|Many utilities replace piping and
other components when it is estimated that flow-accelerated corrosion or
other causes will reduce the thickness below `minimum Code thickness'. This
can be very costly if the condition is found during an outage. Our report
delays most replacements so that they can be performed in the most expedient
manner. Some highlights of our report are as follows:
- This report greatly reduces your costs of evaluating local
areas of underthickness by providing you with a generic
evaluation enveloping most of the underthickness conditions that you
will encounter. Our evaluations allow a general reduction of
up to 10% below the minimum thickness calculated using the Code formulas.
For piping products, this is usually more than 21% below the
nominal thickness. Our evaluations also permit local
areas of thinning to 50% of the required thickness in small areas with
no further evaluation. Our report can be used to modify and
support your corporate standards.
- Our report contains simple, easy-to-use acceptance criteria
based on nominal thickness, requiring no calculations or evaluation.
It also contains more liberal acceptance criteria for
use when the minimum design thickness is available, and an even less
conservative, but adequate, approach to be used when some simple calculations
are made. All of these criteria meet Section III Code requirements
for new construction, but are often not used by engineers because of
misunderstandings of the Code provisions.
- We have justified acceptance of material below the minimum thickness
required by the Code formulas to the satisfaction of the NRC. We were
able to demonstrate to the NRC and their Code experts that the Code
contains provisions that permit material to be less than the
Code minimum design thickness in many situations.
We have developed an easy-to-use specification that
details several ways in which the Code permits you to avoid
the detailed analyses you are probably doing to satisfy Case N-480.
These analyses are unnecessary, far too conservative, and costly to
implement. We can show that most repairs of local underthickness
are not technically necessary. With our report, you can demonstrate
compliance with the ASME Code. We can also demonstrate that Code
requirements can usually be met with the local underthickness, without
repair or extensive calculations, or that any necessary repairs
can be postponed to a scheduled outage.
- One customer has reported that our report paid for itself
within a couple of weeks by reducing the number of required analyses.
We believe that our report will pay for itself by its use in one of
your outages. The report is user-friendly for both inspectors
and engineers and is certified as meeting ASME Code requirements.
- Although our Underthickness Evaluation Report is easy to use, Reedy
Engineering will provide any needed support in understanding or defending
its methodology at no extra cost. We have also included
a list of utilities that have purchased this report.
Please contact Reedy Engineering for cost of this report.
View Client List