Penetrant Testing

NISSI QUALITY SERVICES PENETRANT
TESTING Course Material
LIQUID PENETRANT TESTING

COURSE MATERIAL
BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 1

PENETRANT TESTING
Introduction and History of Penetrant Inspection
Liquid penetration inspection is a method that is used to

reveal surface breaking flaws by bleedout of a colored or
fluorescent dye from the flaw. The technique is based on
the ability of a liquid to be drawn into a "clean" surface
breaking flaw by capillary action. After a period of time
called the "dwell," excess surface penetrant is removed
and a developer applied. This acts as a "blotter." It draws
the penetrant from the flaw to reveal its presence.
Colored (contrast) penetrants require good white light
while fluorescent penetrants need to be used in darkened
conditions with an ultraviolet "black light".
A very early surface inspection technique involved the rubbing of carbon black on
glazed pottery, whereby the carbon black would settle in surface cracks rendering them visible.
Later it became the practice in railway workshops to examine iron and steel components by
the "oil and whiting" method. In this method, a heavy oil commonly available in railway
workshops was diluted with kerosene in large tanks so that locomotive parts such as wheels
could be submerged. After removal and careful cleaning, the surface was then coated with a
fine suspension of chalk in alcohol so that a white surface layer was formed once the alcohol
had evaporated. The object was then vibrated by being striked with a hammer, causing the
residual oil in any surface cracks to seep out and stain the white coating. This method was in
use from the latter part of the 19th century through to approximately 1940, when the magnetic
particle method was introduced and found to be more sensitive for the ferromagnetic iron and
steels.
A different (though related) method was introduced in the 1940's, where the surface
under examination is coated with a lacquer, and after drying the surface is vibrated by hitting
with a hammer, for example. This causes the brittle lacquer layer to crack generally around
surface defects. The brittle lacquer (stress coat) has been used primarily to show the
distribution of stresses in a part and not finding defects.
Many of these early developments were carried out by Magnaflux in Chicago, IL, USA in
association with the Switzer Bros., Cleveland, OH, USA. More affective penetrating oils
containing highly visible (usually red) dyes were developed by Magnaflux to enhance flaw
detection capability. This method, known as the visible or color contrast dye penetrant method,
is still used quite extensively today. In 1942, Magnaflux introduced the Zyglo system of
penetrant inspection where fluorescent dyes were added to the liquid penetrant. These dyes
would then fluoresce when exposed to ultraviolet light (sometimes referred to as "black light")
rendering indications from cracks and other surface flaws more readily visible to the inspectors'
eyes.

Why a Penetrant Inspection Improves the Detectability of Flaws
The advantage that a liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) offers over an unaided visual
inspection is that it makes defects easier to see for the inspector. There are basically two ways
that a penetrant inspection process makes flaws more easily seen. First, LPI produces a flaw
indication that is much larger and easier for the eye to detect than the flaw itself. Many flaws
are so small or narrow that they are undetectable by the unaided eye. Due to the physical
features of the eye, there is a threshold below which objects cannot be resolved. This
threshold of visual acuity is around 0.003 inch for a person with 20/20 vision.
The second way that LPI improves the detectability of a flaw is that it produces a flaw
indication with a high level of contrast between the indication and the background which also
helps to make the indication more easily seen. When a visible dye penetrant inspection is
performed, the penetrant materials are formulated using a bright red dye that provides for a
high level of contrast between the white developer that serves as a background as well as to
pull the trapped penetrant from the flaw. When a fluorescent penetrant inspection is performed,
the penetrant materials are formulated to glow brightly and to give off light at a wavelength that
the eye is most sensitive to under dim lighting conditions.
Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection
1. Surface Preparation: One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant inspection is
the surface preparation. The surface must be free of oil, grease, water, or other
contaminants that may prevent penetrant from entering flaws. The sample may also
require etching if mechanical operations such as machining, sanding, or grit blasting
have been performed. These and other mechanical operations can smear the surface of
the sample, thus closing the defects.
2. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly

cleaned and dried, the penetrant material is applied by spraying,
brushing, or immersing the parts in a penetrant bath.

3. Penetrant
Dwell: The
penetrant is left
on the surface
for a sufficient
time to allow as
much penetrant as possible to be drawn from or to seep into a defect. Penetrant dwell
time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface. Dwell times
are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or required by the specification
being followed. The times vary depending on the application, penetrant materials used,
the material, the form of the material being inspected, and the type of defect being
inspected. Minimum dwell times typically range from 5 to 60 minutes. Generally, there is
no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to
dry. The ideal dwell time is often determined by experimentation and is often very
specific to a particular application.
4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This is a most delicate part of the inspection procedure
because the excess penetrant must be removed from the surface of the sample while
removing as little penetrant as possible from defects. Depending on the penetrant
system used, this step may involve cleaning with a solvent, direct rinsing with water, or
first treated with an emulsifier and then rinsing with water .
5. Developer Application: A thin layer of developer is then applied to the sample to draw
penetrant trapped in flaws back to the surface where it will be visible. Developers come
in a variety of forms that may be applied by dusting (dry powdered), dipping, or spraying
(wet developers).

6. Indication Development: The developer is allowed to stand on the part surface for a
period of time sufficient to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of any
surface flaws. This development time is usually a minimum of 10 minutes and
significantly longer times may be necessary for tight cracks.
7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect indications

from any flaws which may be present.

8. Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to thoroughly clean the part surface to
remove the developer from the parts that were found to be acceptable.
Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection
Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely used nondestructive evaluation
(NDE) methods. Its popularity can be attributed to two main factors, which are its relative ease
of use and its flexibility. LPI can be used to inspect almost any material provided that its
surface is not extremely rough or porous. Materials that are commonly inspected using LPI
include the following:
Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.)

Glass
Many ceramic materials
Rubber
Plastics
LPI offers flexibility in performing inspections because it can be applied in a large variety of
applications ranging from automotive spark plugs to critical aircraft components. Penetrant
material can be applied with a spray can or a cotton swab to inspect for flaws known to occur
in a specific area or it can be applied by dipping or spraying to quickly inspect large areas. At
right, visible dye penetrant being locally applied to a highly loaded connecting point to check
for fatigue cracking.
Penetrant inspection systems have been developed to inspect some very large
components. In this picture, DC-10 banjo fittings are being moved into a penetrant inspection
system at what used to be the Douglas Aircraft Company's Long Beach, California facility.
These large machined aluminum forgings are used to support the number 3 engine in the tail
of a DC-10 aircraft.
Liquid penetrant inspection is used to inspect of flaws that break the surface of the sample.
Some of these flaws are listed below:
Fatigue cracks
Quench cracks
Grinding cracks
Overload and impact fractures
Porosity
Laps
Seams
Pin holes in welds
Lack of fusion or braising along the edge of the bond line
As mentioned above, one of the major limitations of a penetrant inspection is that flaws
must be open to the surface. To learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of LPI
proceed to the next page.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing
Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant inspection has both
advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages and disadvantages when compared
to other NDE methods are summarized below.
Primary Advantages
The method has high sensitive to small surface discontinuities.

The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic and nonmetallic, magnetic and
nonmagnetic, and conductive and nonconductive materials may be inspected.
Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can be inspected rapidly and at low
cost.
Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected.
Indications are produced directly on the surface of the part and constitute a visual
representation of the flaw.
Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable.
Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive.
Primary Disadvantages
Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

Only materials with a relative nonporous surface can
be inspected.
Precleaning is critical as contaminants can mask
defects.
Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or
vapor blasting must be removed prior to LPI.
The inspector must have direct access to the surface
being inspected.
Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection
sensitivity.
Multiple process operations must be performed and
controlled.
Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required.
Chemical handling and proper disposal is required.
Penetrant Testing Materials
The penetrant materials used today are much more sophisticated than the kerosene and
whiting first used by railroad inspectors near the turn of the 20th century. Today's penetrants
are carefully formulated to produce the level of sensitivity desired by the inspector. To perform
well, a penetrant must possess a number of important characteristics. A penetrant must
spread easily over the surface of the material being inspected to provide complete and
even coverage.

be drawn into surface breaking defects by capillary action.
remain in the defect but remove easily from the surface of the part.
remain fluid so it can be drawn back to the surface of the part through the drying and
developing steps.
be highly visible or fluoresce brightly to produce easy to see indications.
must not be harmful to the material being tested or the inspector.
All penetrant materials do not perform the same and are not designed to perform the same.
Penetrant manufactures have developed different formulations to address a variety of
inspection applications. Some applications call for the detection of the smallest defects
possible and have smooth surface where the penetrant is easy to remove. In other applications
the rejectable defect size may be larger and a penetrant formulated to find larger flaws can be
used. The penetrants that are used to detect the smallest defect will also produce the largest
amount of irrelevant indications.
Penetrant materials are classified in the various industry and government specifications by
their physical characteristics and their performance. Aerospace Material Specification (AMS)
2644, Inspection Material, Penetrant, is now the primary specification used in the USA to
control penetrant materials. Historically, Military Standard 25135, Inspection Materials,
Penetrants, has been the primary document for specifying penetrants but this document is
slowly being phased out and replaced by AMS 2644. Other specifications such as ASTM 1417,
Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examinations, may also contain information on the
classification of penetrant materials but they are generally referred back to MIL-I-25135 or AMS 2644.
Penetrant materials come in two basic types. These types are listed below:
Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Type 2 - Visible Penetrants
Fluorescent penetrants contain a dye or several

dyes that fluoresce when exposed to ultraviolet
radiation. Visible penetrants contain a red dye that
provides high contrast against the white developer
background. Fluorescent penetrant systems are
more sensitive than visible penetrant systems
because the eye is drawn to the glow of the
fluorescing indication. However, visible penetrants
do not require a darkened area and an ultraviolet
light in order to make an inspection. Visible
penetrants are also less vulnerable to contamination
from things such as cleaning fluid that can
significantly reduce the strength of a fluorescent
indication.
Penetrants are then classified by the method used to remove the excess penetrant from the
part. The four methods are listed below:

Method A - Water Washable
Method B - Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
Method C - Solvent Removable
Method D - Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Water washable (Method A) penetrants can be removed from the part by rinsing with water
alone. These penetrants contain some emulsifying agent (detergent) that makes it possible to
wash the penetrant from the part surface with water alone. Water washable penetrants are
sometimes referred to as self-emulsifying systems. Post emulsifiable penetrants come in two
varieties, lipophilic and hydrophilic. In post emulsifiers, lipophilic systems (Method B), the
penetrant is oil soluble and interacts with the oil-based emulsifier to make removal possible.
Post emulsifiable, hydrophilic systems (Method D), use an emulsifier that is a water soluble
detergent which lifts the excess penetrant from the surface of the part with a water wash.
Solvent removable penetrants require the use of a solvent to remove the penetrant from the
part.
Penetrants are then classified based on the strength or detectability of the indication that is
produced for a number of very small and tight fatigue cracks. The five sensitivity levels are
shown below:
Level - Ultra Low Sensitivity

Level 1 - Low Sensitivity
Level 2 - Medium Sensitivity
Level 3 - High Sensitivity
Level 4 - Ultra-High Sensitivity
The major US government and industry specifications

currently rely on the US Air Force Materials Laboratory at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base to classify penetrants into one of the
five sensitivity levels. This procedure uses titanium and Inconel
specimens with small surface cracks produced in low cycle
fatigue bending to classify penetrant systems. The brightness of
the indication produced is measured using a photometer. The
sensitivity levels and the test procedure used can be found in
Military Specification MIL-I-25135 and Aerospace Material
Specification 2644, Penetrant Inspection Materials.
An interesting note about the sensitivity levels is that only four levels were originally
planned but when some penetrants were judged to have sensitivities significantly less than
most others in the level 1 category, the level was created. An excellent historical summary of
the development of test specimens for evaluating the performance of penetrant materials can
be found in the following reference.
Penetrants

The industry and military specification that control the penetrant materials and their use
all stipulate certain physical properties of the penetrant materials that must be met. Some of
these requirements address the safe use of the materials, such as toxicity, flash point, and
corrosiveness, and other requirements address storage and contamination issues. Still others
delineate properties that are thought to be primarily responsible for the performance or
sensitivity of the penetrants. The properties of penetrant materials that are controlled by AMS
2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash point, surface wetting capability, viscosity, color,
brightness, ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, water tolerance, and removability.
Emulsifiers
When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-washing of the part is a
concern, a post emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post emulsifiable penetrants
require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water washable. Most
penetrant inspection specifications classify penetrant systems into four methods of excess
penetrant removal. These are listed below:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant from the part being
inspected. Method A has emulsifiers built into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible to
remove the excess penetrant with a simple water wash. Method B and D penetrants require an
additional processing step where a separate emulsification agent is applied to make the
excess penetrant more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic emulsification systems are oil-
based materials that are supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic systems are water-based
and supplied as a concentrate that must be diluted with water prior to use .
Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late 1950's and work with both a
chemical and mechanical action. After the emulsifier has coated the surface of the object,
mechanical action starts to remove some of the excess penetrant as the mixture drains from
the part. During the emulsification time, the emulsifier diffuses into the remaining penetrant and
the resulting mixture is easily removed with a water spray.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the

excess penetrant with mechanical and chemical action but
the action is different because no diffusion takes place.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers are basically detergents that contain
solvents and surfactants. The hydrophilic emulsifier breaks
up the penetrant into small quantities and prevents these
pieces from recombining or reattaching to the surface of the
part. The mechanical action of the rinse water removes the
displaced penetrant from the part and causes fresh remover
to contact and lift newly exposed penetrant from the surface.

The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) was introduced in the mid 1970's and
since it is more sensitive than the lipophilic post emulsifiable method it has made the later
method virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they are less
sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification time should be
controlled as closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time will
have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is used. However, a
variation of as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a significant effect when a lipophilic system
is used.
Developers
The role of the developer is to pull the trapped penetrant material out of defects and to
spread the developer out on the surface of the part so it can be seen by an inspector. The fine
developer particles both reflect and refract the incident ultraviolet light, allowing more of it to
interact with the penetrant, causing more efficient fluorescence. The developer also allows
more light to be emitted through the same mechanism. This is why indications are brighter
than the penetrant itself under UV light. Another function that some developers performs is to
create a white background so there is a greater degree of contrast between the indication and
the surrounding background.
Developer Forms
The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify

developers into six standard forms. These forms
are listed below:
1. Form a - Dry Powder

2. Form b - Water Soluble
3. Form c - Water Suspendible
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent
(Solvent Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye
(Solvent Based)
6. Form f - Special Applications
The developer classifications are based on

the method that the developer is applied. The developer can be applied as a dry powder, or
dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier. Each of the developer forms has advantages and
disadvantages.
Dry Powder
Dry powder developer is generally considered to be the least sensitive but it is

inexpensive to use and easy to apply. Dry developers are white, fluffy powders that can be
applied to a thoroughly dry surface in a number of ways. The developer can be applied by
dipping parts in a container of developer, or by using a puffer to dust parts with the developer.

Parts can also be placed in a dust cabinet where the developer is blown around and allowed to
settle on the part. Electrostatic powder spray guns are also available to apply the developer.
The goal is to allow the developer to come in contact with the whole inspection area.
Unless the part is electrostatically charged, the powder will only adhere to areas where
trapped penetrant has wet the surface of the part. The penetrant will try to wet the surface of
the penetrant particle and fill the voids between the particles, which brings more penetrant to
the surface of the part where it can be seen. Since dry powder developers only stick to the part
where penetrant is present, the dry developer does not provide a uniform white background as
the other forms of developers do. Having a uniform light background is very important for a
visible inspection to be effective and since dry developers do not provide one, they are seldom
used for visible inspections. When a dry developer is used, indications tend to stay bright and
sharp since the penetrant has a limited amount of room to spread.
Water Soluble
As the name implies, water soluble developers consist of a

group of chemicals that are dissolved in water and form a developer
layer when the water is evaporated away. The best method for
applying water soluble developers is by spraying it on the part. The
part can be wet or dry. Dipping, pouring, or brushing the solution on
to the surface is sometimes used but these methods are less
desirable. Aqueous developers contain wetting agents that cause
the solution to function much like dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and
can lead to additional removal of entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by placing the wet
but well drained part in a recalculating warm air dryer with the temperature held between 70
and 75F. If the parts are not dried quickly, the indications will will be blurred and indistinct.
Properly developed parts will have an even, pale white coating over the entire surface.
Water Suspendible
Water suspendible developers consist of insoluble developer particles suspended in

water. Water suspendible developers require frequent stirring or agitation to keep the particles
from settling out of suspension. Water suspendible developers are applied to parts in the same
manner as water soluble developers. Parts coated with a water suspendible developer must be
forced dried just as parts coated with a water soluble developer are forced dried. The surface
of a part coated with a water suspendible developer will have a slightly translucent white
coating.
Non-aqueous

Non-aqueous developers suspend the developer in
a volatile solvent and are typically applied with a spray gun.
Non-aqueous developers are commonly distributed in
aerosol spray cans for portability. The solvent tends to pull
penetrant from the indications
by solvent action. Since the
solvent is highly volatile, forced
drying is not required. A non-
aqueous developer should be
applied to a thoroughly dried
part to form a slightly
translucent white coating.
Special Applications
Plastic or lacquer developers are a special developers that

are primarily used when a permanent record of the inspection is
required.
Preparation of Part
One of the most critical steps in the penetrant inspection process is preparing the part
for inspection. All coatings, such as paints, varnishes, plating, and heavy oxides must be
removed to ensure that defects are open the surface of the part. If the parts have been
machined, sanded, or blasted prior to the penetrant inspection, it is possible that a thin layer of
metal may have smeared across the surface and closed off defects. It is even possible for
metal smearing to occur as a result of cleaning operations such as grit or vapor blasting. This
layer of metal smearing must be removed before inspection.
Contaminants
Coatings, such as paint, are much more elastic than metal

and will not fracture even though a large defect may be present
just below the coating. The part must be thoroughly cleaned as
surface contaminates can prevent the penetrant from entering a
defect. Surface contaminants can also lead to a higher level of
background noise since the excess penetrant may be more
difficult to remove.
Common coatings and contaminates that must be removed

include: paint, dirt, flux, scale, varnish, oil, etchant, smut, plating,
grease, oxide, wax, decals, machining fluid, rust, and residue from
previous penetrant inspections.

Some of these contaminants would obviously prevent penetrant from entering defects
and it is, therefore, clear that they must be removed. However, the impact of other
contaminants such as the residue from previous penetrant inspections is less clear, but they
can have a disastrous affect on the inspection. Take the link below to review some of the
research that has been done to evaluate the effects of contaminants on LPI sensitivity.
A good cleaning procedure will remove all contamination from the part and not leave
any residue that may interfere with the inspection process. It has been found that some
alkaline cleaners can be detrimental to the penetrant inspection process if they have silicates
in concentrations above 0.5 percent. Sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate, and related
compounds can adhere to the surface of parts and form a coating that prevents penetrant
entry into cracks. Researchers in Russia have also found that some domestic soaps and
commercial detergents can clog flaw cavities and reduce the wettability of the metal surface,
thus, reducing the sensitivity of the penetrant. Conrad and Caudill found that media from
plastic media blasting was partially responsible for loss of LPI indication strength.
Microphotographs of cracks after plastic media blasting showed media entrapment in addition
to metal smearing.
It is very important that the material being inspected has not been smeared across its
own surface during machining or cleaning operations. It is well recognized that machining,
honing, lapping, hand sanding, hand scraping, shot peening, grit blasting, tumble de-burring,
and peening operations can cause a small amount of the material to smear on the surface of
some materials. It is perhaps less recognized that some cleaning operations, such as steam
cleaning, can also cause metal smearing in the softer materials. Take the link below to learn
more about metal smearing and its effects on LPI.
Selection of a Penetrant Technique
The selection of a liquid penetrant system is not a straightforward task. There are a
variety of penetrant systems and developer types
that are available for use, and one set of penetrant
materials will not work for all applications. Many
factors must be considered when selecting the
penetrant materials for a particular application.
These factors include the sensitivity required,
materials cost, number of parts and size of area
requiring inspection, and portability.
When sensitivity is the primary consideration

for choosing a penetrant system, the first decision

that must be made is whether to use fluorescent dye penetrant, or visible dye penetrant.
Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable of producing a detectable indication from a
small defect because the human eye is more sensitive to a light indication on a dark
background and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication. The graph below
presents a series of curves that show the contrast ratio required for a spot of a certain
diameter to be seen. The curves show that for indications spots larger than 0.076 mm (0.003
inch) in diameter, it does not really matter if it is a dark spot on a light background or a dark
spot on a light background. However, when a dark indication on a light background is further
reduced in size, it is no longer detectable even though contrast is increased. Furthermore, with
a light indication on a dark background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001 inch) were
detectable when the contrast between the flaw and the background was high enough.
From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an advantage over
visible penetrant for finding very small defects. Data presented by De Graaf and De Rijk
supports this statement. They inspected "Identical" fatigue cracked specimens using a red dye
penetrant and a fluorescent dye penetrant. The fluorescent penetrant found 60 defects while
the visible dye was only able to find 39 of the defects.
Ref: De Graaf, E. and De Rijk, P., Comparison Between Reliability, Sensitivity, and
Accuracy of Nondestructive Inspection Methods, 13th Symposium on Nondestructive
Evaluation Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, published by NTIAC, Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, TX, April 1981, pp. 311-322.
Ref: Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963 Lester Honor
Lecture, Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 354-368.
Under certain conditions, the visible penetrant may be a better choice. When fairly large
defects are the subject of the inspection, a high sensitivity system may not be warranted and
may result in a large number of irrelevant indications. Visible dye penetrants have also been

found to give better results when surface roughness is high or when flaws are located in areas
such as weldments.
Since visible dye penetrants do not require a darkened area for the use of an ultraviolet
light, visible systems are more easy to use in the field. Solvent removable penetrants, when
properly applied can have the highest sensitivity and are very convenient to use but are usually
not practical for large area inspection or in high-volume production settings.
Another consideration in the selection of a penetrant system is whether water washable,

post-emulsifiable or solvent removable penetrants will be used. Post-emulsifiable systems are
designed to reduce the possibility of over-washing, which is one of the factors known to reduce
sensitivity. However, these systems add another step, and thus cost, to the inspection process.
Penetrants are evaluated by the US Air Force according to the requirements in MIL-I-
25135 and each penetrant system is classified into one of five sensitivity levels. This procedure
uses titanium and Inconel specimens with small surface cracks produced in low cycle fatigue
bending to classify penetrant systems. The brightness of the indications produced after
processing a set of specimens with a particular penetrant system is measured using a
photometer. A procedure for producing and evaluating the penetrant qualification specimens
was reported on by Moore and Larson at the 1997 ASNT Fall Conference. Most commercially
available penetrant materials are listed in the Qualified Products List of MIL-I-25135 according
to their type, method and sensitivity level. Visible dye and dual-purpose penetrants are not
classified into sensitivity levels as fluorescent penetrants are. The sensitivity of a visible dye
penetrant is regarded as level 1 and largely dependent on obtaining good contrast between the
indication and the background.
Penetrant Application and Dwell Time
The penetrant material can be applied in a number

of different ways which include spraying, brushing, or
immersing the parts in a penetrant bath. The method of
penetrant application
has little effect on the
inspection sensitivity
but an electrostatic
spraying method is
reported to produce
slightly better results
than other methods.
Once the part is
covered in penetrant it
must be allowed to dwell so the penetrant has time to
enter any defect present.
There are basically two dwell mode options,

immersion-dwell (keeping the part immersed in the

penetrant during the dwell period) or drain-dwell (letting the part drain during the dwell period).
Prior to a study by Sherwin, the immersion-dwell mode was generally considered to be more
sensitive but recognized to be less economical because more penetrant was washed away
and emulsifiers were contaminated more rapidly. The reasoning for thinking this method was
more sensitive was that the penetrant was more migratory and more likely to fill flaws when
kept completely fluid and not allowed to loose volatile constituents by evaporation. However,
Sherwin showed that if the specimens are allowed to drain-dwell, the sensitivity is higher
because the evaporation increases the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the
specimen. As pointed-out in section 3.1.5, sensitivity increases as the dyestuff concentration
increases. Sherwin also cautions that the samples being inspected should be placed outside
the penetrant tank wall so that vapors from the tank do not accumulate and dilute the dyestuff
concentration of the penetrant on the specimen.
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the Sensitivity Versus
Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing,
Pergamon Press, Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York, Volume 4, September
1987, pp. 2814-2823.
-- Sherwin, A.G., Establishing Liquid Penetrant Dwell Modes, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 32, No.
3, March 1974, pp. 63-67.
Penetrant Dwell Time
Penetrant dwell time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface.
The dwell time is important because it allows the penetrant the time necessary to be drawn or
to seep into a defect. Dwell times are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or
required by the specification being followed. The time required to fill a flaw depends on a
number of variables which include the following:
The surface tension of the penetrant.

The contact angle of the penetrant.
The dynamic shear viscosity of the penetrant, which can vary with the diameter of the
capillary. The viscosity of a penetrant in micro capillary flaws is higher than its viscosity
in bulk, which slows the infiltration of the tight flaws.
The atmospheric pressure at the flaw opening.
The capillary pressure at the flaw opening.
The pressure of the gas trapped in the flaw by the penetrant.
The radius of the flaw or the distance between the flaw walls.
The density or specific gravity of the penetrant.
Micro structural properties of the penetrant.
The ideal dwell time is often determined by experimentation and is often very specific to a
particular application. For example, AMS 2647A requires that the dwell time for all aircraft and
engine be at least 20 minutes while the ASTM E1209 only requires a 5 minute dwell time for

parts made of titanium and other heat resistant alloys. Generally, there is no harm in using a
longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to dry.
The following tables summarize the dwell time requirements of several commonly used
specifications. The information provided below is intended for general reference and no
guarantee is made about its correctness or currentness. Please consult the specifications for
the actual dwell time requirements.


Some Research Results on Dwell Time
An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is that if the elliptical flaw has
a length to width ratio of 100 it will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than a
cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
-- Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing, Journal
of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July-August 1979, pp. 287-
291.

Lord and Holloway looked for the optimum penetrant
dwell time required for detecting several types of defects
in titanium. Both a level 2 post-emulsifiable fluorescent
penetrant (Magnaflux ZL-2A penetrant and ZE-3
emulsifier) and a level 2 water washable penetrant
(Tracer-Tech P-133A penetrant) were included in the
study. The effect of the developer was a variable in the
study and nonaqueous wet, aqueous wet, and dry
developers were included. Specimens were also
processed using no developer. The specimen defects
included stress corrosion cracks, fatigue cracks and
porosity. As expected, the researchers found that the
optimal dwell time varied with the type of defect and
developer used. The following table summarizes some of
the findings.
Penetrant Removal Process
The penetrant removal procedure must effectively remove the penetrant from the
surface of the part without removing an appreciable amount of entrapped penetrant from the
defect. If the removal process extracts penetrant from the flaw, the flaw indication will be
reduced by a proportional amount. If the penetrant is not effectively removed from the part
surface, the contrast between the indication and the background will be reduced. As discussed
in Contrast Sensitivity Section, as the contrast increases so does visibility of the indication.
Removal Method
Penetrant systems are classified into four methods of excess penetrant removal. These
include the following:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable

4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C, Solvent Removable, is used primarily for inspecting small localized areas as this
method requires hand wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with the solvent remover, and
this process is too labor intensive for most production situations. Of the three production
penetrant inspection methods, Method A, Water-Washable, is the most economical to apply.
Water-washable or self-emulsifiable penetrants contain an emulsifier as an integral part of the
formulation. The excess penetrant may be removed from the object surface, with a simple
water rinse. These materials have the property of forming relatively viscous gels upon contact
with water, which results in the formation of gel-like plugs in surface openings. While they are
completely soluble in water, given enough contact time, the plugs offer a brief period of
protection against rapid wash removal. Thus, water-washable penetrant systems provide ease
of use and a high level of sensitivity.
When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-washing of the part is a
concern, a post-emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants
require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water washable. The
emulsifier is usually applied by dipping the object. Hydrophilic emulsifiers may also be sprayed
on the object but spraying is not recommended for lipophilic emulsifiers because it can result in
non-uniform emulsification if not properly applied. Brushing the emulsifier on to the part is not
recommended because the bristles of the brush may force emulsifier into discontinuities
causing the entrapped penetrant to be removed. The emulsifier is allowed sufficient time to
react with the penetrant on the surface of the part but not given time to make its way into
defects to react with the trapped penetrant. The penetrant that has reacted with the emulsifier
is easily cleaned away. Controlling the reaction time is of essential importance when using a
post-emulsifiable system. If the emulsification time is too short, an excessive amount of
penetrant will be left on the surface leading to high background levels. If the emulsification time
is too long, the emulsifier will react with the penetrant entrapped in discontinuities making it
possible to deplete the amount needed to form an indication.
The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) is more sensitive than the lipophilic
post emulsifiable method (Method B). Since these methods are generally only used when very
high sensitivity is needed, Method D is almost always used making Method B virtually
obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they are less sensitive to
variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification time should be controlled as
closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time will have little effect
on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is used, but a variation of as little as 15 to 30
seconds can have a significant effect when a lipophilic system is used. Using an emulsifier
involves adding a couple of steps to the penetrant process and ,therefore, slightly increases
the cost of an inspection. When using an emulsifier, the penetrant process includes the
following steps (extra steps in bold): 1. pre-clean part, 2. apply penetrant and allow to dwell, 3.
pre-rinse to remove first layer of penetrant, 4. apply hydrophilic emulsifier,and allow contact for
specified time, 5. rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6. dry part, 7. apply developer and allow
part to develop, and 8. inspect.
Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants

The method used to rinsing the excess penetrant from the object surface and the time
of the rinse should be controlled so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended
that a coarse spray rinse or an air agitated, immersion wash tank be used. When a spray is
being used, it should be directed at a 45 angle to the part surface so as to not force water
directly into any discontinuities that may be present. The spray or immersion time should be
kept to a minimum through frequent inspections of the remaining background level. When
using
Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants
When a solvent removable penetrant is used, care must also be taken to carefully
remove the penetrant from the part surface while removing as little as possible from the flaw.
The first step in this cleaning procedure is to dry wipe the surface of the part in one direction
using a white lint free cotton rag. One dry pass in one direction is all that should be used to
remove as much penetrant as possible. Next, the surface should be wiped with one pass in
one direction with a cleaner moistened rag. One dry pass followed by one damp pass is all that
is recommended. Additional wiping may sometimes be necessary but keep in mind that with
every additional wipe, some of the entrapped penetrant will be removed and inspection
sensitivity will be reduced.
To study the effects of the wiping process, Japanese researchers manufactured a test
specimen out of acrylic plates that allowed them to view the movement of the penetrant in a
narrow cavity. The sample consisted of two pieces of acrylic with two thin sheets of vinyl
clamped between as spaces. The plates were clamped in the corners and all but one of the
edges sealed. The unsealed edge acted as the flaw. The clearance between the plates varied
from 15 microns (0.059 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.118 inch) at the midpoint
between the clamps. The distance between the clamping points is believed to be 30 mm (1.18
inch).
Although the size of the flaw represented by this specimen is large, an interesting
observation was made. They found that when the surface of the specimen was wiped with a
dry cloth, penetrant was blotted and removed from the flaw at the corner areas were the
clearance between the plate was least. When the penetrant at the side areas was removed,
penetrant moved horizontally from the center area to the ends of the simulated crack where
capillary forces are stronger. Therefore, across the crack length, the penetrant surface has a
parabola-like shape where the liquid is at the surface in the corners but depressed in the
center. This shows that each time the cleaning cloth touches the edge of a crack, penetrant is
lost from the defect. This also explains why the bleedout of an indication is often largest at the
corners of cracks.
Selection of a Developer
The use of developer is almost always recommended. One study reported that the
output from a fluorescent penetrant could be multiplied by up to seven times when a suitable
powder developer was used. Another study showed that the use of developer can have a
dramatic effect on the probability of detection (POD) of an inspection. When a Haynes Alloy

188, flat panel specimen with a low-cycle fatigue crack was inspected without a developer, a
90 % POD was never reached with crack lengths as long as 19 mm (0.75 inch). The operator
detected only 86 of 284 cracks and had 70 false-calls. When a developer was used, a 90 %
POD was reached at 2 mm (0.077 inch), with the inspector identifying 277 of 311 cracks with
no false-calls. However in some Some authors have reported that in special situations the use
of a developer may actually reduce sensitivity. These situations primarily occur when large,
well defined defects are being inspected on a surface that contains many nonrelevant
indications that cause excessive bleedout.
Type of Developer Used and Method of Application
Nonaqueous developers are generally recognized as the most sensitive when properly
applied. There is less agreement on the performance of dry and aqueous wet developers but
the aqueous developers are usually considered more sensitive. Aqueous wet developers form
a finer matrix of particles that is more in contact with the part surface. However, if the thickness
of the coating becomes too great, defects can be masked. Also aqueous wet developers can
cause leaching and blurring of indications when used with water washable penetrants. The
relative sensitivities of developers and application techniques as ranked in Volume II of the
Nondestructive Testing Handbook are shown in the table below. There is general industry
agreement with this table, but some industry experts feel that water suspendible developers
are more sensitive than water-soluble developers.
Sensitivity ranking of developers per the Nondestructive Testing Handbook.

Sensitivity Ranking (highest to lowest) Developer Form Application Technique.
Ranking Developer Form Method of Application

1 Nonaqueous Wet Solvent Spray
2 Plastic Film Spray
3 water-soluble Spray
4 Water Suspendible Spray
5 water-soluble Immersion
6 Water Suspendible Immersion
7 Dry Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)
8 Dry Fluidized Bed
9 Dry Dust Cloud (Air Agitation)
10 Dry Immersion (Dip)
The following TABLE lists the main advantages and disadvantages of the various
developer types.

To Developer Advantages Disadvantages
Does not form contrast

Indications tend to remain brighter background so cannot be used
Dry and more distinct over time with visible systems
Easily to apply Difficult to assure entire part
surface has been coated
Ease of coating entire part Coating is translucent and

White coating for good contrast provides poor contrast (not
Soluble can be produced which work well recommended for visual systems)
for both visible and fluorescent Indications for water washable
systems systems are dim and blurred
Ease of coating entire part
Indications are bright and sharp

Indications weaken and become
Suspendible
White coating for good contrast diffused after time
can be produced which work well
for both visible and fluorescent
systems
Very portable
Easy to apply to readily accessible

surfaces
White coating for good contrast Difficult to apply evenly to all

can be produced which work well surfaces
Nonaqueous
for both visible and fluorescent More difficult to clean part after
systems inspection
Indications show-up rapidly and

are well defined
Provides highest sensitivity
Process Control of Temperature
The temperature of the penetrant materials and the part being

inspected can have an effect on the results. Temperatures from 27

to 49oC (80 to 120oF) are reported in the literature to produce optimal results. Many
specification allow testing in the range of 4 to 52oC (40 to 125oF). A tip to remember is that
surfaces that can be touched for an extended period of time without burning the skin are
generally below 52oC (125oF).
Since the surface tension of most materials decrease as the temperature increases,
raising the temperature of the penetrant will increase the wetting of the surface and the
capillary forces. Of course, the converse is also true and lowering the temperature will have a
negative effect on the flow characteristics. Raising the temperature will also raise the speed of
evaporation of penetrants, which can have a positive or negative effect on sensitivity. The
impact will be positive if the evaporation serves to increase the dye concentration of the
penetrant trapped in a flaw up to the concentration quenching point and not beyond. Higher
temperatures and more rapid evaporation will have a negative effect if the dye concentration is
caused to exceed the concentration quenching point or the flow characteristics are changed to
the point where the penetrant does not readily flow.
The method of processing a hot part was once commonly employed. Parts were either
heated or processed hot off the production line. In its day, this served to increase inspection
sensitivity by increasing the viscosity of the penetrant. However, the penetrant materials used
today have 1/2 to 1/3 the viscosity of the penetrants on the market in the 1960's and 1970's.
Heating the part prior to inspection is no longer necessary and no longer recommended.
Quality Control of Penetrant
The quality of a penetrant inspection is highly dependent on the quality of the penetrant
materials used. Only products meeting the requirements of an industry specification, such as
AMS 2644, should be used. The performance of a penetrant can be affected by contamination
and aging. Contamination by another liquid will change the surface tension and contact angle
of the solution, and virtually all organic dyes deteriorate over time resulting in a loss of color or
fluorescent response. Therefore, regular checks must be performed to insure that the material
performance has not degraded.
When the penetrant is first received from the manufacturer, a sample of the fresh
solution should be collected and stored as a standard for future comparison. The standard
specimen should be stored in an opaque glass or metal, sealed container. Penetrants that are
in-use should be compared regularly against the standard specimen to detect changes in color,
odor and consistency. When using fluorescent penetrants, a brightness comparison per the
requirements of ASTM E 1417 is also often required. This check involves placing a drop of the
standard and the in-use penetrants on a piece of Whatman #4 filter paper and making a side
by side comparison of the brightness of the two spots under UV light.
Additionally, the water content of water washable penetrants must be checked regularly.
When water contaminates oil-based penetrants, the surface tension and contact angle of the
mixture will increase since water has a higher surface tension than most oil-based penetrants
In self-emulsifiable penetrants, water contamination can produce a gel break or emulsion
inversion when the water concentration becomes high enough. The formation of the gel is an

important feature during the washing processes but must be avoided until the stage in the
process. Data indicates that the water contamination must be significant (greater than 10%) for
gel formation to occur. Most specification limit water contamination to around 5% to be
conservative. Non-water-based, water washable penetrants are checked using the procedure
specified in ASTM D95 or ASTM E 1417. Water-based, water washable penetrants are
checked with a refractometer. The rejection criteria is different for different penetrants so the
requirements of the qualifying specification or the manufacturer's instructions must be
consulted.
Application of the Penetrant
The application of the penetrant is the step of the process that requires the least amount
of control. As long as the surface being inspected receives a generous coating of penetrant, it
really doesn't matter how the penetrant is applied. Generally, the application method is an
economic or convenience decision.
It is important that the part be thoroughly cleaned and dried. Any contaminates or
moisture on the surface of the part or within a flaw can prevent the penetrant material from
entering the defect. The part should also be cool to the touch. The recommended range of
temperature is 4 to 52oC (39 to 125oF).
Quality Control of Wash Temperature and Pressure
The wash temperature and pressure and time are three parameters that are typically
controlled in penetrant inspection process specification. A coarse spray or an immersion wash
tank with air agitation is often used. When the spray method is used, the water pressure is
usually limited to 276 kN/m2 (40 psi). The temperature range of the water is usually specified
as a wide range (ex. 10 to 38C (50 to 100 F) in AMS 2647A.) A low-pressure, coarse water
spray will force less water into flaws to dilute and/or remove trapped penetrant and weaken the
indication. The temperature will have an effect on the surface tension of the water and warmer
water will have more wetting action than cold water. Warmer water temperatures may also
make emulsifiers and detergent more effective. The wash time should only be as long as
necessary to decrease the background to an acceptable level. Frequent visual checks of the
part should be made to determine when the part has be adequately rinsed.
Summary of Research on Wash Method Variables
Vaerman evaluated the effect that rinse time had on one high sensitivity water-washable
penetrant and two post-emulsifiable penetrants (one medium and one high sensitivity). The
evaluation was conducted using TESCO panels numerous cracks ranging in depth from 5 to
100 microns deep. A 38 percent decrease in sensitivity for the water-washable penetrant was
seen when the rinse time was increased from 25 to 60 seconds. When the rinse times of two
post-emulsifiable penetrants were increased from 20 to 60 seconds, a loss in sensitivity was
seen in both cases but it was much reduced from the loss seen with the water-washable
system. The relative sensitivity loss over the range of crack depths was 13 percent for the
penetrant with medium sensitivity and roughly percent for the high sensitivity penetrant.

- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the
Sensitivity Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House,
Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York, Volume 4, September 1987, pp. 2814-2823.
In a 1972 paper by N.H. Hyam, the effects of the rinse time on the sensitivity of two
level 4 water-washable penetrants are examined. It was reported that sensitivity decreased as
spray-rinse time increased and that one of the penetrants was more affected by rinse time than
the others. Alburger, points-out that some conventional fluorescent dyes are slightly soluble in
water and can be leached out during the washing processes.
- Hyam, N. H., Quantitative Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of

Penetrant Systems, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 1972, pp. 31-
38.
Brittian evaluated the effect of wash time on a water-washable, level 4 penetrant

(Ardrox 970P25) and found that indication brightness decreases rapidly in the first minute of
wash and then slowed. The brightness value dropped from a relative value of 1100 to
approximately 500 in the first minute and then continued to decrease nearly linearly to a value
of 200 after five minutes of wash. Brittian concluded that wash time for water-washable
systems should be kept to a minimum.
- Brittain, P.I., Assessment of Penetrant Systems by Fluorescent Intensity,

Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 4,
Published by Perganon Press, 1988, pp. 2814-2823.
Robinson and Schmidt used a Turner fluorometer to evaluate the variability that some of
the processing steps can produce in the brightness of indications. To find out how much effect
the wash procedure had on sensitivity, Tesco cracked, chrome-plated panels, were processed
a number of times using the same materials but three different wash methods. The washing
methods included spraying the specimens with a handheld nozzle, holding the specimens
under a running tap, and using a washing machine that controlled the water pressure,
temperature, spray pattern and wash time. The variation in indication brightness readings
between five trials was reported. The variation was 16 percent for the running tap water, 14
percent for the handheld spray nozzle and 4.5 percent for the machine wash.
Quality Control of Drying Process
The temperature used to dry parts after the application of aqueous wet developer or
prior to the application of a dry powder or a nonaqueous wet developer, must be controlled to
prevent "cooking" of the penetrant in the defect. High drying temperature can affect penetrants
in a couple of ways. First, some penetrants can fade at high temperatures due to dye
vaporization or sublimation. Second, high temperatures can cause the penetrant to dry in the
the flaw preventing it from migrating to the surface to produce an indication. To prevent
harming the penetrant material, drying temperature should be kept to under 71 degree
centigrade.

The drying should be limited to the minimum length of time necessary to thoroughly dry
the component being inspected.
Quality Control of Developer
The function of the developer is very important in a penetrant inspection. It must draw
out of the discontinuity a sufficient amount of penetrant to form an indication, and it must
spread the penetrant out on the surface to produce a visible indication. In a fluorescent
penetrant inspection, the amount of penetrant brought to the surface must exceed the dye's
thin film threshold of fluorescence of the indication will not fluoresce. Additionally, the
developer makes fluorescent indications appear brighter than indications produced with the
same amount of dye but without the developer.
In order to accomplish these functions, a developer must adhere to the part surface and
result in a uniform, highly porous layer with many paths for the penetrant to be moved due to
capillary action. Some developers are applied wet and other dry, but the desired end result is
always a uniform, highly porous, surface layer. Since the quality control requirements for each
of the developer types is slightly different, they will be covered individually.
Dry Powder Developer
A dry powder developer should be checked daily to ensure that it is fluffy and not caked.
It should be similar to fresh powdered sugar and not granulated like powered soup. It should
also be relatively free from specks of fluorescent penetrant material from previous inspection.
This check is performed by spreading a sample of the developer out and examining it under
UV light. If there are ten or more fluorescent specks in an 10 cm diameter area, the batch
should be discarded.
Apply a light coat of the developer by immersing the test component or dusting the
surface. After the development time, excessive powder can be removed by gently blowing on
the surface with air not exceeding 35 kPa or 5 psi.
Wet Soluble/Suspendible Developer
Wet soluble developer must be completely dissolved in the water and wet suspendible
developer must be thoroughly mixed prior to application. The concentration of powder in the
carrier solution must be controlled in these developers. The concentration should be checked
at least weekly using a hydrometer to make sure it meets the manufacturer's specification. To
check for contamination, the solution should be examined weekly using both white light and
UV light. If a scum is present or the solution fluoresces, it should be replaced. Some
specification require that a clean aluminum panel be dipped in the developer, dried, and
examined for indications of contamination by fluorescent penetrant materials.
These developers are apply immediately after the final wash. A uniform coating should
be applied by spraying, flowing or immersion of the component. They should never be applied
with a brush. Care should be taken to avoid a heavy accumulation of the developer solution in

crevices and recesses. Prolonged contact of the component with the developer solution should
be avoided in order to minimize dilution or removal of the penetrant from discontinuities.
Solvent Suspendible
Solvent suspendible developers are typically supplied in an sealed aerosol spray can.
Since the developer solution is in a sealed vessel, direct check of the solution are not possible.
However, the way that the developer is dispensed must be monitored. The spray developer
should produce a fine, even coating on the surface of the part. Make sure the can is well
shaken and apply a thin coating to a test article. If the spray produces spatters or other an
uneven coating the can should be discarded.
When applying a solvent suspendible developer, it is up to the inspector to control the

thickness of the coating. When a visible penetrant system, the developer coating must be thick
enough to provide a white contrasting background but not heavy enough to mask indications.
When using a fluorescent penetrant system, a very light coating should be used. The
developer should be applied under white light condition and should appear evenly transparent.
Development Time
Part should be allowed to develop for a minimum of 10 minutes and no more than 2
hours before inspecting.
Quality Control of Lighting
After a component has been properly processed, it

is ready for inspection. While automated vision inspection
systems are sometimes used, the focus here will be on
inspection performed visually by a human inspector as this
is the dominate method. Proper lighting is of great
importance when visually inspecting a surface for a
penetrant indication. Obviously, the lighting requirements
are different for an inspection conducted using a visible dye
penetrant than they are for an inspection conducted using a
fluorescent dye penetrant. The lighting requirements for
each of these techniques, as well as how light
measurements are made, is discussed below.
Lighting for Visible Dye Penetrant Inspections
When using a visible penetrant, the intensity of the white light is of principal importance.
Inspections can be conducted using natural lighting or artificial lighting. When using natural
lighting, it is important to keep in mind that daylight varies from hour to hour so inspector must
stay constantly aware on the lighting conditions and make adjustment when needed. To

improve uniformity in lighting from one inspection to the next, the use of artificial lighting is
recommended. Artificial lighting should be white whenever possible and white flood or halogen
lamps are most commonly used. The light intensity is required to be 100 foot-candles at the
surface being inspected. It is advisable to choose a white light wattage that will provide
sufficient light, but avoid excessive reflected light that could distract from the inspection.
Lighting for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections
When a fluorescent penetrant is being employed, the ultraviolet illumination and the
visible light inside the inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are excited by the UV of
365-nm wavelength and emit visible light somewhere in the green-yellow range between 520
and 580 nm. The source of ultraviolet light (UV) is often a mercury arc lamp with a filter. The
lamps emit many wavelengths and a filter is used to remove all but the UV and a small amount
of visible light between 310 and 410 nm. Visible light of wavelengths above 410 nm interferes
with contrast, and UV emissions below 310 nm include some hazardous wavelengths.
Standards and procedures require verification of lens condition and light intensity. Black
lights should never be used with a cracked filter as output of white light and harmful black light
will be increased. The cleanliness of the filter should also be checked as a coating of solvent
carrier, oils, or other foreign materials can reduce the intensity by up to as much as 50%. The
filter should be checked visually and cleaned as necessary before warm-up of the light.
Since fluorescent brightness is linear with respect to ultraviolet excitation, a change in

the intensity of the light (from age or damage) and a change in the distance of the light source
from the surface being inspected will have a direct impact on the inspection. For UV lights
used in component evaluations, the normally accepted intensity is 1000 microwatts per square
centimeter when measured at 15 inches from the filter face (requirements can vary from 800 to
1200 W/cm2). The required check should be performed when a new bulb is installed, at
startup of the inspection cycle, if a change in intensity is noticed, or every eight hours of
continuous use. Regularly checking the intensity of UV lights is very important because bulbs
loose intensity over time. In fact, a bulb that is near the end of its operating life will often have
an intensity of only 25 percent of its original output.
Black light intensity will also be affected by voltage variations. A bulb that produces
acceptable intensity at 120 volts will produce significantly less at 110 volts. For this reason it is
important to provide constant voltage to the light. Also, most UV light must be warmed up prior
to use and should be on for at least 15 minutes before beginning an inspection.
When performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection, it is important to keep white light to

a minimum as it will significantly reduce the inspectors ability to detect fluorescent indications.
Light levels of less than 2 fc are required by most procedures with some procedures requiring
less than 0.5 fc at the inspection surface. Procedures require a check and documentation of
ambient white light in the inspection area. When checking black light intensity at 15 inches a
reading of the white light produced by the black light may be required to verify white light is
being removed by the filter.
Light Measurement
Light intensity measurements are made using a radiometer. A radiometer is an
instrument that translates light energy into an electrical current. Light striking a silicon
photodiode detector causes a charge to build up between internal layers. When an external
circuit is connected to the cell, an electrical current is produced. This current is linear with
respect to incident light. Some radiometers have the ability to measure both black and white
light, while others require a separate sensor for each measurement. Whichever type is used,
the sensing area should be clean and free of any materials that could reduce or obstruct light
reaching the sensor. Radiometers are relatively unstable instruments and readings often
change considerable over time. Therefore, they should be calibrated at least every six months.
Ultraviolet light measurements should be taken using a fixture to maintain a minimum

distance of 15 inches from the filter face to the sensor. The sensor should be centered in the
light field to obtain and record the highest reading. UV spot lights are often focused, so
intensity readings will vary considerable over a small area.
White lights are seldom focused and depending on the
wattage, will often produce in excess of the 100 fc at 15
inches. Many specifications do not require the white light
intensity check to be conducted at a specific distance.
System Performance Check
System performance checks involve processing a test

specimen with known defects to determine if the process will
reveal discontinuities of the size required. The specimen must
be processed following the same procedure used to process
production parts. A system performance check is typically
required daily, at the reactivation of a system after
maintenance or repairs, or any time the system is suspected
of being out of control. As with penetrant inspections in
general, results are directly dependent on the skill of the
operator and, therefore, each operator should process a
panel.
The ideal specimen is a production item that has natural defects of the minimum
acceptable size. Some specification delineate the type and size of the defects that must be
present in the specimen and detected. Surface finish is will affect washability so the check
specimen should have the same surface finish as the production parts being processed. If
penetrant systems with different sensitivity levels are being used, there should be a separate
specimen for each system.
There are some universal test specimens that can be used if a standard part is not
available. The most commonly used test specimen is the TAM or PSM panel. These panel are
usually made of stainless steel that has been chrome plated on one half and surfaced finished
on the other half to produced the desired roughness. The chrome plated section is impacted
from the back side to produce a starburst set of cracks in the chrome. There are five impacted
areas to produce range of crack sizes. Each panel has a characteristic signature and

variances in that signature are indications of process variance. Panel patterns as well as
brightness are indicators of process consistency or variance.
Care of system performance check specimens is critical. Specimens should be handled

carefully to avoid damage. They should be cleaned thoroughly between uses and storage in a
solvent is generally recommended. Before processing a specimen, it should be inspected
under UV light to make sure that it is clean and not already producing an indication.
Nature of the Defect
The nature of the defect can have a large affect on sensitivity of a liquid penetrant
inspection. Sensitivity is defined as the smallest defect that can be detected with a high degree
of reliability. Typically, the crack length at the sample surface is used to define size of the
defect. A survey of any probability-of-detection curve for penetrant inspection will quickly lead
one to the conclusion that crack length has a definite affect on sensitivity. However, the crack
length alone does not determine whether a flaw will be seen or go undetected. The volume of
the defect is likely to be the more important feature. The flaw must be of sufficient volume so
that enough penetrant will bleed back out to a size that is detectable by the eye or that will
satisfy the dimensional thresholds of fluorescence.

Above is an example of fluorescent penetrant inspection probability of detection (POD)

curve from the Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book. Please note that this
curve is specific to one set of inspection conditions and should not be interpreted to apply to
other inspection situations.
In general, penetrant inspections are more effective at finding,
Small round defects than small linear defects. Small round defects are generally easier to
detect for several reasons. First, they are typically volumetric defects that can trap
significant amounts of penetrant. Second, round defects fill with penetrant faster than
linear defects. One research effort found that elliptical flaw with length to width ratio of
100, will take the penetrant nearly 10 times longer to fill than a cylindrical flaw with the
same volume.
Deeper flaws than shallow flaws. Deeper flaws will trap more penetrant than shallow
flaws, and they are less prone to over washing.
flaws with a narrow opening at the surface than wide open flaws. Flaws with narrow
surface openings are less prone to over washing.
Flaws on smooth surfaces than on rough surfaces. The surface roughness of the part
primarily affects the removability of a penetrant. Rough surfaces tend to trap more
penetrant in the various tool marks, scratches, and pits that make up the surface.
Removing the penetrant from the surface of the part is more difficult and a higher level
of background fluorescence or over washing may occur.

Flaws with rough fracture surfaces than smooth fracture surfaces. The surface
roughness that the fracture faces is a factor in the speed at which a penetrant enters a
defect. In general, the penetrant spreads faster over a surface as the surface roughness
increases. It should be noted that a particular penetrant may spread slower than others
on a smooth surface but faster than the rest on a rougher surface.
Flaws under tensile or no loading than flaws under compression loading. In a 1987
study at the University College London, the effect of crack closure on detectability was
evaluated. Researchers used a four-point bend fixture to place tension and
compression loads on specimens that were fabricated to contain fatigue cracks. All
cracks were detected with no load and with tensile loads placed on the parts. However,
as compressive loads were placed on the parts, the crack length steadily decreased as
load increased until a load was reached when the crack was no longer detectable
Health and Safety Precautions in Liquid Penetrant Inspection
When proper health and safety precautions are followed, liquid penetrant inspection operations
can be completed without harm to inspection personnel. However, there are a number of
health and safety related issues that must be addressed. Since each inspection operation will
have its own unique set of health and safety concerns that must be addressed, only a few of
the most common concerns will be discussed here.
Chemical Safety
Whenever chemicals must be handled, certain precautions must be taken as directed by the
material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the chemicals. Before working with a chemical of any
kind, it is highly recommended that the MSDS be reviewed so that proper chemical safety and
hygiene practices can be followed. Some of the penetrant materials are flammable and,
therefore, should be used and stored in small quantities. They should only be used in a well
ventilated area and ignition sources avoided. Eye protection should always be worn to prevent
contact of the chemicals with the eyes. Many of the chemicals used contain detergents and
solvents that can dermatitis. Gloves and other protective clothing should be worn to limit
contact with the chemicals.
Ultraviolet Light Safety
Ultraviolet (UV) light or "black light" as it is sometimes called, has wavelengths ranging from
180 to 400 nanometers. These wavelengths place UV light in the invisible part of the
electromagnetic spectrum between visible light and X-rays. The most familiar source of UV
radiation is the the sun and is necessary in small doses for certain chemical processes to
occur in the body. However, too much exposure can be harmful to the skin and eyes.

Excessive UV light exposure can cause painful sunburn, accelerate wrinkling and increase the
risk of skin cancer. UV light can cause eye inflammation, cataracts, and retinal damage.
Because of their close proximity, laboratory devices, like UV lamps, deliver UV light at a much
higher intensity than the sun and, therefore, can cause injury much more quickly. The greatest
threat with UV light exposure is that the individual is generally unaware that the damage is
occurring. There is usually no pain associated with the injury until several hours after the
exposure. Skin and eye damage occurs at wavelengths around 320 nm and shorter which is
well below the 365 nm wavelength, where penetrants are designed to fluoresce. Therefore, UV
lamps sold for use in LPI application are almost always filtered to remove the harmful UV
wavelengths. The lamps produce radiation at the harmful wavelengths so it is essential that
they be used with the proper filter in place and in good condition.
*** END ***

Penetrant Testing

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Penetrant Testing

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NISSI QUALITY SERVICES PENETRANT

TESTING Course Material

LIQUID PENETRANT TESTING

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 1

Liquid penetration inspection is a method that is used to

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 2

Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection

2. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 3

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 4

7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect indications

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 5

Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection

Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.)

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 6

The method has high sensitive to small surface discontinuities.

Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

Penetrant Testing Materials

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 7

Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Fluorescent penetrants contain a dye or several

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 8

Level - Ultra Low Sensitivity

The major US government and industry specifications

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 9

Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 10

The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify

1. Form a - Dry Powder

The developer classifications are based on

Dry powder developer is generally considered to be the least sensitive but it is

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 11

As the name implies, water soluble developers consist of a

Water suspendible developers consist of insoluble developer particles suspended in

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 12

Plastic or lacquer developers are a special developers that

Coatings, such as paint, are much more elastic than metal

Common coatings and contaminates that must be removed

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 13

Selection of a Penetrant Technique

When sensitivity is the primary consideration

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 14

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 15

Another consideration in the selection of a penetrant system is whether water washable,

Penetrant Application and Dwell Time

The penetrant material can be applied in a number

There are basically two dwell mode options,

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 16

Penetrant Dwell Time

The surface tension of the penetrant.

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 17

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 18

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 19

Some Research Results on Dwell Time

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 20

Penetrant Removal Process

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 21

Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 22

Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants

BHASKAR GARDENS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM Page 23

Type of Developer Used and Method of Application

Sensitivity ranking of developers per the Nondestructive Testing Handbook.

Ranking Developer Form Method of Application

* END *