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.

Additional information on the human eye can be found by following the links below.

Visual Acuity
Contrast Sensitivity
Color Sensitivity

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.

Now you try it!

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
three 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 ½ - 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 ½ 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.

Reference:

Flaherty, J. J., History of Penetrants: The First 20 Years, 1941-61, Materials Evaluation, Vol.
44, No. 12, November 1986, pp. 1371-1374, 1376, 1378, 1380, 1382

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.

More information on how some of these properties can affect penetrant testing can be found
by following these links.

Surface Energy
Density or Specific Gravity
Viscosity
Color and Fluorescence Brightness
Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence
Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability
Removability
 

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.
References:

-- Boisvert, B.W., Hardy, G., Dorgan, J.F., and Selner, R.H., The Fluorescent Penetrant
Hydrophilic Remover Process, Materials Evaluation, February 1983, pp. 134-137.

-- Sherwin, A. G., Overremoval Propensities of the Prewash Hydrophilic Emulsifier

Fluorescent Penetrant Process, Materials Evaluation, March 1993, pp. 294-299.

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 75°F. 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

Click here to learn more about metal smearing.

References:

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.

Rummel, W., Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous Precleaners for Penetrant
Inspection, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 5, August 1998, pp. 950-952.

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

Repairs of Gas Turbin 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.

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.

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.

-- Lord, R. J. and Holloway, J. A., Choice of Penetrant Parameters for Inspecting Titanium,
Materials Evaluation, October 1975, pp. 249-256.

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
(0.059 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.118 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.

-- Senda, T., Maeda, N., Kato, M., Ebata, M., Ooka, K., and Miyoshi, S., Factors Involved in
Formation of Penetrant Testing Indications, NDE in the Nuclear Industry: Proceedings of the
6th International Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, November - December 1984, pp. 807-810.

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

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

Developer Advantages Disadvantages

Does not form contrast
Indications tend to remain
background so cannot be used
brighter and more distinct
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
Suspendable Ease of coating entire part Indications weaken and
become diffused after time
 Indications are bright and
sharp

White coating for good

contrast can be produced
which work well for both
visible and fluorescent
systems
Very portable

Easy to apply to readily

accessible surfaces

White coating for good Difficult to apply evenly to

contrast can be produced all surfaces
Nonaqueous which work well for both
visible and fluorescent More difficult to clean part
systems after inspection

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 µW/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.

Penetrant Inspection Quizzes

These quizzes draw from the same database of questions and differ only in the number of
questions presented.  Each time a quiz is opened, a new set of random questions will be
produced from the database.  The Collaboration for NDE Education does not record the
names of individuals taking a quiz or the results of a quiz.

20 Question PT Quiz

 ~ First name ~  ~ Last name ~

       

Developers come in a variety of forms and can be applied by:

1
Dusting
  Dipping
Spraying
All of the above
 
When performing a liquid penetrant test, the surface of the
2 part under inspection should be:

Slightly damp
 
Clean and smooth to the touch
Free of oil, grease, water and other contaminants
All of the above
 
The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:
3
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
 
  The threshold of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision is
4 about:

0.003 inches
0.03 inches
 0.03 mm
0.3cm
 
Which of the following will produce higher sensitivity of a
5 penetrant test?

Leaving the part immersed in the penetrant for the entire dwell
time
 
Leaving the part immersed in the wet developer for the entire
developer time
Using a nonaqueous wet developer
Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell during its dwell time
 
A good cleaning procedure will:
6
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
 
Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?
7
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
Surface contaminants can lead to:
8
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
 
 Penetrant can be applied by:
9
Dipping
  Brushing
 Spraying
All of the above
 
Which type of developer is considered the most sensitive?
10
Water suspendable
  Water soluble
Dry powder
Nonaqueous wet
 
What is the optimal temperature of penetrant materials and
11 the part under inspection in order to obtain the best results?

50 to 80o F
 
80 to 120o F
35 to 100o F
80 to 100o F
 
For UV lights used in LPI, the accepted intensity is _______
12 microwatts per square centimeter.

100
 
500
700
1000
 
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,
13 hydrophilic?

Method A
 
Method B
Method C
Method D
 
The total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part
14 surface is called the:

Soak time
 
Baking time
Dwell time
Immersion time
 
Developers are used to:
15
Make the penetrant fluoresce
  Reduce the dwell time
Pull trapped penetrant material out of the defect
All of the above
 
How often should the wet soluble powder concentration be
16 checked?

Daily
 
Weekly
Monthly
Every 500 parts
 
Penetrants are designed to:
17
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 type of penetrant is most sensitive?
18
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
Which of the following should be removed in order to obtain a
19 good penetrant test?

Varnish
 
Oxides
Plating
All of the above
 
When removal of penetrant from the defect due to
20 overwashing of the part is a concern, which method would
most often be used?

  Fluorescent water washable method

Visible dye solvent removable method
Visible dye water washable method
Fluorescent post emulsified method
 

35 Question PT Quiz

 ~ First name ~  ~ Last name ~

       

When fluorescent penetrant inspection is performed, the

1 penetrant materials are formulated to glow brightly and to
give off light at a wavelength:

  Close to infrared light

Close to the wavelength of x-rays
That the eye is most sensitive to under dim lighting conditions
In the red spectrum
 
  For UV lights used in LPI, the accepted intensity is _______
2 microwatts per square centimeter.

100
500
 700
1000
 
The threshold of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision is
3 about:

0.003 inches
 
0.03 inches
0.03 mm
0.3cm
 
When performing a liquid penetrant test, the surface of the
4 part under inspection should be:

Slightly damp
 
Clean and smooth to the touch
Free of oil, grease, water and other contaminants
All of the above
 
Minimum penetrant dwell times are usually:
5
1-5 minutes
  1-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
60-100 minutes
 
Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:
6
Penetrant fading
  Developer fading
Emulsifier sensitivity
Emulsifier fading
 
  What industry and military specifications control a
7 penetrants?

Toxicity
 Flash point
Corrosiveness
All of the above
 
The total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part
8 surface is called the:

Soak time
 
Baking time
Dwell time
Immersion time
 
A penetrant must:
9
Change viscosity in order to spread over the surface of the part
  Spread easily over the surface of the material
Have a low flash point
Be able to change color in order to fluoresce
 
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,
10 lipophilic?

Method A
 
Method B
Method C
Method D
 
Once the surface of the part has been cleaned properly,
11 penetrant can be applied by:

Spraying
 
Brushing
Dipping
All of the above
 
  When removal of penetrant from the defect due to
overwashing of the part is a concern, which method would
 12 most often be used?

Fluorescent water washable method

Visible dye solvent removable method
Visible dye water washable method
Fluorescent post emulsified method
 
Which type of developer is considered the most sensitive?
13
Water suspendable
  Water soluble
Dry powder
Nonaqueous wet
 
Which emulsifier is most sensitive to contact time when
14 applied to the parts surface?

Hydrophilic emulsifier
 
Lipophilic emulsifier
Fluorescent emulsifier
Visible dye emulsifier
 
Penetrants are designed to:
15
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
 
Developers come in a variety of forms and can be applied by:
16
Dusting
  Dipping
Spraying
All of the above
 
  Which type of penetrant is a visible penetrant?
 Type I
Type II
17 Type III
Type IV
 
Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?
18
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
Which method of penetrant removal is water washable?
19
Method A
  Method B
Method C
Method D
 
Most UV lights must be warmed up at least ___ minutes before
20 beginning the inspection.

1
 
5
10
15
 
Surface contaminants can lead to:
21
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
 
  It is well recognized that machining, honing, lapping and hand
 22 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
 
Which method of penetrant removal is solvent removable?
23
Method A
  Method B
Method C
Method D
 
Which of the following will produce higher sensitivity of a
24 penetrant test?

Leaving the part immersed in the penetrant for the entire dwell
time
 
Leaving the part immersed in the wet developer for the entire
developer time
Using a nonaqueous wet developer
Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell during its dwell time
 
Which level of penetrant is the most sensitive?
25
Level I
  Level II
Level III
Level IV
 
When the excess penetrant is removed from the surface of the
26 part, a course water spray should be directed at an angle of:

  20 degrees
45 degrees
90 degrees
 It does not matter what angle the spray is applied
 
Nonaqeous developer is typically applied:
27
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
 
The advantage that liquid penetrant testing has over an
28 unaided 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
 
Which emulsifier system is water based?
29
Hydrophilic emulsifier
  Lipophilic emulsifier
Type I emulsifier
Form A emulsifier
 
Which developer form is used for dry powder developer?
30
Form a
  Form b
Form c
Form d
 
  When using a fluorescent penetrant, the brighness comparison
31 is performed to:

ASTM 410
API 410
ASNT TC-1A
 ASTM E 1417
 
Raising the temperature will:
32
Raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants
  Reduce the emulsifier time
Increase the developer time
Require the need of a post emulsified penetrant
 
Water based, water washable penetrant are checked with a:
33
Centrifuge
  Refractometer
Centrifuge scope
Crack block
 
The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:
34
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
 
Dry developer should be checked ______ in order to ensure it
35 is fluffy and not caked:

Daily
 
Weekly
Monthly
Every 500 parts run through it
 

50 Question PT Quiz

 ~ First name ~  ~ Last name ~

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

Soak time
 
Baking time
Dwell time
Immersion time
 
Developers come in a variety of forms and can be applied by:
2
Dusting
  Dipping
Spraying
All of the above
 
Developers are used to:
3
Make the penetrant fluoresce
  Reduce the dwell time
Pull trapped penetrant material out of the defect
All of the above
 
Which type of penetrant is a visible penetrant?
4
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
  The total time the penetrant is in contact with the part surface
5 is called the:

Penetrant dwell time

Developer time
Emulsifier time
 Penetrant evaporation time
 
Which emulsifier system is oil based?
6
Hydrophilic emulsifier
  Lipophilic emulsifier
Solvent removable emulsifier
All of the above have an oil base
 
Developer times are usually in the range of:
7
10 minutes
  10 seconds
20-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
 
Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?
8
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
Light intensity measurements are made using a:
9
Refractometer
  Radiometer
Pie gauge
UV meter
 
  Which developer form is used for nonaqueous Type I
10 developer?

Form a
Form b
Form c
 Form d
 
Which of the following will produce higher sensitivity of a
11 penetrant test?

Leaving the part immersed in the penetrant for the entire dwell
time
 
Leaving the part immersed in the wet developer for the entire
developer time
Using a nonaqueous wet developer
Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell during its dwell time
 
When solvent removable penetant is used:
12
Care must be taken when removing the penetrant from the
surface of the part
  It should be washed off the surface of the part at an angle of 45
degrees
A low impact emulsifier should always be used
A solvent removable emulsifier should also be used
 
Most specifications limit water contamination to around:
13
1 percent
  2 percent
5 percent
10 percent
 
Contamination of the penetrant:
14
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
 
  Which of the following should be removed in order to obtain a
good penetrant test?
 15 Varnish
Oxides
Plating
All of the above
 
Which developer form is used for water suspendible
16 developer?

Form a
 
Form b
Form c
Form d
 
Developer is required to:
17
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
 
Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?
18
Type I
  Type II
Type III
Type IV
 
Nonaqeous developer is typically applied:
19
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
 
  Surface contaminants can lead to:
 A shift in the fluorescent wavelength to a lower angstrom level
The part needing to be redipped in order to produce good
results
20 Higher background fluorescence
All of the above
 
Penetrant can be applied by:
21
Dipping
  Brushing
 Spraying
All of the above
 
It is well recognized that machining, honing, lapping and hand
22 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
 
When removal of penetrant from the defect due to
23 overwashing of the part is a concern, which method would
most often be used?

  Fluorescent water washable method

Visible dye solvent removable method
Visible dye water washable method
Fluorescent post emulsified method
 
  Raising the temperature will:
24
Raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants
Reduce the emulsifier time
Increase the developer time
 Require the need of a post emulsified penetrant
 
If the surface of the part has been machined, sanded or grit
25 blasted:

The part may also require etching

  It can be immersed in penetrant for its entire dwell time
It will require a shorter dwell time
It will need to be heated in order to open any cracks that have
been peened over
 
Once the surface of the part has been cleaned properly,
26 penetrant can be applied by:

Spraying
 
Brushing
Dipping
All of the above
 
The water content of water washable penetrant:s:
27
Should be performed daily
  Should be performed weekly
Should be performed monthly
Must be checked regularly
 
The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:
28
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
 
  The performance of a penetrant:
29
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 120 o F
Can be affected by contamination and aging
Can be adjusted with the dwell time
 
When penetrant is first received from the manufacturer:
30
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
 
Application of the emulsifier should not be performed with a:
31
Spray
  Brush
Dip
Both A and B
 
Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:
32
Penetrant fading
  Developer fading
Emulsifier sensitivity
Emulsifier fading
 
When removing water washable penetrant the maximum
33 water pressure should be:

25 psi
 
40 psi
50 psi
70 psi
 
  Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,
lipophilic?
 Method A
Method B
34 Method C
Method D
 
The threshold of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision is
35 about:

0.003 inches
 
0.03 inches
0.03 mm
0.3cm
 
Which developer is commonly considered as the least
36 sensitive?

Dry developer
 
Non-aqueous wet developer
Hydrophilic developer
Lipophilic developer
 
White light intensity at the surface of the part when using a
37 visible 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
 
The source of ultraviolet light (UV) if often a:
38
Mercury arc lamp with filter
  Wave shift arc lamp
UV lamp with filter
Filter over a minimum 100 watt light bulb
 
 Black lights should:
39
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
 
Which method is used to primarily to inspect small localized
40 areas?

Method A
 
Method B
Method C
Method D
 
When a permanent record is required which type of developer
41 can be used:

Lacquer developer
 
Nonaqueous developer
Layered developer
Peeling developer
 
Which method of penetrant removal is water washable?
42
Method A
  Method B
Method C
Method D
 
  Large defects can be hidden under a paint surface because:
43
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
 
What is the optimal temperature of penetrant materials and
44 the part under inspection in order to obtain the best results?

50 to 80o F
 
80 to 120o F
35 to 100o F
80 to 100o F
 
A good cleaning procedure will:
45
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
 
Which penetrant method is easiest to use in the field?
46
Fluorescent, post-emulsifiable
  Visible dye, water washable
Visible dye, solvent removable
Fluorescent, water washable
 
Which method of penetrant removal is solvent removable?
47
Method A
  Method B
Method C
Method D
 
  A penetrant must:
48
Change viscosity in order to spread over the surface of the part
 Spread easily over the surface of the material
Have a low flash point
Be able to change color in order to fluoresce
 
LPI can be used to test most materials provided the surface of
49 the part is:

Heated to a temperature above 100o F

 
Is not extremely rough or porous
Smooth and uniform
Cleaned with number 005 grit
 
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,
50 hydrophilic?

Method A
 
Method B
Method C
Method D