C

H A P T E R

Liquid Penetrant Testing

Crack Detection
Capabilities and Reliability
Ward D. Rummel, D&W Enterprises, Limited, Littleton,
Colorado

Copyright 1999 by D&W Enterprises, Limited. Reprinted with permission.

Introduction
Liquid penetrant testing is one of the
most widely applied methods of
nondestructive testing because of the low
cost of application, the perceived
simplicity of the process and its ability to
be applied to complex shapes with little
process adjustment. Liquid penetrant
testing is not, however, absolute and is
not capable of finding all cracks. The
end-to-end liquid penetrant process is
bounded by a lower limit for the
detection of small cracks (detection
threshold). In addition, the detection
threshold is not a constant value but
depends on multiple parameters inherent
to the test object and liquid penetrant
procedure applied or are a function of
rigid process control in application.
Although some confidence may be
provided by the ability of a liquid
penetrant procedure to reveal a known
crack in a test coupon, the brightness or
contrast intensity of the liquid penetrant
indication may be such that it would not
be detected under field conditions if its
presence and location were not known. It
is foolhardy to assume crack detection if
the indication is small or dim or both.
The inspection result of importance is not
the smallest discontinuity detected but the
largest discontinuity missed by application
of a given liquid penetrant procedure.
In many liquid penetrant testing
applications where requirements are for
the detection of large cracks, exceeding
25 mm (1 in.) long, demonstration of

liquid penetrant detection capabilities

may not be required. Inspections
requiring detection of small cracks and
critical inspection applications may
require demonstration of detection
capabilities and rigid process control that
includes periodic revalidation of detection
capabilities.

Probability of Detection
(POD) As Measure of
Liquid Penetrant
Performance
The recognized metric for ascertaining the
detection capability for a liquid penetrant
procedure is the probability of detection
(POD). A characteristic POD curve is
generated by passing a large number of
cracks of varying size through a liquid
penetrant procedure and recording the
cracks that are detected. A standardized
data analysis procedure is then used to
produce a plot of probability of detection
as a function of crack size (typically crack
length). Figure 1 is an example of a POD
curve for a given liquid penetrant test
procedure.
By convention, the threshold detection
point is that point where the POD curve
crosses the 90 percent threshold and is
referred to as the 90/95 probability of
detection value (assuming the number and
distribution of crack sizes meet the criteria
for standardized analysis). In the example
shown, the single valued detection
capability is at the 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) crack

FIGURE 1. General form of probability of detection curve for liquid penetrant testing
procedure. Accepted 90 percent threshold detection point is noted.

Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
Threshold

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)

276

Liquid Penetrant Testing

length. Although some cracks smaller

than the 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) crack length
were detected by the applied liquid
penetrant procedure (Xs plotted at the
100 percent detection level) , the
procedure did not reliably detect cracks
smaller than the 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) crack
size.
The capability of the procedure is stated
as 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) crack length.
The reliability for detection of cracks at
the 3.5 mm (0.14 in.) level is 90 percent
and is a measure of the repeatability and
reproducibility for finding a crack at that
size.
The confidence level for detection at the
3.5 mm (0.14 in.) level is derived from the
number and distribution of cracks used to
determine the detection capability.

Multiparameter Process
Liquid penetrant testing is a
multiparameter process. Changes in one
or more of the process parameters can
significantly change the liquid penetrant
crack detection performance capability.
Liquid penetrant process performance
depends on the following: (1) test object,
(2) discontinuity type, (3) discontinuity
size, (4) discontinuity form and state,
(5) test materials, (6) test equipment,
(7) test process, (8) test environment,
(9) test procedure applied and (10) human
factors.
The test object material, shape
(configuration), surface texture (porosity
and surface finish), stress state, surface
condition and object size are parameters
that may affect liquid penetrant process
capability. For example, titanium alloys
wet differently than aluminum alloys
used in aircraft.
The discontinuity type may be a
significant factor; for example, a
condition for detection is that the
discontinuity must be open to the surface
and must have an opening such that
liquid penetrant can be retained using the
applied liquid penetrant procedure. It is
obvious that a crack that is covered by a
paint layer or smeared metal from a
machining or grinding process will not be
consistently detectable.
The discontinuity size i.e., length,
depth and opening greatly affect
detectability. The brightness of a liquid
penetrant indication for a small crack (less
than 0.75 mm [0.030 in.]) will be
significantly less than that for a larger
crack because of the reservoir size. The
ability of a human reader to discriminate
small indications is typically greater than
0.75 mm (0.030 in.) in length. Because
discontinuity size (length and depth) is a
basic material parameter used in static
design and life cycle analyses, it is the

variable that is most often measured,

reported or claimed.
The discontinuity form and state are
more difficult to quantify but must be
considered in each liquid penetrant
application. It is obvious that a
discontinuity must be clean and dry to
support reliable liquid penetrant
performance. Less obvious is the closure
and stress state of a discontinuity (crack).
It is known that the brightness of a liquid
penetrant indication is decreased for a
crack under compressive load, thus small
cracks will not be detectable under some
loading conditions. In addition, the past
load history (in particular, a high
overload) may change the configuration
of a crack such that a liquid penetrant
indication is segmented, with the crack
ends visible and the connecting ligament
producing a very dim indication.
The test materials (liquid penetrant
materials) are known to affect the
sensitivity of a liquid penetrant and liquid
penetrant materials are classified by their
ability to produce an indication under
standardized test conditions. A variety of
liquid penetrants of differing sensitivity are
commercially available and are intended
for use in different applications. For
example, a high sensitivity liquid
penetrant would not be suitable for the
inspection of a porous material surface
because of the background indications
produced.
The inspection equipment introduces
variables in the test process because of the
inherent limits and variations for process
control. For example, a temperature
nonuniformity in a drying oven will add
to the end-to-end process variance.
Ultraviolet radiation intensity, white light
background, tank contamination etc. are
variables added by the type of equipment
or equipment maintenance.
The inspection process may introduce
major variance in end-to-end
performance. For example, dry developer
versus wet developer; hydrophilic
emulsifier versus a lipophilic emulsifier;
or inspection without a developer.
The inspection environment can produce
wide variances in process performance.
Consider variance between in-line
processing in a factory environment
during component overhaul versus field
inspection in the arctic.
The inspection procedure applied may
cause wide variance in process
performance in the form of processing
times. The most critical process parameter
is the remover time or emulsification time
but wash times, dwell times, drying time
etc. can add significant performance
variance.
Human factors variables are listed last
because the human operator has little
chance for discontinuity detection if other

Liquid Penetrant Testing Crack Detection Capabilities and Reliability

277

end-to-end parameters are not controlled.

Human factors include the traditional
health, attitude, skill level and attention
to detail that are related to training,
experience and recent experience with the
same or similar parts, equipment and
processes.

Process Control Is Critical

to Liquid Penetrant
Performance
The multivariate nature of a liquid
penetrant process demands process
control to effect repeatable and

reproducible results. Indeed, liquid

penetrant testing without attention to
process control is often an exercise in
parts washing. Process control aids and
measurement tools such as ultraviolet
radiation intensity measurement; artifact
panels such as the testing and monitoring
(TAM) panels; and periodic measurement
of liquid penetrant material properties are
essential to reliable liquid penetrant
process performance. In addition,
attention to detail in equipment and
processing materials unique to a particular
test object or process line is required for
consistent performance.
Periodic proficiency demonstration and
validation for human operators is also

FIGURE 2. Effect of ultraviolet radiation level for liquid penetrant testing procedure (water wash
process without developer, on tightly closed fatigue cracks in cobalt alloy; with 55 to 107 lx
[5 to 10 ftc] white light illumination): (a) 4 Wm2 (400 Wcm2) ultraviolet radiation;
(b) 12 Wm2 (1200 Wcm2) ultraviolet radiation.1
(a)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4 7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(b)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4 7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)

278

Liquid Penetrant Testing

FIGURE 3. effect of developer for liquid penetrant testing procedure (water wash process on
tightly closed fatigue cracks in cobalt alloy): (a) without developer, (b) with developer.1
(a)

Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0
0

1.3 2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(b)

Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3 2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9
10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)

essential to end-to-end process control.

Additional training may be beneficial but
additional training without proficiency
demonstration is often a rerun of previous
information and may have little benefit in
maintaining skill levels.

Process Performance
Assessment and
Proficiency Demonstration
Variation in end-to-end liquid penetrant
process performance is readily observed
by comparison of probability of detection
(POD) data as a function of varying liquid
penetrant process parameters. Table 1 and
Figs. 2 to 5 are examples of the assessment
of liquid penetrant process parameters

Liquid Penetrant Testing Crack Detection Capabilities and Reliability

279

FIGURE 4. Effects of etching and proof test for liquid penetrant testing procedure (solvent
remover process; on tightly closed fatigue cracks in 6Al-4V titanium material): (a) as
machined condition; (b) after etch; (c) after proof load.1
(a)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(b)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(c)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4 7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)

280

Liquid Penetrant Testing

FIGURE 5. Effects of etching and proof test for liquid penetrant testing procedure (solvent
remover process; on tightly closed fatigue cracks in AISI 4340 steel material): (a) as machined
condition; (b) after etch; (c) after etch and proof load.1
(a)

Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3 2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45)(0.50)

14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1

(0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(b)

Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3
2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

(c)
Probability of detection (percent)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0

1.3 2.5
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7
(0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45)(0.50)

14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1

(0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)

Actual crack length, mm (in.)

Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)

Liquid Penetrant Testing Crack Detection Capabilities and Reliability

281

282

Liquid Penetrant Testing

(a)
Probability density distribution
(relative units)

The individual performance of the human

operator is a significant element in
end-to-end process performance capability
and reliability. Inspection process
parameters are readily measured and
controlled by application of appropriate
tools when applied by knowledgeable
supervision. The readout or interpretation
of liquid penetrant indications by human
operators is more difficult and
encompasses the multiple factors of the
workplace environment and development
of skill levels applicable to the procedure
being performed.
Training and skill development are
complimentary but not interchangeable.
Training denotes transfer of knowledge
whereas skill development denotes
application of knowledge, procedure and
experience in performing a specific task.
When an operator views a liquid
penetrant indication, interpretation is not
a yes/no decision task as commonly
viewed and desired in production
application but is instead a problem in
conditional probability. The operator is
presented with a signal characterized
primarily by brightness, size and pattern.
The signal is superimposed on a
background (nonrelevant indications
inherent to the test object and liquid
penetrant process also termed clutter)
characterized by the same parameters but
of a lesser degree or level. For purposes of
discussion, the signal characteristics will
be termed signal and the background
characteristics will be termed noise. The

FIGURE 6. Three conditions of signal and noise, representing

differing levels of defect detection: (a) clear signal-to-noise
discrimination; (b) small overlap of signal and noise, some
false calls and misses; (c) overlapping signal and noise, poor
discrimination.

Noise

Threshold
Decision
Level

Signal

Signal amplitude
(relative units)

(b)
Probability density distribution
(relative units)

Human Performance in
Liquid Penetrant Testing

interpretation problem is to identify the

signal in a field that consists of signal plus
noise.
Varying cases of relative levels of signal
and noise are shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6a is
a case where the signal level is
significantly greater than the noise and
clear discrimination is possible. Figure 6b
is a case where the signal level overlaps
the noise and noise may be interpreted as
signal (false call) or a signal may be

Noise

Signal

False calls

Signal amplitude
(relative units)

(c)
Probability density distribution
(relative units)

using the POD metric. Figures 2 and 3

show results with a heat resistant cobalt
alloy resembling SAE AMS 5608D.2
Figure 2 shows the effect of ultraviolet
radiation level on liquid penetrant
performance. Figure 3 shows the benefit
of using developer on liquid penetrant
performance. Figures 4 and 5 show the
effects of etching and proof loading on
titanium and steel flat plate specimen.
Human factors effects are reflected in all
data presented. Variations in human
factors were reduced by using the same
operators for each test sequence
presented.
The usefulness of the POD method of
liquid penetrant performance assessment
is self-evident for purposes of procedure
development, procedure improvement
and the qualification and validation of
process and procedure. For critical
applications, POD qualification and
validation is often used as a requirement
for both facility and personnel
performance demonstration.

Noise

Signal

Signal amplitude
(relative units)

TABLE 1. Accept/reject decision process.

Error Condition
none (discontinuity found when discontinuity is present)
type II (discontinuity found when no discontinuity is present)
type I (no discontinuity found when discontinuity is present)
none (no discontinuity found when no discontinuity is present)

interpreted as noise (miss). Figure 6c is a

case where the signal and noise are
superimposed and discrimination is not
possible. The greater the separation of
signal and noise, the greater the margin for
correct interpretation. Because signal is a
direct function of the size and brightness
of a liquid penetrant indication, large and
bright indications should be readily
detectable and have a high probability of
detection.
The varying cases of signal-to-noise
discrimination are consistent with the
POD results shown in Figs. 2 to 5. Larger
and brighter liquid penetrant indications
produce discrimination at a low level
i.e., developer versus no developer, higher
ultraviolet radiation levels and removal of
smeared surface material by etching.
As a result of this observation of the
liquid penetrant indications, the decision
of a human operator has four possible
outcomes.
1. A discontinuity may be called when a
discontinuity is present (correct call).
2. A discontinuity may be called when
no discontinuity is present (Type II
error).
3. A no discontinuity condition may be
called when no discontinuity is
present (correct call).
4. A no discontinuity condition may be
called when a discontinuity is present
(Type I error).
The conditional probability
discrimination decision process is shown
schematically in Fig. 7 and Table 1.

Liquid Penetrant Process

Performance
Demonstration
The structural integrity of modern
engineering materials, components,
structures and systems are increasingly
dependent on the ability of
nondestructive testing processes to find
small discontinuities. Components
requiring test capabilities below the
general detection level are often termed
fracture critical. Although well intentioned,
the assumed capabilities for a given liquid
penetrant test operation are generally
incorrect and, in some cases, the criteria

Decision
reject (correct reject)
reject (false call)
accept (miss)
accept (correct accept)

FIGURE 7. Four possible outcomes of accept/reject decision.

(Probability P is discussed with the published POD data.1)
Stimuli (discontinuity presence)

Nondestructive evaluation signal

(Response to discontinuity

Call
True positive
False positive
False negative
True negative

Positive (A)

Negative (N)

Positive (a)

Negative (n)

P(A,a)
True positive (hit)
No error

P(A,n)
False positive
Type II error

P(N,a)
False negative (miss)
Type I error

P(N,n)
True negative
No error

noted on engineering drawings are below

the capabilities of the best performing test
facilities. Qualification and validation of
test facilities, procedures and personnel
are therefore required for fracture critical
components.
Two modes of qualification and
validation are in general use; these are the
full POD demonstration and the subset
demonstration (widely known as the
29-out-of-29 method). A full POD
demonstration is always the most rigorous
mode and is used when dealing with new
materials, new fabrication processes or
new liquid penetrant processing facilities.
A full POD demonstration is desirable for
qualification of less experienced
inspectors. Although the full POD
demonstration is desirable, the cost of test
components and the time involved
warrant consideration of alternative
methods. A large amount of liquid
penetrant process characterization data
has been generated and is available.1
When requirements are such that a
significant margin is realized by the use of
standard, generic liquid penetrant
processing techniques, no demonstration
may be necessary. When standard, generic
process techniques are applied to the
detection of small discontinuities within
the envelope of previously demonstrated
capabilities, a subset demonstration may
be considered.

Liquid Penetrant Testing Crack Detection Capabilities and Reliability

283

A subset demonstration is conducted

by generating at least 29 representative
discontinuities of nominally equal size
(but within the previously demonstrated
size envelope and using the same
materials) and near or below the
acceptance limit for the test component.
The additional specimens are then
considered to be a subset of those
previously used for full POD
demonstration. The 29 discontinuities are
then subjected to the candidate test
procedure (operator) and the inspection is
completed. Success requires that all 29 of
the discontinuities are detected. If a
discontinuity is not detected, the
detection failure must be resolved. If there
is a legitimate cause for missing the
discontinuity, the discontinuity may be
replaced and the process repeated. Failure
to resolve and rectify a missed
discontinuity requires full demonstration
by the POD method. When the subset
method is used for operator skill
demonstration and qualification, a failure
to detect may be resolved by additional
skill development (training alone is not
sufficient) and retesting at the end of the
defined skill development period. The
subset, 29-out-of-29 method provides the
required number of test opportunities for
a 90 percent confidence level for a single
discontinuity size and is consistent with a
single point on a demonstrated full POD
curve.
The rationale, complexity and
analytical methods for full POD
demonstration are beyond the scope of
this publication. The reader is referred to
MIL-STD-1823 for requirements and
methodologies for a full POD
demonstration.3

Summary
Liquid penetrant testing is an effective
and economical method of discontinuity
detection and is widely used in the
process of ensuring the safety and
structural integrity of engineering
materials, components, structures and
systems. Its wide use and superficially
simple application result in a wide range
of results that vary from consistent
detection of critical discontinuities to
parts washing exercises that do not add
value to the parts. Fortunately, it costs no
more to perform a valid inspection than it
does to conduct a parts washing exercise.
It is logical that a multiparameter testing
process requires attention to detail and
process control for successful application.
The tools and techniques for materials
and process control are readily available.
The end to end process performance may
also be quantified using the information
and techniques discussed herein. If the

284

Liquid Penetrant Testing

principles and technique described are

used, capable and reliable performance
may be expected and demonstrated to
ensure continuing excellence in liquid
penetrant processing and continuing
confidence in the safety and structural
integrity of engineering systems.
The smallest discontinuity found is of
academic interest. The largest discontinuity
missed is of critical importance to reliable
liquid penetrant testing.

References

1. Rummel, W.D. and G.A. Matzkanin.

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)
Capabilities Data Book, third edition.
NTIAC DB-97-02. Austin, TX:
Nondestructive Testing Information
and Analysis Center (1997).
2. SAE AMS 5608D, Cobalt Alloy,
Corrosion and Heat Resistant,
Sheet Strip and Plate
40Co-22Cr-22Ni-14.5W-0.07La
Solution Heat Treated. Warrendale,
PA: Society of Automotive Engineers
(1995).
3. MIL-STD-1823, Non-Destructive
Evaluation System Reliability Assessment.
Washington, DC: United States
Department of Defense.

Liquid Penetrant Testing Capabilities and Reliability

285