Application Guides
Before a boiler or flue protection scope is approved, the team needs more than an equipment name and a temperature description. This guide defines the evidence and feasibility gate for separating exposure zones, preserving condition data, resolving access constraints and deciding whether the scope can proceed, needs a trial area or requires engineering escalation.
The review tests whether the proposed work boundary is defined and executable. It should identify what is observed, what operating information is confirmed, what remains unknown and which discipline must resolve each open point before approval.
Identify the boiler, duct, flue, transition, heat-exchange surface or connected item included in the review. Mark internal and external faces, upstream and downstream limits, openings, bypasses, supports and interfaces with insulation or refractory.
Divide the equipment by exposure and geometry rather than treating every internal surface as equivalent. Maintain traceable location IDs across photographs, samples, inspection notes and the proposed work scope.
Record the known gas path, directional changes, visible deposits, colour changes and differences between continuously and intermittently exposed areas without assigning chemistry that has not been verified.
Trace drains, low points, leakage paths, washing routes and places where cooling or retained liquid may change exposure. Distinguish the source from the location where liquid becomes visible.
Map bends, entries, exits, restrictions and surfaces facing the flow. Directional wear or deposit patterns are clues for further diagnosis, not proof of a single mechanism.
Capture overview, intermediate and detail views before cleaning removes deposits, boundaries or directionality. Record loose layers, pitting, erosion patterns, cracks, repairs, wet areas and inaccessible surfaces as separate observations.
Confirm the substrate where accessible and identify existing coatings, linings, refractory, weld repairs or unknown layers. The review should state where compatibility or adhesion evidence is available and where a retained layer cannot yet be accepted.
Confirm isolation, entry, ventilation, lighting, scaffolding, waste removal, adjacent work and the time available for preparation, application, inspection and authorized cure. Record surfaces that cannot be reached or inspected under the proposed outage arrangement.
Use the evidence dossier to route the next technical decision. Damage-mechanism investigation, exposure-variable selection and application planning are separate tasks; this pre-job gate should not nominate a DAYU-X model before the necessary inputs are verified.
Check whether contamination, scale, geometry, access and retained materials can be addressed to the standard required by the approved system. A theoretical preparation method is not feasible if the workfront cannot support it or the cleaned condition cannot be inspected.
Build a sequence that includes environmental control, adjacent operations, inspection hold points and the product-specific cure handoff. Do not assume that the available outage is sufficient until the authorized project procedure has been reconciled with site constraints.
Specify who accepts the substrate, material identity, difficult details, application stages, repairs and final handover. Link all records to the exposure-zone map so the evidence remains usable after the equipment is closed.
List unknown medium conditions, substrate or layer identity, damage extent, drainage, access, compatibility, inspection method and outage constraints. Give every item an owner, required evidence and decision date.
Record the decision against the evidence available rather than against schedule pressure.
Use only when the work boundary, exposure inputs, substrate, access, approved system and inspection route are adequately defined.
Use a bounded, traceable trial where preparation or application feasibility needs field evidence. Define what it can evaluate before work begins.
Escalate structural concerns, leakage, active movement, unresolved process chemistry or other conditions outside a coating-scope decision.
This review does not diagnose a unique damage mechanism, select a product model, establish service limits or predict life. Those conclusions require verified operating data, suitable examination and the applicable engineering and product documents.
Use the verified dossier for the separate exposure-variable selection decision.
Investigate wear and corrosion mechanisms separately from pre-job feasibility.
Move to membrane-wall execution controls after scope approval.
Review the separate workflow for approved chimney or flue work.
Technical review
Project takeaway
Send the operating condition and the document or application question you need reviewed.
