Introduction To Penetrant Testing

Introduction to Penetrant Testing
From NDT Resources 1 of 61

Introduction
History
Improving Detection
—Visual Acuity
—Contrast Sensitivity
—Eye's Response to Light
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Color and Fluorescence
—Why things Fluoresce
—Dimensional Threshold
—Stability of Penetrants
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers
Methods & Techniques

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Material Smear
Technique Selection
Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
Quality & Process Control

Part/Penetrant Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
System Performace Check
Other Considerations
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
Quizzes

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 of the Human Eye
The eye has a visual acuity threshold below which an object will go undetected. This
threshold varies from person to person, but as an example, the case of a person with normal
20/20 vision can be considered. As light enters the eye through the pupil, it passes through
the lens and is projected on the retina at the back of the eye. Muscles called extraocular
muscles, move the eyeball in the orbits and allow the image to be focused on the central
retinal or fovea.
The retina is a mosaic of two basic types of photoreceptors: rods, and cones. Rods are
sensitive to blue-green light with peak sensitivity at a wavelength of 498 nm, and are used for
vision under dark or dim conditions. There are three types of cones that give us our basic
color vision: L-cones (red) with a peak sensitivity of 564 nm, M-cones (green) with a peak
sensitivity of 533 nm, and S-cones (blue) with a peak sensitivity of 437 nm.

Cones are highly concentrated in a region near the center of the retina called the fovea region.
The maximum concentration of cones is roughly 180,000 per square mm in the fovea region
and this density decreases rapidly outside of the fovea to a value of less than 5,000 per square
mm. Note the blind spot caused by the optic nerve which is void of any photoreceptors.
The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a
spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since one degree contains
sixty minutes, a visual angle of one minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree. The spatial resolution

limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a scene is projected across 288µm of the
retina by the eye's lens.
In this 288µm, there are 120 color sensing cone cells packed. Thus, if more than 120
alternating white and black lines are crowded side-by-side in a single degree of viewing
space, they will appear as a single gray mass to the human eye. With a little trigonometry, it
is possible to calculate the resolution of the eye at a specific distance away from the lens of
the eye.
For the case of normal visual acuity the angle Theta is 1/60 of a degree. By bisecting this
angle we have a right triangle with angle Theta/2 that is 1/120 of a degree. Using this right
triangle it is easy to calculate the distance X/2 for a given distance d.
X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)
When visually inspecting an object for a defect such as a crack, the distance (d) might be
around 12 inches. This would be a comfortable viewing distance. At 12 inches, the normal
visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. What this means is that if you had alternating
black and white lines that were all 0.00349 inch wide, it would appear to most people as a
mass of solid gray.

Contrast Sensitivity
When conducting a visible dye penetrant inspection, the contrast sensitivity of the eye is
important. Contrast sensitivity is a measure of how faded or washed out an image can be
before it becomes indistinguishable from a uniform field. It has been experimentally
determined that the minimum discernible difference in gray scale level that the eye can detect
is about 2% of full brightness. Contrast sensitivity is a function of the size or spatial
frequency of the features in the image. However, this is not a direct relationship as larger
objects are not always easier to see than smaller objects (as demonstrated by the image
below).
In the image below, the luminance of pixels is varied sinusoidally in the horizontal direction.
The spatial frequency increases exponentially from left to right. The contrast also varies
logarithmically from 100% at the bottom to about 0.5% at the top. The luminance of peaks
and troughs remains constant along a given horizontal path through the image. If the
detection of contrast was dictated solely by image contrast, the alternating bright and dark
bars should appear to have equal height everywhere in the image. However, the bars seem to
be taller in the middle of the image.
Campbell, F. W. and Robson, J. G. (1968) Application of Fourier Analysis to the Visibility of

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

The Human Eye's Response to Light
The three curves in the figure above shows the normalized response of an average human eye
to various amounts of ambient light. The shift in sensitivity occurs because two types of
photoreceptors called cones and rods are responsible for the eye's response to light. The curve
on the right shows the eye's response under normal lighting conditions and this is called the
photopic response. The cones respond to light under these conditions.
As mentioned previously, cones are composed of three different photo pigments that enable
color perception. This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under normal
lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the light levels
drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye changes significantly as shown by the
scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are most active and the
human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color.
Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which
accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level, sensitivity to
blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow and red is reduced. The
heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at the ambient light level found in a
typical inspection booth. This curve peaks at 550 nanometers, which means the eye is most
sensitive to yellowish-green color at this light level. Fluorescent penetrant inspection
materials are designed to fluoresce at around 550 nanometers to produce optimal sensitivity
under dim lighting conditions.

Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection
1. Surface Preparation: One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant inspection is
the surface preparation. The surface must be free of oil, grease, water, or other
contaminants that may prevent penetrant from entering flaws. The sample may also
require etching if mechanical operations such as machining, sanding, or grit blasting
have been performed. These and other mechanical operations can smear metal over
the flaw opening and prevent the penetrant from entering.
2. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly cleaned and dried, the
penetrant material is applied by spraying, brushing, or immersing the part in a
penetrant bath.
3. Penetrant Dwell: The penetrant is left on the surface for a sufficient time to allow as
much penetrant as possible to be drawn from or to seep into a defect. Penetrant dwell
time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface. Dwell times
are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or required by the specification
being followed. The times vary depending on the application, penetrant materials
used, the material, the form of the material being inspected, and the type of defect
being inspected for. Minimum dwell times typically range from five to 60 minutes.
Generally, there is no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the
penetrant is not allowed to dry. The ideal dwell time is often determined by
experimentation and may be very specific to a particular application.
4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This is

the most delicate part of the inspection
procedure because the excess penetrant
must be removed from the surface of
the sample while removing as little
penetrant as possible from defects.
Depending on the penetrant system
used, this step may involve cleaning
with a solvent, direct rinsing with
water, or first treating the part with an emulsifier and then rinsing with water.

5. Developer Application: A thin layer of developer is then applied to the sample to

draw penetrant trapped in flaws back to the surface where it will be visible.
Developers come in a variety of forms that may be applied by dusting (dry
powdered), dipping, or spraying (wet developers).
6. Indication Development: The developer is allowed to stand on the part surface for a
period of time sufficient to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of any
surface flaws. This development time is usually a minimum of 10 minutes.
Significantly longer times may be necessary for tight cracks.
7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect

indications from any flaws which may be present.
8. Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to thoroughly clean the part surface to
remove the developer from the parts that were found to be acceptable.
Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection
Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely

used nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. Its popularity
can be attributed to two main factors: its relative ease of use
and its flexibility. LPI can be used to inspect almost any
material provided that its surface is not extremely rough or
porous. Materials that are commonly inspected using LPI
include the following:
• Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.)

• Glass
• Many ceramic materials
• Rubber
• Plastics
LPI offers flexibility in performing inspections because it can be applied in a large variety of
applications ranging from automotive spark plugs to critical aircraft components. Penetrant
material can be applied with a spray can or a cotton swab to inspect for flaws known to occur
in a specific area or it can be applied by dipping or spraying to quickly inspect large areas.
Above, visible dye penetrant being locally applied to a highly loaded connecting point to
check for fatigue cracking.

Penetrant inspection systems have been developed to inspect some very large components. In
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 is 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.
Penetrants
The industry and military specifications that control

penetrant materials and their use, all stipulate certain
physical properties of the penetrant materials that must
be met. Some of these requirements address the safe use
of the materials, such as toxicity, flash point, and
corrosiveness, and other requirements address storage
and contamination issues. Still others delineate
properties that are thought to be primarily responsible
for the performance or sensitivity of the penetrants. The
properties of penetrant materials that are controlled by
AMS 2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash point,
surface wetting capability, viscosity, color, brightness,
ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, water tolerance, and removability.

Surface Energy (Surface Wetting Capability)
As previously mentioned, one of the important characteristics of a liquid penetrant material is

its ability to freely wet the surface of the object being inspected. At the liquid-solid surface
interface, if the molecules of the liquid have a stronger attraction to the molecules of the solid
surface than to each other (the adhesive forces are stronger than the cohesive forces), wetting
of the surface occurs. Alternately, if the liquid molecules are more strongly attracted to each
other than the molecules of the solid surface (the cohesive forces are stronger than the
adhesive forces), the liquid beads-up and does not wet the surface of the part.
One way to quantify a liquid's surface wetting characteristics is to measure the contact angle
of a drop of liquid placed on the surface of an object. The contact angle is the angle formed
by the solid/liquid interface and the liquid/vapor interface measured from the side of the
liquid. (See the figure below.) Liquids wet surfaces when the contact angle is less than 90
degrees. For a penetrant material to be effective, the contact angle should be as small as
possible. In fact, the contact angle for most liquid penetrants is very close to zero degrees.
Wetting ability of a liquid is a function of the surface energies of the solid-gas interface, the
liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. The surface energy across an interface or
the surface tension at the interface is a measure of the energy required to form a unit area of
new surface at the interface. The intermolecular bonds or cohesive forces between the
molecules of a liquid cause surface tension. When the liquid encounters another substance,
there is usually an attraction between the two materials. The adhesive forces between the
liquid and the second substance will compete against the cohesive forces of the liquid.
Liquids with weak cohesive bonds and a strong attraction to another material (or the desire to
create adhesive bonds) will tend to spread over the material. Liquids with strong cohesive
bonds and weaker adhesive forces will tend to bead-up or form a droplet when in contact with
another material.
In liquid penetrant testing, there are usually three surface interfaces involved, the solid-gas
interface, the liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. For a liquid to spread over
the surface of a part, two conditions must be met. First, the surface energy of the solid-gas
interface must be greater than the combined surface energies of the liquid-gas and the solid-
liquid interfaces. Second, the surface energy of the solid-gas interface must exceed the
surface energy of the solid-liquid interface.
A penetrant's wetting characteristics are also largely responsible for its ability to fill a void.
Penetrant materials are often pulled into surface breaking defects by capillary action. The
capillary force driving the penetrant into the crack is a function of the surface tension of the
liquid-gas interface, the contact angle, and the size of the defect opening. The driving force
for the capillary action can be expressed as the following formula:

Force = 2 πrσ LG cosθ
Where:
r = radius of the crack opening (2pr is the line of contact between the liquid and the solid
tubular surface.)
σ LG = liquid-gas surface tension
θ = contact angle
Since pressure is the force over a given area, it can be written that the pressure developed,
called the capillary pressure, is
Capillary Pressure = (2 σ LG cosθ)/ r
The above equations are for a cylindrical defect but the relationships of the variables are the
same for a flaw with a noncircular cross section. Capillary pressure equations only apply
when there is simultaneous contact of the penetrant along the entire length of the crack
opening and a liquid front forms that is an equidistant from the surface. A liquid penetrant
surface could take-on a complex shape as a consequence of the various deviations from flat
parallel walls that an actual crack could have. In this case, the expression for pressure is
Capillary Pressure = 2(σ SG - σs SL)/r = 2Σ /r
Where:
σ SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.

σ SL = the surface energy at the solid-liquid interface.
r = the radius of the opening.
Σ = the adhesion tension (σSG - σ SL).
Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a penetrant's
movement into a flaw and not the surface energy of the liquid-gas interface. Adhesion tension
is the force acting on a unit length of the wetting line from the direction of the solid. The
wetting performance of the penetrant is degraded when adhesion tension is the primary
driving force.
It can be seen from the equations in this section that the surface wetting characteristics
(defined by the surface energies) are important in order for a penetrant to fill a void. A liquid
penetrant will continue to fill the void until an opposing force balances the capillary pressure.
This force is usually the pressure of trapped gas in a void, as most flaws are open only at the
surface of the part. Since the gas originally in a flaw volume cannot escape through the layer
of penetrant, the gas is compressed near the closed end of a void.
Since the contact angle for penetrants is very close to zero, other methods have been devised
to make relative comparisons of the wetting characteristics of these liquids. One method is to
measure the height that a liquid reaches in a capillary tube. However, the solid interface in
this method is usually glass and may not accurately represent the surface that the penetrant
inspection will be performed on. Another method of comparative evaluation is to measure the
radius, the diameter, or the area of a spot formed when a drop of penetrant is placed on the

test surface and allowed to stand undisturbed for a specific amount of time. However, using
this method, other factors are also acting in the comparison. These methods include the
density, viscosity, and volatility of the liquid, which do not enter into the capillarity
equations, but may have an effect on the inspection as discussed in the related pages.
Density or Specific Gravity
The density or specific gravity of a penetrant material has a slight to negligible effect on the
performance of a penetrant. The gravitational force acting on the penetrant liquid can be
working either with or against the capillary force depending on the orientation of the flaw
during the dwell cycle. When the gravitational pull is working against the capillary rise, the
strength of the force is given by the following equation:
Force = πr2hpg
Where:
r = radius of the crack opening

h = height of penetrant above its free surface
p = density of the penetrant
g = acceleration due to gravity
When the direction of capillary flow is in the same direction as the force of gravity, the added
force driving the penetrant into the flaw is given by the formula shown below:
Force = hAp
Where:
h = height of penetrant above its free surface

A = cross-sectional area of the opening
P = density of the penetrant
Increasing the specific gravity by decreasing the percent of solvent (by volume) in the
solution will increase the penetration speed.

Viscosity
Viscosity has little effect on the ability of a penetrant material to enter a defect but it does
have an effect on the speed at which the penetrant fills a defect. The equations for the fill
times of a cylindrical void and an elliptical void are shown below:
Cylindrical Void
Fill time = (2l2μ)/ rcosθ σLG
Elliptical Void
Fill time = [(2l μ) / σLGcosθ] * [a2+b2 / (a+b)ab]
2
Where: l = defect depth

μ = viscosity
r = radius of the crack opening
σ LG = liquid-gas surface tension
θ = contact angle
a = flaw width
b = flaw length
From these equations, it can be seen that fill time is directly proportional to penetrant
viscosity. While it has no real bearing on this discussion, it should be noted that the two
equations do not take into account entrapped gas that could be present in a closed end
capillary.
Color and Fluorescent Brightness
Penetrant Color and Fluorescence
The color of the penetrant material is of obvious importance in a visible dye penetrant
inspection, as the dye must provide good contrast against the developer or part being
inspected. Remember from the earlier discussion of contrast sensitivity that generally the
higher the contrast, the easier objects are to see. The dye used in visible dye penetrant is
usually vibrant red but other colors can be purchased for special applications.
When fluorescent materials are involved, the effect of color and fluorescence is not so
straightforward. LPI materials fluoresce because they contain one or more dyes that absorb
electromagnetic radiation over a particular wavelength and the absorption of photons leads to

changes in the electronic configuration of the molecules. Since the molecules are not stable at
this higher energy state, they almost immediately re-emit the energy. There is some energy
loss in the process and this causes photons to be re-emitted at a slightly longer wavelength
that is in the visible range. The radiation absorption and emission could take place a number
of times until the desired color and brightness is achieved. Two different fluorescent colors
can be mixed to interact by a mechanism called cascading. The emission of visible light by
this process involves one dye absorbing ultraviolet radiation to emit a band of radiation that
makes a second dye glow. Since the human eye is the most commonly used sensing device,
most penetrants are designed to fluoresce as close as possible to the eyes' peak response.
The Human Eye's Response to Light
The three curves in the figure above shows the normalized response of an average human eye
to various amounts of ambient light. The shift in sensitivity occurs because two types of
photoreceptors called cones and rods are responsible for the eye's response to light. The curve
on the right shows the eye's response under normal lighting conditions and this is called the
photopic response. The cones respond to light under these conditions.
As mentioned previously, cones are composed of three different photo pigments that enable
color perception. This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under normal
lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the light levels
drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye changes significantly as shown by the
scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are most active and the
human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color.
Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which
accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level, sensitivity to
blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow and red is reduced. The

heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at the ambient light level found in a
typical inspection booth. This curve peaks at 550 nanometers, which means the eye is most
sensitive to yellowish-green color at this light level. Fluorescent penetrant inspection
materials are designed to fluoresce at around 550 nanometers to produce optimal sensitivity
under dim lighting conditions.
Penetrant Brightness
Fluorescent brightness was erroneously once thought to be the controlling factor with respect
to flaw detection sensitivity. Measurements have been made to evaluate the intrinsic
brightness of virtually all commercially available penetrants and they all have about the same
brightness. Intrinsic brightness values are determined for thick liquid films but the
dimensional threshold of fluorescence (discussed on the next page) is a more important
property. The measurement of fluorescent brightness is detailed in ASTM E-1135, "Standard
Test Method for Comparing the Brightness of Fluorescent Penetrants."
Why Things Fluoresce
Fluorescent penetrant materials usually contain several dye

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

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

This equations shows that the size of the energy steps change with the frequency or
wavelength of the light. Einstein introduced the term photon to describe the smallest
increments of light.
In today's current model of the atom, protons and neutrons are found in the nucleus and
electrons are found spinning around outside the nucleus. Electrons spin and rotate around the
nucleus billions of times a second. According to modern theory, electrons are arranged in
energy levels as they rotate around the nucleus. When electrons gain or lose energy, they
jump between energy levels as they are rotating around the nucleus. As electrons gain energy,
they move to the third, or outer level and as they lose energy, they move to the inner or first
energy level. Since the energy of the system is restricted to certain energy values, the atom is
said to be quantized. In the animated image below, it can be seen that the electrons move to a
different energy state only when a specific amount of energy is added to or removed from the
system.

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

molecules form, two or more atoms form an association where the energy of the molecule is
lower than that of the constituent atoms when they were separate. The total energy of the
molecule is the sum of the energies holding the nuclei together and the energy of the
chemical bonds holding the molecule together. Molecules have rotational, vibrational and
electronic (due to the electrons) energy. It is the vibrational and electronic energies of the
molecule that contribute to fluorescence. Molecules, like atoms, will generally be in their
ground state. Molecules can move to a greater energy state only when energy is added to their
system. One of the ways a molecule can gain energy is by absorbing light. If a molecule

absorbs light, the energy of the light must be equal to the energy required to put the molecule
in one of the higher energy states. When a molecule reaches an excited state, it does not stay
there for very long. Rather it quickly returns to a lower energy state either by emitting light
or colliding with another atomic particle. When a molecule emits light, the energy of that
light is equal to the energy difference between the quantum levels that molecules has moved
between.
Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence
The dimensional threshold of fluorescence is a property that is not currently controlled by the
specifications but appears to largely determine the sensitivity of a fluorescent penetrant. A.L.
Walters and R.C. McMaster conducted an experiment that led to the understanding of this
condition. Two optically flat plates of glass were clamped tightly together. A drop of
fluorescent penetrant was placed at the interface of the plates. The penetrant could be seen
migrating in between the plates but when exposed to black light, no fluorescence was seen.
The phenomenon was not fully understood until 1960 when Alburger introduced the concept
of thin-film transition of fluorescent response.
The dimensional magnitudes of typical crack defects correspond to the dimensional

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

Io = Incident light intensity
e = Base of natural log (2.71828)
λ = Absorption coefficient per unit of concentration
C = Dye concentration
t = Thickness of the absorbing layer trolled to a certain degree by the concentration of the
fluorescent tracer dye in the penetrant.
This equation states that the intensity of the transmitted energy is directly proportional to the
intensity of the incident light and varies exponentially with the thickness of the penetrant
layer and its dye concentration. Therefore, when the dye concentration is increased, the
brightness of the thin layer of penetrant generally increases. However, the dye concentration
can only be increased so much before it starts to have a negative effect on brightness. A
Meniscus-Method Apparatus can be used to measure the dimensional threshold of
fluorescence.

Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability of Penetrant Indications
Exposure to intense ultraviolet light and elevated temperatures can have a negative effect on
fluorescent penetrant indications. Fluorescent materials can lose their brightness after a
period of exposure to high intensity UV light. One study measured the intensity of
fluorescent penetrant indications on a sample that was subjected to multiple UV exposure
cycles. Each cycle consisted of 15 minutes of 800 microwatt/cm² UV light and 2.5 minutes of
1500 microwatt/cm² UV light. Two penetrants were tested in the study, water washable, level
3 and a post emulsifiable, level 4. The results from the study showed that the indications from
both penetrants faded with increased UV exposure. After eight exposure cycles, the
brightnesses of the indications were less than one half their original values.
At an elevated temperature, penetrants can experience heat degradation or "heat fade."

Excessive heat:
1. evaporates the more volatile constituents which increases viscosity and adversely affects
the rate of penetration.
2. alters wash characteristics.
3. "boils off" chemicals that prevent separation and gelling of water soluble penetrants.
4. kills the fluorescence of tracer dyes.
This fourth degradation mechanism involves the molecules of the penetrant materials. The
phenomenon of fluorescence involves electrons that are delocalized in a molecule. These
electrons are not specifically associated with a given bond between two atoms. When a
molecule takes up sufficient energy for the excitation source, the delocalized bonding
electrons rise to a higher electronic state. After excitation, the electrons will normally lose
energy and return to the lowest energy state. This loss of energy can involve a "radiative"
process such as fluorescence or "non-radiative" processes. Non-radiative processes include
relaxation by molecular collisions, thermal relaxation, and chemical reaction. Heat causes the
number of molecular collisions to increase, which results in more collision relaxation and less
fluorescence.
This explanation is only valid when the part and the penetrant are at an elevated temperature.
When the materials cool, the fluorescence will return. However, while exposed to elevated
temperatures, penetrant solutions dry faster. As the molecules become more closely packed in
the dehydrated solution, collision relaxation increases and fluorescence decreases. This effect
has been called "concentration quenching" and experimental data shows that as the dye
concentration is increased, fluorescent brightness initially increases but reaches a peak and
then begins to decrease. Airflow over the surface on the part will also speed evaporation of
the liquid carrier, so it should be kept to a minimum to prevent a loss of brightness.
Generally, thermal damage occurs when fluorescent penetrant materials are heated above
71oC (160oF). It should be noted that the sensitivity of an FPI inspection can be improved if a
part is heated prior to applying the penetrant material, but the temperature should be kept
below 71oC (160oF). Some high temperature penetrants in use today are formulated with dyes
with high melting points, greatly reducing heat related problems. The penetrants also have
high boiling points and the heat related problems are greatly reduced. However, a loss of
brightness can still take place when the penetrant is exposed to elevated temperatures over an
extended period of time. When one heat resistant formulation was tested, a 20 % reduction
was measured after the material was subjected to 163oC (325oF) for 273 hours. The various

types of fluorescent dyes commonly employed in today's penetrant materials begin

decomposition at 71oC (160oF). When the temperature approaches 94oC (200oF), there is
almost total attenuation of fluorescent brightness of the composition and sublimation of the
fluorescent dyestuffs.
Removability
Removing the penetrant from the surface of the sample, without removing it from the flaw, is
one of the most critical operations of the penetrant inspection process. The penetrant must be
removed from the sample surface as completely as possible to limit background fluorescence.
In order for this to happen, the adhesive forces of the penetrant must be weak enough that
they can be broken by the removal methods used. However, in order for the penetrant to have
good surface wetting characteristics, the adhesive forces (forces of attraction between the
penetrant and the solid surface being inspected) must be stronger than the cohesive forces
(forces holding the liquid together). Proper formulation of the penetrant materials provides
the correct balancing of these forces.
Another consideration in the formulation of the penetrant liquid is that it should not easily
commingle and become diluted by the cleaning solution. Dilution of the penetrant liquid will
affect the concentration of the dye and reduce the dimensional threshold of fluorescence.
Emulsifiers
When removal of the penetrant from a defect due to over-washing of the part is a concern, a
post-emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants require a
separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water-washable. Most penetrant
inspection specifications classify penetrant systems into four methods of excess penetrant
removal. These are listed below:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant from the part being inspected.
Method A has emulsifiers built into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible to remove the
excess penetrant with a simple water wash. Method B and D penetrants require an additional
processing step where a separate emulsification agent is applied to make the excess penetrant
more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic emulsification systems are oil-based materials
that are supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic systems are water-based and supplied as a
concentrate that must be diluted with water prior to use .
Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late 1950's and work with both a
chemical and mechanical action. After the emulsifier has coated the surface of the object,
mechanical action starts to remove some of the excess penetrant as the mixture drains from
the part. During the emulsification time, the emulsifier diffuses into the remaining penetrant
and the resulting mixture is easily removed with a water spray.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the excess penetrant with mechanical and
chemical action but the action is different because no diffusion takes place. Hydrophilic

emulsifiers are basically detergents that contain solvents and surfactants. The hydrophilic
emulsifier breaks up the penetrant into small quantities and prevents these pieces from
recombining or reattaching to the surface of the part. The mechanical action of the rinse water
removes the displaced penetrant from the part and causes fresh remover to contact and lift
newly exposed penetrant from the surface.
The hydrophilic post-emulsifiable method (Method

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

2. Form b - Water Soluble
3. Form c - Water Suspendable
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent (Solvent Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye (Solvent Based)
6. Form f - Special Applications
The developer classifications are based on the method that the developer is applied. The
developer can be applied as a dry powder, or dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier. Each
of the developer forms has advantages and disadvantages.

Dry Powder
Dry powder developer is generally

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

a group of chemicals that are dissolved in water and form
a developer layer when the water is evaporated away. The
best method for applying water soluble developers is by
spraying it on the part. The part can be wet or dry.
Dipping, pouring, or brushing the solution on to the surface is sometimes used but these
methods are less desirable. Aqueous developers contain wetting agents that cause the solution
to function much like dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and can lead to additional removal of
entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by placing the wet but well drained part in a
recirculating, warm air dryer with the temperature held between 70 and 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.
A good cleaning procedure will remove all

contamination from the part and not leave any residue
that may interfere with the inspection process. It has
been found that some alkaline cleaners can be
detrimental to the penetrant inspection process if they
have silicates in concentrations above 0.5 percent.
Sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate, and related
compounds can adhere to the surface of parts and form
a coating that prevents penetrant entry into cracks.
Researchers in Russia have also found that some
domestic soaps and commercial detergents can clog
flaw cavities and reduce the wettability of the metal
surface, thus reducing the sensitivity of the penetrant.
Conrad and Caudill found that media from plastic
media blasting was partially responsible for loss of
LPI indication strength. Microphotographs of cracks
after plastic media blasting showed media entrapment
in addition to metal smearing.
It is very important that the material being inspected has not been smeared across its own
surface during machining or cleaning operations. It is well recognized that machining,
honing, lapping, hand sanding, hand scraping, grit blasting, tumble deburring, and peening
operations can cause some materials to smear. It is perhaps less recognized that some
cleaning operations, such as steam cleaning, can also cause metal smearing in the softer
materials. Take the link below to learn more about metal smearing and its affects on LPI
Summary of Research on Cleaning Prior to LPI
The following is a summary of some of the articles that have been published on the effects
that some contaminants can have on penetrant inspection and also what effects improper
cleaning methods and materials can have on the inspection.
Oils
Klein showed that when a test specimen was contaminated with cutting oil, there was a
reduction in sensitivity even when the specimen was vapor degreased before inspection. The
specimens used for this study were quenched cracked 2024 aluminum blocks. The reduction
in sensitivity was believed to be the result of incomplete removal of the cutting oil from the
defects.
Etchants
Klein warns that acid entrapment from a prepenetrant etch can have disastrous effects on the
penetrant inspection. The article states that the sodium hydroxide caustic often used to etch

aluminum parts does not affect penetrants but that acids used to etch parts of other materials
do have an effect. Experts in the penetrant field warn that caustics can in fact reduce
penetrant brightness. Careful cleaning of both acid and caustic etches before penetrant
inspection is highly recommended.
Residue from Previous Penetrant Inspections
Klein also found that the effectiveness of a penetrant was significantly reduced if the part had
been previously inspected with a different penetrant, although proper pre- and post- cleaning
(degreasing) operations had been performed. This was the case when the previous inspection
was performed with a different fluorescent penetrant or a visible dye penetrant. When the
same penetrant system was used for both inspections, there was no extensive loss in
sensitivity when the specimens received the required pre- and post-cleaning. Klein's study
also showed that even the most careful post-cleaning operations leave some penetrant in the
defects.
Researchers from the Canadian Armed Forces studied the effects of residual entrapped
penetrants. The researchers concluded that repetitive inspections produce greatly reduced
indications when pre- and post-cleaning operations are not performed properly.
Amos Sherwin revisits the issue in a 1990 “Back to Basics” article in Materials Evaluation.
The focus of this article is on the effect of a previous visible penetrant inspection on a
fluorescent penetrant inspection. To illustrate the degrading effect of type II penetrant on type
I penetrant, Sherwin suggests a simple experiment. He instructs to mix one percent visible
and 99 percent fluorescent penetrant together and note the almost complete lack of
fluorescence under black light. Apparently, the red dye acts as an UV filter and stops nearly
all fluorescence. The article also notes that soaking the test piece in isopropanol for 10
minutes between the two inspections did provide some improvement but did not result in
acceptable performance.
Tanner, Ustruck, and Packman developed a procedure to accurately measure the amount of
penetrant absorbed into the cracks of a chrome plated panel specimen. The procedure they
used involved applying penetrant to the sample and letting it dwell for a set time. They then
degreased the specimen using toluene in a closed flask and used a colorimeter to measure the
fluorescence of the used toluene. Then, by using a very accurate pipette, they added drops of
penetrant to fresh toluene until the colorimeter value matched that of the toluene used to
degrease the sample. With this very accurate method of measuring the amount of penetrant
absorbed, they showed that a small amount of solvent from the precleaning operation, if left
trapped in a flaw, can have a drastic effect on the performance of a penetrant.
In terms of cleaning penetrant system performance check specimens and nonproduction parts,
researchers in the Netherlands evaluated the length of time required to clean test specimens
using an organic solvent bath with ultrasonic agitation. Using specimens with fatigue cracks,
five organic solvents were tested. The specimens were considered cleaned of the penetrant
when no bleedout was detectable when the specimens were evaluated 12 hours after the
cleaning operation. The solvents tested were acetone, Freon, Chlorotene NU, Toluol, and
MEK. For all solvents, at least two hours of processing was required to properly clean the
specimens.

-- De Graaf, E. and De Rijk, P., Comparison Between Reliability, Sensitivity, and Accuracy
of Nondestructive Inspection Methods, 13th Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation
Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, published by NTIAC, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, April 1981, pp. 311-322.
It is also important that the cleaning process itself does not cause a reduction in penetrant
sensitivity. Some chemical cleaning processes have been found to plug defects. In many
cases, chemical cleaning alone does not adequately prepare the surface of a part for
inspection and mechanical cleaning methods must be employed. These mechanical cleaning
methods, such as grit, or other media blasting, sanding, and even steam cleaning, have been
shown to cause metal smearing in some alloys.
Cleaning Chemicals
Sam Robinson of Sherwin Inc. discusses an important cleaning consideration in a paper titled
"1,1,1-Trichloroethane Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the
Penetrant Process." He cautions that some mild alkaline cleaners include sodium metasilicate
as an ingredient. Sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate, and related compounds can adhere to
the surface of parts and form a coating that prevents penetrant entry into cracks.
Ward Rummel states that, based on his conversations with industry experts, "silicates in
concentrations above 0.5 percent may be detrimental to subsequent penetrant inspection."
Russian researchers have also found that the cleaning solution can have an effect on the
inspection results. They report that after parts have been washed with cleaning liquids
containing a solution of domestic soap or oleic potash soap, some cracks are no longer
detectable. They attribute this reduction in sensitivity to a clogging of the cavities and a
reduction in wettability of the metal surface by the penetrant. Several photographs are offered
that supports these claims.
In another article, the Russian researchers further investigated the effects of cleaning and
rinsing components with aqueous solutions of commercial detergents (CDs) on the
detectability of cracks. They reported that some CD solutions improved crack detectability
while others impaired detectability. Some of the cleaning solutions formed deposits in the
cracks that were difficult to remove and could prevent the formation of penetrant indications.
To ensure efficient capillary inspection of fatigue cracks in the vanes of gas turbine engines,
they recommended that components be thoroughly rinsed in water with the aid of ultrasound
and, if possible, dried at 350-400C (661-751F) for components made of creep-resistant nickel
alloys, or at 140-170C (283-337F) for other alloys.

Material Smear and Its Removal
Material smearing can have a very detrimental effect on an LPI inspection as defects that are
normally open to the surface can be partially or completely covered over. Some of the
processes that can cause material to smear include machining, honing, lapping, sanding,
scraping, grit blasting, tumble de burring, and preening operations. When high pressure is
used, some cleaning operations, such as vapor and steam cleaning, can also cause material to
smear in the softer materials. Softer materials, such as plastics and aluminum alloys, are most
prone to smearing but many other materials, such as steel, titanium and Inconel alloys, have
also been shown to smear. To evaluate the effect of a process on liquid penetrant inspection,
cracked specimens are typically inspected before and after performing the potential smearing
operation and a comparison between the inspection results are made. It must be noted that
under carefully controlled conditions, material smear can be avoided. Whenever parts have
been mechanically processed prior to LPI, an evaluation should be performed to determine if
flaw detectability has been compromised. If material smearing is a problem, an etching
process can be used to remove the smeared material prior to inspection. The curves below
illustrate the effect that metal smearing can have on the probability of detection for a defect
and how etching the sample surface improves detectability.

The top curve shows the probability of detecting a crack versus crack length for as-machined
aluminum specimens. The bottom curve shows the POD for the same aluminum specimens
after their surfaces had been etched. Comparing the crack lengths where the curves reach a
POD level of 90%, it can be seen that in the as-machined condition, the crack length would

need to be 0.4 inches long. However, when the surface is etched, cracks under 0.10 inch can
be detected with a 90 % probability.
Removal of Material Smearing
Etching of the specimens can return the flaw to the pre-mechanical processing level of
detectability. The amount of material that must be removed by the etching process depends
on the amount of material that has been smeared and should be determined experimentally.
Volume two of the Nondestructive Testing Handbook provides a great deal of information on
material smearing and the amount of etching required to remove a smeared metal. The
handbook includes a number of photographs such as the set below that graphically show the
effects of metal smearing.
Left Image: Original fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern in a quench cracked aluminum
sample.
Center Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after sanding with 240 grit paper.
Right Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after etching to remove 0.0003 inch of
metal.
When an etchant is used, it must be properly removed from the part before applying
penetrant. Experts in the penetrant field warn that acid and caustic entrapment from a
prepenetrant etch can have disastrous effects on the penetrant inspection. Careful cleaning of
both acid and caustic etches before penetrant inspection is highly recommended. There are
several other risks to the parts being processed when an etchant is used. First, since the
etching process is removing metal from the surface of the part, the minimum dimensional
tolerances of the part must be considered. A second possible risk is that the etching process
could have an effect on the material properties of the part. The chemical etchant used should
uniformly remove material from the surface and should not etch microstructural features
(such as grain boundaries) preferentially. Ideally, a study should be conducted to evaluate the
effects of the etching process (or other chemical process) on the mechanical properties and
performance of the component.
Selection of a Penetrant Technique
The selection of a liquid penetrant system is not a straightforward task. There are a variety of
penetrant systems and developer types that are available for use, and one set of penetrant

materials will not work for all applications. Many factors must be considered when selecting
the penetrant materials for a particular application. These factors include the sensitivity
required, materials cost, number of parts, size of area requiring inspection, and portability.
When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a penetrant system, the first
decision that must be made is whether to use fluorescent penetrant or visible dye penetrant.
Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable of producing a detectable indication from a
small defect. Also, the human eye is more sensitive to a light indication on a dark background
and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication. The graph below presents a series
of curves that show the contrast ratio required for a spot of a certain diameter to be seen. The
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.

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.
Penetrant Dwell Time
Penetrant dwell time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface. The
dwell time is important because it allows the penetrant the time necessary to seep or be drawn
into a defect. Dwell times are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or required
by the specification being followed. The time required to fill a flaw depends on a number of
variables which include the following:
• The surface tension of the penetrant.

• The contact angle of the penetrant.
• The dynamic shear viscosity of the penetrant, which can vary with the diameter of the
capillary. The viscosity of a penetrant in microcapillary flaws is higher than its
viscosity in bulk, which slows the infiltration of the tight flaws.
• The atmospheric pressure at the flaw opening.

• The capillary pressure at the flaw opening.

• The pressure of the gas trapped in the flaw by the penetrant.
• The radius of the flaw or the distance between the flaw walls.
• The density or specific gravity of the penetrant.
• Microstructural properties of the penetrant.
The ideal dwell time is often determined by experimentation and is often very specific to a
particular application. For example, AMS 2647A requires that the dwell time for all aircraft
and engine parts be at least 20 minutes, while ASTM E1209 only requires a five minute dwell
time for parts made of titanium and other heat resistant alloys. Generally, there is no harm in
using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to dry.
The following tables summarize the dwell time requirements of several commonly used
specifications. The information provided below is intended for general reference and no
guarantee is made about its correctness. Please consult the specifications for the actual dwell
time requirements.



Some Research Results on Dwell Time
An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is that if the elliptical flaw has a
length to width ratio of 100, it will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than it
will a cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
-- Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing,

Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July-August 1979,
pp. 287-291.
Lord and Holloway looked for the optimum penetrant dwell time required for detecting
several types of defects in titanium. Both a level 2 post-emulsifiable fluorescent penetrant
(Magnaflux ZL-2A penetrant and ZE-3 emulsifier) and a level 2 water washable penetrant
(Tracer-Tech P-133A penetrant) were included in the study. The effect of the developer was a
variable in the study and nonaqueous wet, aqueous wet, and dry developers were included.
Specimens were also processed using no developer. The specimen defects included stress
corrosion cracks, fatigue cracks and porosity. As expected, the researchers found that the
optimal dwell time varied with the type of defect and developer used. The following table
summarizes some of the findings.
Penetrant Removal Process
The penetrant removal procedure must effectively

remove the penetrant from the surface of the part
without removing an appreciable amount of
entrapped penetrant from the defect. If the removal
process extracts penetrant from the flaw, the flaw
indication will be reduced by a proportional amount.
If the penetrant is not effectively removed from the
part surface, the contrast between the indication and
the background will be reduced. As discussed in the
Contrast Sensitivity Section, as the contrast
increases, so does visibility of the indication.

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

emulsifier and allow contact for specified time, 5. rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6. dry
part, 7. apply developer and allow part to develop, and 8. inspect.
Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants
The method used to rinse the excess penetrant from the object surface and the time of the
rinse should be controlled so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended that a
coarse spray rinse or an air-agitated, immersion wash tank be used. When a spray is being
used, it should be directed at a 45° angle to the part surface so as to not force water directly
into any discontinuities that may be present. The spray or immersion time should be kept to a
minimum through frequent inspections of the remaining background level.
Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants
When a solvent removable penetrant is used, care must also be taken to carefully remove the
penetrant from the part surface while removing as little as possible from the flaw. The first
step in this cleaning procedure is to dry wipe the surface of the part in one direction using a
white, lint-free, cotton rag. One dry pass in one direction is all that should be used to remove
as much penetrant as possible. Next, the surface should be wiped with one pass in one
direction with a rag moistened with cleaner. One dry pass followed by one damp pass is all
that is recommended. Additional wiping may sometimes be necessary; but keep in mind that
with every additional wipe, some of the entrapped penetrant will be removed and inspection
sensitivity will be reduced.
To study the effects of the wiping process, Japanese researchers manufactured a test
specimen out of acrylic plates that allowed them to view the movement of the penetrant in a
narrow cavity. The sample consisted of two pieces of acrylic with two thin sheets of vinyl
clamped between as spaces. The plates were clamped in the corners and all but one of the
edges sealed. The unsealed edge acted as the flaw. The clearance between the plates varied
from 15 microns (0.059 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.

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 background so

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

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

Indications weaken and become
Suspendable
diffused after time
White coating for good contrast can be
and fluorescent systems
Very portable
Easy to apply to readily accessible surfaces
White coating for good contrast can be Difficult to apply evenly to all surfaces
Nonaqueous
and fluorescent systems More difficult to clean part after
inspection
Indications show-up rapidly and are well
defined
Provides highest sensitivity
Process Control of Temperature
The temperature of the penetrant materials and the part being

inspected can have an effect on the results. Temperatures from 27
to 49oC (80 to 120oF) are reported in the literature to produce
optimal results. Many 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.
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.
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.
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.

QUIZ
1. If the surface of the part has been machined, a. A shift in the fluorescent wavelength to a
sanded or grit blasted: lower angstrom level
b. The part needing to be redipped in order to
a. The part may also require etching
produce good results
b. It can be immersed in penetrant for its
c. Higher background fluorescence
entire dwell time
d. All of the above
c. It will require a shorter dwell time
d. It will need to be heated in order to open 10. Minimum penetrant dwell times are usually:
any cracks that have been peened over a. 1-5 minutes
2. When performing a liquid penetrant test, the b. 1-30 minutes
surface of the part under inspection should be: c. 5-60 minutes
d. 60-100 minutes
a. Slightly damp
b. Clean and smooth to the touch 11. Generally, there is no harm in using a longer
c. Free of oil, grease, water and other penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant:
contaminants a. Is not allowed to dry
d. All of the above b. Stays viscous
3. Developers come in a variety of forms and can c. Does not form clumps on the surface of
be applied by: the part
d. Is mixed with emulsifier
a. Dusting
b. Dipping 12. Which emulsifier is most sensitive to contact
c. Spraying time when applied to the parts surface?
d. All of the above a. Hydrophilic emulsifier
4. Which of the following should be removed in b. Lipophilic emulsifier
order to obtain a good penetrant test? c. Fluorescent emulsifier
d. Visible dye emulsifier
a. Varnish
b. Oxides 13. Which developer is commonly considered as
c. Plating the least sensitive?
d. All of the above a. Dry developer
5. Developer times are usually in the range of: b. Non-aqueous wet developer
c. Hydrophilic developer
a. 10 minutes
d. Lipophilic developer
b. 10 seconds
c. 20-30 minutes 14. When penetrant is first received from the
d. 5-60 minutes manufacturer:
6. A penetrant must: a. A sample of fresh solution should be
collected and stored as a standard for
a. Change viscosity in order to spread over
future comparison
the surface of the part
b. It should be compared to the previous
b. Spread easily over the surface of the
batch of penetrant
material
c. It should be mixed with the used penetrant
c. Have a low flash point
in order to increase its sensitivity
d. Be able to change color in order to
d. It should be compared to the previous
fluoresce
penetrants sensitivity
7. Which type of penetrant is a visible penetrant?
15. LPI can be used to test most materials
a. Type I provided the surface of the part is:
b. Type II
a. Heated to a temperature above 100o F
c. Type III
b. Is not extremely rough or porous
d. Type IV
c. Smooth and uniform
8. What industry and military specifications d. Cleaned with number 005 grit
control a penetrants?
16. The pentrants that are used to detect the
a. Toxicity smallest defects:
b. Flash point
a. Should only be used on aerospace parts
c. Corrosiveness
b. Will also produce the largest amount of
d. All of the above
irrelevant indications
9. Surface contaminants can lead to:

c. Can only be used on small parts less than 24. The total time the penetrant is in contact with
10 inches in surface area the part surface is called the:
d. Should not be used in the field a. Penetrant dwell time
17. The source of ultraviolet light (UV) if often a: b. Developer time
c. Emulsifier time
a. Mercury arc lamp with filter
d. Penetrant evaporation time
b. Wave shift arc lamp
c. UV lamp with filter 25. When removal of penetrant from the defect
d. Filter over a minimum 100 watt light bulb due to overwashing of the part is a concern,
which method would most often be used?
18. Post emulsified penetrants:
a. Fluorescent water washable method
a. Are most often used in the field
b. Visible dye solvent removable method
b. Should never be used in the field
c. Visible dye water washable method
c. Require a separate emulsifier to break the
d. Fluorescent post emulsified method
penetrant down and make it water
washable 26. The steps listed would represent which type of
d. Require a separate emulsifier to break penetrant method? 1. Pre-clean 2. Apply
down the cleaner and make it solvent penetrant and allow to dwell. 3. Pre-rinse to
removable remove first layer of penetrant. 4. Apply
hydrophilic emulsifier 5. Rinse to remove
19. How often should the UV light intensity be
excess penetrant 6. Dry part 7. Apply
performed?
developer and allow part to develop 8.
a. When a new bulb is installed Inspect.
b. At startup of inspection cycle
a. Type I method A
c. Every 8 hours
b. Type I method B
d. All of the above
c. Type I method D
20. A good cleaning procedure will: d. Type II method D
a. Remove all contamination from the part 27. Once the surface of the part has been cleaned
and not leave any reside that may properly, penetrant can be applied by:
interfere with the inspection process
a. Spraying
b. Remove a small amount of metal from the
b. Brushing
surface of the part
c. Dipping
c. Should leave the part slightly flourescent
d. All of the above
in order to identify any discontinuities
d. Should etch the part slightly only if it is 28. For UV lights used in LPI, the accepted
made from 4041 aluminum intensity is _______ microwatts per square
centimeter.
21. The threshold of visual acuity for a person
with 20/20 vision is about: a. 100
b. 500
a. 0.003 inches
c. 700
b. 0.03 inches
d. 1000
c. 0.03 mm
d. 0.3cm 29. When fluorescent penetrant inspection is
performed, the penetrant materials are
22. Water suspendible developers consist of a
formulated to glow brightly and to give off
group of chemicals that are:
light at a wavelength:
a. Saturated in water and experience a
a. Close to infrared light
chemical shift allowing it to fluoresce on
b. Close to the wavelength of x-rays
the parts surface
c. That the eye is most sensitive to under dim
b. Only used on rough porous surfaces
lighting conditions
c. Dissolved in water
d. In the red spectrum
d. Insoluble in water but can be suspended in
the water after mixing or agitation 30. Contamination of the penetrant:
23. Which method of penetrant removal is solvent a. Will only take place if the part has not
removable? been cleaned
b. Will occur because of the crossover
a. Method A
between the penetrant and developer
b. Method B
c. Will occur if the tank is not covered
c. Method C
during the dwell time
d. Method D

d. Will change the surface tension and a. The paint will fill in the cracks and change
contact angle the fluorescence of the penetrant
b. Paint is more elastic than metal and will
31. Which developer form is used for water
not fracture
suspendible developer?
c. The penetrant will adhere to the paint
a. Form a resulting in maximum fluorescence
b. Form b d. All of the above apply
c. Form c
d. Form d 40. Which method of penetrant removal is water
washable?
32. The water content of water washable
a. Method A
penetrant:s:
b. Method B
a. Should be performed daily c. Method C
b. Should be performed weekly d. Method D
c. Should be performed monthly
d. Must be checked regularly 41. When a permanent record is required which
type of developer can be used:
33. When removing water washable penetrant the
a. Lacquer developer
maximum water pressure should be:
b. Nonaqueous developer
a. 25 psi c. Layered developer
b. 40 psi d. Peeling developer
c. 50 psi
d. 70 psi 42. Which method of penetrant removal is post
emulsified, lipophilic?
34. Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent
a. Method A
penetrant?
b. Method B
a. Type I c. Method C
b. Type II d. Method D
c. Type III
d. Type IV 43. It is well recognized that machining, honing,
lapping and hand sanding will result:
35. Dry developer should be checked ______ in
a. In a better penetrant inspection
order to ensure it is fluffy and not caked:
b. In a longer dwell time in order to produce
a. Daily adequate penetration of the penetrant
b. Weekly c. Longer dwell times
c. Monthly d. Metal smearing
d. Every 500 parts run through it
44. When solvent removable penetant is used:
36. How often should the wet soluble powder
a. Care must be taken when removing the
concentration be checked?
penetrant from the surface of the part
a. Daily b. It should be washed off the surface of the
b. Weekly part at an angle of 45 degrees
c. Monthly c. A low impact emulsifier should always be
d. Every 500 parts used
37. White light intensity at the surface of the part d. A solvent removable emulsifier should
when using a visible dye penetrant should be: also be used
a. A minimum of 50 foot-candles 45. Which of the following is an advantage to
b. A maximum of 50 foot-candles LPI?
c. A maximum of 100 foot-candles a. Large areas can be inspected
d. A minimum of 100 foot-candles b. Parts with complex shapes can be
38. Which method of penetrant removal is post inspected
emulsified, hydrophilic? c. It is portable
d. All of the above is an advantage
a. Method A
b. Method B 46. Penetrant can be applied by:
c. Method C a. Dipping
d. Method D b. Brushing
39. Large defects can be hidden under a paint c. Spraying
surface because: d. All of the above

47. Which penetrant method is easiest to use in the b. 4

field? c. 6
a. Post emulsified d. 12
b. Visible water washable 56. POD stands for
c. Visible dye
a. Product of discontinuities
d. Fluorescent water washable
b. Probability of defects
48. Raising the temperature will: c. Probability of detection
a. Raise the speed of evaporation of d. Personnel over distributor
penetrants 57. Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?
b. Reduce the emulsifier time
a. Type I
c. Increase the developer time
b. Type II
d. Require the need of a post emulsified
c. Type III
penetrant
d. Type IV
49. Which of the following will produce higher
58. What is the optimal temperature of penetrant
sensitivity of a penetrant test?
materials and the part under inspection in order
a. Leaving the part immersed in the to obtain the best results?
penetrant for the entire dwell time
a. 50 to 80º F
b. Leaving the part immersed in the wet
b. 80 to 120º F
developer for the entire developer time
c. 35 to 100º F
c. Using a nonaqueous wet developer
d. 80 to 100º F
d. Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell
during its dwell time 59. When removing excess penetrant with water,
the wash time should be:
50. Which type of emulsifier is oil based?
a. As long as the specifications allow
a. Hydrophilic emulsifier
b. Based on the temperature of the part
b. Lipophilic emulsifier
c. As long as necessary to decrease the
c. Solvent removable emulsifier
background to an acceptable level
d. All of the above have an oil base
d. Longer if the water temperature increases
51. Penetrants are designed to:
60. Developers are used to:
a. Perform equally
a. Make the penetrant fluoresce
b. Perform the same no matter who
b. Reduce the dwell time
manufacturers them
c. Pull trapped penetrant material out of the
c. Shift in grade and value when the
defect
temperature changes
d. All of the above
d. Remain fluid so it can be drawn back to
the surface of the part 61. Which developer form is used for dry powder
developer:
52. Application of the emulsifier should not be
performed with a: a. Form a
b. Form b
a. Spray
c. Form c
b. Brush
d. Form d
c. Dip
d. Both A and B 62. Developer is required to
53. Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in: a. Draw out the penetrant from the
discontinuity
a. Penetrant fading
b. Provide contrast between the penetrant
b. Developer fading
and the parts background color
c. Emulsifier sensitivity
c. Increase the pentrants fluorescence
d. Emulsifier fading
d. Both A and B
54. Solvent suspendable developers are applied by:
63. Water soluble developers consist of a group of
a. Dipping chemicals that are:
b. Brushing
a. Saturated in water and experience a
c. Spraying
chemical shift allowing it to fluoresce on
d. Immersion
the parts surface
55. Radiometers should be calibrated every ___ b. Only used on rough porous surfaces
months. c. Dissolved in water
a. 2 d. Not to be used on galvanized parts

64. Which type of developer is considered the a. To a wet part

most sensitive? b. To a partially wet part but needs to be
a. Water suspendable placed in a dryer immediately
b. Water soluble c. To a dry part
c. Dry powder d. All of the above
d. Nonaqueous wet 73. Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:
65. Which type of penetrant is less vulnerable to a. Penetrant fading
contamination from cleaning fluid? b. Developer fading
a. Type I c. Emulsifier sensitivity
b. Type II d. Emulsifier fading
c. Type III 74. When using a fluorescent penetrant, the
d. Type IV brightness comparison is performed to:
66. The advantage that liquid penetrant testing has a. ASTM 410
over an unaided visual inspection is that: b. API 410
a. The actual size of the discontinuity can be c. ASNT TC-1A
measured d. ASTM E 1417
b. The depth of the defect can be measured 75. Most specifications limit water contamination
c. The cause of the impact can be seen to around:
d. It makes defects easier to see for the
a. 1 percent
inspector
b. 2 percent
67. Which of the following is a disadvantage of c. 5 percent
LPI? d. 10 percent
a. Only surface breaking flaws can be 76. Most UV lights must be warmed up at least
detected ___ minutes before beginning the inspection.
b. Surface finish and roughness can affect
a. 1
inspection sensitivity
b. 5
c. Post cleaning is required
c. 10
d. All of the above
d. 15
68. Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?
77. Which level of penetrant is the most sensitive?
a. Type I
a. Level I
b. Type II
b. Level II
c. Type III
c. Level III
d. Type IV
d. Level IV
69. Wet developers are applied:
78. Developers are used to:
a. After the part has been dryed
a. Make the penetrant fluoresce
b. Immediately after the excess penetrant has
b. Reduce the dwell time
been removed from the parts surface
c. Pull trapped penetrant material out of the
c. After the emulsifer dwell time
defect
d. After the part has been dipped in
d. All of the above
cleaner/remover
79. The performance of a penetrant:
70. Which type of emulsifier is water based?
a. Will remain consistent as long is it is
a. Hydrophilic emulsifier
stored in a temperature range of 50 to
b. Lipophilic emulsifier
100o F
c. Type I emulsifier
b. Will only degrade of the temperature
d. Form A emulsifier
exceeds 120o F
71. Penetrants are designed to: c. Can be affected by contamination and
a. Perform equally aging
b. Perform the same no matter who d. Can be adjusted with the dwell time
manufacturers them 80. Water based, water washable penetrant are
c. Shift in grade and value when the checked with a:
temperature changes
a. Centrifuge
d. Remain fluid so it can be drawn back to
b. Refractometer
the surface of the part
c. Centrifuge scope
72. Dry developer can be applied: d. Crack block

81. Nonaqeous developer is typically applied: c. A minimum of 50 foot-candles

a. By dusting the surface of the part d. A maximum of 2 foot-candles
b. By dipping the part is a mixed batch of 85. When the excess penetrant is removed from
developer the surface of the part, a course water spray
c. By splashing the surface with a brush should be directed at an angle of:
d. By aerosol spraying
a. 20 degrees
82. Black lights should: b. 45 degrees
a. Only be used with a Franklin filter c. 90 degrees
b. Only be used with Type II penetrants d. It does not matter what angle the spray is
c. Never be used with a cracked filter applied
d. Never be used with Knoop filters 86. Which developer form is used for nonaqueous
83. Light intensity measurements are made using Type I developer?
a: a. Form a
a. Refractometer b. Form b
b. Radiometer c. Form c
c. Pie gauge d. Form d
d. UV meter 87. Which developer form is used for water
soluble developer?
a. Form a
84. White light intensity at the surface of the part b. Form b
when using fluorescent penetrant should be: c. Form c
a. A minimum of 100 foot-candles d. Form d
b. A maximum of 100 foot-candles
ANSWERS TO QB-PT-NDT RESOURCES

1. A 21. A 41. A 61. A 81.D
2. C 22. D 42. B 62. D 82.C
3. D 23. C 43. D 63. C 83.B
4. D 24. A 44. A 64. D 84.D
5. A 25.D 45. D 65. B 85.B
6. B 26. C 46. D 66. D 86.D
7. B 27. D 47. C 67. D 87 B
8. D 28. D 48. A 68. A 88.
9. C 29 C 49. D 69.B 89.
10. C 30.D 50. B 70.A 90.
11. A 31. C 51. D 71 D 91.
12 A 32. D 52. B 72 C 92.
13. A 33.B 53. A 73.A 93.
14. A 34. A 54. C 74.D 94.
15. B 35. A 55. B 75.C 95.
16. B 36. B 56. C 76.D 96.
17. A 37. D 57. A 77.D 97.
18. C 38. D 58. B 78 C 98.
19. D 39. B 59. C 79 C 99.
20. A 40. A 60. C 80.B 100.

Introduction To Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Introduction To Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Penetrant Testing

From NDT Resources 1 of 61

Methods & Techniques

Quality & Process Control

From NDT Resources 2 of 61

History of Penetrant Inspection

Liquid penetrant inspection is a method that is used to

From NDT Resources 3 of 61

Why a Penetrant Inspection Improves the Detectability of Flaws

From NDT Resources 4 of 61

Visual Acuity of the Human Eye

From NDT Resources 5 of 61

From NDT Resources 6 of 61

X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)

From NDT Resources 7 of 61

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

From NDT Resources 8 of 61

The Human Eye's Response to Light

From NDT Resources 9 of 61

Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection

4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This is

From NDT Resources 10 of 61

5. Developer Application: A thin layer of developer is then applied to the sample to

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

Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection

Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely

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

From NDT Resources 11 of 61

Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing

• The method has high sensitivity to small surface discontinuities.

• Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

From NDT Resources 12 of 61

Penetrant Testing Materials

• spread easily over the surface of the material

From NDT Resources 13 of 61

• Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Fluorescent penetrants contain a dye or several

• Method A - Water Washable

• Level ½ - Ultra Low Sensitivity

From NDT Resources 14 of 61

The industry and military specifications that control

From NDT Resources 15 of 61

Surface Energy (Surface Wetting Capability)

As previously mentioned, one of the important characteristics of a liquid penetrant material is

From NDT Resources 16 of 61

Force = 2 πrσ LG cosθ

Capillary Pressure = (2 σ LG cosθ)/ r

Capillary Pressure = 2(σ SG - σs SL)/r = 2Σ /r

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

From NDT Resources 17 of 61

Density or Specific Gravity

r = radius of the crack opening

h = height of penetrant above its free surface

From NDT Resources 18 of 61

Where: l = defect depth

Color and Fluorescent Brightness

Penetrant Color and Fluorescence