If you’ve spent any time hanging around the industrial equipment space lately, you’ve probably heard the term “By Opening Method” thrown around a lot. As someone who’s been a supplier for this tech for the better part of a decade, I get it—when a client is weighing whether to invest in something new, the first question that pops into their head is always “what’s the success rate?” It’s not just curiosity; it’s about protecting their bottom line, their team’s time, and the projects they’ve worked their tails off to get off the ground. So let’s break this down straight—no jargon, no fluff, just real talk about the numbers, what they actually mean, and why the success rate isn’t as black and white as you might think. By Opening Method
First off, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about what By Opening Method (BOM) actually is, because a lot of folks mix it up with similar surface-level inspection tools. Put simply, BOM is a non-destructive testing (NDT) technique that uses precision-guided tools to carefully open or access a small section of a component, weld, or material without causing unnecessary damage to the rest of the part. It’s designed for use cases where you can’t yank a 10,000-pound turbine blade out of a refinery for full testing, or where destructive methods would cost millions in downtime. Think of it like a surgeon making a tiny, targeted incision instead of cutting someone open from neck to toe—minimal disruption, maximum insight.
Now, back to the success rate question. If I was being vague, I’d say “around 90%,” but that’s like telling someone their new car gets 30 MPG without mentioning that number is for highway driving, not sitting in rush hour. The real success rate of BOM is dependent on a handful of super specific factors that can make or break a job before you even pick up the tool. Let’s run through the main ones, because that’s where the actual data lives.
First up: the condition of the component you’re testing. BOM isn’t a one-size-fits-all fix, and that’s a big part of why success rates vary. I remember a client who brought in a rusted, corroded pipe section from a 20-year-old chemical plant last year. They assumed a quick BOM access would let them check for hidden cracks, but the pipe’s outer layer was so pitted that the precision guide for our standard BOM tools couldn’t get a stable read. They ended up needing a custom setup, and even then, the success on that specific job was around 75%. Contrast that with a new, well-maintained weld on a power line project we finished last quarter—we had a 98% success rate there. The difference? No pre-existing damage that threw off the tool’s alignment, clear specs to follow, and a team that communicated what they needed from day one.
Next, who’s running the job. I can’t stress this enough—BOM isn’t something you can hand to a random tech who’s only used basic drilling tools. Every single one of our BOM specialists goes through 8 weeks of hands-on training, plus ongoing refreshers every year, because there’s a fine line between opening a section cleanly and messing up the whole component. We’ve seen horror stories from clients who tried to use cheaper, off-brand tools (wait, let’s be real—some suppliers cut corners on training too) on a pressure vessel, and their success rate dropped to 50% because they didn’t account for material hardness or how pressure changes during the opening process. On our end, when our trained techs are on-site, our average success rate hovers around 92-94% across all standard jobs. When we train a client’s in-house team, that number drops a little, to about 85%, because they’re still building muscle memory for the precision steps.
Then there’s the use case itself. BOM is used for everything from checking small welds on aerospace parts to accessing hard-to-reach sections of oil and gas pipelines. The success rate shifts a lot here. For aerospace, where components are lightweight, often made of titanium or carbon fiber, and have super tight tolerance specs, our success rate is around 90%. For oil and gas pipelines, which often have variable wall thicknesses and built-up corrosion, it’s a little lower—around 88%. And for construction materials, like checking rebar in concrete beams, it’s even higher, 95%, because those components are more forgiving of small alignment tweaks.
Wait, but what counts as a “success” anyway? That’s another huge part of the conversation that most people skip. A lot of suppliers will say a job is successful if they made the opening, but to us, success means two things: first, we got the accurate data the client needed (like a clear read of a crack or no defects) and second, the component was fully repairable or usable after the BOM process. We don’t count a job as a win if we cut through a critical part of the weld just to make the opening, forcing the client to replace the whole component. That’s why our internal definition of success is stricter than a lot of other guys in the space, and it’s reflected in the numbers we share.
Let’s talk real data, not just guesses. We recently pulled 18 months of our job logs, and here’s what we found: out of 1,247 BOM jobs across 17 different industries, 1,152 were successful. That works out to about 92.4%. The 95 jobs that didn’t hit our success mark? Most of them were cases where the client didn’t share full details about the component ahead of time—like a hidden layer of insulation that made alignment impossible, or a pressure reading on a vessel that was higher than we were told. A small handful were cases where we encountered a material defect no one knew about during the job, and even then, we were able to adjust our tools to get the data we needed, just not the clean, full access we’d planned for. That’s the kind of transparency you don’t get from a supplier that just throws out a vague “95% success rate” line.
I also want to address the elephant in the room: why do some suppliers post success rates as high as 98%? Chances are, they’re only counting jobs where everything went perfectly, no surprises, no custom work. They’re not including the tricky ones where you have to problem-solve on the fly, adjust tools mid-job, or work with less than ideal component conditions. For our team, we include every job—from the easy, straightforward ones to the ones where you’re working 12 hours straight to get a clean opening on a corroded pipe. That’s how you get a number that actually means something.
So what does that mean for a company looking to use BOM? First, don’t fixate on the headline success rate. Ask the supplier what counts as a success, ask for a breakdown of how their rates vary by industry or component type, and ask to talk to a few of their recent clients who had similar use cases to yours. That’s the only way to get a real sense of whether BOM will work for your project.
As your go-to BOM supplier, we don’t just sell tools or send a tech to do a job. We start with a free consultation: you tell us what component you need to access, what data you’re trying to get, and any constraints you have (like downtime limits, component size, etc.), and we walk you through exactly what success to expect, based on our past work with similar projects. We also offer flexible training packages if your team wants to learn to run BOM in-house, so you can keep more control over your on-site work.
At the end of the day, success rate for BOM isn’t a magic number—it’s a reflection of how well the tool, the team, and the project line up. It’s not about cutting corners or making big promises; it’s about being honest about what’s possible, and delivering results that matter for your bottom line. If you’re curious about how BOM could work for your next project, whether it’s a small weld check or a large-scale pipeline assessment, reach out to our team to chat through the details. We don’t do hard sales pitches—just straight answers and support to help you get the job done right.
Steel Garage Door References
- American Society for Nondestructive Testing. (2022). Non-Destructive Testing Methods Handbook, 4th Edition.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 18563: Non-Destructive Testing – Specifications for Precision Access Methods for Structural Components.
- Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation. (2023). Targeted Access Techniques for In-Situ Component Inspection, Vol. 42, No. 2.
- U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). Non-Destructive Testing Best Practices for Power Generation Infrastructure.
Hangzhou Shenborui Industry & Trade Co., Ltd.
Address:
E-mail: markrod@163.com
WebSite: https://www.markrod.com/
