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.

Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection

1. Surface Preparation: One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant

inspection is the surface preparation. The surface must be free of oil, grease,
water, or other contaminants that may prevent penetrant from entering flaws. The
sample may also require etching if mechanical operations such as machining,
sanding, or grit blasting have been performed. These and other mechanical
operations can smear the surface of the sample, thus closing the defects.
1. Penetrant Application: Once the surface has been thoroughly cleaned and dried,
the penetrant material is applied by spraying, brushing, or immersing the parts in
a penetrant bath.

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

and then rinsing with water .

2. 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).
3. Indication Development: The developer is allowed to
stand on the part surface for a period of time sufficient
to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of
any surface flaws. This development time is usually a
minimum of 10 minutes and significantly longer times
may be necessary for tight cracks.
4. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under
appropriate lighting to detect indications from any
flaws which may be present.
5. Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to
thoroughly clean the part surface to remove the
 developer from the parts that were found to be
acceptable.

Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant

Inspection

Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely

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

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

 Glass
 Many ceramic materials
 Rubber
 Plastics

LPI offers flexibility in performing inspections because it can

be applied in a large variety of applications ranging from
automotive spark plugs to critical aircraft components.
Penetrant material can be applied with a spray can or a cotton
swab to inspect for flaws known to occur in a specific area or
it can be applied by dipping or spraying to quickly inspect
large areas. At right, visible dye penetrant being locally
applied to a highly loaded connecting point to check for
fatigue cracking.

Penetrant inspection systems have been

developed to inspect some very large
components. In this picture, DC-10 banjo
fittings are being moved into a penetrant
inspection system at what used to be the
Douglas Aircraft Company's Long Beach,
California facility. These large machined
aluminum forgings are used to support the
number 3 engine in the tail of a DC-10 aircraft.

Liquid penetrant inspection is used to inspect of flaws that

break the surface of the sample. Some of these flaws are listed
below:

 Fatigue cracks
 Quench cracks
 Grinding cracks
 Overload and impact fractures
 Porosity
 Laps
 Seams
 Pin holes in welds
 Lack of fusion or braising along the edge of the bond
line

As mentioned above, one of the major limitations of a

penetrant inspection is that flaws must be open to the surface.
To learn more about the advantages and disadvantages of LPI
proceed to the next page.

Advantages and Disadvantages of

Penetrant Testing

Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant

inspection has both advantages and disadvantages. The
primary advantages and disadvantages when compared to
other NDE methods are summarized below.

Primary Advantages

 The method has high sensitive to small surface

discontinuities.
 The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic
and nonmetallic, magnetic and nonmagnetic, and
conductive and nonconductive materials may be
inspected.
 Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can
be inspected rapidly and at low cost.
 Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely
inspected.
 Indications are produced directly on the surface of the
part and constitute a visual representation of the flaw.
 Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very
portable.
 Penetrant materials and associated equipment are
relatively inexpensive.

Primary Disadvantages

 Only surface breaking defects can be detected.

  Only materials with a relative nonporous surface can
be inspected.
 Precleaning is critical as contaminants can mask
defects.
 Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or
vapor blasting must be removed prior to LPI.
 The inspector must have direct access to the surface
being inspected.
 Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection
sensitivity.
 Multiple process operations must be performed and
controlled.
 Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is
required.
 Chemical handling and proper disposal is required.

Penetrant Testing Materials

The penetrant materials used today are much more

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

 Spread easily over the surface of the material being

inspected to provide complete and even coverage.
 Be drawn into surface breaking defects by capillary
action.
 Remain in the defect but remove easily from the
surface of the part.
  Remain fluid so it can be drawn back to the surface of
the part through the drying and developing steps.
 Be highly visible or fluoresce brightly to produce easy
to see indications.
 Must not be harmful to the material being tested or the
inspector.

All penetrant materials do not perform the

same and are not designed to perform the
same. Penetrant manufactures have
developed different formulations to address
a variety of inspection applications. Some
applications call for the detection of the
smallest defects possible and have smooth
surface where the penetrant is easy to
remove. In other applications the rejectable
defect size may be larger and a penetrant formulated to find
larger flaws can be used. The penetrants that are used to
detect the smallest defect will also produce the largest amount
of irrelevant indications.

Penetrant materials are classified in the various industry and

government specifications by their physical characteristics
and their performance. Aerospace Material Specification
(AMS) 2644, Inspection Material, Penetrant, is now the
primary specification used in the USA to control penetrant
materials. Historically, Military Standard 25135, Inspection
Materials, Penetrants, has been the primary document for
specifying penetrants but this document is slowly being
phased out and replaced by AMS 2644. Other specifications
such as ASTM 1417, Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant
Examinations, may also contain information on the
classification of penetrant materials but they are generally
referred back to MIL-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
some emulsifying agent (detergent) that makes it possible to
wash the penetrant from the part surface with water alone.
Water washable penetrants are sometimes referred to as self-
emulsifying systems. Post Emulsifiable penetrants come in
two varieties, lipophilic and hydrophilic. In post emulsifiers,
lipophilic systems (Method B), the penetrant is oil soluble and
interacts with the oil-based emulsifier to make removal
possible. Post emulsifiable, hydrophilic systems (Method D),
use an emulsifier that is a water soluble detergent which lifts
the excess penetrant from the surface of the part with a water
wash. Solvent removable penetrants require the use of a
solvent to remove the penetrant from the part.

Penetrants are then classified based on the strength or

detectability of the indication that is produced for a number of
very small and tight fatigue cracks. The five sensitivity levels
are shown below:

 Level ½ - Ultra Low Sensitivity

 Level 1 - Low Sensitivity
 Level 2 - Medium Sensitivity
 Level 3 - High Sensitivity
 Level 4 - Ultra-High Sensitivity

The major US government and industry

specifications currently rely on the US Air Force
Materials Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base to classify penetrants into one of the five
sensitivity levels. This procedure uses titanium and
Inconel specimens with small surface cracks
produced in low cycle fatigue bending to classify
penetrant systems. The brightness of the indication
produced is measured using a photometer. The sensitivity
levels and the test procedure used can be found in Military
Specification MIL-I-25135 and Aerospace Material
Specification 2644, Penetrant Inspection Materials.

An interesting note about the sensitivity levels is that only

four levels were originally planned but when some penetrants
were judged to have sensitivities significantly less than most
others in the level 1 category, the ½ 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 specification that control the

penetrant materials and their use all stipulate certain physical
properties of the penetrant materials that must be met. Some
of these requirements address the safe use of the materials,
such as toxicity, flash point, and corrosiveness, and other
requirements address storage and contamination issues. Still
others delineate properties that are thought to be primarily
responsible for the performance or sensitivity of the
penetrants. The properties of penetrant materials that are
controlled by AMS 2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash
point, surface wetting capability, viscosity, color, brightness,
ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, water tolerance, and
removability.

Emulsifiers

When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-

washing of the part is a concern, a post emulsifiable penetrant
system can be used. Post emulsifiable penetrants require a
separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it
water washable. Most penetrant inspection specifications
classify penetrant systems into four methods of excess
penetrant removal. These are listed below:

1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant

from the part being inspected. Method A has emulsifiers built
into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible to remove the
excess penetrant with a simple water wash. Method B and D
penetrants require an additional processing step where a
separate emulsification agent is applied to make the excess
penetrant more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic
emulsification systems are oil-based materials that are
supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic systems are water-
based and supplied as a concentrate that must be diluted with
water prior to use .

Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late

1950's and work with both a chemical and mechanical action.
After the emulsifier has coated the surface of the object,
mechanical action starts to remove some of the excess
penetrant as the mixture drains from the part. During the
emulsification time, the emulsifier diffuses into the remaining
penetrant and the resulting mixture is easily removed with a
water spray.

Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the excess

penetrant with mechanical and chemical action but the action
is different because no diffusion takes place. Hydrophilic
emulsifiers are basically detergents that contain
solvents and surfactants. The hydrophilic emulsifier
breaks up the penetrant into small quantities and
prevents these pieces from recombining or reattaching
to the surface of the part. The mechanical action of
the rinse water removes the displaced penetrant from
the part and causes fresh remover to contact and lift
newly exposed penetrant from the surface.

The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) was

introduced in the mid 1970's and since it is more sensitive
than the lipophilic post emulsifiable method it has made the
later method virtually obsolete. The major advantage of
hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they are less sensitive to
variation in the contact and removal time. While
emulsification time should be controlled as closely as
possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time
will have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic
emulsifier is used. However, a variation of as little as 15 to 30
seconds can have a significant effect when a lipophilic system
is used.

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 to spread the developer out on the
surface of the part so it can be seen by an inspector. The fine
developer particles both reflect and refract the incident
ultraviolet light, allowing more of it to
interact with the penetrant, causing more
efficient fluorescence. The developer also
allows more light to be emitted through the
same mechanism. This is why indications
are brighter than the penetrant itself under
UV light. Another function that some
developers performs is to create a white
background so there is a greater degree of
contrast between the indication and the
surrounding background.

Developer Forms

The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify developers into six

standard forms. These forms are listed below:

1. Form a - Dry Powder

2. Form b - Water Soluble
 3. Form c - Water Suspendible
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent (Solvent
Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye (Solvent
Based)
6. Form f - Special Applications

The developer classifications are based on the method that the

developer is applied. The developer can be applied as a dry
powder, or dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier. Each of
the developer forms has advantages and disadvantages.

Dry Powder

Dry powder developer is generally considered to be the least

sensitive but it is inexpensive to use and easy to apply. Dry
developers are white, fluffy powders that can be applied to a
thoroughly dry surface in a number of ways. The developer
can be applied by dipping parts in a container of developer, or
by using a puffer to dust parts with the developer. Parts can
also be placed in a dust cabinet where the developer is blown
around and allowed to settle on the part. Electrostatic powder
spray guns are also available to apply the developer. The goal
is to allow the developer to come in contact with the whole
inspection area.

Unless the part is electrostatically charged, the powder will

only adhere to areas where trapped penetrant has wet the
surface of the part. The penetrant will try to wet the surface of
the penetrant particle and fill the voids between the particles,
which brings more penetrant to the surface of the part where it
can be seen. Since dry powder developers only stick to the
part where penetrant is present, the dry developer does not
provide a uniform white background as the other forms of
developers do. Having a uniform light background is very
important for a visible inspection to be effective and since dry
developers do not provide one, they are seldom used for
visible inspections. When a dry developer is used, indications
tend to stay bright and sharp since the penetrant has a limited
amount of room to spread.

Water Soluble

As the name implies,

water-soluble
developers consist of a
group of chemicals
that are dissolved in
water and form a
developer layer when
the water is evaporated away. The best method for applying
water-soluble developers is by spraying it on the part. The
part can be wet or dry. Dipping, pouring, or brushing the
solution on to the surface is sometimes used but these
methods are less desirable. Aqueous developers contain
wetting agents that cause the solution to function much like
dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and can lead to additional
removal of entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by
placing the wet but well drained part in a recalculating warm
air dryer with the temperature held between 70 and 75°F. If
the parts are not dried quickly, the indications will will be
blurred and indistinct. Properly developed parts will have an
even, pale white coating over the entire surface.
Water Suspendible

Water suspendible developers consist of insoluble developer

particles suspended in water. Water suspendible developers
require frequent stirring or agitation to keep the particles from
settling out of suspension. Water suspendible developers are
applied to parts in the same manner as water soluble
developers. Parts coated with a water suspendible developer
must be forced dried just as parts coated with a water soluble
developer are forced dried. The surface of a part coated with a
water suspendible developer will have a slightly translucent
white coating.

Nonaqueous

Nonaqueous
developers suspend the
developer in a volatile
solvent and are
typically applied with
a spray gun.
Nonaqueous
developers are
commonly distributed
in aerosol spray cans for portability. The solvent tends to pull
penetrant from the indications by solvent action. Since the
solvent is highly volatile, forced drying is not required. A
nonaqueous developer should be applied to a thoroughly dried
part to form a slightly translucent white coating.
Special Applications

Plastic or lacquer developers are a special developers that are

primarily used when a permanent record of the inspection is
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 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 and it is, therefore, clear that
they must be removed. However, the impact of other
contaminants such as the residue from previous penetrant
inspections is less clear, but they can have a disastrous affect
on the inspection. Take the link below to review some of the
research that has been done to evaluate the effects of
contaminants on LPI sensitivity.

A good cleaning procedure will remove all contamination

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

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.
Summary of Research on Cleaning
Prior to LPI

The following is a summary of some of the articles that have

been published on the effects that some contaminants can
have on penetrant inspection and also what effects improper
cleaning methods and materials can have on the inspection.

Oils
Klein showed that when a test specimen was contaminated
with cutting oil, there was a reduction in sensitivity even
when the specimen's was vapor degreased before inspection.
The specimens used for this study were quenched cracked
2024 aluminum blocks. The reduction in sensitivity was
believed to be the result of incomplete removal of the cutting
oil from the defects.

Etchants
Kleint warns that acid entrapment from a prepenetrant etch
can have disastrous effects on the penetrant inspection. The
article states that the sodium hydroxide caustic often used to
etch aluminum parts does not affect penetrants but that acids
used to etch parts of other materials do have an effect. Experts
in the penetrant field warn that caustics can in fact reduce
penetrant brightness. Careful cleaning of both acid and caustic
etches before penetrant inspection is highly recommended.

-- Kleint, R. E., Deception by Penetrants, Materials

Evaluation, Vol. 45, No. 7, July 1987, pp. 845-847, 850.

Residue from Previous Penetrant Inspections

Klein also found that the effectiveness of a penetrant was

significantly reduced if the part had been previously inspected
with a different penetrant, although proper pre- and post-
cleaning (degreasing) operations had been performed. This
was the case when the previous inspection was performed
with a different fluorescent penetrant or a visible dye
penetrant. When the same penetrant system was used for both
inspections, there was no extensive loss in sensitivity when
the specimens received the required pre- and post-cleaning.
Klein's study also showed that even the most careful post-
cleaning operations leave some penetrant in the defects.

-- Klein, R. E., An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of

Penetrants, Nondestructive Testing, September- October,
1958, pp. 421-429.

Researchers from the Canadian Armed Forces studied the

effects of residual entrapped penetrants. The researchers
concluded that repetitive inspections produce greatly reduced
indications when pre- and post-cleaning operations are not
performed properly.

-- Nielson, D. C. and Thompson, J. G. H., Evaluation of

Liquid Penetrant Systems, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 33, No.
12, December 1975, pp. 284-292.

Amos Sherwin revisits the issue in a 1990 “Back to Basics”

article in Materials Evaluation. The focus of this article is on
the effect of a previous visible penetrant inspection on a
fluorescent penetrant inspection. To illustrate the degrading
effect of type II penetrant on type I penetrant, Sherwin
suggests a simple experiment. He instructs to mix one percent
visible and 99 percent fluorescent penetrant together and note
the almost complete lack of fluorescence under black light.
Apparently, the red dye acts as an UV filter and stops nearly
all fluorescence. The article also notes that soaking the test
piece in isopropanol for 10 minutes between the two
inspections did provide some improvement but did not result
in acceptable performance.

-- Sherwin, A., Still a Good Rule: Visible Penetrant Inspection

Not to Precede Fluorescent, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 48,
No. 12, December 1990, pp. 1457-1458.

Tanner, Ustruck, and Packman developed a procedure to

accurately measure the amount of penetrant absorbed into the
cracks of a chrome plated panel specimen. The procedure they
used involved applying penetrant to the sample and letting it
dwell for a set time. They then degreased the specimen using
toluene in a closed flask and used a colorimeter to measure
the fluorescence of the used toluene. Then by using a very
accurate pipette, they added drops of penetrant to fresh
toluene until the colorimeter value matched that of the toluene
used to degrease the sample. With this very accurate method
of measuring the amount of penetrant absorbed, they showed
that a small amount of solvent, from the Precleaning
operation, if left trapped in a flaw, can have a drastic effect on
the performance of a penetrant.

-- Tanner, R.D., Ustruck, R.E., and Packman, P.F.,

Adsorption and Hysteresis Behavior of Crack-Detecting
Liquid Penetrants on Steel Plates, Materials Evaluation,
September 1980, pp. 41-46.

As a side note that would apply to cleaning penetrant system

performance check specimens and not production parts,
researchers in the Netherlands evaluated the length of time
required to clean test specimens using an organic solvent bath
with ultrasonic agitation. Using specimens with fatigue
cracks, five organic solvents were tested. The specimens were
considered cleaned of the penetrant when no bleedout was
detectable when the specimens were evaluated 12 hours after
the cleaning operation. The solvents tested were acetone,
Freon, Chlorotene NU, Toluol, and MEK. For all solvents, at
least two hours of processing was required to properly clean
the specimens.

-- 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.

It is also important that the cleaning process itself does not

cause a reduction in penetrant sensitivity. Some chemical
cleaning processes have been found to plug defects. In many
cases, chemical cleaning alone does not adequately prepare
the surface of a part for inspection and mechanical cleaning
methods must be employed. These mechanical cleaning
methods, such as grit, or other media blasting, sanding, and
even steam cleaning, have been shown to cause metal
smearing in some alloys.

Cleaning Chemicals

Sam Robinson of Sherwin Inc. discusses an important

cleaning consideration in a paper titled "1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane in the Penetrant Process." He cautions that
some mild alkaline cleaners include sodium metasilicate as an
ingredient. Sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate, and related
compounds can adhere to the surface of parts and form a
coating that prevents penetrant entry into cracks.

-- 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.

Ward Rummel states that, based on his conversations with

industry experts, "silicates in concentrations above 0.5 percent
may be detrimental to subsequent penetrant inspection."

-- Rummel, W., Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous

Precleaners for Penetrant Inspection, Materials Evaluation,
Vol. 16, No. 5, August 1998, pp. 950-952.

Russian researchers have also found that the cleaning solution

can have an effect on the inspection results. They report that
after parts have been washed with cleaning liquids containing
a solution of domestic soap or oleic potash soap some cracks
are no longer detectable. They attribute this reduction in
sensitivity to a clogging of the cavities and a reduction in
wettability of the metal surface by the penetrant. Several
photographs are offered that supports these claims.

-- 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.

In another article, the Russian researchers further investigated

the effects of cleaning and rinsing components with aqueous
solutions of commercial detergents (CDs) on the detectability
of cracks. They reported that some CD solutions improved
crack detectability while others impaired detectability. Some
of the cleaning solutions formed deposits in the cracks that
were difficult to remove and could prevent the formation of
penetrant indications. To ensure efficient capillary inspection
of fatigue cracks in the vanes of gas turbine engines, they
recommended that components be thoroughly rinsed in water
with the aid of ultrasound and, if possible, dried at 350-400C
(661-751F) for components made of creep-resistant nickel
alloys, or at 140-170C (283-337F) for other alloys.

-- 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.

Material Smear and Its Removal

Material smearing can have a very detrimental effect on a LPI
inspection as defects that are normally open to the surface can
partially or completely be covered over. Some of the
processes that can cause material to smear include machining,
honing, lapping, sanding, scraping, shot peening, grit blasting,
tumble deburring, and peening operations. When high
pressure is used some cleaning operations, such as vapor and
steam cleaning, can also cause material to smear in the softer
materials. Softer materials such as plastics and aluminum
alloys are most prone to smearing but many other materials,
such as steel, titanium and Inconel alloys, have also been
shown to smear. To evaluate the effect of a process on liquid
penetrant inspection, cracked specimens are typically
inspected before and after performing the potentially
smearing operation and a comparison between the inspection
results are made. It must be noted that under carefully
controlled conditions, material smear can be avoided.
Whenever parts have been mechanically processed prior to
LPI, an evaluation should be performed to determine if flaw
detectability has been compromised. If material smearing is a
problem, an etching process can be used to remove the
smeared material prior to inspection. The curves below
illustrate the effect that metal smearing can have on the
probability of detection for a defect and how etching the
sample surface improves detectability.
The curve on the left shows the probability of detecting a
crack versus crack length for as-machined aluminum
specimens. The curve on the right shows the POD for the
same aluminum specimens after their surfaces had been
etched. Comparing the crack lengths where the curves reach a
POD level of 90%, it can be seen that in the as-machined
condition, the crack length would need to be 0.4 inches long.
However, when the surface is etched, cracks under 0.10 inch
can be detected with a 90 % probability.

Removal of Material Smearing

Etching of the specimens can return the flaw to the pre-

mechanical processing level of detectability. The amount of
material that must be removed by the etching process depends
on the amount of material that has been smeared and should
be determined experimentally. Volume two of the
Nondestructive Testing Handbook provides a great deal of
information on material smearing and the amount of etching
required to remover the damage. The handbook includes a
number of photographs such as the set below that graphically
show the effects of metal smearing.

Left Image: Original fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern

in a quench cracked aluminum sample.

Center Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after

sanding with 240 grit paper.

Right Image: Fluorescent penetrant inspection pattern after

etching to remove 0.0003 inch.

When an etchant is used, it must be

properly removed from the part before
applying penetrant. Experts in the
penetrant field warn that acid and
caustic entrapment from a prepenetrant
etch can have disastrous effects on the
penetrant inspection. Careful cleaning
of both acid and caustic etches before
penetrant inspection is highly
recommended. There are several other risks to the parts being
processed when an etchant is used. First, since the etching
process is removing metal from the surface of the part, the
minimum dimensional tolerances of the part must be
considered. A second possible risk is that the etching process
could have an effect on the material properties of the part. The
chemical etchant used should uniformly remove material from
the surface and should not etch microstructural features (such
as grain boundaries) preferentially. Ideally, a study should be
conducted to evaluate the effects of the etching process (or
other chemical process) on the mechanical properties and
performance of the component.

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.

Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 2, Liquid Penetrant

Tests, Robert McMaster, et al., American Society for
Nondestructive Testing, 1982.

Selection of a Penetrant Technique

The selection of a liquid penetrant system is not a

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

When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a

penetrant system, the first decision that must be made is
whether to use fluorescent dye penetrant, or visible dye
penetrant. Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable
of producing a detectable indication from a small defect
because the human eye is more sensitive to a light indication
on a dark background and the eye is naturally drawn to a
fluorescent indication. The graph below presents a series of
curves that show the contrast ratio required for a spot of a
certain diameter to be seen. The curves show that for
indications spots larger than 0.076 mm (0.003 inch) in
diameter, it does not really matter if it is a dark spot on a light
background or a dark spot on a light background. However,
when a dark indication on a light background is further
reduced in size, it is no longer detectable even though contrast
is increased. Furthermore, with a light indication on a dark
background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001 inch)
were detectable when the contrast between the flaw and the
background was high enough.

From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant

offers an advantage over visible penetrant for finding very
small defects. Data presented by De Graaf and De Rijk
supports this statement. They inspected "Identical" fatigue
cracked specimens using a red dye penetrant and a fluorescent
dye penetrant. The fluorescent penetrant found 60 defects
while the visible dye was only able to find 39 of the defects.

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 but 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 which include
spraying, brushing, or
immersing the parts in
a penetrant bath. The
method of penetrant
application has little
effect on the inspection sensitivity but an electrostatic
spraying method 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) or drain-dwell
(letting the part drain during the dwell period). Prior
to a study by Sherwin, the immersion-dwell mode
was generally considered to be more sensitive but
recognized to be less economical because more penetrant was
washed away and emulsifiers were contaminated more
rapidly. The reasoning for thinking this method was more
sensitive was that the penetrant was more migratory and more
likely to fill flaws when kept completely fluid and not allowed
to loose volatile constituents by evaporation. However,
Sherwin showed that if the specimens are allowed to drain-
dwell, the sensitivity is higher because the evaporation
increases the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the
specimen. As pointed-out in section 3.1.5, sensitivity
increases as the dyestuff concentration increases. Sherwin
also cautions that the samples being inspected should be
placed outside the penetrant tank wall so that vapors from the
tank do not accumulate and dilute the dyestuff concentration
of the penetrant on the specimen.

-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified

Evolution of the Sensitivity Versus Process Deviations,
Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on
Nondestructive Testing, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House,
Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York, Volume 4, September
1987, pp. 2814-2823.

-- Sherwin, A.G., Establishing Liquid Penetrant Dwell Modes,

Materials Evaluation, Vol. 32, No. 3, March 1974, pp. 63-67.

Penetrant Dwell Time

Penetrant dwell time is the total time that the penetrant is in

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

 The surface tension of the penetrant.

 The contact angle of the penetrant.
 The dynamic shear viscosity of the penetrant, which
can vary with the diameter of the capillary. The
viscosity of a penetrant in microcapillary flaws is
higher than its viscosity in bulk, which slows the
infiltration of the tight flaws.
 The atmospheric pressure at the flaw opening.
 The capillary pressure at the flaw opening.
 The pressure of the gas trapped in the flaw by the
penetrant.
 The radius of the flaw or the distance between the flaw
walls.
 The density or specific gravity of the penetrant.
 Microstructural properties of the penetrant.

The ideal dwell time is often determined by experimentation

and is often very specific to a particular application. For
example, AMS 2647A requires that the dwell time for all
aircraft and engine be at least 20 minutes while the ASTM
E1209 only requires a 5 minute dwell time for parts made of
titanium and other heat resistant alloys. Generally, there is no
harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the
penetrant is not allowed to dry.

The following tables summarize the dwell time requirements

of several commonly used specifications. The information
provided below is intended for general reference and no
guarantee is made about its correctness or currentness. Please
consult the specifications for the actual dwell time
requirements.
Some Research Results on Dwell Time

An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is

that if the elliptical flaw has a length to width ratio of 100 it
will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than a
cylindrical flaw with the same volume.

-- Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of

Liquid Penetrant Testing, Journal of Research of the National
Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July-August 1979, pp.
287-291.

Lord and Holloway looked for the optimum penetrant dwell

time required for detecting several types of defects in
titanium. Both a level 2 post-emulsifiable fluorescent
penetrant (Magnaflux ZL-2A penetrant and ZE-3 emulsifier)
and a level 2 water washable penetrant (Tracer-Tech P-133A
penetrant) were included in the study. The effect of the
developer was a variable in the study and nonaqueous wet,
aqueous wet, and dry developers were included. Specimens
were also processed using no developer. The specimen
defects included stress corrosion cracks, fatigue cracks and
porosity. As expected, the researchers found that the optimal
dwell time varied with the type of defect and developer used.
The following table summarizes some of the findings.
-- 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 Contrast Sensitivity
Section, as the contrast increases so does visibility of the
indication.
Removal Method

Penetrant systems are classified into four methods of excess

penetrant removal. These include the following:

1. Method A: Water-Washable
2. Method B: Post Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable
4. Method D: Post Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic

Method C, Solvent Removable, is used primarily for

inspecting small localized areas as this method requires hand
wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with the solvent
remover, and this process is too labor intensive for most
production situations. Of the three production penetrant
inspection methods, Method A, Water-Washable, is the most
economical to apply. Water-washable or self-emulsifiable
penetrants contain an emulsifier as an integral part of the
formulation. The excess penetrant may be removed from the
object surface, with a simple water rinse. These materials
have the property of forming relatively viscous gels upon
contact with water, which results in the formation of gel-like
plugs in surface openings. While they are completely soluble
in water, given enough contact time, the plugs offer a brief
period of protection against rapid wash removal. Thus, water-
washable penetrant systems provide ease of use and a high
level of sensitivity.

When removal of the penetrant from the defect due to over-

washing of the part is a concern, a post-emulsifiable penetrant
system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants require a
separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it
water washable. The emulsifier is usually applied by dipping
the object. Hydrophilic emulsifiers may also be sprayed on
the object but spraying is not recommended for lipophilic
emulsifiers because it can result in non-uniform
emulsification if not properly applied. Brushing the emulsifier
on to the part is not recommended because the bristles of the
brush may force emulsifier into discontinuities causing the
entrapped penetrant to be removed. The emulsifier is allowed
sufficient time to react with the penetrant on the surface of the
part but not given time to make its way into defects to react
with the trapped penetrant. The penetrant that has reacted with
the emulsifier is easily cleaned away. Controlling the reaction
time is of essential importance when using a post-emulsifiable
system. If the emulsification time is too short, an excessive
amount of penetrant will be left on the surface leading to high
background levels. If the emulsification time is too long, the
emulsifier will react with the penetrant entrapped in
discontinuities making it possible to deplete the amount
needed to form an indication.

The hydrophilic post emulsifiable method (Method D) is more

sensitive than the lipophilic post emulsifiable method
(Method B). Since these methods are generally only used
when very high sensitivity is needed, Method D is almost
always used making Method B virtually obsolete. The major
advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they are less
sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While
emulsification time should be controlled as closely as
possible, a variation of one minute or more in the contact time
will have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic
emulsifier is used, but a variation of as little as 15 to 30
seconds can have a significant effect when a lipophilic system
is used. Using an emulsifier involves adding a couple of steps
to the penetrant process and ,therefore, slightly increases the
cost of an inspection. When using an emulsifier, the penetrant
process includes the following steps (extra steps in bold): 1.
pre-clean part, 2. apply penetrant and allow to dwell, 3. pre-
rinse to remove first layer of penetrant, 4. apply
hydrophilic emulsifier,and allow contact for specified
time, 5. rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6. dry part, 7. apply
developer and allow part to develop, and 8. inspect.

Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants

The method used to rinsing the excess penetrant from the

object surface and the time of the rinse should be controlled
so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended
that a coarse spray rinse or an air agitated, immersion wash
tank be used. When a spray is being used, it should be
directed at a 45° angle to the part surface so as to not force
water directly into any discontinuities that may be present.
The spray or immersion time should be kept to a minimum
through frequent inspections of the remaining background
level.

Hand Wiping of Solvent Removable Penetrants

When a solvent removable penetrant is used, care must also

be taken to carefully remove the penetrant from the part
surface while removing as little as possible from the flaw. The
first step in this cleaning procedure is to dry wipe the surface
of the part in one direction using a white lint free cotton rag.
One dry pass in one direction is all that should be used to
remove as much penetrant as possible. Next, the surface
should be wiped with one pass in one direction with a cleaner
moistened rag. One dry pass followed by one damp pass is all
that is recommended. Additional wiping 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 is believed to be 30 mm (1.18 inch).

Although the size of the flaw represented by this specimen is

large, an interesting observation was made. They found that
when the surface of the specimen was wiped with a dry cloth,
penetrant was blotted and removed from the flaw at the corner
areas were the clearance between the plate was least. When
the penetrant at the side areas was removed, penetrant moved
horizontally from the center area to the ends of the simulated
crack where capillary forces are stronger. Therefore, across
the crack length, the penetrant surface has a parabola-like
shape where the liquid is at the surface in the corners but
depressed in the center. This shows that each time the
cleaning cloth touches the edge of a crack, penetrant is lost
from the defect. This also explains why the bleedout of an
indication is often largest at the corners of cracks.

-- 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 in some Some
authors have reported that in special situations the use of a
developer may actually reduce sensitivity. These situations
primarily occur when large, well defined defects are being
inspected on a surface that contains many nonrelevant
indications that cause excessive bleedout.
Type of Developer Used and Method of Application

Nonaqueous developers are generally recognized as the most

sensitive when properly applied. There is less agreement on
the performance of dry and aqueous wet developers but the
aqueous developers are usually considered more sensitive.
Aqueous wet developers form a finer matrix of particles that
is more in contact with the part surface. However, if the
thickness of the coating becomes too great, defects can be
masked. Also aqueous wet developers can cause leaching and
blurring of indications when used with water washable
penetrants. The relative sensitivities of developers and
application techniques as ranked in Volume II of the
Nondestructive Testing Handbook are shown in the table
below. There is general industry agreement with this table,
but some industry experts feel that water suspendible
developers are more sensitive than water-soluble developers.

Sensitivity ranking of developers per the Nondestructive

Testing Handbook.
Sensitivity Ranking (highest to lowest) Developer Form
Application Technique.
Ranking Developer Form Method of Application
1 Nonaqueous Wet Solvent Spray
2 Plastic Film Spray
3 water-soluble Spray
4 Water Suspendible Spray
5 water-soluble Immersion
6 Water Suspendible Immersion
7 Dry Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)
8 Dry Fluidized Bed
9 Dry Dust Cloud (Air Agitation)
10 Dry Immersion (Dip)

The following TABLE lists the main advantages and

disadvantages of the various developer types.

Develope
Advantages Disadvantages
r

Does not form

contrast
Indications tend to background so
remain brighter and cannot be used
Dry more distinct over with visible
time systems
Easily to apply Difficult to assure
entire part surface
has been coated

Soluble Ease of coating Coating is

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

Ease of coating
entire part

Indications are
bright and sharp
Indications weaken
Suspendib
White coating for and become
le
good contrast can diffused after time
be produced which
work well for both
visible and
fluorescent systems

Nonaqueo Very portable Difficult to apply

us evenly to all
Easy to apply to
surfaces
readily accessible
More difficult to
surfaces
clean part after
inspection
White coating for
good contrast can
be produced which
work well for both
visible and
fluorescent systems

Indications show-
up rapidly and are
 well defined

Provides highest
sensitivity

To review a summary of some of the research that has been

done on developer usage and performance, take this link.

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 specification
allow testing in the range of 4 to 52oC (40 to 125oF). A tip to
remember is that surfaces that can be touched for an extended
period of time without burning the skin are generally below
52oC (125oF).

Since the surface tension of most materials decrease as the

temperature increases, raising the temperature of the penetrant
will increase the wetting of the surface and the capillary
forces. Of course, the converse is also true and 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 is caused to exceed the concentration quenching
point or the flow characteristics are changed to the point
where the penetrant does not readily flow.

The method of processing a hot part was once commonly

employed. Parts were either heated or processed hot off the
production line. In its day, this served to increase inspection
sensitivity by increasing the viscosity of the penetrant.
However, the penetrant materials used today have 1/2 to 1/3
the viscosity of the penetrants on the market in the 1960's and
1970's. Heating the part prior to inspection is no longer
necessary and no longer recommended.
Quality Control of Penetrant

The quality of a penetrant inspection is highly dependent on

the quality of the penetrant materials used. Only products
meeting the requirements of an industry specification, such as
AMS 2644, should be used.  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 keep 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...above this limit they do not function
properly.  Cloudiness increases with increasing water content,
as well as, the viscosity. 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 specification limit water contamination to around 5% to
be conservative.   Water does not readily mix with the oily
solution of lipophilic-postemulsifiable systems and it
generally settles to the bottom of the tank.  However, the
inspection of parts that are 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 quantity 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 changes the viscosity.  Acids, caustics, and chromates
cause the loss of fluorescence in water-soluble penetrants.

Regular checks must be performed to insure that the material

performance has not degraded.  When the penetrant is first
received from the manufacturer, a sample of the fresh solution
should be collected and stored as a standard for future
comparison. The standard specimen should be stored in an
opaque glass or metal, sealed container.  Penetrants that are
in-use should be compared regularly against the standard
specimen to detect changes in color, odor and consistency. 
When using fluorescent penetrants, a brightness comparison
per the requirements of ASTM E 1417 is also often required. 
This check involves placing a drop of the standard and the in-
use penetrants on a piece of Whatman #4 filter paper and
making a side by side comparison of the brightness of the two
spots under UV light.

Additionally, the water content of water washable penetrants

must be checked regularly.  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 and pressure and time are three

parameters that are typically controlled in penetrant
inspection process specification. A coarse spray or an
immersion wash tank with air agitation is often used. When
the spray method is used, the water pressure is usually limited
to 276 kN/m2 (40 psi). The temperature range of the water is
usually specified as a wide range (ex. 10 to 38C (50 to 100 F)
in AMS 2647A.) A 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 numerous cracks ranging in depth from 5 to 100
microns deep. A 38 percent decrease in sensitivity for the
water-washable penetrant was seen when the rinse time was
increased from 25 to 60 seconds. When the rinse times of two
post-emulsifiable penetrants were increased from 20 to 60
seconds, a loss in sensitivity was seen in both cases but it was
much reduced from the loss seen with the water-washable
system. The relative sensitivity loss over the range of crack
depths was 13 percent for the penetrant with medium
sensitivity and roughly percent for the high sensitivity
penetrant.
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified
Evolution of the Sensitivity Versus Process Deviations,
Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on 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 are
examined. It was reported that sensitivity decreased as spray-
rinse time increased and that one of the penetrants was more
affected by rinse time than the others. Alburger, points-out
that some conventional fluorescent dyes are slightly soluble in
water and can be leached out during the washing processes.

-- Hyam, N. H., Quantitative Evaluation of Factors Affecting

the Sensitivity of Penetrant Systems, Materials Evaluation,
Vol. 30, No. 2, February 1972, pp. 31-38.

Brittian evaluated the effect of wash time on a water-

washable, level 4 penetrant (Ardrox 970P25) and found that
indication brightness decreases rapidly in the first minute of
wash and then slowed. The brightness value dropped from a
relative value of 1100 to approximately 500 in the first minute
and then continued to decrease nearly linearly to a value of
200 after five minutes of wash. Brittian concluded that wash
time for 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 percent for the running tap
water, 14 percent for the handheld spray nozzle and 4.5
percent 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

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

The drying should be limited to the minimum length of time

necessary to thoroughly dry the component being inspected.

Quality Control of Developer

The function of the developer is very important in a penetrant

inspection. It must draw out of the discontinuity a sufficient
amount of penetrant to form an indication, and it must spread
the penetrant out on the surface to produce a visible
indication. In a fluorescent penetrant inspection, the amount
of penetrant brought to the surface must exceed the dye's thin
film threshold of fluorescence of the indication will not
fluoresce. Additionally, the developer makes fluorescent
indications appear brighter than indications produced with the
same amount of dye but without the developer.

In order to accomplish these functions, a developer must

adhere to the part surface and result in a uniform, highly
porous layer with many paths for the penetrant to be moved
due to capillary action. Some developers are applied wet and
other dry, but the desired end result is always a uniform,
highly porous, surface layer. Since the quality control
requirements for each of the developer types is slightly
different, they will be covered individually.

Dry Powder Developer

A dry powder developer should be checked daily to ensure
that it is fluffy and not caked. It should be similar to fresh
powdered sugar and not granulated like powered soup. It
should also be relatively free from specks of fluorescent
penetrant material from previous inspection. This check is
performed by spreading a sample of the developer out and
examining it under UV light. If there are ten or more
fluorescent specks in an 10 cm diameter area, the batch
should be discarded.

Apply a light coat of the developer by immersing the test

component or dusting the surface. After the development
time, excessive powder can be removed by gently blowing on
the surface with air not exceeding 35 kPa or 5 psi.

Wet Soluble/Suspendible Developer

Wet soluble developer must be completely dissolved in the

water and wet suspendible developer must be thoroughly
mixed prior to application. The concentration of powder in the
carrier solution must be controlled in these developers. The
concentration should be checked at least weekly using a
hydrometer to make sure it meets the manufacturer's
specification. To check for contamination, the solution should
be examined weekly using both white light and UV light. If a
scum is present or the solution fluoresces, it should be
replaced. Some specification require that a clean aluminum
panel be dipped in the developer, dried, and examined for
indications of contamination by fluorescent penetrant
materials.
These developers are apply immediately after the final wash.
A uniform coating should be applied by spraying, flowing or
immersion of the component. They should never be applied
with a brush. Care should be taken to avoid a heavy
accumulation of the developer solution in crevices and
recesses. Prolonged contact of the component with the
developer solution should be avoided in order to minimize
dilution or removal of the penetrant from discontinuities.

Solvent Suspendible

Solvent suspendible developers are typically supplied in an

sealed aerosol spray can. Since the developer solution is in a
sealed vessel, direct check of the solution are not possible.
However, the way that the developer is dispensed must be
monitored. The spray developer should produce a fine, even
coating on the surface of the part. Make sure the can is well
shaken and apply a thin coating to a test article. If the spray
produces spatters or other an uneven coating the can should
be discarded.

When applying a solvent suspendible developer, it is up to the

inspector to control the thickness of the coating. When a
visible penetrant system, the developer coating must be thick
enough to provide a white contrasting background but not
heavy enough to mask indications. When using a fluorescent
penetrant system, a very light coating should be used. The
developer should be applied under white light condition and
should appear evenly transparent.

Development Time
Part should be allowed to develop for a minimum of 10
minutes and no more than 2 hours before inspecting.

Quality Control of Lighting

After a component has

been properly
processed, it is ready
for inspection. While
automated vision
inspection systems are
sometimes used, the
focus here will be on
inspection performed visually by a human inspector as this is
the dominate method. Proper lighting is of great importance
when visually inspecting a surface for a penetrant indication.
Obviously, the lighting requirements are different for an
inspection conducted using a visible dye penetrant than they
are for an inspection conducted using a fluorescent dye
penetrant. The lighting requirements for each of these
techniques, as well as how light measurements are made, is
discussed below.

Lighting for Visible Dye Penetrant Inspections

When using a visible penetrant, the intensity of the white light

is of principal importance. Inspections can be conducted using
natural lighting or artificial lighting. When using natural
lighting, it is important to keep in mind that daylight varies
from hour to hour so inspector must stay constantly aware on
the lighting conditions and make adjustment when needed. To
improve uniformity in lighting from one inspection to the
next, the use of artificial lighting is recommended. Artificial
lighting should be white whenever possible and white flood or
halogen lamps are most commonly used. The light intensity is
required to be 100 foot-candles at the surface being inspected.
It is advisable to choose a white light wattage that will
provide sufficient light, but avoid excessive reflected light
that could distract from the inspection.

Lighting for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections

When a fluorescent penetrant is being employed, the

ultraviolet illumination and the visible light inside the
inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are excited by
the UV of 365-nm wavelength and emit visible light
somewhere in the green-yellow range between 520 and 580
nm. The source of ultraviolet light (UV) is often a mercury
arc lamp with a filter. The lamps emit many wavelengths and
a filter is used to remove all but the UV and a small amount of
visible light between 310 and 410 nm. Visible light of
wavelengths above 410 nm interferes with contrast, and UV
emissions below 310 nm include some hazardous
wavelengths.

Standards and procedures require verification of lens

condition and light intensity. Black lights should never be
used with a cracked filter as output of white light and harmful
black light will be increased. The cleanliness of the filter
should also be checked as a coating of solvent carrier, oils, or
other foreign materials can reduce the intensity by up to as
much as 50%. The filter should be checked visually and
cleaned as necessary before warm-up of the light.
Since fluorescent brightness is linear with respect to
ultraviolet excitation, a change in the intensity of the light
(from age or damage) and a change in the distance of the light
source from the surface being inspected will have a direct
impact on the inspection. For UV lights used in component
evaluations, the normally accepted intensity is 1000
microwatts per square centimeter when measured at 15 inches
from the filter face (requirements can vary from 800 to 1200
µW/cm2). The required check should be performed when a
new bulb is installed, at startup of the inspection cycle, if a
change in intensity is noticed, or every eight hours of
continuous use. Regularly checking the intensity of UV lights
is very important because bulbs loose intensity over time. In
fact, a bulb that is near the end of its operating life will often
have an intensity of only 25 percent of its original output.

Black light intensity will also be affected by voltage

variations. A bulb that produces acceptable intensity at 120
volts will produce significantly less at 110 volts. For this
reason it is important to provide constant voltage to the light.
Also, most UV light must be warmed up prior to use and
should be on for at least 15 minutes before beginning an
inspection.

When performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection, it is

important to keep white light to a minimum as it will
significantly reduce the inspectors ability to detect fluorescent
indications. Light levels of less than 2 fc are required by most
procedures with some procedures requiring less than 0.5 fc at
the inspection surface. Procedures require a check and
documentation of ambient white light in the inspection area.
When checking black light intensity at 15 inches a reading of
the white light produced by the black light may be required to
verify white light is being removed by the filter.

Light Measurement

Light intensity measurements are made using a radiometer. A

radiometer is an instrument that translate light energy into an
electrical current. Light striking a silicon photodiode detector
causes a charge to build up between internal layers. When an
external circuit is
connected to the cell, an electrical current is produced. This
current is linear with respect to incident light. Some
radiometers have the ability to measure both black and white
light, while others require a separate sensor for each
measurement. Whichever type is used, the sensing area should
be clean and free of any materials that could reduce or
obstruct light reaching the sensor. Radiometers are relatively
unstable instruments and readings often change considerable
over time. Therefore, they should be calibrated at least every
six months.

Ultraviolet light measurements should be taken using a fixture

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

System Performance Check

System performance checks involve processing a test

specimen with known defects to determine if the
process will reveal discontinuities of the size required.
The specimen must be processed following the same
procedure used to process production parts. A system
performance check is typically required daily, at the
reactivation of a system after maintenance or repairs, or
any time the system is suspected of being out of
control. As with penetrant inspections in general,
results are directly dependent on the skill of the
operator and, therefore, each operator should process a panel.

The ideal specimen is a production item that has natural

defects of the minimum acceptable size. Some specification
delineate the type and size of the defects that must be present
in the specimen and detected. Surface finish is will affect
washability so the check specimen should have the same
surface finish as the production parts being processed. If
penetrant systems with different sensitivity levels are being
used, there should be a separate specimen for each system.

There are some universal test specimens that can be used if a

standard part is not available. The most commonly used test
specimen is the TAM or PSM panel. These panels 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 backside 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.