Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PT09
PT09
9
H A P T E R
FIGURE 1. General form of probability of detection curve for liquid penetrant testing
procedure. Accepted 90 percent threshold detection point is noted.
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
Threshold
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
FIGURE 2. Effect of ultraviolet radiation level for liquid penetrant testing procedure (water wash
process without developer, on tightly closed fatigue cracks in cobalt alloy; with 55 to 107 lx
[5 to 10 ftc] white light illumination): (a) 4 W·m–2 (400 µW·cm–2) ultraviolet radiation;
(b) 12 W·m–2 (1200 µW·cm–2) ultraviolet radiation.1
(a)
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
(b)
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)
(a)
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Actual crack length, mm (in.)
(b)
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Actual crack length, mm (in.)
(c)
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Actual crack length, mm (in.)
Legend
= predicted probability of detection
X = hit datum (along top edge) or miss datum (along bottom edge)
90
Probability of detection (percent) 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45)(0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
Actual crack length, mm (in.)
(b)
100
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45) (0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
90
Probability of detection (percent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1
0 (0.05) (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.25) (0.30) (0.35) (0.40) (0.45)(0.50) (0.55) (0.60) (0.65) (0.70) (0.75)
(relative units)
Human Performance in
Liquid Penetrant Testing
The individual performance of the human
operator is a significant element in
end-to-end process performance capability
and reliability. Inspection process Signal amplitude
parameters are readily measured and (relative units)
controlled by application of appropriate
tools when applied by knowledgeable (b)
supervision. The readout or interpretation
Probability density distribution
(Response to discontinuity
detectable and have a high probability of P(A,a) P(A,n)
detection. Positive (A) True positive (hit) False positive
No error Type II error
The varying cases of signal-to-noise
discrimination are consistent with the
POD results shown in Figs. 2 to 5. Larger
and brighter liquid penetrant indications
produce discrimination at a low level — P(N,a) P(N,n)
Negative (N) False negative (miss) True negative
i.e., developer versus no developer, higher
Type I error No error
ultraviolet radiation levels and removal of
smeared surface material by etching.
As a result of this observation of the
liquid penetrant indications, the decision
of a human operator has four possible noted on engineering drawings are below
outcomes. the capabilities of the best performing test
1. A discontinuity may be called when a facilities. Qualification and validation of
discontinuity is present (correct call). test facilities, procedures and personnel
2. A discontinuity may be called when are therefore required for fracture critical
no discontinuity is present (Type II components.
error). Two modes of qualification and
3. A no discontinuity condition may be validation are in general use; these are the
called when no discontinuity is full POD demonstration and the subset
present (correct call). demonstration (widely known as the
4. A no discontinuity condition may be 29-out-of-29 method). A full POD
called when a discontinuity is present demonstration is always the most rigorous
(Type I error). mode and is used when dealing with new
materials, new fabrication processes or
The conditional probability new liquid penetrant processing facilities.
discrimination decision process is shown A full POD demonstration is desirable for
schematically in Fig. 7 and Table 1. qualification of less experienced
inspectors. Although the full POD
demonstration is desirable, the cost of test
components and the time involved
Liquid Penetrant Process warrant consideration of alternative
Performance methods. A large amount of liquid
Demonstration penetrant process characterization data
has been generated and is available.1
The structural integrity of modern When requirements are such that a
engineering materials, components, significant margin is realized by the use of
structures and systems are increasingly standard, generic liquid penetrant
dependent on the ability of processing techniques, no demonstration
nondestructive testing processes to find may be necessary. When standard, generic
small discontinuities. Components process techniques are applied to the
requiring test capabilities below the detection of small discontinuities within
general detection level are often termed the envelope of previously demonstrated
fracture critical. Although well intentioned, capabilities, a subset demonstration may
the assumed capabilities for a given liquid be considered.
penetrant test operation are generally
incorrect and, in some cases, the criteria
Summary
Liquid penetrant testing is an effective
and economical method of discontinuity
detection and is widely used in the
process of ensuring the safety and
structural integrity of engineering
materials, components, structures and
systems. Its wide use and superficially
simple application result in a wide range
of results that vary from consistent
detection of critical discontinuities to
parts washing exercises that do not add
value to the parts. Fortunately, it costs no
more to perform a valid inspection than it
does to conduct a parts washing exercise.
It is logical that a multiparameter testing
process requires attention to detail and
process control for successful application.
The tools and techniques for materials
and process control are readily available.
The end to end process performance may
also be quantified using the information
and techniques discussed herein. If the