Penetrant Testing

Introduction and History of

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

Why a Penetrant Inspection Improves the Detectability

of Flaws

(LPI) offers over an unaided visual inspection is that it makes defects easier to see for the
inspector. There are basically two ways that a penetrant inspection process makes flaws
more easily seen. First, LPI produces a flaw indication that is much larger and easier for
the eye to detect than the flaw itself. Many flaws are so small or narrow that they are
undetectable by the unaided eye. Due to the physical features of the eye, there is a
threshold below which objects cannot be resolved. This threshold of visual acuity is
around 0.003 inch for a person with 20/20 vision.
The second way that LPI improves the detectability of a flaw is that it produces a flaw
indication with a high level of contrast between the indication and the background which
also helps to make the indication more easily seen. When a visible dye penetrant
inspection is performed, the penetrant materials are formulated using a bright red dye that
provides for a high level of contrast between the white developer
that serves as a background as well as to pull the trapped penetrant
from the flaw. When a fluorescent penetrant inspection is
performed, the penetrant materials are formulated to glow brightly
and to give off light at a wavelength that the eye is most sensitive
to under dim lighting conditions.
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 focussed 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 and they are L-cones (red) with a peak sensitivity of 564 nm, Mcones (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
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 288
micrometers of the retina by the eye's lens.
In this 288 micrometers dimension, 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 contrast is reduced 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.

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, 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 greenish yellow 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 any amount of light that is present, but is 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 the surface of the
sample, thus closing the defects.
2 Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly cleaned and dried, the penetrant
material is applied by spraying, brushing, or immersing the parts in a penetrant bath.

3 Penetrant Dwell: The penetrant is left on the surface for a sufficient time to allow as
much penetrant as possible to be drawn from or to seep into a defect. Penetrant dwell
time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface. Dwell times are
usually recommended by the penetrant producers or required by the specification being
followed. The times vary depending on the application, penetrant materials used, the
material, the form of the material being inspected, and the type of defect being
inspected. Minimum dwell times typically range from 5 to 60 minutes. Generally, there is
no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to
dry.

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

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

draw penetrant trapped in flaws back to the surface where it will be visible. Developers
come in a variety of forms that may be applied by dusting (dry powdered), dipping, or
spraying (wet developers).

6 Indication Development: The developer is allowed to stand on the part surface

for a period of time sufficient to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of
any surface flaws. This development time is usually a minimum of 10 minutes and
significantly longer times may be necessary for tight cracks.
7

Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect

indications from any flaws which may be present.

8.

Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to thoroughly clean the part
surface to remove the developer from the parts that were found to be acceptable.

Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection

Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely
used nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. Its
popularity can be attributed to two main factors, which are
its relative ease of use and its flexibility. LPI can be used to
inspect almost any material provided that its surface is not
extremely rough or porous. Materials that are commonly
inspected using LPI include the following:

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

Glass

Many ceramic materials

Rubber

Plastics

LPI offers flexibility in performing inspections because it can be applied in a large

variety of applications ranging from automotive spark plugs to critical aircraft
components. Penetrant material can be applied with a spray can or a cotton swab to
inspect for flaws known to occur in a specific area or it can be applied by dipping or
spraying to quickly inspect large areas. At right, visible dye penetrant being locally
applied to a highly loaded connecting point to check for fatigue cracking.
Penetrant inspection systems have been
developed to inspect some very large
components. In this picture, DC-10 banjo
fittings are being moved into a penetrant
inspection system at what used to be the
Douglas Aircraft Company's Long Beach,
California facility. These large machined
aluminum forgings are used to support the
number 3 engine in the tail of a DC-10
aircraft.
Liquid penetrant inspection is used to inspect
of flaws that break the surface of the sample.
Some of these flaws are listed below:

Fatigue cracks
Quench cracks

Grinding cracks

Overload and impact fractures

Porosity

Laps

Seams

Pin holes in welds

Lack of fusion or braising along the edge of the bond line

As mentioned above, one of the major limitations of a penetrant inspection is that flaws
must be open to the surface. To learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of
LPI proceed to the next page.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing

Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant inspection has both
advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages and disadvantages when
compared to other NDE methods are summarized below.
Primary Advantages

The method has high sensitive to small surface discontinuities.

The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic and nonmetallic, magnetic
and nonmagnetic, and conductive and nonconductive materials may be inspected.

Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can be inspected rapidly and at
low cost.

Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected.

Indications are produced directly on the surface of the part and constitute a visual
representation of the flaw.

Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable.

Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive.

Primary Disadvantages

Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

Only materials with a relative nonporous surface can be inspected.

Precleaning is critical as contaminants can mask defects.

Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or vapor blasting must be
removed prior to LPI.

The inspector must have direct access to the surface being inspected.

Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity.

Multiple process operations must be performed and controlled.

Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required.

Chemical handling and proper disposal is required.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing

Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant inspection has both
advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages and disadvantages when
compared to other NDE methods are summarized below.
Primary Advantages

The method has high sensitive to small surface discontinuities.

The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic and nonmetallic, magnetic
and nonmagnetic, and conductive and nonconductive materials may be inspected.

Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can be inspected rapidly and at
low cost.

Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected.

Indications are produced directly on the surface of the part and constitute a visual
representation of the flaw.

Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable.

Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive.

Primary Disadvantages

Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

Only materials with a relative nonporous surface can be inspected.

Precleaning is critical as contaminants can mask defects.

Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or vapor blasting must be
removed prior to LPI.

The inspector must have direct access to the surface being inspected.

Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity.

Multiple process operations must be performed and controlled.

Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required.

Chemical handling and proper disposal is required.

Penetrant Testing Materials

The penetrant materials used today are much
more sophisticated than the kerosene and
whiting first used by railroad inspectors near the
turn of the 20th century. Today's penetrants are
carefully formulated to produce the level of
sensitivity desired by the inspector. To perform
well, a penetrant must possess a number of
important characteristics. A penetrant must

spread easily over the surface of the

material being inspected to provide
complete and even coverage.
be drawn into surface breaking defects
by capillary action.

remain in the defect but remove easily from the surface of the part.

remain fluid so it can be drawn back to the surface of the part through the drying
and developing steps.

be highly visible or fluoresce brightly to produce easy to see indications.

must not be harmful to the material being tested or the inspector.

All penetrant materials do not perform the same and are not designed to perform the
same. Penetrant manufactures have developed different formulations to address a variety
of inspection applications. Some applications call for the detection of the smallest defects
possible and have smooth surface where the penetrant is easy to remove. In other
applications the rejectable defect size may be larger and a penetrant formulated to find
larger flaws can be used. The penetrants that are used to detect the smallest defect will
also produce the largest amount of irrelevant indications.
Penetrant materials are classified in the various
industry and government specifications by their
physical characteristics and their performance.
Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) 2644,
Inspection Material, Penetrant, is now the
primary specification used in the USA to control
penetrant materials. Historically, Military
Standard 25135, Inspection Materials,
Penetrants, has been the primary document for
specifying penetrants but this document is
slowly being phased out and replaced by AMS
2644. Other specifications such as ASTM 1417,
Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examinations, may also contain information on

the classification of penetrant materials but they are generally referred back to MIL-I25135 or AMS 2644.

Penetrant materials come in two basic types. These types are listed below:

Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Type 2 - Visible Penetrants

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

Method A - Water Washable

Method B - Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic

Method C - Solvent Removable

Method D - Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

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

Level - Ultra Low Sensitivity

Level 1 - Low Sensitivity

Level 2 - Medium Sensitivity

Level 3 - High Sensitivity

Level 4 - Ultra-High Sensitivity

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

Penetrants
The industry and military specification that control
the penetrant materials and their use all stipulate
certain physical properties of the penetrant materials
that must be met. Some of these requirements address
the safe use of the materials, such as toxicity, flash
point, and corrosiveness, and other requirements
address storage and contamination issues. Still others
delineate properties that are thought to be primarily
responsible for the performance or sensitivity of the
penetrants. The properties of penetrant materials that
are controlled by AMS 2644 and MIL-I-25135E
include flash point, surface wetting capability,
viscosity, color, brightness, ultraviolet stability,
thermal stability, water tolerance, and removability.
More information on how some of these properties can affect penetrant testing can be
found by following these links.
Surface Energy
Density or Specific Gravity
Viscosity
Color and Fluorescence Brightness
Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence
Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability
Removability

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 liquidsolid 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), then wetting of the surface occurs. Alternately, if the liquid
molecules are more strongly attracted to each other and not the molecules of the solid
surface (the cohesive forces are stronger than the adhesive forces), then the liquid beadsup 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 the subject 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
second material. Liquids with strong cohesive bonds and weaker adhesive forces will
tend to bead-up or form a droplet when in contact with the second material.
In liquid penetrant testing, there are usually three surface interfaces involved, the solidgas interface, the liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. For a liquid to spread
over the surface of a part, two conditions must be met. First, the surface energy of the
solid-gas interface must be greater than the combined surface energies of the liquid-gas
and the solid-liquid interfaces. Second, the surface energy of the solid-gas interface must
exceed the surface energy of the solid-liquid interface.

A penetrant's wetting characteristics are also largely responsible for its ability to fill a
void. Penetrant materials are often pulled into surface breaking defects by capillary
action. The capillary force driving the penetrant into the crack is a function of the surface
tension of the liquid-gas interface, the contact angle, and the size of the defect opening.
The driving force for the capillary action can be expressed as the following formula:
Force = 2 r LG cos
Where:
r = radius of the crack opening (2pr is the line of contact between the liquid and the solid
tubular surface.)
LG = liquid-gas surface tension
= contact angle
Since pressure is the force over a given area, it can be written that the pressure developed,
called the capillary pressure, is
Capillary Pressure = (2 LG cos)/ r
The above equations are for a cylindrical defect but the relationships of the variables are
the same for a flaw with a noncircular cross section. Capillary pressure equations only
apply when there is simultaneous contact of the penetrant along the entire length of the
crack opening and a liquid front forms that is an equidistant from the surface. A liquid
penetrant surface could take-on a complex shape as a consequence of the various
deviations from flat parallel walls that an actual crack could have. In this case, the
expression for pressure is
Capillary Pressure = 2( SG - s SL)/r = 2 /r
Where:
SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.
SL = the surface energy at the solid-liquid interface.
r = the radius of the opening.
= the adhesion tension (SG - SL).
Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a
penetrant's movement into a flaw and not the surface energy of the liquid-gas interface.
Adhesion tension is the force acting on a unit length of the wetting line from the direction
of the solid. The wetting performance of the penetrant is degraded when adhesion tension
is the primary driving force.

It can be seen from the equations in this section, that the surface wetting characteristics
(defined by the surface energies) are important penetrant characteristics for filling the
flaw. The 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 the void as most
flaws are open only at the surface of the part. Since the gas originally in the flaw volume
cannot escape through the layer of penetrant, the gas is compressed near the closed end of
the flaw. 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 after a set time has elapsed, the radius, the diameter,
or the area of a spot formed when a drop of penetrant is placed on the test surface.
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 the specific gravity of a penetrant material probably has a slight to
negligible effect on the performance of a penetrant. The gravitational force acting on the
penetrant liquid can be working in cooperation with or against the capillary force
depending on the orientation of the flaw during the dwell cycle. When the gravitational
pull is working against the capillary rise the strength of the force is given by the
following equation:
Force = r2hpg
Where:
r = radius of the crack opening
h = height of penetrant above its free surface
p = density of the penetrant
g = acceleration due to gravity
When the direction of capillary flow is in the same direction as the force of gravity, the
added force driving the penetrant into the flaw is given by the formula shown below:
Force = hAp
Where:
h = the height of the penetrant column
A = cross-sectional area of the opening
P = density of the penetrant
Increasing the specific gravity by decreasing the volume percent of solvent 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 speed at which the penetrant fills a defect. The equation for a
cylindrical void and an elliptical void are shown below:
Cylindrical Void
Fill time = (2l2)/ rcos LG
Elliptical Void
Fill time = [(2l ) / LGcos] * [a2+b2 / (a+b)ab]
2

Where: l = defect depth

= viscosity
r = radius of the crack opening
LG = liquid-gas surface tension
= contact angle
a = flaw width
b = flaw length
From these equations, it can be seen that fill time is directly proportional to penetrant
viscosity. While it has no real bearing on this discussion, it should be noted that the two
equations do not take into account entrapped gas that could be present in a closed end
capillary.

Color and Fluorescent Brightness

Penetrant Color and Fluorescence

The color of the penetrant material is of obvious importance in visible dye penetrant
inspection, as the dye must provide good contrast against the developer or part being
inspected. Remember from our 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 causing the photons to be re-emitted at a
slightly longer wavelength, which 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.
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 and 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

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= h/v
Where:
E = energy
h = a constant
v = 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 our 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 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 energy of the molecule that
contributes 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 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 but quickly returns to a lower energy state either by emitting light or
by colliding with another atomic particle. When an molecule emits light, the energy of
that light is equal to the energy difference between the quantum levels that molecules has
moved between.
Fluorescent penetrant materials usually contain several dye compounds that are especially
suited for the production of fluorescence.

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-Ct
o

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

Ultraviolet
Indications

and

Thermal

Stability

of

Penetrant

Exposure to intense ultraviolet light and elevated temperatures can have a negative effect
on fluorescent penetrant indications. Fluorescent materials can loose their brightness after
a period of exposure to high intensity UV light. One study measured the intensity of
fluorescent penetrant indications of a sample that was subjected to multiple UV exposure
cycles. Each cycle consisted of 15 minutes of 800 microwatts/cm UV light and 2.5
minutes of 1500 microwatts/cm UV light. Two penetrants were tested in the study, water
washable, level 3 and a post emulsifiable, level 4. The results from the study showed that
the indications from both penetrants faded with increased UV exposure. After eight
exposure cycles the brightness of the indications was 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. Nonradiative 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 71C (160F). 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 that is used, but the temperature should be kept below 71C (160F).
Some high temperature penetrants in use today are formulated with dyes with high
melting points, which improves resistance to heat damage. 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 163C (325F) for 273 hours.
The various types of fluorescent dyes commonly employed in today's penetrant materials
begin decomposition at 71C (160F), and when the temperature approaches 94C (200F)
there is almost total attenuation of fluorescent brightness of the total 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 not be
so strong that they can not be broken by the removal methods used. However, in order for
the a penetrant to have good surface wetting characteristics the adhesive forces, which are
the forces of attraction between the penetrant and the solid surface being inspected, must
be stronger than the cohesive forces, which are the 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 the defect due to over-washing of the part is a
concern, a post emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post emulsifiable penetrants
require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water washable.
Most penetrant inspection specifications classify penetrant systems into four methods of
excess penetrant removal. These are listed below:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant from the part being
inspected. Method A has emulsifiers built into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible
to remove the excess penetrant with a simple water wash. Method B and D penetrants
require an additional processing step where a separate emulsification agent is applied to
make the excess penetrant more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic emulsification
systems are oil-based materials that are supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic
systems are water-based and supplied as a concentrate that must be diluted with water
prior to use . Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late 1950's and
work with both a chemical and mechanical action. After the emulsifier has coated the
surface of the object, mechanical action starts to remove some of the excess penetrant as
the mixture drains from the part. During the emulsification time, the emulsifier diffuses
into the remaining penetrant and the resulting mixture is easily removed with a water
spray.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove
the excess penetrant with mechanical and chemical
action but the action is different because no
diffusion takes place. Hydrophilic emulsifiers are
basically detergents that contain solvents and
surfactants. The hydrophilic emulsifier breaks up
the penetrant into small quantities and prevents
these pieces from recombining or reattaching to the
surface of the part. The mechanical action of the
rinse water removes the displaced penetrant from the part and causes fresh remover to
contact and lift newly exposed penetrant from the surface.
The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) was introduced in the mid 1970's
and since it is more sensitive than the lipophilic post emulsifiable method it has made the
later method virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that
they are less sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification
time should be controlled as closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the
contact time will have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is

used. However, a variation of as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a significant effect

when a lipophilic system is used.

Developers
The role of the developer is to pull the
trapped penetrant material out of
defects and to spread the developer out
on the surface of the part so it can be
seen by an inspector. The fine
developer particles both reflect and
refract the incident ultraviolet light,
allowing more of it to interact with the
penetrant, causing more efficient
fluorescence. The developer also
allows more light to be emitted
through the same mechanism. This is
why indications are brighter than the
penetrant itself under UV light.
Another function that some developers performs is to create a white background so there
is a greater degree of contrast between the indication and the surrounding background.
Developer Forms
The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify developers into six standard forms. These forms
are listed below:
1. Form a - Dry Powder
2. Form b - Water Soluble
3. Form c - Water Suspendible
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent (Solvent Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye (Solvent Based)
6. Form f - Special Applications
The developer classifications are based on the method that the developer is applied. The
developer can be applied as a dry powder, or dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier.
Each of the developer forms has advantages and disadvantages.
Dry Powder
Dry powder developer is generally considered to be the least sensitive but it is
inexpensive to use and easy to apply. Dry developers are white, fluffy powders that can
be applied to a thoroughly dry surface in a number of ways. The developer can be applied
by dipping parts in a container of developer, or by using a puffer to dust parts with the
developer. Parts can also be placed in a dust cabinet where the developer is blown around

and allowed to settle on the part. Electrostatic powder spray guns are also available to
apply the developer. The goal is to allow the developer to come in contact with the whole
inspection area.
Unless the part is electrostatically charged, the powder will only adhere to areas where
trapped penetrant has wet the surface of the part. The penetrant will try to wet the surface
of the penetrant particle and fill the voids between the particles, which brings more
penetrant to the surface of the part where it can be seen. Since dry powder developers
only stick to the part where penetrant is present, the dry developer does not provide a
uniform white background as the other forms of developers do. Having a uniform light
background is very important for a visible inspection to be effective and since dry
developers do not provide one, they are seldom used for visible inspections. When a dry
developer is used, indications tend to stay bright and sharp since the penetrant has a
limited amount of room to spread.
Water Soluble
As the name implies, water soluble developers
consist of a group of chemicals that are dissolved
in water and form a developer layer when the
water is evaporated away. The best method for
applying water soluble developers is by spraying it
on the part. The part can be wet or dry. Dipping,
pouring, or brushing the solution on to the surface
is sometimes used but these methods are less
desirable. Aqueous developers contain wetting
agents that cause the solution to function much
like dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and can lead to
additional removal of entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by placing the wet but well
drained part in a recalculating warm air dryer with the temperature held between 70 and
75F. If the parts are not dried quickly, the indications will will be blurred and indistinct.
Properly developed parts will have an even, pale white coating over the entire surface.
Water Suspendible
Water suspendible developers consist of insoluble developer particles suspended in water.
Water suspendible developers require frequent stirring or agitation to keep the particles
from settling out of suspension. Water suspendible developers are applied to parts in the
same manner as water soluble developers. Parts coated with a water suspendible
developer must be forced dried just as parts
coated with a water soluble developer are forced
dried. The surface of a part coated with a water
suspendible developer will have a slightly
translucent white coating.
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 a special developers that are primarily used when a
permanent record of the inspection is requi

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

It
of

Contaminants
Coatings, such as paint, are much more elastic than
metal and will not fracture even though a large defect
may be present just below the coating. The part must be
thoroughly cleaned as surface contaminates can prevent the penetrant from entering a
defect. Surface contaminants can also lead to a higher level of background noise since the
excess penetrant may be more difficult to remove.
Common coatings and contaminates that must be removed include: paint, dirt, flux, scale,
varnish, oil, etchant, smut, plating, grease, oxide, wax, decals, machining fluid, rust, and
residue from previous penetrant inspections.
Some of these contaminants would obviously prevent penetrant from entering defects and
it is, therefore, clear that they must be removed. However, the impact of other
contaminants such as the residue from previous penetrant inspections is less clear, but
they can have a disastrous affect on the inspection. Take the link below to review some of
the research that has been done to evaluate the effects of contaminants on LPI sensitivity.

A good cleaning procedure will remove all contamination from the part and not leave any
residue that may interfere with the inspection process. It has been found that some
alkaline cleaners can be detrimental to the penetrant inspection process if they have
silicates in concentrations above 0.5 percent. Sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate, and
related compounds can adhere to the surface of parts and form a coating that prevents
penetrant entry into cracks. Researchers in Russia have also found that some domestic
soaps and commercial detergents can clog flaw cavities and reduce the wettability of the
metal surface, thus, reducing the sensitivity of the penetrant. Conrad and Caudill found
that media from plastic media blasting was partially responsible for loss of LPI indication
strength. Microphotographs of cracks after plastic media blasting showed media
entrapment in addition to metal smearing.
It is very important that the material being inspected has not been smeared across its own
surface during machining or cleaning operations. It is well recognized that machining,
honing, lapping, hand sanding, hand scraping, shot peening, grit blasting, tumble
deburring, and peening operations can cause a small amount of the material to smear on
the surface of some materials. It is perhaps less recognized that some cleaning operations,
such as steam cleaning, can also cause metal smearing in the softer materials. Take the
link below to learn more about metal smearing and its affects on LPI

Material Smear and Its Removal

Material smearing can have a very detrimental effect on a LPI inspection as defects that
are normally open to the surface can partially or completely be covered over. Some of the
processes that can cause material to smear include machining, honing, lapping, sanding,
scraping, shot peening, grit blasting, tumble deburring, and peening 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 potentially 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 curve on the left shows the probability of detecting a crack versus crack length for
as-machined aluminum specimens. The curve on the right 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 remover
the damage. 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.
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 and size of area requiring
inspection, and portability.
When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a penetrant system, the first
decision that must be made is whether to use fluorescent dye penetrant, or visible dye
penetrant. Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable of producing a detectable
indication from a small defect because the human eye is more sensitive to a light
indication on a dark background and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent
indication. The graph below presents a series of curves that show the contrast ratio
required for a spot of a certain diameter to be seen. The curves show that for indications
spots larger than 0.076 mm (0.003 inch) in diameter, it does not really matter if it is a
dark spot on a light background or a dark spot on a light background. However, when a
dark indication on a light background is further reduced in size, it is no longer detectable
even though contrast is increased. Furthermore, with a light indication on a dark
background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001 inch) were detectable when the
contrast between the flaw and the background was high enough. From this data, it can be
seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an advantage over visible penetrant for finding
very small defects. Data presented by De Graaf and De Rijk supports this statement. They
inspected "Identical" fatigue cracked specimens using a red dye penetrant and a
fluorescent dye penetrant. The fluorescent penetrant found 60 defects while the visible
dye was only able to find 39 of the defects.

Penetrant Application and Dwell Time

The penetrant material can be applied in a
number of different ways which include
spraying, brushing, or immersing the parts in a
penetrant bath. The method of penetrant
application has little effect on the inspection
sensitivity but an electrostatic spraying method
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.

is

There are basically two dwell mode options,

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

Penetrant Dwell Time

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

The surface tension of the penetrant.

The contact angle of the penetrant.

The dynamic shear viscosity of the penetrant, which can vary with the diameter of
the capillary. The viscosity of a penetrant in 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 be at least 20 minutes while the ASTM E1209 only requires a 5
minute dwell time for parts made of titanium and other heat resistant alloys. Generally,
there is no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not
allowed to dry.
The following tables summarize the dwell time requirements of several commonly used
specifications. The information provided below is intended for general reference and no
guarantee is made about its correctness or currentness. Please consult the specifications
for the actual dwell time requirements.

Some Research Results on Dwell Time

An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is that if the elliptical flaw has
a length to width ratio of 100 it will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than
a cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
-- Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing,
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July-August
1979, pp. 287-291.
Lord and Holloway looked for the optimum penetrant dwell time required for detecting
several types of defects in titanium. Both a level 2 post-emulsifiable fluorescent penetrant
(Magnaflux ZL-2A penetrant and ZE-3 emulsifier) and a level 2 water washable
penetrant (Tracer-Tech P-133A penetrant) were included in the study. The effect of the
developer was a variable in the study and nonaqueous wet, aqueous wet, and dry
developers were included. Specimens were also processed using no developer. The
specimen defects included stress corrosion cracks, fatigue cracks and porosity. As
expected, the researchers found that the optimal dwell time varied with the type of defect
and developer used. The following table summarizes some of the findings.

Penetrant Removal Process

The penetrant removal procedure must effectively
remove the penetrant from the surface of the part
without removing an appreciable amount of
entrapped penetrant from the defect. If the removal
process extracts penetrant from the flaw, the flaw
indication will be reduced by a proportional amount.
If the penetrant is not effectively removed from the
part surface, the contrast between the indication and
the background will be reduced. As discussed in
Contrast Sensitivity Section, as the contrast increases
so does visibility of the indication.
Removal Method
Penetrant systems are classified into four methods of excess penetrant removal. These
include the following:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C, Solvent Removable, is used primarily for inspecting small localized areas as
this method requires hand wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with the solvent
remover, and this process is too labor intensive for most production situations. Of the
three production penetrant inspection methods, Method A, Water-Washable, is the most
economical to apply. Water-washable or self-emulsifiable penetrants contain an
emulsifier as an integral part of the formulation. The excess penetrant may be removed
from the object surface, with a simple water rinse. These materials have the property of
forming relatively viscous gels upon contact with water, which results in the formation of
gel-like plugs in surface openings. While they are completely soluble in water, given
enough contact time, the plugs offer a brief period of protection against rapid wash
removal. Thus, water-washable penetrant systems provide ease of use and a high level of
sensitivity.
When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-washing of the part is a
concern, a post-emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants
require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water washable.
The emulsifier is usually applied by dipping the object. Hydrophilic emulsifiers may also
be sprayed on the object but spraying is not recommended for lipophilic emulsifiers
because it can result in non-uniform emulsification if not properly applied. Brushing the
emulsifier on to the part is not recommended because the bristles of the brush may force
emulsifier into discontinuities causing the entrapped penetrant to be removed. The
emulsifier is allowed sufficient time to react with the penetrant on the surface of the part

but not given time to make its way into defects to react with the trapped penetrant. The
penetrant that has reacted with the emulsifier is easily cleaned away. Controlling the
reaction time is of essential importance when using a post-emulsifiable system. If the
emulsification time is too short, an excessive amount of penetrant will be left on the
surface leading to high background levels. If the emulsification time is too long, the
emulsifier will react with the penetrant entrapped in discontinuities making it possible to
deplete the amount needed to form an indication.
The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) is more sensitive than the
lipophilic post emulsifiable method (Method B). Since these methods are generally only
used when very high sensitivity is needed, Method D is almost always used making
Method B virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they
are less sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification time
should be controlled as closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the
contact time will have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is
used, but a variation of as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a significant effect when a
lipophilic system is used. Using an emulsifier involves adding a couple of steps to the
penetrant process and ,therefore, slightly increases the cost of an inspection. When using
an emulsifier, the penetrant process includes the following steps (extra steps in bold): 1.
pre-clean part, 2. apply penetrant and allow to dwell, 3. pre-rinse to remove first layer
of penetrant, 4. apply hydrophilic emulsifier,and allow contact for specified time, 5.
rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6. dry part, 7. apply developer and allow part to
develop, and 8. inspect.
Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants
The method used to rinsing the excess penetrant from the object surface and the time of
the rinse should be controlled so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended
that a coarse spray rinse or an air agitated, immersion wash tank be used. When a spray is
being used, it should be directed at a 45 angle to the part surface so as to not force water
directly into any discontinuities that may be present. The spray or immersion time should
be kept to a minimum through frequent inspections of the remaining background level.
When using
Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants
When a solvent removable penetrant is used, care must also be taken to carefully remove
the penetrant from the part surface while removing as little as possible from the flaw. The
first step in this cleaning procedure is to dry wipe the surface of the part in one direction
using a white lint free cotton rag. One dry pass in one direction is all that should be used
to remove as much penetrant as possible. Next, the surface should be wiped with one pass
in one direction with a cleaner moistened rag. One dry pass followed by one damp pass is
all that is recommended. Additional wiping my sometimes be necessary but keep in mind
that with every additional wipe, some of the entrapped penetrant will be removed and
inspection sensitivity will be reduced.
To study the effects of the wiping process, Japanese researchers manufactured a test
specimen out of acrylic plates that allowed them to view the movement of the penetrant
in a narrow cavity. The sample consisted of two pieces of acrylic with two thin sheets of

vinyl clamped between as spaces. The plates were clamped in the corners and all but one
of the edges sealed. The unsealed edge acted as the flaw. The clearance between the
plates varied from 15 microns (0.059 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.118
inch) at the midpoint between the clamps. The distance between the clamping points is
believed to be 30 mm (1.18 inch).
Although the size of the flaw represented by this specimen is large, an interesting
observation was made. They found that when the surface of the specimen was wiped with
a dry cloth, penetrant was blotted and removed from the flaw at the corner areas were the
clearance between the plate was least. When the penetrant at the side areas was removed,
penetrant moved horizontally from the center area to the ends of the simulated crack
where capillary forces are stronger. Therefore, across the crack length, the penetrant
surface has a parabola-like shape where the liquid is at the surface in the corners but
depressed in the center. This shows that each time the cleaning cloth touches the edge of a
crack, penetrant is lost from the defect. This also explains why the bleedout of an
indication is often largest at the corners of cracks.

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 in some Some authors have
reported that in special situations the use of a developer may actually reduce sensitivity.
These situations primarily occur when large, well defined defects are being inspected on
a surface that contains many nonrelevant indications that cause excessive bleedout.
Type of Developer Used and Method of Application
Nonaqueous developers are generally recognized as the most sensitive when properly
applied. There is less agreement on the performance of dry and aqueous wet developers
but the aqueous developers are usually considered more sensitive. Aqueous wet
developers form a finer matrix of particles that is more in contact with the part surface.
However, if the thickness of the coating becomes too great, defects can be masked. Also
aqueous wet developers can cause leaching and blurring of indications when used with
water washable penetrants. The relative sensitivities of developers and application
techniques as ranked in Volume II of the Nondestructive Testing Handbook are shown in
the table below. There is general industry agreement with this table, but some industry
experts feel that water suspendible developers are more sensitive than water-soluble
developers.
Sensitivity ranking of developers per the Nondestructive Testing Handbook.
Sensitivity Ranking (highest to lowest) Developer Form Application Technique.
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Developer Form
Nonaqueous Wet Solvent
Plastic Film
water-soluble
Water Suspendible
water-soluble
Water Suspendible
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry

Method of Application
Spray
Spray
Spray
Spray
Immersion
Immersion
Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)
Fluidized Bed
Dust Cloud (Air Agitation)
Immersion (Dip)

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

Advantages

Dry

Indications tend to remain

brighter and more distinct
over time
Easily to apply
Ease of coating entire part

Soluble

White coating for good

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

Disadvantages
Does not form contrast
background so cannot be
used with visible systems
Difficult to assure entire part
surface has been coated
Coating is translucent and
provides poor contrast (not
recommended for visual
systems)
Indications for water
washable systems are dim
and blurred

Ease of coating entire part

Indications are bright and
sharp
Suspendible

White coating for good

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

Indications weaken and

become diffused after time

Very portable
Easy to apply to readily
accessible surfaces

Nonaqueous

White coating for good

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

Difficult to apply evenly to

all surfaces
More difficult to clean part
after inspection

Indications show-up rapidly

and are well defined
Provides highest sensitivity
To review a summary of some of the research that has been done on developer usage and
performance, take this link.

Process Control of Temperature

The temperature of the penetrant materials and the part being
inspected can have an effect on the results. Temperatures from
27 to 49oC (80 to 120oF) are reported in the literature to
produce optimal results. Many specification allow testing in the
range of 4 to 52oC (40 to 125oF). A tip to remember is that
surfaces that can be touched for an extended period of time
without burning the skin are generally below 52oC (125oF).
Since the surface tension of most materials decrease as the
temperature increases, raising the temperature of the penetrant will increase the wetting
of the surface and the capillary forces. Of course, the converse is also true and lowing the
temperature will have a negative effect on the flow characteristics. Raising the
temperature will also raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants, which can have a
positive or negative effect on sensitivity. The impact will be positive if the evaporation
serves to increase the dye concentration of the penetrant trapped in a flaw up to the
concentration quenching point and not beyond. Higher temperatures and more rapid
evaporation will have a negative effect if the dye concentration is caused to exceed the
concentration quenching point or the flow characteristics are changed to the point where
the penetrant does not readily flow.
The method of processing a hot part was once commonly employed. Parts were either
heated or processed hot off the production line. In its day, this served to increase
inspection sensitivity by increasing the viscosity of the penetrant. However, the penetrant
materials used today have 1/2 to 1/3 the viscosity of the penetrants on the market in the
1960's and 1970's. Heating the part prior to inspection is no longer necessary and no
longer recommended.

Quality Control of Penetrant

The quality of a penetrant inspection is highly dependent on the quality of the penetrant
materials used. Only products meeting the requirements of an industry specification, such
as AMS 2644, should be used. The performance of a penetrant can be affected by
contamination and aging. Contamination by another liquid will change the surface
tension and contact angle of the solution, and virtually all organic dyes deteriorate over
time resulting in a loss of color or fluorescent response. Therefore, regular checks must
be performed to insure that the material performance has not degraded.
When the penetrant is first received from the manufacturer, a sample of the fresh solution
should be collected and stored as a standard for future comparison. The standard
specimen should be stored in an opaque glass or metal, sealed container. Penetrants that
are in-use should be compared regularly against the standard specimen to detect changes
in color, odor and consistency. When using fluorescent penetrants, a brightness
comparison per the requirements of ASTM E 1417 is also often required. This check
involves placing a drop of the standard and the in-use penetrants on a piece of Whatman
#4 filter paper and making a side by side comparison of the brightness of the two spots
under UV light.
Additionally, the water content of water washable penetrants must be checked regularly.
When water contaminates oil-based penetrants, the surface tension and contact angle of
the mixture will increase since water has a higher surface tension than most oil-based
penetrants In self-emulsifiable penetrants, water contamination can produce a gel break
or emulsion inversion when the water concentration becomes high enough. The formation
of the gel is an important feature during the washing processes but must be avoided until
the stage in the process. Data indicates that the water contamination must be significant
(greater than 10%) for gel formation to occur. Most specification limit water
contamination to around 5% to be conservative. Non-water-based, water washable
penetrants are checked using the procedure specified in ASTM D95 or ASTM E 1417.
Water-based, water washable penetrants are checked with a refractometer. The rejection
criteria is different for different penetrants so the requirements of the qualifying
specification or the manufacturer's instructions must be consulted.
Application of the Penetrant
The application of the penetrant is the step of the process that requires the least amount of
control. As long as the surface being inspected receive a generous coat 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 52 degrees centigrade.

Quality Control of Dwell

The dwell step involves allowing the test component to
for a sufficient period of time for the penetrant to fill
any surface breaking defects that happen to be present.
There are basically two dwell modes, immersion-dwell
and drain-dwell. The drain-dwell mode has been show
produce the most sensitive results. The only really
quality control required in the dwell step of the process
to ensure that a minimum dwell time is reached. Dwell
times are usually recommended by the penetrant
producer or required by the specification being
followed. There is no harm in allow a penetrant to
dwell longer than the minimum time as long as the
penetrant is not allowed to dry on the part.

sit

to
is

Quality Control of Emulsifier Bath

Quality control of the emulsifier bath should be performed
per the requirements of the applicable specification. The
information provided here may not reflect the requirement
of current specifications and is provided here for general
education purposes only.
Lipophilic Emulsifiers
Lipophilic emulsifiers are miscible with penetrants in all
concentrations. However, if the concentration of penetrant
contamination in the emulsifier becomes too great, the
mixture will not function affectively as a remover. AMS
2644 requires that lipophilic emulsifiers be capable of 20%
penetrant contamination without a reduction in
performance. AMS 2647A requires the emulsifier to be
replaced when its cleaning action is less than that of new material.
Since lipophilic emulsifiers are oil-based, they have a limited tolerance for water. When
the tolerance level is reached, the emulsifier starts to thicken and will eventually form a
gel as more water is added. AMS 2644 requires that lipophilic emulsifiers be formulated
to function adequately with at least 5% water contamination and AMS 2647A requires
that lipophilic emulsifiers be replaced when the water concentration reaches 5%.

Hydrophilic Emulsifiers
Hydrophilic emulsifiers have less tolerance for penetrant contamination. The penetrant
tolerance varies with emulsifier concentration and the type of contaminating penetrant. In
some cases, as little as 1% by volume of penetrant contamination can seriously affect the
performance of an emulsifier. One penetrant manufacture reports that 1 to 1.5% penetrant
contamination will affect solution with a 10% concentration of emulsifier. As the
emulsifier concentration increases in the solution, the penetrant contamination tolerance
also increases and a solution with a 30% emulsifier concentration can tolerate from 5 to
8.5% penetrant contamination. The percentage of added penetrant required to destroy
washability of the emulsifier can be measured and an oil tolerance index is commonly
used to compare the tolerance of different emulsifiers to contamination by penetrants.
AMS 2647A requires that the emulsification bath be discarded if penetrant is noted
floating on the surface or adhering to the sides of the tank.
Water contamination is not as much of a concern with hydrophilic emulsifiers as they are
miscible with water. However, it is very important that the emulsifier solution be kept at
the proper concentration.
It should also be noted that penetrant dragout and, thus, level of possible emulsifier
contamination by the penetrant is dependent on the type of material being processed.
Tests have shown that on both polished and grit blasted surfaces, aluminum and stainless
steel parts had a greater drag-out than titanium parts.
Emulsifier Concentration and Contact Time
The optimal emulsifier contact time is dependent on a number of variables that include
the emulsifier used, the emulsifier concentration, the surface roughness of the part being
inspected, and other factors. Usually some experimentation is required to select the
proper emulsifier contact time. The emulsifier used must be matched to the penetrant
material. For method D penetrant systems the concentration of the emulsifier should not
exceed the percentage specified by the supplier and if working to a specification should
not exceed the concentration specified. Since the emulsifier is mixed with water, which is
prone to evaporation, it is recommended that the starting concentration be less than that
recommended by the supplier. One penetrant manufacture recommends the following
starting concentrations:

20% if the maximum concentration is 30%

13% if the maximum is 20%

6.5% if the maximum is 10%.

Some Research on Emulsifier Concentration and Contact Time

Vaerman reported on the effect of emulsifier concentration on sensitivity. He varied the
contact time of a lipophilic emulsifier and compared the results to those from a 5%
concentrate hydrophilic emulsifier with a three minute contact time. For a normal contact
time of 45 seconds, the lipophilic emulsifier was found to average nearly 18% less
sensitive over the range of crack depths (10 to 50 microns). The loss of sensitivity

increased rapidly as the lipophilic contact time was increased in steps to 5 minutes. Also
as expected, the decrease in sensitivity increased with increasing crack size.
Vaerman also looked at the effect of hydrophilic emulsifier concentration. It was found
that increasing the concentration for 5% by volume to 33 percent, decreased sensitivity
by 15% when a three minute contact time was used. When a contact time of one minute
was used the decrease in sensitivity was just over nine percent.
Ref: -- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the
Sensitivity Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on
Non- Destructive Testing, September 1987, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House, Fairview
Park, Elmsford, New York, Volume 4, pp. 2814-2823.
Hyam also reports on the effect of the emulsifier concentration and contact time. Both
hydrophilic and lipophilic removers were tested. The results showed that as the
concentration of the emulsifier was increased from 2.5% to 20%, sensitivity decreased.
The contact time was shown to have little effect on the hydrophilic system tested (up to
20 minutes) but to have a significant effect on the lipophilic system with sensitivity
decreasing as contact time was increased from 2 to 10 minutes.

Quality Control of Wash Temperature and Pressure

The wash temperature and pressure and time are three parameters that are typically
controlled in penetrant inspection process specification. A coarse spray or an immersion
wash tank with air agitation is often used. When the spray method is used, the water
pressure is usually limited to 276 kN/m2 (40 psi). The temperature range of the water is
usually specified as a wide range (ex. 10 to 38C (50 to 100 F) in AMS 2647A.) A lowpressure, coarse water spray will force less water into flaws to dilute and/or remove
trapped penetrant and weaken the indication. The temperature will have an effect on the
surface tension of the water and warmer water will have more wetting action than cold
water. Warmer water temperatures may also make emulsifiers and detergent more
effective. The wash time should only be as long as necessary to decrease the background
to an acceptable level. Frequent visual checks of the part should be made to determine
when the part has be adequately rinsed.
Summary of Research on Wash Method Variables
Vaerman evaluated the effect that rinse time had on one high sensitivity water-washable
penetrant and two post-emulsifiable penetrants (one medium and one high sensitivity).
The evaluation was conducted using TESCO panels numerous cracks ranging in depth
from 5 to 100 microns deep. A 38 percent decrease in sensitivity for the water-washable
penetrant was seen when the rinse time was increased from 25 to 60 seconds. When the
rinse times of two post-emulsifiable penetrants were increased from 20 to 60 seconds, a
loss in sensitivity was seen in both cases but it was much reduced from the loss seen with
the water-washable system. The relative sensitivity loss over the range of crack depths
was 13 percent for the penetrant with medium sensitivity and roughly percent for the high
sensitivity penetrant.
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the Sensitivity
Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on NonDestructive Testing, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New
York, Volume 4, September 1987, pp. 2814-2823.
In a 1972 paper by N.H. Hyam, the effects of the rinse time on the sensitivity of two level
4 water-washable penetrants are examined. It was reported that sensitivity decreased as
spray-rinse time increased and that one of the penetrants was more affected by rinse time
than the others. Alburger, points-out that some conventional fluorescent dyes are slightly
soluble in water and can be leached out during the washing processes.
-- Hyam, N. H., Quantitative Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Penetrant
Systems, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 1972, pp. 31-38.
Brittian evaluated the effect of wash time on a water-washable, level 4 penetrant (Ardrox
970P25) and found that indication brightness decreases rapidly in the first minute of wash
and then slowed. The brightness value dropped from a relative value of 1100 to
approximately 500 in the first minute and then continued to decrease nearly linearly to a
value of 200 after five minutes of wash. Brittian concluded that wash time for waterwashable systems should be kept to a minimum.

Brittain, P.I., Assessment of Penetrant Systems by Fluorescent Intensity, Proceedings of

the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 4, Published by Perganon
Press, 1988, pp. 2814-2823.
Robinson and Schmidt used a Turner fluorometer to evaluate the variability that some of
the processing steps can produce in the brightness of indications. To find out how much
effect the wash procedure had on sensitivity, Tesco cracked, chrome-plated panels, were
processed a number of times using the same materials but three different wash methods.
The washing methods included spraying the specimens with a handheld nozzle, holding
the specimens under a running tap, and using a washing machine that controlled the water
pressure, temperature, spray pattern and wash time. The variation in indication brightness
readings between five trials was reported. The variation was 16 percent for the running
tap water, 14 percent for the handheld spray nozzle and 4.5 percent for the machine wash.

Quality Control of Drying Process

The temperature used to dry parts after the application of aqueous wet developer or prior
to the application of a dry powder or a nonaqueous wet developer, must be controlled to
prevent "cooking" of the penetrant in the defect. High drying temperature can affect
penetrants in a couple of ways. First, some penetrants can fade at high temperatures due
to dye vaporization or sublimation. Second, high temperatures can cause the penetrant to
dry in the the flaw preventing it from migrating to the surface to produce an indication.
To prevent harming the penetrant material, drying temperature should be kept to under 71
degree centigrade.
The drying should be limited to the minimum length of time necessary to thoroughly dry
the component being inspected.

Quality Control of Developer

The function of the developer is very important in a penetrant inspection. It must draw
out of the discontinuity a sufficient amount of penetrant to form an indication, and it must
spread the penetrant out on the surface to produce a visible indication. In a fluorescent
penetrant inspection, the amount of penetrant brought to the surface must exceed the
dye's thin film threshold of fluorescence of the indication will not fluoresce. Additionally,
the developer makes fluorescent indications appear brighter than indications produced
with the same amount of dye but without the developer.
In order to accomplish these functions, a developer must adhere to the part surface and
result in a uniform, highly porous layer with many paths for the penetrant to be moved
due to capillary action. Some developers are applied wet and other dry, but the desired
end result is always a uniform, highly porous, surface layer. Since the quality control
requirements for each of the developer types is slightly different, they will be covered
individually.

Dry Powder Developer

A dry powder developer should be checked daily to ensure that it is fluffy and not caked.
It should be similar to fresh powdered sugar and not granulated like powered soup. It
should also be relatively free from specks of fluorescent penetrant material from previous
inspection. This check is performed by spreading a sample of the developer out and
examining it under UV light. If there are ten or more fluorescent specks in an 10 cm
diameter area, the batch should be discarded. Apply a light coat of the developer by
immersing the test component or dusting the surface. After the development time,
excessive powder can be removed by gently blowing on the surface with air not
exceeding 35 kPa or 5 psi.
Wet Soluble/Suspendible Developer
Wet soluble developer must be completely dissolved in the water and wet suspendible
developer must be thoroughly mixed prior to application. The concentration of powder in
the carrier solution must be controlled in these developers. The concentration should be
checked at least weekly using a hydrometer to make sure it meets the manufacturer's
specification. To check for contamination, the solution should be examined weekly using
both white light and UV light. If a scum is present or the solution fluoresces, it should be
replaced. Some specification require that a clean aluminum panel be dipped in the
developer, dried, and examined for indications of contamination by fluorescent penetrant
materials.These developers are apply immediately after the final wash. A uniform coating
should be applied by spraying, flowing or immersion of the component. They should
never be applied with a brush. Care should be taken to avoid a heavy accumulation of the
developer solution in crevices and recesses. Prolonged contact of the component with the
developer solution should be avoided in order to minimize dilution or removal of the
penetrant from discontinuities.
Solvent Suspendible
Solvent suspendible developers are typically supplied in an sealed aerosol spray can.
Since the developer solution is in a sealed vessel, direct check of the solution are not
possible. However, the way that the developer is dispensed must be monitored. The spray
developer should produce a fine, even coating on the surface of the part. Make sure the
can is well shaken and apply a thin coating to a test article. If the spray produces spatters
or other an uneven coating the can should be discarded. When applying a solvent
suspendible developer, it is up to the inspector to control the thickness of the coating.
When a visible penetrant system, the developer coating must be thick enough to provide a
white contrasting background but not heavy enough to mask indications. When using a
fluorescent penetrant system, a very light coating should be used. The developer should
be applied under white light condition and should appear evenly transparent.
Development Time
Part should be allowed to develop for a minimum of 10 minutes and no more than 2
hours before inspecting.

Quality Control of Lighting

After a component has been properly processed, it
is ready for inspection. While automated vision
inspection systems are sometimes used, the focus
here will be on inspection performed visually by a
human inspector as this is the dominate method.
Proper lighting is of great importance when visually
inspecting a surface for a penetrant indication.
Obviously, the lighting requirements are different
for an inspection conducted using a visible dye
penetrant than they are for an inspection conducted
using a fluorescent dye penetrant. The lighting
requirements for each of these techniques, as well
as how light measurements are made, is discussed
below.
Lighting for Visible Dye Penetrant Inspections
When using a visible penetrant, the intensity of the white light is of principal importance.
Inspections can be conducted using natural lighting or artificial lighting. When using
natural lighting, it is important to keep in mind that daylight varies from hour to hour so
inspector must stay constantly aware on the lighting conditions and make adjustment
when needed. To improve uniformity in lighting from one inspection to the next, the use
of artificial lighting is recommended. Artificial lighting should be white whenever
possible and white flood or halogen lamps are most commonly used. The light intensity is
required to be 100 foot-candles at the surface being inspected. It is advisable to choose a
white light wattage that will provide sufficient light, but avoid excessive reflected light
that could distract from the inspection.
Lighting for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections
When a fluorescent penetrant is being employed, the ultraviolet illumination and the
visible light inside the inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are excited by the
UV of 365-nm wavelength and emit visible light somewhere in the green-yellow range
between 520 and 580 nm. The source of ultraviolet light (UV) is often a mercury arc
lamp with a filter. The lamps emit many wavelengths and a filter is used to remove all but
the UV and a small amount of visible light between 310 and 410 nm. Visible light of
wavelengths above 410 nm interferes with contrast, and UV emissions below 310 nm
include some hazardous wavelengths.
Standards and procedures require verification of lens condition and light intensity. Black
lights should never be used with a cracked filter as output of white light and harmful
black light will be increased. The cleanliness of the filter should also be checked as a
coating of solvent carrier, oils, or other foreign materials can reduce the intensity by up to
as much as 50%. The filter should be checked visually and cleaned as necessary before
warm-up of the light.

Since fluorescent brightness is linear with respect to ultraviolet excitation, a change in the
intensity of the light (from age or damage) and a change in the distance of the light
source from the surface being inspected will have a direct impact on the inspection. For
UV lights used in component evaluations, the normally accepted intensity is 1000
microwatts per square centimeter when measured at 15 inches from the filter face
(requirements can vary from 800 to 1200). The required check should be performed when
a new bulb is installed, at startup of the inspection cycle, if a change in intensity is
noticed, or every eight hours of continuous use. Regularly checking the intensity of UV
lights is very important because bulbs loose intensity over time. In fact, a bulb that is near
the end of its operating life will often have an intensity of only 25 percent of its original
output. Black light intensity will also be affected by voltage variations. A bulb that
produces acceptable intensity at 120 volts will produce significantly less at 110 volts. For
this reason it is important to provide constant voltage to the light. Also, most UV light
must be warmed up prior to use and should be on for at least 15 minutes before beginning
an inspection.
When performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection, it is important to keep white light to
a minimum as it will significantly reduce the inspectors ability to detect fluorescent
indications. Light levels of less than 2 fc are required by most procedures with some
procedures requiring less than 0.5 fc at the inspection surface. Procedures require a check
and documentation of ambient white light in the inspection area. When checking black
light intensity at 15 inches a reading of the white light produced by the black light may be
required to verify white light is being removed by the filter.
Light Measurement
Light intensity measurements are made using a radiometer. A radiometer is an instrument
that 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

Inspection

Penetrant

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 warn 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.