Structural finding decision aid

Cracking Around Holes, Bosses, and Clips

A buyer review workspace for separating a visible crack from its structural significance and requiring repeatable strength evidence before approval.

Static review summary: treat cracks near loaded features as structural findings, compare possible patterns with the load path, and require repeatable physical strength evidence before approval.

Step 1: What the buyer sees

Map the initiation point, direction, cavity, sample history, assembly load, and repeatability.

Step 2: Why it matters

A crack on a loaded feature is a functional and structural risk, even when it is small or visually unobtrusive.

Step 3: Map the load path

Ask how the feature is loaded in assembly and use, and whether the crack follows that load path.

Step 4: Patterns to verify

These are possible technical patterns to verify; appearance alone is not enough to select one.

Step 5: Compare by testing

A corrected-looking part should still be verified by a relevant torque, flex, pull, or assembly test.

Step 6: Request evidence

Request evidence that connects the proposed correction to repeatable strength, not only to a cleaner surface.

Step 7: Approval decision

Delay approval until the feature meets agreed functional criteria on representative samples.

Buyer action panel

Turn the scene into a decision

Keep questions and evidence beside the visual, not several screens below it.

Questions to ask the supplier

Where does the crack begin, and does it follow a weld line or intended load path?
Does the defect repeat by cavity, assembly method, age, or environment?
What possible geometry, material, filling, void, or molded-stress patterns were reviewed?
Which physical test will demonstrate that the proposed correction restored required strength?

Documents and evidence to request

Annotated crack map and labeled sample history
Sectioned samples or suitable internal-feature evidence
Torque, flex, pull, or assembly test comparison
Material handling and trial process records
Written correction and verification plan

Add to the next RFQ

Identify loaded bosses, holes, clips, and required duty
Define relevant torque, flex, pull, or cycle test criteria
Ask suppliers to review weld-line and void risk near loaded features
Require physical verification before mold or production approval

When to delay approval

Any crack remains on a structural or safety-relevant feature
The proposed cause is based only on visual appearance
Corrected samples look better but lack physical strength evidence
Cracking remains intermittent, cavity-dependent, or unexplained

This buyer-side explainer presents possible risk patterns to verify. It does not confirm the cause of a crack or guarantee a corrective outcome. Verify conclusions with the actual part, material, geometry, process records, samples, and relevant physical testing.