Penetrant Testing

Course Material

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

Why a Penetrant Inspection Improves the Detectability of Flaws

The advantage that a liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) offers over an unaided visual inspection is that it
makes defects easier to see for the inspector. There are basically two ways that a penetrant inspection process
makes flaws more easily seen. First, LPI produces a flaw indication that is much larger and easier for the eye
to detect than the flaw itself. Many flaws are so small or narrow that they are undetectable by the unaided
eye. Due to the physical features of the eye, there is a threshold below which objects cannot be resolved. This
threshold of visual acuity is around 0.003 inch for a person with 20/20 vision.
The second way that LPI improves the detectability of a flaw is that it produces a
flaw indication with a high level of contrast between the indication and the
background also helping to make the indication more easily seen. When a visible
dye penetrant inspection is performed, the penetrant materials are formulated
using a bright red dye that provides for a high level of contrast between the white
developer. In other words, the developer serves as a high contrast background as
well as a blotter to pull the trapped penetrant from the flaw. When a fluorescent
penetrant inspection is performed, the penetrant materials are formulated to glow
brightly and to give off light at a wavelength that the eye is most sensitive to
under dim lighting conditions.
Additional information on the human eye can be found as below.

Visual Acuity of the Human Eye

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

The retina is a mosaic of two basic types of photoreceptors: rods, and cones. Rods are sensitive to blue-green
light with peak sensitivity at a wavelength of 498 nm, and are used for vision under dark or dim conditions.
There are three types of cones that give us our basic color vision: L-cones (red) with a peak sensitivity of 564
nm, M-cones (green) with a peak sensitivity of 533 nm, and S-cones (blue) with a peak sensitivity of 437
nm.

Cones are highly concentrated in a region near the center of the retina called the fovea region. The maximum
concentration of cones is roughly 180,000 per square mm in the fovea region and this density decreases
rapidly outside of the fovea to a value of less than 5,000 per square mm. Note the blind spot caused by the
optic nerve which is void of any photoreceptors.

The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern
separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since one degree contains sixty minutes, a visual angle of
one minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree. The spatial resolution limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a
scene is projected across 288m of the retina by the eye's lens.
In this 288m, there are 120 color sensing cone cells packed. Thus, if more than 120 alternating white and
black lines are crowded side-by-side in a single degree of viewing space, they will appear as a single gray
mass to the human eye. With a little trigonometry, it is possible to calculate the resolution of the eye at a
specific distance away from the lens of the eye.

For the case of normal visual acuity the angle Theta is 1/60 of a degree. By bisecting this angle we have a
right triangle with angle Theta/2 that is 1/120 of a degree. Using this right triangle it is easy to calculate the
distance X/2 for a given distance d.
X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)
When visually inspecting an object for a defect such as a crack, the distance (d) might be around 12 inches.
This would be a comfortable viewing distance. At 12 inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is
0.00349 inch. What this means is that if you had alternating black and white lines that were all 0.00349 inch
wide, it would appear to most people as a mass of solid gray.

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

Campbell, F. W. and Robson, J. G. (1968) Application of Fourier Analysis to the Visibility of Gratings.
Journal of Physiology (London) Image Courtesy of Izumi Ohzawa, Ph.D. University of California School of
Optometry
Ref: The Internet site of the John Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology at the University of
Utah. http://webvision.med.utah.edu/

The Human Eye's Response to Light

The three curves in the figure above shows the normalized response of an average human eye to various
amounts of ambient light. The shift in sensitivity occurs because two types of photoreceptors called cones
and rods are responsible for the eye's response to light. The curve on the right shows the eye's response under
normal lighting conditions and this is called the photopic response. The cones respond to light under these
conditions.
As mentioned previously, cones are composed of three different photo pigments that enable color perception.
This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under normal lighting conditions, the eye is most
sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the light levels drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye
changes significantly as shown by the scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are
most active and the human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color.
Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which accounts for the loss in
ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level, sensitivity to blue, violet, and ultraviolet is
increased, but sensitivity to yellow and red is reduced. The heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's
response at the ambient light level found in a typical inspection booth. This curve peaks at 550 nanometers,
which means the eye is most sensitive to yellowish-green color at this light level. Fluorescent penetrant
inspection materials are designed to fluoresce at around 550 nanometers to produce optimal sensitivity under
dim lighting conditions.
References:
Robinson, S. J. and Schmidt, J. T., Fluorescent Penetrant Sensitivity and Removability - What the Eye Can
See, a Fluorometer Can Measure, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 42, No. 8, July 1984, pp. 1029-1034

Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection

1. Surface Preparation: One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant inspection is the surface
preparation. The surface must be free of oil, grease, water, or other contaminants that may prevent
penetrant from entering flaws. The sample may also require etching if mechanical operations such as
machining, sanding, or grit blasting have been performed. These and other mechanical operations can
smear metal over the flaw opening and prevent the Penetrant from entering.

2. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly cleaned and dried, the penetrant
material is applied by spraying, brushing, or
immersing the part in a penetrant bath
3. Penetrant Dwell: The Penetrant is left on the
surface for a sufficient time to allow as much
Penetrant as possible to be drawn from or to seep
into a defect. Penetrant dwell time is the total time
that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface.
Dwell times are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or required by the specification
being followed. The times vary depending on the application, penetrant materials used, the material,
the form of the material being inspected, and the type of defect being inspected for. Minimum dwell
times typically range from five to 60 minutes. Generally, there is no harm in using a longer penetrant
dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to dry. The ideal dwell time is often determined by
experimentation and may be very specific to a particular application.
4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This is the most delicate part of the inspection procedure because the
excess penetrant must be removed from the surface of the sample while removing as little penetrant
as possible from defects. Depending on the penetrant system used, this step may involve cleaning
with a solvent, direct rinsing with water, or first treating the part with an emulsifier and then rinsing
with water.

5. Developer Application: A thin layer of developer is then applied to the sample to draw penetrant
trapped in flaws back to the surface where it will be visible. Developers come in a variety of forms
that may be applied by dusting (dry powdered), dipping, or spraying (wet developers).
6. Indication Development: The developer is allowed to stand on the part surface for a period of time
sufficient to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of any surface flaws. This development

time is usually a minimum of 10 minutes. Significantly longer times may be necessary for tight
cracks.
7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect indications from any
flaws which may be present.
8. Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to thoroughly clean the part surface to remove the
developer from the parts that were found to be acceptable.
Now you try it!

Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection

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

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

Glass

Many ceramic materials

Rubber

Plastics

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

Fatigue cracks
Quench cracks

Grinding cracks

Overload and impact fractures

Porosity

Laps

Seams

Pin holes in welds

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

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

Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing

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

The method has high sensitivity to small surface discontinuities.

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

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

Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected.

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

Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable.

Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive.

Primary Disadvantages

Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

Only materials with a relatively nonporous surface can be inspected.

Precleaning is critical since contaminants can mask defects.

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

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

Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity.

Multiple process operations must be performed and controlled.

Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required.

Chemical handling and proper disposal is required.

Penetrant Testing Materials

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

spread easily over the surface of the material being inspected to provide complete and even coverage.
be drawn into surface breaking defects by capillary action.

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

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

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

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

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

Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Type 2 - Visible Penetrants

Fluorescent penetrants contain a dye or several dyes that

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

Method A - Water Washable

Method B - Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic

Method C - Solvent Removable

Method D - Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

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

Level - 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-I25135 and Aerospace Material Specification 2644, Penetrant Inspection Materials.
An interesting note about the sensitivity levels is that only four levels were originally planned. However,
when some penetrants were judged to have sensitivities significantly less than most others in the level 1
category, the level was created. An excellent historical summary of the development of test specimens for
evaluating the performance of penetrant materials can be found in the following reference.
Reference:
Flaherty, J. J., History of Penetrants: The First 20 Years, 1941-61, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 44, No. 12,
November 1986, pp. 1371-1374, 1376, 1378, 1380, 1382

Penetrants
The industry and military specifications that control penetrant
materials and their use, all stipulate certain physical properties of the
penetrant materials that must be met. Some of these requirements
address the safe use of the materials, such as toxicity, flash point, and
corrosiveness, and other requirements address storage and
contamination issues. Still others delineate properties that are thought
to be primarily responsible for the performance or sensitivity of the
penetrants. The properties of penetrant materials that are controlled by
AMS 2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash point, surface wetting

capability, viscosity, color, brightness, ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, water tolerance, and
removability.
More information on how some of these properties can affect penetrant testing can be found by following
these links.

Surface Energy (Surface Wetting Capability)

As previously mentioned, one of the important characteristics of a liquid penetrant material is its ability to
freely wet the surface of the object being inspected. At the liquid-solid surface interface, if the molecules of
the liquid have a stronger attraction to the molecules of the solid surface than to each other (the adhesive
forces are stronger than the cohesive forces), wetting of the surface occurs. Alternately, if the liquid
molecules are more strongly attracted to each other than the molecules of the solid surface (the cohesive
forces are stronger than the adhesive forces), the liquid beads-up and does not wet the surface of the part.
One way to quantify a liquid's surface wetting characteristics is to measure the contact angle of a drop of
liquid placed on the surface of an object. The contact angle is the angle formed by the solid/liquid interface
and the liquid/vapor interface measured from the side of the liquid. (See the figure below.) Liquids wet
surfaces when the contact angle is less than 90 degrees. For a penetrant material to be effective, the contact
angle should be as small as possible. In fact, the contact angle for most liquid penetrants is very close to zero
degrees.

Wetting ability of a liquid is a function of the surface energies of the solid-gas interface, the liquid-gas
interface, and the solid-liquid interface. The surface energy across an interface or the surface tension at the
interface is a measure of the energy required to form a unit area of new surface at the interface. The
intermolecular bonds or cohesive forces between the molecules of a liquid cause surface tension. When the
liquid encounters another substance, there is usually an attraction between the two materials. The adhesive
forces between the liquid and the second substance will compete against the cohesive forces of the liquid.
Liquids with weak cohesive bonds and a strong attraction to another material (or the desire to create adhesive
bonds) will tend to spread over the material. Liquids with strong cohesive bonds and weaker adhesive forces
will tend to bead-up or form a droplet when in contact with another material.
In liquid penetrant testing, there are usually three surface interfaces involved, the solid-gas interface, the
liquid-gas interface, and the solid-liquid interface. For a liquid to spread over the surface of a part, two
conditions must be met. First, the surface energy of the solid-gas interface must be greater than the combined
surface energies of the liquid-gas and the solid-liquid interfaces. Second, the surface energy of the solid-gas
interface must exceed the surface energy of the solid-liquid interface.
A penetrant's wetting characteristics are also largely responsible for its ability to fill a void. Penetrant
materials are often pulled into surface breaking defects by capillary action. The capillary force driving the
penetrant into the crack is a function of the surface tension of the liquid-gas interface, the contact angle, and
the size of the defect opening. The driving force for the capillary action can be expressed as the following
formula:
Force = 2 r LG cos
Where:

r = radius of the crack opening (2pr is the line of contact between the liquid and the solid tubular surface.)
LG = liquid-gas surface tension
= contact angle
Since pressure is the force over a given area, it can be written that the pressure developed, called the
capillary pressure, is
Capillary Pressure = (2 LG cos)/ r
The above equations are for a cylindrical defect but the relationships of the variables are the same for a flaw
with a noncircular cross section. Capillary pressure equations only apply when there is simultaneous contact
of the penetrant along the entire length of the crack opening and a liquid front forms that is an equidistant
from the surface. A liquid penetrant surface could take-on a complex shape as a consequence of the various
deviations from flat parallel walls that an actual crack could have. In this case, the expression for pressure is
Capillary Pressure = 2( SG - s SL)/r = 2 /r
Where:
SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.
SL = the surface energy at the solid-liquid interface.
r = the radius of the opening.
= the adhesion tension (SG - SL).
Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a penetrant's movement into a
flaw and not the surface energy of the liquid-gas interface. Adhesion tension is the force acting on a unit
length of the wetting line from the direction of the solid. The wetting performance of the penetrant is
degraded when adhesion tension is the primary driving force.
It can be seen from the equations in this section that the surface wetting characteristics (defined by the
surface energies) are important in order for a penetrant to fill a void. A liquid penetrant will continue to fill
the void until an opposing force balances the capillary pressure. This force is usually the pressure of trapped
gas in a void, as most flaws are open only at the surface of the part. Since the gas originally in a flaw volume
cannot escape through the layer of penetrant, the gas is compressed near the closed end of a void.
Since the contact angle for penetrants is very close to zero, other methods have been devised to make relative
comparisons of the wetting characteristics of these liquids. One method is to measure the height that a liquid
reaches in a capillary tube. However, the solid interface in this method is usually glass and may not
accurately represent the surface that the penetrant inspection will be performed on. Another method of
comparative evaluation is to measure the radius, the diameter, or the area of a spot formed when a drop of
penetrant is placed on the test surface and allowed to stand undisturbed for a specific amount of time.
However, using this method, other factors are also acting in the comparison. These methods include the
density, viscosity, and volatility of the liquid, which do not enter into the capillarity equations, but may have
an effect on the inspection as discussed in the related pages.
References:
Cartz, L., Nondestructive Testing, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1995, pp. 135-136.
Tugrul, A. B., Capillarity Effect Analysis for Alternative Liquid Penetrant Chemicals, NDT & E
International, Volume 30 Number 1, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford England, February 1997, pp.
19-23.

Density or Specific Gravity

The density or specific gravity of a penetrant material has a slight to negligible effect on the performance of
a penetrant. The gravitational force acting on the penetrant liquid can be working either with or against the
capillary force depending on the orientation of the flaw during the dwell cycle. When the gravitational pull is
working against the capillary rise, the strength of the force is given by the following equation:
Force = r2hpg
Where:
r = radius of the crack opening
h = height of penetrant above its free surface
p = density of the penetrant
g = acceleration due to gravity
When the direction of capillary flow is in the same direction as the force of gravity, the added force driving
the penetrant into the flaw is given by the formula shown below:
Force = hAp
Where:
h = height of penetrant above its free surface
A = cross-sectional area of the opening
P = density of the penetrant
Increasing the specific gravity by decreasing the percent of solvent (by volume) in the solution will increase
the penetration speed.
Reference:
Tugrul, A. B., Capillarity Effect Analysis for Alternative Liquid Penetrant Chemicals, NDT & E
International, Volume 30 Number 1, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford England, February 1997, pp.
19-23.

Viscosity
Viscosity describes a fluid's resistance to flow. Liquids such as water that flow easily, have a lower viscosity
than do liquids such as ketchup. Viscosity has little effect on the ability of a penetrant material to enter a
defect but it does have an effect on the speed at which the penetrant fills a defect. The equations for the fill
times of a cylindrical void and an elliptical void are shown below:
Cylindrical Void
Fill time = (2l2)/ rcos LG
Elliptical Void
Fill time = [(2l ) / LGcos] * [a2+b2 / (a+b)ab]
2

Where: l = defect depth

= viscosity
r = radius of the crack opening
LG = liquid-gas surface tension

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

Color and Fluorescent Brightness

Penetrant Color and Fluorescence

The color of the penetrant material is of obvious importance in a visible dye penetrant inspection, as the dye
must provide good contrast against the developer or part being inspected. Remember from the earlier
discussion of contrast sensitivity that generally the higher the contrast, the easier objects are to see. The dye
used in visible dye penetrant is usually vibrant red but other colors can be purchased for special applications.
When fluorescent materials are involved, the effect of color and fluorescence is not so straightforward. LPI
materials fluoresce because they contain one or more dyes that absorb electromagnetic radiation over a
particular wavelength and the absorption of photons leads to changes in the electronic configuration of the
molecules. Since the molecules are not stable at this higher energy state, they almost immediately re-emit the
energy. There is some energy loss in the process and this causes photons to be re-emitted at a slightly longer
wavelength that is in the visible range. The radiation absorption and emission could take place a number of
times until the desired color and brightness is achieved. Two different fluorescent colors can be mixed to
interact by a mechanism called cascading. The emission of visible light by this process involves one dye
absorbing ultraviolet radiation to emit a band of radiation that makes a second dye glow. Since the human
eye is the most commonly used sensing device, most penetrants are designed to fluoresce as close as possible
to the eyes' peak response.
Penetrant Brightness
Fluorescent brightness was erroneously once thought to be the controlling factor with respect to flaw
detection sensitivity. Measurements have been made to evaluate the intrinsic brightness of virtually all
commercially available penetrants and they all have about the same brightness. Intrinsic brightness values
are determined for thick liquid films but the dimensional threshold of fluorescence (discussed on the next
page) is a more important property. The measurement of fluorescent brightness is detailed in ASTM E-1135,
"Standard Test Method for Comparing the Brightness of Fluorescent Penetrants."
Click here to learn why things fluoresce.

Why Things Fluoresce

Fluorescent Penetrant materials usually contain several dye compounds that are especially suited for the
production of fluorescence. Fluorescence is the process wherein a molecule absorbs a photon of radiant
energy at a particular wavelength and then quickly re-emits the energy at a slightly longer wavelength. It is
the rapid and short-term re-remittance of energy that distinguishes fluorescence from phosphorescence.
Phosphorescence is usually the result of a chemical reaction which sustains the release of energy for a
significant period of time. Fluorescence was first described in the sixteenth century and was probably
observed long before that time since a large number of plant and animal products fluoresce.
The phenomenon of fluorescence requires a short lesson in quantum mechanics which explains why
fluorescence was not understood until the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, Huygen's wave theory
of light had replaced Newton's concept of the particulate nature of light and fluorescence was one of the
embarrassing phenomena which simply could not be explained by use of the wave theory. The wave theory,
as with most classical physics, generally assumes change to be a continuous process with no abrupt changes.
Near the beginning of the twentieth century, Max Planck suggested that energy changes might occur in a
stepwise manner. This concept forms the basis of quantum mechanics and Einstein applied the quantum
concept of energy to light and revived the idea of the particulate nature of light. Planck formalized the
relationship with the equation shown below:
E= hn
Where:
E = energy
h = a constant
n = the frequency of light
This equations shows that the size of the energy steps change with the
frequency or wavelength of the light. Einstein introduced the term photon
to describe the smallest increments of light.
In today's current model of the atom, protons and neutrons are found in the nucleus and electrons are found
spinning around outside the nucleus. Electrons spin and rotate around the nucleus billions of times a second.
According to modern theory, electrons are arranged in energy levels as they rotate around the nucleus. When
electrons gain or lose energy, they jump between energy levels as they are rotating around the nucleus. As
electrons gain energy, they move to the third, or outer level and as they lose energy, they move to the inner or
first energy level. Since the energy of the system is restricted to certain energy values, the atom is said to be
quantized. In the animated image below, it can be seen that the electrons move to a different energy state
only when a specific amount of energy is added to or removed from the system.

Another way of illustrating this point is with an energy diagram as presented below. This diagram shows the
quantized energy levels for an atom. Each energy level corresponds to a quantum state of the atom. The
lowest energy state is called the ground state and is the E0 line in the diagram. If energy is added to the
system, an electron or electrons will jump to a higher level and the atom is said to be at an excited state. The
upward arrow in the illustration represents a quantum jump of the atom from the ground state to the second
excited state. Depending on the amount of energy input into the atom, the energy jump could have been to
any of the levels. However, the jump must be to one of the levels shown, as the atom cannot have an
intermediate value of energy. Atoms will generally be in their ground state.
When considering fluorescence, energy must be considered at a molecular level. When molecules form, two
or more atoms form an association where the energy of the molecule is lower than that of the constituent
atoms when they were separate. The total energy of the molecule is the sum of the energies holding the
nuclei together and the energy of the chemical bonds holding the molecule together. Molecules have
rotational, vibrational and electronic (due to the electrons) energy. It is the vibrational and electronic energies
of the molecule that contribute to fluorescence. Molecules, like atoms, will generally be in their ground state.
Molecules can move to a greater energy state only when energy is added to their system. One of the ways a
molecule can gain energy is by absorbing light. If a molecule absorbs light, the energy of the light must be
equal to the energy required to put the molecule in one of the higher energy states. When a molecule reaches
an excited state, it does not stay there for very long. Rather it quickly returns to a lower energy state either
by emitting light or colliding with another atomic particle. When a molecule emits light, the energy of that
light is equal to the energy difference between the quantum levels that molecules has moved between

Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence

The dimensional threshold of fluorescence is a property that is not currently controlled by the specifications
but appears to largely determine the sensitivity of a fluorescent penetrant. A. L. Walters and R. C. McMaster
conducted an experiment that led to the understanding of this condition. Two optically flat plates of glass
were clamped tightly together. A drop of fluorescent penetrant was placed at the interface of the plates. The
penetrant could be seen migrating in between the plates but when exposed to black light, no fluorescence
was seen. The phenomenon was not fully understood until 1960 when Alburger introduced the concept of
thin-film transition of fluorescent response.
The dimensional magnitudes of typical crack defects correspond to the dimensional thresholds of
fluorescence response which are characteristic of the available penetrant. Alternately stated, the degree of
fluorescence response, under a given intensity of ultraviolet radiation, is dependent on the absorption of
ultraviolet radiation, which in turn depends on dye concentration and film thickness. Therefore, the ability of
a penetrant to yield an indication depends primarily on its ability to fluoresce as a very thin film. The
performance of penetrants based on the physical constraints of the dyes can be predicted using Beer's Law
equation. This law states that the absorption of light by a solution changes exponentially with the
concentration of the solution. This equation does not hold true when very thin layers are involved but works
well to establish general relationships between variables.

I = 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 on brightness. A Meniscus-Method Apparatus can be used to measure the dimensional threshold of
fluorescence.
References:
Alburger, J.R., Notes on the History of Testing Panels for Inspection Penetrants, Paper Summaries, Nations
Spring Conference, New Orleans, LA, Published by ASNT, April 1978, pp. 257-270.
Alburger, J.R., Dimensional Transition Effects in Visible Color and Fluorescent Dye Liquids, Proceedings,
23rd Annual Conference, Instrument Society of America, Vol. 23, Part I, Paper No. 564.
Gram, B., Mechanisms Contributing to Fluorescence and Visibility of Penetrants, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Nondestructive Testing, May 1967, pp 225-233.

Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability of Penetrant Indications

Exposure to intense ultraviolet light and elevated temperatures can have a negative effect on fluorescent
penetrant indications. Fluorescent materials can lose their brightness after a period of exposure to high
intensity UV light. One study measured the intensity of fluorescent penetrant indications on a sample that
was subjected to multiple UV exposure cycles. Each cycle consisted of 15 minutes of 800 microwatt/cm UV
light and 2.5 minutes of 1500 microwatt/cm UV light. Two penetrants were tested in the study, water
washable, level 3 and a post emulsifiable, level 4. The results from the study showed that the indications
from both penetrants faded with increased UV exposure. After eight exposure cycles, the brightnesses of the
indications were less than one half their original values.
At an elevated temperature, penetrants can experience heat degradation or "heat fade." Excessive heat:
1. evaporates the more volatile constituents which increases viscosity and adversely affects the rate of
penetration.
2.
alters
wash
characteristics.
3. "boils off" chemicals that prevent separation and gelling of water soluble penetrants.
4. kills the fluorescence of tracer dyes.
This fourth degradation mechanism involves the molecules of the penetrant materials. The phenomenon of
fluorescence involves electrons that are delocalized in a molecule. These electrons are not specifically
associated with a given bond between two atoms. When a molecule takes up sufficient energy for the
excitation source, the delocalized bonding electrons rise to a higher electronic state. After excitation, the
electrons will normally lose energy and return to the lowest energy state. This loss of energy can involve a
"radiative" process such as fluorescence or "non-radiative" processes. Non-radiative processes include
relaxation by molecular collisions, thermal relaxation, and chemical reaction. Heat causes the number of
molecular collisions to increase, which results in more collision relaxation and less fluorescence.
This explanation is only valid when the part and the penetrant are at an elevated temperature. When the
materials cool, the fluorescence will return. However, while exposed to elevated temperatures, penetrant
solutions dry faster. As the molecules become more closely packed in the dehydrated solution, collision
relaxation increases and fluorescence decreases. This effect has been called "concentration quenching" and
experimental data shows that as the dye concentration is increased, fluorescent brightness initially increases
but reaches a peak and then begins to decrease. Airflow over the surface on the part will also speed
evaporation of the liquid carrier, so it should be kept to a minimum to prevent a loss of brightness.
Generally, thermal damage occurs when fluorescent penetrant materials are heated above 71 oC (160oF). It
should be noted that the sensitivity of an FPI inspection can be improved if a part is heated prior to applying

the penetrant material, but the temperature should be kept below 71 oC (160oF). Some high temperature
penetrants in use today are formulated with dyes with high melting points, greatly reducing heat related
problems. The penetrants also have high boiling points and the heat related problems are greatly reduced.
However, a loss of brightness can still take place when the penetrant is exposed to elevated temperatures
over an extended period of time. When one heat resistant formulation was tested, a 20 % reduction was
measured after the material was subjected to 163 oC (325oF) for 273 hours. The various types of fluorescent
dyes commonly employed in today's penetrant materials begin decomposition at 71 oC (160oF). When the
temperature approaches 94oC (200oF), there is almost total attenuation of fluorescent brightness of the
composition and sublimation of the fluorescent dyestuffs.
References:
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.
Muller, F.A. and Fantozzi, F.F., Advances in Improving the Heat-Fade Resistance of Fluorescent Penetrants,
Materials Evaluation, July 1987, pp. 848-850.
Sherwin, A. G. and Holden, W. O., Heat Assisted Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Materials Evaluation,
Sept. 1979, pp. 52-56, 61.
Robertson, A.J., Heat Stable Fluorescent Penetrants, Paper S2, 4th Pan Pacific Conference on Nondestructive
Testing, Vol. 1, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, Australian Institute for Non-Destructive Testing, November
1983.
Lovejoy, D.J., The Importance of the Physical Nature of Fluorescence in Penetrant Testing, Reliability in
Non-Destructive Testing: Proceedings of the 27th Annual British Conference on Non-Destructive Testing,
London, UK, Pergamon Press, 1989, pp. 483-491

Removability
Removing the penetrant from the surface of the sample, without removing it from the flaw, is one of the most
critical operations of the penetrant inspection process. The penetrant must be removed from the sample
surface as completely as possible to limit background fluorescence. In order for this to happen, the adhesive
forces of the penetrant must be weak enough that they can be broken by the removal methods used.
However, in order for the penetrant to have good surface wetting characteristics, the adhesive forces (forces
of attraction between the penetrant and the solid surface being inspected) must be stronger than the cohesive
forces (forces holding the liquid together). Proper formulation of the penetrant materials provides the correct
balancing of these forces.
Another consideration in the formulation of the penetrant liquid is that it should not easily commingle and
become diluted by the cleaning solution. Dilution of the penetrant liquid will affect the concentration of the
dye and reduce the dimensional threshold of fluorescence.

Emulsifiers
When removal of the penetrant from a defect due to over-washing of the part is a concern, a postemulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants require a separate emulsifier to
break the penetrant down and make it water-washable. Most penetrant inspection specifications classify
penetrant systems into four methods of excess penetrant removal. These are listed below:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable

4. Method D: Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant from the part being inspected. Method A has
emulsifiers built into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible to remove the excess penetrant with a simple
water wash. Method B and D penetrants require an additional processing step where a separate
emulsification agent is applied to make the excess penetrant more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic
emulsification systems are oil-based materials that are supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic systems
are water-based and supplied as a concentrate that must be diluted with water prior to use .
Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late 1950's and work with both a chemical and
mechanical action. After the emulsifier has coated the surface of the object, mechanical action starts to
remove some of the excess penetrant as the mixture drains from the part. During the emulsification time, the
emulsifier diffuses into the remaining penetrant and the resulting mixture is easily removed with a water
spray.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the excess penetrant with mechanical and chemical action
but the action is different because no diffusion takes place. Hydrophilic emulsifiers are basically detergents
that contain solvents and surfactants. The hydrophilic emulsifier breaks up the penetrant into small quantities
and prevents these pieces from recombining or reattaching to the surface of the part. The mechanical action
of the rinse water removes the displaced penetrant from the part and causes fresh remover to contact and lift
newly exposed penetrant from the surface.
The hydrophilic post-emulsifiable method (Method D) was
introduced in the mid 1970's. Since it is more sensitive than the
lipophilic post emulsifiable method it has made the later method
virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is
that they are less sensitive to variation in the contact and removal
time. While emulsification time should be controlled as closely as
possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time will
have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is
used. However, a variation of as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a
significant effect when a lipophilic system is used.
References:
-- Boisvert, B.W., Hardy, G., Dorgan, J.F., and Selner, R.H., The Fluorescent Penetrant Hydrophilic Remover
Process, Materials Evaluation, February 1983, pp. 134-137.
-- Sherwin, A. G., Overremoval Propensities of the Prewash Hydrophilic Emulsifier Fluorescent Penetrant
Process, Materials Evaluation, March 1993, pp. 294-299.

Developers
The role of the developer is to pull the trapped penetrant material out of defects and spread it out on the
surface of the part so it can be seen by an inspector. The fine developer particles both reflect and refract the
incident ultraviolet light, allowing more of it to interact with the penetrant, causing more efficient
fluorescence. The developer also allows more light to be emitted through the same mechanism. This is why
indications are brighter than the penetrant itself under UV light. Another function that some developers
perform is to create a white background so there is a greater degree of contrast between the indication and
the surrounding background.
Developer Forms
The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify developers into six standard forms. These forms are listed below:

1. Form a - Dry Powder

2. Form b - Water Soluble
3. Form c - Water Suspendable
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent (Solvent Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye (Solvent Based)
6. Form f - Special Applications
The developer classifications are based on the method that the developer is applied. The developer can be
applied as a dry powder, or dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier. Each of the developer forms has
advantages and disadvantages.
Dry Powder
Dry powder developer is generally considered to be the
least sensitive but it is inexpensive to use and easy to
apply. Dry developers are white, fluffy powders that can
be applied to a thoroughly dry surface in a number of
ways. The developer can be applied by dipping parts in a
container of developer, or by using a puffer to dust parts
with the developer. Parts can also be placed in a dust
cabinet where the developer is blown around and allowed
to settle on the part. Electrostatic powder spray guns are
also available to apply the developer. The goal is to allow
the developer to come in contact with the whole
inspection area.
Unless the part is electrostatically charged, the powder
will only adhere to areas where trapped penetrant has wet the surface of the part. The penetrant will try to
wet the surface of the penetrant particle and fill the voids between the particles, which brings more penetrant
to the surface of the part where it can be seen. Since dry powder developers only stick to the area where
penetrant is present, the dry developer does not provide a uniform white background as the other forms of
developers do. Having a uniform light background is very important for a visible inspection to be effective
and since dry developers do not provide one, they are seldom used for visible inspections. When a dry
developer is used, indications tend to stay bright and sharp since the penetrant has a limited amount of room
to spread.
Water Soluble
As the name implies, water soluble developers consist of a group of
chemicals that are dissolved in water and form a developer layer
when the water is evaporated away. The best method for applying
water soluble developers is by spraying it on the part. The part can be
wet or dry. Dipping, pouring, or brushing the solution on to the
surface is sometimes used but these methods are less desirable.
Aqueous developers contain wetting agents that cause the solution to
function much like dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and can lead to
additional removal of entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by
placing the wet but well drained part in a recirculating, warm air dryer
with the temperature held between 70 and 75F. If the parts are not
dried quickly, the indications will will be blurred and indistinct. Properly developed parts will have an even,
pale white coating over the entire surface.
Water Suspendable

Water suspendable developers consist of insoluble developer particles suspended in water. Water suspendable
developers require frequent stirring or agitation to keep the particles from settling out of suspension. Water
suspendable developers are applied to parts in the same manner as water soluble developers. Parts coated
with a water suspendable developer must be forced dried just as parts coated with a water soluble developer
are forced dried. The surface of a part coated with a water suspendable developer will have a slightly
translucent white coating.
Nonaqueous
Nonaqueous developers suspend the developer in a volatile solvent
and are typically applied with a spray gun. Nonaqueous developers
are commonly distributed in aerosol spray cans for portability. The
solvent tends to pull penetrant from the indications by solvent action.
Since the solvent is highly volatile, forced drying is not required. A
nonaqueous developer should be applied to a thoroughly dried part to
form a slightly translucent white coating.
Special Applications
Plastic or lacquer developers are special developers that are primarily
used when a permanent record of the inspection is required.

Preparation of Part
One of the most critical steps in the penetrant inspection process is preparing
the part for inspection. All coatings, such as paints, varnishes, plating, and
heavy oxides must be removed to ensure that defects are open to the surface
of the part. If the parts have been machined, sanded, or blasted prior to the
penetrant inspection, it is possible that a thin layer of metal may have
smeared across the surface and closed off defects. It is even possible for metal
smearing to occur as a result of cleaning operations such as grit or vapor
blasting. This layer of metal smearing must be removed before inspection.
Contaminants
Coatings, such as paint, are much more elastic than metal and will not
fracture even though a large defect may be present just below the coating. The
part must be thoroughly cleaned as surface contaminates can prevent the
penetrant from entering a defect. Surface contaminants can also lead to a
higher level of background noise since the excess penetrant may be more
difficult to remove.
Common coatings and contaminates that must be removed include: paint, dirt, flux, scale, varnish, oil,
etchant, smut, plating, grease, oxide, wax, decals, machining fluid, rust, and residue from previous penetrant
inspections.
Some of these contaminants would obviously prevent penetrant from entering defects, so it is clear they must
be removed. However, the impact of other contaminants such as the residue from previous penetrant
inspections is less clear, but they can have a disastrous effect on the inspection. Take the link below to review
some of the research that has been done to evaluate the effects of contaminants on LPI sensitivity.
Click here to learn more about possible problems with Cleaning Practices.

A good cleaning procedure will remove all contamination from the

part and not leave any residue that may interfere with the inspection
process. It has been found that some alkaline cleaners can be
detrimental to the penetrant inspection process if they have silicates in
concentrations above 0.5 percent. Sodium metasilicate, sodium
silicate, and related compounds can adhere to the surface of parts and
form a coating that prevents penetrant entry into cracks. Researchers
in Russia have also found that some domestic soaps and commercial
detergents can clog flaw cavities and reduce the wettability of the
metal surface, thus reducing the sensitivity of the penetrant. Conrad
and Caudill found that media from plastic media blasting was
partially responsible for loss of LPI indication strength.
Microphotographs of cracks after plastic media blasting showed
media entrapment in addition to metal smearing.
It is very important that the material being inspected has not been
smeared across its own surface during machining or cleaning
operations. It is well recognized that machining, honing, lapping,
hand sanding, hand scraping, grit blasting, tumble deburring, and
peening operations can cause some materials to smear. It is perhaps less recognized that some cleaning
operations, such as steam cleaning, can also cause metal smearing in the softer materials. Take the link below
to learn more about metal smearing and its affects on LPI
Click here to learn more about metal smearing.
References:
Robinson, Sam J., Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing Methyl Chloroform in the Penetrant Process,
Materials Evaluation, Vol. 50, No. 8, August 1992, pp. 936-946.
Rummel, W., Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous Precleaners for Penetrant Inspection, Materials
Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 5, August 1998, pp. 950-952.
Glazkov, Y.A., Some Technological Mistakes in the Application of Capillary Inspection to Repairs of Gas
Turbin Engines, translation from Defektoskopiya - The Soviet Journal of Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 26,
No. 3, New York, NY Plenum/Consultants Bureau, January 1990, pp. 361-367.
Glazkov, Yu . A., Bruevich, E.P., and Samokhin, N.L, Special Features of Application of Aqueous Solutions
of Commercial Detergents in Capillary Flaw Inspection, Defektoskopiya - The Soviet Journal of
Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 19, No. 8, August 1982, pp. 83-87.

Selection of a Penetrant Technique

The selection of a liquid penetrant system is not a

straightforward task. There are a variety of penetrant
systems and developer types that are available for use,
and one set of penetrant materials will not work for all
applications. Many factors must be considered when
selecting the penetrant materials for a particular
application. These factors include the sensitivity
required, materials cost, number of parts, size of area
requiring inspection, and portability.

When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a penetrant system, the first decision that must be
made is whether to use fluorescent penetrant or visible dye penetrant. Fluorescent penetrants are generally
more capable of producing a detectable indication from a small defect. Also, the human eye is more sensitive
to a light indication on a dark background and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication.
The graph below presents a series of curves that show the contrast ratio required for a spot of a certain
diameter to be seen. The ordinate is the spot diameter, which was viewed from one foot. The abscissa is the
contrast ratio between the spot brightness and the background brightness. To the left of the contrast ratio of
one, the spot is darker than the background (representative of visible dye penetrant testing); and to the right
of one, the spot is brighter than the background (representative of fluorescent penetrant inspection). Each of
the three curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one are for different background brightness (in footLamberts), but simply consider the general trend of each group of curves right or left of the contrast ratio of
one. The curves show that for indication larger than 0.076 mm (0.003 inch) in diameter, it does not really
matter if it is a dark spot on a light background or a light spot on a dark background. However, when a dark
indication on a light background is further reduced in size, it is no longer detectable even though contrast is
increased. Furthermore, with a light indication on a dark background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001
inch) were detectable when the contrast between the flaw and the background was high.
From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an advantage over a visible penetrant for
finding very small defects. Data presented by De Graaf and De Rijk supports this statement. They inspected
"identical" fatigue cracked specimens using a red dye penetrant and a fluorescent dye penetrant. The
fluorescent penetrant found 60 defects while the visible dye was only able to find 39 of the defects.
Ref: De Graaf, E. and De Rijk, P., Comparison Between Reliability, Sensitivity, and Accuracy of
Nondestructive Inspection Methods, 13th Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation Proceedings, San
Antonio, TX, published by NTIAC, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, April 1981, pp. 311-322.

Ref: Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963 Lester Honor Lecture,
Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 354-368.
Under certain conditions, the visible penetrant may be a better choice. When fairly large defects are the
subject of the inspection, a high sensitivity system may not be warranted and may result in a large number of
irrelevant indications. Visible dye penetrants have also been found to give better results when surface
roughness is high or when flaws are located in areas such as weldments.
Since visible dye penetrants do not require a darkened area for the use of an ultraviolet light, visible systems
are more easy to use in the field. Solvent removable penetrants, when properly applied, can have the highest

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

Penetrant Application and Dwell Time

The penetrant material can be applied in a number of different ways,
including spraying, brushing, or immersing the parts in a penetrant
bath. The method of penetrant application has little effect on the
inspection sensitivity but an electrostatic spraying method is reported
to produce slightly better results than other methods. Once the part is
covered in penetrant it must be allowed to dwell so the penetrant has
time to enter any defect present.
There are basically two dwell mode options, immersion-dwell
(keeping the part immersed in the penetrant during the dwell period)
and drain-dwell (letting the part drain during the dwell period). Prior
to a study by Sherwin, the immersion-dwell mode was generally
considered to be more sensitive but recognized to be less economical
because more penetrant was washed away and emulsifiers were
contaminated more rapidly. The reasoning for thinking this method was
more sensitive was that the penetrant was more migratory and more likely
to fill flaws when kept completely fluid and not allowed to lose volatile
constituents by evaporation. However, Sherwin showed that if the
specimens are allowed to drain-dwell, the sensitivity is higher because the
evaporation increases the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the
specimen. As pointed-out in the section on penetrant materials, sensitivity
increases as the dyestuff concentration increases. Sherwin also cautions that
the samples being inspected should be placed outside the penetrant tank
wall so that vapors from the tank do not accumulate and dilute the dyestuff
concentration of the penetrant on the specimen.
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of
the Sensitivity Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House,
Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York, Volume 4, September 1987, pp. 28142823.
-- Sherwin, A.G., Establishing Liquid Penetrant Dwell Modes, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 32, No. 3, March
1974, pp. 63-67.

Penetrant Dwell Time

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

The surface tension of the penetrant.

The contact angle of the penetrant.

The dynamic shear viscosity of the penetrant, which can vary with the diameter of the capillary. The
viscosity of a penetrant in microcapillary flaws is higher than its viscosity in bulk, which slows the
infiltration of the tight flaws.

The atmospheric pressure at the flaw opening.

The capillary pressure at the flaw opening.

The pressure of the gas trapped in the flaw by the penetrant.

The radius of the flaw or the distance between the flaw walls.

The density or specific gravity of the penetrant.

Microstructural properties of the penetrant.

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

Some Research Results on Dwell Time

An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is that if the elliptical flaw has a length to width
ratio of 100, it will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than it will a cylindrical flaw with the
same volume.

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

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

Penetrant Removal Process

The penetrant removal procedure must effectively remove the
penetrant from the surface of the part without removing an
appreciable amount of entrapped penetrant from the defect. If the
removal process extracts penetrant from the flaw, the flaw
indication will be reduced by a proportional amount. If the
penetrant is not effectively removed from the part surface, the
contrast between the indication and the background will be
reduced. As discussed in the Contrast Sensitivity Section, as the
contrast increases, so does visibility of the indication.
Removal Method
Penetrant systems are classified into four methods of excess
penetrant removal. These include the following:
1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Method C, Solvent Removable, is used primarily for inspecting small localized areas. This method requires
hand wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with the solvent remover, and is, therefore, too labor
intensive for most production situations. Of the three production penetrant inspection methods, Method A,
Water-Washable, is the most economical to apply. Water-washable or self-emulsifiable penetrants contain an

emulsifier as an integral part of the formulation. The excess penetrant may be removed from the object
surface with a simple water rinse. These materials have the property of forming relatively viscous gels upon
contact with water, which results in the formation of gel-like plugs in surface openings. While they are
completely soluble in water, given enough contact time, the plugs offer a brief period of protection against
rapid wash removal. Thus, water-washable penetrant systems provide ease of use and a high level of
sensitivity.
When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-washing of the part is a concern, a postemulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants require a separate emulsifier to
breakdown the penetrant and make it water washable. The part is usually immersed in the emulsifier but
hydrophilic emulsifiers may also be sprayed on the object. Spray application is not recommended for
lipophilic emulsifiers because it can result in non-uniform emulsification if not properly applied. Brushing
the emulsifier on to the part is not recommended either because the bristles of the brush may force emulsifier
into discontinuities, causing the entrapped penetrant to be removed. The emulsifier is allowed sufficient time
to react with the penetrant on the surface of the part but not given time to make its way into defects to react
with the trapped penetrant. The penetrant that has reacted with the emulsifier is easily cleaned away.
Controlling the reaction time is of essential importance when using a post-emulsifiable system. If the
emulsification time is too short, an excessive amount of penetrant will be left on the surface, leading to high
background levels. If the emulsification time is too long, the emulsifier will react with the penetrant
entrapped in discontinuities, making it possible to deplete the amount needed to form an indication.
The hydrophilic post-emulsifiable method (Method D) is more sensitive than the lipophilic post-emulsifiable
method (Method B). Since these methods are generally only used when very high sensitivity is needed, the
hydrophilic method renders the lipophilic method virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic
emulsifiers is that they are less sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification
time should be controlled as closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time will
have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is used. On the contrary, a variation of
as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a significant effect when a lipophilic system is used. Using an
emulsifier involves adding a couple of steps to the penetrant process, slightly increases the cost of an
inspection. When using an emulsifier, the penetrant process includes the following steps (extra steps in bold):
1. pre-clean part, 2. apply penetrant and allow to dwell, 3. pre-rinse to remove first layer of penetrant, 4.
apply hydrophilic emulsifier and allow contact for specified time, 5. rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6.
dry part, 7. apply developer and allow part to develop, and 8. inspect.
Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants
The method used to rinse the excess penetrant from the object surface and the time of the rinse should be
controlled so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended that a coarse spray rinse or an airagitated, immersion wash tank be used. When a spray is being used, it should be directed at a 45 angle to
the part surface so as to not force water directly into any discontinuities that may be present. The spray or
immersion time should be kept to a minimum through frequent inspections of the remaining background
level.
Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants
When a solvent removable penetrant is used, care must also be taken to carefully remove the penetrant from
the part surface while removing as little as possible from the flaw. The first step in this cleaning procedure is
to dry wipe the surface of the part in one direction using a white, lint-free, cotton rag. One dry pass in one
direction is all that should be used to remove as much penetrant as possible. Next, the surface should be
wiped with one pass in one direction with a rag moistened with cleaner. One dry pass followed by one damp
pass is all that is recommended. Additional wiping may sometimes be necessary; but keep in mind that with
every additional wipe, some of the entrapped penetrant will be removed and inspection sensitivity will be
reduced.
To study the effects of the wiping process, Japanese researchers manufactured a test specimen out of acrylic
plates that allowed them to view the movement of the penetrant in a narrow cavity. The sample consisted of

two pieces of acrylic with two thin sheets of vinyl clamped between as spaces. The plates were clamped in
the corners and all but one of the edges sealed. The unsealed edge acted as the flaw. The clearance between
the plates varied from 15 microns (0.059 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.118 inch) at the
midpoint between the clamps. The distance between the clamping points was believed to be 30 mm (1.18
inch).
Although the size of the flaw represented by this specimen is large, an interesting observation was made.
They found that when the surface of the specimen was wiped with a dry cloth, penetrant was blotted and
removed from the flaw at the corner areas where the clearance between the plate was the least. When the
penetrant at the side areas was removed, penetrant moved horizontally from the center area to the ends of the
simulated crack where capillary forces are stronger. Therefore, across the crack length, the penetrant surface
has a parabola-like shape where the liquid is at the surface in the corners but depressed in the center. This
shows that each time the cleaning cloth touches the edge of a crack, penetrant is lost from the defect. This
also explains why the bleedout of an indication is often largest at the corners of cracks.
-- Senda, T., Maeda, N., Kato, M., Ebata, M., Ooka, K., and Miyoshi, S., Factors Involved in Formation of
Penetrant Testing Indications, NDE in the Nuclear Industry: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference,
Zurich, Switzerland, November - December 1984, pp. 807-810.

Use and Selection of a Developer

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

Developer Form
Nonaqueous, Wet Solvent
Plastic Film
Water-Soluble
Water-Suspendable
Water-Soluble
Water-Suspendable
Dry

Method of Application
Spray
Spray
Spray
Spray
Immersion
Immersion
Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)

8
9
10

Dry
Dry
Dry

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

Does not form contrast background

Indications tend to remain brighter so cannot be used with visible
and more distinct over time
systems
Easily to apply

Disadvantages

Difficult to assure entire part

surface has been coated

Coating is translucent and provides

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

Soluble

Ease of coating entire part

Indications are bright and sharp
Suspendable
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

Difficult to apply evenly to all

White coating for good contrast can surfaces
be produced which work well for
both visible and fluorescent systems More difficult to clean part after
inspection
Indications show-up rapidly and are
well defined
Provides highest sensitivity

References:
- Brittain, P. I., The Amplifying Action of Developer Powders, QUALTEST 3 Conference, Cincinnati OH,
Oct 1984.
- Rummel, W. D., Probability of Detection as a Quantitative Measure of Nondestructive Testing End-To-End
Process Capabilities, Materials Evaluation, January 1998, pp. 35.
- Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 2, Liquid Penetrant Tests, Robert McMaster, et al., American
Society for Nondestructive Testing, 1982, pp. 283-319

Process Control of Temperature

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

Quality Control of Penetrant

The quality of a penetrant inspection is highly dependent on the quality of the penetrant materials used. Only
products meeting the requirements of an industry specification, such as AMS 2644, should be used.
Deterioration of new penetrants primarily results from aging and contamination. Virtually all organic dyes
deteriorate over time, resulting in a loss of color or fluorescent response, but deterioration can be slowed
with proper storage. When possible, keep the materials in a closed container and protect from freezing and
exposure to high heat. Freezing can cause separation to occur and exposure to high temperature for a long
period of time can affect the brightness of the dyes.
Contamination can occur during storage and use. Of course, open tank systems are much more susceptible to
contamination than are spray systems. Contamination by another liquid will change the surface tension and
contact angle of the solution. Water is the most common contaminant. Water-washable penetrants have a
definite tolerance limit for water, and above this limit they do not function properly. Cloudiness and
viscosity both increase with increasing water content. In self-emulsifiable penetrants, water contamination
can produce a gel break or emulsion inversion when the water concentration becomes high enough. The
formation of the gel is an important feature during the washing processes, but must be avoided until that
stage in the process. Data indicates that the water contamination must be significant (greater than 10%) for
gel formation to occur. Most specifications limit water contamination to around 5% to be conservative.
Water does not readily mix with the oily solution of lipophilic post-emulsifiable systems and it generally
settles to the bottom of the tank. However, the inspection of parts that travel to the bottom of the tank and
encounter the water could be adversely affected.
Most other common contaminates, such as cleaning solvents, oils, acids, caustics and chromates, must be
present in significant quantities to affect the performance of the penetrant. Organic contaminants can dilute
the dye and absorb the ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the dye, and also change the viscosity. Acids,
caustics, and chromates cause the loss of fluorescence in water-soluble penetrants.
Regular checks must be performed to ensure that the material performance has not degraded. When the
penetrant is first received from the manufacturer, a sample of the fresh solution should be collected and
stored as a standard for future comparison. The standard specimen should be stored in a sealed, opaque glass
or metal container. Penetrants that are in-use should be compared regularly to the standard specimen to
detect changes in color, odor and consistency. When using fluorescent penetrants, a brightness comparison

per the requirements of ASTM E 1417 is also often required. This check involves placing a drop of the
standard and the in-use penetrants on a piece of Whatman #4 filter paper and making a side by side
comparison of the brightness of the two spots under UV light.
Additionally, the water content of water washable penetrants must be checked regularly. Water-based, water
washable penetrants are checked with a refractometer. The rejection criteria is different for different
penetrants, so the requirements of the qualifying specification or the manufacturer's instructions must be
consulted. Non-water-based, water washable penetrants are checked using the procedure specified in ASTM
D95 or ASTM E 1417.
Application of the Penetrant
The application of the penetrant is the step of the process that requires the least amount of control. As long as
the surface being inspected receives a generous coating of penetrant, it really doesn't matter how the
penetrant is applied. Generally, the application method is an economic or convenience decision.
It is important that the part be thoroughly cleaned and dried. Any contaminates or moisture on the surface of
the part or within a flaw can prevent the penetrant material from entering the defect. The part should also be
cool to the touch. The recommended range of temperature is 4 to 52oC (39 to 125oF).

Quality Control of Wash Temperature and Pressure

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

Brittian evaluated the effect of wash time on a water-washable, level 4 penetrant (Ardrox 970P25) and found
that indication brightness decreases rapidly in the first minute of wash and then slows. The brightness value
dropped from a relative value of 1100 to approximately 500 in the first minute and then continued to
decrease nearly linearly to a value of 200 after five minutes of wash. Brittian concluded that wash time for
water-washable systems should be kept to a minimum.
-- Brittain, P.I., Assessment of Penetrant Systems by Fluorescent Intensity, Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 4, Published by Perganon Press, 1988, pp. 2814-2823.
Robinson and Schmidt used a Turner fluorometer to evaluate the variability that some of the processing steps
can produce in the brightness of indications. To find out how much effect the wash procedure had on
sensitivity, Tesco cracked, chrome-plated panels, were processed a number of times using the same materials
but three different wash methods. The washing methods included spraying the specimens with a handheld
nozzle, holding the specimens under a running tap, and using a washing machine that controlled the water
pressure, temperature, spray pattern and wash time. The variation in indication brightness readings between
five trials was reported. The variation was 16% for the running tap water, 14% for the handheld spray nozzle
and 4.5% for the machine wash.
-- Robinson, S. J. and Schmidt, J. T., Fluorescent Penetrant Sensitivity and Removability - What the Eye Can
See, a Fluorometer Can Measure, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 42, No. 8, July 1984, pp. 1029-1034.

Quality Control of Drying Process

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

Quality Control of Developer

The function of the developer is very important in a penetrant inspection. It must draw out of the
discontinuity a sufficient amount of penetrant to form an indication, and it must spread the penetrant out on
the surface to produce a visible indication. In a fluorescent penetrant inspection, the amount of penetrant
brought to the surface must exceed the dye's thin film threshold of fluorescence, or the indication will not
fluoresce. Additionally, the developer makes fluorescent indications appear brighter than indications
produced with the same amount of dye but without the developer.
In order to accomplish these functions, a developer must adhere to the part surface and result in a uniform,
highly porous layer with many paths for the penetrant to be moved due to capillary action. Developers are
either applied wet or dry, but the desired end result is always a uniform, highly porous, surface layer. Since
the quality control requirements for each of the developer types is slightly different, they will be covered
individually.
Dry Powder Developer
A dry powder developer should be checked daily to ensure that it is fluffy and not caked. It should be similar
to fresh powdered sugar and not granulated like powdered soap. It should also be relatively free from specks
of fluorescent penetrant material from previous inspection. This check is performed by spreading a sample of
the developer out and examining it under UV light. If there are ten or more fluorescent specks in a 10 cm
diameter area, the batch should be discarded.

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

Quality Control of Lighting

After a component has been properly processed, it is ready for
inspection. While automated vision inspection systems are sometimes
used, the focus here will be on inspections performed visually by a
human inspector, as this is the dominant method. Proper lighting is of
great importance when visually inspecting a surface for a penetrant
indication. Obviously, the lighting requirements are different for an
inspection conducted using a visible dye penetrant than they are for
an inspection conducted using a fluorescent dye penetrant. The
lighting requirements for each of these techniques, as well as how
light measurements are made, are discussed below.
Lighting for Visible Dye Penetrant Inspections
When using a visible penetrant, the intensity of the white light is of principal importance. Inspections can be
conducted using natural lighting or artificial lighting. When using natural lighting, it is important to keep in

mind that daylight varies from hour to hour, so inspectors must stay constantly aware of the lighting
conditions and make adjustments when needed. To improve uniformity in lighting from one inspection to the
next, the use of artificial lighting is recommended. Artificial lighting should be white whenever possible and
white flood or halogen lamps are most commonly used. The light intensity is required to be 100 foot-candles
at the surface being inspected. It is advisable to choose a white light wattage that will provide sufficient light,
but avoid excessive reflected light that could distract from the inspection.
Lighting for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections
When a fluorescent penetrant is being employed, the ultraviolet (UV) illumination and the visible light inside
the inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are excited by UV light of 365nm wavelength and emit
visible light somewhere in the green-yellow range between 520 and 580nm. The source of ultraviolet light is
often a mercury arc lamp with a filter. The lamps emit many wavelengths and a filter is used to remove all
but the UV and a small amount of visible light between 310 and 410nm. Visible light of wavelengths above
410nm interferes with contrast, and UV emissions below 310nm include some hazardous wavelengths.
Standards and procedures require verification of lens condition and light intensity. Black lights should never
be used with a cracked filter as output of white light and harmful black light will be increased. The
cleanliness of the filter should also be checked as a coating of solvent carrier, oils, or other foreign materials
can reduce the intensity by up to as much as 50%. The filter should be checked visually and cleaned as
necessary before warm-up of the light.
Since fluorescent brightness is linear with respect to ultraviolet excitation, a change in the intensity of the
light (from age or damage) and a change in the distance of the light source from the surface being inspected
will have a direct impact on the inspection. For UV lights used in component evaluations, the normally
accepted intensity is 1000 microwatt per square centimeter when measured at 15 inches from the filter face
(requirements can vary from 800 to 1200 W/cm 2). The required check should be performed when a new
bulb is installed, at startup of the inspection cycle, if a change in intensity is noticed, or every eight hours of
continuous use. Regularly checking the intensity of UV lights is very important because bulbs lose intensity
over time. In fact, a bulb that is near the end of its operating life will often have an intensity of only 25% of
its original output.
Black light intensity will also be affected by voltage variations. A bulb that produces acceptable intensity at
120 volts will produce significantly less at 110 volts. For this reason it is important to provide constant
voltage to the light. Also, most UV light must be warmed up prior to use and should be on for at least 15
minutes before beginning an inspection.
When performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection, it is important to keep white light to a minimum as it
will significantly reduce the inspectors ability to detect fluorescent indications. Light levels of less than 2 fc
are required by most procedures with some procedures requiring less than 0.5 fc at the inspection surface.
Procedures require a check and documentation of ambient white light in the inspection area. When checking
black light intensity at 15 inches a reading of the white light produced by the black light may be required to
verify white light is being removed by the filter.
Light Measurement
Light intensity measurements are made using a radiometer. A radiometer is an instrument that translate light
energy into an electrical current. Light striking a silicon photodiode detector causes a charge to build up
between
internal
layers.
When
an
external
circuit
is
connected to the cell, an electrical current is produced. This current is linear with respect to incident light.
Some radiometers have the ability to measure both black and white light, while others require a separate
sensor for each measurement. Whichever type is used, the sensing area should be clean and free of any
materials that could reduce or obstruct light reaching the sensor. Radiometers are relatively unstable
instruments and readings often change considerable over time. Therefore, they should be calibrated at least
every six months.

Ultraviolet light measurements should be taken using a fixture to maintain a minimum distance of 15 inches
from the filter face to the sensor. The sensor should be centered in the light field to obtain and record the
highest reading. UV spot lights are often focused, so intensity readings will vary considerable over a small
area. White lights are seldom focused and depending on the wattage, will often produce in excess of the 100
fc at 15 inches. Many specifications do not require the white light intensity check to be conducted at a
specific distance.

System Performance Check

System performance checks involve processing a test specimen with
known defects to determine if the process will reveal discontinuities
of the size required. The specimen must be processed following the
same procedure used to process production parts. A system
performance check is typically required daily, at the reactivation of a
system after maintenance or repairs, or any time the system is
suspected of being out of control. As with penetrant inspections in
general, results are directly dependent on the skill of the operator and,
therefore, each operator should process a panel.
The ideal specimen is a production item that has natural defects of the
minimum acceptable size. Some specification delineate the type and
size of the defects that must be present in the specimen and detected.
Surface finish is will affect washability so the check specimen should
have the same surface finish as the production parts being processed.
If penetrant systems with different sensitivity levels are being used,
there should be a separate specimen for each system.
There are some universal test specimens that can be used if a standard
part is not available. The most commonly used test specimen is the
TAM or PSM panel. These panel are usually made of stainless steel that has been chrome plated on one half
and surfaced finished on the other half to produced the desired roughness. The chrome plated section is
impacted from the back side to produce a starburst set of cracks in the chrome. There are five impacted areas
to produce range of crack sizes. Each panel has a characteristic signature and variances in that signature
are indications of process variance. Panel patterns as well as brightness are indicators of process consistency
or variance.
Care of system performance check specimens is critical. Specimens should be handled carefully to avoid
damage. They should be cleaned thoroughly between uses and storage in a solvent is generally
recommended. Before processing a specimen, it should be inspected under UV light to make sure that it is
clean and not already producing an indication

Nature of the Defect

The nature of the defect can have a large affect on sensitivity of a liquid penetrant inspection. Sensitivity is
defined as the smallest defect that can be detected with a high degree of reliability. Typically, the crack
length at the sample surface is used to define size of the defect. A survey of any probability-of-detection
curve for penetrant inspection will quickly lead one to the conclusion that crack length has a definite affect
on sensitivity. However, the crack length alone does not determine whether a flaw will be seen or go
undetected. The volume of the defect is likely to be the more important feature. The flaw must be of
sufficient volume so that enough penetrant will bleed back out to a size that is detectable by the eye or that
will satisfy the dimensional thresholds of fluorescence.

Above is an example of fluorescent penetrant inspection probability of detection (POD) curve from the
Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book. Please note that this curve is specific to one set of
inspection conditions and should not be interpreted to apply to other inspection situations.
In general, penetrant inspections are more effective at finding

small round defects than small linear defects. Small round defects are generally easier to detect for
several reasons. First, they are typically volumetric defects that can trap significant amounts of
penetrant. Second, round defects fill with penetrant faster than linear defects. One research effort
found that elliptical flaw with length to width ratio of 100, will take the penetrant nearly 10 times
longer to fill than a cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
deeper flaws than shallow flaws. Deeper flaws will trap more penetrant than shallow flaws, and
they are less prone to over washing.

flaws with a narrow opening at the surface than wide open flaws. Flaws with narrow surface
openings are less prone to over washing.

flaws on smooth surfaces than on rough surfaces. The surface roughness of the part primarily
affects the removability of a penetrant. Rough surfaces tend to trap more penetrant in the various tool
marks, scratches, and pits that make up the surface. Removing the penetrant from the surface of the
part is more difficult and a higher level of background fluorescence or over washing may occur.

flaws with rough fracture surfaces than smooth fracture surfaces. The surface roughness that the
fracture faces is a factor in the speed at which a penetrant enters a defect. In general, the penetrant
spreads faster over a surface as the surface roughness increases. It should be noted that a particular
penetrant may spread slower than others on a smooth surface but faster than the rest on a rougher
surface.

flaws under tensile or no loading than flaws under compression loading. In a 1987 study at the
University College London, the effect of crack closure on detectability was evaluated. Researchers
used a four-point bend fixture to place tension and compression loads on specimens that were
fabricated to contain fatigue cracks. All cracks were detected with no load and with tensile loads
placed on the parts. However, as compressive loads were placed on the parts, the crack length

steadily decreased as load increased until a load was reached when the crack was no longer
detectable.
References:
Rummel, W.D. and Matzkanin, G. A., Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book, Published
by the Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center (NTIAC), NTIAC #DB-95-02, May 1996.
Alburger, J.R., Dimensional Transition Effects in Visible Color and Fluorescent Dye Liquids, Proceedings,
23rd Annual Conference, Instrument Society of America, Vol. 23, Part I, Paper No. 564.
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.
Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpaa, J., Reliability of Surface Inspection Methods, Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 2, Elsevier Science Publishing,
Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 1723-1728.
Vaerman, J. F., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection Process, Automatic Method for Sensitivity Quantification,
Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Volume III, Las Vegas, NV, November
1985, pp. 1920-1927.
Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963 Lester Honor Lecture, Nondestructive
Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 354-368.
Clark, R., Dover, W.D., and Bond, L.J., The Effect of Crack Closure on the Reliability of NDT Predictions of
Crack Size, NDT International, Vol. 20, No. 5, Guildford, United Kingdom, Butterworth Scientific Limited,
October 1987, pp. 269-275.

Health and Safety Precautions in Liquid Penetrant Inspection

When proper health and safety precautions are followed, liquid penetrant inspection operations can be
completed without harm to inspection personnel. However, there are a number of health and safety related
issues that must be addressed. Since each inspection operation will have its own unique set of health and
safety concerns that must be addressed, only a few of the most common concerns will be discussed here.
Chemical Safety
Whenever chemicals must be handled, certain precautions must be taken as directed by the material safety
data sheets (MSDS) for the chemicals. Before working with a chemical of any kind, it is highly
recommended that the MSDS be reviewed so that proper chemical safety and hygiene practices can be
followed. Some of the penetrant materials are flammable and, therefore, should be used and stored in small
quantities. They should only be used in a well ventilated area and ignition sources avoided. Eye protection
should always be worn to prevent contact of the chemicals with the eyes. Many of the chemicals used
contain detergents and solvents that can dermatitis. Gloves and other protective clothing should be worn to
limit contact with the chemicals.
Ultraviolet Light Safety
Ultraviolet (UV) light or "black light" as it is sometimes called, has wavelengths ranging from 180 to 400
nanometers. These wavelengths place UV light in the invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum between
visible light and X-rays. The most familiar source of UV radiation is the the sun and is necessary in small
doses for certain chemical processes to occur in the body. However, too much exposure can be harmful to the
skin and eyes. Excessive UV light exposure can cause painful sunburn, accelerate wrinkling and increase the
risk of skin cancer. UV light can cause eye inflammation, cataracts, and retinal damage.

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

References and Resources

Cartz, Louis, Nondestructive Testing, ASM Intl, Metals Park, OH, 1995, ISBN: 0871705176
Introduction to Capillary Testing Theory, Borovikov, A.S. (Ed.), Minsk, Nauka i Tekhnika Publishing, 1988
Liquid Penetrant Testing, Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Volume 2, Tracy, Noel (Tech. Ed.), Moore,
Patrick (Ed.) American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 1999, ISBN 1-57117-028-6
Larson, B.F., Study of the Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Liquid Penetrant Inspections: Review of
Literature Published from 1970 to 1998, FAA Technical Report Number DOT/FAA/AR-01/95, Office of
Aviation Research, Washington, DC, Jan 2002 (pdf 1.0 meg)

Penetrant Inspection Quizzes

Minimum penetrant dwell times are usually:

1-5 minutes
1-30 minutes
5-60 minutes

60-100 minutes

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

long as the penetrant:
Is not allowed to dry
Stays viscous
Does not form clumps on the surface of the part
Is mixed with emulsifier

If the surface of the part has been machined, sanded or grit blasted:
The part may also require etching
It can be immersed in penetrant for its entire dwell time
It will require a shorter dwell time
It will need to be heated in order to open any cracks that have been
peened over

Which emulsifier is most sensitive to contact time when applied to the

parts surface?
Hydrophilic emulsifier
Lipophilic emulsifier
Fluorescent emulsifier
Visible dye emulsifier

Nonaqeous developer is typically applied:

By dusting the surface of the part
By dipping the part is a mixed batch of developer

By splashing the surface with a brush

By aerosol spraying

Developers are used to:

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

All of the above

Post emulsified penetrants:

Are most often used in the field
Should never be used in the field
Require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it
water washable
Require a separate emulsifier to break down the cleaner and make it
solvent removable

Large defects can be hidden under a paint surface because:

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

Surface contaminants can lead to:

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

10

LPI can be used to test most materials provided the surface of the part
is:
Heated to a temperature above 100o F
Is not extremely rough or porous
Smooth and uniform

Cleaned with number 005 grit

Penetrant can be applied by:

Dipping
Brushing
Spraying

11

All of the above

12

Developer times are usually in the range of:

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

13

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

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

14

A penetrant must:
Change viscosity in order to spread over the surface of the part
Spread easily over the surface of the material
Have a low flash point
Be able to change color in order to fluoresce

15

The water content of water washable penetrant:s:

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

When removing excess penetrant with water, the wash time should be:
As long as the specifications allow
Based on the temperature of the part
As long as necessary to decrease the background to an acceptable level

16

Longer if the water temperature increases

17

Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?

Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

18

What is the optimal temperature of penetrant materials and the part

under inspection in order to obtain the best results?
50 to 80o F
80 to 120o F
35 to 100o F
80 to 100o F

19

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

Dusting
Dipping
Spraying
All of the above

20

Which type of penetrant is less vulnerable to contamination from

cleaning fluid?
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

The steps listed would represent which type of penetrant method? 1. Pre-clean 2. Apply
penetrant and allow to dwell. 3. Pre-rinse to remove first layer of penetrant. 4. Apply
hydrophilic emulsifier 5. Rinse to remove excess penetrant 6. Dry part 7. Apply
developer and allow part to develop 8. Inspect.
Type I method A
Type I method B
Type I method D

21

Type II method D

22

Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified, lipophilic?

Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D

23

The total time the penetrant is in contact with the part surface is called
the:
Penetrant dwell time
Developer time
Emulsifier time
Penetrant evaporation time

24

Which of the following is a disadvantage of LPI?

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

25

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

Method A
Method B
Method C

Method D

When removing water washable penetrant the maximum water pressure should be:
25 psi
40 psi
50 psi

26

70 psi

27

Contamination of the penetrant:

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

28

Which emulsifier system is water based?

Hydrophilic emulsifier
Lipophilic emulsifier
Type I emulsifier
Form A emulsifier

29

How often should the UV light intensity be performed?

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

30

The advantage that liquid penetrant testing has over an unaided visual
inspection is that:
The actual size of the discontinuity can be measured
The depth of the defect can be measured
The cause of the impact can be seen
It makes defects easier to see for the inspector

Which of the following should be removed in order to obtain a good penetrant test?
Varnish
Oxides
Plating

31

All of the above

32

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

will result:
In a better penetrant inspection
In a longer dwell time in order to produce adequate penetration of the
penetrant
Longer dwell times
Metal smearing

33

The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:

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

34

POD stands for:

Product of discontinuities
Probability of defects
Probability of detection
Personnel over distributor

35

Which developer form is used for nonaqueous Type I developer?

Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

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

Saturated in water and experience a chemical shift allowing it to fluoresce
on the parts surface
Only used on rough porous surfaces
Dissolved in water

36

Insoluble in water but can be suspended in the water after mixing or

agitation

37

White light intensity at the surface of the part when using a visible dye
penetrant should be:
A minimum of 50 foot-candles
A maximum of 50 foot-candles
A maximum of 100 foot-candles
A minimum of 100 foot-candles

38

Application of the emulsifier should not be performed with a:

Spray
Brush
Dip
Both A and B

39

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

per square centimeter.
100
500
700
1000

40

Which method of penetrant removal is water washable?

Method A
Method B
Method C

Method D

Radiometers should be calibrated every ___ months.

2
4
6

41

12

42

When the excess penetrant is removed from the surface of the part, a
course water spray should be directed at an angle of:
20 degrees
45 degrees
90 degrees
It does not matter what angle the spray is applied

43

Raising the temperature will:

Raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants
Reduce the emulsifier time
Increase the developer time
Require the need of a post emulsified penetrant

44

A good cleaning procedure will:

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

45

Once the surface of the part has been cleaned properly, penetrant can be
applied by:
Spraying
Brushing
Dipping

All of the above

46

Which developer form is used for dry powder developer?

Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

47

Which penetrant method is easiest to use in the field?

Fluorescent, post-emulsifiable
Visible dye, water washable
Visible dye, solvent removable
Fluorescent, water washable

48

Which method of penetrant removal is solvent removable?

Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D

49

Which of the following will produce higher sensitivity of a penetrant

test?
Leaving the part immersed in the penetrant for the entire dwell time
Leaving the part immersed in the wet developer for the entire developer
time
Using a nonaqueous wet developer
Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell during its dwell time

50

Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified, hydrophilic?

Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D