Introduction and History of

Penetrant Inspection

Liquid penetrant 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 struck
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 to approximately 1940, when the magnetic particle method was
introduced and found to be more sensitive for ferromagnetic iron and steels.

A different (though related) method was introduced in the 1940's. The surface
under examination was coated with a lacquer, and after drying, the sample was
caused to vibrate by the tap of a hammer. The vibration 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 for finding defects.

Many of these early developments were carried out by Magnaflux in Chicago, IL,
USA in association with Switzer Bros., Cleveland, OH, USA. More effective
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 inspectors.

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 also
helping 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. In other words, the developer serves as a high contrast background
as well as a blotter 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.

Visual Acuity of the Human Eye

The eye has a visual acuity threshold below which an object will go undetected.
This threshold varies from person to person, but as an example, the case of a
person with normal 20/20 vision can be considered. As light enters the eye
through the pupil, it passes through the lens and is projected on the retina at the
back of the eye. Muscles called extraocular muscles, move the eyeball in the
orbits and allow the image to be focused on the central retinal or fovea.

The retina is a mosaic of two basic types of photoreceptors: rods, and cones.
Rods are sensitive to blue-green light with peak sensitivity at a wavelength of
498 nm, and are used for vision under dark or dim conditions. There are three
types of cones that give us our basic color vision: L-cones (red) with a peak
sensitivity of 564 nm, M-cones (green) with a peak sensitivity of 533 nm, and S-
cones (blue) with a peak sensitivity of 437 nm.
Cones are highly concentrated in a region near the center of the retina called the
fovea region. The maximum concentration of cones is roughly 180,000 per
square mm in the fovea region and this density decreases rapidly outside of the
fovea to a value of less than 5,000 per square mm. Note the blind spot caused
by the optic nerve which is void of any photoreceptors.
The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to
resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since
one degree contains sixty minutes, a visual angle of one minute of arc is 1/60 of
a degree. The spatial resolution limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a
scene is projected across 288m of the retina by the eye's lens.

In this 288m, there are 120 color sensing cone cells packed. Thus, if more than
120 alternating white and black lines are crowded side-by-side in a single degree
of viewing space, they will appear as a single gray mass to the human eye. With
a little trigonometry, it is possible to calculate the resolution of the eye at a
specific distance away from the lens of the eye.

For the case of normal visual acuity the angle Theta is 1/60 of a degree. By
bisecting this angle we have a right triangle with angle Theta/2 that is 1/120 of a
degree. Using this right triangle it is easy to calculate the distance X/2 for a given
distance d.

X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)

When visually inspecting an object for a defect such as a crack, the distance (d)
might be around 12 inches. This would be a comfortable viewing distance. At 12
inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. What this
means is that if you had alternating black and white lines that were all 0.00349
inch wide, it would appear to most people as a mass of solid gray.

Contrast Sensitivity

When conducting a visible dye penetrant inspection, the contrast sensitivity of

the eye is important. Contrast sensitivity is a measure of how faded or washed
out an image can be before it becomes indistinguishable from a uniform field. It
has been experimentally determined that the minimum discernible difference in
gray scale level that the eye can detect is about 2% of full brightness. Contrast
sensitivity is a function of the size or spatial frequency of the features in the
image. However, this is not a direct relationship as larger objects are not always
easier to see than smaller objects (as demonstrated by the image below).
In the image below, the luminance of pixels is varied sinusoidally in the
horizontal direction. The spatial frequency increases exponentially from left to
right. The contrast also varies logarithmically from 100% at the bottom to about
0.5% at the top. The luminance of peaks and troughs remains constant along a
given horizontal path through the image. If the detection of contrast was dictated
solely by image contrast, the alternating bright and dark bars should appear to
have equal height everywhere in the image. However, the bars seem to be taller
in the middle of the image.

Campbell, F. W. and Robson, J. G. (1968) Application of Fourier Analysis to the

Visibility of Gratings. Journal of Physiology (London) Image Courtesy of Izumi
Ohzawa, Ph.D. University of California School of Optometry

The Human Eye's Response to Light

The three curves in the figure above shows the normalized response of an
average human eye to various amounts of ambient light. The shift in sensitivity
occurs because two types of photoreceptors called cones and rods are
responsible for the eye's response to light. The curve on the right shows the
eye's response under normal lighting conditions and this is called the photopic
response. The cones respond to light under these conditions.

As mentioned previously, cones are composed of three different photo pigments

that enable color perception. This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means
that under normal lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-
green color. When the light levels drop to near total darkness, the response of
the eye changes significantly as shown by the scotopic response curve on the
left. At this level of light, the rods are most active and the human eye is more
sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color. Rods are
highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which
accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level,
sensitivity to blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow and
red is reduced. The heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at
the ambient light level found in a typical inspection booth. This curve peaks at
550 nanometers, which means the eye is most sensitive to yellowish-green color
at this light level. Fluorescent penetrant inspection materials are designed to
fluoresce at around 550 nanometers to produce optimal sensitivity 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 metal over
the flaw opening and prevent the penetrant from entering.

2. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly cleaned

and dried, the penetrant material is applied by spraying, brushing, or
immersing the part 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 for. Minimum dwell times typically range from five 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 may be very specific to a particular
application.

4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This is the 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 treating the
part 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. 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: 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 materials 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. In the image above, visible
dye penetrant is 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 the image shown right, 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 two engine in the tail of a DC-10
aircraft.

Liquid penetrant inspection can only be used to inspect for 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 sensitivity 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 relatively nonporous surface can be inspected.
Precleaning is critical since 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.
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 surfaces 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 an 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. However, 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 specifications that

control 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.

Surface Energy (Surface Wetting Capability)

As previously mentioned, one of the important characteristics of a liquid

penetrant material is its ability to freely wet the surface of the object being
inspected. At the liquid-solid surface interface, if the molecules of the liquid have
a stronger attraction to the molecules of the solid surface than to each other (the
adhesive forces are stronger than the cohesive forces), wetting of the surface
occurs. Alternately, if the liquid molecules are more strongly attracted to each
other than the molecules of the solid surface (the cohesive forces are stronger
than the adhesive forces), the liquid beads-up and does not wet the surface of
the part.

One way to quantify a liquid's surface wetting characteristics is to measure the

contact angle of a drop of liquid placed on the surface of an object. The contact
angle is the angle formed by the solid/liquid interface and the liquid/vapor
interface measured from the side of the liquid. (See the figure below.) Liquids
wet surfaces when the contact angle is less than 90 degrees. For a penetrant
material to be effective, the contact angle should be as small as possible. In fact,
the contact angle for most liquid penetrants is very close to zero degrees.

Wetting ability of a liquid is a function of the surface energies of the solid-gas

interface, the liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. The surface
energy across an interface or the surface tension at the interface is a measure of
the energy required to form a unit area of new surface at the interface. The
intermolecular bonds or cohesive forces between the molecules of a liquid cause
surface tension. When the liquid encounters another substance, there is usually
an attraction between the two materials. The adhesive forces between the liquid
and the second substance will compete against the cohesive forces of the liquid.
Liquids with weak cohesive bonds and a strong attraction to another material (or
the desire to create adhesive bonds) will tend to spread over the material.
Liquids with strong cohesive bonds and weaker adhesive forces will tend to
bead-up or form a droplet when in contact with another material.

In liquid penetrant testing, there are usually three surface interfaces involved, the
solid-gas interface, the liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. For a
liquid to spread over the surface of a part, two conditions must be met. First, the
surface energy of the solid-gas interface must be greater than the combined
surface energies of the liquid-gas and the solid-liquid interfaces. Second, the
surface energy of the solid-gas interface must exceed the surface energy of the
solid-liquid interface.

A penetrant's wetting characteristics are also largely responsible for its ability to
fill a void. Penetrant materials are often pulled into surface breaking defects by
capillary action. The capillary force driving the penetrant into the crack is a
function of the surface tension of the liquid-gas interface, the contact angle, and
the size of the defect opening. The driving force for the capillary action can be
expressed as the following formula:

Force = 2 r LG cos

Where:

r = radius of the crack opening (2pr is the line of contact between the liquid and
the solid tubular surface.)
LG = liquid-gas surface tension
= contact angle

Since pressure is the force over a given area, it can be written that the pressure
developed, called the capillary pressure, is

Capillary Pressure = (2 LG cos)/ r

The above equations are for a cylindrical defect but the relationships of the
variables are the same for a flaw with a noncircular cross section. Capillary
pressure equations only apply when there is simultaneous contact of the
penetrant along the entire length of the crack opening and a liquid front forms
that is an equidistant from the surface. A liquid penetrant surface could take-on a
complex shape as a consequence of the various deviations from flat parallel
walls that an actual crack could have. In this case, the expression for pressure is

Capillary Pressure = 2( SG - s SL)/r = 2 /r

Where:

SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.

SL = the surface energy at the solid-liquid interface.
r = the radius of the opening.
= the adhesion tension (SG - SL).

Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a

penetrant's movement into a flaw and not the surface energy of the liquid-gas
interface. Adhesion tension is the force acting on a unit length of the wetting line
from the direction of the solid. The wetting performance of the penetrant is
degraded when adhesion tension is the primary driving force.

It can be seen from the equations in this section that the surface wetting
characteristics (defined by the surface energies) are important in order for a
penetrant to fill a void. A liquid penetrant will continue to fill the void until an
opposing force balances the capillary pressure. This force is usually the pressure
of trapped gas in a void, as most flaws are open only at the surface of the part.
Since the gas originally in a flaw volume cannot escape through the layer of
penetrant, the gas is compressed near the closed end of a void.

Since the contact angle for penetrants is very close to zero, other methods have
been devised to make relative comparisons of the wetting characteristics of
these liquids. One method is to measure the height that a liquid reaches in a
capillary tube. However, the solid interface in this method is usually glass and
may not accurately represent the surface that the penetrant inspection will be
performed on. Another method of comparative evaluation is to measure the
radius, the diameter, or the area of a spot formed when a drop of penetrant is
placed on the test surface and allowed to stand undisturbed for a specific
amount of time. However, using this method, other factors are also acting in the
comparison. These methods include the density, viscosity, and volatility of the
liquid, which do not enter into the capillarity equations, but may have an effect on
the inspection as discussed in the related pages.

Density or Specific Gravity

The density or specific gravity of a penetrant material has a slight to negligible

effect on the performance of a penetrant. The gravitational force acting on the
penetrant liquid can be working either with or against the capillary force
depending on the orientation of the flaw during the dwell cycle. When the
gravitational pull is working against the capillary rise, the strength of the force is
given by the following equation:

Force = r2hpg

Where:

r = radius of the crack opening

h = height of penetrant above its free surface
p = density of the penetrant
g = acceleration due to gravity

When the direction of capillary flow is in the same direction as the force of
gravity, the added force driving the penetrant into the flaw is given by the formula
shown below:

Force = hAp

Where:

h = height of penetrant above its free surface

A = cross-sectional area of the opening
P = density of the penetrant

Increasing the specific gravity by decreasing the percent of solvent (by volume)
in the solution will increase the penetration speed.

Viscosity

Viscosity describes a fluid's resistance to flow. Liquids such as water that flow
easily, have a lower viscosity than do liquids such as ketchup. Viscosity has little
effect on the ability of a penetrant material to enter a defect but it does have an
effect on the speed at which the penetrant fills a defect. The equations for the fill
times of a cylindrical void and an elliptical void are shown below:

Cylindrical Void
Fill time = (2l2)/ rcos LG

Elliptical Void
Fill time = [(2l ) / LGcos] * [a2+b2 / (a+b)ab]
2

Where: l = defect depth

= viscosity
r = radius of the crack opening
LG = liquid-gas surface tension
= contact angle
a = flaw width
b = flaw length

From these equations, it can be seen that fill time is directly proportional to
penetrant viscosity. While it has no real bearing on this discussion, it should be
noted that the two equations do not take into account entrapped gas that could
be present in a closed end capillary.

Color and Fluorescent Brightness

Penetrant Color and Fluorescence

The color of the penetrant material is of obvious importance in a visible dye

penetrant inspection, as the dye must provide good contrast against the
developer or part being inspected. Remember from the earlier discussion of
contrast sensitivity that generally the higher the contrast, the easier objects are
to see. The dye used in visible dye penetrant is usually vibrant red but other
colors can be purchased for special applications.

When fluorescent materials are involved, the effect of color and fluorescence is
not so straightforward. LPI materials fluoresce because they contain one or more
dyes that absorb electromagnetic radiation over a particular wavelength and the
absorption of photons leads to changes in the electronic configuration of the
molecules. Since the molecules are not stable at this higher energy state, they
almost immediately re-emit the energy. There is some energy loss in the process
and this causes photons to be re-emitted at a slightly longer wavelength that is in
the visible range. The radiation absorption and emission could take place a
number of times until the desired color and brightness is achieved. Two different
fluorescent colors can be mixed to interact by a mechanism called cascading.
The emission of visible light by this process involves one dye absorbing
ultraviolet radiation to emit a band of radiation that makes a second dye glow.
Since the human eye is the most commonly used sensing device, most
penetrants are designed to fluoresce as close as possible to the eyes' peak
response.

For more information on how the human eye responds to colored light, follow this
link.

Penetrant Brightness

Fluorescent brightness was erroneously once thought to be the controlling factor

with respect to flaw detection sensitivity. Measurements have been made to
evaluate the intrinsic brightness of virtually all commercially available penetrants
and they all have about the same brightness. Intrinsic brightness values are
determined for thick liquid films but the dimensional threshold of fluorescence
(discussed on the next page) is a more important property. The measurement of
fluorescent brightness is detailed in ASTM E-1135, "Standard Test Method for
Comparing the Brightness of Fluorescent Penetrants."

Why Things Fluoresce

Fluorescent penetrant materials usually contain several dye compounds that are
especially suited for the production of fluorescence. Fluorescence is the process
wherein a molecule absorbs a photon of radiant energy at a particular
wavelength and then quickly re-emits the energy at a slightly longer wavelength.
It is the rapid and short-term re-emittance of energy that distinguishes
fluorescence from phosphorescence. Phosphorescence is usually the result of a
chemical reaction which sustains the release of energy for a significant period of
time. Fluorescence was first described in the sixteenth century and was probably
observed long before that time since a large number of plant and animal
products fluoresce.

The phenomenon of fluorescence requires a short lesson in quantum mechanics

which explains why fluorescence was not understood until the twentieth century.
In the nineteenth century, Huygen's wave theory of light had replaced Newton's
concept of the particulate nature of light and fluorescence was one of the
embarrassing phenomena which simply could not be explained by use of the
wave theory. The wave theory, as with most classical physics, generally
assumes change to be a continuous process with no abrupt changes. Near the
beginning of the twentieth century, Max Planck suggested that energy changes
might occur in a stepwise manner. This concept forms the basis of quantum
mechanics and Einstein applied the quantum concept of energy to light and
revived the idea of the particulate nature of light. Planck formalized the
relationship with the equation shown below:

E= hn

Where:

E = energy
h = a constant
n = the frequency of light

This equations shows that the size of the energy

steps change with the frequency or wavelength of
the light. Einstein introduced the term photon to
describe the smallest increments of light.

In today's current model of the atom, protons and

neutrons are found in the nucleus and electrons are
found spinning around outside the nucleus. Electrons
spin and rotate around the nucleus billions of times a
second. According to modern theory, electrons are arranged in energy levels as
they rotate around the nucleus. When electrons gain or lose energy, they jump
between energy levels as they are rotating around the nucleus. As electrons gain
energy, they move to the third, or outer level and as they lose energy, they move
to the inner or first energy level. Since the energy of the system is restricted to
certain energy values, the atom is said to be quantized. In the animated image
below, it can be seen that the electrons move to a different energy state only
when a specific amount of energy is added to or removed from the system.

Another way of illustrating this point is with an energy diagram as presented

below. This diagram shows the quantized energy levels for an atom. Each
energy level corresponds to a quantum state of the atom. The lowest energy
state is called the ground state and is the E0 line in the diagram. If energy is
added to the system, an electron or electrons will jump to a higher level and the
atom is said to be at an excited state. The upward arrow in the illustration
represents a quantum jump of the atom from the ground state to the second
excited state. Depending on the amount of energy input into the atom, the
energy jump could have been to any of the levels. However, the jump must be to
one of the levels shown, as the atom cannot have an intermediate value of
energy. Atoms will generally be in their ground state.

When considering fluorescence, energy must be

considered at a molecular level. When molecules form, two or more atoms form
an association where the energy of the molecule is lower than that of the
constituent atoms when they were separate. The total energy of the molecule is
the sum of the energies holding the nuclei together and the energy of the
chemical bonds holding the molecule together. Molecules have rotational,
vibrational and electronic (due to the electrons) energy. It is the vibrational and
electronic energies of the molecule that contribute to fluorescence. Molecules,
like atoms, will generally be in their ground state. Molecules can move to a
greater energy state only when energy is added to their system. One of the ways
a molecule can gain energy is by absorbing light. If a molecule absorbs light, the
energy of the light must be equal to the energy required to put the molecule in
one of the higher energy states. When a molecule reaches an excited state, it
does not stay there for very long. Rather it quickly returns to a lower energy
state either by emitting light or colliding with another atomic particle. When a
molecule emits light, the energy of that light is equal to the energy difference
between the quantum levels that molecules has moved between.

Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence

The dimensional threshold of fluorescence is a property that is not currently

controlled by the specifications but appears to largely determine the sensitivity of
a fluorescent penetrant. A. L. Walters and R. C. McMaster conducted an
experiment that led to the understanding of this condition. Two optically flat
plates of glass were clamped tightly together. A drop of fluorescent penetrant
was placed at the interface of the plates. The penetrant could be seen migrating
in between the plates but when exposed to black light, no fluorescence was
seen. The phenomenon was not fully understood until 1960 when Alburger
introduced the concept of thin-film transition of fluorescent response.

The dimensional magnitudes of typical crack defects correspond to the

dimensional thresholds of fluorescence response which are characteristic of the
available penetrant. Alternately stated, the degree of fluorescence response,
under a given intensity of ultraviolet radiation, is dependent on the absorption of
ultraviolet radiation, which in turn depends on dye concentration and film
thickness. Therefore, the ability of a penetrant to yield an indication depends
primarily on its ability to fluoresce as a very thin film. The performance of
penetrants based on the physical constraints of the dyes can be predicted using
Beer's Law equation. This law states that the absorption of light by a solution
changes exponentially with the concentration of the solution. This equation does
not hold true when very thin layers are involved but works well to establish
general relationships between variables.

I = Io x e-Ct

Where:

I = Transmitted light intensity

Io = Incident light intensity
e = Base of natural log (2.71828)
= Absorption coefficient per unit of concentration
C = Dye concentration
t = Thickness of the absorbing layer trolled to a certain degree by the
concentration of the fluorescent tracer dye in the penetrant.

This equation states that the intensity of the transmitted energy is directly
proportional to the intensity of the incident light and varies exponentially with the
thickness of the penetrant layer and its dye concentration. Therefore, when the
dye concentration is increased, the brightness of the thin layer of penetrant
generally increases. However, the dye concentration can only be increased so
much before it starts to have a negative effect on brightness. A Meniscus-
Method Apparatus can be used to measure the dimensional threshold of
fluorescence.

Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability of Penetrant Indications

Exposure to intense ultraviolet light and elevated temperatures can have a

negative effect on fluorescent penetrant indications. Fluorescent materials can
lose their brightness after a period of exposure to high intensity UV light. One
study measured the intensity of fluorescent penetrant indications on a sample
that was subjected to multiple UV exposure cycles. Each cycle consisted of 15
minutes of 800 microwatt/cm UV light and 2.5 minutes of 1500 microwatt/cm
UV light. Two penetrants were tested in the study, water washable, level 3 and a
post emulsifiable, level 4. The results from the study showed that the indications
from both penetrants faded with increased UV exposure. After eight exposure
cycles, the brightnesses of the indications were less than one half their original
values.

At an elevated temperature, penetrants can experience heat degradation or

"heat fade." Excessive heat:

1. evaporates the more volatile constituents which increases viscosity and

adversely affects the rate of penetration.
2. alters wash characteristics.
3. "boils off" chemicals that prevent separation and gelling of water soluble
penetrants.
4. kills the fluorescence of tracer dyes.

This fourth degradation mechanism involves the molecules of the penetrant

materials. The phenomenon of fluorescence involves electrons that are
delocalized in a molecule. These electrons are not specifically associated with a
given bond between two atoms. When a molecule takes up sufficient energy for
the excitation source, the delocalized bonding electrons rise to a higher
electronic state. After excitation, the electrons will normally lose energy and
return to the lowest energy state. This loss of energy can involve a "radiative"
process such as fluorescence or "non-radiative" processes. Non-radiative
processes include relaxation by molecular collisions, thermal relaxation, and
chemical reaction. Heat causes the number of molecular collisions to increase,
which results in more collision relaxation and less fluorescence.

This explanation is only valid when the part and the penetrant are at an elevated
temperature. When the materials cool, the fluorescence will return. However,
while exposed to elevated temperatures, penetrant solutions dry faster. As the
molecules become more closely packed in the dehydrated solution, collision
relaxation increases and fluorescence decreases. This effect has been called
"concentration quenching" and experimental data shows that as the dye
concentration is increased, fluorescent brightness initially increases but reaches
a peak and then begins to decrease. Airflow over the surface on the part will also
speed evaporation of the liquid carrier, so it should be kept to a minimum to
prevent a loss of brightness.

Generally, thermal damage occurs when fluorescent penetrant materials are

heated above 71oC (160oF). It should be noted that the sensitivity of an FPI
inspection can be improved if a part is heated prior to applying the penetrant
material, but the temperature should be kept below 71oC (160oF). Some high
temperature penetrants in use today are formulated with dyes with high melting
points, greatly reducing heat related problems. The penetrants also have high
boiling points and the heat related problems are greatly reduced. However, a
loss of brightness can still take place when the penetrant is exposed to elevated
temperatures over an extended period of time. When one heat resistant
formulation was tested, a 20 % reduction was measured after the material was
subjected to 163oC (325oF) for 273 hours. The various types of fluorescent dyes
commonly employed in today's penetrant materials begin decomposition at 71oC
(160oF). When the temperature approaches 94oC (200oF), there is almost total
attenuation of fluorescent brightness of the composition and sublimation of the
fluorescent dyestuffs.

Removability

Removing the penetrant from the surface of the sample, without removing it from
the flaw, is one of the most critical operations of the penetrant inspection
process. The penetrant must be removed from the sample surface as completely
as possible to limit background fluorescence. In order for this to happen, the
adhesive forces of the penetrant must be weak enough that they can be broken
by the removal methods used. However, in order for the penetrant to have good
surface wetting characteristics, the adhesive forces (forces of attraction between
the penetrant and the solid surface being inspected) must be stronger than the
cohesive forces (forces holding the liquid together). Proper formulation of the
penetrant materials provides the correct balancing of these forces.

Another consideration in the formulation of the penetrant liquid is that it should

not easily commingle and become diluted by the cleaning solution. Dilution of the
penetrant liquid will affect the concentration of the dye and reduce the
dimensional threshold of fluorescence.

Emulsifiers

When removal of the penetrant from a 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. 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 spread it 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 perform 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 Suspendable
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 area 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
recirculating, 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 Suspendable

Water suspendable developers consist of insoluble developer particles

suspended in water. Water suspendable developers require frequent stirring or
agitation to keep the particles from settling out of suspension. Water
suspendable developers are applied to parts in the same manner as water
soluble developers. Parts coated with a water suspendable 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 suspendable developer will have a
slightly translucent white coating.

Nonaqueous
Nonaqueous developers suspend the developer
in a volatile solvent and are typically applied with
a spray gun. Nonaqueous 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 nonaqueous developer should be
applied to a thoroughly dried part to form a
slightly translucent white coating.

Special Applications

Plastic or lacquer developers are 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 to 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, so it is clear 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 effect 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.

Click here to learn more about possible problems with Cleaning Practices.

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, grit
blasting, tumble deburring, and peening operations can cause some materials to
smear. 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 affects on LPI

Summary of Research on Cleaning Prior to LPI

The following is a summary of some of the articles that have been published on
the effects that some contaminants can have on penetrant inspection and also
what effects improper cleaning methods and materials can have on the
inspection.

Oils

Klein showed that when a test specimen was contaminated with cutting oil, there
was a reduction in sensitivity even when the specimen was vapor degreased
before inspection. The specimens used for this study were quenched cracked
2024 aluminum blocks. The reduction in sensitivity was believed to be the result
of incomplete removal of the cutting oil from the defects.

Etchants

Klein warns that acid entrapment from a prepenetrant etch can have disastrous
effects on the penetrant inspection. The article states that the sodium hydroxide
caustic often used to etch aluminum parts does not affect penetrants but that
acids used to etch parts of other materials do have an effect. Experts in the
penetrant field warn that caustics can in fact reduce penetrant brightness.
Careful cleaning of both acid and caustic etches before penetrant inspection is
highly recommended.

-- Kleint, R. E., Deception by Penetrants, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 45, No. 7,

July 1987, pp. 845-847, 850.

Residue from Previous Penetrant Inspections

Klein also found that the effectiveness of a penetrant was significantly reduced if
the part had been previously inspected with a different penetrant, although
proper pre- and post- cleaning (degreasing) operations had been performed.
This was the case when the previous inspection was performed with a different
fluorescent penetrant or a visible dye penetrant. When the same penetrant
system was used for both inspections, there was no extensive loss in sensitivity
when the specimens received the required pre- and post-cleaning. Klein's study
also showed that even the most careful post-cleaning operations leave some
penetrant in the defects.

-- Klein, R. E., An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Penetrants, Nondestructive

Testing, September- October, 1958, pp. 421-429.

Researchers from the Canadian Armed Forces studied the effects of residual
entrapped penetrants. The researchers concluded that repetitive inspections
produce greatly reduced indications when pre- and post-cleaning operations are
not performed properly.

-- Nielson, D. C. and Thompson, J. G. H., Evaluation of Liquid Penetrant

Systems, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 33, No. 12, December 1975, pp. 284-292.

Amos Sherwin revisits the issue in a 1990 Back to Basics article in Materials
Evaluation. The focus of this article is on the effect of a previous visible penetrant
inspection on a fluorescent penetrant inspection. To illustrate the degrading
effect of type II penetrant on type I penetrant, Sherwin suggests a simple
experiment. He instructs to mix one percent visible and 99 percent fluorescent
penetrant together and note the almost complete lack of fluorescence under
black light. Apparently, the red dye acts as an UV filter and stops nearly all
fluorescence. The article also notes that soaking the test piece in isopropanol for
10 minutes between the two inspections did provide some improvement but did
not result in acceptable performance.

-- Sherwin, A., Still a Good Rule: Visible Penetrant Inspection Not to Precede
Fluorescent, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 48, No. 12, December 1990, pp. 1457-
1458.

Tanner, Ustruck, and Packman developed a procedure to accurately measure

the amount of penetrant absorbed into the cracks of a chrome plated panel
specimen. The procedure they used involved applying penetrant to the sample
and letting it dwell for a set time. They then degreased the specimen using
toluene in a closed flask and used a colorimeter to measure the fluorescence of
the used toluene. Then, by using a very accurate pipette, they added drops of
penetrant to fresh toluene until the colorimeter value matched that of the toluene
used to degrease the sample. With this very accurate method of measuring the
amount of penetrant absorbed, they showed that a small amount of solvent from
the precleaning operation, if left trapped in a flaw, can have a drastic effect on
the performance of a penetrant.

-- Tanner, R.D., Ustruck, R.E., and Packman, P.F., Adsorption and Hysteresis
Behavior of Crack-Detecting Liquid Penetrants on Steel Plates, Materials
Evaluation, September 1980, pp. 41-46.

In terms of cleaning penetrant system performance check specimens and

nonproduction parts, researchers in the Netherlands evaluated the length of time
required to clean test specimens using an organic solvent bath with ultrasonic
agitation. Using specimens with fatigue cracks, five organic solvents were tested.
The specimens were considered cleaned of the penetrant when no bleedout was
detectable when the specimens were evaluated 12 hours after the cleaning
operation. The solvents tested were acetone, Freon, Chlorotene NU, Toluol, and
MEK. For all solvents, at least two hours of processing was required to properly
clean the specimens.

-- 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.

It is also important that the cleaning process itself does not cause a reduction in
penetrant sensitivity. Some chemical cleaning processes have been found to
plug defects. In many cases, chemical cleaning alone does not adequately
prepare the surface of a part for inspection and mechanical cleaning methods
must be employed. These mechanical cleaning methods, such as grit, or other
media blasting, sanding, and even steam cleaning, have been shown to cause
metal smearing in some alloys.

Cleaning Chemicals

Sam Robinson of Sherwin Inc. discusses an important cleaning consideration in

a paper titled "1,1,1-Trichloroethane Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing
1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the Penetrant Process." He cautions that some mild
alkaline cleaners include sodium metasilicate as an ingredient. Sodium
metasilicate, sodium silicate, and related compounds can adhere to the surface
of parts and form a coating that prevents penetrant entry into cracks.

-- Robinson, Sam J., Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing Methyl Chloroform
in the Penetrant Process, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 50, No. 8, August 1992, pp.
936-946.

Ward Rummel states that, based on his conversations with industry experts,
"silicates in concentrations above 0.5 percent may be detrimental to subsequent
penetrant inspection."

-- Rummel, W., Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous Precleaners for

Penetrant Inspection, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 5, August 1998, pp. 950-
952.

Russian researchers have also found that the cleaning solution can have an
effect on the inspection results. They report that after parts have been washed
with cleaning liquids containing a solution of domestic soap or oleic potash soap,
some cracks are no longer detectable. They attribute this reduction in sensitivity
to a clogging of the cavities and a reduction in wettability of the metal surface by
the penetrant. Several photographs are offered that supports these claims.

-- Glazkov, Y.A., Some Technological Mistakes in the Application of Capillary

Inspection to Repairs of Gas Turbine Engines, translation from Defektoskopiya -
The Soviet Journal of Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 26, No. 3, New York, NY
Plenum/Consultants Bureau, January 1990, pp. 361-367.

In another article, the Russian researchers further investigated the effects of

cleaning and rinsing components with aqueous solutions of commercial
detergents (CDs) on the detectability of cracks. They reported that some CD
solutions improved crack detectability while others impaired detectability. Some
of the cleaning solutions formed deposits in the cracks that were difficult to
remove and could prevent the formation of penetrant indications. To ensure
efficient capillary inspection of fatigue cracks in the vanes of gas turbine engines,
they recommended that components be thoroughly rinsed in water with the aid of
ultrasound and, if possible, dried at 350-400C (661-751F) for components made
of creep-resistant nickel alloys, or at 140-170C (283-337F) for other alloys.
-- Glazkov, Yu . A., Bruevich, E.P., and Samokhin, N.L, Special Features of
Application of Aqueous Solutions of Commercial Detergents in Capillary Flaw
Inspection, Defektoskopiya - The Soviet Journal of Nondestructive Testing, Vol.
19, No. 8, August 1982, pp. 83-87.

Material Smear and Its Removal

Material smearing can have a very detrimental effect on an LPI inspection as

defects that are normally open to the surface can be partially or completely
covered over. Some of the processes that can cause material to smear include
machining, honing, lapping, sanding, scraping, grit blasting, tumble de burring,
and preening operations. When high pressure is used, some cleaning
operations, such as vapor and steam cleaning, can also cause material to smear
in the softer materials. Softer materials, such as plastics and aluminum alloys,
are most prone to smearing but many other materials, such as steel, titanium
and Inconel alloys, have also been shown to smear. To evaluate the effect of a
process on liquid penetrant inspection, cracked specimens are typically
inspected before and after performing the potential smearing operation and a
comparison between the inspection results are made. It must be noted that
under carefully controlled conditions, material smear can be avoided. Whenever
parts have been mechanically processed prior to LPI, an evaluation should be
performed to determine if flaw detectability has been compromised. If material
smearing is a problem, an etching process can be used to remove the smeared
material prior to inspection. The curves below illustrate the effect that metal
smearing can have on the probability of detection for a defect and how etching
the sample surface improves detectability.
The top curve shows the probability of detecting a crack versus crack length for
as-machined aluminum specimens. The bottom curve shows the POD for the
same aluminum specimens after their surfaces had been etched. Comparing the
crack lengths where the curves reach a POD level of 90%, it can be seen that in
the as-machined condition, the crack length would need to be 0.4 inches long.
However, when the surface is etched, cracks under 0.10 inch can be detected
with a 90 % probability.

Removal of Material Smearing

Etching of the specimens can return the flaw to the pre-mechanical processing
level of detectability. The amount of material that must be removed by the
etching process depends on the amount of material that has been smeared and
should be determined experimentally. Volume two of the Nondestructive Testing
Handbook provides a great deal of information on material smearing and the
amount of etching required to remove a smeared metal. The handbook includes
a number of photographs such as the set below that graphically show the effects
of metal smearing.

Left Image: Original fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern in a quench cracked

aluminum sample.

Center Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after sanding with 240
grit paper.

Right Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after etching to remove

0.0003 inch of metal.

When an etchant is used, it must be properly removed from the part before
applying penetrant. Experts in the penetrant field warn that acid and caustic
entrapment from a prepenetrant etch can have disastrous effects on the
penetrant inspection. Careful cleaning of both acid and caustic etches before
penetrant inspection is highly recommended. There are several other risks to the
parts being processed when an etchant is used. First, since the etching process
is removing metal from the surface of the part, the minimum dimensional
tolerances of the part must be considered. A second possible risk is that the
etching process could have an effect on the material properties of the part. The
chemical etchant used should uniformly remove material from the surface and
should not etch microstructural features (such as grain boundaries)
preferentially. Ideally, a study should be conducted to evaluate the effects of the
etching process (or other chemical process) on the mechanical properties and
performance of the component.

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, 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 penetrant or
visible dye penetrant. Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable of
producing a detectable indication from a small defect. Also, 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 ordinate is the spot
diameter, which was viewed from one foot. The abscissa is the contrast ratio
between the spot brightness and the background brightness. To the left of the
contrast ratio of one, the spot is darker than the background (representative of
visible dye penetrant testing); and to the right of one, the spot is brighter than the
background (representative of fluorescent penetrant inspection). Each of the
three curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one are for different background
brightness (in foot-Lamberts), but simply consider the general trend of each
group of curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one. The curves show that for
indication 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 light spot on a dark 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.
From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an advantage
over a 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. However, they 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, including
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) and 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 lose
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 the section on penetrant materials, 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 seep or be drawn 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 microcapillary
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.
Microstructural 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 parts be at least 20 minutes, while ASTM
E1209 only requires a five 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. 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 it will 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 the 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. This method requires hand wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with
the solvent remover, and is, therefore, 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 breakdown the penetrant and make it
water washable. The part is usually immersed in the emulsifier but hydrophilic
emulsifiers may also be sprayed on the object. Spray application 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 either 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, the hydrophilic method
renders the lipophilic 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. On the contrary,
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, 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 rinse 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.

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
rag moistened with cleaner. 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
(0.00059055 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.0011811 inch) at the
midpoint between the clamps. The distance between the clamping points was
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 where the clearance between the plate was the
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.

Use and 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, 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 suspendable 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 Spray
2 Solvent Spray
3 Plastic Film Spray
4 Water-Soluble Spray
5 Water-Suspendable Immersion
6 Water-Soluble Immersion
 7 Water-Suspendable Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)
8 Dry Fluidized Bed
9 Dry Dust Cloud (Air Agitation)
10 Dry Immersion (Dip)
Dry

The following table lists the main advantages and disadvantages of the various
developer types.

Developer Advantages Disadvantages

Does not form contrast
Indications tend to remain
background so cannot be
brighter and more distinct
used with visible systems
Dry over time
Difficult to assure entire part
Easily to apply
surface has been coated
Coating is translucent and
Ease of coating entire part
provides poor contrast (not
recommended for visual
White coating for good
systems)
Soluble contrast can be produced
which work well for both
Indications for water
visible and fluorescent
washable systems are dim
systems
and blurred
Ease of coating entire part

Indications are bright and

sharp
Indications weaken and
Suspendable
White coating for good become diffused after time
contrast can be produced
which work well for both
visible and fluorescent
systems
Very portable

Easy to apply to readily

accessible surfaces
Difficult to apply evenly to all
White coating for good
surfaces
contrast can be produced
Nonaqueous
which work well for both
More difficult to clean part
visible and fluorescent
after inspection
systems

Indications show-up rapidly

and are well defined
 Provides highest sensitivity

To review a summary of some of the research that has been done on developer
usage and performance, take this link.

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
specifications 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, so
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 exceeds 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. Deterioration of new
penetrants primarily results from aging and contamination. Virtually all organic
dyes deteriorate over time, resulting in a loss of color or fluorescent response,
but deterioration can be slowed with proper storage. When possible, keep the
materials in a closed container and protect from freezing and exposure to high
heat. Freezing can cause separation to occur and exposure to high temperature
for a long period of time can affect the brightness of the dyes.

Contamination can occur during storage and use. Of course, open tank systems
are much more susceptible to contamination than are spray
systems. Contamination by another liquid will change the surface tension and
contact angle of the solution. Water is the most common contaminant. Water-
washable penetrants have a definite tolerance limit for water, and above this limit
they do not function properly. Cloudiness and viscosity both increase with
increasing water content. 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 that stage in the process. Data
indicates that the water contamination must be significant (greater than 10%) for
gel formation to occur. Most specifications limit water contamination to around
5% to be conservative. Water does not readily mix with the oily solution of
lipophilic post-emulsifiable systems and it generally settles to the bottom of the
tank. However, the inspection of parts that travel to the bottom of the tank and
encounter the water could be adversely affected.

Most other common contaminates, such as cleaning solvents, oils, acids,

caustics and chromates, must be present in significant quantities to affect the
performance of the penetrant. Organic contaminants can dilute the dye and
absorb the ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the dye, and also change the
viscosity. Acids, caustics, and chromates cause the loss of fluorescence in
water-soluble penetrants.

Regular checks must be performed to ensure 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 a sealed, opaque
glass or metal container. Penetrants that are in-use should be compared
regularly to 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. 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. Non-water-based, water washable penetrants are checked
using the procedure specified in ASTM D95 or ASTM E 1417.

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, 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 (e.g.. 10 to
38oC (50 to 100oF) 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 with
numerous cracks ranging in depth from five to 100 microns deep. A 38%
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, although much reduced from the loss seen
with the water-washable system. The relative sensitivity loss over the range of
crack depths was 13% for the penetrant with medium sensitivity.

-- 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 were 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 slows. 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% for the running
tap water, 14% for the handheld spray nozzle and 4.5% for the machine wash.

Quality Control of Drying Process

The temperature used to dry parts after the application of an 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
71oC.

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,
or 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. Developers are either applied wet
or 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
powdered soap. 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 a 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/Suspendable Developer

Wet soluble developer must be completely dissolved in the water and wet
suspendable 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 specifications 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 applied immediately after the final wash. A uniform coating
should be applied by spraying, flowing or immersing 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 Suspendable (AKA Nonaqueous Wet)

Solvent suspendable developers are typically supplied in an sealed aerosol

spray can. Since the developer solution is in a sealed vessel, direct check of the
solution is 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 an uneven coating, the can should
be discarded.

When applying a solvent suspendable developer, it is up to the inspector to

control the thickness of the coating. with 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 and should appear evenly transparent.

Development Time

Parts 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 inspections
performed visually by a human inspector, as this is the dominant 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, are
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 inspectors must stay constantly aware of the lighting
conditions and make adjustments 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 (UV) illumination

and the visible light inside the inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are
excited by UV light of 365nm wavelength and emit visible light somewhere in the
green-yellow range between 520 and 580nm. The source of ultraviolet light 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 410nm. Visible light of wavelengths above 410nm interferes with
contrast, and UV emissions below 310nm 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 microwatt 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 lose intensity over time. In fact, a bulb that is
near the end of its operating life will often have an intensity of only 25% 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 translate 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.

Raising the temperature will:

Raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants

Reduce the emulsifier time
Increase the developer time
Require the need of a post emulsified penetrant

For UV lights used in LPI, the accepted intensity is _______

2 microwatts per square centimeter.

100
500
700
1000

Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,

3 hydrophilic?

Method A
Method B
 Method C
Method D

Most UV lights must be warmed up at least ___ minutes before

4 beginning the inspection.

1
5
10
15

Which method of penetrant removal is solvent removable?

5
Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D

When a permanent record is required which type of developer can

6 be used:

Lacquer developer
Nonaqueous developer
Layered developer
Peeling developer

Which type of penetrant is a visible penetrant?

7
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

Which emulsifier system is water based?

8
Hydrophilic emulsifier
Lipophilic emulsifier
Type I emulsifier
 Form A emulsifier

Which of the following is a disadvantage of LPI?

9
Only surface breaking flaws can be detected
Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity
Post cleaning is required
All of the above

Contamination of the penetrant:

10
Will only take place if the part has not been cleaned
Will occur because of the crossover between the penetrant and
developer
Will occur if the tank is not covered during the dwell time
Will change the surface tension and contact angle

The steps listed would represent which type of penetrant method?

11 1. Pre-clean 2. Apply penetrant and allow to dwell. 3. Pre-rinse to
remove first layer of penetrant. 4. Apply hydrophilic emulsifier 5.
Rinse to remove excess penetrant 6. Dry part 7. Apply developer
and allow part to develop 8. Inspect.

Type I method A
Type I method B
Type I method D
Type II method D

Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?

12
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

Generally, there is no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time

13 as long as the penetrant:

Is not allowed to dry

 Stays viscous
Does not form clumps on the surface of the part
Is mixed with emulsifier

Water soluble developers consist of a group of chemicals that are:

14
Saturated in water and experience a chemical shift allowing it to
fluoresce on the parts surface
Only used on rough porous surfaces
Dissolved in water
Not to be used on galvanized parts

Which method is used to primarily to inspect small localized areas?

15
Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D

Developer times are usually in the range of:

16
10 minutes
10 seconds
20-30 minutes
5-60 minutes

Penetrant can be applied by:

17
Dipping
Brushing
Spraying
All of the above

Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?

18
Type I
Type II
Type III
 Type IV

Which type of penetrant is less vulnerable to contamination from

19 cleaning fluid?

Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

Black lights should:

20
Only be used with a Franklin filter
Only be used with Type II penetrants
Never be used with a cracked filter
Never be used with Knoop filters

LPI can be used to test most materials provided the surface of the
21 part is:

Heated to a temperature above 100o F

Is not extremely rough or porous
Smooth and uniform
Cleaned with number 005 grit

The performance of a penetrant:

22
Will remain consistent as long is it is stored in a temperature range
of 50 to 100o F
Will only degrade of the temperature exceeds 120o F
Can be affected by contamination and aging
Can be adjusted with the dwell time

A good cleaning procedure will:

23
Remove all contamination from the part and not leave any reside
that may interfere with the inspection process
Remove a small amount of metal from the surface of the part
Should leave the part slightly flourescent in order to identify any
 discontinuities
Should etch the part slightly only if it is made from 4041
aluminum

Developers are used to:

24
Make the penetrant fluoresce
Reduce the dwell time
Pull trapped penetrant material out of the defect
All of the above

Solvent suspendable developers are applied by:

25
Dipping
Brushing
Spraying
Immersion

The total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface
26 is called the:

Soak time
Baking time
Dwell time
Immersion time

Most specifications limit water contamination to around:

27
1 percent
2 percent
5 percent
10 percent

The advantage that liquid penetrant testing has over an unaided

28 visual inspection is that:

The actual size of the discontinuity can be measured

The depth of the defect can be measured
The cause of the impact can be seen
 It makes defects easier to see for the inspector

Nonaqeous developer is typically applied:

29
By dusting the surface of the part
By dipping the part is a mixed batch of developer
By splashing the surface with a brush
By aerosol spraying

Penetrants are designed to:

30
Perform equally
Perform the same no matter who manufacturers them
Shift in grade and value when the temperature changes
Remain fluid so it can be drawn back to the surface of the part

Which developer form is used for water soluble developer?

31
Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:

32
Penetrant fading
Developer fading
Emulsifier sensitivity
Emulsifier fading

Which developer form is used for dry powder developer?

33
Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

Radiometers should be calibrated every ___ months.

34 2
4
6
12

White light intensity at the surface of the part when using a visible
35 dye penetrant should be:

A minimum of 50 foot-candles
A maximum of 50 foot-candles
A maximum of 100 foot-candles
A minimum of 100 foot-candles

Which developer form is used for nonaqueous Type I developer?

36
Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

Which developer is commonly considered as the least sensitive?

37
Dry developer
Non-aqueous wet developer
Hydrophilic developer
Lipophilic developer

The water content of water washable penetrant:s:

38
Should be performed daily
Should be performed weekly
Should be performed monthly
Must be checked regularly

Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified, lipophilic?

39
Method A
Method B
 Method C
Method D

Water suspendible developers consist of a group of chemicals that

40 are:

Saturated in water and experience a chemical shift allowing it to

fluoresce on the parts surface
Only used on rough porous surfaces
Dissolved in water
Insoluble in water but can be suspended in the water after mixing
or agitation

How often should the UV light intensity be performed?

41
When a new bulb is installed
At startup of inspection cycle
Every 8 hours
All of the above

The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:

42
Should only be used on aerospace parts
Will also produce the largest amount of irrelevant indications
Can only be used on small parts less than 10 inches in surface area
Should not be used in the field

When penetrant is first received from the manufacturer:

43
A sample of fresh solution should be collected and stored as a
standard for future comparison
It should be compared to the previous batch of penetrant
It should be mixed with the used penetrant in order to increase its
sensitivity
It should be compared to the previous penetrants sensitivity

Large defects can be hidden under a paint surface because:

44
The paint will fill in the cracks and change the fluorescence of the
 penetrant
Paint is more elastic than metal and will not fracture
The penetrant will adhere to the paint resulting in maximum
fluorescence
All of the above apply

Surface contaminants can lead to:

45
A shift in the fluorescent wavelength to a lower angstrom level
The part needing to be redipped in order to produce good results
Higher background fluorescence
All of the above

How often should the wet soluble powder concentration be

46 checked?

Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Every 500 parts

It is well recognized that machining, honing, lapping and hand

47 sanding will result:

In a better penetrant inspection

In a longer dwell time in order to produce adequate penetration of
the penetrant
Longer dwell times
Metal smearing

Developer is required to:

48
Draw out the penetrant from the discontinuity
Provide contrast between the penetrant and the parts background
color
Increase the pentrants fluorescence
Both A and B

Light intensity measurements are made using a:

49 Refractometer
Radiometer
Pie gauge
UV meter

Water based, water washable penetrant are checked with a:

50
Centrifuge
Refractometer
Centrifuge scope
Crack block