Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management

Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

Heavy Oil Storage Tanks’ Inspection -Using Acoustic

Emission
Mohamed Mounir
Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Arab Academy for Science,
Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo, Egypt
[email protected]

Yasser Shaban
Department of Mechanical Design Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
[email protected]

Abstract

This paper presents a new inspection method in Heavy Oil Storage Tanks’. Oil leaks may occur due to defects in
tanks bottom, which pose a significant risk to the company's environmental, financial and reputation aspects.
Traditional inspection technique is a long process that needs shutting down the plant, emptying the tank,
cleaning, decontamination, and sandblasting, which is cost-time consuming and interrupts production
operations. Recently, an advanced inspection technique called Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) has been
employed by many companies as an alternative to the old traditional technique. AET can apply inspection and
evaluation of tank internal condition from the external side, without the need of tank emptying and shutting
down the plant. The theory of AET is based on sonic sensors that can detect sound signals generated by tiny
leaks or defects in a tank while the tank is filled and in service. The sensors are attached externally to the tank
external body and data can be acquired, then filtered, analyzed and evaluated to give valuable information about
the tank’s internal condition. In this case study, AET inspection was applied on a heavy oil storage tank in
ISSRAN field-Egypt/ Eastern desert. The results yield a significant reduction in cost, time and overall risk.

Keywords
Above-ground storage tanks, Heavy oil, Acoustic emission testing, Advanced inspection and techniques.

1.Introduction
Scimitar Production Egypt Ltd. (SPEL) is an independent and private oil-producing company at the forefront of
heavy oil production in Egypt. SPEL has the right of exploration and production in ISSRAN field in concession
located in the Eastern Desert, 290 km southeast of Cairo. The field produces heavy oil (10-14 API) and was the
first heavy oil development in Northern Africa stimulated with steam injection. Heavy oil production is a very
challenging process that needs a specialized operation, especially steam injection in wells, making the
production process more challenging. The heavy crude oil extraction process is based initially on steam
injection applied to relatively shallow oil reservoirs, and contain crude oils that are very viscous. This method is
called enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and is considered one of the main types of thermal stimulation of oil
reservoirs.

Central processing facilities (CPFs) are significant assets in the field and are considered the primary production
units. A recent oil leak in CPF1(storage tank) raised the red flag to activate the proactive inspection. CPF tanks
inspection was deferred by three years which mandates immediate inspection to be applied, but the challenge
here is applying the inspection and avoiding any production interruption at the same time, so the inspection
should be done without shutting down the unit and the tanks let being operating in service.

The presented study shows the efficiency of using acoustic emission testing (AET) as an alternative to a tank
traditional internal inspection. AET is an advanced inspection tool that can be used as a corrosion monitoring
tool of a tank using well distributed acoustic sensors attached to a tank shell perimeter externally so it can be
used when the tank is in service and eliminate the need for intrusive internal inspection (C.M. Nickolaus,1988).
Using AET as an alternative to traditional inspection techniques is permitted by API and regulatory standards
and can be employed as a risk-based assessment program under API std 653. The objective of this research will
be reached by conducting an AET inspection on one primary tank in CPF2 (storage tank) as a demo trial to
assure the effectiveness, quality, and sensitivity of testand data acquired.

IEOM Society International 601

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

The study results have shown that adopting the AET inspection technique has three significant benefits,
including optimization of cost, time and risk. Comparison using project management tools such as Gantt chart
showed significant benefits regarding time reductionand overall cost optimization while risk study using Bow-
Tie approach showed eliminating multiple risksand overall risk optimization.

Oil storage tanks are designed and built according to API std 650. The Storage tank consists of three major
components (Bottom, shell androof). The Tanks inspection andrepair measures are regulated by API std 653.
Internal inspection activities are focused on the tank bottom because the bottom is the only tank part that cannot
be accessed by external inspectionand the bottom is exposed to severe chemical corrosion resulting from the
water settling by natural gravity in the tank's lowest part. Emulsion (Oil/ water) contains corrosive salts such as
chloride and sulfide salts, which aggravate the bottom corrosion rates resulting in damage mechanisms such as
local pitting and severe thickness loss. Inspection of the tank bottom is intended to assess the current bottom
integrity and identify conditions that may lead to future loss of integrity.

Tank bottom internal inspection can be conducted by adopting traditional inspection techniques or advanced
inspection techniques as an alternative. Traditional inspections require tank entry (confined space) to apply
intrusive inspection for assessment; these techniques require shutdown andemptying of the tank. Such
techniques include ultrasonic thickness measurements, dye penetrant test and CVI (close visual inspection) (API
RP 575,2020). On the other side, advanced inspection techniques are based non-intrusive inspections without
the need for tank entry (Van De Loo et al ,1988). They’re based on In-service inspections performed while the
tank is in operation, such as acoustic emission testing (AET), which may reveal important information without
tank entry. With such data and information, Fitness for service (FFS) or Risk-Based Inspection (RBI)
evaluations can be performed that can aid in maximizing the period of operation without taking the tank out of
service. In addition, repair and replacement requirements can be planned and estimated in advance of taking the
tank out of service to utilize downtime more effectively. These efforts can therefore contribute to overall plant
availability by minimizing required downtime (Yuyama et al. 2007).

1.1Objectives
Perform the deferred inspection in Production unit CPF2-Storage Tank T 130A, by using AET, which is a new
inspection technique used recently for evaluating the condition of above-ground storage tanks without the need
for intrusive inspection. Moreover, a comparison study based on three aspects, including time, risk and cost, was
applied to evaluate the efficiency of the new technique.

2.Literature Review
AET is a valuable tool for evaluating the condition of above-ground storage tanks. By determining the condition
of the tank floor, tanks that require urgent attention can be identified and scheduled for maintenance, while a
good tank can be left online and maintenance deferred. The cost of an acoustic emission inspection on a tank is
only a fraction of the price of an internal inspection, so AET inspection allows money, time, and resources to be
saved ( Klinchaeam 2013). There are even environmental benefits by not emptying and cleaning tanks that do
not require inspection or work to be carried out on them. There is also minimal disruption to plant operation, as
tanks only must be taken offline for a short period of time. Its role in inspection condition-based maintenance
management is as screening techniques for front-line input to risk-informed decision making. This correlation is
enhanced using in-service tank maintenance history and AE (Acoustic Emission) grading as input to the
decision-making on recommended follow-up actions and prioritizing tanks for allocation of maintenance
resources (Martin 2012).

Acoustic emission tests are suited for obtaining the actual tank floor condition of flat-bottomed storage tanks
regarding active corrosion and/or active leakage. One crucial part is to filter the raw data of the performed
measurement subsequently in different steps. The location algorithm gives the most decisive filter criterion. It
was shown that the raw data of the measurement contains from 3 to 9 % locatable AE data depending on the
tank floor condition and the boundary conditions of the measurement (Lackner 2002).

3.Methods
This section presents inspection methods and procedures used in both traditional and advanced techniques.

3.1 Traditional Inspection Technique

Traditional inspections require tank entry to apply intrusive inspection for assessment, these techniques require
shutdown andemptying the tank. Such techniques include ultrasonic thickness measurements, dye penetrant test
andCVI (close visual inspection), as shown in figure 1. Before entering any tank, appropriate safety measures

IEOM Society International 602

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

are necessary. Generally, such actions include isolation from any source of toxic or gas-generating fluids using
blinds or disconnection/isolation, removal of hazardous liquids and gases, removal of gas-generating,
pyrophoric, or toxic residues andassurance of an atmosphere that contains sufficient oxygen. Where applicable,
OSHA and, or any locally applicable safety agency regulations for safe entry into confined spaces should be
followed. A tank should be clean and free from surface residues, scale, and sediment to be properly inspected.
Some oil tanks contain Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) such as uranium, radium, and radon
that are present in very low concentrations. These elements should be cleaned using special cleaning tools and
procedures.

Taking ultrasonic thickness measurements at the most corroded areas is the common method of assessment. If
extensive corrosion is evident, it is more effective to take several measurements on each plate or to scan the
surface with a thickness-scanning device supplemented by ultrasonic prove-up. Numerous thickness
measurements may be necessary for assessing thickness in accordance with API Std 653, Section 4 guidelines.
Thickness measurements are taken on permanent points on bottom plates that are marked with permanent paint
or marker to be measured frequently at different time intervals. These permanent locations are called CMLs
(corrosion measurement locations). The quality of data obtained from the ultrasonic thickness technique is
dependent on personnel, equipment and procedure.

After finishing the inspection and obtaining the thickness measurement data, the next step will be conducting
analysis and calculations required to assess the thickness data. These analysis and calculations will yield
valuable information about tank bottom condition and integrity, such as the corrosion rates, estimated remaining
life, next inspection interval and the need for any repair, replacement of bottom plates (API RP 575,2020).

The Corrosion rate for thinning damage mechanisms is determined by the difference between two thickness
readings divided by the time interval between the readings. The determination of corrosion rate may include
thickness data collected at more than two different timings. Suitable use of short-term versus long-term
corrosion rates shall be determined by the inspector. Short-term corrosion rates are typically determined by the
two most recent thickness readings, whereas long-term rates use the most recent reading and one taken earlier in
the life of the tank. These different rates help identify recent corrosion mechanisms from those acting over the
long term.
The long-term (LT) corrosion rate shall be calculated from the following formulas (API Std 653,2020):
Long term corrosion rate (LT) = T initial- Tactual / Time between T initial and T actual (years)
The short-term (ST) corrosion rate shall be calculated from the following formula:
Short term corrosion rate (ST) = T previous- Tactual / Time between T previousand T actual (years)

Where:
T initial is the initial thickness at the same CML as T actual. It is either the first thickness measurement at this
CML or the thickness at the start of a new corrosion rate environment, in in. (mm).
T actual is the actual thickness of a CML, in in. (mm), measured during the most recent inspection.
T previous is the previous thickness measured during the prior inspection. It is at the same location as T actual
measured during a previous inspection, in in. (mm).
T min is the minimum design thickness required to maintain the mechanical integrity.

Tank bottom minimum remaining thickness value must meet the requirements of bottom plate minimum
thickness Table.1. Suppose the calculated minimum bottom thicknesses (MRT), at the end of the in-service
period of operation, are calculated to be less than the minimum bottom renewal thicknesses given in Table 1. In
that case, the bottom shall be lined, repaired, replaced, or the interval to the next internal inspection shortened.
The repair of internal pitting, when performed to extend the in-service period of operation, shall be by pit
welding, overlay welding, or lap patching, followed by inspection and testing (Table 1).

Table 1: Bottom plate minimum thickness. (API Std 653,2020)

Minimum Bottom Plate Tank Bottom/ Foundation Design

Thickness at Next Inspection (in.)
0.1 Tank bottom/foundation design with no means for detection and containment
of a bottom leak.
0.05 Tank bottom/foundation design with means to provide detection and
containment of a bottom leak.
0.05 Applied tank bottom reinforced lining, > 0.05 in. thick, in accordance with API

IEOM Society International 603

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

652.

The remaining life of a tank component (e.g., bottom, shell, or nozzle neck) due to thinning corrosion can be
established using three key elements (the current thickness, the predicted or measured corrosion rate, and the
minimum acceptable thickness T min). The current thickness is based on the minimum remaining thickness after
any repairs. There can be different corrosion rates for the internal and external side (product-side and soil-side
for bottoms). The minimum acceptable thickness is determined from the criteria established in API Std 653 for
the various components. When the minimum acceptable thickness has been reached (further thinning can pose
an integrity issue), action should be taken.

Remaining life general formula = Tactual-T min / Corrosion rate

As clarified, the traditional inspection approach is based on numerical analysis of thickness data which will
yield quantitative results of minimum remaining thickness, corrosion rate and remaining life of tank bottom, so
the traditional inspection approach is considered quantitative approach (Figure 1).

Figure 1. NDT Inspector performs thickness measurement on bottom plates and Dye penetrant test on bottom
welds intersection (T welds).

3.2 Advanced Inspection Technique {Acoustic Emission Testing (AET)}

Acoustic emission testing is based on the principle that liquid leakage escaping through a defect in the tank
bottom or shell produces a detectable sound. Tank bottom is stressed by oil head inside, while being tested, to
stimulate the growth of discontinuities which emit acoustic emission (AE) signals from defects such as crack
propagation or elastic and plastic deformation of the weak bottom points (ASTM E1930,2018). The higher the
oil head, the more likely a leak will emit AE sound. Defect propagation in loaded solid materials such as tank
metallic bottom results in a fast release of potential energy in the form of stress waves with frequencies typically
between 50 kHz and 2 MHz, these waves propagate along with the structure for distances of several meters and
are detected by piezoelectric sensors (ASTM E650,2015). Special analysis of detected AE waves is then
performed to locate acoustic emission defect sources, identify defect type, evaluate the rate of defect
propagation and its sensitivity to load/stress/operational changes (Van De Loo et al ,1988). The demonstration
of this principle has shown that two types of sound are produced simultaneously (P. Tscheliesnig et al, 2000).
One type is detectable in the tank bottom backfill material below the bottom; this impulsive sound extends
beyond the audible frequency range and is the distinguishing characteristic signal (figure 2). The other
continuous hissing sound is considered, along with other stray detectable sounds, to be noise (figure 3). For
acoustic emission testing, noise is defined as any sound, continuous and, or intermittent, that is not a signal.

Figure 2. Example of a signal generated by a defect in the bottom plate

IEOM Society International 604

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

Figure 3. Example of a noise generated by the external source

4.Data Collection

Figure 4. Top view of sensors arrangement attached to shell around tank perimeter

After The sensors are mounted around the tank, the data is acquired under static conditions for a period of 4
hours. Activities above the defined threshold voltage are considered as AE signals and later classified with a
grading from ‘A’ to ‘E’ based upon various parameters (ASTM E1316,2014). The noise signals are filtered
andexcluded from the acquired data and further analyzed (Figure 4). Locations of the detected AE signals on the
tank floor, including corrosion, potential leakage activities, etc., are based on the first hit location analysis of
signal hitting three sensors. The severity of these locations is assessed using various characteristics of the AE
signal and Overall Corrosion Grading (OCG) shown in figure 5 / Table 2 and Potential Leakage Grading (PLG)
shown in figure 6/Table3 are obtained.

Figure 5. Represents corrosion activities in the tank bottom, which give an indication on OCG grading

Table 2. Overall Corrosion Grading (OCG) for Tank Bottom

Overall Corrosion Grading Tank Bottom Condition

IEOM Society International 605

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

A No Damage/Minor Damage
B Intermediate Damage
C Active Damage
D Highly Active Damage
E Highly Active and Severe Damage

Overall Corrosion Grading (OCG) for tank bottom is determined as “A”. This indicates No
Damage/Minor Damage to the tank bottom.

Figure 6. Represents Potential future leakage activities in the tank bottom, which give an indication on PLG
grading.

Table 3. Potential Leakage Grading (PLG) of the Tank Bottom

Potential Leak Tank Bottom Activity indication

Grading
1 No Activity
2 Suspected Minor Activity
3 Moderate Activity
4 Sustained Activity
5 Major Activity

PLG (Potential Leakage Grading) for tank bottom is determined as “1”. This indicates no suspected
leakage activity in the tank bottom. Based on the above OCG of grade “A” and PLG of grade “1”, the
final RCG (Risk Category Grading) for tank bottom is determined as grade “I”. shown in Table 4.
Inspection findings and recommendations from Table 3, Tables 4,, table 5 and table 6:

• A repeat acoustic emission inspection of the Tank should be carried out in 4 years unless an internal
inspection of the tank is done within this period. Subsequent acoustic emission inspection/s will
provide an accurate measure of AE activity growth in Tank bottom plate.
• Suspected weld defects around AE Sensor 13 (-13.05m(X), -24.58m(Y)) should be
verified by close visual inspection in the nearest internal inspection.

Table 4. RCG (Risk Category Grading) Matrix for Tank Bottom

OCG
PLG A B C D E
1 I I II II II
2 I I II II III
3 II II III III III

IEOM Society International 606

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

4 II III III IV IV
5 III III IV V V

Table 5. Risk Category Grading (RCG) results for Tank Bottom

Category grade Next inspection (years)

I 4
II 2
III 1
IV 0.5
V Require internal inspection.

Table 6. Source Localization indicating corrosion severity via grading

Activities Location Reference to AE Sensors

Acoustic Emission (-13.05m(X), -24.58m(Y)) Near to AE Sensor

Acoustic Emission (-3.65m(X), 25.5m(Y)) At AE Sensor

Acoustic Emission (-6.29m(X), 35.44m(Y)) Near to AE

events Sensor 6

As shown, the advanced AET inspection approach is based on corrosion grading and potential leakage grading
analysis of acquired acoustic data, which will yield qualitative results of risk category grading of tank bottom, so
the advanced AET inspection approach is considered a qualitative approach.

5.Results and Discussion

5.1 Numerical Results
A Comparison between the traditional and the advanced AET approaches was applied by defining the work
breakdown structure activities then time and cost computing for both approaches applied on one tank. Results
are shown in Tables 7 and Table 8.

Table 7. Work Breakdown Structure of Tank Inspection Project using Traditional Approach

S. N Activity Time (Days) Cost (USD $)

1 Shutting down low priority wells and switching production to 2 0
another Parallel CPF
2 Switching production to another parallel CPF 2 0
3 Tank Ventilation 3 100
4 Tank desludging and cleaning 7 500
5 Sandblasting of tank bottom andshell first course 3 1800
6 Scaffolding Erection 3 600
7 Conducting inspection using the traditional thickness gauge 3 500
8 Internal painting of bottom and shell first course 4 3200
9 Scaffolding Dismantle 2 400
Totals 29 Days 7100 $

Table 8. Work Breakdown Structure of Tank Inspection Project using Advanced AET Approach

S. N Activity Time (Days) Cost (USD $)

1 Mobilizationand installing acoustic sensors around tank perimeter 1 0
2 Applying Acoustic emission inspection procedure 1 6500
3 Disassembly of sensors and demobilization 1 0
Totals 3 Days 6500 $

IEOM Society International 607

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

As shown in Gantt Chart figure 7, by adopting the AET advanced technique, we noticed significant time saving
(only 3 days) compared with traditional techniques (29 days). Cost reduction about 600$ for one tank job,
considering the cost of technical activities only. When considering the downtime of the CPF unit for 29 days,
based on 71$ oil barrel price, The Total savings would be about (175000 $).

5.2 Graphical Results

Figure 7. Gantt chart showing significant time and cost reduction in using AET technique compared with
traditional technique.

One of the most essential benefits of advanced AET is avoiding the multiple risks associated with traditional
technique. Working inside storage tanks is a highly hazardous work environment (Figure 7). Tanks may contain
crude oil, liquid hydrocarbons, or other hazardous liquids. Potential hazards of tank confined space include
oxygen deficiency, fire, explosion, and exposure to toxic substances such as NORM (Naturally occurring
radioactive materials).

A Risk analysis study was applied using Bow-Tie Model shown in Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure10. The
multiple risks associated with the traditional inspection technique are complicated, need high precautions,
readiness, competency and experience to deal with such potential significant events while, if compared to the
risk of advanced AET inspection, AET has minimal risks and even cannot be visualized in the Bow-Tie model.

IEOM Society International 608

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

Figure 8. Bow-Tie model of NORM exposure risk.

Figure 9. Bow-Tie model of fire or explosion risk.

Figure 10. Bow-Tie model of Asphyxiation risk.

5.3 Proposed Improvement

Future research should focus on developing of modified sensors andAET hardware that can obtain quantitative
data of the tank internals. With such improvement, the numerical data acquired can be translated into corrosion
rate and further estimated remaining lifetime. Such improvement may eliminate the traditional technique forever
because it is still the unique advantage that traditional technique delivers superior to the AET. Another
modification may be applied to the current AET data analysis to gain quantitative results by using the

IEOM Society International 609

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

degradation data analysis model to analyze the acquired corrosion data through a quantitative approach that will
yield failure rates as an alternative to corrosion rates and failure time as an alternative to estimated lifetime.

5.4 Validation
All the data and results acquired from the AET approach applied on ISSARAN field were compared against
historical data from another AET application on Abu-Rudies Field, South Sinai, Egypt. The results showed
similar quality and sensitivity relevant to AE signals interpretation.

6.Conclusion
Storage tanks typically contain large volumes of valuable but potentially hazardous fluids. Inspection is a crucial
element of the integrity management of storage tanks. The objective of the inspection is to provide information
on the tank condition. Opening storage tanks for internal inspection is a lengthy and complex process, not only
will the tank be unavailable during the internal inspection, but it must be drained and cleaned before entry is
possible. There are also safety hazards associated with personnel entry for inspection. As such Advanced
Inspection AET method offers an attractive alternative as they can be conducted while the tank is in-service and
does not require tank entry. AET principle is based on sonic sensors that are attached to the tank external body
perimeter. Those sensors can receive the sound signals generated from any defect or potential leak areas, then
the data acquired can be processed, filtered and evaluated to give final inspection results shown as overall
corrosion grading and potential leakage grading then a risk inspection matrix can be extracted from the two
grading measures. The results obtained give information about tank internal condition, estimated remaining life,
corrosion activityand recommendations for repair or replacement, or need for subsequent inspections.

A Case study was applied in ISSRAN field -CPF2 unit -Storage Tank T 130A. The AET inspection procedure
was applied on this tank as a demo trial to assess the actual benefits from adopting this advanced technique and
to check the quality of data and sensitivity of the overall procedure. Results were analyzed using advanced
management tools, including PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle, WBS (Work Breakdown Structure), Gantt
chart and Bow-Tie model. Results have shown a significant reduction in cost, time and overall risk.

Advanced Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) provides an effective superior alternative to the old traditional
inspection techniques. The study showed significant benefits from adopting the AET technique as an inspection
and maintenance planning tool for the above-ground oil storage tanks. These benefits include avoiding
production interruption and multiple optimizations in time, cost and risk.

References
API Std 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, Fifth Edition, November- 2014,
ADDENDUM 1, April 2018.ERRATA1, March 2020. American Petroleum Institute, 2020.
API RP 575, Inspection Practices for Atmospheric andLow-Pressure storage Tanks, Fourth Edition, July 2020.
American Petroleum Institute. 2020.
Martin, G., Acoustic emission for tank bottom monitoring, Key Eng. Mater., vol. 558, no. December 2012, pp.
445–455, 2013.
Klinchaeam S. and S. Buranasin, Condition Monitoring of Aboveground Storage Tank Using Acoustics
Emission Testing – Field Testing, 2013.
Klinchaeam S. and W. Suwansin, "A study of Corrosion Detection Using Acoustics Emission Testing," in The
4th TSME International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Chonburi, 2013.
Lackner G. and P. Tscheliesnig, “Ewgae 2002 Acoustic Emission Testing (At) on Flat Bottomed Storage Tanks:
How To Condense Acquired Data To a Reliable Statement Regarding Floor Condition.,” Source, vol. 20,
no. September, pp. 11–13, 2002.
ASTM E1930: Standard Test Method for Examination of Liquid-Filled Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Metal
Storage Tanks Using Acoustic Emission.2018.
ASTM E650: Guide for Mounting Piezoelectric Acoustic Emission Sensors. 2015.
ASTM E1316: Terminology for Non-destructive Examinations.2014.
C.M. Nickolaus, Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Above-Ground Storage Tanks, Materials Evaluation, Vol 46,
pp 508-512,2002.
Yuyama, S, Verification of Acoustic Emission Testing of Floor Conditions in Aboveground Tanks by
Comparison of Acoustic Emission Data and Floor Scan Testing, Materials Evaluation, Sept 2007, 929 –
934. 2007.
Yuyama, S., Fundamental Aspects of Acoustic Emission Applications to the Problems Caused by Corrosion, in
Corrosion Monitoring in Industrial Plants Using Nondestructive Testing and Electrochemical Methods,
ASTM STP 908, Eds G.C. Moran and P. Labine (Philadelphia, PA) pp 43-74, 1999.

IEOM Society International 610

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Nsukka, Nigeria, 5 - 7 April, 2022

Nondestructive Testing Handbook, 2nd Ed., Acoustic Emission Testing, ASNT, Columbus OH, USA, 1987.
Van De Loo, P.J. and Herrmann, B., How Reliable is Acoustic Emission (AE) Tank Testing? The Quantified
Results of an AE Usergroup Correlation Study! Proceedings of 7th European Conference on Non-
Destructive Testing, 1988.
Tscheliesnig, P., Lackner, G., M. Gori, H. Vallen, P.J. van de Loo, and B. Herrmann, Inspection of Flat-
Bottomed Storage Tanks by Acoustical Methods. Classification of Corrosion Related Signals., presented at
the 24th EWGAE Conference, 2000, Senlis (F). 2000.

Biographies
Mohamed Mounir Is a Senior Integrity Engineer with +15 years of experience involved in all asset life
cycle of Oil andGas field including upstream, midstream and downstream facilities. He is Asset Integrity
Manager of ISSARAN field /Scimitar Production Egypt Ltd, Company. He has extensive experience focused on
Asset Integrity Management systems, Failure Analysis, Corrosion and Damage Mechanisms in Oil and Refinery
Industry, Risk Analysis andASME /API Standards. He has participated in Oil Projects in Egypt, Azerbaijan,
Jordan and Kuwait. He earned his B.Sc. On Metallurgical and Materials Engineering from the Faculty of
Petroleum and Mining Engineering, Suez, Egypt. Master’s Degree in Industrial and Management Engineering
from The Arab Academy for Science, Technology andMaritime Transport, Cairo, Egypt. He has been
recognized as CRE (Certified Reliability Engineer) from the ASQ (American Society for Quality). API 653
Authorized Above-ground Storage Tanks Inspector, API 580 Authorized Risk Based Inspection Professional,
API 571 Authorized Corrosion and Materials Professional, API 510 Authorized Pressure Vessel Inspector, API
570 Authorized Piping Inspector, from The American Petroleum Institute. CSWIP (Certified Welding and
Inspection Personnel) from The Welding Institute TWI, UK, Cambridge. CMRP (Certified Maintenance and
Reliability Professional) From the American Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP).

Yasser Shaban Is an Associated Professor in the Department of Mechanical Design Engineering at Helwan
University in Cairo, Egypt. He holds a Ph.D. in industrial engineering from Polytechnique Montréal in Canada.
He holds a B.Sc., and M.Sc. degrees from Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt, in Mechanical Engineering. His
research field is diagnosis of machining conditions based on artificial intelligence. He is a member of the
Institute of Industrial Engineers.

IEOM Society International 611