Liquid/Dye Penetrant Testing

LIQUID PENETRANT INSPECTION

 It is a nondestructive method of revealing discontinuities that

are open to the surfaces of solid and essentially nonporous
materials.
 Relative ease of use and flexibility
 Well suited to the detection of all types of surface cracks, laps,
porosity, shrinkage areas, laminations, and similar
discontinuities
 Extensively used for the inspection of wrought and cast
products of both ferrous and nonferrous metals, powder
metallurgy parts, ceramics, plastics, and glass objects
NDT PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

 The apparent simplicity of the penetrant process is deceptive.

 Very small processing variations during penetrant application, removal of
excess surface penetrant, application of developer, or examination can
produce large differences in inspection results.
 Therefore, the process is highly dependent on the operator’s knowledge,
skill, and experience.
 The reliability and confidence in the inspection are totally dependent
upon the operator and inspector.
 The operator who is responsible for processing the parts must be trained,
have some experience in processing requirements, and must be aware of the
detrimental effects of processing variations.
 Inspectors who examine and evaluate indications must also be trained and
have experience in the processing requirements and must be capable of
making decisions based on the interpretation of penetrant indications.
Human Eye

 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.
History

 1. Use of carbon black for glazed pottery

 2. 1900s-The kerosene-and-whiting test in Railway workshops
o Low viscosity, good wettability, and ready availability – kerosene
o Contrast- Whitewash was used
o It provided a vast improvement over ordinary visual examination.
 3. 1940- Visible Dye Penetrant
 4. 1942- Fluorescent Dye Penetrant-by R.C. Switzer
Procedure
 Surface Preparation:
 One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant inspection
 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.

 PenetrantiApplication:
 By spraying, brushing, or immersing the part in a penetrant bath
 Penetrant Dwell:
 Dwell time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with
the part surface.
 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.
 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.

 Excess Penetrant Removal:

 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.
 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).

 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.

 Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect

indications from any flaws which may be present.

 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.
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.
Limitations
• 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.
Physical Principles
 Depends mainly on a penetrant's effectively wetting the surface to form a
continuous and reasonably uniform coating, and then migrating into cavities that
are open to the surface.
 The cavities of interest are usually exceedingly small, often invisible to the
unaided eye.
 The ability of a given liquid to flow over a surface and enter surface cavities
depends principally on the following:
· Cleanliness of the surface & Cavity
. Ability of the liquid to wet the surface- Contact angle of the liquid

· Configuration of the cavity

· Size of surface opening of the cavity- Capillarity
· Surface tension of the liquid-
·
Wetability
 When the liquid comes into contact with a solid surface, the cohesive force
responsible for surface tension competes with the adhesive force between the
molecules of the liquid and the solid surface.
 These forces jointly determine the contact angle, θ, between the liquid and
the surface
Capillary Action
 The basic principle of liquid penetrant testing (PT), which allows the penetrant to enter
in the opening of the defect, remain there when the liquid is removed from the material
surface, and then re-emerge on the surface on application of a developer
 Capillary action is defined as the tendency for a liquid to penetrate or migrate into small
openings, such as cracks, pits, or fissures.
 Capillary action is associated with wetting ability.
Classification

Physical Properties Penetrant Removal Technique

• Method A - Water Washable

• Visual Type II
• Method B - Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic

• Fluorescent Type I • Method C - Solvent Removable

• Method D - Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

Fluorescent Penetrant-Type I

 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

 The eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication

 • Level ½ - Ultra
Low Sensitivity
• Level 1 -
Low Sensitivity
• Level 2 -
Fluorescent penetrant- Medium Sensitivity
• Level 3 -
Strength of Indication High Sensitivity
• Level 4 - Ultra-
High Sensitivity
 TYPE II
Visible dye penetrant typically red and
uses a white developer to draw the dye back
to the surface from inside the
discontinuities by 'wicking' or capillary
action.

This is often referred to as the 'colour

contrast' method.

The visible penetrant indications must be

viewed under adequate white light.

 The sensitivity of visible penetrants is

regarded as Level 1 and adequate for many
applications.
Method A, water-washable penetrants are designed for the removal of
excess surface penetrant by water rinsing directly after a suitable
penetration (dwell) time.
 It is extremely important that the removal of excess surface penetrant be
properly controlled to prevent overwashing, which can cause the penetrant
to be washed out of the flaws.

Methods B and D, lipophilic and hydrophilic post-emulsifiable penetrants

are insoluble in water therefore not removable by water rinsing alone.
 The emulsifier, properly applied and left for a suitable emulsification time,
combines with the excess surface penetrant to form a water-washable
surface mixture that can be rinsed from the surface of the workpiece.
 The penetrant that remains within the flaw is not subject to overwashing.
Emulsifiers
 Emulsifiers are liquids used to render excess
penetrant on the surface of a work piece
water washable
 The length of time an emulsifier should
remain in contact with the penetrant depends
on the type of emulsifier employed and the
roughness of the work piece surface
 Method C, solvent-removable penetrants are removed by wiping with
clean, lint-free material until most traces of the penetrant have been
removed.
 This type of penetrant is primarily used where portability is required and for
the inspection of localized areas.
 To minimize the possibility of removing the penetrant from discontinuities,
the use of excessive amounts of solvent must be avoided.
Quality Control of Wash Temperature and
Pressure
 The wash temperature, pressure and time are three parameters that are typically
controlled in penetrant inspection process specification.
 A coarse spray or an immersion wash tank with air agitation is often used. When the
spray method is used, the water pressure is usually limited to 276 kN/m2 (40 psi).
 The temperature range of the water is usually specified as a wide range (e.g.. 10 to
38oC (50 to 100oF) in AMS 2647A.)
 A low-pressure, coarse water spray will force less water into flaws to dilute and/or
remove trapped penetrant and weaken the indication
 The temperature will have an effect on the surface tension of the water and warmer
water will have more wetting action than cold water. Warmer water temperatures may
also make emulsifiers and detergent more effective.
 Frequent visual checks of the part should be made to determine when the part has be
adequately rinsed.
Characteristics of Penetrant/Dye

 Chemical stability and uniform Sufficient brightness and

physical consistency permanence of color
 A flash point not lower than 95°C
Chemical inertness with materials
 A high degree of wettability being inspected and with containers
 Low viscosity to permit better  Low toxicity to protect personnel
coverage and minimum dragout Slow drying characteristics
 Ability to penetrate discontinuities Inoffensive odor
quickly and completely Low cost
Resistance to ultraviolet light and
 Ease of removal heat fade
Selection of Penetrant Method

 The size, shape, and weight of work pieces

 Sensitivity and Cost
 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. However, these systems add another step, and thus
cost, to the inspection process.
Developers
 The purpose of a developer is to increase the brightness intensity of
fluorescent indications and the visible contrast of visible-penetrant
indications.
 Borderline indications that might otherwise be missed can be made
visible by the developer
 The developer also provides a blotting action, which serves to draw
penetrant from within the flaw to the surface, spreading the penetrant
and enlarging the appearance of the flaw.
 Development times of between 10 and 30 minutes are generally
required to ensure that all defect indications are visible
 The use of a developer is almost always recommended but in special
situations may not be necessary or desirable.
 Research Studies
 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.**

*Rummel, W. D., Probability of Detection as a Quantitative Measure of Nondestructive Testing End-To-End Process Capabilities, Materials Evaluation, January 1998, pp. 35.
**Fricker, R. T., Evaluation of High-Sensitivity, Water-Washable Fluorescent Penetrants, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 30, No. 9, September 1972, pp. 200-203.
 The developer must be adsorptive to maximize blotting
 It must be capable of providing a contrast background for
indications when color-contrast penetrants are used
 It must form a thin, uniform coating over a surface
 It must be easily wetted by the penetrant
 It must be non-fluorescent if used with fluorescent
penetrants
 It must be easy to remove after inspection
 It must not contain ingredients harmful to parts being
inspected or to equipment used in the inspection
 It must not contain ingredients harmful or toxic to the
operator
Classification of developer

 Form A, Dry Powder

 Form B, Water Soluble

 Form C, Water Suspendible

 Form D, Non-aqueous Solvent Suspendible

Form A
 Widely used with fluorescent penetrants
 Ideally, dry powder developers should be light and fluffy to allow for
ease of application and should cling to dry surfaces in a fine film.
 The adherence of the powder should not be excessive, as the amount
of black light available to energize fluorescent indications will be
reduced
 Checked Daily- powders should not be hygroscopic
 Dust , immersion or Dip
 Powder recovery filters
Form B and C
 Water-soluble developers (form B) can be used for both fluorescent (type I) or
visible (type II) and B, C and D.
 Completely removed following inspection by simple water rinsing.
 The bath concentration is monitored for specific gravity with the appropriate
hydrometer.
 Water-suspendible developers (form C) can be used with either fluorescent (type I)
or visible (type II) penetrants.
 Supplied as a dry powder concentrate
 Spray or Immersion
Form D
 Commonly used for both the fluorescent and the visible penetrant process.
This form of developer produces a white coating on the surface of the part
 This coating yields the maximum white color contrast with the red visible
penetrant indication and extremely brilliant fluorescent indication.
 Nonaqueous solvent-suspendible developers are supplied in the ready-to-
use condition and contain particles of developer suspended in a mixture of
volatile solvents.
 The solvents are carefully selected for their compatibility with the
penetrants.
 Always applied after drying by spraying, either with aerosol containers or
by conventional or electrostatic methods.
Developer Advantages Disadvantages

Does not form contrast background

so cannot be used with visible systems

Easily to apply Difficult to assure entire part

Dry surface has been coated

Coating is translucent and

provides poor contrast (not
recommended for visual systems)
Ease of coating entire part Indications for water washable
systems are dim and blurred

Water Indications are bright and sharp

Soluble
Developer Advantages Disadvantages

Very portable Indications weaken and become

diffused after time

Suspendable
Easy to apply to readily accessible
surfaces

Indications show-up rapidly and

Difficult to apply evenly to all
are well defined
surfaces

Non Provides highest sensitivity More difficult to clean part after

Aqueous inspection
Quality Control

Materials Procedure
Temperature of Penetrant
 Freshness of Penetrant
Materials
Materials
Wash Temperature and Pressure
 Contamination of Penetrants Thickness of the Developer
 Emulsifier Bath Layer
Concentration Light Intensity and Wavelength
 Emulsifier Bath Range
Contamination Drying Oven Temperature
INTERPRETATION
Final Interpretation
 Final interpretation needs to be made within 7 to 60 minutes after the development time
of developer.
 If bleed-out does not alter the examination results, longer periods are permitted.
EVALUATION
 All indications are evaluated in terms of the acceptance standards of the applicable
inspection code.
 The interpreter needs to be able to distinguish the discontinuities at the surface that is
indicated by bleed-out of penetrant; and also the false indications caused by the localized
surface irregularities due to machining marks or other surface conditions.
 Fluorescent penetrant examination should not follow a color contrast penetrant
examination.
 Intermixing of penetrant materials from different families or different manufacturers
should not be done. examination results, longer periods are permitted.
Post cleaning

 After the inspection and recording of defect’s location, the tested

surface needs to be cleaned.
 Drastic chemical or mechanical methods are seldom required for
post-cleaning.
Factors that effect the sensitivity of LPI
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.