Planning guide · Published by Atlantis NDT
Is your inspection history ready for a Digital Twin?
Check asset identity, location mapping and report provenance before evaluating digital twin inspection reporting.
Start with the decision you need to make
Start with a traceable inspection location, not the appearance of the model. A useful demonstration should connect a visible point to the asset identifier, inspection date, source report and review state. If location references are inconsistent, document the uncertainty before presenting historical trends. A simplified asset representation can be a better pilot than a detailed model with untraceable readings. Agree who maintains the asset register and whether the proposed software is used independently or exchanges data with an ERP.
What to check and why it matters
| Decision area | Evidence to prepare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Asset and location identity | Choose a small set of locations with drawings, tags and known changes. Retain the original reference when a location is renamed or a component replaced. | Can a reviewer explain why two records refer to the same physical location? |
| Evidence and history | Bring source reports with dates, methods, units and issue status. Different coverage or measurement conditions can limit a historical comparison. | Can the model open the exact report behind a displayed value? |
| Integration boundary | Map the owner of each identifier and the direction of data exchange. An export file, a scheduled import and a supported live integration are different arrangements. | Which system remains authoritative if the model and ERP disagree? |
Illustrative example · Not a customer case study
Apply the questions to a real-world situation
Hypothetical pilot: an asset has drawings and two thickness campaigns, but several points moved during a repair. Keep unchanged locations in the comparison set and place relocated points in a review queue. Show the source evidence and the reason for exclusion. A model that displays this uncertainty is more useful than a smooth trend built from mismatched points. Ask the integrity engineer what decisions the pilot should support before expanding it.
Prepare your working brief
Capture what is known and name the unresolved questions. You can use the worksheet without registering or sending information to Atlantis.
- Pilot asset
- Identify the asset class and the engineering question, using an anonymized tag.
- Location references
- List drawings, coordinates or point IDs and any mapping uncertainty.
- Available evidence
- Describe source reports, date ranges, units and review status.
- System ownership
- Name the register or ERP that owns identifiers and proposed exchange formats.
- Review outcome
- State what the responsible engineer needs to trace or compare.
When you need project-specific support
Explore software requirements for digital twin inspection reporting. Confirm the current deliverables and fit for your requirement with the Atlantis team.
Review the broader context for asset integrity visualization. Confirm the current deliverables and fit for your requirement with the Atlantis team.
For a US enquiry, include the project state and time zone, the responsible employer or owner, and the documents governing the work. For other countries, include the relevant recognition or customer requirements. Delivery and availability are confirmed for the engagement.
Request a Digital Twin demoScope and further reading
Visualizing evidence does not determine fitness for service, corrosion limits or inspection intervals. Technical decisions remain with the responsible authority.
Continue with the detailed companion guide, Preserving Source-Report Provenance When Findings Move onto Asset Models, for a related evidence-handling workflow and its source references. The planning suggestions here are original discussion aids, not approved procedures or reproductions of standards.
Browse every guide in this resource library →