03/01/2019
February 2019 Newsletter
Industry Issues with Laboratory Testing
In today’s industry, equipment owners cannot rely on the accuracy of refractory material test data. Accurate unbiased test data is critical for successful unit operation. When the accuracy of test data cannot be relied upon, the owner’s interest is put at risk, and the owner loses the ability to make sound engineering decisions. The source of the problem is the manner in which refractory material testing is performed. The solution to the problem is not complicated, requiring only a minor shift in existing procedures.
The majority of laboratory testing consists of the pre-qualification testing of refractory materials, and the testing of field samples. Pre-qualification testing is performed prior to refractory installation, and is intended to ensure the use of high quality refractory materials. Field sample testing is designed to measure the quality of installed refractory.
Pre-qualification testing is usually performed by the material manufacturer, who is employed by the refractory installer. It is in the manufacturer’s best interest to achieve laboratory results that promote the sale of product. Pre-qualification testing is rarely witnessed by a representative of the owner. Without oversight of both sample preparation and testing procedures, the test results may not accurately predict the quality of the installed lining.
Field sample testing is usually performed by an independent laboratory selected by the refractory installer. It is in the refractory installer’s best interest to use a testing laboratory that achieves the most favorable results. The installer and the laboratory depend on each other for success.
In both cases the laboratory works for and owes allegiance to the installer. The owner is left out. Financial ties exist between the installer, the manufacturer, and the laboratory. This creates a situation with potential bias and conflict of interest. It is for this reason that the refractory inspector would never be permitted to work directly for the refractory installer. Using the same reasoning, the manufacturer and the laboratory should not be permitted to work directly for the installer, and the manufacturer should not be permitted to test its own materials unless an owner representative is present. How is this potential for bias and conflict of interest best addressed? The following approach accomplishes that end.
Material Pre-qualification Testing
• Manufacturer sample preparation and testing procedures witnessed by a representative of the owner
• Testing performed by an independent laboratory selected by the owner
• Testing charges are to the owner or the installer as the owner directs
• Test reports transmitted directly to the owner by the owner representative or the independent laboratory
Field Sample Testing
• Testing performed by an independent laboratory selected by the owner
• Testing charges are to the owner or the installer as the owner directs
• Test reports transmitted directly to the owner by the independent laboratory
The owner, who ultimately lives with the end result, whether good or bad, deserves the quality that has been paid for. The owner’s best interest must be preserved. This simple approach is a big step towards accomplishing that end.