Chemical Process Equipment Failure

Key takeaways....

Dr. Fildes was brought into a case late in the discovery process by one of the defendants.

Without the need for impractical, costly, and time consuming additional testing, Dr. Fildes’ analytics based on physical chemistry approach established an entirely different cause for the equipment failure than had been identified by the several other experts involved in the case prior to Dr. Fildes’ involvement.

The plaintiff’s lawyer produced a chemical analysis at Dr. Fildes’ deposition that confirmed Dr. Fildes’ assessment. The plaintiff sought settlement of the case immediately after the deposition.

The outcome of Dr. Fildes’ work took the supplier of the heating equipment from a difficult position of basing a defense on not being responsible for the selection of the material used for the heater to a far more compelling defense based on the equipment being used in a way that was not expected for its use.

Dr. Fildes has seen the issues encountered in this heating equipment case in many other cases and he has achieve similar outstanding outcomes in these cases. For example, an industrial accident he investigated resulted from corrosion of a piece of equipment. Several parties hired metallurgists or mechanical engineers who narrowly investigated the incident as a corrosion problem, but Dr. Fildes’ investigation showed, without the need for additional testing that the underlying cause was really a failure of a water treatment process.

Introduction

Heating equipment used in a chemical process failed. Investigating this failure had been conducted by the conventional narrow domain expert approach. The failure appeared to be corrosion due to what was thought to be the use of a metal for the heater that was not suitable for this application.

This case is an example of how the readily observable information form a failure or accident can be misleading. It is also an example of the challenge that non-technically trained attorneys face in identifying the right disciplines and experts needed for an investigation, even one with seemingly obvious technical issues such as this case. This case is also an example of how narrow perspectives by non-technically trained people choosing experts become self reinforcing.

The metallurgists and/or mechanical engineers hired by each of the parties agreed that corrosion existed and caused failure of the heater. They disagreed on the complex issue of who was responsible for selecting the material that corroded and on who was responsible for design of the system. Hiring narrowly focused metallurgical experts reinforced the preconceived notion that this was just a metallurgical problem.

The Conventional Approach to Investigating the Failure of Heating Equipment Used in a Chemical Process

Metallurgists and/or mechanical engineers were hired by the plaintiff and each of the several defendants in this case. This choice of experts put the focus of the investigation on the metal that was chosen for the heater: who was responsible for choosing the metal, who actually choose it, and was the metal compatible with the environment in which it was used. The glaring assumption in this approach is that the environment in which the metal was used was assumed to be the environment expected for normal operation of the chemical process in which the heating equipment was used. No one confirmed that the environment was actually as expected. Dr. Fildes showed that was not as expected.

The metallurgists and mechanical engineers performed the typical inspection of the equipment and conducted the metallurgical tests commonly used to confirm that the properties of the metal met the properties expected and as contained in specifications used for selecting metals for this type of equipment.

Just prior to Dr. Fildes’ deposition and because of insight provided by his investigation and report, it came out that sludge found in the heating equipment had been chemically analyzed, but apparently this analysis was not used by the metallurgists and mechanical engineers. During his deposition and without see this analysis prior to his deposition, Dr. Fildes’ determined that this chemical analysis could be used to establish the way in which the chemical process was operated, what conditions actually existed in the heater due to that manner of operation of the chemical process, and if that manner of operation feel within the parameters the equipment’s designers relied on.

The metallurgists and mechanical engineers agreed on the type of corrosion that occurred and concluded that the the choice of metal was inappropriate for this application and was the cause of the equipment’s failure, whereas Dr. Fildes’ showed in a compelling way that the actual operation of the process did not fall within the expected parameters and this led to the corrosion that occurred, and that corrosion would not have occurred if the process had been operated in the way it had been defined to the heating equipment designers.

Dr. Fildes’ Analytics Based on Physical Chemistry Approach and Its Benefits

One of the defense attorneys approached Dr. Fildes late in the case about the design responsibility issue, but Dr. Fildes’ analytics powered by physical chemistry approach changed the prevailing opinion of the cause of the failure and who was responsible, which changed the trajectory of the case. Immediately upon completion of Dr. Fildes’ deposition the plaintiff’s attorney sought settlement of the case due to the strength and clarity of Dr Fildes’ testimony.

Significantly, Dr. Fildes’ analytics powered by physical chemistry approach did not require expensive and time consuming testing. Additional testing at this point in a case would have been impractical due to case deadlines and to lack of access to the equipment at a time so much after the incident. These are common limitations in litigation-related scientific investigations.

Dr. Fildes conducted a broad and comprehensive information gathering and analysis study of what could have contributed to the corrosion that had occurred. First, he analyzed the chemical process and determined the conditions (relative to causing or preventing corrosion) that should have existed in the heating equipment due to the chemical environment created by the process. Dr. Fildes also collected the information that was known about the behavior of the metal in several other chemical processes where similar conditions would exist and he was able to conclude that the material should have performed properly and not corroded in this application. This was a fundamentally valuable insight that none of the other of several experts involved since the beginning of the case had uncovered. This insight established the need to more broadly examine the cause of this corrosion.

Dr. Fildes broadened the investigation by further analyzing the chemical process being conducted in the heating equipment and he determined the conditions that would allow corrosion to occur and their likely cause. This insight provided information that allowed the attorney who hired Dr. Fildes to ask for further documents and information about the way in which this chemical process was actually operated in the heating equipment.

The other side produced discovery materials that showed the process was in fact operated with conditions that would not have been expected and that would cause corrosion in accordance with the cause predicted by Dr. Fildes’ analysis. This line of inquiry also showed why another facility operated by the same operator but using the conditions that should have been used for this process did not experience corrosion with similar equipment.

The outcome of Dr. Fildes’ work, without the need to conduct additional testing, took the supplier of the heating equipment from a difficult position of basing a defense on not being responsible for the selection of the material used for the heater to a far more compelling defense based on the equipment being used in a way that was not expected for its use. A very favorable settlement resulted in a case that was headed to trial. This settlement might have been achieved prior to full-blown discovery if Dr. Fildes’ comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach had been used early in the case.

Dr. Fildes’ Experience Provides Many Other Examples of the Issues Described Above in the Heating Equipment Case.

The example provided by this case is typical of many cases Dr. Fildes has seen. For example, an industrial accident resulted from corrosion of a piece of equipment. Several parties hired metallurgists or mechanical engineers since the readily observable issue was the occurrence of corrosion which was the focus of the testing conducted by the experts. Dr. Fildes was brought into this case late in the discovery process. Without the need for additional testing because of his analytics based on physical chemistry approach, Dr, Fildes demonstrated that the underlying cause of the accident was really a failure of a water treatment process. The attorney who hired Dr. Fildes was able to successfully resolve this case on the basis of Dr. Fildes’ Report with the need for a deposition.

More compelling insight of corrosion problems comes from electrochemistry. Electrochemistry is the subspecialty of physical chemistry that underlies much of corrosion materials science and engineering. Dr. Fildes has conducted electrochemical corrosion studies and electrochemical studies of painted metals since the outset of his career decades ago. Electrochemistry provides a powerful, fundamental, wholistic view of the metal, and protective coating if used, and their interaction with the environment, but practice of electrochemistry requires specialized knowledge, complex mathematics, and sophisticated instrumentation, all of which Dr. Fildes possesses.

Bio for John Fildes, Ph.D.

Dr. Fildes is a doctoral scientist who has conceived, organized, and conducted $28 million of projects including R&D, litigation expert investigations, and collaborations involving Government labs, large defense companies, and leading universities.

Dr. Fildes was also CEO of an $18 million professional scientific/engineering consulting firm; president of a not-for-profit R&D institute; founder and leader of a $6 million scientific/engineering consulting firm; leader of a $3.5 million startup product design firm; leader of a $10 million contract research lab at Northwestern University; a senior professional in the $4.5 billion Borg-Warner Corporation Research Center.

Product Failures Expertise

Friction; Abrasive Wear, Adhesive Wear, Testing, Friction Measurement, Wear Prevention, Lubricants, Oil Quality Monitoring, Solid Lubricants, Hard Protective Coatings, Decorative Coatings, Paint, Electroplated Coatings, Corrosion, Electrochemical Corrosion Measurement, Ice Prevention; Gas Sensors, Carbon Monoxide Detectors; Product Design Procedures.

Materials & Process Expertise

Composites for Aviation, Buildings and Civil Construction: Thermoset and Thermoplastic Resins and Adhesives, Resin Transfer Molding, Autoclaving, Impedance Spectroscopy; Use of Composite Materials and Spray Foams Made On-Site In Construction; Roadway Chip Sealing, Water Treatment; Intelligent Process Control.

Chemistry & Chem Processes Expertise

Prediction Of Materials Properties, Stability, And Compatibility; Chemical Exposure; Chemical Process Equipment Failures.

Contact us

Whether you have a request, a query, or want to work with us, use the form below to get in touch with our team.