Overview
Before you decide what to do with a corroded tank, a worn pump or a holed chute, Induscoat carries out a technical study: repair, coat or replace, with which system, at what life cycle cost and in which shutdown window. You receive a report that compares the options and recommends the one that holds up.
A tank with a pitted floor, a pump casing eaten by cavitation, a chute that holes through every season: before ordering new or yet another repair, it pays to know which option will hold. Induscoat examines the asset, identifies the degradation mechanism, builds the realistic options and compares them over the same service horizon, with the assumptions written down. The report recommends a course of action and defines its scope of work. Where remaining strength is in question, the owner's engineer or inspector rules first; the study then selects the repair.
What the study covers
The study answers a precise question about one asset or a group of assets in service: what do we do with it at the next shutdown? It covers the equipment we know closely because we repair and coat it:
- Tanks, bins, process vessels and sumps: corroded interiors, linings at end of life, pitted floors.
- Piping and fittings: external corrosion, joints, areas under insulation.
- Pumps, valves and heat exchangers: erosion, cavitation, galvanic corrosion.
- Chutes, hoppers, cyclones and wear parts: abrasion and impact.
- Structural steel and process concrete: atmospheric corrosion, chemical attack.
What the study is not: a code-signed fitness-for-service assessment, which belongs to the owner's engineer or inspector; a cathodic protection design, which is done with the specialist; an investment case for a new project. We give those parties the findings and repair scenarios they need.
Repair, coat or replace: the criteria
Every asset goes through the same questions, in this order. A negative answer closes that branch and points to the next option.
- Integrity: is there enough metal left to carry loads and pressure? If remaining thickness is in question, the answer comes from a fitness-for-service assessment per API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 and the governing code, not from a coating.
- Mechanism: is the cause of degradation identified, and can it be corrected? An unresolved process cause undoes any repair (coating failure modes and diagnosis).
- Field feasibility: can the required surface preparation be achieved, is access possible, does cure time fit the return to service?
- Cost and risk: over the target service horizon, which option costs least once future shutdowns are counted, and which leaves the least uncertainty?
Coating protects metal that is still sound; cold repair rebuilds local loss; replacement is the answer when integrity or geometry can no longer be recovered. The full method is in our guide to repair or replace industrial equipment.
Selecting the coating or repair system
When the chosen option is to coat or repair, the study specifies the system, not just the product family. The choice starts from the actual service: atmospheric or immersion corrosivity category per ISO 12944, chemicals and temperature, abrasion, thermal cycling. For a repair, we specify the type of filled epoxy, the required preparation and the protection to apply over it.
Where useful, several systems are compared side by side, including those that need more preparation but last longer. The application itself then falls under our protective coatings or maintenance and rehabilitation services, or goes to the contractor of your choice on the basis of the report.
Life cycle cost, not today's price
The cheapest repair today is often the most expensive over time, because it brings the equipment back down sooner. The study therefore compares options over the same horizon, with every cost line: preparation, access and scaffolding, products, labour, lost production during the outage, planned maintenance and touch-ups, eventual replacement.
Costs are brought to a comparable basis, present value or equivalent annual cost, using the method described in our guide to coating total cost of ownership. Service-life assumptions are written down in plain terms and justified by the asset's history, product data sheets and the standard's durability ranges, so you can challenge or adjust them.
Shutdown constraints
In Quebec and Ontario, most repairs and internal linings are done during planned spring or fall shutdowns, sometimes in winter. An option that does not fit the window is not an option. The study checks each one for draining and cleaning, confined-space entry, preparation, application, cure before return to service, and lead time for a new part.
In winter, heated enclosures and dehumidification are added to the plan. When the window is too short, the study proposes phasing: temporary protection now, permanent repair at the next shutdown (tank lining shutdown planning).
How the study runs and what you receive
- Scoping: the question asked, the assets concerned, the service horizon, the known shutdown window.
- Data gathering: drawings, maintenance and coating history, inspection reports, process conditions.
- Site visit: visual findings, condition of the existing coating, wear or corrosion mechanism, access and site constraints.
- Analysis: feasible options, the system selected for each, life cycle comparison.
- Report: illustrated findings, options compared, reasoned recommendation, scope of work and reference documents, ready to serve as the basis for a quote.
Standards cited in the report, for example ISO 12944 for system durability, API 510, API 570 or API 653 depending on the equipment, and ASME PCC-2 for repairs, are cited by number and subject; acceptance criteria remain those of your specification and governing code.
When a study is not needed
- The case is simple and well known: a pump we rebuild at every shutdown, a coating touch-up. A site assessment and a technical quote are enough.
- The part is finished and the grade is the only question: go straight to wear parts supply.
- The decision depends first on a regulatory integrity calculation: that is for your engineer or inspector to decide; the study comes after, to select the repair.
Typical Applications
- Repair, coat or replace decisions on tanks, vessels and pumps
- Coating or cold repair system selection
- Life cycle cost comparison of the options
- Shutdown fit and phasing of the work
Typical Problems We Solve
- Equipment repaired at every shutdown without the cause being addressed
- Decision made on today's price rather than cost over the service life
- Replacement ordered where a coating or cold repair would have held, or the reverse
- Chosen option that does not fit the shutdown window
What You Receive
- Illustrated findings and degradation mechanism per asset
- Options compared on integrity, field feasibility, cost and risk
- Life cycle cost comparison with written service-life assumptions
- Reasoned recommendation and scope of work ready for a quote
Timeline
Agreed at scoping, based on the number of assets, the data available and access for the site visit.
Standards & Certifications
- ISO 12944 — protective paint systems, corrosivity categories and durability
- API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 — fitness-for-service (owner's engineer)
- ASME PCC-2 — repair of pressure equipment and piping
- API 510 / API 570 / API 653 — inspection of pressure vessels, piping and storage tanks
Industries We Serve
- Mining — leach tanks, slurry pumps, chutes and cyclones
- Chemical & Petrochemical — tank floors, process vessels, containment concrete
- Energy — water boxes, cooling water pumps and piping
- Oil & Gas — storage tank floors, piping under insulation
Service FAQ
When is a repair-or-replace study worth it?
When the same equipment keeps coming back at every shutdown, when the options are far apart in cost or risk, or when a replacement part has a long or uncertain lead time. For a routine touch-up, no study is needed: we price the work directly after a visit.
Does the study say whether my equipment is still fit for service?
Not in the code sense. A fitness-for-service assessment per API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 is signed by the owner's engineer or inspector. The study gives them findings and repair scenarios and, once integrity is confirmed, selects the coating or repair approach and compares its cost with replacement.
How are life cycle costs compared?
Over one common horizon, every option carries all of its costs, not just the first job: outage time, access, future touch-ups, final replacement. Service-life assumptions appear in the report with their source, so your maintenance team can challenge them and rerun the comparison.