Preserve the finding and use site controls
When an inspection identifies a suspected crack, make the observation traceable and notify the responsible site person through the agreed escalation process. Immediate asset controls depend on the site's procedures and responsible advice. This article does not provide a universal instruction to keep operating, stop operating or return equipment to service.
The crack detection service can investigate selected locations using a method suited to material and access. A reported indication and a confirmed crack are not always interchangeable terms. Preserve the inspector's wording and verification status when passing the finding to an engineer.
Capture evidence before changing the surface
Identify the asset, component, orientation and exact location against a drawing or repeatable datum. Retain photographs, indication dimensions as reported, method, coverage and surface condition. Record the examination date and any relevant event or operating-history information supplied by the owner.
Do not grind, weld or clean away evidence simply to improve the appearance before review. Preparation for confirmation or repair should be agreed and recorded. If the surface has already changed, state what was done and what original evidence remains available.
Frame the engineering question
The reviewer may need design information, material, loads, duty cycles, repairs and prior findings to assess significance. A measured surface length alone does not establish crack depth, growth rate or remaining strength. The load path and location can matter as much as the visible size.
Ask which uncertainties need resolving: whether the feature is a crack, its extent, related damage at nearby locations, or the likely cause. Targeted follow-up can then answer an explicit question. Repeating the same test without addressing access or orientation limits may add little information.
Keep testing separate from disposition
A complementary method may help confirm or characterise a finding, but not every geometry permits reliable depth sizing. Reports should state what the technique can support and what remains unknown. The responsible engineer determines the relevance of that evidence to repair, monitoring or other action.
Monitoring is not a default answer for every crack. If considered by the responsible reviewer, it needs identified locations, a suitable repeat technique, comparison rules and an escalation process. Neither a generic interval nor an online crack-length threshold is an adequate asset-specific monitoring plan.
Make follow-up close-out traceable
Link the initial finding to its reviewed disposition, any repair records and the subsequent examination. Record the repair extent and method differences so a clear repeat result is not mistaken for proof that every original question has been answered.
Keep unresolved items visible, including inaccessible areas or a cause not yet established. Close-out should show who reviewed the evidence and which decisions remain outside the NDT scope. Testing contributes evidence; it does not automatically approve a repair design or authorise operation.
- Located original finding and retained inspection evidence.
- Engineering question and missing information identified.
- Confirmation or sizing scope with stated method limits.
- Documented disposition, repair evidence and follow-up result.