Create a Casting Radiography View and Zone Map

A casting radiography package needs a clear relationship between the physical casting, the area under examination and each delivered view. A reader should not have to infer that relationship from the order of image files or a familiar silhouette. The view map is a documentary crosswalk: it identifies the casting, the relevant drawing and zone, the examination event, the image reference and the supplied evaluation basis. It supports review and handover without choosing exposure geometry, prescribing radiation work or deciding whether a casting meets an acceptance requirement.

Begin by stating the purpose of the package. It may document an initial examination, a selected repair area, a defined production stage or another authorized scope. A collection of images for one purpose should not be described as complete coverage of the entire casting unless the documented examination supports that claim. The free reporting workflow helps organize the evidence the responsible examiner provides. It does not reconstruct radiographic data, validate image quality or certify the component merely because a report can be exported as a PDF.

Identify the documents that govern the examination technique and the documents that supply the applicable evaluation or acceptance basis. They may be related, but they need not answer the same question. ASTM's public description of E1742/E1742M distinguishes control of radiographic image quality from acceptance criteria for parts and materials. In the map, keep the selected technique reference and the responsible evaluation basis explicit. Do not turn the name of a radiographic practice into an acceptance statement that the actual contract does not supply.

The author should enter the edition, revision and any zone-specific direction required by the assignment. If the casting has different specified evaluation requirements in different regions, preserve that relationship rather than using one unqualified criterion for every image. The responsible technical team must resolve any ambiguity. The reporting template should retain an open requirement question until it is answered, not fill the gap using a reference image category or grading rule remembered from another job. This guide intentionally does not reproduce acceptance tables or assign discontinuity grades.

A drawing number describes a design or configuration; a casting serial identifies the physical item being examined. A heat or batch reference can provide additional manufacturing context without necessarily distinguishing every casting. Keep those fields separate and record their actual source. If a shop uses a temporary traveler or receipt label, preserve its verified cross-reference to the casting identity. Several visually similar castings can share a drawing and heat, so neither the silhouette nor a batch label should silently become proof of individual identity.

When original markings are unclear, state the identification limitation and refer it through the approved process. Do not assign a convenient serial solely because it matches a nearby package. The view map should also retain the stage or configuration represented by the examination, especially where subsequent machining or repair changes the physical item. If the customer supplies a corrected identity or drawing association later, document the correction and its evidence. A valid image becomes unreliable as a record if it is attached to the wrong casting during administrative cleanup.

Use the zone designations established by the authorized drawing, technique sheet or examination plan. If the project uses a separate marked map, identify its number, revision and orientation convention. A zone should be reproducible for someone who did not prepare the images. Terms such as upper section or left side may be ambiguous when the casting is rotated for acquisition or shown from another viewpoint in a report. Explain the reference frame and any required relationship between the drawing view and the physical item.

A mapped zone and an acquired image are not necessarily the same unit. One image may include more than one zone, and one zone may need several recorded views under the approved technique. Preserve those relationships explicitly. Avoid forcing a one-to-one structure simply because a spreadsheet is easier to format that way. The map should be capable of showing a view associated with several named zones while retaining the specific evaluation reference for each relevant region. The qualified examiner supplies the coverage interpretation; the worksheet records it.

Give each view a stable identifier within the examination package and link it to the actual film or digital source reference. Where the acquisition system supplies a unique identifier, retain it alongside the human-readable view name if the project process requires it. A filename may change during export, compression or customer delivery. The mapping record should still let the recipient identify the intended evidence and distinguish it from a duplicate, a presentation copy or a later replacement view. Keep the source and delivered-name relationship visible when they differ.

ASME's public description of BPVC Section V identifies its nondestructive examination subject area. A reference to that publication should remain tied to the actual requirements invoked for the project, rather than being used as a general certification label on the image index. The view map is an original editorial record aid. It should point to the approved examination and source documents without claiming that the free software has reviewed or established compliance with their technical provisions.

Record the examination date and the controlled technique reference that explain which event produced the view set. If a technique revision changes during the job, identify which views belong to each revision and retain the responsible review of any effect on earlier evidence. Do not label all images with the latest revision merely because it is the version current when the final report is assembled. The source records should preserve the technique actually used, while later changes and review decisions are documented as their own events.

The map can reference the detailed acquisition record instead of repeating every technical parameter in a summary table. That keeps the handover readable while preserving a route to the information required by the responsible reviewer. When a field is transcribed into the report, confirm its value and unit against the source. Do not infer settings from image appearance or use a nominal equipment model as a substitute for the actual setup record. The reporting workspace is for entered evidence and references, not for calculating or approving a radiographic technique.

The coverage field explains which defined area the recorded views support. The evaluation field identifies the finding or decision reported under the supplied basis. A view can be available while its evaluation is still pending; a region can have a reported evaluation while the delivered source file is missing; a requested region may remain unexamined. Those states should not collapse into one complete checkbox. A coordinator needs to know whether the next action concerns technical review, additional authorized examination or the retrieval of existing evidence.

Retain any stated limit beside the affected zone or view. If a view is replaced because the responsible process found it unsuitable, keep the relationship between the original and replacement record clear rather than silently deleting the older reference from history. Do not mark the replacement acceptable simply because the file exists. The authorized reviewer determines the relevant image and part evaluations. The map's job is to show which evidence and decision apply, and which earlier record is superseded or retained only as part of the examination history.

A repaired zone may have images from before and after the authorized work. Connect both stages to the same casting and defined repair location, while giving the later examination its own event and view references. Preserve the repair authorization or disposition reference where required by the project. A later view should not be presented as though it were the original examination of an unchanged item. The sequence matters to anyone trying to understand what the first finding prompted and which evidence describes the final documented condition.

If several repair cycles occur, use a clear stage relationship rather than appending ambiguous words such as final-final to filenames. The exact numbering convention belongs to the controlled process, but the recipient should be able to follow it without guessing. Keep each reported evaluation associated with the correct stage and governing reference. If a later repair affects an adjacent zone, have the responsible team clarify the scope and evidence relationship. The map should expose that question rather than automatically extending a previous result into a newly affected area.

Imagine a fictional casting C-318 with zones Z-A and Z-B defined on drawing D-42 revision F. View V-01 includes both zones, while V-02 provides another documented view of Z-B under the approved technique. The delivered folder contains a later V-02 export whose filename differs from the acquisition record. The map should connect both names to the same intended source and should not count the export as another examined region. It should also retain the zone-specific evaluation references supplied by the responsible examiner.

Now suppose an authorized repair affects part of Z-B and produces a later examination event. Its view should be linked to the repaired area and the repair record, while the original Z-B views remain identifiable as earlier-stage evidence. Z-A should not automatically inherit the later repair status merely because it appeared in V-01. The fictional example illustrates a many-to-many evidence relationship: zones, views and events do not always line up as one row each. A good map preserves that structure in a readable way without making a technical acceptance decision.

Useful columns include casting identity, drawing and zone reference, examination event, view identifier, source or delivered-file reference, technique revision, evaluation-basis reference, reported result and outstanding action. If one view addresses several zones with different requirements, use separate clearly related rows or an organized subtable. Avoid a long unstructured list of zones in a cell that leaves the evaluation basis unclear. The worksheet should help a reviewer answer which view supports this zone and which rule was supplied for its evaluation.

Check the completed table against the authorized scope before importing it. A list of existing image files alone cannot reveal a requested zone that never received an entry. Compare the required zone population with the evidence rows and account for exclusions, outstanding work and documented limits. Where the process uses counts, distinguish the number of physical castings, zones, acquired views and delivered files. Those totals measure different things. State the basis of any summary quantity so a larger folder does not misleadingly appear to represent more examination coverage.

Import the prepared Word or Excel table into the free digital NDT reporting workspace. Preview the table, choose the intended header row and adjust columns so identifiers and limitations remain readable. Select RT as the method where appropriate for the actual examination and enter the real procedure and specification references. Use report observations to explain the bounded scope and unresolved items. The editor does not import native radiographic datasets, inspect film, assess image quality or grade casting indications. Retain those source records and decisions in the approved technical process.

The generated PDF can carry the reviewed result table, relevant report details and authorized company or client logos. For a large package, keep a deliberate summary and companion index instead of hiding excess records in one cell. The editor supports up to 500 result rows across its tables; plan any separate report parts with clear package and cross-reference identities. A guest can prepare a draft PDF; a verified free account can save private numbered reports and revisions. Keep the casting serial, view IDs and report number distinct so each remains useful when records are exchanged. Before issue, review the actual PDF and its separate evidence package. A readable report is valuable, but it should not imply that every required source image is embedded or that a logo constitutes technical approval.

Choose a zone from the controlling map and retrieve every view and evaluation reference the index says applies to it. Then choose a replacement or repair-stage view and verify that the recipient can distinguish it from earlier evidence. Use the final delivery arrangement, including any approved viewer or access route, rather than only the author's local folders. If a source reference cannot be resolved, identify the missing item and owner before claiming the handover package is complete. A precise open-action list is more useful than a summary that conceals the gap.

When a report or view association changes after delivery, document the replacement relationship and follow the agreed redistribution process. Keep the correct casting and zone identity visible in the notice so the recipient does not attach the revised evidence to another item. The equipment register and procedure draft workspace can support related preparation, but the responsible technical team retains examination and evaluation authority. The finished map should make the evidence understandable and retrievable, while preserving exactly what each record does and does not establish.