been explained in required length and details elsewhere.6 However, we want to introduce two models here that use mathematics and not calculations based on mass balance to characterize MIC:

The S-G model One of these examples is the so-called “S-G” model about which we talked in Chapter 4 section The structure e of this model is based on the following steps: S-G 1: The corrosion management (here, the MIC management) methods are grouped in five cardinal groups, (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5), S-G 2: Based on expert judgment and/or published data, a certain weight (xi) is attributed to each of these methods, (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5), S-G 3: The following two indices are defined: S-G 3.1. Based on how each of these methods are being applied, that is to say, describing the application of each method by (never, seldom, often, always), a “quantitative description index” (j) is defined.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

S-G 3.2. Based on how useful the application of these methods are a “quantitative point of use” (Cij) are being defined. Both of these indices are arbitrary, S-G 4: Based on how often these methods are being used, the frequency of use (fi) is conventionally set as Cij ¼ fi Based on the earlier steps, “Corrosion Protection Factor” (CPF) is defined as follows: " c.p.f ¼ " ¼

n X

!, cij  xi

i¼1 n X

!, fi  x i

i¼1

n X

!# cim  xi

i¼1 n X

 100% 1jm

!# cim  xi

 100%

i¼1

Combining the C.P.F results with the NACE convention to brand a corrosion rate range as “severe” or moderate or “not important” will yield Table 5.2: The values in the table simply assumes that a C.P.F, for example, above 80% will correspond to a low level of corrosion severity as per NACE RP0775-2005 that, for general corrosion will be corrosion rates less than 1 mpy and for localized corrosion will be corrosion rates less than 5 mpy. Let us try out the S-G approach by an example as given below: For a subsea pipeline, we want to calculate C.P.F. In this example, we are looking at corrosion in general and we have included MIC. The case of interest is a subsea pipeline: We interviewed three experts who know that particular subsea pipeline and ask their expert judgment about corrosion by requesting them to answer the below questions and assign weights to them (from 1 to 5) based on values given in Table 5.3: Where X values are: X1 ¼ Cathodic Protection X4 ¼ Use of corrosion inhibitors

TABLE 5.3

Quantitative Descriptive and Point of Use Indices.

Description

j Quantitative Description Index

Cij Quantitative Point of Use

Never

1

Ci1 ¼ 0

Seldom

2

Ci2 ¼ 1

Occasionally

3

Ci3 ¼ 3

Often

4

Ci4 ¼ 7

Always

5

Ci5 ¼ 11

Constructed by Dr. Reza Javahedashti.

185

X2 ¼ Coating X5 ¼ Use of biocide X3 ¼ Material upgrade and/or applying corrosion allowance The survey had the following topics and questions: I. Cathodic Protection (CP): (a) Has, in the first place, a CP system ben foreseen or your system in the design stage? (b) In the past 6 months, what were the maximum, minimum, and mean values of CP off-potential voltage that you recorded for your system? (what was your reference electrode?) (c) How much negative you will make the offpotential voltage of your systems’ CP to manage MIC? (d) Have you recorded instances for which your impressed current showed positive values? II. (External) Coating: (a) Did you experience coating disbondment? Did you analyze the cause (s)? What was/were that? (b) What are the specific tests to evaluate size and position of coating defects on your buried pipelines that you regularly do? (c) How do you evaluate coating practice in your workshop(projects)? Do you rank it “always applied,” “often,” or “occasionally applied,” or else? (d) How do you rank coating against CP in controlling corrosion? Do they both have the same importance or you place one more important than the other? III. Water Chemistry: (a) What are Langelier saturation index and “Aggressive Index” (AI) values for the water in your fire water ring system? (b) In case you apply corrosion inhibitors, are they anodic, cathodic, or else? (c) Is your biocide oxidizing or else? (d) Do you apply inhibitors(s) and biocide(s) into your system on a shock or intermittent regime or any time it is felt that their injections are required? Please explain for inhibitor(s) and biocide(s) separately. (e) To control corrosion in your system, and in your professional judgement, do you place biocide application higher in ranking than inhibitor application or vice versa, or rather you give them the same level of importance? IV. Materials Selection (a) Have you ever had a case where you replaced metallic parts with nonmetallic parts? (b) How long ago you did materials selection (to improve CM) and where in your system you applied it?

186

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

TABLE 5.4

Importance and Usefulness Assessment of Five Corrosion Management Methodologies in a Subsea Pipeline. Method Xi X

X

X

X

X

Attributed Weight (Importance), xi

Usefulness j

1

Cathodic protection

Optimistic (3), moderate (2), pessimistic (3)

Optimistic (always), moderate (occasionally), pessimistic (always)

2

Coating

Optimistic (3), moderate(1), pessimistic (3)

Optimistic (always), moderate (occasionally), pessimistic (always)

Adding into the thickness (corrosion allowance)

Optimistic (1), moderate (3), pessimistic (1)

Optimistic (often), moderate (always), pessimistic (often)

4

Corrosion inhibitor

Optimistic (3), moderate (2), pessimistic (3)

Optimistic (always), moderate (always), pessimistic (often)

5

Biocide application

Optimistic (1), moderate (1), pessimistic (4)

Optimistic (always), moderate (occasionally), pessimistic (never)

3

Name of the Method

Constructed by Dr. Reza Javahedashti.

(c) How do you rank the importance of material selection, coating, and CP in containing corrosion? Mark them out of 100 (100 ¼ the best practice) V. Design (a) Have you tried the option of design in controlling corrosion in your system? How many times and where you have applied this option during last year? (b) How do you rank as a professional the importance of design in comparison with the four options mentioned earlier? (please specify your ranking out of 100 where 100 designates the best practice) The results of the survey are summarized in Table 5.4 where the interviewed experts were branded as “Optimistic,” “Pessimistic,” and “Moderate.” These brandings happened after the results of the surveys were sorted out and not before conducting the survey. Table 5.4 can be interpreted that an optimist may assess the use of coating a practice that is often done but in comparison with other four CM methods, it has an importance of 1 out of 5. Based on the previously mentioned, the results are calculated as tabulated in Table 5.5: As the values in Table 5.5 summarize it, for the particular case we mentioned, a relatively good (moderate) corrosion management is being applied. It must be noted that a table like Table 5.5 was not a part of original work by Schouten and Gellings, and we added it on as an extra side of the usefulness of this approach. The convention for relating C.O.F with the corrosion

TABLE 5.5

Corrosion Protection Factor for the Case of a Subsea Pipeline as Evaluated Based on the Interview Survey of Three Case Experts. Corrosion Protection Factor (C.P.F) % Optimistic

96.7

Moderate

65.70

Pessimistic

58.04

Average

73.5 (moderate corrosion protection)

Constructed by Dr. Reza Javahedashti.

situation as indicated by NACE-recommended practice stems from common sense although the boundary values given are selected arbitrarily. Over time, some of these methods may be replaced by others and/or become more feasible in their practice and effect on containing corrosion. This will mean that the S-G model can be run every now and then to evaluate where the applied CM is standing. By more enhanced training and getting deeper knowledge about corrosion prevention and corrosion control practices, even the evaluation methods may change a lot leading into more sophisticated decision-making platforms and approaches.

The Fuzzy Model Another model that we will introduce here is based on fuzzy calculations. An important aspect of MIC is the uncertainty that is involved in it. In other words,

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

contrary to simple 0-1 binary logic where something either is or is not, MIC is the situation between 0 and 1: in some cases it can be but not 100% sure and in some cases it cannot be but not 100% unsure. It seems that the main reason for such uncertain nature of MIC is that it is linked to the activity of CRB-CRA and these living organisms themselves are hard to predict. On top of that, it is the nature of corrosion processes, that is to say, if they are in parallel or series and the overall impact they have on corrosion that adds more uncertainty into MIC-related cases. Although individual behavior of CRB-CRA may not be possible to predict, it is possible to study their corrosive collective impact. The reason is that while the energetic needs of a single bacterium may change from bacterium to bacterium, the collective mass of bacteria will have definite energy needs and to satisfy this need, electron transfer must be carried out. The electron movement can occur between two pairs of anodes and cathodes: biological anodeecathode pair and nonbiological anodeecathode pair. In the former, it is the electrons needed by bacteria to fulfill their energetic needs. One of way of doing it, in case of SRB, for example, is by chemical microbiologically influenced corrosion (CMIC) and another way is by EMIC. In CMIC path, electron acceptors (biological cathodes) and electron donors (biological anodes) are necessary to exist. In EMIC path, the direct electron pick up from the metal by the bacteria would define bacteria as the biological cathode and the metal as the biological anode. In both cases, because of existence and activity of the bacteria involved, the releasing electron will take place from the biological anode and the acceptance of the electron will happen via biological cathode. In addition to the earlier, we have electrochemical anodeecathode pair too where the metal releases electron and dissociation of water into proton and hydroxyl ion could form the necessary cathodic reaction. When these two paths are superimposed, quite seemingly confusing will emerge that is far complicated than any other electrochemical corrosion that does not involve CRB-CRA. It is these complexities that not only makes MIC difficult to recognize and cure correctly but also define it properly. It is when Fuzzy logic/calculations come into the picture. In previous publications we have had on the application of Fuzzy algorithm and calculations into MIC, as such was the fuzzy prediction of corrosion behavior of carbon steel7 and mechanical behavior of duplex stainless,8 Later, we will introduce the applicability of Fuzzy calculations and logics on the mechanical behavior of carbon steel under the influence of some CRB. The logic behind our approach is as shown in Fig. 5.4. The main logic that we are applying here is that we

G

187

S A

FIG. 5.4 Reference set (G), Set (S) that contains elements of S with certain characteristic and (A) is the fuzzy membership function that defines with what fuzzy probability an element of (G) could become an element of (S). (Dawn by Dr. Reza Javaherdashti.)

define a membership function as a (Fuzzy) probability function that would determine the threshold range within which a certain behavior could be expected. The model will consist of the following three sections: (1) Basic Concepts: For carbon steel, three following sets are defined:

G ¼ {Gj}, j ¼ 1,2,3, . N

(5.1)

S ¼ {Si}, I ¼ 1,2,3, . M

(5.2)

A ¼ {A(i)}, I ¼ 1,2,3, . M

(5.3)

Where: G measures all features of the given carbon steel (CS). These properties can include CS’s mechanical, physical, and chemical properties, S measures all features of the given carbon steel that will render it resistant to MIC and A measures fuzzy probability of each member of the set G to become a member of the set S.

Universal properties of SRB-containing environment Assume that there are various U universal features that can favor resistance to microbial corrosion of carbon steel by SRB and not necessarily be related to each other. We may assume that for each Gj, there is a feature such as K so that K ¼ 1, 2, 3, . ,U

FA(I,K) (Gj) ¼ Prob (m(I,K)  x(j,K)  M(I,K)) (5.4) where K ¼ 1,2,3, ., U, I ¼ 1,2,3, ., M, j ¼ 1,2,3, ., N. FA(I,k) (Gj) defines the fuzzy likelihood of an existing universal feature such as K from the range of universal features Gj to become an element of Si, to resist microbial corrosion.

Universal properties of IRB-containing environment Assume that there are various V universal features that can resist MIC of carbon steel by IRB and not necessarily

188

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

be related to each other. We may assume that for each Gj there is a feature such as L so that L ¼ 1,2,3, ., V

FA(I,L) (Gj) ¼ Prob (m(I,L)  x(j,L)  M(I,L)) (5.5) where L ¼ 1,2,3, ., V, I ¼ 1,2,3, ., M, j ¼ 1,2,3, ., N. FA(I,L) (Gj), defines the fuzzy likelihood of an existing universal feature such as L from the range of the universal features Gj to become an element of Si, not suitable for biofilm formation.

Universal properties of SR þ IRB containing environment We will define FA(I,T) (Gj) for W universal features in a mixed SRB þ IRB environment so for each Gj there is a feature such as T so that T ¼ 1,2,3, ., V.

FA(I,T) (Gj) ¼ Prob (m(I,T)  x(j,T)  M(I,T)) (5.6) where T ¼ 1,2,3, ., V, I ¼ 1,2,3, ., M, j ¼ 1,2,3, ., N. FA(I,T) (Gj) defines the fuzzy likelihood of an existing universal feature such as T from the range of the universal features Gj to become an element of Si, not suitable for biofilm formation.

Fuzzy Composite functions So far, we defined fuzzy probability functions to define resistance of carbon steel in environments containing SRB (FA(I,K) (Gj)), IRB (FA(I,L) (Gj)) and mixed cultures of both SRB and IRB (FA(I,T) (Gj)). We need now to combine these fuzzy probability functions under a “Fuzzy Composite function”: o Max n FAði;KÞ Gj K o Max n FAði;LÞ Gj FLðiÞ ðGj Þ ¼ L o Max n FTðiÞ ðGj Þ ¼ FAði;TÞ Gj T

FKðiÞ ðGj Þ ¼

(5.7) (5.8) (5.9)

Based on the previously mentioned, we can now define the following conditions: Assuming GjεG : n o 8 < If max FKðiÞ Gj ; FLðiÞ Gj ; FTðiÞ ðGj Þ ¼ 0: Then 0 FAðiÞ G ¼ o n : If max FKðiÞ Gj ; FLðiÞ Gj ; FTðiÞ ðGj Þ s0: Then bK FKðiÞ Gj þ bL FLðiÞ Gj þ bT FTðiÞ Gj Where bK þ bL þ bT ¼ 1 and bK ; bL ; bT  1

(5.10)

Eq. (5.10) addresses the probability for microbial corrosion of carbon steel not to happen in, respectively,

SRB-containing environment, IRB-containing environment, and SRB þ IRB-containing environment in terms of coefficients (weights) ßK, ßL, and ßT. Obviously, all of the b values cannot exist at the same time, in other words, when IRB-environment is being considered (ßL), it is assumed that ßK ¼ ßT ¼ 0 and so on. The fuzzy possibilities will then be expressed as related to the value of the related b values. For example, if ßK > ßL, this means that the SRB-containing environment is less likely to cause corrosion of carbon steel than the IRB-containing environment. Moreover, if ßK < ßT, then SRB þ IRB containing environment is more likely to resist MIC to carbon steel than the SRBcontaining environment.

Fuzzy model, application protocol As a feature that can be assessed, we will consider the mechanical strength of carbon steel in SRB-containing, IRB-containing, and SRB þ IRB-containing environments. To measure this property (mechanical strength of carbon steel in these three environments), we will apply slow strain rate testing bm ¼

LoadAverage m ¼ L; K; T LoadMaximum

(5.11)

The value of b will be proportional to the fuzzy probability of corrosion resistance of carbon steel in a given bacterial environment.

Validation CS samples were tested in environments containing only SRB, only IRB, and a mixture of both. The testing methodology for describing mechanical strength of carbon steel to these environments was via slow strain rate testing. A typical artemisi of carbon steel in these environments was as shown in Fig. 5.5: To address the b values for the environments tested, we arrive at the values given below: bSRB ¼ 0:69 bIRB ¼ 0:68

(5.12)

bSRBþIRB ¼ 0:82

Superimposing (5.12) with the typical load versus time curve shown in Fig. 5.5, will yield Fig. 5.6: As Fig. 5.6 clearly shows, there is a very good match between the probability of resistance to MIC and the time to failure so that the more the resistance to MIC the longer the time to failure. This good agreement could be taken as an evidence of how application of fuzzy logic in FMEA-MIC could become useful and of acceptable level of precision.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

189

FIG. 5.5 (Top): Typical load versus time curves for carbon steel in three bacterial environments (SRB only, IRB

only SRB þ IRB) (Bottom) Typical Maximum and minimum loads reached for the three biotic environments. (Reza Javaherdashti, Microbiologically influenced corrosion-an engineering insight, Springer-Verlag, UK, 2008, second edition, 2017.)

FIG. 5.6 Superimposed typical load versus time curves for carbon steel in three bacterial environments (SRB only, IRB only, SRB þ IRB) with the fuzzy probabilities for resistance to MIC. (R. Javaherdashti1, C. Nwaoha, E. E. Ebenso Fuzzy Prediction of Corrosion Resistance of Duplex Stainless Steel to Biotic Iron Reducing bacteria and Abiotic Synthetic Seawater Environments: A Phenomenological Approach toward a Multidisciplinary Concept, International Journal of Electrochemical Society, Vol. 7, pp: 12573e12586, 2017.)

NOVELTY As oxforddictionary.com puts it, one of the meanings of “novelty” as a noun is something new and unfamiliar. In the context of FMEA-MIC, novelty may be expected to address new findings, methodology, approaches, and ideas. Since the rise of research about MIC in 1980s, the advancement of science and technology has brought both engineers and researchers new tools to characterize MIC-related failures. Such novelties have been found and advanced further thanks to development and sophistication of ideas and associated

research. For example, BioGorge can be thought of a crossing electrochemistry, metallurgy, and electricity to be used to monitor biofilm formation stages in a given water containing system. It follows; then, novelty per se is not an action taking place in certain time and space. Rather, novelty is (or can be thought of being) a combination of different fields of knowledge and technology that sometimes look so farfetched from each other. In fact, one may think the more unrelated and irrelevant these fields of knowledge and technology may appear from each other, when correctly joined, the outcome

190

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

would have the highest degree of novelty. An example of such farfetched areas is the way bacteria could help in, for example, rebuilding broken bones9 via biofilm formation.10

Novelty Gaps What we mean by “Novelty Gaps” is those areas in which there is need for improvement as well as creation of new ideas, mythologies, and approaches. Superimposing “Novelty Gaps” notion on MIC and FMEA would yield a green field of opportunities for research (creation) and development (improvement). Trying to see the bigger picture here, novelty gaps in the field of MIC and FMEA-MIC can be considered in two areas of CKM-MIC (corrosion knowledge management as applied to MIC) and CM-MIC (corrosion management as applied to MIC). CKM-MIC is to undertake the cost estimates related to (1) MIC as a damage mechanism, (2) FMEA as methodologies to explain MIC failures, as well as (3) MIC treatment. The three cost categories need to be addressed within the framework of internationally and practically accepted corrosion costs economical models and the ideal output would be a figure consisting of both direct cost of MIC and indirect cost of it. In other words, the best presentable results with regards to the costs of MIC would give such costs in two defined categories that one belongs to that group of costs that can be seen immediately (such as failures that can be leading into disasters) and those that cannot be seen this straightforward and need to be evaluated (such as the damage caused by such failures to the environment). We would also like to include the significance of training within CKM-MIC. We need to do that because in the case of feeling any financial instability in companies, the first budget cut happens for trainings. It is quite unfortunate to see that in many companies there are still managers whose mentality sees training as cost and not investment. NACE IMPACT report rightfully categorizes training, and research and development costs, as “preventive costs.” They are preventive costs in the sense that they have the potential to let save not wasteful, immethodical money spending: in late 1980s, a worldwide well-known company found out that 5 km of its 18 km subsea pipeline had been badly corroded. The rate of corrosion was nearly 1 cm/year, which is too severe a kind of corrosion rate. Engineers and managers of that company simply did an “amputation” operation and cut off the damaged section of the pipe in the hope that the problem is solved now. Sometime later, they had to change the whole line because of

the sporadic nature of the failure that was attributed to MIC. In fact, the company “wasted” the taxpayer money whereas with a very small budget for training, all the costs associated could have been avoided. On the other hands, CM-MIC deals with novelty gaps in the MIC issues that we mentioned earlier in this book. These issues are recognition, treatment, and monitoring. CM-MIC as per its nature needs to address the risk for MIC and being as such, we need to be aware of the choices we could have in dealing with MIC issues. A good example of innovations that could be taken as a heart-warming sign in introducing technologies to fill the novelty gaps related to MIC issues is replacing molecular microbiology methods (MMM) of ATPG2 instead of ATPG1. We have also presented some ideas in a previous work7 that could prepare a greenfield for R&D: from the proposal of the possible involvement of magnetotactic bacteria in MIC and the hypothesis regarding how cathodic protection could affect MIC to theoretical consideration of applying guided magnetic field on magnetotactic bacteria to make them confine planktonic CRB such as but not limited to SRB. In the following sections, we will very briefly talk about one of the options in the treatment issue of MIC that is still waiting to become widely and commercially available, which is the use of natural biocides (not to be mixed with green biocides). To fill the gap, we would like to start with CKM-MIC and therefore briefly explain the existing economic models to estimate the cost of corrosion. It must be noted that all of these models, by default, have the ability to be adapted to any particular case related to macroeconomy and their application to corrosion does not prevent them from being applicable to MIC. In other words, while all of these models have so far applied to estimate the cost of corrosion in general (and obviously also include the costs due to MIC), we believe that they are also capable of being tailor-made to address cost of MIC.

CKM-MIC CKM-MIC deals with the cost of MIC, and the categories of this cost can be defined as follows: (1) Costs imposed by MIC as a process that increases a. Depreciation rate of the asset(s) b. Unreliability of the asset(s) in its (their) intended job c. Safety risk of operation d. Cost of operation (2) Costs involved in failure modes identification and analyses, quantification of the effects to find out

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

causes and involved mechanisms. Such costs mainly stem from laboratory tests costs in addition to the cost of trained personnel who are carrying out the required jobs. To be exact and perhaps too precise in our approach, these costs should have considered items such as transport and handling, sample preparation, and dispatching them to the required test house(s). Similarly, we may consider the costs for procurement of field tests kits and the man-hour for sample collection and even the time required for processing them. It must also be noted that the costs in this category may also involve any thinkable costs related to the interpretation of the data received from item (below) to turn it into useful, applicable information (3) Costs involved in prescribed treatment regimes. The main categories of these costs are as follows: a. Procurement costs b. Application costs An example could be the use of biocides. A cost must be paid to buy them from the manufacturer and a cost must be considered in application of them. The latter could be the man-hour cost that takes to apply the biocide manually or the power cost of the electrical pumps that inject certain dosages of these materials mechanically. Our readers must note that in case of application of treatment techniques such as smart pigging, it is mostly not the procurement cost but “leasing cost” of the tool that must be considered. All these costs obviously have their direct and indirect components. Mostly, it is not that easy (if impossible) to calculate the indirect costs. A significant item that is too hard to estimate in these costs is the cost imposed on the environment. We will get back to this matter later. Another “costly” item here is the cost of training. We use this item in its broadest possible meaning. By that not only do we mean the familiar type of teacherstudent type of training, but also rather experimental workshops as well as scientific gatherings from seminars to national and international scaled conferences. In very general terms, what we mean by training is any means by which knowledge and skills can be transferred into technical nuclei within a company. The nuclei could range from a handful of technical experts to conferences with 500þ attendees. In any way that new ideas can be transferred or new answers to the old challenges could be found; we regard it as training. Microbial corrosion will not be considered a training need unless the middle managers and senior engineers

191

are themselves trained in this area and feel the urgency. Junior engineers look up to senior and principle engineers as their mentors and there are very few of them who can actually assess his/her need for a workshop in this area. Microbial corrosion is such a topic that in many industries they just prefer to ignore it unless it strikes hard. In fact, many industries do consider corrosion as such! Based on our first-hand experience we can say that in many developing countries, there are many industry sectors that hardly have any idea about microbial corrosion. In these countries, different from developed countries, the “hush-hush” system governing their industries and lack of information transparency, does not allow wide spread understanding of the potential hazard associated with MIC and they turn to experts when it is just too late. Although, we should not forget that in many of these countries, there is a tremendous favor toward issues such as welding and coating but when asked about the possible link between welding and increase in the likelihood of MIC or how holidays may contribute to MIC, what you hear is a meaningful silence. Training is a tough job, not only do you face with “false window” expertsdthose who self-claim themselves in MIC just because they have read a few papers or involved in one or two projects as suchdbut also you have to try to convince people about the need for such a course. It is in these two respects that neither developed nor developing countries’ industries differ from each other. However, it has always been a great source of joy and satisfaction seeing engineers and professionals/researchers who, after developing a right idea about microbial corrosion, have been trying to understand its nature even in more detail and have also been able to convince their managers and colleagues about the true risk of MIC. To see if your personnel need a training course in MIC (as the main focus here is MIC!), there is a simple short cut. Get them to answer to the following list of questions and based on the percentage of wrong answers, design for them an MIC workshop. As a guide that is coming from our training experience in the past 15þ years, if you get a frequency of at least 50% correct answers you may be lucky enough not to require an MIC masterclass. However, if the percentage of correct answers were 20% or less, consult with a professional corrosion expert with hands on experience on MIC. The following list can also serve our readers as a review of some of the points said so far. First read the

192

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

questions and then see the answersg! The list is as follows: 1. Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) only occurs when you have bacteria around. True/false. g

Answers.

1. F. MIC is not limited to bacteria, one could have Archaea, algae, fungi and macro-organisms as well. Furthermore, just because you have bacteria does not necessarily mean you have to be worried about MIC, you have to be worried if you have not done your homework about corrosion in general and in addition to that you have CRB (corrosion related bacteria) around. 2. False. In addition to chemical treatment of MIC (biocide application), physical-mechanical treatment (pigging) electrical treatment (CP) and even biological treatment (e.g., bioaugmentation) can be applied. All of these methods have their pros and cons. 3. False. Not necessarily always. There are documented cases where CP has been successful whereas there are cases that say the opposite. 4. Very True! Clostridia can produce plenty of hydrogen, thus leading into HIC. They can produce low pH environments via producing organic acids. Some of these bacteria are also capable of reducing iron. Moreover, bad news! We currently have no industrial kits to recognize them on the field (something similar to BART) 5. False. This way you may actually contribute to moving of nutrients from somewhere they are high to where bacteria may need it. So it is necessary but no enough that by increasing fluid flow you can control MIC. 6. False. It normally takes a while for the formed biofilm to become corrosive. For example, when its thickness reaches, a few micrometres, the underbiofilm conditions become anaerobic and thus suitable for anaerobic CRB such as SRB. In addition based on whether the seawater has been physically/chemically treated or not, it may take (on the average) from at least 1 week to 1 month or more for a biofilm that has been formed to become an aggressive, corrosive one. 7. False. Although MMMdor also alternatively known as “Culture independent Methods”dare certainly more precise and thus more reliable than culture-dependent methods such as MPN, they also have their own limitations. For example, DGGE (Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis) cannot detect microorganisms such as Methanogenic Archaea. 8. False. It is advised to take it from about 15 m below the seawater surface (to minimise the chances of getting enough nutrients) and about 15 m above the seabed surface (to minimise the chances of getting water with too high TDS). 9. False. The term “Under-deposit corrosion” is in fact a misleading term as it just says “where” corrosion is happening not that by “which mechanisms” it is happening. If by “deposit” we mean “biofilm þ corrosion products”, we must also note that while a significant share of corrosion (typically about 90%) comes from these “deposits”, there is still an approximately 10% contribution to corrosion from planktonic bacteria as well. Therefore, it is prudent to monitor both planktonic (freely swimming) and sessile (motionless, stuck) bacteria. 10. False. Although o prevent biofilm formation, having a velocity above 5 ft/s (1.5 m/s) is necessary, it is not enough. In fact, relatively high speeds may actually help transferring nutrients to where bacterial colonies need it, thus increasing the risk of MIC. 11. False. It is toxic if and only if it gets into the “body of the CRB and not entangled within the biofilm fabric, thus being prevented from being taken in by the bacteria. 12. True. Stumper Model (1923) states that Galvanic corrosion between the iron sulphide film and underlying steel explains the high corrosion rates observed. Nevertheless, this mechanism is not that valid anymore (in the new versions of MIC theory, EMIC, it is the bacteria itself that will play the role of cathode). There are two sets of corrosion reactions (biological generation of FeS and the galvanic couple between the iron sulphide and the steel substrate), and they are “series corrosion reactions” with respect to each other. Here, the galvanic corrosion is the result of biological activity. Therefore, by applying a suitable biocide (or any of the other three MIC treatment mechanisms), the microbiological part needs to be removed to solve the overall corrosion problem. Thus as long as there is no CRB that will produce FeS (assuming that CRB are the only source of iron sulphide production) no corrosion will happen.

2. An effective way that can always be used to mitigate MIC is use of biocides. True/false 3. CP can always mitigate MIC. True/false 4. Clostridia could be taken as the most important CRB and not necessarily SRB. True/false. 5. If we keep the fluid flowing (flow rates more than 5 ft/s), this will prevent MIC. True/false 6. As soon as a biofilm forms, it will be leading to corrosion. True/False. 7. All MMM (molecular microbiology methods) can detect all bacteria/archaea related to corrosion (CRB/CRA). True/False. 8. When you are using seawater as hydrotest medium, you can take this water from anywhere/any depth of the sea. True/False. 9. MIC always occurs as underdeposit corrosion. True/False 10. If you can keep water moving, the likelihood of MIC will decrease. True/False 11. Copper is toxic to microorganisms. True/False. 12. If SRB produces Fes (assuming that Stumper Model holds true), then solving galvanic effect between the corrosion product and the substrate will not suffice to solve the corrosion problem. True/False. First step in determination of indirect environmental costs of corrosion. As noted in the previous section, most economic models designed to estimate the indirect cost of corrosion are not capable of giving an estimation especially if it is related with the environment component of these costs. We believe that one solution to this problem is tom replace cost estimation in steps instead of trying to get this cost as a wholesome. In other words, we put compensation costs related to improving the imposing any corrosion-related damage to environment in a position far more important than economic direct costs of corrosion. It follows, then, if these costs could have been collected over certain short periods, for example on a weekly or monthly basis, it could become much more precise than any estimation to be carried out over a time period for economic cost of corrosion (and MIC as well). Due to mutual links that exists in many safety/HSE (health, safety, environment) accidents and near-miss incidents with corrosion as being the main cause, we would like to establish a Corrosion-Safety Management (CSM) Department. The rational for a CSM department stems from two facts: importance of corrosion and its place in the overall cost plan imposed on an operator as well as an industry sector and the capability of corrosion to turn an “incident” into an “accident”: there are numerous

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

documented cases where corrosion has been indicated to be the root cause of both economic and ecologic as well as life loss in industry disasters. Some of these accidents (better to say, disasters) have been reviewed elsewhere.6 In any plant specialized in a given industry, corrosion can be a major role player in four issues: (1) Corrosion in the main process equipment (2) Corrosion in the auxiliary equipment (3) Corrosion in the process safety equipment (4) Corrosion in the physical space in which the equipment (main and auxiliary) are physically placed. To clarify the aforementioned four corrosion issues, let us take the example of a refinery: (1) The equipment in which various processes such as but not limited to distillation, refining, converting and the like take place are themselves vulnerable to corrosion. For example, corrosion could be a serious hazard in a furnace, in an Isomax unit, distillation tower, and other main process equipment. (2) On the other hand, if this refinery has a base-load power plant to maintain the required power, the power plant can be regarded as a very important element without which main processes can undergo difficulties in operation. Corrosion in these auxiliary units and equipment, then, is a very significant issue, (3) To manage the risk of fire, for example, fire water rings must be available and operative. One has to make sure that these rings have not been clogged with corrosion deposits and/or there is no chance for pitting corrosion being developed under these deposits leading into the loss of the fire water. Therefore, the equipment that are to be used to maintain safety must also be considered and suitable corrosion management must be applied to them as well, (4) The concrete slabs, structural steel piles, and the walls of the indoor units in which the main and auxiliary equipment are sitting may also be vulnerable to various corrosion scenarios. Similar to a refinery given in the previous example, the plant of interest could be a gas refinery, a power plant, a steel complex, or anything of this sort in which the four aforementioned corrosion issues play a very significant role. In addition, the above plants could also have safety and HSE aspects: Assume that there is a flammable/toxic fluid flowing through a pipe and this pipeline is leaking so that fluid loss is happening because of, say, development of as

193

crack in the body of the pipe. This pipe can create a very serious safety and HSE threats to both the workplace and the environment. A root cause analysis of the crack initiation in this pipeline could reveal that because of precommissioning practices such as hydrotesting or postcommission, operations such as working conditions leading into MIC, pitting has occurred and over time pits coalescence has facilitated cracking. In any case, while the root cause is related to corrosion management, the environmental impact is to be handled by HSE and safety personnel. The previously mentioned and similar many practical examples call for establishing a department that will look after both corrosion and HSE issues and will study the risk not only in HSE risk but corrosion risk too. This interdisciplinary department can be called as a CorrosionSafety Issues Management (CSIM) Department. Who will benefit from a CSIM Department? (1) The owner/management of the plant, whether from private sector or government sector. This is because by establishing a CSM Department, the economiceecologic cost to be imposed on the owner will be removed or highly decreased. The reason for this is that the CSM Department will assess both corrosion and safety risks (likelihood and consequences) together. (2) The labor force and workers in the plant: In addition to humanitarian reasons, it is necessary to save them from the loss they may experience such as losing their jobs because of injury or imposing costs on the health system. (3) The environment around the plant: soil, water, and air are the main elements of any environmental risk assessment. These three elements are also the main elements that do corrode any physical structure: atmospheric corrosion can be linked to air, microbiological corrosion can be linked to both soil and water environments, cavitation could be a result of water hydrodynamics, and so on. The three elements mentioned earlier must be taken under control to both control corrosion and contain safety hazards. To run an interdisciplinary department as such, a team made up of both HSE and corrosion experts must be formed. The causeeeffect relationship between safety issues and corrosion causes must be studied and categorized. Risk matrix must be developed for all observable corrosion processes in a given plant. The reports that this team would prepare could be very useful in dealing with environmental impacts of corrosion as well as those of MIC.

194

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

To best of our knowledge, in no industry sectors there is an interdisciplinary department like what we suggested. HSE goes its own way and technical inspection (the unit that is often responsible for corrosion management too) does its own too. It is because of such unwanted parallel approaches that CSM Departments must be established to put an end to these parallel lines and make them converge toward each other to help cover at least one aspect of corrosion that is its environmental impacts and the associated (indirect) costs. FMEA-MIC indirect environmental costs are also mentioned within the job description of this department.

CM-MIC In this section, we will be focusing on some items that can be categorized as being “unfamiliar” and yet new within the context of this book. We would like to remind our readers what will be mentioned in the next sections are not and should not be taken as the only possible ways to introduce novelty to the realm of FMEA-MIC. Imitating and embracing mother nature in FMEAMIC studies. Perhaps among all FMEA approaches to corrosion, FMEA-MIC is the most exceptional in the sense that contrary to other corrosion phenomena, it directly involves macro- and/or microorganisms. This feature of failure modes faced within microbial corrosion cases can also help making MIC the most receptive when compared to, for instance, galvanic corrosion when a natural environment is considered. Natural inhibitors, challenges, and thoughts11. Antibacterial effect of plants is not something new: antibacterial effects related to Aloe Vera.12 This effect is not limited to plants only: for instance, marine bacteria have been shown to be very effective against SRB (both planktonic and sessile) as well as fungi and therefore a good means of controlling MIC.13 Yet another way by which bacteria can be treated is through the action of “bacteria-eater” microorganisms, that is, Phage Therapy.14,15 Earlier in this book, we briefly wrote about natural biocides (Chapter 3, Green Biocides and Natural Biocides section). In this section, we want to focus more on this subject and, hopefully, prepare the grounds for a much wider use of natural inhibitors anddfrom the perspective of this bookdnatural biocides. The research about corrosion inhibitory properties of the so-called natural corrosion inhibitors was known for a quite long time.16 For example, in a series of

FIG. 5.7 Larus plant.19 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Araceae_-_Arisarum_vulgare.JPG)

research since 1997, Hammouti and colleagues have been working on the effect of many natural products as corrosion inhibitors: an interesting case was the 100% effect of less than 1 ppm of extract of Larus plant (Fig. 5.7) on the corrosion of iron in 1 M hydrochloric acid17 to the effect of artemisia oil (2006)18 on corrosion of mild steel. These and similar research are still going on but they are not the main focus of our discussion here because our main attention must be directed toward natural biocides. Later, we will just explain “Neem Tree.” Obviously, this is just one option that can be given. It is also possible to find other alternatives based on availability and effectiveness. It was Chaturvedi20 et al. in 2011 considered the antimicrobial features of Neem tree leaf and bark extracts against a group of bacteria including Pseudomonas. The same year, Mahmoud et al. showed antifungus effect of the leaves extract21 of this tree against fungi that could also have corrosive impacts such as Aspergillus niger.h Various types of extracts produced from different sections of Neem tree have been shown to control bacterial species.22e25 In the seed oil of neem tree, there are at least four antibacterial compounds and in its bark, there are three compounds that are all showing antibacterial properties.26 It is possible that Neem extract could have a multilateral effect as both a corrosion inhibitor (that more or less, the h In this book, we did not talk about corrosive impacts of fungi and algae to the extent reuired.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

way it is described resembles an anodic inhibitor mechanism) and an SRB-growth reducer agent.27 Contrary to what we said about the difference between synthetic inhibitors and synthetic biocides (that inhibitors are used to only control Non-MIC electrochemical corrosion while biocides are applied to affect CRB and thus control MIC), in the case of Neem tree and what is extracted from each part of it can be used as both a corrosion inhibitor and MIC biocide. The most important feature of natural inhibitors (and biocides alike) that sets them apart from their Green counterparts is that they are directly coming from nature through the following actions: (1) Through creating their extracts, essential oils, and fruit/vegetable peels (2) Through extracting compounds and elements that are known to have inhibitory effects Example of the first action is Neem tree and an example of the second action is extracting silica from rice husk. The main features that can be mentioned for persuading research (and hopefully, in the future, industrialists and technologists) for applying natural biocides are as follows: 1. Economic superiority in comparison with the currently used synthetic and/or green chemicals with the same range of effects, 2. Ecological superiority, natural inhibitors, and biocides are nothing but modified natural products and, being as such, they are essentially a part of the nature themselves 3. Availability, natural inhibitors/biocides are processed from natural elements that are quite easy to reach and can be found everywhere. It may be interesting to know that both the corrosion inhibition mechanism for natural inhibitors and MICcontrol for natural biocides are not outside of the known knowledge about corrosion prevention by using these chemicals and can be easily explained. The above obviously lists the advantages for using natural chemicals (both natural inhibitors and natural biocides) that are, obviously, just a few of the endless existing and potential such advantages that natural chemicals have over other types of their counterparts currently in use. There is also another feature of natural chemicals that is not technical per se but very important from a strategic point of view: the technologies for producing synthetic inhibitors and biocides are in the monopoly of a few manufacturers and the brands they are known within industries. These well-known manufacturers are all Westerns and the rest of the world, particularly oil-producing countries that are geographically

195

located in areas other than West, are just the users of the products provided by these manufacturers and distributed by their regional representatives. It is true that the brand name of these producers is a reliable name not only because of the history behind it and the good reputation made over decades of being in use but also the strong technical backup provided by their R&D in the form of continuous technical improvements being made on these products by numerous researchers already working for these brand names However, it cannot be denied that as the key technology is in the hands of these manufacturers, they are also an inevitable follower of international political fluctuations. Currently and to the best of our knowledge, there is no an international anticorrosion manufacturer that is looking at manufacturing and marketing natural chemicals globally. It seems that the position of natural chemicals among their synthetic counterparts is like new energies and fossil fuels: in both cases, an endless list of disadvantages (mainly economic and marketrelated) is presented to prove that the already in-use versionsdthat is, the fossil fuels and/or synthetic chemicals are better. The reasoning is that economically it is not feasible to invest largely into the alternatives nor is there a considerable market demand. Needless to say that both reasons mentioned against using alternatives (either in the field of energy or in the field of corrosion inhibitors) is baseless as both of these factors are in fact created and controlled by the conservative mentality of the market that is itself a function of the roles played by major players of the industry themselves. In other words, we believe that the current conservative look at using natural inhibitors as alternatives to synthetic inhibitors is not real and more is psychological conditioning of consumers than anything else. We are thankful that serious care about what is happening to the environment is slowly but surely becoming a driving force for not only mentioning alternatives but also using them at large. Signs of such moves are quite evident with regards to new energies where alternatives such as solar and wind energies are being harvested and applied on industrial levels. We do hope to see the same successful pattern for natural inhibitors and biocides too in a very close future and their application as a trend.

FUTURE STUDIES MODEL OF CORROSION AND THE PLACE OF FMEA-MIC IN IT The issue of corrosion in the future of a company is not a joke. There are various evidences that strongly suggest

196

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

that taking the seriousness of corrosion, and for that matter MIC, lightly, could be leading into very costlyd if not disastrousdconclusions. With regards to corrosion, there is a known past. Open any book on corrosion and in the introduction section, you will find some valuable information. The present is also known to a wide extent. Javaherdashti7 showed the past and present trends in the area of MIC as in Fig. 5.8: What we introduced briefly as the past and present of MIC are divided into five eras about which we have given detailed explanations with the related references in the reference we quoted earlier: (1) Historic era is characterized by works dating back as far as late 19th century and continues with studies done by gains (1910), Stumper (1923), Von Wolzogen Kuhr and Van der Vlugt (1934), and Starkey & Wight (1940). This era can be characterized by several attempts to recognize and theorize MIC. In fact, it will not be a farfetched statement if we say that the historic era was the time when the required first steps to make MIC a research topic worth of investigation did happen. In addition, the findings during the so-called historic era must not be taken as to be related to an ancient era because as we see in the next item (Contemporary era), the works carried out within the framework of the time period that spreads from late 19th century to mid20th century made in fact the required food for

thought for investigators in the decades to be followed, mainly 1960s and 1970s. (2) Contemporary era is characterized by the works done by Booth and Tiller (1960s), Kind and Miller (1971), and Costello (mid-1970s). These and several other names that we may have failed to enlist were major players of a “guessing game” played during 1960 and 1970s. As Late Videla put it28 “during the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the research on MIC was devoted either to objecting or to validating” corrosion by SRB as formulated by CDT (cathodic depolarization theory proposed by Von Wolzogen Kuhr and Van der Vlugt. In our view, the contemporary era was very necessary because it helped shaping our understanding about how MIC can actually be explained. (3) Premodern times, in our understanding of the course of events, can be attributed to 1980s where we would like to call it the “interest boom” in the development path of paradigm shifts and getting more and more research on MIC. Among many features 1980s had for MIC research and investigation, we identified the followings as the highlights of this era: 3.1. Recognition of stagnant hydrotest water conditions and the undeniable, significant role of MIC in it in the sense of increasing the likelihood of posthydrotesting corrosion-related failures.

FIG. 5.8 Javaherdashti interpretation of phases of development in ideas/techniques in the context of MIC.7

(Reza Javaherdashti, Microbiologically influenced corrosion-an engineering insight”, Springer-Verlag, UK, 2008, second edition, 2017.)

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

3.2. Realization that MIC was indeed a multidisciplinary area where contributions from many scientific disciplines are required. MIC was not the “property” exclusively belonging to electrochemists and microbiologists but also to metallurgists, materials scientists, chemistry, and the like. This realization was in practice characterized by a booming increase in both the number and quality of experimentations in the studies carried out in the field of MIC. (4) Postmodern era can cover 1990s and beyond. The main characteristics of the postmodern era in the development of research patterns and creating paradigms were as follows: 4.1. Development of new methods for laboratory and field assessment of MIC, 4.2. Use of microsensors for chemical analysis within biofilm, 4.3. Application of fiber optic microprobes for finding the location of the biofilm/bulk water interface, 4.4. Use of scanning vibrating microscope (SVM) for mapping of electric fields, 4.5. Application of advanced microbiological techniques such as DNA probes, 4.6. Application of environmental scanning electron microscope, confocal laser microscope, AFM such that the biofilm and its interactions can be observed in real time, allowing profiles of oxygen concentration within biofilms. 4.7. Investigators freeing themselves from the notion that SRB were the most important CRB to be thought of. The above model we did in mid 2000s. A rather recent work29 (2018) using bibliometric data mining techniques and related software has also shown that while there was no significant MIC studies trends before 1980, the first “rosebuds” of getting attention to MIC issue especially by studying biofilm and MIC mechanisms as well as monitoring belongs to the time interval between 1981 and 1990. A decade later, from 1991 to 2000, the quoted model shows that while the quantity of work in areas such as biofilm, MIC mechanisms, and monitoring showed an increase, the work on modeling or risk assessment has also started. It must be noted that the bibliometric model uses logical statements containing “OR,” “AND”, “NOT,” and the like to conduct data mining. Although this may seem the only feasible/available approach to conduct data mining from within the huge amount of data available, it must also be reminded that

197

it may cause some confusion as risk assessment arguably cannot be traded with modeling: it is true that we sometimes do MIC modeling to get an idea about the risk associated, it is also true that we do modeling to just enable us explain the phenomenon. We have shown and discussed some examples of this approach to MIC modeling in a previous work6). The era between 2001 and 2010 witnesses a further increase in the volume of work done and produced in the areas previously studied during the previous decade with the inclusion of studies concerned about inhibition or prevention of MIC and this trend has been untouched for the time interval between 2010 and 2017 also. The bibliometric model entitles the years from mid-years of the era from 2001 to 2010 to 2017 as “How to sense, predict, and act?” It seems that the authors of the bibliometric model are right is their deduction for the prediction of the research trend in MIC area given that for nearly 2 decades (from 2001 to 2017), no new area of research has been added into the “wish list” of research nor a paradigm shift like what separates pre-1980s from post-1980s with regards to MIC research and study trends has happened or is likely to happen. However, does this trend need to remain as such because it has been constant for so many years? Are the authors of the bibliometric study model right in naming the last decade of their study as “How to sense, predict, and act?” implying that researchers are stuck in only few areas they have identified “to act”? Certainly No! neither the future needs to go in the same way that past has gone and present is going nor is the bibliometric model right in its deterministic interpretation of the past and present to predict the future. More than captured in a certain spot in the “Wonderland of MIC,” we are to do discover new avenues via “sightseeing” approach. More or less, wedresearchers and engineersdare like tourists who have reached their destination city and now they set out to sightseeing and explore the city. This is not being stuck to just one or a few districts and places, but rather the will to go out and find more about the surroundings and discover every possible alley, street, museum, park, and tourist attraction as much as we can. We will come back to this matter and will discuss it with more details in the next section under the title “Future of FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC. In this book and particularly in this chapter, we have identified and introduced quite a lot of number of area that can be considered as the Greenfield for research. However, they may still fall under the categorization model that the bibliometric model uses: use of TRIZ

198

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

may again be treated as “modeling/risk assessment” and the possibility of using natural biocides would again be taken as an example of “prevention/inhibition.” However, we believe that trying to add topics such as Future studies, “slow corrosion management” and more detailed economics of MIC could be areas that can be taken as stand-alone avenues for research and, more importantly, industrial applications. If the previously mentioned and similar studies can give us insight into the present state of MIC research, how a way can be found to let us extrapolate the future of MIC research? Before answering to this and similar questions, we need to clear the air with regards what is meant here by research: is it research for the sake of research or is it research to ultimately solve industry problems? Although we have quite a number of colleagues at universities and research institutes that despite their grants with industry, they keep on spending time in their laboratories, and there are a good number of good researchers who do research to assist industry with its problems. It is this approach by which industry problemsdat least those related to MICdare addressed and solved that is our goal in our discussion here. In other words, whatever advancement in the field of MIC research, we believe that it must solve or assist to solve a problem. Let us try to clear up our point by giving an example: With regards to MIC mechanisms, we know that at the moment we can talk about EMIC and CMIC. If the observed corrosion rates in a system contaminated with SRB (and we assume that it is only SRB and not other CRB/CRA), show corrosion rates close to those normally expected with an EMIC approach, will you still apply pigging or you will precede a rigorous chemical treatment that will serve to have both biocidal impact and corrosion products loosening impact and then apply pigging? Yet another example: the laboratory results for the fire water indicate that based on the most probable number (MPN) method, the number of planktonic SRB is less than 1000 cells/mL. What is your interpretation of this finding? First, it is showing just a part of the picture (perhaps 10%, if we assume this is the contribution by planktonic bacteria to MIC) and not the whole picture. Second, MPN method is not a too reliable method per se. Third, the report relies only on Culture methods that does not show possible existence of Archaea. Fourth, the so-called screening test has been conducted to only isolate SRB and not other CRB (let alone CRA). Fifth, it completely ignores the number of Sessile bacteria that in terms of their contribution could be said to have even an stronger impact on the n course of severity of corrosion in the

given system. There exist other drawbacks as well, but the point is that without having in-depth research into MIC, many of these questions could have never been asked let alone being evaluated and tested. We strongly believe that the research must find its way into the future assessment of the severity of MIC and the sooner the better! Let us get back to our discussion about the future and the role of corrosion and particularly MIC in it: there has always been a need to predict future and with regards to corrosion, very little, if not at all, has been done. In other words, some authors have come up with approaches aiming to show where MIC should be going. Many researchers have tried (and are still trying) to address this issue to the fullest extent they could. An example of such is the work by Kannan et al., where after a good review of the existing trends in MIC research and technology they foresee the future of MIC-related industry impacts as illustrated in Fig. 5.9: As it can be seen from Fig. 5.9, all elements given as the future of MIC detection are engineering-technical and therefore unless there is a need for advancement coupled with required budget, this scenario will be doomed to only remain as a good-looking illustration in a well-respected journal. The need for advancement comes from training and education and the budget comes from right management of resources in addition to economy of managing the loss. If the technical staff and engineering managers of a given company are still happy with they had been doing for the last 10 or 20 years, there will be no room for training and education: any training is doomed to fail because the audience of the training program would find it unnecessary, costly, hard to achieve and so on. Furthermore, if the top management is not aware of the sequences resulting from ignoring the impact of MIC, they are not likely to invest into it. This is exactly the case with conservative companies and we have talked about these and similar issues in this book earlier. The point we are trying to make here is that the overall picture, however, is not completed in our view yet. We may foresee how MIC research should be going but this could only be from the perspective of a researcher at laboratory or at most what we quoted a few line above. In other words, one may argue that MMMs such as DGGE need to get improved to also address such and such group of CRA or we need to focus more on the advancement of monitoring tools such as BioGeorge to make it even more efficient or we must develop other means to have advanced, more sophisticated understanding of subbiofilm levels of bacterial activity but all these will be of importance only corrosion in general

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

199

FIG. 5.9 A model proposed by Kannan et al., for “An integrated approach for remote and real-time MIC

monitoring of MIC in the oil and gas industry.”30 (Permission Form 5-1.)

and Mic in particular were technical problems per se. However, we would like to comment that no work, to the best of our knowledge, has been done so far to address the importance of corrosion (and consequently, MIC) in a management bigger picture. It is important to consider the following facts: Fact 1: Corrosion in terms of its cost and risk is a matter that does have engineering importance in the context we have defined earlier, Fact 2: Taking into consideration that any treatment of corrosion has both expert-engineer side (CM) and strategic management involvement (CKM) calls for an approach where interaction and mutual understanding between the top management and the expert-engineer level is provided in a healthy way. One way to achieve this is to show the strategic managers and CEO/directors/bosses how corrosion must be accommodated in their long-run management plans. In other words, unless the top management is convinced that corrosion is to play an important role in the destiny of healthy, safe, and reliable operation of their plants, in case of any financial instability, it is the training and R&D budgets that are cut. No doubt that a great part of this budget-cut would be reflected in the way corrosion engineering must be educated to industry professionals as well as the new avenues by which a better

advancement in corrosion science could be achieved by researchers. Later, we will reintroduce31 our model for future studies including corrosion (Fig. 5.10). The reason we called it “reintroduction,” is not just because we are quoting from a previously published paper but also that we visit that model again because we think that without having an established Future studied model in place, it is not even sensible to talk about the future of research and development within the context of corrosion let alone MIC. In this attempt, “Javaherdashti future studies model for including corrosion in a management scheme” could be just one of the possible many other models that could have been proposed. Javaherdashti model can be described via the numbered routes as follows: (1) Corrosion professionals and economists will communicate with the manger of industrial units via CKM. This communication/interaction will be in the form that managers will understand and appreciate the cost of the corrosion (economic and ecological as well as legal costs) of corrosion. Middle and Top managers need not know the technicalities involved in managing corrosion because it is the task of the corrosion professionals.

200

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

FIG. 5.10 Javaherdashti future studies model for including corrosion in a management scheme. (R. Javaherdashti, F. Akvan “On the link between Future Studies and necessity of including corrosion in a “desired future” scenario: Presenting a model”, International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research, Vol.2, Iss.4,: pp: 1e8, October 2015.)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Neither do they need to know the details of economic models. All managers need to know is to have been convinced that one must do something, The top managers, based on the hierarchy, “political lay-out” and other influencing factors that may affect their efforts officially (or unofficially) will approach the law makers. The lobbies with law makers must be of a nature that more than being technical, it is based on facts and figures. As results of these lobbies, laws will be passed so that taking care of corrosion will go beyond justtechnical activities and will become a management challenge as well as an engineering one. These laws will be implemented by government bodies and authorities. In this way, the administration will have a platform upon which based on their line of duties, rules and regulations will be defined for managing corrosion. Policies thus defined will be in accordance with the needs and line of duties as per the governments general policies Therefore, management of corrosion within Ministry of Petroleum will be different from what to be applied within the Ministry of Health (corrosion of body implants and their health consequence for example). By Top and Middle managers obligation to implement the rules and regulations dictated upon

them by their upper hand authorities, the loop will be closed. This way, every time there is a need for any improvement, through steps 1 and 2, the required changes will be studied in details and suggested. The rest will continue as per steps given earlier. In some countries (like most oil producing countries) it is the Petroleum Ministry (or its equivalent) that dictates the policies and trends and therefore while it only has ministerial power over any CM/CKM issue, it is still a very significant factor that cannot be ignored at all. The place of MIC in a Future studies model like Javaherdashti model is integrated by definition. In fact, not only MIC but also any other corrosion process that could be of interest to industry and has significant economic as well as ecologic impacts comes under the umbrella of this model. As we also remarked earlier, our Future studies model is not and cannot be the only model; imaginable. The nature of future is that as long as we know how to shape it can take another route to continue its journey and therefore it is always possible to come up with multifutures instead of just one rigid future. Even one model when acquired and put into action must have enough flexibility toward the changes that could happen and perhaps change the rules of engagement.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

FUTURES OF FMEA-MIC AND FPC-MIC OF A “WETTED ASSET” In previous section, based on the Bibliometric Analysis model presented in reference 29, it can be said that the future trend in MIC will be increasing the number of works done in various areas named and addressed by the authors of that work. It may seem that in MIC studies, the destination is reached and it is just a matter of exploring different spots of the destination that will fall over the shoulders of engineers and researchers working in this field. We call this “sightseeing” approach as it resembles the way a traveler discovering and exploring streets, museums, parks, and other attractions of the city he has reached. It is the city that has been reached and the rest is just sightseeing. Similarly, it may be suggested that the peak of research and studies may have been reached and from this point on, to put it into an exact context, the years from mid-years of the era from 2001 to 2010 to 2017 according to the Bibliometric model designated as “How to sense, predict, and act?“ it is just a stream of sightseeing activities that can contain research on if such and such CRB/CRA contributes to corrosion of such and such material and the like. We think even if sightseeing is inevitable fate of research and study in the field of MIC, this trend must be analyzed clearly and within a context that is logical in its content and applicable. This can be named as looking for the future of FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC. In other words, we should try to address the possible future of FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC in such a way that is understandable and possible to follow. This will bring with itself uncertainties as well: the same way that by assuming to know the future, one can change the very fabric of it to conduct it to another way (an entertaining example of this can be seen in the movie series “Back to The Future”), it may be possible that by trying to address the future issues of a matter and classify them in an ordered approach, one actually become successful in making the necessary framework to employ changes that would in turn speed up the process required for achieving the change even faster. It is with this hope that here we will try to address the future of FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC in the way we see it and classify the related issues so that by this categorization, a motivation should be formed to speed up the change and advancement process. Any issue regarding MIC when looked at from FMEA and FPC aspects, need to address an MIC system and its components. An MIC system is defined as a corrosion system in which MIC has been investigated and shown to be the

201

main active corrosion process. We use “corrosion system” in the context we defined previously (Chapter 1, “Corrosion Management definition and “Javaherdashti” corrosion management model”). MIC system normally has two components: The environment and the material. It could be the interior wall of a pipeline exposed to the water phase of a wet gas or oil or it could be the exterior surfaces of an offshore in contact with seawater or it could be a pipeline that has been exposed to a wrong/inadequate hydrostatic testing. In this context, we can introduce the concept of “Wetted Assets.” What it means is the assets that are in contact with water either as being totally immersed in water (such as subsea equipment and pipelines) or in “touch” with water/water phase of a fluid (such as interior wall of a pipelines during a hydrotest or during wet lay up). Therefore, the main focus of any MIC research and investigation in FMEA is a wetted asset. Sometimes, it is necessary to simulate corrosion of the wetted asset in evaluating the contribution of MIC to it, this will be called an “MIC research.” Sometimes, it is necessary to trouble-shoot the corrosion problem of which MIC has been proved to be the essential part on a given equipment in use on site, this will be called “MIC project.” MIC research and MIC project have the wetted asset in common and based on that the environment that is in touch with the asset and the failed asset will obey certain rules, or rather, patterns for investigation and study. The categorization of these patterns for FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC can schematically be addressed as in Fig. 5.11: It is possible then, to put all the tests required (in FMEA) and also all the measures required (in FPCMIC) into following categories: Category 1 Tests: Microbiological tests Category 1 Measures: Chemical Measures Category 2 Tests: Mechanical Tests Category 2 Measures: Materials Measures Category 3 Tests: Chemical Tests Categor3 Measures: Biological Measures. Category 4 Tests: Metallurgical Tests Now we are in a position to discuss the future of both FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC categorically. In other words, if we could determine what category of tests or measures would have a future, then we would be in a position to comment on the future paths for both FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC. Obviously, all the tests and measures are to be applied to a wetted asset as we defined earlier.

202

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

FIG. 5.11 Categorization of patterns necessary for FMEA-MIC and FPC-MIC of a wetted asset. Chem.Analysis (1): Chemical analysis of the water/water phase to measure its corrosive ions concentrations (mainly anions), pH, Water Corrosion indices. Chem. Treatment: Application of biocides and/or inhibitors that will be leading into a better corrosion management to prevent MIC. Bio. Analysis (1): Microbiological analysis in terms of CRB/CRA, both in planktonic and sessile forms. Bio.Treatment: Treatment of MIC by biological species. Metall.Analysis (1): Metallurgical examinations such the chemical composition of the metal. Metall.Analysis (2): Metallographic examinations of the metal in terms of revealing microstructures before and after being exposed to the corrosive, MIC-inducing environment. Mech.Analysis: Mechanical examinations such the hardness of the metal surface before and after failure or hardness of intact spots and failed spots, toughness profile of the material where the failure has happened, calculation of the remaining life of the part. Materials (1): Issue of Material selection so that the material with the least susceptibility to MIC will be selected. Materials (2): Application of cathodic protection and/or coating. (Drawn by Dr. Reza Javahedashti)

Category 1 tests include what we have branded and introduced as field and laboratory tests, or more specifically, culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. The techniques that are being used are not likely to undergo a paradigm shift in the sense that a new technique is invented that fundamentally is different from both culture-dependent and cultureindependent methods. There is no evidence suggesting that in addition to efforts being done to overcome the limitations in existing methods, a substantial change could be expected. As an example, ATPG1 is replaced by ATPG2. Fundamentally they are similar but the limitations in the first version have been largely modified and even abolished in the second version. Category 2 tests are also not promising to undergo a paradigm shift in what they are. Perhaps to test MICSCC, new machines will be invented and much higher

precisions will be employed. Perhaps, micro-and macrohardness measurement will be made with much higher precision and much more resolution in results but the sightseeing is what is we can expect to occur, in other words, development, advancement, and sophistication of methods and machinery without creating a revolution-like change. Although in this category, calculation of remaining life may serve to categorize it as an element of FPC-MIC in the sense that it can assist in taking measures against a very susceptible wetted asset, we still prefer to categorize it as an FMEA-MIC element as it helps to identify the mechanics involved in the failure. Both categories 3 and 4 are not showing any bright future in terms of intruding new technologies and techniques. In both of these categories, hope for a substantial change seems to be a farfetched expectation.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

Based on the earlier analysis, we feel confident to suggest that there is no future paradigm shift to be expected for FMEA-MIC. The techniques used can be replaced by more sophisticated means and technologies in the same way that the light microscope can be replaced by SEM but the essence of the techniques and tests to be applied to a wetted asset are highly likely to remain the same. In this regard, new discoveries in the realm of FMEA-MIC would mean finding new techniques and more precise, sophisticated instrumentation. Nothing of essential significance would be expected to be augmented to the core science of FMEA-MIC in terms of analysis of the failure and finding the cause(s) of it via applying tests on both the MIC-inducing environment and the vulnerable metal and categorized as the four categories mentioned earlier. What we have suggested in this chapter so far, such as use of TRIZ and ARIZ, can certainly assist researchers and investigators working in the field of FMEA-MIC to develop technologies and techniques necessary to both fill the gaps and lessen the limitations involved in already-existing test categories. Similarly, use of Fuzzy logic and calculations or constructing models such as S-G model can be of very high significance in both understanding the failures with much better visibility and characterizing these failures in such a way that can even become a “measure” itself, that is, become an element of FPC-MIC by predicting what can go wrong under given working circumstances. It is important, in our view, to realize that while FMEA-MIC has come to its maturity and it is highly unlikely to get a new look of it anymore, by using tools such as but not limited to TIZ/ARIZ the sightseeing activity can be further enhanced and therefore much better results in terms of achieving higher precision and reliability can be reached much faster. Recognition of their place as being involved in the issue of sightseeing only, for researchers is of vital importance because by knowing that, it may help them to apply for research grants for applied rather than edge of knowledge if they work in the field of FMEA-MIC. However, what about FPC-MIC? Is it futureless too? Is the future for FPC-MIC only limited to sightseeing within the wonderland city of MIC? What we have designated here as treatment or measures are those actions that need to be taken so that the possibility of failure will become nil or even zero. Once again, we need to remind our readers that corrosion per se is a thermodynamically favored process and therefore it will happen no matter how low its rate and severity could

203

be. MIC is no exception either: provided that the required conditions for MIC as an electrochemical corrosion process are present, its happening is inevitable. However, when corrosion reached to the point where it causes failure and leakage, it is the point that a Zugzwang effect state can be expected to also happen. Although FMEA-MIC looks at the ways that an FPCMIC can be oriented and coordinated, FPC is a continuous process that in the hands of engineers and technologists could become instrumental in keeping the wetted asset in its Pseudo-FFS state. The first category we have suggested to focus as a means of achieving FPC-MIC is the chemical treatment/measures. Currently, all the chemical treatments that MIC cases receive are synthetic in nature. One sightseeing future for these measures could be natural biocides, as we have discussed in required length in this book. Any other possibility for manufacturing chemicals with highest effect and lowest environmental impacts will still fall into the same category. Therefore, in this category, no significant change in terms of a completely different option for FPC-MIC via chemical treatment can be foreseen. For biological measures as strategies within the second category of FPC-MIC measures, it can be said that by its own this category carries a paradigm shift. It is not like any other measures that we have discussed so far. It has the potential to, literally speaking, “rock” the whole FPC-MIC measures all together particularly chemical treatment. Any development that is designated to happen in this category will be a wellcoming effort to allow the fundamental change FPCMIC requires. The most important features that set biological measures apart and different from other treatment and measures are (1) biological measures take from nature and give back to Nature too. This means that no factor of augmenting feature to the environment is created during biological treatment of MIC, It is not like manufacturing chemicals currently in use that in addition to what they do to contain MIC, they also do damage to the environment. By biological measures, the hidden potentials of the nature itself are extracted to address the issue of MIC, (2) biological treatment will highly lessen the pollution and associated embedded energies to produce CRA (corrosionresistant materials). Currently, coatings and paints are used to also keep CRB/CRA away from the wetted assets surfaces and application of new materials could be a key element in addressing both internal and external possible failures with a significant MIC component in

204

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

them. However, with biological treatments in place, the internal corrosion failure possibilities with an MIC component could be brought under control. Biological treatment could be a very “tricky” business too in the sense that by solving one issue it may open way to another issue or issues. In addition, it is a measure buy which elements of nature per se are to be modified and this is a very delicate matter. A possible example in this respect is the “friendly bacteria” or biological agents we will develop, will not themselves undergo mutations or acquired immunities against conventional means of containing MIC because in that case, our problems with MIC would become multiplied instead of simply doubled. Category 4 in FPC-MIC belongs to materials and what materials selection can do to be considered a measure. The role played by materials selection is undeniable however it has its own “drawbacks” such as cost and the overall energy required to make them. For example, the embodied energy32 of commercial steel (20% recycled) is 35.00 MJ/kg where as that of Stainless steel is 54.00 MJ/kg. For a given material class (say, class of steels), the more alloying elements it contains to give it superior features (including corrosion resistance), both its cost and embodied energy values increase. Based on the earlier discussion, it seems that there is no future for FMEA-MIC in a great leap forward and cause a noticeable paradigm change. The tests required to carry on both environment and metal components of a wetted asset seems to be remaining the same and continue as they are now. However, only the sightseeing approach is of highly potential to be developed, meaning that within the technologies and equipment used for carrying out these tests, it is quite expectable to see great changes that in addition to letting our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the way they demonstrate themselves to be refined, more complexity and sophistication along with ease of use would happen.

to find alternatives and apply them to what we have been used to applying so far.i Let us all agree once and forever that FMEA must deliver its level far from laboratory-based investigations for pinpointing a certain failure mechanism and must elevate its place to be regarded as an essential tool to the bigger picture of identifying the main cause of making any environmental impacts related to corrosion. It is in this context that a very highly unlikely model of “fast fashion” could be taken as a leading example to corrosion treatment industry in general and MIC treatment strategies and particularly chemical treatment tactics in particular. Different schools of knowledge must interact with each other and learn from each other, in both victories and falls. In fact, MIC is itself a field where various skills and knowledge from different schools is being shared and applied. Management of pollution is a matter that we believe is a common headache for everyone around the world and the main responsibility for creating so much pollution lies with industries. Industries of any kind are related to each other in one way or another and while some industries may be taken as being “guiltier” in the sense that they do pollute and contaminate waters, soils and air, it is not possible to hold just one industry the main culprit and expect that if that particular industry is abolished, or more practically speaking, if that particular industry is made more Green, then all others would be too. Industries are bound to each other and this very characteristic of them must be used to see where they have failed or become successful in pollution management and seriously adapt that lesionpositive or negative- to come up with a plan for the industry we have in mind to become more sustainable. The interaction between industries especially with regards to pollution management cannot be a zero

i

WHAT CAN MIC TREATMENT LEARN FROM FASHION AND FOOD CONSUMPTION LIFESTYLE?! Several times in this book we have emphasized upon the urgent need for all industriesdespecially those in which corrosiondand for that matter MIC is a problemdto have much more serious consideration of what they are doing to environment in terms of their environmental impacts. It is a serious offense if we deliberately ignore the care that must be given to environment and it is a crime if we deliberately do not try

Here we have to clarify a point: there are both scientists and non-scientists who are or against global warming. Perhaps one of the most notable scientists who insists on the dynamic features of nature (including climate) and dismisses the socalled global warming is Prof. Ian Plimer. We may or may not agree with professor Plimer but what we think there is absolutely no doubt about it is the increasing levels of pollution that we are introducing into our natural resources by unconditional use of chemicals. In the particular case of corrosion management these chemicals include inhibitors, biocides, oxygen scavengers, pH stablisers and the like. It also encompasses certain paints and even certain practices such as cathodic protection. Therefore, it is environmental chemical pollution that in great part perhaps is being driven by corrosion chemical physical treatment that is of concern to us.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

sum agreement in the sense that winning one will be the cause or result of losing the other. It has to be a positive sum approach so that the algebraic sum of the efforts made by each industry will actually be augmenting to each other rather than just canceling each other out. Textile industry is an industry that in its current form, it is one of the most polluting industries second only to oil industry.33 Some features of textile industry that do contribute to vast environmental toxification and pollution are34: (1) Use and application of chemicals that have toxic nature (2) Consuming huge amounts of water (3) Energy consuming (4) Air emissions (5) Issues generated through increased transportation (6) Use of packaging materials Oil and gas industries may have not committed all of these “six sins” but a few. However, at the end of the day, it is undeniable that oil and gas “do” contribute to pollution greatly like all other industries do. Getting back to our discussion, textile industry can be said that is based on “Fast Fashion,” a concept that more or less is like the fast food industry: it is quick in the sense of attributing the minimum time slot ever possible for both producing and consuming so that new versions can be offered and, metaphorically speaking, coerce and enhance more consumerism; it is driven by increasing the profit and it cares all bot very little for the health of the consumers of its products. We believe if fast fashion and what it does in textile industry and how it is counteracted by slow fashion is known, there can be very serious lesions for all industriesdincluding but not limited to oil and gas industrydto learn and apply. To be more exact, fast fashion is a trend in textile industry that is represented and called as “fast fashion” that is held responsible for creating such polluting nature of textile industry. Fast fashion can be characterized by the following features35: (1) Fast fashion depends on mass production through an international network of retailers, (2) Fast fashion is also characterized by low prices and [high] volumes of sales (3) Fast fashion constantly offers new models and styles to its national and international markets to buy. This is very strong, irritable drag force to further enhance consumerism and its associated subculture. Slow fashion can be taken as a reaction based on “ethical consumerism” to fast fashion where while it can explicitly be defined in various ways, its main

205

elements are emphasis on environment and sustainability, transparency and social responsibility without giving up on quality or reasonable time needed for essential activities in textile industry such as design, production, and consumption.36 Furthermore, it is agreed that the very name “slow fashion” has been inspired by the “slow food” movement to resist the fast food way of life and all its unwanted social, health, and environmental impacts.35,37 Industries in which corrosion and particularly MIC is a problem do apply more or less the same approach toward the issue: higher rates of production are seen as appropriate even at the cost to environment and to keep corrosion down, billions of liters of chemicals are consumed on yearly basis by industries around the world. In addition to the chemicals used in industries to contain and control MIC, one should not forget the fact that when biofilms form, they become quite susceptible to harboring other kinds of microorganisms including the pathogenic bacteria. So, what can be said about creating a counteraction or an antithesis to the fast fashion equivalent of corrosion treatment particularly in the field of MIC treatment? We suggest that the followings must be done to prepare the required “ethical” background necessary to initiate this movement in the same way that ethical consumerism managed to create slow fashion or increasing concerns about and pushing for finding a solution to what the fast food culture was leading into in social and economic as well as moral degeneration and resulted in slow food consciousness: Here, we focus our attention on MIC only but it is quite obvious that what is suggested in the following can be generalized for corrosion or for any other phenomena that is as harmful as corrosion: (1) Transparency: in many countries (especially Western countries), there is social awareness about pollution management and especially the media do not go easy on the authorities and the industries that have been shown to play a major role in pollution. This pattern is hardly seen in many other countries. To solve any problem, one should appreciate that there is one and this will not happen unless the media do their jobs correctly and fearlessly in particularly exposing the truth about the “filthj” behind disasters that are rooted in ignoring MIC. One successful example of such was the coverage that was given to trans-Alaska oil pipeline failure caused by MIC about a decade ago, Mankind activities is turning our plant into “polluted wasteland full of debris, desolation and filth”, as quoted and addressed by Pope Francis. j

206

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

(2) Increasing public awareness and sensitivity: starting from primary schools to universities, the educated generation must become familiar with MIC in particular and corrosion in general. One of us (Javaherdashti) witnessed how that could have quite powerful an impact on young generation when in Qatar an education program for students in the age group 12to 14 was introduced under the name “Al-Bayrak” (the Flag). It was during this program curriculum that Dr. Javaherdashti was given the opportunity for teaching these young minds about corrosion and how important it was. Based on the success of “Al-Bayrak” education program, we strongly believe that by the aid of educators, psychologists, and media experts programs are designed to address the issue. Javaherdashti in 2013 during a session in PerthWestern Australia designed and organized by Australasian Corrosion Association on identifying the importance of corrosion, publicly announced the idea of organizing a radio station that he called “radio Corrosion” to broadcast programs about corrosion for both ordinary, educated nonexperts in corrosion as well as engineers and technologists whom were engaged in industrial activities. Ideas such as “Radio Corrosion” and initiations such as “Al-Bayrak” could be leading into preparing a background for an audience ranging from school children to noncorrosion experts and even ordinary people to become more aware about corrosion in general and MIC in particular. (3) Emphasis on Ethics: as we saw, the slow fashion movement started on the platform of ethics and ethical consumers. We do not suggest violence or militia-like actions against industries but rather trying to find new avenues for mutual understanding and dialogue. We understand that this is a very serious and tough way to follow but relatively good examples of slow fashion movement in Australia as well as some European and Asian countries can be taken as heart-warming activities where there are still good people around that instead of resorting to the comfort zone of their laboratories and getting drawn in their academic activities, do recognize that they must have a say in the going-on of events around the world. Universities will not willing to do research on biocides with sustainable properties and chemical industry that is feeding on selling poison to industries to socalled protect their assets against MIC will not listen to any alternative voice unless an ethical approach toward Mother Earth is preferred,

(4) Funding: For raising an issue, whatever it is, from a presidential campaign to increasing awareness about how to replace today’s fast technologies with slow ones (“slow” in terms of being more sustainable and more attending into the sensitive issue of environment), we need money. Or, put it in a more academic language, we will need being funded. How that, on the other hand, can be achieved? We have to accept that in this respect we are in a really very tough position here: is it possible to go to producers and manufacturers of these synthetic chemicals (e.g., biocides) who are making their fortune out of producing those chemicals and ask of them not produce them anymore and instead turn into using essences or plant extracts or the like?! The fate of such an approach is not hard to say. However we still hope that sources such as United Nation affiliated organisations, charities, individual s and the same will come to rescue. At the moment for the matter of funding a slow MIC treatment approach, the situation is not ideal but with relative success of movements such as slow fashion we still foresee a bright future! It follows from the earlier discussion that the best working model to follow for industries and particularly those strategic industries in which corrosion and particularly MIC is a problem (on-shore and off-shore oil and gas industries, pipelines, water and waste water treatment, marine and ports, aviation, desalination and the like) is the slow fashion model as is working in textile industry and itself has roots in slow food movement. There are certainly very serious tough problems and hurdles to face with that require a huge amount of investment in terms of both money and energy. In addition, there are certain cultural/social difficulties that need to be addressed and if not handled properly, it is highly unlikely to get over the problem of dealing with industries that in their way to consume up all the resources we have, are not that eager (or at least, they are far from being in ideal position) to take care of global pollution. Although there are scientists and researchers who dare questioning climate change and global warming trends, there is absolutely no one ever who would deny the “filth” produced and imposed on Earth and environment. A careful examination of these pollution could easily show that if not all of them or if not majority of them, there is still a good number of them that can be linked to corrosion and particularly to MIC and its improper management. Some of the examples we have given in various references in this book and used through it, are good examples of justification of the above.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

A BRIEF REVIEW ON THE ECONOMIC MODELS FOR ESTIMATION OF COST OF CORROSION Corrosion and in particular MIC do have economic impacts. The main source quoted by many researchers as the contribution of MIC to overall cost of corrosion was put forward by Flemming as being in the range of 10%e20%,38 meaning that of each five corrosion problems whose economical cost can be calculated, at least one is directly related to MIC. This figure was not based on any direct measurement or economic model and it was just am estimation and “[A] wild guess by that time, not based on any real numbers.”39 Looking at what costs have been imposed by corrosion disasters is one way for estimation of cost of corrosion (CoC). A simple internet search can reveal to us that such costs could amount to millions or even billions of dollars. Although study of CoC dates back to late 1940s, to show the economic significance of MIC, still now some researchers40 refer to and quote a work done in late 1990s that puts the contribution of MIC to CoC. Later, we will briefly review economic models that so far have been used to estimate the cost of corrosion. We care to try to adapt them to what application of such models would require if applied to MIC cases. To begin with, let us ask a question that may seem irrelevant at first glance: assume you have a bowl full of rice grains and you want to measure the number of these grains (it can be a ridiculous goal but who has not done activities even more ridiculous than this when alone and wanted to find something to kill time?!).Anyway, suppose that this is our goal. Obviously, to achieve this goal, we can a lot of options. One is to empty the bowl and start counting each grain one by one. Although this could be a solution for a ridiculous problem, this solution is even worse. What are other options we can have? Remember though, while trying to find a solution, the solution must be as accurate as possible (if 100% cannot be achieved, at least an acceptable margin of error must be a part of our solution) and it will not a time-consuming set of activities as well. Perhaps one solution that would satisfy both the criteria stated earlier is to find a container that has a smaller volume, then pour the rice from the bowl to that container and count the number of rice grains in this smaller container and then see with how many of these counties being full, there will remain no rice grains in the bowl any more. This way by multiplying the number of grains in the smaller container by the number of containers needed to completely empty the

207

bowl, we can get a good idea of the total number of the rice grains in the bowl. It is too evident that there would be at least two sources of error here: any error in counting the number of rice grains in the small container and any error in calculating how many of the small containers are required to completely empty the bowl.k The previous example about the number of rice grains and trying to sample it in smaller volumes to let us estimated the total number of the grains is exactly the methodology that the economic models for estimation of CoC use: instead of trying to address the whole components of CoC, they take some industry sectors and evaluate the direct CoC. Then, we would extrapolate it to the similar industry sectors and come up with a figure that shows direct CoC. “Uhlig” and “Hoar” methods are two examples of these methods. It is important to remind our readers that the costs associated with corrosion can be broadly divided into two categories: direct costs that are mainly the costs that can be measured and evaluated almost immediately and indirect costs that is not that easy to chase. For example, if a disaster like rupture of a pipeline happens so that oil spill or gas explosion will be the results, the direct costs include items such as the cost associated with the loss of material, man-hour required to do repairs, the cost of consumables used (for example the welding electrodes) and the like. Indirect costs could be the expenses associated with long-run environmental impacts, socioeconomic impacts imposed on the family members of the victims and the like. All the economic models presented so far are, at their best, good at measuring the direct costs but not indirect costs, even if models such as Life Cost Cycle model claim otherwise. Studies about CoC dates back to 1922 by Hadfield. It was the annual rate of rusting of steels around the k

To explain this example more clearly, suppose there are x number of rice grains in the bowl. Now, suppose I have small cups that when completely filled with these rice grains, can accommodate 20 rice grains. We notice that it takes 50 times of filling the cups completely full with the rice grains so that after 50th traial, no rrice grains will be left in the bowl. Now, if we have counted that each cup can take only 20 rice grains and it takes 50 cups to completely empty the bwol, then the number of the total number of the rice grains in the bowl must be 20x50 ¼ 1000. It is obvious that the resulting 1000 rice grains in the bowl is just an approximation that is highly likely to be true. There can be some variables that would affect the correctness of this result. For example, it may be contrary to our assumption that each rice grain has exactly the same shape (and thus volume) so that in each cup would exactly contain 20 grains and not, for example, 20 grains and half a grain.

208

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

globe. This first attempt has a lot of uncertainties, branding it “speculative estimation” by researchers working in the field of CoC study. After this attempt, four main models have been developed over decades that below, we will very briefly introduce them41e45 in a bullet point format:

Uhlig Model • Proposed and applied by H. H. Uhlig in 1950 (USA) • It is too conservative an approach, that is, it has the potential to “underestimate” CoC, • The data required to make the model is collected from the manufacturers and not those who are actually exposed to using the tools and assets. • This approach does not calculate indirect loss • Uhlig model Uses surveying method to collect data. Similar to all similar models, Uhlig model is based upon assumptions two of which are the most important ones as follows: 1. Assumption related to CoC estimation via the platform of carbon steel: (a) Ferrous metals mild and stainless steel) are mostly used engineering materials in industries with a certain cost. (b) However, ferrous metals corrode and therefore nonferrous or alloy steels are to be used. It follows from the above two items (a) and (b) that the increased cost of nonferrous or alloy steels over ferrous metals of the same shape and size constitutes the direct CoC 2. Related to estimating CoC via protective methods such as painting: - Approximately 50% of annual production of paints goes to protect metals against corrosion. The cost involved in such applications (phosphating for instance) is an indication of direct CoC. Despite its relatively old back ground and its cons, the Uhlig method was used in the United States, India, Australia, and Japan in 1950e1970s and recently (2015) in China.

Hoar Model • In March 1966, Ministry of Technology commissioned The UK committee on corrosion protection Headed by Dr. T.P. Hoar • This method applies direct contact with industry and determines the weight (percentage) of each industry sector in CoC • The approach adapted by this method to obtain required data on plant shutdowns, production loss,

•

• • • • • •

•

and structural failures consisted of the following elements: ❑ Interview with corrosion experts working in companies and governmental agencies about expenditures on corrosion protection ❑ Corrosion experts were asked to estimate CoC and potential The approach adapted by this method to obtain required data on plant shutdowns, production loss and structural failures consisted of the following elements: ❑ Interview with corrosion experts working in companies and governmental agencies about expenditures on corrosion protection ❑ Corrosion experts were asked to estimate CoC and potential savings based on their experiences ❑ Technical judgments and estimations of industry experts were taken ❑ University Academia, R&D, researchers, were also asked to contribute by filling in questionnaires Hoar method identified 16 factors that were influential on lowering CoC. The most important factor was “better broadcasting of existing corrosion control information” Hoar method also concluded that the existing taxation system in the UK that was persuading low CAPEX resulting in increased maintenance costs. Hoar method calculated Direct CoC -It may be very far-fetching to use this method to project the total CoC of an entire nation Hoar method as in its original application in the UK, selected a few companies in each industry sector and only a handful of them gave detailed info that itself was estimations varying widely Hoar method used in the UK, Japan (1974), and China (2015)

Input/Output (I/O) Model Based on Economy Nobel prize winner Leontief (1973) this method was applied by NBS-BCL (National Bureau of Standardsdthe Bettelle Columbus Laboratories) in 1978 in the United States. According to this model, output by any sector is an input for another industry sector. The aim is to find out how much each sector sells to each other. This can be shown schematically in Fig. 5.12: For example, to produce $1 worth of ordinary carbon steel, one may need $0.22 worth of coal and $0.14 worth of iron ore etc. On the hand, the steel industry for each dollar revenue it can sell $0.13 to automobile industry and $0.06 to tuck industry and so on. Therefore an Input/output (I/O) matrix is to be formed

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

Sector 1

Sector 2

Sector 5

Sector 4

Sector 3

FIG. 5.12 The inputeoutput model. For a given product, many sectors are involved and their contributions in dollars value (balanced by the final value of the product). If the final product values of interest has a dollar value of 1$, then the contribution of each sector to that end can be expressed as a fraction of the 1 $. (Drawn by Dr. Reza Javahedashti)

where all of these “coefficients” are taken into consideration. In other words, this matrix is to identify the producing sectors and the selling sectors and then find out the dollar values (¼ coefficient) each contribute. In the example given earlier, each of $0.22, $0.14 and the like values is one coefficient to be considered. The methodology used by I/O method is far different from the earlier two models (Uhlig and Hoar). In fact, the methodology may remind us of “Sci-Fi” stories. According to I/O model, it is assumed that there are three “worlds” with the following features: World I: The real world with corrosion imposed on assets World II: A hypothetical world with no corrosion World III: Another hypothetical world in which economically most efficient corrosion prevention technologies are being applied. As per the three worlds defined earlier, three types of expenses, namely, total CoC, avoidable CoC and unavoidable CoC can be calculated (GNP ¼ Gross National Product): Total CoC ¼ GNP World I e GNP World II Avoidable CoC ¼ GNP World I e GNP World III Unavoidable CoC ¼ GNPWorld II - GNPWorld III This model is capable of also calculating the costs that can be avoided. No news on the Earth could sound as pleasing as the very formula has been designed.

209

Although I/O model can account for both direct cost of corrosion (within an industry sector) and indirect cost (within the various sectors) • I/O model is hard to handle: it involves a lot of quantification that especially in terms of finding the “coefficients” may involve a lot of uncertainties • Application of I/O model requires obtaining updated data and this data pertains to many sectors. Thus, there is always this problem of how to obtain up-todate data from a single source. • the CoC calculated by I/O method is about the CoC as designated by Uhlig method. In fact according to this model,.CoC (I/O) z 4 CoC (Uhlig). This model despite the relatively complex mathematics that it involves and also the tedious work of chasing and following the related sectors and calculating the required parameters, has been used in the USA (late 1970s) and in Australia (early 1980s), India (1986, early 2000s) and Japan (early 2000s). It may be interesting to see that based on the trilogy works done by Bhaskaran and his colleagues in Indian sugar factories, petrochemical industry and pulp& paper industry during early 2000s, a polynomial equation of the type Y ¼ ax2þbx þ C has been found that allows prediction of CoC for any year. The actual CoC has been found to be Y ¼ 0.0005x2þ0.0265x ¼ 2.228 where Y is the logarithmic value of CoC and the “x” is the number of years between the base year of 1950 and the year in which CoC is to be calculated.

Life Cycle Cost Model • This model was suggested around 1966. • It is based on net present value or present worth concept • Life cycle cost (LCC) can be defined as “costeffectiveness framework to minimize the cost of achieving a specific goal.” Obviously, when applied to corrosion, this specific cost will be reduction in the cost of corrosion, • In this method, indirect costs of corrosion are defined as: þ Costs imposed on the customer by lower product supply and resulting in high cost) þCost involved in the time lost due to searching for alternative goods/services þ Effect on environment as well as local community (job loss when a plant needs to stop because of too high depreciation imposed by corrosion). • Life cycle cost method can be used in deciding factors such as but not limited to which material is the most cost effective to use, how the maintenance cost

210

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

can affect the choice of anticorrosion strategy, how taxation system can affect corrosion cost. • LCC has been used in the USA and in India Regarding the indirect costs categories that LCC model claims that can calculate and reveal, we believe that such factors indicated as indirect cost factors are too complicated to address as a whole and thoroughly. In other words, Although LCC (and for that matter, any similar model) may nominate some parameters and label them as indirect costs of corrosion, more or less we have not seen any proof so far that what has been shown as indirect costs of corrosion by LCC model are indeed all the parameters to be taken into consideration for calculating indirect cost of corrosion. In this regards, our interpretation of the items labeled and addressed as indirect cost of corrosion parameters is that no matter how long the list can go, because of various uncertainties involved it is impossible to put our hands on our hearts and declare that what we have found and addressed was all that could be found and addressed. An example of such uncertainties involved is the multilateral interactions among all the parameters defined by LCC model as being elements of indirect cost of corrosion. With no doubts, each of these methods has their own strengths and weaknesses. Later we have summarized the most important features of each method to make the reference easier. However, our readers must be reminded that there can be other models, either used by a certain industry with its own logic that may be similar to but not identical with one or more of the four models we have explained or a modification of these models may be constructed and applied. In addition to that, no specific model for MIC has been developed yet despite the fact that the sectors involved in anti-MIC treatment are far less than those involved in controlling corrosion as a whole. This feature of less sectors involved can serve to make the application of the earlier mentioned four models or any modifications of them rather too easy. It follows that one innovative area in which CoC can be directly calculated and expressed will be MIC. Later, the four models and their highlighted features are presented in bullet point format: (1) Uhlig method: ❖ Always gives conservative (low) values fo CoC ❖ Always assumes Direct CoC ¼ Indirect CoC ❖ Data are taken from manufacturers only ❖ Industry-wide distribution of CoC and potential savings of each industry sector are NOT obtained ❖ No methodology for Indirect CoC

(2) Hoar method: ❖ Direct interaction with industries and corrosion experts, ❖ Hoar method is highly industry focused ❖ Direct CoC (Hoar) is always greater than direct CoC (Uhlig) ❖ No methodology for Indirect CoC (3) I/O method: ❖ There are uncertainties involved in quantifying the capital cost, and the costs involved in intermediate outputs ❖ This model develops cost coefficients for each industry sector and being as such it is quite laborious and effort-demanding. ❖ Despite its complexity, it is claimed that it has worked for India by yielding a simple polynomial equation for CoC in any year. ❖ No methodology for Indirect CoC (4) LCC method: ❖ This method is more realistic than other methods as it considers the life cycle costing of each structure/facility/asset ❖ It can be considered the most effective CoC estimation method ❖ Application of this method for India showed that it produces lower corrosion coefficients than I/O method ❖ Not capable of addressing really all elements operative for Indirect CoC and their multilateral interactions due to the dynamic nature of these elements and parameters.

SUMMARY What has been addressed in this chapter is to enable us to see out of the box. We wanted to draw the attention of all professionals involved in FMEA to the importance of measures that need to be taken into consideration so that studying FMEA will be of a holistic nature rather than a purely technical jargon. As we also indicated in the abstract, the main object of any FMEA study is assumed to understand the underlying mechanism(s) by which an MIC-induced failure case has occurred to prevent the repetition of that failure again. For very obvious reasons, such as but not limited to, economical loss, handicapped operation and delays a failure can cause and also the potential danger for both those involved of any kind as well as the immediate environment around the failed asset, reoccurrence of failures is not desired.

CHAPTER 5

Innovation, Uncertainty, and FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC

There are two ways to achieve this goal, that is, to prevent the reoccurrence of failures: 1. By involving technicalities required to investigate the failure, 2. By adapting a holistic view of which technical view is just a part In previous chapters, we focused on the technicalities required to better define the involved mechanisms that have led into failure especially the case is elated to MIC. In this chapter, however, we preferred to look wider and try to define an approach that is more encompassing than a mere technical point of view. For the sake of adapting a holistic view, we studied what can be made to make FMEA a more influential instrument not for studying failures but also for preventing them in the first place. Although there is no future for FMEA in the sense that a ground-breaking leap forward would happen that would bring all the alreadyemployed testing methods upside down, it seems very highly likely that a sightseeing approach would prevail so that within all FMEA testing mythologies, only more sophistication, more precision and higher degrees of development could be expected in future. For this, application of means such as “TRIZ/AIZ” as well as mathematical models could be of great assistance and facilitation. We are also so very worried about the environmental impacts imposed by corrosion in general and MIC in particular. Not only can these impacts do serious harm and damage to the surrounding environment and therefore become an ecological threat, but also these impacts could speed up and enhance the expected corrosion (MIC). For this, we suggested two solutions: focus on development of natural biocides instead of synthetic ones and adapting the pattern now in use and rapidly acquiring acceptance by textile industries around the globe and it is named “Slow Fashion” to distinguish it from fast fashion that is regarded the second global pollutant. Slow MIC treatment could be a key element in the efficient management for both FMEA-MIC and FCP-MIC.

REFERENCES 1. Altschller G, Shulyak L. 40 principles: TRIZ keys to technical innovation. Translated by. In: Karimi M, Mirkhani SN, eds. Translation Published with the Permission from Technical Innovation Center Inc,m USA; 2005. 2. Javaherdashti R. MIC and Cracking of Mild and Stainless Steels. PhD Thesis. Germany: VDM Publishing; 2010. 3. Sooknah R, Papavinasam S, Revie W, de Romero M. Modelling the Occurrence of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. Paper No. 07515, Corrosion 2007. Houston, TX: NACE; 2007.

211

4. Sooknah R, Papavinasam S, Revie RW. Validation of a Predictive Model for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. Paper No. 08503, Corrosion 2008. Houston, TX: NACE; 2008. 5. R.W. Lutey, A. Stein. “A review and comparison of MIC indices (models).” Paper IWC-01-04, Proceedings of the International Water Conference, PA, October 22e26, 2000. 6. Javaherdashti R, Nwaoha C, Tan H. Corrosion and Materials in Oil and Gas Industries. USA: published by CRC Press/Taylor&Francis; 2013. 7. Javaherdashti R. Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion-An Engineering Insight”. 2nd ed. UK: Springer-Verlag; 2017. 8. Javaherdashti1 R, Nwaoha C, Ebenso EE. Fuzzy prediction of corrosion resistance of duplex stainless steel to biotic iron reducing bacteria and abiotic synthetic seawater environments: a phenomenological approach towards a multidisciplinary concept. International Journal of Electrochemical Socity. 2017;7:12573e12586. 9. Torgboab S, Sukyai P. Bacterial cellulose-based scaffold materials for bone tissue engineering. Applied Materials Today. June 2018;11:34e49. 10. Private Communication with Dr. Prakit Sukya, Dated 06 March 2019. 11. R. Javaherdashti, F. Akvan “On the Significance of Using Natural Corrosion Inhibitors in Sustaining Safe Environment: A Mini Review”, submitted for Eurocorr 2019. 12. Habibi G, Arjomandzadegan M, Tayeboon M, et al. Comparison of antibacterial effects of a carrier produced in microemulsion system from aqueous extract of Aloe vera with selected antibiotics on Enterobacteriacea”. Iranian Journal of Microbiology. October 2018;10(5):334e341. 13. Abd Sharad A, Usup G, Sahrani FK, Ahmad A. Inhibition of the planktonic and sessile growth and biocorrosion of desulfovibrio Sp. Solution which is isolated from crude oil fluid by the ethyl acetate extraction from marine alcaligenes faecalis for carbon steel protection. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. December 2016;10(No.18):233e243. 14. Javaherdashti R, Alasvand K. Biological Treatment of Microbial Corrosion: Opportunities and Challenges. Elsevier; 2019. 15. Cisek AA, Dabrowska I, Gregorczyk KP, Wyzewski Z. Phage Therapy in bacterial infections treatment: one hundred years after the discovery of bacteriophages. Current Microbiology. 2017;74:277e283. 16. Putilova IN, Balezin SA, Barannik VP, King CV. Metallic corrosion inhibitors. Journal of the Electrochemical Society. January 1961;108:No10. https://doi.org/10.1149/ 1.2427917. 17. Hammouti B, Kertit S, Melhaoui M. Electrochemical behaviour of bgugaine as a corrosion inhibitor of iron in 1 M HCl”. Bulletin of Electrochemistry. 1997;13:97e98. 18. Benabdellah M, Hammouti B, Bendahhou M, Aouniti A. Inhibition of steel corrosion in 2 M H3PO4 by artemisia oil. Applied Surface Science. 2006;252:6212e6217. 19. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Araceae_-_ Arisarum_vulgare.JPG. 20. Chaturvedi P, Bag A, Rawat V, Jyala NS, Satyavali V, Jha PK. Antibacterial effects of Azadirachta indica leaf and bark extracts in clinical isolates of diabetic patients. National

212

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Failure Modes, Effects and Causes of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine. January-March 2011;2(1):5e9. No.1. Mahmoud DA, Hassanein NM, Youssef KA, Abou Zeid MA. Antifungal activity of different neem leaf extracts and the nimonol against some important human pathogens. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2011;42: 1007e1016. Ghonmode WN, Balsaraf OD, Tambe VH, Saujanya KP, Patil AK, Kakde DD. Comparison of the ntibacterial efficiency of neem leaf extracts, grape seed extracts and 3% sodium hypochlorite against E. feacalis e an in vitro study. Journal of International Oral Health. December 2013;5(6): 61e66. Alves PD, Brandão MGL, Nunan EA, Vianna-Soares CD. Chromatographic evaluation and antimicrobial activity of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss., Meliaceae) leaves hydroalcoholic extracts. Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy. 2009;19(2B):510e515. Sarmiento WC, Maramba CC, Gonzales MLM. An in-vitro study on the antibacterial effect of neem (Azadirachta indica) leaf extract on methicilin- semsitive and methicilin- resistant staphylococcus aeureus. PIDSP (Pediatric Infectious disease society of The Phillipines) Journal. 2011; 12(1):40e45. Yerima MB, Joddi SM, Oyinbo K, et al. Effect of neem extracts (Azadirachta indica) on bacteria isolated from adult mouth. Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science. 2012; 20(1):64e67. Pankaj S, Lokeshwar T, Mukesh B, Vishnu B. Review on neem (Azadirachta indica): thousand problems one solution”. International Research Journal of Pharmacy. 2011;2(12):97e102. Bhola SM, Faisal MA, Bhola R, et al. Neem extract as an inhibitor for biocorrosion influenced by sulfate reducing bacteria: a preliminary investigation. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2014;36:92e103. Videla HA. Mechanisms of MIC: yestrday, today and tomorrow. In: MICdan International Perspective Symposium. Perth-Australia: Extrin Corrosion Consultants-Curtin University; 14e15 February 2007. Hashemi SJ, Bak N, Khan F, Hawboldt K, Lefsrud L, Wolodko J. Bibliometric analysis of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) of oil and gas engineering systems. Corrosion. April 2018;74(4):468e486. Kannan P, Su SS, Castaneda MSMH, Vaddiraju S. A review of characterization and quantification tools for microbiologically influenced corrosion in the oil and gas industry ¤t and future trends. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2018;57:13895e13922. Javaherdashti R, Akvan F. On the link between Future Studies and necessity of including corrosion in a “desired

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38. 39. 40.

41.

42.

43. 44.

45.

future” scenario: Presenting a model”. International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research. October 2015;2(4):1e8. http://www.tectonica-online.com/topics/energy/embodiedenergy-materials-enrique-azpilicueta/table/31/, Last visited 2 April 2019. G. Sweeney, “Fast Fashion Is the Second Dirtiest Industry in the World, Next to Big Oil”, https://www.ecowatch. com/fast-fashion-is-the-second-dirtiest-industry-in-theworld-next-to-big–1882083445.html, Last visited 10 April 2019. Toprak T, Anis P. Textile industry’s environmental effects and approaching cleaner production and sustainability, an overview. Journal of Textile Engineering & Fashion Technology. 2017;2(4):429e442. Sajn N. Environmental Impact of the Textile and Clothing Industry what Consumers Need to Know. European Parliamentary Research Service; January 2019:1e10. Members’ Research Service PE 633.143. Pookulangara S, Shephardm A. Slow fashion movement: understanding consumer perceptionsdan exploratory study”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2013; 20:200e206. Jung S, Jin B. Sustainable development of slow fashion businesses: customer value approach. Sustainability. 2016; 8(No.540):1e15. Heitz E, Flemming HC, Sand W. Microbially Influenced Corrosion of Materials. Germany: Springer; 1996. Personal Correspondence by Dr. Javaherdashti with Prof. H.-C. Flemming. April 21 , 2019. Machcka LL. Understanding and Addressing Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC). CORROSION & MATERIALS; February 2019:88e96. Bhaskaran R, Palaniswamy N, Rengaswamy NS, Jayachandran M. A review of differing approaches used to estimate the cost of corrosion (and their relevance in the development of modern corrosion prevention andp control strategies)’. Anti-corrosion Methods & Materials. 2005;52(1):0e41. Verink Jr ED. Corrosion Economic Calculations. In: Metals Handbook. Vol. 13. USA: “Corrosion”, ASM International; 1987. Hou B, Li X, Ma X, et al. The cost of corrosion in China. Npj Materials Degradation. 2017;Vol. 1(4):1e10. Biezma MV, San Cristóbal JR. Methodology to study cost of corrosion”, Corrosion Engineering. Science and Technology. 2005;40(4):344e352. Javaherdashti R. Corrosion knowledge management: an example of an interface for more efficient managerial communication. Materials and Corrosion. 2006;57(No. 12):945e950.