JAMESCOOKUNIVERSITY

SCHOOLOFENGINEERING

EG4011/2

DesignofaPotentiallyAntifouling EngineeringSurfacebyMimicking theAntiFoulingFunctionofShell Fish

DavidWallace

ThesissubmittedtotheSchoolofEngineeringinpartialfulfilmentofthe requirementsforthedegreeof

BachelorofEngineering (MechanicalEngineering)
November7th2008

Statement of Access
I,theundersigned,theauthorofthisthesis,understandthatJamesCookUniversity willmakeitavailableforusewithintheUniversityLibraryand,bymicrofilmorother means,allowaccesstousersinotherapprovedlibraries.Allusersconsultingwith thisthesiswillhavetosignthefollowingstatement: Inconsultingthisthesis,Iagreenottocopyorcloselyparaphraseitin whole or in part without written consent of the author; and to make properpublicwrittenacknowledgementforanyassistance,whichIhave obtainedfromit. Beyondthis,Idonotwishtoplaceanyrestrictiononaccesstothisthesis.

DavidWallace

5/11/08
Date

ii

Sources Declaration
Ideclarethatthisthesisismyownworkandhasnotbeensubmittedinanyformfor another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary education.Informationderivedfromthepublishedorunpublishedworkofothers hasbeenacknowledgedinthetextandalistofreferencesisgiven.

5/11/08
Date

DavidWallace

iii

Abstract
Foulinginfluencesawidevarietyofindustriesandasaresulthasmanyundesirable physical, ecological and economical effects. Many efforts have been made to prevent fouling via different defence mechanisms, with the most common being chemicalbased.Thetoxicantifoulingsystemsthatareusedarehighlynonspecific andthusoftenaffectspeciesthatarenotthedirecttargetofthechemical.Natural antifouling deterrents can be broken down into three main groups being the chemical, mechanical and physical. Previous research has shown that the morphology of a surface is strongly correlated to the way in which it deters the settlementoffouling. Therefore, the aim of this thesis was to determine the surface parameters for shellfish that are naturally clean in their environment, then engineer and surface thathadthesamecharacteristics.Todothisthreespeciesofshellfishwerechosen for their antifouling properties. The Mytilus galloprovincialis and Tellina plicata speciesofshellfishhaveahighdegreeoffoulingresistanceandtheAmusiumballoti specieshasalowresistancetofouling.Fromthesethreespecies,several3Dimages were taken using the Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope to capture the morphology of the surface. The 3D images were then converted into height encodedimagessothatanumericalanalysisofthesurfacecouldbeperformed. From the information that was gathered in the numerical analysis, correlations weremadebetweentheknownantifoulingcharacteristicsoftheshellfishandthe parameters that were calculated during the numerical analysis. Surfaces were generated on a piece of stainless steel to get grounding on what surface finishes were achievable with different surface finishing techniques. These generated surfaceswerethenanalysedinthesamewaythattheshellfishweretodetermine theparametersofthegeneratedsurfaces.Onceparameterswerecollectedforthe Optimum shellfish surface and the generated surfaces, they were compared to determinethesimilarities.Oncethesimilaritiesbetweenthethreesurfaceswere determined,arevisedsurfacefinishingtechniquewasproposed.Oncethissurface finishing process has been finalised and the surface finish has been verified as an

iv

antifoulingsurfacethenitcanbeappliedinmanyapplicationtohelpminimiseand insomecaseeliminatefoulingaccumulation.

Acknowledgements
ThankstoZhongxiaoPengforhertirelesseffortinsupportingmethisyear. ThankstoKevinBlakeandShaneAskewattheAdvancedAnalyticalCentre,JCUfor theirassistanceincapturingexcellentimagesintheAdvancedAnalyticalCentre. ThankstoNickPaulforhisassistanceinanalysingthedatacapturedintheAAC.

vi

TableofContents
Abstract.................................................................................................................v i Acknowledgements............................................................................................... i v Introduction..........................................................................................................1 Chapter1:LiteratureReview.................................................................................4 1.1 FoulinganditsEffects.........................................................................................4 1.1.1. Typesoffouling...........................................................................................4 1.1.2. ApplicationsAffectedByFouling.................................................................6 1.1.3. Methodsusedtocontrolfouling.................................................................7 1.2 HeatExchangers.................................................................................................8 1.2.1. TypesofHeatExchangers............................................................................8 1.2.2. Methodsusedtocombatfoulinginheatexchangers...............................10 1.3 SurfaceTopographyandAntifoulingProperties..............................................12 1.4 Surfacefinishingtechniques.............................................................................18 1.4.1. Electropolishing.........................................................................................18 1.4.2. Sanding......................................................................................................19 1.4.3. SurfaceGrinding........................................................................................19 1.5 SurfaceAnalysismethod..................................................................................20 QualitativeAnalysis...................................................................................20 OpticalMicroscope.................................................................................21 ScanningElectronMicroscope................................................................22 1.5.2. QuantitativeAnalysis.................................................................................23 StylusProfiler..........................................................................................23 AtomicForceMicroscopy .......................................................................24 . LaserScanningConfocalMicroscopy......................................................25 1.6 TestingandEvaluationTechniques..................................................................26 1.7 Summary...........................................................................................................27 Chapter2:Methodology .....................................................................................28 . 2.1 CharacterisationofShellFishSurfaces.............................................................28 2.1.1. Sampleselection........................................................................................28 2.1.2. ImageAcquisition......................................................................................31 2.1.3. ImageProcessingandAnalysis..................................................................33 2.1.4. VerificationoftheMatlabandOptimassoftware....................................35 2.2 Generationofstainlesssteelsurfaceswithantifoulingfunction...................36 . Surfacefinishingtechnique.......................................................................37 Stainlesssteelsurfacesvs.shellfishsurfacesusingnumericalparameters ...................................................................................................................38 2.3 Testingandevaluationofsurfacefinishes.......................................................38 vii 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 1.5.1.

2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3.

Experimentalapparatus............................................................................39 Testingprocedures....................................................................................40 Performanceevaluation............................................................................40

Chapter3:ResultsandDiscussion.......................................................................41 3.1 ImageAcquisitionandprocessing....................................................................41 LCSMandLasersharp2000settings..........................................................42 3DImageProcessinginMatlab.................................................................42 Tellinaplicata..........................................................................................44 Mytilusgalloprovincialis..........................................................................45 Amusiumballoti......................................................................................47 3.2 ValidationDatafromStylusProfiler.................................................................48 3.3 QuantitativeSurfaceAnalysisResults..............................................................51 3.3.1. TabulatedSurfaceAnalysisResults...........................................................51 3.3.2. GraphicalSurfaceAnalysis.........................................................................54 3.4 StudyofAntifoulingProperties........................................................................58 3.5 SurfaceParametersfromstainlesssteelsurfaces............................................60 Chapter4:ConclusionandFutureWork..............................................................62 References..67 AppendixA:StylusProfilerCharts69 AppendixB:SPSSAnalysisGraphs73 3.1.1. 3.1.2.

viii

TableofFigures
Figure1:TubeandShellHeatExchanger....................................................................9 . Figure2:PlateHeatExchanger..................................................................................10 Figure3:FouledShellandTubeheatexchanger.......................................................11 Figure4:Parametersforsurfacecharacterisation....................................................13 Figure 5: Scanning Electron Microscope images of the engineered microtopographies.....................................................................................................14 Figure6:Electropolishingmethod.............................................................................18 Figure7:Surfacegrindingmachine...........................................................................20 Figure8:OpticalMicroscope.....................................................................................21 Figure9:ScanningElectronMicroscope....................................................................22 Figure10:StylusProfiler............................................................................................23 Figure11:AtomicForceMicroscope.........................................................................24 Figure12:LaserConfocalScanningMicroscope........................................................25 Figure13:AntifoulingtestingapparatusproposedbyZettler(2005).......................27 Figure14:Tellinaplicata(Brownpigment)sample...................................................29 Figure15:Tellinaplicata(Whitepigment)sample....................................................30 Figure16:Mytilusgalloprovincialissample...............................................................30 Figure17:Amusiumballotisample...........................................................................30 . Figure18:LaserScanningConfocalMicroscopeatJamesCookUniversity..............32 Figure19:ComputercontainingtheLasersharp2000imagecapturingsoftware....33 Figure20:Testingapparatus(Friedrich,2008)..........................................................39 Figure21:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforTellinaplicata.......................................................44 Figure 22: Analysis results from the Tellina plicata sample separated into form, wavinessandroughnessprofiles...............................................................................44 Figure23:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforMytilusgalloprovincialis......................................45 Figure24:AnalysisresultsfromtheMytilusgalloprovincialissampleseparatedinto form,wavinessandroughnessprofiles.....................................................................46 Figure25:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforAmusiumballoti...................................................47 Figure 26: Analysis results from the Amusium balloti sample separated into form, wavinessandroughnessprofiles...............................................................................47 ix

Figure27:Combinedaveragesofthevalidationdata...............................................50 Figure28:RavaluesforallSubsamples.(321referstosubsample1,ofindividual2 ofspecies3)................................................................................................................55 Figure29:RavaluesforallIndividuals.(32referstoindividual2ofspecies3).......56 Figure30:RavaluesforallSpecies.(3referstospecies3)......................................57 Figure34:RavaluesforgivenSubSamples..............................................................70 Figure35:RavaluesforgivenIndividuals..................................................................70 Figure36:RavaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................71 Figure37:RqvaluesforgivenSubsamples..............................................................72 . Figure38:RqvaluesforgivenIndividuals. ................................................................72 . Figure39:RqvaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................73 Figure40:RskvaluesforgivenSubsamples.............................................................74 Figure41:RskvaluesforgivenIndividuals................................................................74 Figure42:RskvaluesforgivenSpecies......................................................................75 Figure43:RkudataforgivenSubsamples................................................................76 Figure44:RkuvaluesforgivenIndividuals................................................................76 Figure45:RkuvaluesforgivenSpecies.....................................................................77 Figure46:FdvaluesforgivenSubsamples...............................................................78 Figure47:FdvaluesforgivenIndividuals..................................................................78 Figure48:FdvaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................79 Figure49:StrvaluesforgivenSubsamples..............................................................80 Figure50:StrvaluesforgivenIndividuals.................................................................80 Figure51:StrvaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................81 Figure52:WavaluesforgivenSubsamples.............................................................82 Figure53:WavaluesforgivenIndividuals................................................................82 Figure54:WavaluesforgivenSpecies......................................................................83 Figure55:WqvaluesforgivenSubsamples.............................................................84 Figure56:WqvaluesforgivenIndividuals................................................................84 Figure57:WqvaluesforgivenSpecies. ....................................................................85 . Figure58:WskvaluesforgivenSubsamples.............................................................86 Figure59:WskvaluesforgivenIndividuals...............................................................86 Figure60:WskvaluesforgivenSpecies....................................................................87 x

Figure61:WkuvaluesforgivenSubsamples...........................................................88 Figure62:WkuvaluesforgivenIndividuals..............................................................88 Figure63:WkuvaluesforgivenSpecies....................................................................89 Figure64:FdvaluesforgivenSubsamples...............................................................90 Figure65:FdvaluesforgivenIndividuals..................................................................90 Figure66:FdvaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................91 Figure67:StrvaluesforgivenSubsamples..............................................................92 Figure68:StrvaluesforgivenIndividuals.................................................................92 Figure69:StrvaluesforgivenSpecies.......................................................................93

xi

TableofTables
Table1:2DSurfaceParameters.................................................................................15 Table2:SurfaceParameters......................................................................................16 Table3:3DSurfaceParameters.................................................................................17 Table4:FinalisedSurfaceParameters.......................................................................35 Table5:ValidationData.............................................................................................49 Table6:Combinedaveragesofthevalidationdata..................................................49 Table 7: Raw roughness profile data from Matlab and Optimas software (1 & 2 Tellinaplicata,3Mytilusgalloprovincialis,4Amusiumballoti) ............................52 . Table 8: Raw waviness profile data from Matlab and Optimas software (1 & 2 Tellinaplicata,3Mytilusgalloprovincialis,3Amusiumballoti) ............................53 . Table9:AveragedroughnessdatafromTable7.......................................................54 Table10:AveragedwavinessdatafromTable8.......................................................54 Table11:Hypothesisedantifoulingparameters........................................................60 Table12:ComparisonbetweenOptimumshellvaluesandgeneratedstainlesssteel values.........................................................................................................................61

xii

INTRODUCTION

Introduction
Foulinginfluencesawidevarietyindustry,frommarinetominingandeventhefood industry. Fouling can be described as the undesirable build up of material on a surface and is a side effect of the environment in which the surface is exposed. Therearemanynegativeeffectsthatfoulingcanhaveonasystemandallofthese effects can be put into one of the following categories: physical, ecological and economicalfactors.Heatexchangersarewidelyusedinavarietyofindustriesthat arehighlysusceptibletofoulinganditcanbeforeseenthatfoulingwouldbeoneof the most prominent problems that would commonly occur during their use. The physical, ecological and economical factors in turn affect the design, implementation and maintenance of a system with a heat transfer surface. In all cases,thesideeffectsoffoulingbuildupshouldbeminimisedifnoteliminatedin ordertomaximisetheefficiencyofasurface. Thephysicalpartoftheinefficiencyoffoulingcanbeattributedtothehindranceof the water flow over a surface, the obstruction of the heat transfer through the surfaceandthedamagethatthefoulingcausestothesurface.Forexampleinheat exchangers the hindrance of water flow and the added resistance of the heat transfersurfacecanbeattributedtothebuildupofbothscaleandbiofilmonthe pipesandplatesoftheheatexchangeraswellasthepipesthatleadtoandfrom theunit.Thelossinconductivityminimisestheeffectivenessoftheheatexchanger and thus, over time the heat exchanger loses its efficiency and needs to be shutdownandmaintainedinordertoreclaimtheitslosses. Ecologically the addition of antifoulants to the water adds to the toxic chemicals that are released back into the environment. The antifoulants are not the only addedpollutantsthatfoulingcauses,duetotheadditionalemissionsofgreenhouse gassesandthelikeintotheatmospherebecauseofthehigherenergyneedstopush the water through the system in the case of a heat exchanger. Because of the physicalinefficienciesinthesystem,thereareseriouseconomicalramificationson thesystemasthecosttorunandmaintainthesystemrisesandtheprofitdecreases astheoutputofthesystemdecreases. 1

INTRODUCTION Asaruleofthumb,engineersdesignheattransfersystemssothatthelossesdueto thefoulinginthepipsandonplatesarebuiltintothedesign.Thismethodisnot favourable as it results in greater running and building costs. Fabrication costs increase due to the larger heat exchanger and associated piping that needs to be accounted for and the running costs are increased through the higher energy demandforalargerpump. Asanalternativetothepastapproachofsimplybuildingtheheatexchangeraround the problem, a more modern approach is to change the surface finish on the surfacethatispronetofoulinginordertominimiseorideally,eliminatethefouling completely.Withdifferentsurfacefinishes,therearedifferentpropertiesthatcan be changed about the surface and thus the susceptibility to fouling. Surface topography or microtopography describes the various surface parameters that describe the surface. Previous research has shown that properties of the topography that are of interest include the roughness, the waviness and the skewnessoffbothoftheseproperties(Hudleston(2004)). In recent years, researchers have found that a good source of fouling resistant surfaces is those seen on shellfish. Some shellfish naturally possess fouling resistance mechanisms. In addition to the physical antifouling properties, mechanicalandchemicaldeterrentsexist.Thephysicalpropertiesoftheshellare ofmostinterestastheotherpropertiesarerelatedtothematerialthattheshellis made of and the chemicals that are secreted to deter fouling. By mimicking the physicalpropertiesofashellasurfacecanbecreatedthatwillhopefullypossessthe sameantifoulingproperties. Previous methods used to analyse the surfaces and capture surface parameters used primitive twodimensional techniques, an antifouling surface cannot be successfullydesignfromtheseresults,astheydonotcaptureenoughdetailabout the surface. To better capture the definition on the surface, new methods of capturing surface microtopography needed to be utilised and these were Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy (LSCM). These twomethodscananalysethesurfaceinthreedimensionsandthustheparameters 2

INTRODUCTION that in the past have only been attainable in the twodimensional for now are availableinthreedimensions.Theaddeddetailobtainedinthethreedimensional images allows for better insight into the antifouling nature of some species of shellfish. By analysing several different shells and their respective antifouling properties, a data set will be created which describes the necessary surface parameterstomaximisetheantifoulingfunctionofthesurface. When the data has been collected from several shells the desired surface parameterswillbedetermined.Theseparametersincludetheaverageroughness, root mean square roughness, skewness and kurtosis of the profile, the fractal dimension of the surfaces and the texture aspect ratio of the roughness and wavinessprofilesthatareobtainedfromtheshellfishsurface.Thenexttaskwillbe toreplicatethesurfaceontoastainlesssteelsurface.Themethodforthecreation of the surface will depend on the surface parameters that are needed. Once the surface has been created then it will be scrutinised in the same way as the shell surfaces.Bydoingthisitcanbeconfirmedthatthesurfacesindeedhavethesame or similar microtopography that will result in the same of similar antifouling resistance as the shellfish surface. The surface will then be placed in the heat exchangertestapparatusandtestedagainstothersamplestofindoutthesurface finishwillbeapplicableinthefield. Ifthisconceptisprovensuccessful,itwillprovideindustrywithameansofmaking theirheattransfersystemsmoreefficientwithoutcompromisingtheenvironment. With this finish applied to heat transfer surfaces in a plate heat exchanger for example, the frequency of the cleaning cycle for the heat exchanger can be lengtheneddramaticallyifnoteliminated.Thesurfacefinishwillhavetheabilityto complimentortotallyreplacetheantifoulantchemicalscurrentlyusedintheheat transfersystemsandcouldpotentiallyeliminatetheneedtooverdesignthesystem inthefirstplace.Thissurfacefinishisnotonlyapplicabletoheatexchangersasit mightwellbeusedinavarietyofindustriesinanassortmentoflocationstocombat fouling. 3

LITERATUREREVIEW

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Severalitemswillbeoutlinedinthischapterallofwhichwillgivethebackground informationrequiredtodevelopanantifoulingsurfacefinish.Itisenvisionedthat thissurfacefinishcanthenbeappliedtostainlesssteelforuseinheatexchanger applications to resist the accumulation of fouling. This information is broken up intothefollowingheadings: foulinganditseffects, heatexchangers, surfacetopographyandantifoulingproperties, surfacefinishingtechniques, surfaceanalysismethods, surfacetestingandevaluation.

The research carried out under the above headings will give background information to further the advancement of the Designing of a Potentially Anti foulingEngineeringSurfacebyMimickingtheAntiFoulingFunctionofShellFish.

1.1

Fouling and its Effects

1.1.1. Types of fouling

Foulingonasubmergedsurfacecomesinmanyformsandisprimarilytheresultof the surface being exposed to unfavourable environmental conditions. In most cases,foulingisanundesiredbuildupmaterialonasurfacethathinderstheflowof fluid past the surface as well as decreasing the amount of heat that can pass throughthesurface.Epstein(1981)classifiedfoulingintofivemainformsthatare identifiedasbeingaproblemforindustry.Healsodefinedthefivestagesinwhich theprocessoffoulingprogressed.Hisclassificationsoffoulinganditsmechanisms wasrevisedagainbySheikholeslami(2000)andislistedbelow:

LITERATUREREVIEW Crystallisation(precipitation):

Crystallisation fouling or scale formation is temperature dependant; a degree of supersaturationisalsoneededbeforetheprecipitationwilloccur(Bott1997). Particulate:

Particulate fouling is similar to Crystallisation in a sense that there needs to be a supersaturation of the fluid to allow the formation of the particles that will intern attachtothesurface. Biological:

Biological fouling or Biofouling occurs when the organisms that are present in the fluidadheretotheheattransfersurface.ThisformsaBiofilmthatactsinthesame waythattheotherformsoffouling. Corrosion:

Thisoccurswhenthebasemetalstartstocorrodeandthisinhibitstheflowandheat transfer characteristics of the material. As the corrosion induces a rough surface, othermaterialisusuallycaughtupinthisfoulingaswell. Chemicalreaction:

Chemical reaction corrosion is when reactants mix either pre or during the flow through the heat exchanger and produce the fouling that then adheres to the surfaceoftheheatexchanger(WatkinsonandWilson1997). There are many independent parameters which affect the type and quantity of fouling that a surface receives (Malayeri and MllerSteinhagen 2007). Some of theseparametersaregivenbelow:

LITERATUREREVIEW surfacetemperature, bulktemperature, bulkcompositionandchemistry, fluidvelocityandturbulence, physicalpropertiesoftheworkingfluid(viscosity,density), surfacespecifications(material,surfacefinish,roughness), physical properties of the deposit (density, thermal conductivity, stickability), solubilityequilibrium,and chemicalkinetics(chemicalreaction).

1.1.2. Applications Affected By Fouling

Foulingaspreviouslydescribedistheundesiredbuildupofmaterialonasurface. Thisisaworldwideprobleminindustryandimpingesonalmosteverywaterbased process.TheextentoffoulinginindustrywasexplainedbyVladkova(2007)when shedescribedseveralindustriesthataresusceptibletofoulingincluding: pulpandpaperManufacturing, foodindustry, biomaterials, membranetechnologies, underwaterconstructions, theshippingandmarineindustry, fishfarmsandwellasfishingnets, desalinationplants,and heatexchangers.

Astheworldfacesafreshwatershortage,manycountrieshaveturnedtooperating desalinationplantstoproducefreshwater.Despitethetechnologicaladvancesthat have been made with the processes that are carried out in these plants a large proportionoftheplantsarestillthermallydriven.Thismeansthattheefficiencyof 6

LITERATUREREVIEW theseplantsdiminishesataremarkableratewiththeformingoffoulingontheheat transfer surfaces. It is common practice to avoid fouling rather by implementing strategies rather than facing the problem with a solution. Operating the system belowtheoptimumtemperaturetominimisetheeffectsofsupersaturationofthe salt water, building the heat exchanger bigger than it needs to be in order to compensateforthefoulingeffectordosingthesystemwithexcessiveamountsof antifoulant are all strategies that are employed to combat fouling in desalination plants.All oftheseareregardedasnotbestpracticeandasaresultcomeunder heavy scrutiny from environmental agencies due to their high operational and ecologicalcost(MalayeriandMllerSteinhagen2007). Thedairyindustryisalsohighlysusceptibletofoulinginplateheatexchangersused topasteuriseandsterilisemilksincethe1930s.Theplateheatexchangersneedto be cleaned a minimum of once per day to remove the layer of biofilm that accumulatesonthesurfaceoftheplates.Thisisamajorproblem,asthecleaning ofthisequipmentrequiresthattheprocessbeshutdowntemporarilysothatthe bio film can be cleaned away. As a result, there are major costs involved for not onlythematerialsandlabourtocleantheequipmentbutalsothemassivecostof theequipmentdowntimeandaneffluentproblembroughtonbytheintermittent cleaning. The fouling on the plates in this case caused by heatsensitive whey proteins and the heat induced precipitation of calcium phosphate salts out of the milk(VisserandJeurnink1997).

1.1.3. Methods used to control fouling

Manydifferentstrategiesareusedtocombatfoulinginindustry.Oneofthemost predominant methods for controlling fouling in industry applications are technologies such as toxic antifouling coatings and the addition of antifouling chemicals. These methods are easily implemented and are the conventional methodsofcombatingfouling.Thesemethodsandsimilarareheavilyscrutinisedas they pose significant environmental hazards if the process is not monitored properly.Itiscommonpracticetoavoidfoulingratherbyimplementingstrategies

LITERATUREREVIEW rather than facing the problem with a solution (Malayeri and MllerSteinhagen 2007). Theuseoftoxicantifoulantsonshiphullshasbeenahistoricmethodofcontrolling fouling but biocides such as lead, arsenic, mercury and their organic derivatives have been banned due to the environmental risks that they posed to the surroundingmarinelife(Chambers,Stokesetal.2006).TributyltinorTBTisoneof thetoxicantifoulantsusedtobothdeterandkillanymarineorganismswhichare exposedtoit;theuseofwhichhasbeenbannedduetoenvironmentaldamagethat it causes. The use of organotins was eventually banned due to severe shellfish deformitiesandthebioaccumulationoftininsomeducks,sealsandfish(Chambers, Stokes et al. 2006). There are antifouling coatings that do not use heavy metals; these are called foul releasing coatings and simply do not allow the fouling to adheretothecoatedsurface(MllerSteinhagen2000).

1.2

Heat Exchangers

1.2.1. Types of Heat Exchangers

A heat exchanger is a device built for efficient heat transfer from one medium to another. They are widely used in space heating, refrigeration, air conditioning, power plants, chemical plants, petrochemical plants, petroleum refineries, and natural gas processing. There are numerous types of heat exchangers used in industrytoday.ThetwomaintypesofHeatExchangersarethePlatetype(Visser and Jeurnink 1997; Malayeri and MllerSteinhagen 2007) and the Tube and Shell type.ThesearenotexclusivelytheonlytypesofHeatExchangersusedasthereare multipleapplicationsandthesetwotypescouldnotpossiblebeversatileenoughto coveralltypes.TheTubeandShelltypeHeatExchangerpresentedinFigure1has manydifferentconfigurationsrangingfromsinglepasstomultiplepassdepending ontheapplications.ForthepurposeoftheprojectthistypeofHeatExchangerwill not be considered, as the process of conceiving a method of applying a surface finishtotheinsideofapipewouldbeverylengthy. 8

LITERATUREREVIEW The Plate Heat Exchanger on the other hand is the perfect candidate for the applicationofasurfacefinishonthesurfaceoftheplates.AspresentedinFigure2 the Plate Heat Exchanger is made up of several plates that separate the process fluidonthehotsideandthecoolingfluidonthecoldside.Thenumberofplates used in the Plate Heat Exchanger is entirely dependent on the outcome that is desired.Agreaternumberofplateswillincreasethesurfaceareaandthusthere willbeagreaterheattransferacrossthesurface(Zettler,Weietal.2005).Withan increase in the number of plates to increase the heat transfer, there will also be moresurfaceareaavailabletobefouled. Plate Heat Exchangers are used where they can be as they are easy to maintain have an excellent heat transfer capability and by nature are compact (Shah, Subbaraoetal.1988).Primarilystainlesssteelisusedinsideheatexchangersasit hasahighresistancetocorrosionandgoodthermalconductivity.Heatexchangers haveawidevarietyofofapplicationsinindustry.Somereleventindustriesinclude wineandbrewing,dairy,chemicalprocessing,refrigeration,powergrenerationand thewastewaterindustry.Inalloftheseapplicatoinsitisimportantthattheheat transfer through the surface is maximised while the flow over the surface experiecestheleastamountofresistance.

Figure1:TubeandShellHeatExchanger. (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/encommons/c/cd/Straight tube_heat_exchanger_1pass.PNG)

LITERATUREREVIEW

Figure2:PlateHeatExchanger. (http://www.separationequipment.com/images/alfalaval_plate_heat_exchanger.gif)

1.2.2. Methods used to combat fouling in heat exchangers

HeatExchangersarehighlysusceptibletofoulinginmanycombinationsofitsform. Duetothemanyapplicationsofthispieceofequipmentisusedinthereisabroad rangeoffoulingthattheycanbeexposedto.Thecoldsideaswellasthehotsideof theheattransfersurfacecanbeaffectedbyfouling.AspresentedinFigure3heat exchangerscanbecomeextremelycongestedovertimeasthefoulingincreasesand theopeningslowlyrestrictstheflowofthewater. Thetriedandtestedsolutiontotheproblemoffoulinginheatexchangersistoover designthesystemandbuildintothedesigntheaccumulationofabiofilmornon organic fouling. This is an inefficient and costly procedure for designing heat transfer system. The cost for the construction and installation of a bigger heat exchangerwillnodoubtbegreaterforabiggersystem.Notonlywillthecostofthe construction rise but the cost of all the associated machines and running will increase,asthesystemhastoallowforthebiggerheatexchanger.

10

LITERATUREREVIEW

Figure3:FouledShellandTubeheatexchanger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouling)

Anothermethodusedtodeterfoulingontheheattransfersurfaceistheplacement ofcorrugationsintheheattransfersurfaceinaherringbonedesign.Theseplates are called chevron plates and they increase the turbulence in the plate heat exchanger,whichhelpstopreventfoulingsettlingontheheattransfersurfaces. Thereisanabundanceofresearchdoneintotheareaoffoulingandthemethods used to combat its many forms. In recent years, the focus has turned away from the toxic coatings and additives that are applied to prevent or kill fouling that is prevalent in many water based environments. The new method that is used to combatfoulingiscalledsurfaceengineering.Surfaceengineeringinvolvesaltering thechemicalcompositionandmorphology,surfacetopographyandroughness,the hydrophilic/hydrophobicbalanceandthesurfaceenergyandpolarityofthesurface togiveitthebestantifoulingparameters(Vladkova2007). Byoutliningthecurrentmethodsusedtopreventoratmostminimisetheeffectsof fouling, it can be seen that there is a need to enhance our knowledge about methodsthatarebothenvironmentallyfriendlyandeconomicallyefficient.Surface engineering has the potential satisfy both of these requirements with more research. 11

LITERATUREREVIEW

1.3

Surface Topography and Antifouling Properties

As mentioned above surface engineering aims to alter the chemical composition and/or morphology, surface topography and roughness, the hydrophilic/ hydrophobic balance and the surface energy and polarity of the surface to better resist fouling. Although there are many different properties that can be altered surfacetopographyistheonlypropertythatwillbediscussedinthispaperasthe other properties relate to the material and the chemical composition of the material, which cannot be changed in this case. Hudleston (2004) showed the settling of fouling organisms on a surface is strongly affected by its surface microtopography. Biofoulingrapidlycoversthesurfaceofmanysubmergeditemsthatareplacedina marine environment. The surfaces of many shell fish however, seem to remain relatively unfouled when exposed to the same conditions. It is from this observationthatthestudyofthetopographicalormicrotopographicalfeaturesof thesecreatureshasbecomeasignificantresearchtopic. The study of many surfaces have already been conducted with Bers (2006) conducting an anti settling study on two different speciesthe Mytilus edulis (blue mussel)andPernaperna(brownmussel).Thesewerecomparedwithadesignated rough surface and a designated smooth surface that were a lot rougher and smoother respectively. The natural mussel shells on nearly all occasions repelled more fouling than both the rough, which always suffered the most fouling, and smoothsurfaces. Scardino (2003) reported on the antifouling properties of the Mytilus galloprovincialisandthePinctadaimbricata.Thestudyshowsthatthemeanheight oftheMytilusgalloprovincialis(1238.1m),issignificantlylowerwhencompared tothatofthePinctadaimbricata(1.870.07m).Themicrotopographicsurfaceof the Mytilus galloprovincialis proved to be more resistant to fouling while the Pinctada imbricata surface suffered more fouling but still less than 15% of the surfacewerefouledafterafourteenweekexposureperiod.

12

LITERATUREREVIEW Scardino (2004) also tested the fouling deterrence of the Mytilus galloprovincialis andtheAmusiumballotiaswellashighresolutionmouldsofeachoftheshelland again smooth and rough comparison moulds. This test resulted in the Mytilus galloprovincialis shell and mould having significantly less fouling than the other moulds. The major effects were in the test surfaces with and without microtopography. Be it the structured microtopography of the Mytilus galloprovincialisanditsmouldorinthecaseoftherandomsandedmouldtheyall exhibited less fouling cover within a sixweekperiod. After six weeks, the fouling deterrentsurfaceeffectsofthemouldsdiminishedandthesurfacesbegantofoul. Scardino (2003) were the first to systematically study the surface of the shellfish and comprehensively report on the numerical parameters of the surface. In the past, many researchers have only quantified the parameter in a twodimensional sense and have attributed almost all of the anti fouling properties of a surface to thesurfaceroughness.Thismeansthattheyhavenottakenintoconsiderationany of the other parameters that the shell may possess. Scardino (2003) studied the surfaces in three dimensions as opposed to two dimensions in the past to quantitativelyanalysenotonlytheroughnessofthesurfacebutthetextureaswell. Thistextureisbrokendownintothefollowingparameters:Averageroughness(R a ), Averagewaviness(W a ),Skewnessofthesurfaceroughnessprofile(R sk ),Skewness of the surface waviness profile (W sk ), Texture aspect ratio (S tr ), and Fractal dimension(D).

Figure4:Parametersforsurfacecharacterisation. (http://www.asp.org/database/images/mtsp/Sect2214.GIF)

13

LITERATUREREVIEW Hudleston (2004) analysed 31 species of shell fish using the parameters stated above. Threedimensional images of the shell fish surfaces were taken and the roughness, waviness and form surface profiles were generated for each of the images using a program developed by Peng (1998). By using the 31 specimens, Hudlestonwasabletocompileacomprehensivedatabaseofshellfishspeciesand theirrespectivemicrotopography.Thismicrotopographydatabasealongwiththe visual inspection of the shellfish in their natural habitat allowed for the fouling abilityofeachoftheshellstobematchedwiththetopographicalparametersofthe particular specimen. In Tables 1, 2 and 3 are all of the surface parameters that Huddleston initially used to describe the shellfish surfaces. A correlation analysis wasusedtominimisethenumberofparametersthatwereusedandthisallowed thecomputationaltimetobeminimised. IncontrastthenaturallyoccurringsurfacetopographiesSchumacher(2007)studied theeffectofthefeaturesize,geometryandroughnessonthesettlementoffouling onto a surface. They tested the designs presented in Figure 5 as well as control smooth cast of the same material. The results from this experiment showed that thedesigninboxAwasthebestfollowedbyB,C,Dandthenthesmoothsample.

Figure5:ScanningElectronMicroscopeimagesoftheengineeredmicrotopographies. (Schumacher,Carmanetal.2007)

14

LITERATUREREVIEW
Table1:2DSurfaceParameters(Huddleston2004) Parameter Name Average roughness Definition The arithmetic mean of the departure of the surface profile from the mean line. over 2 20 consecutive sampling lengths, where L is the number of sampling points and z is the residual surface Equation

Ra

Rq

Root mean square roughness 10 point height

The root mean square of Ra.

Rz

The average height between the five highest peaks and the five lowest valleys within the sampling length, this parameter is also known as the 10point height parameter.

where Ypi represents the highest peaks and Yvi represents the lowest valleys

Rp

Depth of surface

The maximum height of the surface profile above the mean line within the sampling length. The maximum peak to valley height of the surface profile in the sampling length. The maximum depth of the profile below the mean line within the sampling length. The maximum peak to valley of the profile in one sampling.

Rt

Peak to valley height

Rv

Maximum profile depth

Rti

Maximum peak to valley height Mean depth of roughness Mean depth of surface Skewness

Rtm

The mean of all the Rti values recorded for the assessment length. The mean value for Rp recorded for each assessment length. The symmetry of the amplitude distribution curve about the mean line. The measure of shape (sharpness) of the amplitude distribution curve

Rpm

Rsk Kurtosis Rku

15

LITERATUREREVIEW
Table2:SurfaceParameters(Huddleston2004)

Parameter

Name
Root mean square of profile height

Definition
The root mean square of the profile height over the assessment length

Equation

where y is the differential of the profile y Root mean square of spatial wavelength Roughness width The root mean square of the spatial wavelength content of the surface

The roughness width within one sampling length where n is the number of samples within one sampling length

Ar

AR

Mean roughness step

The mean of Ar over the entire assessment length where n is the number of samples within entire assessment length

Aw

Waviness width Average waviness step

The waviness width within the sample length The average waviness width within the assessment length where n is the number of samples within entire assessment length

Aw

R3z

Average roughness depth

The mean separation of the third highest peak and third lowest valley in each of five consecutive sampling lengths Separation of the highest peak and lowest valley waviness over the sampling length The average wavelength within the assessment length

Waviness height

Average wavelength

16

LITERATUREREVIEW
Table3:3DSurfaceParameters(Huddleston2004)

Parameter

Name
Root mean square deviation

Definition
The values of the surface departure within the sampling area

Equation

Sq

Ten point height of the surface Sz

The average height between the five highest peaks and the five lowest valleys within the sampling area

where pi and vi are the five highest peaks and the five lowest valleys respectively

Skewness of surface topography distribution Ssk

The measure of the asymmetry of surface deviations about the mean plane

where p() is the probability density function of the residual surface (x,y) Kurtosis of topography height distribution Sku The measure of the peakiness or sharpness of the surface height distribution

There is significant contradiction in the literature as to what the effect of surface roughnesshasontheantifoulingpropertiesofagivensurface.Examplesofthese contradictions can be found throughout the literature. For example, Richards (Richards 1996) documented that there is no correlation between the material roughness and the amount of cell adhesion to a surface. Whilst Gjaltema (1997) reportedthatincreasedsurfaceroughnesspromotedahigherbiofilmaccumulation. AfterresearchingthistopicKerr(2003)statedthattheconfusionthatispresentin theliteraturecouldbeattributedtothelackofcontrolofthemanyvariablesthat affecttheexperimentsinthisfield.Withnumerousexperimentsbeingconducted inthisarea,thereisaneedformoredetailaboutthesurfaceroughnessvaluesthat 17

LITERATUREREVIEW havebeenused.Instinctivelyasmothersurfacefinishpossessesbetterantifouling propertieswhencomparedtoaroughsurface.

1.4

Surface finishing techniques

Inordertotestthedifferenttypesofsurfaces,amethodofapplyingthefinishesto thestainlesssteelneedstobeconceived.Afterresearchingalternativemethodsfor creatingthedesiredmicrotopographyonasurfacethefollowingprocesswereseen tohavepotential.

1.4.1. Electropolishing
Electropolishingisanelectrochemicalprocessbywhichsurfacematerialisremoved byelectrolysis.Sometimesreferredtoas"reverseplating",electropolishingactually removes surface material, beginning with the high points within the microscopic surfacetexture.Thecathodeofthesystemwillbemadetomirrorthefeaturesof theworkpieceandtheanodeistheworkpieceitself.Theelectricalchargethatis thenappliedacrosstheelectrolytecausesthehighspotsontheworkpiecetobe dissolved at a greater rate than that of the lower spots thus having a smoothing affect on the surface. After the electropolishing treatment, the workpiece is passed through a series of steps to neutralize, rinse, clean and dry the surfaces (Electropolishing2008).

Figure6:Electropolishingmethod. (http://www.harrisonep.com/services/electropolishing/default.html#bennefits)

18

LITERATUREREVIEW

1.4.2. Sanding
Medilanski (2002) used different 3 different grades of sandpaper (P80, P500 and P100), diamond polishing paste and an electropolishing process to produce 5 different samples of roughness. The stainless steel samples were first electropolishedtogivethemallauniformsurface.Theywerethenscratchedusing the different grades of sandpaper giving them the following roughness characteristics:P80(0.89m),P500(0.25m),P1000(0.16m),diamondpolishing (0.05 m) and electropolishing (0.03 m). The samples were then exposed to foulingandtheresultsweretaken.Thisexperimentshowedthattherewasnotably lessfoulingonthesurfacewitharoughnessof0.16m,whichwascreatedbythe P1000gritsandpaper.

1.4.3. Surface Grinding

Surfacegrinderscanbeusedeithertoprovideaprecisionsizeortoapplyaspecific surface finish. Typically, a surface grinder, depending on the condition of the machineandtheoperator,canapplyaprecisionfinishof0.002mm(+/0.0001"). A surface grinding machine consists of a table that moves both left to right and fronttobackacrossundertherotatinggrindingdisc.Thefeedthatmovesthetable inthehorizontalplanecanbedrivebyeitherhydraulicorelectricmotorsorhand driven. The grinding wheel rotates in the spindle head and depending on the machine can the height can be adjusted by any of the methods previously described.If the machine is set up with hydraulic orelectric motors to move the tableandthegrindingheadthenthereisachancethatitwillbesemiautomated andwillrequireminimalhandsononcetheprocesshasstarted. As with any grinding operation, the type of the wheel that is used will determine the finish that is applied to the surface. The addition of coolant to the system allowsforafinerfinishanditremovesthemetaldust(metalandgrindingparticles) thatisproduced.Dependingontheworkpiecematerial,theworkisgenerallyheld bytheuseofamagneticchuck.Thismaybeeitheranelectromagneticchuckora manuallyoperated;bothtypesareshowninthefirstimage(Degarmo,Blacketal. 2003). 19

LITERATUREREVIEW

Figure7:Surfacegrindingmachine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_grinder)

1.5

Surface Analysis method

The analysis of a surface can be broken down into two main sections being the qualitativeandquantitative.Thequalitativeanalysismethodscanonlygivepicture ofthesurfacewithnonumericaldata.Thequantitativeanalysisontheotherhand results in the collection of numerical data that can be analysed to give numerical parameters.

1.5.1. Qualitative Analysis

This describes the analysis of a surface using visual inspection methods. Some methods of qualitative analysis are optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopyandtheseareoutlinedbelow.

20

LITERATUREREVIEW

OpticalMicroscope
OpticalmicroscopelikeoperateasshowninFigure8andbymovingtheobjective lenstheimagebecomesfocused.Opticalmicroscopes,throughtheiruseofvisible wavelengthsoflight,arethesimplestandhencemostwidelyusedtypeofbiology and geology. Optical microscopes use refractive lenses, typically of glass and occasionallyofplastic,tofocuslightintotheeyeoranotherlightdetector.Typical magnificationofalightmicroscopeisupto1500xwithatheoreticalresolution of around 0.2 m or 200 m. Optical microscopes are easy to operate and have no complexpartsbutthereisacostandthatisthelowresolutionandthefactthatthe surfacecanonlybemeasuredintwodimensions.Thiswillnotprovideuswiththe necessary information to parameterise the surface of the shellfish. This method however can provide us with a method of analysing the surface once it has been fouled.

Figure8:OpticalMicroscope. (PengandTomovich2008)

21

LITERATUREREVIEW

ScanningElectronMicroscope
Electron Microscopes were developed due to the limitations of light microscopes. In the early 1930's the theoretical limit had been reached, this required 10,000x plusmagnification,whichwasjustnotpossibleusingalightmicroscope. The first Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) debuted in 1942 with the first commercial instruments available in 1965. Its late development was due to the electronics involved in "scanning" the beam of electrons across the sample. The SEMworksbyfiringelectronsataspeciallypreparedsurfaceandthenanalysingthe electronsandxraysthatarereflectedfromthesurface.Thegeneralsetupofthe SEMcanbeseeninFigure9.Thesurfaceofthesamplethatistobescannedneeds tobereflectiveasisusuallyputthroughaprocesscalledgoldsputteringtogivethe surfaceareflectivenature.Becauseofthissurfacepreparation,thisprocessisvery expensive.SEMcangiveveryhighresolutiontwodimensionalimages.However,a standardSEMcannotgiveanyheightinformation.

Figure9:ScanningElectronMicroscope. (http://www.steve.gb.com/images/science/scanning_electron_microscope.png)

22

LITERATUREREVIEW

1.5.2. Quantitative Analysis

Asthereisaneedtodeterminethenumericalparametersofasurface,thereisa needtoanalysethedepthofthesurfaceortheprofileintheZdirection.Fromthe methodsthatcouldbeusedthreeofthemorepracticalmethodshavebeenchosen andaresurfacemeasurementbyStylusProfiler,AtomicForceMicroscopyandLaser ScanningConfocalMicroscopy.Thesemethodswillbeoutlinedbelow.

StylusProfiler
The stylus profiler has a very simple design and works by letting the stylus move overthesurface.ThestylusisthenconnectedtoarodthatisinsideaLinerVariable Differential Transformer (LVDT). When the stylus moves up and down over the surfacetherodmovesinsidetheLVDTandthiscausesasignaltobegeneratedthat canthenbecapturedandanalysedtogivethesurfaceprofileofthesample.The Stylus Profiler measures the twodimensional amplitude variations from a chosen datumpoint.Thismethodcanbeusedtocalculatevariousroughnessterms.The StylusProfilerislimitedtomeasuringlargetwodimensionalsurfacesasthereisno waytostitchtogethertheslicesoftheprofilesthatarecreatedbyonepass.This intrusivemethodcandamagethesurfaceofthesampleifitisnotdoneproperly.

Figure10:StylusProfiler. (PengandTomovich2008)

23

LITERATUREREVIEW

AtomicForceMicroscopy
Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) works by scanning a fine tip made of either a ceramic or semiconductor material over a surface much the same way as a phonographneedlescansarecord.Thetipislocatedattheendofacantileverthat is fixed at the other end. As the tip moves over the surface it is repelled by or attractedtothesurfaceandthiscausesthecantileverbeamtodeflect.Ontop,the cantileverbeamthereisareflectiveplateonwhichlaserisdirected.Asthebeam deflects,themagnitudeofthedeflectioniscapturedbythelaserthatreflectsatan obliqueangleofftheendofthecantileverontoaphotosensitivecollectiondevice. ThisprocessisshowninFigure11.Aplotofthelaserdeviationversustipposition onthesamplesurfaceprovidesathreedimensionalmapofthehillsandvalleysof the surface from which the surface topography parameters can be extrapolated. AFM has the ability to produce a highresolution threedimensional image in the rangeofapproximately0.1nm.TheAFMalsodoesnotrequirethesurfaceofthe sample to be reflective and thus there is no need for a surface treatment to be appliedpriortoscanningusinganAFM.However,duetothesmallscanningregion thattheAFMhasitcanbedifficulttolocatetheregionsofinterestonthesurfaceof thesample.

Figure11:AtomicForceMicroscope. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Atomic_force_microscope_block_diagram. png)

24

LITERATUREREVIEW

LaserScanningConfocalMicroscopy
TheLaserScanningConfocalMicroscopeoperatesinmuchthesamewaythatthe conventional microscope works with a few changes (Huddleston 2004). It can be seeninFigure12thatinsteadofnaturallighttheLSCMusedalaserandinsteadof having a wide field of view the LSCM focuses on a single point. The three dimensional image that the LSCM produces is built up of several twodimensional images without overlap. From this stack of images, it is possibly to extract the surfacetopographyparameters.TheLSCMrequirescarefuloperation,toproduce clear and meaningful image many factors need attention. For example once the stack of images are collected from the LSCM they are put into a program that encodesthemwithagreyscalerangingfromzerototwohundredandfiftyfive.A pureblackpixelisrepresentedbyzeroandapurewhitepixelisrepresentedbytwo hundredandfiftyfive.Towardsthetwoextremitiesofthescaleinformationabout thetopographyofthesurfacecanbelostifthetwoextremesarenotbalanced.A height encoded image can be likened to a contour map and from this map the topographicalparameterscanbedetermined(Hudleston2004).

Figure12:LaserConfocalScanningMicroscope. (http://www.unimainz.de/FB/Chemie/AKJanshoff/Illustrationen/scheme_confocal_microscopy.jpg)

25

LITERATUREREVIEW ThereareseveralbenefitsthatLSCMhasover theothertypesofimagecapturing devices.TheLSCMcanprovideadetailedsurfacecharacterisationwithouttheneed forasurfacepreparationasinthecaseofSEM.TheLSCMprocesscanbecarried outinnormalatmosphericconditionswhereasSEMrequiresahighvacuum.LSCM isanondestructivemethodthatallowsthesurfacetobeanalysedrepeatedlyand canproducetheseimagesinamuchshorterperiodthentheothermethods.LSCM isexcellentforgeneratingimageswithlargeverticalresolutionwhereasAFMonly has a vertical resolution in the order of four m which minimises the number of surfacestheAFMcanbeusedon.

1.6

Testing and Evaluation Techniques

Inordertoconfirmordenytheantifoulingpropertiesofasurfaceitfirstneedsto betestedandevaluatedtodeterminewhetherthesurfacefinishisapplicableina practicalsolution. Scardino(2004)testedtheantifoulingpropertiesaseashellbysimplysubmersingit into a creek with samples of other shells; in particular shells that were known to have excellent anti fouling properties and those which have poor antifouling properties.Again,acomparisoncouldthenbemadeaboutthedifferentshellsand thedifferentfoulingpropertiesofeachshell. Kukulka (2007) tested the different types of plates that had different surface finishesonthembyplacingthemallinatankandthepassinglakewaterthrough thetank.Thelakewaterwasonlyusedonceandwasnotrecirculatedsothatthe supplyoflakewaterwouldkeepthefoulingparticlescomingatarelativelyconstant rate.Medilanski(2002)testedtheadhesionoffoulingontostainlesssteelplatesby placingthemintovialsofafluidandthenintroducingthefoulingmediumtothevial andtestingtheamountoffoulingthatattachestothesurfaces. Zettler(2005)usedaheatexchangerthatwassetupusingatwofluidmethodthat runsahotsideandacoldside.Thefoulingisdesignedtoformonthehotsideof this system and the cold side is there to keep the heat exchanger at the desired 26

LITERATUREREVIEW operating temperature. The Apparatus proposed by Zettler (2005) can be seen belowinFigure13.

Figure13:AntifoulingtestingapparatusproposedbyZettler(2005).

1.7

Summary

Asheatexchangersarewidelyusedinindustry,thereisaneedforthemtobeas economicallyandphysicallyefficientaswellasenvironmentallyfriendlyaspossible. Thishasbroughtontheneedtodevelopanontoxicfoulingmechanismforusein heatexchangersandhasledtoresearchintothephysicalmechanismsthatshellfish possess.Inamarineenvironment,therearemanydifferenttypesoffoulingandas aresult,severalspeciesofshellfishhavedevelopeddefencemechanismsthatcan reduce or eliminate fouling. These defence mechanisms come in the forms of mechanical,physicalandchemicalandtheshellfishusesoneoracombinationof thesetominimisethefouling(Wahl1989).Itisanticipatedthatthesurfaceofthe shellfish, which has the most efficient antifouling function, can be mimicked and then applied to surfaces to minimise or totally prevent the formation of fouling material. 27

METHODOLOGY

Chapter 2: Methodology
Theobjectiveofthisprojectwastodeterminethepropertiesofasurfacefinishthat can be applied to a surface so that it has excellent antifouling characteristics by mimickingthesurfacefinishofashellfish.Inordertoachievethisoutcomethere areseveralstepsthatweretaken.Thefirstofthesestepswasthecharacterisation of the shellfish surfaces, which was essential in determining the parameters that affectantifouling.Oncetheappropriateantifoulingparameterswerefound,itwas thennecessarytouseasurfacefinishingtechniquetoapplyafinishtoastainless steel surface so that it may possess the same antifouling properties. Once the stainless steel surface was prepared it was then compared to that of the shellfish surfacetodeterminethelikenessofthetwosurfaces.

2.1

Characterisation of Shell Fish Surfaces

In a marine environment there is massive fouling pressure applied to any surface that is submerged. It has been recognised that there are species of shellfish that havetheabilitytorepulsethisfoulingpressureandthushaverelativelyclean,foul freesurfaces.Itisforthisreasonthatthesurfacesofshellfisharethefocusofthis research and further more recently the use of three dimensional imaging techniques has improved the understanding of what the important surface parametersoftheshellfishsurfaceissignificant.

2.1.1. Sample selection

The choice of the right shellfish is an integral part of this research. If the wrong shellfishwerechosen,allofthefindingsobtainedfromthestudywouldbeinvalid. Itisforthisreasonthatthreedifferentshellfishwerechosenforthesamples.From eachofthespeciestherearebethreedifferentindividualsandfromeachofthese twosubsamplescanbetakenatrandomlocationstogetanaverageofthesurface parameters.

28

METHODOLOGY Thethreedifferentshellfishwerechosenbecauseoftheirnaturalantifoulingnature in a marine environment (Huddleston 2004). The shells were chosen based on previousstudies,whichoutlinedparticularspeciesfortheirantifouling properties. The three species taken into consideration were the Amusium Balloti, Mytilus galloprovincialis and Tellina plicata. The Amusium balloti shell surface possesses very little antifouling potential in its natural environment; this shell will be an excellent example that can be used to compare it to the other antifouling shells. MytilusgalloprovincialisandTellinaplicataspeciesareknowntohaveahighfouling resistanceintheirnaturalenvironment(ScardinoanddeNys2004).Bychoosinga rangeofshellfishspeciesthatcoverstheentirespectrumoffoulingresistance,the parametersthatmaximiseitcanbedetermined.Thefinalspeciesthatwerechosen forthisanalysisareshownbelowinFigures14,15,16and17.TheTellinaplicata speciesofshellcameintwodifferentpigmentssothisspecieswasfurthersplitinto pigmentsasanotherparameterthatcanbeanalysed.

Figure14:Tellinaplicata(Brownpigment)sample.

29

METHODOLOGY

Figure15:Tellinaplicata(Whitepigment)sample.

Figure16:Mytilusgalloprovincialissample.

Figure17:Amusiumballotisample.

30

METHODOLOGY

2.1.2. Image Acquisition

The BIORAD Laser Scanning Radiance 2000 laser scanning confocal microscope (LSCM) was used to capture the images of the shellfish surfaces. In conjunction with the LSCM, Lasersharp 2000 software was used for all image acquisitions. As mentionedpreviouslyinsection2.1.1thereweretworandomsamplestakenfrom each of the three shells for each species. From these LSCM, the Lasersharp 2000 softwareoutputsaseriesoftwodimensionalimages,whichwerethesavedinaTIF format. The images were created by setting two points in the zdirection for the LSCM to scan between. To aid in the setting of these two points the SETCOL function on the Lasersharp software was used. The lowest point is gained by focusingtheLSCMonthelowestpossiblefeatureonthesurface;usingtheSETCOL function,thismeantthatthescreenwaspredominantlygreenwithonlyafewblack pixels.ThentheLSCMwasfocusedonthehighestpossiblefeatureonthesurface using the same SETCOL function as before so that the screen in predominantly greenwithonlyafewblackpixels.Bysettingthehighestandlowestpointsinthe Lasersharp2000softwarethistellsLSCMthelimitsofitsmotioninthezdirection. This gives the differing z level twodimensional images that range from deepest troughtothehighestridge. TheLSCMisaverycomplexpieceofmachineryandhasseveralsettingsthatcanbe varied in order to obtain the bestquality image. Hudleston (2004) described two main functions that were important for quality control. Firstly, the quality of the image can be adjusted through the hardware settings and then these setting can thenbefurtherdefinedthroughtheLasersharpsoftware.Theotherfunctionthat canbeadjustedisthereflectivityofthesample.Tominimisethecomplexityofthe setupoftheLSCMandtheLasersharpsoftwarenotallofthepossiblefunctionsof theLSCMwereused. Todeterminethebestpossiblemagnificationdifferentlenseswereusedtoexamine thesurface.Itwasdecidedthatthesurfacepropertiesthatwerestudiedwouldbe onamscale,andtocapturethesefeaturesa100xlenswouldbeneeded.Once the appropriate lens was selected then the only other variable that was changed 31

METHODOLOGY wastheintensityofthelaser.Thiswasadjustedsothattherewasnosaturationin theimage.TobestadjustthelaserintensitytheSETCOLtoolwasusedagainand this allowed a colour representation on the screen where green was defined as partsoftheimageoutoffocus,thegreyscalefilledtheareasthatwereinfocusand red defined areas that were saturated with light (white). The aim of the laser intensity adjustments were to make sure that there was little to no areas on the imagethatweresaturated(red).

Figure18:LaserScanningConfocalMicroscopeatJamesCookUniversity.

32

METHODOLOGY

Figure19:ComputercontainingtheLasersharp2000imagecapturingsoftware.

2.1.3. Image Processing and Analysis

OncetheimageswerecollectedfromtheLSCMitthenneededtobeconvertedinto imagesthatwillallowthedeterminationofthesurfaceparameters.TheLasersharp 2000 software outputs a number of TIF images that are described as an image of step in the zdirection. All of the images that are obtained from the LSCM were convertedintoheightencodedimages(HEI)andmaximumbrightnessimages(MBI) foruseinthespeciallydesignedMatlabprogramdevelopedbyPeng(2004). TheMBIiscomprisedofpoints ofmaximumbrightnessforeachpixellocationfor each individual image in the stack of twodimensional images resulting in a reflectance image of the sample surface (Hudleston 2004). The MBI was then illustratedusingagreyscalethatseparateseachlayeranddenotesaspecificshade ofgreytoit.Thescalegoesfromzerototwohundredandfiftyfivewherezeroisa

33

METHODOLOGY pureblackpixelandtwohundredandfiftyfiveisapurewhitepixel.Towardsthe extremesofthesescoloursinformationmaybelostasthecolourssaturates. AHEIcanbethoughtofasacontourmaptoacomputerasitcanreadtheheightof each pixel in relation to all of the others. It is from the HEI that the important surfaceparametersaredetermined. As well as the MBI and HEI, the Matlab software also outputs other useful data. Two other outputs of the Matlab software are the roughness and waviness HEI images. These images are used in a data analysis program called Optimas to determinethefractaldimensionandtextureaspectratioofboththeroughnessand wavinessprofiles.TheMatlabcodealsooutputsaWorddocumentthathastheR a , R q , skewness and kurtosis measurements of the surface. These measurements along with those of the Optimas software are used to determine the numerical parametersofanantifoulingsurface. Many numerical parameters have been used in the past to describe the microtopographyofasurface.Hudlestons(2004)researchwentthroughallofthe surfaceparameterspresentedinTable1,Table2andTable3.Acorrelationanalysis wasconductedontheseparameterstodeterminewhichoftheseweresimilarand whichweredifferent.Thepointofthisissothatunnecessaryparameterswerenot usedtodescribethesurface.Anexcessiveamountofunnecessaryparameterswill addasignificantamountoftimetotheanalysisphaseoftheprojectandsomeof the parameters will be obsolete. It is because of this that the large group of parameters was reduced significantly to only a group of seven. The seven parameters that were chosen to describe the surfaces of the samples are shown belowinTable4.Theseparameterswerethenusedinthisstudy. 34

METHODOLOGY
Table4:FinalisedSurfaceParameters

Parameter AverageRoughness (R a ) RootMeanSquare Roughness(R q ) AverageWaviness (W a )

Definition AverageRoughnessisthearithmeticmeanoftheabsolute valuesofthesurfacedeparturesfromthemeanplane. RootMeanSquareRoughnessisthesquarerootofthe arithmeticmeansquaredoftheabsolutevaluesofthe surfacedeparturesfromthemeanplane. AverageWavinessisthearithmeticmeanoftherepeating irregularitieswithspacinggreaterthanthatofthe roughness.

Skewnessofthe roughnessprofile(R sk ) Skewnessisthemeasureoftheamountofmaterialabove andbelowthemeanline. wavinessprofile(W sk ) Textureaspectratio (S tr ) Fractaldimension(D) OncetheLSCMimageswereproducedandtheparametersofeachofthesurfaces were calculated, a correlation analysis was undertaken to determine which of the parameter/scouldbeassociatedwiththeantifoulingnatureoftheshellfish.With the range of shells, a hypothesis can be made as to the change in the antifouling characteristics of the surface resulting from an increasing or decreasing different the values of the parameters. As Hudlestons parameterswere usedagain in this study,theresultsfromthisstudywerethencomparedtotheresultsthatHudleston (2004)obtainedforconfirmation. TheTextureaspectratiodefinestheAnisotropyor Isotropyofthesurface. FractalDimensionmeasuresthecomplexityoftheshape.

2.1.4. Verification of the Matlab and Optimas software

It is important in all experiments that the results that are obtained using one method can be replicated using a different method to ensure that the method is accurate. To ensure that the data collected in this case is accurate a method for dataverificationisneeded.ToverifythedatainthiscaseaStylusProfileristobe 35

METHODOLOGY used and this will provide a direct R a measurement of the surface. It is virtually impossibletousethispieceofequipmentonalloftheshellstoobtain roughness measurementfornumerousreasons.Thesurfaceofashellisnotflatandinsome cases, the roughness profile that is trying to be measured is applied to a wavy surface.ThiswouldmeanthattheStyluswouldhavetotraveldowntroughsand/or over ridges to take a measurement. This would no doubt interfere with the measurementoftheroughnessofthesurface. Toremedythisproblemapieceofsheetstainlesssteelofdimensions100x75mm wasusedwithdifferentsurfacefinishesoneachsidetodothistest.Ononesideof the sheet the surface was be buffed using a cloth buffing wheel and buffing compound before being further polished by hand using a piece of cloth and a polishing agent. The other side of the sheet was rubbed on a piece of 150grit sandpaperinacircularpatternuntilthesurfacehasauniformtexture. Thesameprocesswasusedtocapturethesurfacesofthestainlesssteelsheetas those used to capture the surface of the shells. Three random positions were chosen from each side of the sheet to obtain an average later on. The Stylus profiler was then used on four random points on the surface to determine the roughness. Once the data from the two tests is compiled then the Matlab and Optimascodecanbeconfirmedaccurateornot.

2.2

Generation of stainless steel surfaces with anti-fouling function

Thefocusofthisprojectistoengineerasurfacefinishthatcanbeusedinindustry tohelpmitigateifnoteliminatebiofouling.Stainlesssteelisusedalmostexclusively inindustryinareasassociatedwithhightemperaturesandcorrosivefluids.Itisfor this reason that this project focuses on applying an antifouling surface finish to stainless steel surfaces where possible to help reduce the effect that fouling can haveonasystem.Onesuchsystemthatcanbeheavilyinfluencedbyfoulingisheat exchangersandtheirassociatedplumbing.Byproducingasurfacefinishthatcanbe 36

METHODOLOGY appliedtotheplatesinaplateheatexchangerforexample,itcanbeforeseenthat savingsonrunningandmaintenancewillnodoubtfollow.Astherearenumerous waysinwhichthesurfaceparameterscanbeapplieditisimportanttonotethatthe facilitiesatJamesCookUniversity(JCU)didnotpermitthis.

2.2.1. Surface finishing technique

Several surface finishes can be applied to the surface of the stainless steel, but thereareonlyalimitednumberofmachinesinJCUworkshop.Theeasiestwayto getavarietyofsurfacefinishesistoapplythesurfacewithdifferentgradesofwet anddrysandpaper.Idealisticallythespecimenswouldhaveallbeelectropolished initiallytogiveallofthetestspecimensauniformsurfacefinishtostartwith.The method that is finally used to apply the surface finish to the stainless steel was dependentontheparametersthataredefinedafterthefirstpartoftheanalysisof thesurfacewascompleted.Medilanski(2002)usedthismethodofsandingtoapply surfacefinishestothestainlesssteelsamplesthatwereused. Surface grinding was another method that could have been used to apply the surface finish to the samples. The samples would have been passed under the surface grinder and a linear pattern will be left on the surface that will hypotheticallyreplicatethesurfacefinishoftheshellfishspecieswiththegreatest antifouling properties. Several samples could be created with the surface grinder byvaryingthenumberoftimesthewheelispassedoverthesamepointaswellas thepressurethatisappliedtothesurfaceofthesampleandthedifferentgradesof wheelthatareused.Inbothcases,thestainlesssteelwouldhavetobeleftinopen airforaperiodtoallowtheoxidelayeronthestainlesssteeltoregenerate. Byhavingmorethanonepreparationmethod,awidevarietyofsurfacescouldbe formed and tested to give the best chance of creating a surface with the correct parameters.

37

METHODOLOGY

2.2.2. Stainless steel surfaces vs. shell fish surfaces using numerical parameters
Afterthegeneratedsurfaceswereleftforawhiletoreaccumulatetheoxidelayer onthem,thetestpieceswereplacedundertheLSCMforanalysis.Inthesameway, that the surface of the shellfish were analysed the surface of the stainless steel samplewerescannedinthreerandomlocationsacrossitssurface.Theresultsfrom these scans were scrutinised using the same methods as the shellfish surfaces. After the results of the shellfish and the stainless steel samples are compared, it wasdeterminedoftheappliedsurfacefinishwouldbethesameorsimilartothatof theshellfish. Iftheproducedsurfacesdonotmatchupwiththeparametersthatareneededthen a second iteration of sample will be made. The surface finish that gave the best outcomefromthefirstsetofstainlesssteelsampleswasdecided.Thisdecisionwas made using the parameters and the likeness of the stainless steel sample surface andthatoftheshellfishsurface.Themethodthatwasusedtocreatetheclosest matchtotheshellsurfacewasthenmodifiedsothatthenextiterationofsamples wasaclosermatchtothatofthesurfaceoftheshellfish. In the case where there is no similarity between the surface finish applied to the stainless steel samples and the shell fish sample then the method used in the generationofthesurfacesneedstobefurtherresearched.

2.3

Testing and evaluation of surface finishes

Itisimportantthatthesurfacesthataregeneratedbetestedsothatthevalidityof the project can be confirmed. Many proposed methods are used to put the required surfaces under significant fouling pressure on the test samples. The methodsareoutlinedinthebelowsectionsandarejustifiedaccordingly.

38

METHODOLOGY

2.3.1. Experimental apparatus

Many testing procedures have been used in the past to validate the surfaces of materialsfortheirantifoulingproperties.Theapparatusthathasbeendesignedby Peter Friedrich and will be used to test the antifouling properties of the surface finishesisshowninFigure20.ThestainlesssteelplateisplacedinthePerspexbox with cold water flowing on one side and hot on the other. The hot water was loadedwithafoulingagentthatthesurfacewillthentrytoresist.Tomeasurethe efficiencyofthesurfacethermocoupleshavebeenconnectedtotheapparatusto determineinletandoutlettemperaturesforthetwoflows.

Figure20:Testingapparatus(Friedrich,2008)

39

METHODOLOGY

2.3.2. Testing procedures

Thetestingoftheantifoulingsurfacewasconductedusingtheapparatusthatwas builtbyPeterFriedrich.Theplatewasmountedintheheatexchangerandthenthe systemwillrunforapproximately72hourstoallowsufficienttimeforthefoulingto accumulateonthesurface. Thesurfaceparametersthathavebeentakenfromthesurfaceoftheshellfishare primarilyknownfortheiroutstandingantibiofoulingabilities.Theperformanceof theshellfishsurfaceinaparticulatefoulingcaseisnotknownandtheresultstaken during this experiment will help to determine whether the shellfish surface parameterscanbeappliedtomorethanoneapplicationoffouling.Thesetestswill be conducted in collaboration with the builder of the testing apparatus Peter Friedrichinordertooptimisethetestingapparatusforthebestoutcome.

2.3.3. Performance evaluation

To evaluate the performance of the surface there are several methods that were used.Whilethetestingapparatusisbeingused,thefluidthatisbeingrunthrough thehotsideofthemachinewaskeptataconstanttemperature.Thefluidinboth sidesoftheapparatuswaspumpedataconstantflowrateandthustheheatthatis lostacrosstheheattransfershouldgointoequilibriumafteraperiodifthereisno formationoffouling. The rate at which fouling is accumulating on the surface was determined by the placementoftwothermocouplesinthetestapparatus.Onethermocouplewillbe used to measure the temperature of the hot fluid and the other to measure the temperatureofthefluidonthecoldsideoftheexchanger.Asthefoulingincreases ontheheattransfersurfacethethermalresistanceoftheplatewillalsoincrease. This differential in temperature was plotted using a computer attached to the apparatus to determine at what rate fouling is accumulating on the surface. The heat transfer surface was also inspected at the end of the testing period to determinehowmuchfoulinghasaccumulatedonthesurface.Thefoulingcoverage wasanalysedforbothofthedifferenttypesoffoulingtodeterminewhichsurfaces suitwhichtypeoffouling. 40

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION

Chapter 3: Results and Discussion

The overall objective of this analysis was to determine if there is a single surface parameteror a complex combination of surface parameters that candescribe the surface morphology of an antifouling surface. Three different species of shellfish have been analysed to create a database of information that can be used to determine the numerical parameters for an antifouling surface morphology. The threespeciesofshellthatwerechosenforthisanalysiswerepickedfortheirfouling resistance in their natural environment. Of the three species, selected Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis are known to have a high level of fouling resistance in their natural environment where as the Amusium balloti species is knowntohavealowfoulingresistance. The data for each of the surfaces was acquired using a LCSM. The data from the LCSM was then analysed using Matlab and Optimas software and from this, the numericalparametersaregiven.Oncetheparametersforeachofthesurfacesare known, a correlation analysis was done to determine the combination of parametersthatcanbeusedtoforanantifoulingsurfacemorphology. Themanysectionsthatarereportedinthissectionareasfollows.Thefirstbeing the data that was retrieved from the shellfish samples using the Matlab and Optimassoftware.Thesecondwasthevalidationdatathatwasobtainedusingthe stylus profiler and the third was the data collected from the stainless steel specimen.Thevalidationdatawasimportantinthisanalysisasthedatathatwas collectedusingtheLCSMandthesoftwarepackagesneededtobevalidatedagainst the physical data of the stylus profiler. The stainless steel samples were also analysed to determine if they in fact had similar morphology as that of the antifoulingshellfish.

3.1

Image Acquisition and processing

To determine the antifouling properties of the surfaces, computerised image capturing and analysis software was used. To do this the images were captured 41

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK using the Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope along with the Lasersharp 2000 imagingsoftwareaccordingtotheprocessoutlinedabove.

3.1.1. LCSM and Lasersharp 2000 settings

In order to capture accurate images using the LCSM there were several variables thatcouldbechanged.Belowarealistofvariablesthatwereusedtosetupforthe images that were taken in this analysis, as well as the reasoning and any repercussionsofthatchange. Optical Lens A 100x lens was used for the Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialisspecieswhilea50xlenswasusedfortheAmusiumballoti speciesasaclearimagecouldnotbecapturedwiththe100xlens.The100x lensresultsina122.88msquareimageandthe50xlensresultsina256.78 msquareimageatazoom=1. Laser Intensity This was adjusted for all images, as some surfaces were morereflectivethanotherswereandthusrequiredthelaserintensitytobe lowered.ThiswasalladjustedusingtheSETCOLfunctionintheLasersharp 2000software. ImageSizeA512x512imagingareawaschosenforalloftheimagesasit givesanimagewithalotofdetailwithoutusingexcessivememory. StepSizeA0.05mstepsizewasusedfortheTellinaplicataandMytilus galloprovincialis species while a 0.2 step size was used for the Amusium balloti as the shell had excessive curvature and a 0.05m resulted in an imagethatwouldhavemorethan225images,whichisnotachievablewith thishardware. Scanning Speed For all of the images the scanning speed was set to 166 loops per second (lps) as this gave a highresolution image. The scanning speed was raised to 500 lps during the setup period to make the setup processquicker.

3.1.2. 3D Image Processing in Matlab

TheimagescapturedabovewerethenfurtherprocessedusingMatlabsoftwareto construct3DimagesthatcouldbeanalysedusingtheOptimasSoftware.Boththe 42

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK Optimas and the Matlab software generated roughness measurements with the Optimas program also calculating the fractal dimension and the texture aspect ratio. To study the antifouling properties of the surface at different wavelengths the Matlabcodesplitstheimagethatitreceivesintothreedifferentprofilesandthese are form, waviness and roughness. This separation of images is shown below, inFigure22withtheoriginalimagebeingthesummationoftheform,wavinessand roughness. It can be seen in Figure 22 that from the original image, the large anomaliesinthesurfacearetakenoutandthisiscalledtheformofthesurface.In thiscase,theformisrelativelylargewithawavelengththatcomparelargelytothat of the curve of the sample due to the nature of the shell surface. Form is not consideredinthisanalysis,asitwouldnegatetheapplicationofthesurfacefinishto anysurfaceotherthanaflatone.Thewavinesshasawavelengththatisinbetween thatoftheformandtheroughness.Theroughnessprofileismadeupanomalies withthesmallestwavelength.The roughnessprofilefollowsthatofthewaviness profile and which in turn follows the form profile. In a sense, the three different profiles can be superimposed on top of each other to regenerate the original surface. The first sample that was scanned was that of the Tellina plicata. The following image is one of the images that were created by the Matlab software. Figure 22 shows the surface being broken into its three main surface profiles being form, wavinessandroughness. FromallofthedatathathasbeenpresentedaboveMatlabandOptimassoftware have been used to analyse the surfaces and using numerical parameters describe them. Using the waviness and roughness profiles from each of the shell samples
above, theMatlab software generates Maximum Brightness Images (MBIs) for usein theOptimassoftwarepackage.TheHEIandMBIcanbeseenbelowforeachspeciesof shellfishusedinthisanalysis.

43

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Tellinaplicata

(a) (b)

Figure21:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforTellinaplicata.

Figure22:AnalysisresultsfromtheTellinaplicatasampleseparatedintoform,wavinessand roughnessprofiles.

44

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK Figure21showstheMBIandHEIfortheTellinaplicataSpeciesofshellfish.TheMBI istheimagethatisconstructedbyMatlabtoshowwhatthesurfacewouldlooklike. Itisscaledsothatthedarkestpartsoftheimagedenotethedeepestholeswhile the lightest parts of the image denote the ridges of the surface. The HEI is a 2 dimensional projection of the depth of the brightest pixels within a volume along one of the three major axes. Matlab and Optimas use the HEI to determine the numericalparametersofthesurface. Figure 22 is a Matlab output and shows that the surface of the Tellina plicata is relativelysmooth.Theformprofileshowstwothings,onebeingthatthesectionof shell that was scanned has minimal curve and the other being that the section of theshellthatwasscannedisnotparalleltothelens.Asaresult,arelativelysmooth surfacetookalongtimetoscanasthemicroscopeneededtotakemanyslicesto captureallofthesurfacefeatures.Thewavinessprofileshowsthatthereisalotof detailinthewavinessprofilethatisnotimmediatelyevidentintheoriginalimage. Thisisalsotrueoftheroughnessprofile,whichalsoshowsasignificantamountof detailthatisnotevidentintheoriginalimage.

Mytilusgalloprovincialis

(a) (b)

Figure23:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforMytilusgalloprovincialis.

45

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Figure24:AnalysisresultsfromtheMytilusgalloprovincialissampleseparatedintoform,waviness androughnessprofiles.

This shell sample also has a significant amount of detail in both the waviness and roughness profiles in that is not evident in the original image. There is a lot more deviation in the form and waviness profiles for this sample, and this gives the appearancethatthesurfaceisalotrougherthanitactuallyis.Itcanbeseenhowever in the roughness profile, that there are only small deviations away from the mean, whichrelatestoarelativelysmoothsurface.Thewavinessprofileshowsthatthereisa lot of interesting detail to be seen and although it does not have a large magnitude, thereissignificantlymoreofitthenintheprevioussample.

It can be seen in Figure 26 that because of the 50x optical lens the images now capturealargerareaofthesurfacewithandareaof245.76mx245.76m.Itcan beseenintheheightofthesurfaceismuchhigherandthuscoversalargerregion ofthezaxismeaningthata0.2mstepsizeneededtobetakeninordertokeep theimagingtimedownaswellasthenumberofimagesbelow225.

46

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Amusiumballoti

(a)

(b)

Figure25:(a)MBIand(b)HEIforAmusiumballoti.

Figure26:AnalysisresultsfromtheAmusiumballotisampleseparatedintoform,wavinessand roughnessprofiles.

47

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK IntheimageoftheAmusiumballotishellsurfaceitcanbeseenthatthewaviness androughnessprofileshaveadistinctlinearpatternthatgoesfromonesideofthe sample to the other. Interestingly to the naked eye, the Amusium balloti shell possessesthesamepatternonitssurface.Itcanalsobeseenintheoriginalimage and in the form profile that the surface of the Amusium balloti has a significant amountofvariation. AlthoughtheOptimassoftwareiscapableofcalculatingthesamevaluesasMatlab it was decided that Optimas would only be used for the Fractal Dimension and SurfaceTextureaspectRatio.ThisbecausethecoderunintheMatlabsoftwarehas abuiltinfunctionthatallowsittocalibratedtheimageforthemagnificationthatis usedonthemicroscope.TheOptimasprogramhowevertakesasignificantamount oftimetocalibrateforroughnessmeasurements.

3.2

Validation Data from Stylus Profiler

TheStylusProfilerthatwasusedinthiscasetovalidatethedatainthisreportgave printoutsofthesurfaceprofilethatwasscannedaswellasR a measurements.The piecesofstainlesssteelthatwasusedforthistesthadtwodifferentsurfacefinishes onit,oneoneitherside.Onesurfacewaspolishedwhiletheotherwasrough.The polishedsurfacewaspreparedbyfirstbuffingthesurfacewithaclothbuffwheelon apedestalgrinder.Thispolishingprocesswasalsoaidedwiththeadditionofasolid buffing compound that is applied to the cloth wheel before buffing commences. Thesecondstageofthepolishingprocesswasappliedbyhandinthewayofaliquid polishing product called brasso that was applied by hand. The rough surface was createdbyrubbingthesurfacewithapieceof60gritsandpaper. Oncethesurfacefinisheshadbeenappliedtothesurfacetheywerethencleaned using alcohol to remove any excess buffing compound and/or metal dust. These surfaceswerethenanalysedusingthesametechniquesthatwereusedtoanalyse the surface of the shellfish. The stylus profiler was then used to measure the roughness of the surface. The data that was collected from the stylus profiler is

48

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK presented in AppendixA. The data that wascollected from the surface using the MatlabandOptimasSoftwarehasbeentabulatedinTable5foreasycomparison.
Table5:ValidationData

R a (m)
R

OptimasData

MatlabData

StylusData

Polishedstainlesssteelsurface SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 0.168485 0.0876011 0.0986612 0.17059 0.08743 0.0985 0.107 0.101 0.121 0.115 Average 0.1182491 Roughstainlesssteelsurface SSR1 SSR2 0.391644 0.466017 0.714694 SSR3 Average To aid in the validation process the Stylus Profiler, Optimas software and Matlab softwaredataiscompiledintothefollowingtableandgraphtoaidinthecomparisonof thedata.
Table6:Combinedaveragesofthevalidationdata

0.11884

0.111

0.38726 0.46049 0.70729

0.686 0.766 0.898 0.755

0.524118333

0.51834667

0.77625

R a (m)
R

Optimassoftware MatlabSoftware 0.1182 0.5241 0.1188 0.5183

StylusProfiler 0.111 0.776

Polishedstainlesssteel Roughstainlesssteel

Whencomparingthedatathatwascollectedfromthevalidationprocessitcanbeseen thatthedatacollectedfromtheOptimasandMatlabsoftwarecorrelateswellwiththat ofthedatacollectedfromthepolishedsideofthesteel.Theroughsideofthesteel however does not correlate as well. The full data sheets that were printed from the StylusProfilerispresentedinAppendixBofthisdocument.Thesmallvariationinthe

49

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

resultontheroughsideofthematerialcanbeattributedtothenatureofthesurface. The surface polished finish on the piece of stainless steel was applied by first buffing thesurfacewithabuffingwheelonapedestalgrinderwithbuffingcompounduntilthe surface gave a mirror finish. The surface was then further polished by hand using a liquidbuffingcompoundcalledbrassoandasoftbuffingcloth.Thisgavethesurfacea significantlysmoothsurfaceandtheseshowsintheresults.Theroughsurfacewasnot preparedasmeticulouslyandasaresultthedatathatwasobtainedhasirregularities. TheMatlabandOptimasdataisnearlyidenticalandthisisbecausethedataisobtained fromthesamesetofimagesofthesurface.Thisresultfurthervalidatestwothings: (a) The image acquisition and processing techniques provide appropriate

imagesforquantitativeanalysis,and
(b) The image analysis technique is reliable and can be used for quantitative

surfacemeasurements.

ThesmallirregularityinthedataobtainedfromtheStylusProfilerontheroughsample ofthestainlesssteelcanbeattributedtotherandomnessofthesurfacefinishinthe roughsideofthestainlesssteel.Thetestedandvalidatedimageacquisition,processing andanalysistechniqueswereusedtostudyantifoulingpropertiesoftheshellfishand stainlesssteelsurfaceinthefollowingsections.

Figure27:Combinedaveragesofthevalidationdata.

50

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

3.3

Quantitative Surface Analysis Results

After the data was captured using the LSCM, the images were analysed using the Matlab and Optimas code and the data that resulted was tabulated into Table 7,Table8,Table9andTable10.Thedatathatwascollectedcanbesplitupinto two main sections being the Roughness and Waviness data and then further separatedintoSpecies,IndividualandSubsample.TheSpeciesthatwereanalysed aretheTellinaplicata,MytilusgalloprovincialisandAmusiumballoti.Threeshells wereanalysedfortheTellinaplicataandMytilusgalloprovincialis,andonlytwofor theAmusiumballoti.Foreachoftheshellstworandomsamplepointsweretaken. It can be seen in Table 7 that the Subsample column refers to the sample points thatweretakenfromeachshellandtheIndividualcolumnreferstotheindividual shell.

3.3.1. Tabulated Surface Analysis Results

The raw data that was captured from the Matlab and Optimas software was broughttogetherintoTable7andTable8.Fromheretheaveragesofallofthedata wasdeterminedandplacedinTable9andTable10. Tobetteranalysethedata,SPSSadataanalysisprogramwasusedandthisallowed fortheanalysisofvariancebetweenthesetsofdata.Tousethisprogram,thedata needed to be setup in a certain manner that allowed for input into the program. Samples that were taken from the shells were divided in to several sections and subsections so that comparisons could be made on more than one level. The sectionswerespecies,individualsandsubsamples.Thespeciessectionswerethe Tellinaplicata,MytilusgalloprovincialisandAmusiumballotiwiththeTellinaplicata being further split to account for the different pigments. The Tellina plicata was designated the number 1 and 2, 1 being for the white and 2 for the brown pigmented shells. Mytilus galloprovincialis was designated as 3 and Amusium ballotiwasdesignated4.Eachoftheindividualswasgivenanumberforeachofthe speciesandeachofthesubsampleswasgivenanumber. 51

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK
Table7:RawroughnessprofiledatafromMatlabandOptimassoftware(1&2Tellinaplicata,3 Mytilusgalloprovincialis,4Amusiumballoti)

Roughness Species Individual Subsample R a

R

MatlabData Rq
R

OptimasData R ku
R

R sk
R

Fd

S tr

1,1

1,1,1 0.0333 0.0469 1.2771 1,1,2 0.0290 0.0455 2.8065

7.8103 2.0488 0.4966 35.7502 2.0443 0.6604 44.8370 2.0971 0.5368 23.4703 2.1209 0.4307 11.7699 2.0443 0.5425 2.9781 2.0131 0.6160 18.5405 2.2783 0.4519 16.4829 2.3998 0.4891 86.8686 2.3442 0.5825 18.5405 2.2923 0.5063 37.7837 2.4571 0.5635 7.6875 2.3773 0.5771

1,2

1,2,1 0.0367 0.0650 4.7556 1,2,2 0.0333 0.0519 2.8634

1,3

1,3,1 0.0301 0.0366 1.7548 1,3,2 0.0275 0.0307 0.5216

2,1

2,2,1 0.0550 0.0788 2.7907 2,1,2 0.1069 0.1669 3.0954

2,2

2,2,1 0.0649 0.1078 6.1630 2,2,2 0.0659 0.0788 2.7907

2,3

2,3,1 0.1615 0.2881 4.7839 2,3,2 0.0710 0.0959 1.6679

3,1

3,1,1 0.0659 0.1361 8.0689 104.5845 2.1329 0.5078 3,1,2 0.0757 0.0976 1.3067 5.4025 2.2246 0.5834 4.8745 2.1244 0.5123 6.9481 2.0696 0.5166 8.1049 2.0827 0.6735 6.8149 2.1105 0.6707 59.2224 2.1811 0.6139 15.0869 2.1811 0.6622 72.4395 2.3202 0.5340 36.2090 2.3980 0.6339

3,2

3,2,1 0.0586 0.0750 1.0975 3,2,2 0.0550 0.0708 1.4272

3,3

3,3,1 0.0487 0.0631 1.5138 3,3,2 0.0629 0.0842 1.5009

4,1 4 4,2

4,1,1 0.6262 1.2657 6.3564 4,1,2 0.2694 0.3648 2.0325 4,2,1 0.5176 1.2662 7.5015 4,2,2 0.2040 0.2947 3.6106

52

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Table8:RawwavinessprofiledatafromMatlabandOptimassoftware(1&2Tellinaplicata,3 Mytilusgalloprovincialis,4Amusiumballoti)

Waviness Species Individual Subsample 1,1 1,1,1 1,1,2 1 1,2 1,2,1 1,2,2 1,3 1,3,1 1,3,2 2,1 2,1,1 2,1,2 2 2,2 2,2,1 2,2,2 2,3 2,3,1 2,3,2 3,1 3,1,1 3,1,2 3 3,2 3,2,1 3,2,2 3,3 3,3,1 3,3,2 4,1 4 4,2 4,1,1 4,1,2 4,2,1 4,2,2 W a 0.0748 0.0641 0.0796 0.0589 0.0580 0.0313 0.1366 0.2393 0.0682 0.0945 0.3316 0.1061 0.1724 0.2358 0.1393 0.1275 0.1020 0.1429 1.8370 0.8277 1.8040 0.4469

MatlabData Wq 0.0915 0.0818 0.1439 0.0829 0.0713 0.0420 0.1637 0.3537 0.0105 0.1371 0.5628 0.1404 0.2607 0.2957 0.1744 0.1609 0.1263 0.1803 2.4797 1.0131 2.7892 0.5842 W sk 0.7506 1.0248 5.7392 2.6334 0.4320 0.7342 0.8592 2.5846 3.9369 0.8592 3.4733 1.5213 3.2823 1.0863 0.9532 1.0488 0.8352 1.0919 1.8556 0.7911 2.9511 1.5631 W ku

OptimasData Fd S tr

3.2051 2.0011 0.6290 4.9822 2.0010 0.7739 56.7518 2.0038 0.4785 19.1414 2.0020 0.4745 2.5597 2.0006 0.5058 3.4333 2.0002 0.5494 3.4819 2.0022 0.7698 11.3966 2.0116 0.4407 36.8734 2.0031 0.4799 3.4819 2.0041 0.4291 17.5163 2.0140 0.5723 6.2166 2.0056 0.4802 22.3966 2.0096 0.5006 3.6775 2.0140 0.7089 3.6597 2.2246 0.6890 4.1244 2.0069 0.6584 3.6645 2.0046 0.5822 4.3312 2.0080 0.5110 6.6575 2.0066 0.5287 2.9391 2.0066 0.6893 14.2257 2.0101 0.6389 7.6470 2.0166 0.6323

53

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK
Table9:AveragedroughnessdatafromTable7

Roughnessaverages Samples Tellinaplicata(white)(1) Tellinaplicata(brown)(2) Mytilusgalloprovincialis(3) Amusiumballoti(4)

R R

MatlabData
R a (m) R q (m) R sk
R

OptimasData R ku
R

Fd

S tr 2.0614 0.5472 2.3582 0.5284 2.1241 0.5774 2.2701 0.6110

0.0317 0.0875 0.0611 0.4043

0.0461 0.1361 0.0878 0.7978

2.3298 3.5486 2.4858 4.8752

21.1026 30.9840 22.7882 45.7394

Table10:AveragedwavinessdatafromTable8

Wavinessaverages Samples Tellinaplicata(white)(1) Tellinaplicata(brown)(2) Mytilusgalloprovincialis(3) Amusiumballoti(4)

W a (m)

MatlabData W q (m) W sk W ku Fd

OptimasData S tr 2.0014 2.0068 2.0446 2.0100 0.5685 0.5287 0.6084 0.6223

0.0611 0.1627 0.1533 1.2289

0.0856 1.8857 15.0122 0.2280 2.2057 13.1611 0.1997 1.3829 1.7166 1.7902 6.9757 7.8673

Fromthetablespresentedaboveaseriesofgraphshavebeenproducedthatallow thedatatobebetteranalysedandthusamoreaccurateresultcanbedetermined.

3.3.2. Graphical Surface Analysis

From the tables above a set of graphs were constructed to better illustrate the results and the correlation between certain sets of data. It has been discovered thatintheirnaturalenvironmentssomeoftheshellsthathavebeenusedforthis analysis have a high resistance to fouling. In particular, the Tellina plicata and Mytilusgalloprovincialisspeciesshowahighlevelofresistancetofoulingpressure. Conversely, Amusium balloti has a low resistance to fouling pressures and in its naturalenvironmentwillcertainlyfoul.Byanalysingthethreedifferentspeciesof shellandthencomparingtheresultsnumericallyasetofdatacanbeformedthat willdescribeanantifoulingsurface. 54

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Species1Tellinaplicata(brownshell) Species2Tellinaplicata(whiteshell) Species3Mytilusgalloprovincialis Species4Amusiumballoti

Figure28:RavaluesforallSubsamples.(321referstosubsample1,ofindividual2ofspecies3)

InFigure28itcanbeseenthatsomeoftheIndividualshaveasignificantvariancein the data that has been captured. This shows there is a difference in the surface morphologybetweenthetworandomsectionsthathavebeenscannedforagiven shell. In the case of the roughness measurement that is shown above, it can be seenthatinthecaseofthe Amusiumballotithereisalargediscrepancyinthedatathat
ispresented.

55

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Species1Tellinaplicata(brownshell) Species2Tellinaplicata(whiteshell) Species3Mytilusgalloprovincialis Species4Amusiumballoti

Figure29:RavaluesforallIndividuals.(32referstoindividual2ofspecies3)

InadditiontocomparingthesubsamplesfromeachIndividual,nowtheIndividuals are compared to each other. Figure 29 shows the mean R a values that are calculated from the subsample data and one standard error (SE) is shown above andbelowthismean.TheSEisanindicationofhowclosethemeanvalueistothat ofthedatathathasbeenaveraged.InthecaseofIndividual11,fromFigure29,the meanvalueisveryclosetothatoftheaveragedvalues.Thiscanbedescribedina differentwaybylookingatSubsamples111and112inFigure28.Subsamples111 and112areverysimilarandthustheirmeanwillbeclosetotheSubsamplevalues. In the case of Individual 41 in Figure 29, the SE is quite large; meaning the mean valueforthisIndividualdiffersgreatlyfromtheSubsamplevalues.Thisisevident inFigure28whenSubsamples411and412arecompared.

56

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Species1Tellinaplicata(brownshell) Species2Tellinaplicata(whiteshell) Species3Mytilusgalloprovincialis Species4Amusiumballoti

Figure30:RavaluesforallSpecies.(3referstospecies3)

In much the same way as the subsamples and Individuals were compared, the species will be compared. Figure 30 shows the R a values for the three different species.TheSEbarstakeintoaccountalloftheSubsamplesforthegivenspecies. ThiscanbeseeninFigure30asSpecies4stillhasasignificantSE,eventhoughthe meanofSpecies4isclosethetothevaluesofIndividuals41and42.Figure30also showsthatSpecies1,2and3havelittlediscrepancyinthevaluesthathavebeen calculated. This result confirms that the shells of Species 1, 2 and 3 are homogenous within their species for the samples that were used in this analysis. Although there is a large discrepancy in the data that was collected for the Amusium balloti species, it is still obvious that the Amusium balloti has a significantlyhigherRavaluethantheotherspecies.

57

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

3.4

Study of Antifouling Properties

GraphsofallofthenumericalparametersthatarementionedinTable4arelocated inAppendixB.TheGraphslocatedinAppendixBwereanalysedinthesamewayas theRagraphswereanalysed.Bylookingatthegrapheddata,atrendcanbemade astothenatureofthesurface. From previous studies, it is has been found that the Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialisspeciesofshellfishhaveahightolerancetofoulingpressuresand theAmusiumballotispeciesdoesnot.Fromthisinformationandthedatathatwas collected from this analysis a correlation can be made between the fouling resistanceandthenumericalparameters. The R a and R q graphs shown in Figure 39 to Figure 41 and Figure 42 to Figure 44 respectively, show that the two antifouling species Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialispossessasmallerRaandRqvalueswhencomparedtothatofthe frequentlyfouledAmusiumballotispecies.BoththeR a andR q datafortheTellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis species had very little variance, with the Amusium balloti species data having quite a large variance. Despite the large variance in the Amusium balloti data, it is clear that it is significantly different to thatoftheTellinaplicataandMytilusgalloprovincialisdata.TheaverageR a value fortheantifoulingshellsis0.0601mandthistranslatestoanR q valueof0.09m. TheR sk andR ku graphsshowninFigure45toFigure47andFigure48toFigure50 respectively,showthattheR sk andR ku dataishighlydependentonsamplingpoint ontheshell.Figure46andFigure49showthatfornearlyalloftheindividualsthere isasignificantvarianceinthedataevenwithintheindividual.Althoughthereisa largevarianceinthedatathatwascollectedfortheR sk andR ku itcanstillbeseen
R

thatthevaluesfortheTellinaplicataandMytilusgalloprovincialisaredifferentto thatoftheAmusiumballoti.Theaverageacrosstheantifoulingspeciesresultsinan R sk valueof2.788andanR ku valueof24.958. The F d and S tr graphs for the roughness profile shown in Figure 51 to Figure 53 andFigure54toFigure56respectivelyshowverylittledifferenceinthevaluesthat 58

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK werecaptured.ThereislittletonodifferencebetweentheF d valuesoftheTellina plicataandMytilusgalloprovincialisandtheAmusiumballotispecieswithFdvalues across all of the species being approximately 2.2. The S tr value also showed very little difference between the Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis and the Amusiumballotispecies.Theaverageacrosstheantifoulingspeciesofshellsgavea S tr valueof0.551. TheW a andW q graphsshowninFigure57toFigure59andFigure60toFigure62 respectively, show that the two antifouling species Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialispossesssmallerWaandWqvalueswhencomparedtothatofthe frequentlyfouledAmusiumballotispecies.BoththeW a andW q datafortheTellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis species had very little variance, with the Amusium balloti species data having quite a large variance. There is a lot of similarity between the roughness profile data and that of the waviness data the difference between them being that the waviness data is larger in magnitude. Despite the large variance in the Amusium balloti data, it is clear that it is significantlydifferenttothatoftheTellinaplicataandMytilusgalloprovincialisdata. TheaverageW a valuefortheantifoulingshellsis0.1257mandthistranslatestoa W q valueof0.1711m. TheW sk andW ku graphsshowninFigure63toFigure65andFigure66toFigure68 respectively,showthattheW sk andW ku dataishighlydependentonsamplingpoint ontheshell.Figure64andFigure67showthatsomeoftheindividuals,similarto thecaseoftheR sk andR ku data,haveasignificantvarianceinthedataevenwithin theindividual.TheW sk valuesthatwerecapturedshowlittledifferencebetween thefoulingandantifoulingspecieswithameanvalueacrossthespeciesof1.816. AlthoughthereisalargevarianceinthedatathatwascollectedforW ku ,itcanstill be seen that the values for the Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis are differenttothatoftheAmusiumballoti.Theaverageacrosstheantifoulingspecies resultsinaW ku valueof11.716. The F d and S tr graphs for the roughness profile shown in Figure 69 to Figure 71 andFigure72toFigure74respectivelyshowverylittledifferenceinthevaluesthat 59

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK werecaptured.ThereislittletonodifferencebetweentheF d valuesoftheTellina plicataandMytilusgalloprovincialisandtheAmusiumballotispecieswithFdvalues acrossallofthespecieshavingameanvalueof2.0157.TheS tr valuealsoshowed very little difference between the Tellina plicata and Mytilus galloprovincialis and the Amusium balloti species. The average across the antifouling species of shells gaveaS tr valueof0.5685. Table11iscomprisedofthehypothesisedantifoulingmeasurementsthatwillneed tobeappliedtothestainlesssteelsurfacetogiveitanantifoulingsurface.
Table11:Hypothesisedantifoulingparameters

NumericalParameter Ra Rq R sk R ku RoughnessFd RoughnessS tr Wa Wq Wsk W ku WavinessFd WavinessS tr

OptimumValue 0.0601m 0.09m 2.788 24.958 2.2 0.551 0.1257m 0.1711m 1.816 11.716 2.0157 0.5685

3.5

Surface Parameters from stainless steel surfaces

Asthereisnowayofknowingthesurfaceparametersthatwillbegeneratedbya certain surface finishing process the stainless steel sample used for the validation section was analysed to get all of the same parameters that are inTable 11. The data that was obtained from the stainless steel was compared to that of the hypothesisedantifoulingparameterstodetermineifthereareanysimilarities.

60

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK
Table12:ComparisonbetweenOptimumshellvaluesandgeneratedstainlesssteelvalues

Numerical Parameter Ra Rq R sk R ku RoughnessFd RoughnessS tr Wa Wq Wsk W ku WavinessFd WavinessS tr

OptimumShell Values 0.0601m 0.09m 2.788 24.958 2.2 0.551 0.1257m 0.1711m 1.816 11.716 2.0157 0.5685

RoughStainless SteelValues 0.106 m 0.143 m 1.871 9.376 2.211 0.593 0.2258 m 0.2844 m 1.0931 3.5739 2.0122 0.5547

PolishedStainless SteelValues 0.028m 0.032m 1.056 9.008 2.019 0.512 0.0291m 0.0331m 1.0256 5.2871 2.0002 0.4398

It can be seen in Table 12 that there is no direct comparison between the Optimum Shellvaluesandthoseofthestainlesssteel.Itcouldhoweverbehypothesisedthatthe valuearesomewhereinbetweentheroughandpolishedvaluesinmostinstances. To get a surface finish that is closer to that of the Optimum Shell finish a different surfacefinishingtechniqueisproposed.Thestainlesssteelsurfacefirstwillbepolished toamirrorfinishtoremovethemajorityofthemanufacturingmarks.Thisprocedure willbedonebypolishingthesurfacewithaclothbuffingwheelonapedestalgrinder with the application of a buffing compound. Once there is no further change in the surface, it can then be finished off using a liquid polishing medium and a soft cloth. Oncethesurfacehasbeenpolishedtoremovemakersmarks,theroughsurfacefinish can be applied. As the last rough surface finish had a R a measurement that was
R

significantlyhigherthanthatoftheOptimumShellR a measurement,sandpaperwitha
R

finergritwillbeusedtoapplythenextsurfacefinish.Thenextsurfacewillbeapplied using200gritsandpaperinthesamemannerthatthelastsurfacewasappliedasthe fractaldimensionandtextureaspectratiowereinthesameorderastheOptimumShell finish.

61

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Future Work

Theobjectiveofthisthesiswastodeterminethenumericalsurfaceparametersfor shellfish that resist fouling pressures in their natural environment and from this engineer a surface can be manufactured. To do this threedimensional Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope images were taken of the surfaces and then these were analysed using Matlab and Optimas software to determine the numerical surface parameters. As the antifouling properties of the shellfish surfaces was already known the correlation between the surface finish parameters and the antifoulingpropertiescouldbemade. ThreespeciesofshellfishwereanalysedtocaptureLSCMimagesthatwerefurther brokendownintoform,wavinessandroughnessprofiles.FromtheseprofilesRa, Rq, Rsk, Rku, texture aspect ratio of and the fractal dimension of the roughness profileswerecalculatedalongwiththeWa,Wq,Wsk,Wku,textureaspectratioand fractaldimensionofthewavinessprofiles. Thisthesisachievedmanythingsthathavenotbeendonebeforeinathesis.Aset of parameters have been compiled that theoretically will produce an antifouling surface.Thissurfacewillhavemanyusesintheindustrialfieldthatwillincludethe useinplateheatexchangers,hullsofboats,pylonsandanyotherstructuresmoving orfixedthatareinamarineenvironment.Astherearenumeroustypesoffouling observedinamarineenvironment,ithasbecomeapparentthatmorethanoneset of numerical parameters can describe an antifouling surface. Different fouling mediawillrequiredifferentsurfacestorepelthem.Byapplyingthecorrectsurface finish to the pieces of machinery and structures previously mentioned, there are foreseeablesavingstobehadbothenvironmentallyandeconomically. Severalotherimportantobservationshavebeenmadethroughoutthisthesisalso. It can be seen in the results that for some of the individuals there is a significant amount of variation between two surface measurements that are taken from the same shell. A question that is raised is that if the surface finish is different in differentpartsoftheshell,doesthismeanthatthereisaneedforfoulingresistance 62

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK incertainregionsoftheshellandnotothers.Importantareassuchasthegrowth band around the front of the shell and the hinge at the back of the shell needs a surfacethatrepelsfoulingmorethanintermediateregioninbetweenthetwo. Asthisanupandcomingfieldofresearchthereisalotofworkthatstillneedstobe doneinordertofullydefineadatabaseofnumericalparametersthatcanbeused forpracticalapplications. 1. Determine if there is a difference between the surface parameters in differentpartsofthesameindividual. 2. Determineifthereisadifferenceintheparametersofanantifoulingspecies ifitistakenfromdifferentenvironments. 3. Furtheranalysisanditerationsofthesurfacefinishestocreateasurfacethat hasparametersthatcloselymatchthoseoftheoptimumshellparameters. 4. Oncetheoptimumshellparametershavebeenmetthentheprocessshould bemechanisedsothatthesurfacecanbeappliedtolargerareasuniformly andrepeatedly.

63

REFERENCES

References
Bers, A. V., G. S. Prendergast, et al. (2006). "A comparative study of the anti settlementpropertiesofmytilidshells."BiologyLetters2(1):8891. Bott, T. R. (1997). "Aspects of crystallization fouling." Experimental Thermal and FluidScience14(4):356360. Chambers, L. D., K. R. Stokes, et al. (2006). "Modern approaches to marine antifoulingcoatings."SurfaceandCoatingsTechnology201(6):36423652. Degarmo,E.P.,J.T.Black,etal.(2003).MaterialsandProcessesinManufacturing, JohnWileyandSons,Inc. Electropolishing, H. (2008). fromhttp://www.harrisonep.com/services/electropolishing/default.html#be nnefits. Epstein, N. (1981). "Thinking about Heat Transfer Fouling: A 5 x 5 Matrix." Heat TransferEngineering4(1):4356. Gjaltema,A.,N.vanderMarel,etal.(1997)."Adhesionandbiofilmdevelopmenton suspended carriers in airlift reactors: Hydrodynamic conditions versus surfacecharacteristics."BiotechnologyandBioengineering55(6):880889. Hudleston, D. (2004). Biodiscovery from the Great Barrier Reef: Characterising NaturalAntifoulingsurfacesin3D.SchoolofEngineering.Townsville,James CookUniversity.MechanicalEngineering:148. Kerr, A. and M. J. Cowling (2003). "The effects of surface topography on the accumulationofbiofouling."PhilosophicalMagazine83(24):27792795. Kukulka, D. J. and M. Devgun (2007). "Fluid temperature and velocity effect on fouling."AppliedThermalEngineering27(16):27322744. Malayeri, M. R. and H. MllerSteinhagen (2007). AN OVERVIEW OF FOULING MECHANISMS, PREDICTION AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THERMAL DESALINATION PLANTS. Eleventh International Water Technology Conference.Egypt. Medilanski,E.,K.Kaufmann,etal.(2002)."InfluenceoftheSurfaceTopographyof StainlessSteelonBacterialAdhesion."Biofouling18(3):193203. MllerSteinhagen, H. (2000). Heat Exchanger Fouling: Mitigation and Cleaning Techniques,InstitutionofChemicalEngineers(IChemE). Peng,Z.andT.B.Kirk(1998)."Computerimageanalysisofwearparticlesinthree dimensionsformachineconditionmonitoring."Wear223(12):157166. Peng,Z.andS.Tomovich(2008).Thedevelopmentofanewimageacquisitionand analysissystemfor3DsurfacemeasurementusingLSCM. Richards, R. G. (1996). "The effect of surface roughness on fibroblast adhesion in vitro."Injury27(3):43. Scardino,A.andR.deNys(2004)."FoulingDeterrenceontheBivalveShellMytilus galloprovincialis:aPhysicalPhenomenon?". Scardino, A., R. De Nys, et al. (2003). "MICROTOPOGRAPHY AND ANTIFOULING PROPERTIES OF THE SHELL SURFACE OF THE BIVALVE MOLLUSCS MYTILUS galloprovincialisandPINCTADAIMBRICATA."Biofouling19:221230. Schumacher, J. F., M. L. Carman, et al. (2007). "Engineered antifouling microtopographies effect of feature size, geometry, and roughness on settlementofzoosporesofthegreenalgaUlva."Biofouling23(1):5562. 64

REFERENCES Shah, R. K., E. C. Subbarao, et al. (1988). Heat transfer equipment design, United States,NewYork,NY(USA);HemispherePublishing. Sheikholeslami, R. (2000). "Composite Fouling of Heat Transfer Equipment in AqueousMediaAReview."HeatTransferEngineering21(3):3442. Visser, J. and T. J. M. Jeurnink (1997). "Fouling of heat exchangers in the dairy industry."ExperimentalThermalandFluidScience14(4):407424. Vladkova, T. (2007). "SURFACE ENGINEERING FOR NONTOXIC BIOFOULING CONTROL(REVIEW)."JournaloftheUniversityofChemicalTechnologyand Metallurgy42(3):239256. Wahl, M. (1989). "Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and antifouling: Some basic aspects."Marineecologyprogressseries.Oldendorf58(1):175189. Watkinson, A. P. and D. I. Wilson (1997). "Chemical reaction fouling: A review."ExperimentalThermalandFluidScience14(4):361374. Zettler, H. U., M. Wei, et al. (2005). "Influence of Surface Properties and Characteristics on Fouling in Plate Heat Exchangers." Heat Transfer Engineering26(2):317.

65

APPENDIXA

Appendix A: Stylus Profiler Charts

Figure 31: Sample 2 from smooth surface. Figure 32: Sample 1 from smooth surface.

66

APPENDIXA

Figure 33: Sample 3 from smooth surface.

Figure 34: Sample 4 from smooth surface.

67

APPENDIXA

Figure 35: Sample 2 from rough surface.

Figure 36: Sample 1 from smooth surface.

68

APPENDIXA

Figure 37: Sample 3 from rough surface.

Figure 38: Sample 4 from rough surface.

69

APPENDIXB

Appendix B: SPSS Analysis Graphs R a Graphs

Figure39:RavaluesforgivenSubSamples.

Figure40:RavaluesforgivenIndividuals.

70

APPENDIXB

Figure41:RavaluesforgivenSpecies.

71

APPENDIXB

R q Graphs

Figure42:RqvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure43:RqvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

72

APPENDIXB

Figure44:RqvaluesforgivenSpecies.

73

APPENDIXB

R sk Graphs

Figure45:RskvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure46:RskvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

74

APPENDIXB

Figure47:RskvaluesforgivenSpecies.

75

APPENDIXB

R ku Graphs

Figure48:RkudataforgivenSubsamples.

Figure49:RkuvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

76

APPENDIXB

Figure50:RkuvaluesforgivenSpecies.

77

APPENDIXB

F d Graphs

Figure51:FdvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure52:FdvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

78

APPENDIXB

Figure53:FdvaluesforgivenSpecies.

79

APPENDIXB

S tr Graphs

Figure54:StrvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure55:StrvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

80

APPENDIXB

Figure56:StrvaluesforgivenSpecies.

81

APPENDIXB

W a Graphs

Figure57:WavaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure58:WavaluesforgivenIndividuals.

82

APPENDIXB

Figure59:WavaluesforgivenSpecies.

83

APPENDIXB

W q Graphs

Figure60:WqvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure61:WqvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

84

APPENDIXB

Figure62:WqvaluesforgivenSpecies.

85

APPENDIXB

W sk Graphs

Figure63:WskvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure64:WskvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

86

APPENDIXB

Figure65:WskvaluesforgivenSpecies.

87

APPENDIXB

W ku Graphs

Figure66:WkuvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure67:WkuvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

88

APPENDIXB

Figure68:WkuvaluesforgivenSpecies.

89

APPENDIXB

F d Graphs

Figure69:FdvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure70:FdvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

90

APPENDIXB

Figure71:FdvaluesforgivenSpecies.

91

APPENDIXB

S tr Graphs

Figure72:StrvaluesforgivenSubsamples.

Figure73:StrvaluesforgivenIndividuals.

92

APPENDIXB

Figure74:StrvaluesforgivenSpecies.

93