This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best 

experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and

block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our

updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

Recent Improvements within Magnetic Particle

Inspection
The specifications that undergird the magnetic particle inspection
process are being continually updated.

Figure 1 – Fluorescent Grinding Crack Indications.

Toward the end of this decade, our industry will realize a full
November 30, 2020
century since the inception of the magnetic particle inspection
George Hopman method. Since that discovery by Alfred Victor de Forest in 1928,
 this methodology has been the inspection of choice for production
and in-service surface and near-surface discontinuity detection for nearly every form of
ferromagnetic component. It has been adopted across the petrochemical, marine, railway,
automotive, and aerospace industries as a relatively quick, inexpensive, and accurate evaluation
to assure product integrity. Unbeknownst to the average person, this inspection method has
been used to assure the quality of their automobile engine/drivetrain, motorboat/aircraft
engine, rail car/track, firearm, or building structural weldment. Figure 1 illustrates multiple
grinding crack indications on an aircraft gear using fluorescent magnetic particle testing.

As this anniversary approaches, it is helpful to evaluate the recent developments of this

important technology. These improvements include the materials used in the process, the
equipment used to magnetize the test subjects, the methodology to determine adequate
magnetic flux density as well as the lamps used to illuminate fluorescent magnetic particle
indications.

Concerning materials, not much has changed for the magnetic particles themselves. However,
for wet applications, certain suppliers provide more benign carriers that avert the skin
sensitivity that many inspectors have to contact with a popular particle carrier. When it comes
to the equipment that facilitates the magnetization of the component, there have been
significant improvements.

Figure 2 – Dual-Coil MPI Yoke. Source: Parker Research Corp.

For portable applications, the handheld electromagnetic yoke supplies a high intensity,
unidirectional magnetization field between the poles when placed on a magnetic part and
energized. While magnetic yokes have been used by our industry for quite some time, the
manufacturers continue to respond with design improvements such as smaller light-weight
yokes that reduce strain on the operator. One manufacturer now distributes a dual-coil model,
having the coils located at the upper portion of each leg (see Figure 2). This feature allows a
smaller handle, providing a more ergonomic grip as well as reducing the heat within the yoke
that is naturally generated with consistent use. Another new model is ideal to use in areas of
high moisture and offers improved operator safety. The external push button switch
magnetically activates the power circuit from the outside. There is no electrical contact between
the switch and internal circuit. Another manufacturer provides a yoke model that features a
replaceable cord and a convenient LED light that illuminates the inspection area while the
current is on.

Figure 3 – Top View of Multi-Directional Bench Unit Configuration. Source: Magwerks Corp.

For stationary bench units, the most recent developments have been in the circuitry that
converts the incoming high voltage/low amperage electrical current into a low voltage/high
amperage output. The accuracy and repeatability of the resultant amperage has been a long
standing problem since during the normal machine operation, the copper bus work, secondary
cables and electrical current shunt change temperature based upon the amount of power being
delivered through the circuit, resulting in a significant resistance change. Two of the major
suppliers of these units are now offering circuitry to compensate for these changes due to
equipment temperature fluctuations. Regardless of which waveform, one manufacturer now
provides an accuracy within 10 to 20 amps when the selected amperage is less than 1000 amps
and within 20 to 50 amps when the selected amperage is over 1000 amps. Another
manufacturer provides stationary equipment that regardless of waveform, delivers amperage
that is accurate +/- 5 amps when selecting an amperage less than 250 amps and no greater
deviation of 1% when selecting an amperage greater than 250 amps. What this means in
practice for example, is that if an amperage of 100 is selected, the delivered amperage will be
between 95 and 105 amps. This same manufacturer provides a unit capable of a high range of
6000 amps while being able to accurately deliver an amperage as low as 5 amps. This low-end
capability is uniquely facilitated by metering that provides a 1 amp resolution at this low range.

Another relatively recent improvement is the availability of multi-directional bench units (see
Figure 3). These units apply magnetizing current to the headstocks and coils alternately in rapid
succession. For users that inspect high volumes of the same part number, automobile suppliers
for instance, these units can significantly reduce processing times. In the setup of such an
operation, AS5371 shims are normally used to verify an equal magnetizing strength originating
from both the headstocks and the coil(s). Thus, a complete magnetization may be accomplished
in as few as one magnetizing sequence.

It is an established fact that the magnetic particle method suffers from geometric limitations;
that is, not all part configurations lend themselves to 100% inspection. Figure 4 illustrates just
such a part that is not easily magnetized in two directions as required by most process
specifications. Since electrical current takes the path of least resistance, performing a direct
headshot on this part will not adequately magnetize the three crosspieces in the middle of the
component.

Figure 4 – Engine Bed Plate. Source: Magwerks Corp.

 However, having a multi-directional unit with the two coils as shown in Figure 3 provides an
additional capability to inspect odd shaped parts. The two coils are normally wired “aiding” in a
North-South/North-South configuration. However, changing the wiring order of the coils to
North-South/South-North produces a “bucking field,” wherein the coil produce opposing
magnetic fields. Because of the grid-like structure of the part, a bucking field produced more
uniform results throughout the part versus the standard single polarity coil field.
Another common process limitation is inducing a longitudinal magnetic field in parts with a
small length-to-diameter ratio such as a ring-shaped part (see Figure 5). By using a
prefabricated “toroidal bar” and a time-varying magnetizing waveform such as AC or HWDC
moving through the primary coil, this results in a secondary current flow around the ring
producing a toroidal magnetic field that will produce flux leakage around any circumferential
discontinuity in the ring. Bearing manufacturers would use a variation of this toroidal fixture in
a multi-directional table-top configuration to inspect bearing rings having a very smooth
surface in a non-contact manner.

Perhaps the recent addition of LED UV lamps to our magnetic particle testing repertoire has
had the most direct impact upon the inspection process. These lamps, whose manufacturing is
governed by specification ASTM E3022, have been wholeheartedly accepted by the practitioner
for a variety of reasons. First, they do not generate the heat, typically 180 F, that a conventional
mercury vapor lamp would produce. Not only is this heat unwelcome in the typical inspection
booth, but such lamps have accidentally burned innumerable inspectors. Also, it is a rare
veteran magnetic particle inspector who has not unintentionally touched the mercury vapor
lamp to the coil during the magnetization process, resulting in the lamp being extinguished.
However, LED UV lamps do not suffer from this limitation as they are not affected by the strong
external magnetic field generated by the coil. Another advantage of the LED UV lamp is the
instantaneous output. Whereas the old-style mercury vapor lamps had to “warm up” for several
minutes before an adequate illumination level was reached, the LED UV lamp starts out at a
higher level and then “stabilize” to a slightly lower output. But the typical illumination value
that LED lamps provide is the primary advantage of this lamp. As the majority of inspectors
would attest to, the brighter the lamp is, the easier it is to detect the potential discontinuity.

Figure 5 – Ring Shaped Part with Toroidal Bar Coil Magnetization. Source: Magwerks Corp.
  On the other hand, this high intensity illumination can lead to the condition termed “veiling
glare,” a condition caused by highly finished test piece surfaces reflecting the UV back into the
inspector’s eyes, reducing the inspector’s ability to distinguish the contrast between the
background and the fluorescent indication. This condition can be averted by wearing UV
blocking glasses, whether they be safety glasses or amber tinted glasses available from NDT
supply houses. Some prime manufacturers limit the maximum output of UV from the lamps
due to potential particle fluorescent pigment fade due to prolonged exposure, but such concerns
can be easily addressed by only illuminating the test subject during the actual inspection of the
magnetized part after particle application.

Finally, the specifications that undergird the magnetic particle inspection process are being
continually updated to keep abreast of technology improvements while maintaining industry
best practices. Since utilizing AS5371 QQI shims or the Hall Effect gaussmeter have proven far
superior to rule-of-thumb empirical formulas that have been used for decades to determine
adequate magnetization, many industry specifications have been prohibiting the use of such
formulas. While the magnetic particle inspection method is almost 100 years old, the process is
well situated to maintain its position as the superior inspection process of choice for
ferromagnetic components.

Recent Articles By George Hopman

Liquid Penetrant Audit Preparation
The Basics of Digital X-Ray Inspection
George Hopman is a consultant to X-Ray Industries as well
as an ASNT Level III in MT, PT, ET, RT, UT, VT, MFL and
ASTM E07.03 (MT-PT) Subcommittee Chairman.  For more
information, call (623) 777-1211, email
george@ndesolutions.net or visit www.xrayindustries.com.

Get our new eMagazine

delivered to your inbox every
month.
Stay in the know with Quality’s
comprehensive coverage of the
manufacturing and metrology
industries.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Copyright ©2022. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing