Penetrant Testing

Penetrant Testing Page 1 of 1
Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing
Introduction to Penetrant Testing
---
Introduction Methods & Techniques

History Preparation
Improving Detection —Cleaning Methods
—Visual Acuity —Material Smear
—Contrast Sensitivity Technique Selection
—Eye's Response to Light Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Principles Selecting Developer
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI Quality & Process Control
Pros and Cons of PI Part/Penetrant Temperature
Penetrant
PT Materials Dwell
Penetrant Testing Matl's Emulsifier
Penetrants Wash
—Surface Energy Drying
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity Developer
—Color and Fluorescence Lighting
—Why things Fluoresce System Performace Check
—Dimensional Threshold
—Stability of Penetrants
—Removability Other Considerations
Emulsifiers Defect Nature
Developers Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/cc_pt_i... 24/09/2009
History of PI Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Introduction and History of
Penetrant Inspection Introduction
History
Improving Detection
Liquid penetrant inspection is a method that is —Visual Acuity
used to reveal surface breaking flaws by bleedout —Contrast Sensitivity
—Eye's Response to Light
of a colored or fluorescent dye from the flaw.
The technique is based on the ability of a liquid Principles
to be drawn into a "clean" surface breaking flaw Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
by capillary action. After a period of time called Pros and Cons of PI
the "dwell," excess surface penetrant is removed
and a developer applied. This acts as a blotter. It PT Materials
draws the penetrant from the flaw to reveal its Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
presence. Colored (contrast) penetrants require —Surface Energy
good white light while fluorescent penetrants —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
need to be used in darkened conditions with an ultraviolet "black light". —Color and Fluorescence
—Why things Fluoresce
A very early surface inspection technique involved the rubbing of carbon black on glazed —Dimensional Threshold
pottery, whereby the carbon black would settle in surface cracks rendering them visible. —Removability
Later, it became the practice in railway workshops to examine iron and steel components Emulsifiers
Developers
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 Methods & Techniques
as wheels could be submerged. After removal and careful cleaning, the surface was then Preparation
coated with a fine suspension of chalk in alcohol so that a white surface layer was formed —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
once the alcohol had evaporated. The object was then vibrated by being struck with a Technique Selection
hammer, causing the residual oil in any surface cracks to seep out and stain the white Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
coating. This method was in use from the latter part of the 19th century to approximately Selecting Developer
1940, when the magnetic particle method was introduced and found to be more sensitive
for ferromagnetic iron and steels. Quality & Process Control
Temperature
Penetrant
A different (though related) method was introduced in the 1940's. The surface under Dwell
Emulsifier
examination was coated with a lacquer, and after drying, the sample was caused to Wash
vibrate by the tap of a hammer. The vibration causes the brittle lacquer layer to crack Drying
generally around surface defects. The brittle lacquer (stress coat) has been used primarily Developer
Lighting
to show the distribution of stresses in a part and not for finding defects. System Performance Check
Many of these early developments were carried out by Magnaflux in Chicago, IL, USA inOther Considerations
Defect Nature
association with Switzer Bros., Cleveland, OH, USA. More effective penetrating oils Health & Safety
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 References
penetrant method, is still used quite extensively today. In 1942, Magnaflux introduced the
Quizzes
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.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introdu... 24/09/2009
Improving Detection Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Why a Penetrant Inspection Improves the Detectability
of Flaws Introduction
History
Improving Detection
—Visual Acuity
—Contrast Sensitivity
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Color and Fluorescence
The advantage that a liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) offers over an unaided visual —Dimensional Threshold
inspection is that it makes defects easier to see for the inspector. There are basically two —Stability of Penetrants
ways that a penetrant inspection process makes flaws more easily seen. First, LPI —Removability
Emulsifiers
produces a flaw indication that is much larger and easier for the eye to detect than the Developers
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 Methods & Techniques
cannot be resolved. This threshold of visual acuity is around 0.003 inch for a person with Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
20/20 vision. —Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Application Technique
The second way that LPI improves the detectability of a flaw Penetrant Removal
is that it produces a flaw indication with a high level of Selecting Developer
contrast between the indication and the background also
Quality & Process Control
helping to make the indication more easily seen. When a Temperature
visible dye penetrant inspection is performed, the penetrant Penetrant
Dwell
materials are formulated using a bright red dye that provides Emulsifier
for a high level of contrast between the white developer. In Wash
other words, the developer serves as a high contrast Drying
Developer
background as well as a blotter to pull the trapped penetrant Lighting
from the flaw. When a fluorescent penetrant inspection is System Performance Check
performed, the penetrant materials are formulated to glow

Other Considerations
brightly and to give off light at a wavelength that the eye is Defect Nature
most sensitive to under dim lighting conditions. Health & Safety
References
Additional information on the human eye can be found by following the links below.
Quizzes
Visual Acuity -
Contrast Sensitivity
Color Sensitivity
Visual Acuity Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Visual Acuity of the Human Eye
Introduction
The eye has a visual acuity threshold below which an object will go undetected. This History
Improving Detection
threshold varies from person to person, but as an example, the case of a person with —Visual Acuity
normal 20/20 vision can be considered. As light enters the eye through the pupil, it passes —Contrast Sensitivity
through the lens and is projected on the retina at the back of the eye. Muscles called —Eye's Response to Light
extraocular muscles, move the eyeball in the orbits and allow the image to be focused on
Principles
the central retinal or fovea. Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers
Methods & Techniques

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
The retina is a mosaic of two basic types of photoreceptors: rods, and cones. Rods are Lighting
sensitive to blue-green light with peak sensitivity at a wavelength of 498 nm, and are System Performance Check
used for vision under dark or dim conditions. There are three types of cones that give us
our basic color vision: L-cones (red) with a peak sensitivity of 564 nm, M-cones (green) Defect Nature
with a peak sensitivity of 533 nm, and S-cones (blue) with a peak sensitivity of 437 nm. Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Cones are highly concentrated in a region near the center of the retina called the fovea
region. The maximum concentration of cones is roughly 180,000 per square mm in the
fovea region and this density decreases rapidly outside of the fovea to a value of less than
5,000 per square mm. Note the blind spot caused by the optic nerve which is void of any
photoreceptors.
The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a
spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since one degree contains
sixty minutes, a visual angle of one minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree. The spatial
resolution limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a scene is projected across
288µm of the retina by the eye's lens.
In this 288µm, there are 120 color sensing cone cells packed. Thus, if more than 120
alternating white and black lines are crowded side-by-side in a single degree of viewing
space, they will appear as a single gray mass to the human eye. With a little trigonometry,
it is possible to calculate the resolution of the eye at a specific distance away from the
lens of the eye.
For the case of normal visual acuity the angle Theta is 1/60 of a degree. By bisecting this
angle we have a right triangle with angle Theta/2 that is 1/120 of a degree. Using this
right triangle it is easy to calculate the distance X/2 for a given distance d.
X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)
When visually inspecting an object for a defect such as a crack, the distance (d) might be
around 12 inches. This would be a comfortable viewing distance. At 12 inches, the
normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. What this means is that if you had
alternating black and white lines that were all 0.00349 inch wide, it would appear to most
people as a mass of solid gray.
Contrast Sensitivity Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Contrast Sensitivity
Introduction
When conducting a visible dye penetrant inspection, the contrast sensitivity of the eye is History
Improving Detection
important. Contrast sensitivity is a measure of how faded or washed out an image can be — Visual Acuity
before it becomes indistinguishable from a uniform field. It has been experimentally —Contrast Sensitivity
determined that the minimum discernible difference in gray scale level that the eye can —Eye's Response to Light
detect is about 2% of full brightness. Contrast sensitivity is a function of the size or
Principles
spatial frequency of the features in the image. However, this is not a direct relationship as Steps for Liquid PI
larger objects are not always easier to see than smaller objects (as demonstrated by the Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
image below).
PT Materials
In the image below, the luminance of pixels is varied sinusoidally in the horizontal Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
direction. The spatial frequency increases exponentially from left to right. The contrast —Surface Energy
also varies logarithmically from 100% at the bottom to about 0.5% at the top. The —Specific Gravity
luminance of peaks and troughs remains constant along a given horizontal path through —Viscosity
the image. If the detection of contrast was dictated solely by image contrast, the —Why things Fluoresce
alternating bright and dark bars should appear to have equal height everywhere in the —Dimensional Threshold
image. However, the bars seem to be taller in the middle of the image. —Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
System Performance Check
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Campbell, F. W. and Robson, J. G. (1968) Application of Fourier Analysis to the

Visibility of Gratings. Journal of Physiology (London) Image Courtesy of Izumi Ohzawa,
Ph.D. University of California School of Optometry
Ref: The Internet site of the John Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology at
the University of Utah. http://webvision.med.utah.edu/
Eye's Response to Light Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
The Human Eye's Response to Light
Introduction
History
Improving Detection
—Visual Acuity
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
The three curves in the figure above shows the normalized response of an average human Selecting Developer
eye to various amounts of ambient light. The shift in sensitivity occurs because two types
of photoreceptors called cones and rods are responsible for the eye's response to light. Temperature
The curve on the right shows the eye's response under normal lighting conditions and this Penetrant
Dwell
is called the photopic response. The cones respond to light under these conditions. Emulsifier
Wash
As mentioned previously, cones are composed of three different photo pigments that Drying
Developer
enable color perception. This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under Lighting
normal lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the System Performance Check
light levels drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye changes significantly as
shown by the scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are most Defect Nature
active and the human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the Health & Safety
range of color. Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo
References
pigment, which accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low
light level, sensitivity to blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow Quizzes
and red is reduced. The heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at the -
ambient light level found in a typical inspection booth. This curve peaks at 550
nanometers, which means the eye is most sensitive to yellowish-green color at this light
level. Fluorescent penetrant inspection materials are designed to fluoresce at around 550
nanometers to produce optimal sensitivity under dim lighting conditions.
References:
Robinson, S. J. and Schmidt, J. T., Fluorescent Penetrant Sensitivity and Removability -

What the Eye Can See, a Fluorometer Can Measure, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 42, No.
8, July 1984, pp. 1029-1034
Steps for Liquid PI Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Basic Processing Steps of a Liquid Penetrant Inspection
Introduction
1. Surface Preparation: One of the most critical steps of a liquid penetrant History
Improving Detection
inspection is the surface preparation. The surface must be free of oil, grease, water, — Visual Acuity
or other contaminants that may prevent penetrant from entering flaws. The sample —Contrast Sensitivity
may also require etching if mechanical operations such as machining, sanding, or —Eye's Response to Light
grit blasting have been performed. These and other mechanical operations can
Principles
smear metal over the flaw opening and prevent the penetrant from entering. Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
2. Penetrant Application: Once the
surface has been thoroughly PT Materials
cleaned and dried, the penetrant Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
material is applied by spraying, —Surface Energy
brushing, or immersing the part in —Specific Gravity
a penetrant bath. —Viscosity
3. Penetrant Dwell: The penetrant is —Dimensional Threshold
left on the surface for a sufficient —Stability of Penetrants
—Removability
time to allow as much penetrant as possible to be drawn from or to seep into a Emulsifiers
defect. Penetrant dwell time is the total time that the penetrant is in contact with the Developers
part surface. Dwell times are usually recommended by the penetrant producers or
required by the specification being followed. The times vary depending on the Preparation
application, penetrant materials used, the material, the form of the material being —Cleaning Methods
inspected, and the type of defect being inspected for. Minimum dwell times —Metal Smear
Technique Selection
typically range from five to 60 minutes. Generally, there is no harm in using a Application Technique
longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not allowed to dry. The ideal Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
dwell time is often determined by experimentation and may be very specific to a
particular application. Quality & Process Control
Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
4. Excess Penetrant Removal: This Emulsifier
Wash
is the most delicate part of the Drying
inspection procedure because the Developer
excess penetrant must be removed Lighting
from the surface of the sample
while removing as little penetrant Other Considerations
as possible from defects. Defect Nature
Health & Safety
Depending on the penetrant system
used, this step may involve References
cleaning with a solvent, direct
rinsing with water, or first treating the part with an emulsifier and then rinsing with Quizzes
water. -
5. Developer Application: A
thin layer of developer is then
applied to the sample to draw
penetrant trapped in flaws
back to the surface where it
will be visible. Developers
come in a variety of forms
that may be applied by
dusting (dry powdered),
dipping, or spraying (wet developers).
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Princip... 24/09/2009
Steps for Liquid PI Page 2 of 2
6. Indication Development: The developer is allowed to stand on the part surface for
a period of time sufficient to permit the extraction of the trapped penetrant out of
any surface flaws. This development time is usually a minimum of 10 minutes.
Significantly longer times may be necessary for tight cracks.
7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect

indications from any flaws which may be present.
8. Clean Surface: The final step in the process is to thoroughly clean the part surface
to remove the developer from the parts that were found to be acceptable.
Now you try it!
Common Uses of Liquid PI Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Common Uses of Liquid Penetrant Inspection
Introduction
Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most History
Improving Detection
widely used nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. —Visual Acuity
Its popularity can be attributed to two main factors: its —Contrast Sensitivity
relative ease of use and its flexibility. LPI can be used —Eye's Response to Light
to inspect almost any material provided that its surface

Principles
is not extremely rough or porous. Materials that are Steps for Liquid PI
commonly inspected using LPI include the following: Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
z Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.) PT Materials

z Glass Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
z Many ceramic materials —Surface Energy
z Rubber —Specific Gravity
z Plastics —Viscosity
LPI offers flexibility in performing inspections because it can be applied in a large —Dimensional Threshold
variety of applications ranging from automotive spark plugs to critical aircraft —Removability
components. Penetrant materials can be applied with a spray can or a cotton swab to Emulsifiers
inspect for flaws known to occur in a specific area or it can be applied by dipping or Developers
spraying to quickly inspect large areas. In the image above, visible dye penetrant is being
locally applied to a highly loaded connecting point to check for fatigue cracking. Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Penetrant inspection systems have been Technique Selection
developed to inspect some very large Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
components. In the image shown right, DC- Selecting Developer
10 banjo fittings are being moved into a
penetrant inspection system at what used to Quality & Process Control
be the Douglas Aircraft Company's Long Temperature
Penetrant
Beach, California facility. These large Dwell
machined aluminum forgings are used to Emulsifier
Wash
support the number two engine in the tail of a Drying
DC-10 aircraft. Developer
Lighting
Liquid penetrant inspection can only be used
to inspect for flaws that break the surface of Other Considerations
Defect Nature
the sample. Some of these flaws are listed below: Health & Safety
z Fatigue cracks References

z Quench cracks
z Grinding cracks Quizzes
-
z Overload and impact fractures
z Porosity
z Laps
z Seams
z Pin holes in welds
z 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.
Pros and Cons of PI Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Advantages and Disadvantages of Penetrant Testing
Introduction
History
Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant inspection has both Improving Detection
advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages and disadvantages when —Visual Acuity
compared to other NDE methods are summarized below. —Eye's Response to Light
Primary Advantages Principles

Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
z The method has high sensitivity to small surface discontinuities. Pros and Cons of PI
z The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic and nonmetallic, magnetic
and nonmagnetic, and conductive and nonconductive materials may be inspected. PT Materials
z Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can be inspected rapidly and at Penetrants
low cost. —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
z Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected. —Viscosity
z Indications are produced directly on the surface of the part and constitute a visual —Color and Fluorescence
representation of the flaw. —Why things Fluoresce
z Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable. —Stability of Penetrants
z Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive. —Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers
Primary Disadvantages
Preparation
z Only surface breaking defects can be detected. —Cleaning Methods
z Only materials with a relatively nonporous surface can be inspected. —Metal Smear
z Precleaning is critical since contaminants can mask defects. Technique Selection
z Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or vapor blasting must be Penetrant Removal
removed prior to LPI. Selecting Developer
z The inspector must have direct access to the surface being inspected.
z Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity. Temperature
z Multiple process operations must be performed and controlled. Penetrant
Dwell
z Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required. Emulsifier
z Chemical handling and proper disposal is required. Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Penetrant Testing Materials Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Penetrant Testing Materials
Introduction
The penetrant materials used today are much more sophisticated than the kerosene and History
Improving Detection
whiting first used by railroad inspectors near the turn of the 20th century. Today's —Visual Acuity
penetrants are carefully formulated to produce the level of sensitivity desired by the —Contrast Sensitivity
inspector. To perform well, a penetrant must possess a number of important —Eye's Response to Light
characteristics. A penetrant must:

Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
z spread easily over the surface of the material being inspected to provide complete Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
and even coverage.
z be drawn into surface breaking defects by capillary action. PT Materials
z remain in the defect but remove easily from the surface of the part. Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
z remain fluid so it can be drawn back to the surface of the part through the drying —Surface Energy
and developing steps. —Specific Gravity
z be highly visible or fluoresce brightly to produce easy to see indications. —Viscosity
z not be harmful to the material being tested or the inspector. —Why things Fluoresce
All penetrant materials do not perform the —Removability
same and are not designed to perform the Emulsifiers
same. Penetrant manufactures have Developers
developed different formulations to address a

variety of inspection applications. Some Preparation
applications call for the detection of the —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
smallest defects possible and have smooth Technique Selection
surfaces where the penetrant is easy to Application Technique
remove. In other applications, the rejectable Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
defect size may be larger and a penetrant
formulated to find larger flaws can be used. Quality & Process Control
The penetrants that are used to detect the Temperature
Penetrant
smallest defect will also produce the largest Dwell
amount of irrelevant indications. Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Penetrant materials are classified in the various industry and government specifications Developer
Lighting
by their physical characteristics and their performance. Aerospace Material Specification System Performance Check
(AMS) 2644, Inspection Material, Penetrant, is now the primary specification used in the
USA to control penetrant materials. Historically, Military Standard 25135, Inspection Other Considerations
Materials, Penetrants, has been the primary document for specifying penetrants but this Defect Nature
Health & Safety
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 References
contain information on the classification of penetrant materials but they are generally
referred back to MIL-I-25135 or AMS 2644. Quizzes
-
Penetrant materials come in two basic types. These types are listed below:
z Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

z 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
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/PTMat... 24/09/2009
Penetrant Testing Materials Page 2 of 3
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:
z Method A - Water Washable

z Method B - Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
z Method C - Solvent Removable
z Method D - Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic
Water washable (Method A) penetrants can be removed from the part by rinsing with
water alone. These penetrants contain an emulsifying agent (detergent) that makes it
possible to wash the penetrant from the part surface with water alone. Water washable
penetrants are sometimes referred to as self-emulsifying systems. Post-emulsifiable
penetrants come in two varieties, lipophilic and hydrophilic. In post-emulsifiers,
lipophilic systems (Method B), the penetrant is oil soluble and interacts with the oil-based
emulsifier to make removal possible. Post-emulsifiable, hydrophilic systems (Method
D), use an emulsifier that is a water soluble detergent which lifts the excess penetrant
from the surface of the part with a water wash. Solvent removable penetrants require the
use of a solvent to remove the penetrant from the part.
Penetrants are then classified based on the strength or detectability of the indication that
is produced for a number of very small and tight fatigue cracks. The five sensitivity levels
are shown below:
z Level ½ - Ultra Low Sensitivity

z Level 1 - Low Sensitivity
z Level 2 - Medium Sensitivity
z Level 3 - High Sensitivity
z 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. However, 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 Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Penetrants
Introduction
History
The industry and military specifications that Improving Detection
control penetrant materials and their use, all —Visual Acuity
stipulate certain physical properties of the —Eye's Response to Light
penetrant materials that must be met. Some of
these requirements address the safe use of the Principles
materials, such as toxicity, flash point, and Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
corrosiveness, and other requirements address Pros and Cons of PI
storage and contamination issues. Still others
delineate properties that are thought to be PT Materials
primarily responsible for the performance or Penetrants
sensitivity of the penetrants. The properties of —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
penetrant materials that are controlled by AMS —Viscosity
2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash point, —Color and Fluorescence
surface wetting capability, viscosity, color, —Why things Fluoresce
brightness, ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, —Stability of Penetrants
water tolerance, and removability. —Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers
More information on how some of these properties can affect penetrant testing can be
found by following these links. Methods & Techniques
Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
Surface Energy —Metal Smear
Density or Specific Gravity Technique Selection
Viscosity Penetrant Removal
Color and Fluorescence Brightness Selecting Developer
Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence
Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability Temperature
Removability Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Surface Energy Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Surface Energy (Surface Wetting Capability)
Introduction
As previously mentioned, one of the important characteristics of a liquid penetrant History
Improving Detection
material is its ability to freely wet the surface of the object being inspected. At the liquid- — Visual Acuity
solid surface interface, if the molecules of the liquid have a stronger attraction to the —Contrast Sensitivity
molecules of the solid surface than to each other (the adhesive forces are stronger than —Eye's Response to Light
the cohesive forces), wetting of the surface occurs. Alternately, if the liquid molecules are
Principles
more strongly attracted to each other than the molecules of the solid surface (the cohesive Steps for Liquid PI
forces are stronger than the adhesive forces), the liquid beads-up and does not wet the Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
surface of the part.
PT Materials
One way to quantify a liquid's surface wetting characteristics is to measure the contact Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
angle of a drop of liquid placed on the surface of an object. The contact angle is the angle — Surface Energy
formed by the solid/liquid interface and the liquid/vapor interface measured from the side —Specific Gravity
of the liquid. (See the figure below.) Liquids wet surfaces when the contact angle is less —Viscosity
than 90 degrees. For a penetrant material to be effective, the contact angle should be as —Color and Fluorescence
small as possible. In fact, the contact angle for most liquid penetrants is very close to zero —Dimensional Threshold
degrees. —Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

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

between the liquid and the solid tubular surface.)
σ LG = liquid-gas surface tension
θ = contact angle
Since pressure is the force over a given area, it can be written that the pressure developed,
called the capillary pressure, is
Capillary Pressure = (2 σ LG cosθ)/ r
The above equations are for a cylindrical defect but the relationships of the variables are
the same for a flaw with a noncircular cross section. Capillary pressure equations only
apply when there is simultaneous contact of the penetrant along the entire length of the
crack opening and a liquid front forms that is an equidistant from the surface. A liquid
penetrant surface could take-on a complex shape as a consequence of the various
deviations from flat parallel walls that an actual crack could have. In this case, the
expression for pressure is
Capillary Pressure = 2(σ SG - σs SL)/r = 2Σ /r
Where:
σ SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.

σ SL = the surface energy at the solid-liquid interface.
r = the radius of the opening.
Σ = the adhesion tension (σSG - σ SL).
Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a

penetrant's movement into a flaw and not the surface energy of the liquid-gas interface.
Adhesion tension is the force acting on a unit length of the wetting line from the direction
of the solid. The wetting performance of the penetrant is degraded when adhesion tension
is the primary driving force.
It can be seen from the equations in this section that the surface wetting characteristics
(defined by the surface energies) are important in order for a penetrant to fill a void. A
liquid penetrant will continue to fill the void until an opposing force balances the
capillary pressure. This force is usually the pressure of trapped gas in a void, as most
flaws are open only at the surface of the part. Since the gas originally in a flaw volume
cannot escape through the layer of penetrant, the gas is compressed near the closed end of
a void.
Since the contact angle for penetrants is very close to zero, other methods have been
devised to make relative comparisons of the wetting characteristics of these liquids. One
method is to measure the height that a liquid reaches in a capillary tube. However, the
solid interface in this method is usually glass and may not accurately represent the
surface that the penetrant inspection will be performed on. Another method of
comparative evaluation is to measure the radius, the diameter, or the area of a spot
formed when a drop of penetrant is placed on the test surface and allowed to stand
undisturbed for a specific amount of time. However, using this method, other factors are
also acting in the comparison. These methods include the density, viscosity, and volatility
of the liquid, which do not enter into the capillarity equations, but may have an effect on
the inspection as discussed in the related pages.
References:
Cartz, L., Nondestructive Testing, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1995, pp.
135-136.
Tugrul, A. B., Capillarity Effect Analysis for Alternative Liquid Penetrant Chemicals,
NDT & E International, Volume 30 Number 1, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.,
Oxford England, February 1997, pp. 19-23.
Specific Gravity Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Density or Specific Gravity
Introduction
The density or specific gravity of a penetrant material has a slight to negligible effect on History
Improving Detection
the performance of a penetrant. The gravitational force acting on the penetrant liquid can —Visual Acuity
be working either with or against the capillary force depending on the orientation of the —Contrast Sensitivity
flaw during the dwell cycle. When the gravitational pull is working against the capillary
rise, the strength of the force is given by the following equation: Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Force = πr2hpg Pros and Cons of PI
Where: PT Materials
Penetrants
r = radius of the crack opening —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
h = height of penetrant above its free surface —Viscosity
p = density of the penetrant —Color and Fluorescence
g = acceleration due to gravity —Why things Fluoresce
When the direction of capillary flow is in the same direction as the force of gravity, the —Removability
Emulsifiers
added force driving the penetrant into the flaw is given by the formula shown below: Developers
Force = hAp Methods & Techniques

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
Where: —Metal Smear
Technique Selection
h = height of penetrant above its free surface Penetrant Removal
A = cross-sectional area of the opening Selecting Developer
P = density of the penetrant

Temperature
Increasing the specific gravity by decreasing the percent of solvent (by volume) in the Penetrant
Dwell
solution will increase the penetration speed. Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Reference: Developer
Lighting
Tugrul, A. B., Capillarity Effect Analysis for Alternative Liquid Penetrant Chemicals,
NDT & E International, Volume 30 Number 1, Published by Elsevier Science Ltd., Other Considerations
Oxford England, February 1997, pp. 19-23. Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Viscosity Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Viscosity
Introduction
History
Viscosity describes a fluid's resistance to flow. Liquids such as water that flow easily, Improving Detection
have a lower viscosity than do liquids such as ketchup. Viscosity has little effect on the —Visual Acuity
ability of a penetrant material to enter a defect but it does have an effect on the speed at —Contrast Sensitivity
which the penetrant fills a defect. The equations for the fill times of a cylindrical void
and an elliptical void are shown below: Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Cylindrical Void Pros and Cons of PI
Fill time = (2l2µ)/ rcosθ σLG
PT Materials
Elliptical Void Penetrants
—Surface Energy
Fill time = [(2l2µ) / σLGcosθ] * [a2+b2 / (a+b)ab] —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
Where: l = defect depth —Why things Fluoresce
µ = viscosity —Stability of Penetrants
r = radius of the crack opening —Removability
Emulsifiers
σ LG = liquid-gas surface tension Developers
θ = contact angle
a = flaw width Preparation
b = flaw length —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
From these equations, it can be seen that fill time is directly proportional to penetrant Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
viscosity. While it has no real bearing on this discussion, it should be noted that the two Selecting Developer
equations do not take into account entrapped gas that could be present in a closed end
capillary. Quality & Process Control
Temperature
Penetrant
Reference: Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing, Drying
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July - August Developer
Lighting
1979, pp. 287-291. System Performance Check
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Color and Fluorescents Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Color and Fluorescent Brightness
Introduction
History
Improving Detection
—Visual Acuity
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
Penetrant Color and Fluorescence —Viscosity
The color of the penetrant material is of obvious importance in a visible dye penetrant —Dimensional Threshold
inspection, as the dye must provide good contrast against the developer or part being —Stability of Penetrants
inspected. Remember from the earlier discussion of contrast sensitivity that generally the —Removability
Emulsifiers
higher the contrast, the easier objects are to see. The dye used in visible dye penetrant is Developers
usually vibrant red but other colors can be purchased for special applications.
Preparation
When fluorescent materials are involved, the effect of color and fluorescence is not so —Cleaning Methods
straightforward. LPI materials fluoresce because they contain one or more dyes that —Metal Smear
Technique Selection
absorb electromagnetic radiation over a particular wavelength and the absorption of Application Technique
photons leads to changes in the electronic configuration of the molecules. Since the Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
molecules are not stable at this higher energy state, they almost immediately re-emit the
energy. There is some energy loss in the process and this causes photons to be re-emitted Quality & Process Control
at a slightly longer wavelength that is in the visible range. The radiation absorption and Temperature
emission could take place a number of times until the desired color and brightness is Penetrant
Dwell
achieved. Two different fluorescent colors can be mixed to interact by a mechanism Emulsifier
called cascading. The emission of visible light by this process involves one dye absorbing Wash
ultraviolet radiation to emit a band of radiation that makes a second dye glow. Since the Drying
Developer
human eye is the most commonly used sensing device, most penetrants are designed to Lighting
fluoresce as close as possible to the eyes' peak response.
For more information on how the human eye responds to colored light, follow this link. Defect Nature
Health & Safety
Penetrant Brightness References
Fluorescent brightness was erroneously once thought to be the controlling factor with Quizzes
respect to flaw detection sensitivity. Measurements have been made to evaluate the -
intrinsic brightness of virtually all commercially available penetrants and they all have
about the same brightness. Intrinsic brightness values are determined for thick liquid
films but the dimensional threshold of fluorescence (discussed on the next page) is a
more important property. The measurement of fluorescent brightness is detailed in ASTM
E-1135, "Standard Test Method for Comparing the Brightness of Fluorescent Penetrants."
Click here to learn why things fluoresce.
References:
Gram, B., Mechanisms Contributing to Fluorescence and Visibility of Penetrants,
Color and Fluorescents Page 2 of 2
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Nondestructive Testing, May 1967,

pp 225-233.
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.
Alburger, J.R., Signal-to-Noise Ratio in the Inspection Penetrant Process, Materials

Evaluation, September 1974, pp. 193-200.
Dimensional Threshold Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Dimensional Threshold of Fluorescence
Introduction
The dimensional threshold of fluorescence is a property that is not currently controlled by History
Improving Detection
the specifications but appears to largely determine the sensitivity of a fluorescent —Visual Acuity
penetrant. A. L. Walters and R. C. McMaster conducted an experiment that led to the —Contrast Sensitivity
understanding of this condition. Two optically flat plates of glass were clamped tightly —Eye's Response to Light
together. A drop of fluorescent penetrant was placed at the interface of the plates. The
Principles
penetrant could be seen migrating in between the plates but when exposed to black light, Steps for Liquid PI
no fluorescence was seen. The phenomenon was not fully understood until 1960 when Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
Alburger introduced the concept of thin-film transition of fluorescent response.
PT Materials
The dimensional magnitudes of typical crack defects correspond to the dimensional Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
thresholds of fluorescence response which are characteristic of the available penetrant. — Surface Energy
Alternately stated, the degree of fluorescence response, under a given intensity of —Specific Gravity
ultraviolet radiation, is dependent on the absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which in turn —Viscosity
depends on dye concentration and film thickness. Therefore, the ability of a penetrant to —Color and Fluorescence
yield an indication depends primarily on its ability to fluoresce as a very thin film. The —Dimensional Threshold
performance of penetrants based on the physical constraints of the dyes can be predicted — Stability of Penetrants
—Removability
using Beer's Law equation. This law states that the absorption of light by a solution Emulsifiers
changes exponentially with the concentration of the solution. This equation does not hold Developers
true when very thin layers are involved but works well to establish general relationships
between variables. Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
I = Io x e-λCt Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
Where: Quality & Process Control

Temperature
Penetrant
I = Transmitted light intensity Dwell
Emulsifier
Io = Incident light intensity Wash
e = Base of natural log (2.71828) Drying
Developer
λ = Absorption coefficient per unit of concentration Lighting
C = Dye concentration System Performance Check
t = Thickness of the absorbing layer trolled to a certain degree

by the concentration of the fluorescent tracer dye in the Defect Nature
penetrant. Health & Safety
References
This equation states that the intensity of the transmitted energy is directly proportional to
the intensity of the incident light and varies exponentially with the thickness of the Quizzes
penetrant layer and its dye concentration. Therefore, when the dye concentration is -
increased, the brightness of the thin layer of penetrant generally increases. However, the
dye concentration can only be increased so much before it starts to have a negative effect
on brightness. A Meniscus-Method Apparatus can be used to measure the dimensional
threshold of fluorescence.
References:
Alburger, J.R., Notes on the History of Testing Panels for Inspection Penetrants, Paper
Summaries, Nations Spring Conference, New Orleans, LA, Published by ASNT, April
1978, pp. 257-270.
Dimensional Threshold Page 2 of 2
Gram, B., Mechanisms Contributing to Fluorescence and Visibility of Penetrants,

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Nondestructive Testing, May 1967,
pp 225-233.
Stability of Penetrants Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Ultraviolet and Thermal Stability of Penetrant
Indications Introduction
History
Improving Detection
Exposure to intense ultraviolet light and elevated temperatures can have a negative effect —Visual Acuity
on fluorescent penetrant indications. Fluorescent materials can lose their brightness after —Contrast Sensitivity
a period of exposure to high intensity UV light. One study measured the intensity of
fluorescent penetrant indications on a sample that was subjected to multiple UV exposure Principles
cycles. Each cycle consisted of 15 minutes of 800 microwatt/cm² UV light and 2.5 Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
minutes of 1500 microwatt/cm² UV light. Two penetrants were tested in the study, water Pros and Cons of PI
washable, level 3 and a post emulsifiable, level 4. The results from the study showed that
the indications from both penetrants faded with increased UV exposure. After eight PT Materials
exposure cycles, the brightnesses of the indications were less than one half their original Penetrant
Penetrants
Testing Matl's
values. —Surface Energy

—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
At an elevated temperature, penetrants can experience heat degradation or "heat fade." —Color and Fluorescence
Excessive heat: —Why things Fluoresce
1. evaporates the more volatile constituents which increases viscosity and —Removability
adversely affects the rate of penetration. Emulsifiers
Developers
2. alters wash characteristics.
3. "boils off" chemicals that prevent separation and gelling of water soluble Methods & Techniques
penetrants. Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
4. kills the fluorescence of tracer dyes. —Metal Smear
Technique Selection
This fourth degradation mechanism involves the molecules of the penetrant materials. Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
The phenomenon of fluorescence involves electrons that are delocalized in a molecule. Selecting Developer
These electrons are not specifically associated with a given bond between two atoms.
When a molecule takes up sufficient energy for the excitation source, the delocalized Quality & Process Control
Temperature
bonding electrons rise to a higher electronic state. After excitation, the electrons will Penetrant
normally lose energy and return to the lowest energy state. This loss of energy can Dwell
Emulsifier
involve a "radiative" process such as fluorescence or "non-radiative" processes. Non- Wash
radiative processes include relaxation by molecular collisions, thermal relaxation, and Drying
Developer
chemical reaction. Heat causes the number of molecular collisions to increase, which Lighting
results in more collision relaxation and less fluorescence. System Performance Check
This explanation is only valid when the part and the penetrant are at an elevated Other Considerations
Defect Nature
temperature. When the materials cool, the fluorescence will return. However, while Health & Safety
exposed to elevated temperatures, penetrant solutions dry faster. As the molecules
become more closely packed in the dehydrated solution, collision relaxation increases References
and fluorescence decreases. This effect has been called "concentration quenching" and
experimental data shows that as the dye concentration is increased, fluorescent brightness Quizzes
-
initially increases but reaches a peak and then begins to decrease. Airflow over the
surface on the part will also speed evaporation of the liquid carrier, so it should be kept to
a minimum to prevent a loss of brightness.
Generally, thermal damage occurs when fluorescent penetrant materials are heated above
71oC (160oF). It should be noted that the sensitivity of an FPI inspection can be improved
if a part is heated prior to applying the penetrant material, but the temperature should be
kept below 71oC (160oF). Some high temperature penetrants in use today are formulated
with dyes with high melting points, greatly reducing heat related problems. The
penetrants also have high boiling points and the heat related problems are greatly
reduced. However, a loss of brightness can still take place when the penetrant is exposed
Stability of Penetrants Page 2 of 2
to elevated temperatures over an extended period of time. When one heat resistant
formulation was tested, a 20 % reduction was measured after the material was subjected
to 163oC (325oF) for 273 hours. The various types of fluorescent dyes commonly
employed in today's penetrant materials begin decomposition at 71oC (160oF). When the
temperature approaches 94oC (200oF), there is almost total attenuation of fluorescent
brightness of the composition and sublimation of the fluorescent dyestuffs.
References:
Brittain, P.I., Assessment of Penetrant Systems by Fluorescent Intensity, Proceedings of

the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 4, Published by Perganon
Press, 1988, pp. 2814-2823.
Muller, F.A. and Fantozzi, F.F., Advances in Improving the Heat-Fade Resistance of
Fluorescent Penetrants, Materials Evaluation, July 1987, pp. 848-850.
Sherwin, A. G. and Holden, W. O., Heat Assisted Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection,

Materials Evaluation, Sept. 1979, pp. 52-56, 61.
Robertson, A.J., Heat Stable Fluorescent Penetrants, Paper S2, 4th Pan Pacific
Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 1, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, Australian
Institute for Non-Destructive Testing, November 1983.
Lovejoy, D.J., The Importance of the Physical Nature of Fluorescence in Penetrant

Testing, Reliability in Non-Destructive Testing: Proceedings of the 27th Annual British
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, London, UK, Pergamon Press, 1989, pp. 483-
491.
Emulsifiers Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Emulsifiers
Introduction
When removal of the penetrant from a defect due to over-washing of the part is a History
Improving Detection
concern, a post-emulsifiable penetrant system can be used. Post-emulsifiable penetrants —Visual Acuity
require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make it water-washable. —Contrast Sensitivity
Most penetrant inspection specifications classify penetrant systems into four methods of —Eye's Response to Light
excess penetrant removal. These are listed below:

Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
1. Method A: Water-Washable Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
2. Method B: Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic
3. Method C: Solvent Removable PT Materials
4. Method D: Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
Method C relies on a solvent cleaner to remove the penetrant from the part being —Specific Gravity
inspected. Method A has emulsifiers built into the penetrant liquid that makes it possible —Viscosity
to remove the excess penetrant with a simple water wash. Method B and D penetrants —Why things Fluoresce
require an additional processing step where a separate emulsification agent is applied to —Dimensional Threshold
make the excess penetrant more removable with a water wash. Lipophilic emulsification —Removability
systems are oil-based materials that are supplied in ready-to-use form. Hydrophilic Emulsifiers
systems are water-based and supplied as a concentrate that must be diluted with water Developers
prior to use .
Preparation
Lipophilic emulsifiers (Method B) were introduced in the late 1950's and work with both —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
a chemical and mechanical action. After the emulsifier has coated the surface of the Technique Selection
object, mechanical action starts to remove some of the excess penetrant as the mixture Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
drains from the part. During the emulsification time, the emulsifier diffuses into the Selecting Developer
remaining penetrant and the resulting mixture is easily removed with a water spray.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers (Method D) also remove the excess penetrant with mechanical Temperature
Penetrant
and chemical action but the action is different because no diffusion takes place. Dwell
Hydrophilic emulsifiers are basically detergents that contain solvents and surfactants. The Emulsifier
Wash
hydrophilic emulsifier breaks up the penetrant into small quantities and prevents these Drying
pieces from recombining or reattaching to the surface of the part. The mechanical action Developer
of the rinse water removes the displaced penetrant from the part and causes fresh remover Lighting
to contact and lift newly exposed penetrant from the surface.
Defect Nature
The hydrophilic post-emulsifiable method Health & Safety
(Method D) was introduced in the mid 1970's.
Since it is more sensitive than the lipophilic post References
emulsifiable method it has made the later method
virtually obsolete. The major advantage of Quizzes
-
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
Emulsifiers Page 2 of 2
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.
Removability Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Removability
Introduction
History
Removing the penetrant from the surface of the sample, without removing it from the Improving Detection
flaw, is one of the most critical operations of the penetrant inspection process. The —Visual Acuity
penetrant must be removed from the sample surface as completely as possible to limit —Eye's Response to Light
background fluorescence. In order for this to happen, the adhesive forces of the penetrant
must be weak enough that they can be broken by the removal methods used. However, in Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
order for the penetrant to have good surface wetting characteristics, the adhesive forces Common Uses for PI
(forces of attraction between the penetrant and the solid surface being inspected) must be Pros and Cons of PI
stronger than the cohesive forces (forces holding the liquid together). Proper formulation
of the penetrant materials provides the correct balancing of these forces. PT Materials
Penetrants
Another consideration in the formulation of the penetrant liquid is that it should not easily—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
commingle and become diluted by the cleaning solution. Dilution of the penetrant liquid —Viscosity
will affect the concentration of the dye and reduce the dimensional threshold of —Color and Fluorescence
fluorescence. —Dimensional Threshold
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Developers Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Developers
Introduction
The role of the developer is to pull the trapped penetrant material out of defects and History
Improving Detection
spread it out on the surface of the part so it can be seen by an inspector. The fine —Visual Acuity
developer particles both reflect and refract the incident ultraviolet light, allowing more of —Contrast Sensitivity
it to interact with the penetrant, causing more efficient fluorescence. The developer also —Eye's Response to Light
allows more light to be emitted through the same mechanism. This is why indications are
Principles
brighter than the penetrant itself under UV light. Another function that some developers Steps for Liquid PI
perform is to create a white background so there is a greater degree of contrast between Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
the indication and the surrounding background.
PT Materials
Developer Forms Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
The AMS 2644 and Mil-I-25135 classify developers into six standard forms. These forms —Specific Gravity
are listed below: —Viscosity
1. Form a - Dry Powder —Dimensional Threshold
2. Form b - Water Soluble —Removability
3. Form c - Water Suspendable Emulsifiers
Developers
4. Form d - Nonaqueous Type 1 Fluorescent (Solvent Based)
5. Form e - Nonaqueous Type 2 Visible Dye (Solvent Based) Methods & Techniques
6. Form f - Special Applications Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
The developer classifications are based on the method that the developer is applied. The Technique Selection
developer can be applied as a dry powder, or dissolved or suspended in a liquid carrier. Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Each of the developer forms has advantages and disadvantages. Selecting Developer
Dry Powder Quality & Process Control

Temperature
Penetrant
Dry powder developer is generally Dwell
Emulsifier
considered to be the least sensitive Wash
but it is inexpensive to use and easy Drying
to apply. Dry developers are white, Developer
Lighting
fluffy powders that can be applied to System Performance Check
a thoroughly dry surface in a number
of ways. The developer can be Other Considerations
Defect Nature
applied by dipping parts in a Health & Safety
container of developer, or by using a
puffer to dust parts with the References
developer. Parts can also be placed in
a dust cabinet where the developer is Quizzes
-
blown around and allowed to settle on
the part. Electrostatic powder spray
guns are also available to apply the developer. The goal is to allow the developer to come
in contact with the whole inspection area.
Unless the part is electrostatically charged, the powder will only adhere to areas where
trapped penetrant has wet the surface of the part. The penetrant will try to wet the surface
of the penetrant particle and fill the voids between the particles, which brings more
penetrant to the surface of the part where it can be seen. Since dry powder developers
only stick to the area where penetrant is present, the dry developer does not provide a
uniform white background as the other forms of developers do. Having a uniform light
background is very important for a visible inspection to be effective and since dry
Developers Page 2 of 2
developers do not provide one, they are seldom used for visible inspections. When a dry
developer is used, indications tend to stay bright and sharp since the penetrant has a
limited amount of room to spread.
Water Soluble
As the name implies, water soluble developers

consist of a group of chemicals that are dissolved
in water and form a developer layer when the
water is evaporated away. The best method for
applying water soluble developers is by spraying
it on the part. The part can be wet or dry.
Dipping, pouring, or brushing the solution on to
the surface is sometimes used but these methods
are less desirable. Aqueous developers contain
wetting agents that cause the solution to function
much like dilute hydrophilic emulsifier and can
lead to additional removal of entrapped penetrant. Drying is achieved by placing the wet
but well drained part in a recirculating, warm air dryer with the temperature held between
70 and 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 Suspendable
Water suspendable developers consist of insoluble developer particles suspended in

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

a volatile solvent and are typically applied with a
spray gun. Nonaqueous developers are commonly
distributed in aerosol spray cans for portability.
The solvent tends to pull penetrant from the
indications by solvent action. Since the solvent is
highly volatile, forced drying is not required. A
nonaqueous developer should be applied to a
thoroughly dried part to form a slightly
translucent white coating.
Special Applications
Plastic or lacquer developers are special developers that are primarily used when a
permanent record of the inspection is required.
Preparation of Part Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Preparation of Part
Introduction
One of the most critical steps in the penetrant inspection History
Improving Detection
process is preparing the part for inspection. All coatings, —Visual Acuity
such as paints, varnishes, plating, and heavy oxides must —Contrast Sensitivity
be removed to ensure that defects are open to the surface —Eye's Response to Light
of the part. If the parts have been machined, sanded, or

Principles
blasted prior to the penetrant inspection, it is possible that Steps for Liquid PI
a thin layer of metal may have smeared across the surface Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
and closed off defects. It is even possible for metal
smearing to occur as a result of cleaning operations such PT Materials
as grit or vapor blasting. This layer of metal smearing Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
must be removed before inspection. —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
Contaminants —Viscosity
Coatings, such as paint, are much more elastic than metal —Dimensional Threshold
and will not fracture even though a large defect may be —Removability
present just below the coating. The part must be Emulsifiers
thoroughly cleaned as surface contaminates can prevent Developers
the penetrant from entering a defect. Surface

contaminants can also lead to a higher level of background noise since the excess Preparation
penetrant may be more difficult to remove. —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Common coatings and contaminates that must be removed include: paint, dirt, flux, scale, Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
varnish, oil, etchant, smut, plating, grease, oxide, wax, decals, machining fluid, rust, and Selecting Developer
residue from previous penetrant inspections.
Some of these contaminants would obviously prevent penetrant from entering defects, so Temperature
Penetrant
it is clear they must be removed. However, the impact of other contaminants such as the Dwell
residue from previous penetrant inspections is less clear, but they can have a disastrous Emulsifier
Wash
effect on the inspection. Take the link below to review some of the research that has been Drying
done to evaluate the effects of contaminants on LPI sensitivity. Developer
Lighting
Click here to learn more about possible problems with Cleaning Practices.
Defect Nature
A good cleaning procedure will remove all Health & Safety
contamination from the part and not leave any
residue that may interfere with the inspection References
process. It has been found that some alkaline
cleaners can be detrimental to the penetrant Quizzes
-
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
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Metho... 24/09/2009
Preparation of Part Page 2 of 2
strength. Microphotographs of cracks after plastic

media blasting showed media entrapment in addition to metal smearing.
It is very important that the material being inspected has not been smeared across its own
surface during machining or cleaning operations. It is well recognized that machining,
honing, lapping, hand sanding, hand scraping, grit blasting, tumble deburring, and
peening operations can cause some materials to smear. It is perhaps less recognized that
some cleaning operations, such as steam cleaning, can also cause metal smearing in the
softer materials. Take the link below to learn more about metal smearing and its affects
on LPI
Click here to learn more about metal smearing.
References:
Robinson, Sam J., Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing Methyl Chloroform in the
Penetrant Process, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 50, No. 8, August 1992, pp. 936-946.
Rummel, W., Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous Precleaners for Penetrant
Inspection, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 16, No. 5, August 1998, pp. 950-952.
Glazkov, Y.A., Some Technological Mistakes in the Application of Capillary Inspection

to Repairs of Gas Turbin Engines, translation from Defektoskopiya - The Soviet Journal
of Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 26, No. 3, New York, NY Plenum/Consultants Bureau,
January 1990, pp. 361-367.
Glazkov, Yu . A., Bruevich, E.P., and Samokhin, N.L, Special Features of Application of
Aqueous Solutions of Commercial Detergents in Capillary Flaw Inspection,
Defektoskopiya - The Soviet Journal of Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 19, No. 8, August
1982, pp. 83-87.
Research on Cleaning Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Summary of Research on Cleaning Prior to LPI
Introduction
The following is a summary of some of the articles that have been published on the History
Improving Detection
effects that some contaminants can have on penetrant inspection and also what effects —Visual Acuity
improper cleaning methods and materials can have on the inspection. —Contrast Sensitivity
Oils Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Klein showed that when a test specimen was contaminated with cutting oil, there was a Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
reduction in sensitivity even when the specimen was vapor degreased before inspection.
The specimens used for this study were quenched cracked 2024 aluminum blocks. The PT Materials
reduction in sensitivity was believed to be the result of incomplete removal of the cutting Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
oil from the defects. —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
Etchants —Viscosity
Klein warns that acid entrapment from a prepenetrant etch can have disastrous effects on —Dimensional Threshold
the penetrant inspection. The article states that the sodium hydroxide caustic often used to— Stability of Penetrants
—Removability
etch aluminum parts does not affect penetrants but that acids used to etch parts of other Emulsifiers
materials do have an effect. Experts in the penetrant field warn that caustics can in fact Developers
reduce penetrant brightness. Careful cleaning of both acid and caustic etches before
penetrant inspection is highly recommended. Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
-- Kleint, R. E., Deception by Penetrants, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 45, No. Technique Selection
7, July 1987, pp. 845-847, 850. Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
Residue from Previous Penetrant Inspections
Klein also found that the effectiveness of a penetrant was significantly reduced if the part Temperature
Penetrant
had been previously inspected with a different penetrant, although proper pre- and post- Dwell
cleaning (degreasing) operations had been performed. This was the case when the Emulsifier
Wash
previous inspection was performed with a different fluorescent penetrant or a visible dye Drying
penetrant. When the same penetrant system was used for both inspections, there was no Developer
Lighting
extensive loss in sensitivity when the specimens received the required pre- and post- System Performance Check
cleaning. Klein's study also showed that even the most careful post-cleaning operations
leave some penetrant in the defects. Other Considerations
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
-- Klein, R. E., An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Penetrants,
Nondestructive Testing, September- October, 1958, pp. 421-429. References
Researchers from the Canadian Armed Forces studied the effects of residual entrapped Quizzes
-
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.
In terms of cleaning penetrant system performance check specimens and nonproduction

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 Turbine 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 Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Material Smear and Its Removal
Introduction
History
Improving Detection
—Visual Acuity
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
PT Materials
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Material smearing can have a very detrimental effect on an LPI inspection as defects that Application Technique
are normally open to the surface can be partially or completely covered over. Some of the Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
processes that can cause material to smear include machining, honing, lapping, sanding,
scraping, grit blasting, tumble de burring, and preening operations. When high pressure is Quality & Process Control
used, some cleaning operations, such as vapor and steam cleaning, can also cause Temperature
Penetrant
material to smear in the softer materials. Softer materials, such as plastics and aluminum Dwell
alloys, are most prone to smearing but many other materials, such as steel, titanium and Emulsifier
Wash
Inconel alloys, have also been shown to smear. To evaluate the effect of a process on Drying
liquid penetrant inspection, cracked specimens are typically inspected before and after Developer
performing the potential smearing operation and a comparison between the inspection Lighting
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 Other Considerations
evaluation should be performed to determine if flaw detectability has been compromised. Defect Nature
If material smearing is a problem, an etching process can be used to remove the smeared Health & Safety
material prior to inspection. The curves below illustrate the effect that metal smearing canReferences
have on the probability of detection for a defect and how etching the sample surface
improves detectability. Quizzes
-
The top curve shows the probability of detecting a crack versus crack length for as-
machined aluminum specimens. The bottom curve 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 remove a
smeared metal. 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 of metal.
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.
Additional Material Smearing Information
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.
Technique Selection Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Selection of a Penetrant Technique
Introduction
The selection of a liquid penetrant History
Improving Detection
system is not a straightforward —Visual Acuity
task. There are a variety of —Contrast Sensitivity
penetrant systems and developer —Eye's Response to Light
types that are available for use,

Principles
and one set of penetrant materials Steps for Liquid PI
will not work for all applications. Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
Many factors must be considered
when selecting the penetrant PT Materials
materials for a particular Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
application. These factors include —Surface Energy
the sensitivity required, materials —Specific Gravity
cost, number of parts, size of area —Viscosity
requiring inspection, and —Why things Fluoresce
portability. —Dimensional Threshold
—Removability
When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a penetrant system, the first Emulsifiers
decision that must be made is whether to use fluorescent penetrant or visible dye Developers
penetrant. Fluorescent penetrants are generally more capable of producing a detectable

indication from a small defect. Also, the human eye is more sensitive to a light indication Methods & Techniques
Preparation
on a dark background and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication. —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
The graph below presents a series of curves that show the contrast ratio required for a Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
spot of a certain diameter to be seen. The ordinate is the spot diameter, which was viewed Selecting Developer
from one foot. The abscissa is the contrast ratio between the spot brightness and the
background brightness. To the left of the contrast ratio of one, the spot is darker than the Quality & Process Control
background (representative of visible dye penetrant testing); and to the right of one, the Temperature
Penetrant
spot is brighter than the background (representative of fluorescent penetrant inspection). Dwell
Each of the three curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one are for different Emulsifier
Wash
background brightness (in foot-Lamberts), but simply consider the general trend of each Drying
group of curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one. The curves show that for Developer
Lighting
indication larger than 0.076 mm (0.003 inch) in diameter, it does not really matter if it is System Performance Check
a dark spot on a light background or a light spot on a dark background. However, when a
dark indication on a light background is further reduced in size, it is no longer detectable Other Considerations
even though contrast is increased. Furthermore, with a light indication on a dark Defect Nature
Health & Safety
background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001 inch) were detectable when the
contrast between the flaw and the background was high. References
From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an advantage over a Quizzes
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.
Technique Selection Page 2 of 2
Ref: Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963 Lester Honor
Lecture, Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 354-368.
Under certain conditions, the visible penetrant may be a better choice. When fairly large
defects are the subject of the inspection, a high sensitivity system may not be warranted
and may result in a large number of irrelevant indications. Visible dye penetrants have
also been found to give better results when surface roughness is high or when flaws are
located in areas such as weldments.
Since visible dye penetrants do not require a darkened area for the use of an ultraviolet
light, visible systems are more easy to use in the field. Solvent removable penetrants,
when properly applied, can have the highest sensitivity and are very convenient to use.
However, they are usually not practical for large area inspection or in high-volume
production settings.
Another consideration in the selection of a penetrant system is whether water washable,

post-emulsifiable or solvent removable penetrants will be used. Post-emulsifiable systems
are designed to reduce the possibility of over-washing, which is one of the factors known
to reduce sensitivity. However, these systems add another step, and thus cost, to the
inspection process.
Penetrants are evaluated by the US Air Force according to the requirements in MIL-I-
25135 and each penetrant system is classified into one of five sensitivity levels. This
procedure uses titanium and Inconel specimens with small surface cracks produced in
low cycle fatigue bending to classify penetrant systems. The brightness of the indications
produced after processing a set of specimens with a particular penetrant system is
measured using a photometer. A procedure for producing and evaluating the penetrant
qualification specimens was reported on by Moore and Larson at the 1997 ASNT Fall
Conference. Most commercially available penetrant materials are listed in the Qualified
Products List of MIL-I-25135 according to their type, method and sensitivity level.
Visible dye and dual-purpose penetrants are not classified into sensitivity levels as
fluorescent penetrants are. The sensitivity of a visible dye penetrant is regarded as level 1
and largely dependent on obtaining good contrast between the indication and the
background.
Application and Dwell Time Page 1 of 5

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Penetrant Application and Dwell Time
Introduction
The penetrant material can be applied in a History
Improving Detection
number of different ways, including spraying, —Visual Acuity
brushing, or immersing the parts in a penetrant —Contrast Sensitivity
bath. The method of penetrant application has —Eye's Response to Light
little effect on the inspection sensitivity but an

Principles
electrostatic spraying method is reported to Steps for Liquid PI
produce slightly better results than other Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
methods. Once the part is covered in penetrant it
must be allowed to dwell so the penetrant has PT Materials
time to enter any defect present. Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
There are basically two dwell mode options, —Specific Gravity
immersion-dwell (keeping the part immersed in —Viscosity
the penetrant during the dwell period) and drain-dwell (letting the part drain during the —Why things Fluoresce
dwell period). Prior to a study by Sherwin, the —Dimensional Threshold
immersion-dwell mode was generally considered —Removability
to be more sensitive but recognized to be less Emulsifiers
economical because more penetrant was washed Developers
away and emulsifiers were contaminated more

rapidly. The reasoning for thinking this method Preparation
was more sensitive was that the penetrant was —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
more migratory and more likely to fill flaws Technique Selection
when kept completely fluid and not allowed to Application Technique
lose volatile constituents by evaporation. Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
However, Sherwin showed that if the specimens
are allowed to drain-dwell, the sensitivity is Quality & Process Control
higher because the evaporation increases the Temperature
Penetrant
dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the Dwell
specimen. As pointed-out in the section on Emulsifier
Wash
penetrant materials, sensitivity increases as the Drying
dyestuff concentration increases. Sherwin also Developer
cautions that the samples being inspected should Lighting
be placed outside the penetrant tank wall so that
vapors from the tank do not accumulate and Other Considerations
dilute the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant Defect Nature
Health & Safety
on the specimen.
References
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the Sensitivity
Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Quizzes
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 seep or
be drawn into a defect. Dwell times are usually recommended by the penetrant producers
or required by the specification being followed. The time required to fill a flaw depends
on a number of variables which include the following:
z The surface tension of the penetrant.

z The contact angle of the penetrant.
z 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.
z The atmospheric pressure at the flaw opening.
z The capillary pressure at the flaw opening.
z The pressure of the gas trapped in the flaw by the penetrant.
z The radius of the flaw or the distance between the flaw walls.
z The density or specific gravity of the penetrant.
z Microstructural properties of the penetrant.
The ideal dwell time is often determined by experimentation and is often very specific to
a particular application. For example, AMS 2647A requires that the dwell time for all
aircraft and engine parts be at least 20 minutes, while ASTM E1209 only requires a five
minute dwell time for parts made of titanium and other heat resistant alloys. Generally,
there is no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time as long as the penetrant is not
allowed to dry.
The following tables summarize the dwell time requirements of several commonly used
specifications. The information provided below is intended for general reference and no
guarantee is made about its correctness. Please consult the specifications for the actual
dwell time requirements.
Some Research Results on Dwell Time
An interesting point that Deutsch makes about dwell time is that if the elliptical flaw has
a length to width ratio of 100, it will take the penetrant nearly ten times longer to fill than
it will a cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
-- Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing,

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

Titanium, Materials Evaluation, October 1975, pp. 249-256.
Penetrant Removal Process Page 1 of 3

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Penetrant Removal Process
Introduction
The penetrant removal procedure must History
Improving Detection
effectively remove the penetrant from the —Visual Acuity
surface of the part without removing an —Contrast Sensitivity
appreciable amount of entrapped penetrant —Eye's Response to Light
from the defect. If the removal process

Principles
extracts penetrant from the flaw, the flaw Steps for Liquid PI
indication will be reduced by a proportional Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
amount. If the penetrant is not effectively
removed from the part surface, the contrast PT Materials
between the indication and the background Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
will be reduced. As discussed in the Contrast —Surface Energy
Sensitivity Section, as the contrast increases, —Specific Gravity
so does visibility of the indication. —Viscosity
Removal Method —Dimensional Threshold
—Removability
Penetrant systems are classified into four methods of excess penetrant removal. These Emulsifiers
include the following: Developers

1. Method A: Water-Washable Preparation
2. Method B: Post-Emulsifiable, Lipophilic —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
3. Method C: Solvent Removable Technique Selection
4. Method D: Post-Emulsifiable, Hydrophilic Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
Method C, Solvent Removable, is used primarily for inspecting small localized areas.
This method requires hand wiping the surface with a cloth moistened with the solvent Quality & Process Control
remover, and is, therefore, too labor intensive for most production situations. Of the three Temperature
Penetrant
production penetrant inspection methods, Method A, Water-Washable, is the most Dwell
economical to apply. Water-washable or self-emulsifiable penetrants contain an Emulsifier
Wash
emulsifier as an integral part of the formulation. The excess penetrant may be removed Drying
from the object surface with a simple water rinse. These materials have the property of Developer
forming relatively viscous gels upon contact with water, which results in the formation of Lighting
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 Other Considerations
Defect Nature
removal. Thus, water-washable penetrant systems provide ease of use and a high level of Health & Safety
sensitivity.
References
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 Quizzes
-
require a separate emulsifier to breakdown the penetrant and make it water washable. The
part is usually immersed in the emulsifier but hydrophilic emulsifiers may also be
sprayed on the object. Spray application is not recommended for lipophilic emulsifiers
because it can result in non-uniform emulsification if not properly applied. Brushing the
emulsifier on to the part is not recommended either because the bristles of the brush may
force emulsifier into discontinuities, causing the entrapped penetrant to be removed. The
emulsifier is allowed sufficient time to react with the penetrant on the surface of the part
but not given time to make its way into defects to react with the trapped penetrant. The
penetrant that has reacted with the emulsifier is easily cleaned away. Controlling the
reaction time is of essential importance when using a post-emulsifiable system. If the
emulsification time is too short, an excessive amount of penetrant will be left on the
surface, leading to high background levels. If the emulsification time is too long, the
emulsifier will react with the penetrant entrapped in discontinuities, making it possible to
deplete the amount needed to form an indication.
The hydrophilic post-emulsifiable method (Method D) is more sensitive than the

lipophilic post-emulsifiable method (Method B). Since these methods are generally only
used when very high sensitivity is needed, the hydrophilic method renders the lipophilic
method virtually obsolete. The major advantage of hydrophilic emulsifiers is that they are
less sensitive to variation in the contact and removal time. While emulsification time
should be controlled as closely as possible, a variation of one minute or more in the
contact time will have little effect on flaw detectability when a hydrophilic emulsifier is
used. On the contrary, a variation of as little as 15 to 30 seconds can have a significant
effect when a lipophilic system is used. Using an emulsifier involves adding a couple of
steps to the penetrant process, slightly increases the cost of an inspection. When using an
emulsifier, the penetrant process includes the following steps (extra steps in bold): 1. pre-
clean part, 2. apply penetrant and allow to dwell, 3. pre-rinse to remove first layer of
penetrant, 4. apply hydrophilic emulsifier and allow contact for specified time, 5.
rinse to remove excess penetrant, 6. dry part, 7. apply developer and allow part to
develop, and 8. inspect.
Rinse Method and Time for Water-Washable Penetrants
The method used to rinse the excess penetrant from the object surface and the time of the
rinse should be controlled so as to prevent over-washing. It is generally recommended
that a coarse spray rinse or an 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 rag moistened with cleaner. One dry pass followed by one damp
pass is all that is recommended. Additional wiping may sometimes be necessary; but
keep in mind that with every additional wipe, some of the entrapped penetrant will be
removed and inspection sensitivity will be reduced.
To study the effects of the wiping process, Japanese researchers manufactured a test
specimen out of acrylic plates that allowed them to view the movement of the penetrant
in a narrow cavity. The sample consisted of two pieces of acrylic with two thin sheets of
vinyl clamped between as spaces. The plates were clamped in the corners and all but one
of the edges sealed. The unsealed edge acted as the flaw. The clearance between the
plates varied from 15 microns (0.059 inch) at the clamping points to 30 microns (0.118
inch) at the midpoint between the clamps. The distance between the clamping points was
believed to be 30 mm (1.18 inch).
Although the size of the flaw represented by this specimen is large, an interesting
observation was made. They found that when the surface of the specimen was wiped with
a dry cloth, penetrant was blotted and removed from the flaw at the corner areas where
the clearance between the plate was the least. When the penetrant at the side areas was
removed, penetrant moved horizontally from the center area to the ends of the simulated
crack where capillary forces are stronger. Therefore, across the crack length, the
penetrant surface has a parabola-like shape where the liquid is at the surface in the
corners but depressed in the center. This shows that each time the cleaning cloth touches
the edge of a crack, penetrant is lost from the defect. This also explains why the bleedout
of an indication is often largest at the corners of cracks.
-- Senda, T., Maeda, N., Kato, M., Ebata, M., Ooka, K., and Miyoshi, S., Factors
Involved in Formation of Penetrant Testing Indications, NDE in the Nuclear Industry:

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, November -
December 1984, pp. 807-810.
Use and Selection of Developer Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Use and Selection of a Developer
Introduction
The use of developer is almost always recommended. One study reported that the output History
Improving Detection
from a fluorescent penetrant could be multiplied by up to seven times when a suitable —Visual Acuity
powder developer was used. Another study showed that the use of developer can have a —Contrast Sensitivity
dramatic effect on the probability of detection (POD) of an inspection. When a Haynes —Eye's Response to Light
Alloy 188, flat panel specimen with a low-cycle fatigue crack was inspected without a
Principles
developer, a 90 % POD was never reached with crack lengths as long as 19 mm (0.75 Steps for Liquid PI
inch). The operator detected only 86 of 284 cracks and had 70 false-calls. When a Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
developer was used, a 90 % POD was reached at 2 mm (0.077 inch), with the inspector
identifying 277 of 311 cracks with no false-calls. However, some authors have reported PT Materials
that in special situations, the use of a developer may actually reduce sensitivity. These Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
situations primarily occur when large, well defined defects are being inspected on a —Surface Energy
surface that contains many nonrelevant indications that cause excessive bleedout. —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
Type of Developer Used and Method of Application —Why things Fluoresce
Nonaqueous developers are generally recognized as the most sensitive when properly —Removability
applied. There is less agreement on the performance of dry and aqueous wet developers, Emulsifiers
but the aqueous developers are usually considered more sensitive. Aqueous wet Developers
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, Preparation
aqueous wet developers can cause leaching and blurring of indications when used with —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
water-washable penetrants. The relative sensitivities of developers and application Technique Selection
techniques as ranked in Volume II of the Nondestructive Testing Handbook are shown in Application Technique
the table below. There is general industry agreement with this table, but some industry Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
experts feel that water suspendable developers are more sensitive than water-soluble
developers. Quality & Process Control
Temperature
Penetrant
Sensitivity ranking of developers per the Nondestructive Testing Handbook. Dwell
Sensitivity Ranking (highest to lowest) Developer Form Application Technique. Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Ranking Developer Form Method of Application Lighting
1 Nonaqueous, Wet Solvent Spray System Performance Check
2 Plastic Film Spray
3 Water-Soluble Spray Other Considerations
Defect Nature
4 Water-Suspendable Spray Health & Safety
5 Water-Soluble Immersion
6 Water-Suspendable Immersion References
7 Dry Dust Cloud (Electrostatic)

Quizzes
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.
Developer Advantages Disadvantages
Indications tend to remain Does not form contrast

Dry
brighter and more distinct background so cannot be
over time used with visible systems
Use and Selection of Developer Page 2 of 2
Easily to apply Difficult to assure entire

part surface has been
coated
Coating is translucent and
Ease of coating entire part
provides poor contrast (not
recommended for visual
White coating for good systems)
Soluble contrast can be produced
which work well for both
Indications for water
visible and fluorescent
washable systems are dim
systems
and blurred
Ease of coating entire part
Indications are bright and

sharp
Indications weaken and
Suspendable
White coating for good become diffused after time
contrast can be produced
which work well for both
visible and fluorescent
systems
Very portable
Easy to apply to readily

accessible surfaces
White coating for good Difficult to apply evenly to

contrast can be produced all surfaces
Nonaqueous which work well for both
visible and fluorescent More difficult to clean part
systems after inspection
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.
Research on Developer Use
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.
QC of Temperature Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Process Control of Temperature
Introduction
History
The temperature of the penetrant materials and the part being Improving Detection
inspected can have an effect on the results. Temperatures —Visual Acuity
from 27 to 49oC (80 to 120oF) are reported in the literature to —Eye's Response to Light
produce optimal results. Many specifications allow testing in
the range of 4 to 52oC (40 to 125oF). A tip to remember is Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
that surfaces that can be touched for an extended period of Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
time without burning the skin are generally below 52oC
(125oF). PT Materials
Penetrants
Since the surface tension of most materials decrease as the temperature increases, raising —Surface Energy
the temperature of the penetrant will increase the wetting of the surface and the capillary —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
forces. Of course, the converse is also true, so lowering the temperature will have a —Color and Fluorescence
negative effect on the flow characteristics. Raising the temperature will also raise the —Why things Fluoresce
speed of evaporation of penetrants, which can have a positive or negative effect on —Dimensional Threshold
sensitivity. The impact will be positive if the evaporation serves to increase the dye —Removability
concentration of the penetrant trapped in a flaw up to the concentration quenching point Emulsifiers
Developers
and not beyond. Higher temperatures and more rapid evaporation will have a negative
effect if the dye concentration exceeds the concentration quenching point, or the flow Methods & Techniques
characteristics are changed to the point where the penetrant does not readily flow. Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
The method of processing a hot part was once commonly employed. Parts were either Technique Selection
heated or processed hot off the production line. In its day, this served to increase Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
inspection sensitivity by increasing the viscosity of the penetrant. However, the penetrant Selecting Developer
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 Quality & Process Control
Temperature
longer recommended. Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Quality... 24/09/2009
QC of Penetrants Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Quality Control of Penetrant
Introduction
The quality of a penetrant inspection is highly dependent on the quality of the penetrant History
Improving Detection
materials used. Only products meeting the requirements of an industry specification, such — Visual Acuity
as AMS 2644, should be used. Deterioration of new penetrants primarily results from —Contrast Sensitivity
aging and contamination. Virtually all organic dyes deteriorate over time, resulting in a —Eye's Response to Light
loss of color or fluorescent response, but deterioration can be slowed with proper
Principles
storage. When possible, keep the materials in a closed container and protect from Steps for Liquid PI
freezing and exposure to high heat. Freezing can cause separation to occur and exposure Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
to high temperature for a long period of time can affect the brightness of the dyes.
PT Materials
Contamination can occur during storage and use. Of course, open tank systems are much Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
more susceptible to contamination than are spray systems. Contamination by another —Surface Energy
liquid will change the surface tension and contact angle of the solution. Water is the —Specific Gravity
most common contaminant. Water-washable penetrants have a definite tolerance limit —Viscosity
for water, and above this limit they do not function properly. Cloudiness and viscosity —Color and Fluorescence
both increase with increasing water content. In self-emulsifiable penetrants, water —Dimensional Threshold
contamination can produce a gel break or emulsion inversion when the water —Removability
concentration becomes high enough. The formation of the gel is an important feature Emulsifiers
during the washing processes, but must be avoided until that stage in the process. Data Developers
indicates that the water contamination must be significant (greater than 10%) for gel
formation to occur. Most specifications limit water contamination to around 5% to be Preparation
conservative. Water does not readily mix with the oily solution of lipophilic post- —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
emulsifiable systems and it generally settles to the bottom of the tank. However, the Technique Selection
inspection of parts that travel to the bottom of the tank and encounter the water could be Application Technique
adversely affected. Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
Most other common contaminates, such as cleaning solvents, oils, acids, caustics and Quality & Process Control
chromates, must be present in significant quantities to affect the performance of the Temperature
Penetrant
penetrant. Organic contaminants can dilute the dye and absorb the ultraviolet radiation Dwell
before it reaches the dye, and also change the viscosity. Acids, caustics, and chromates Emulsifier
Wash
cause the loss of fluorescence in water-soluble penetrants. Drying
Developer
Lighting
Regular checks must be performed to ensure that the material performance has not System Performance Check
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 Other Considerations
standard specimen should be stored in a sealed, opaque glass or metal container. Defect Nature
Health & Safety
Penetrants that are in-use should be compared regularly to the standard specimen to
detect changes in color, odor and consistency. When using fluorescent penetrants, a References
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 Quizzes
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).
QC of Wash Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Quality Control of Wash Temperature and Pressure
Introduction
The wash temperature, pressure and time are three parameters that are typically History
Improving Detection
controlled in penetrant inspection process specification. A coarse spray or an immersion —Visual Acuity
wash tank with air agitation is often used. When the spray method is used, the water —Contrast Sensitivity
pressure is usually limited to 276 kN/m2 (40 psi). The temperature range of the water is —Eye's Response to Light
usually specified as a wide range (e.g.. 10 to 38oC (50 to 100oF) in AMS 2647A.) A low- Principles
pressure, coarse water spray will force less water into flaws to dilute and/or remove Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
trapped penetrant and weaken the indication. The temperature will have an effect on the Pros and Cons of PI
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 PT Materials
effective. The wash time should only be as long as necessary to decrease the background Penetrant
Penetrants
Testing Matl's
to an acceptable level. Frequent visual checks of the part should be made to determine —Surface Energy
when the part has be adequately rinsed. —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
Summary of Research on Wash Method Variables —Why things Fluoresce
Vaerman evaluated the effect that rinse time had on one high sensitivity water-washable —Removability
penetrant and two post-emulsifiable penetrants (one medium and one high sensitivity). Emulsifiers
Developers
The evaluation was conducted using TESCO panels with numerous cracks ranging in
depth from five to 100 microns deep. A 38% decrease in sensitivity for the water- Methods & Techniques
washable penetrant was seen when the rinse time was increased from 25 to 60 seconds. Preparation
When the rinse times of two post-emulsifiable penetrants were increased from 20 to 60 — Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
seconds, a loss in sensitivity was seen in both cases, although much reduced from the loss Technique Selection
seen with the water-washable system. The relative sensitivity loss over the range of crack Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
depths was 13% for the penetrant with medium sensitivity. Selecting Developer
-- Vaerman, J., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Quantified Evolution of the Sensitivity Quality & Process Control
Temperature
Versus Process Deviations, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Non- Penetrant
Destructive Testing, Pergamon Press, Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New Dwell
Emulsifier
York, Volume 4, September 1987, pp. 2814-2823. Wash
Drying
Developer
In a 1972 paper by N.H. Hyam, the effects of the rinse time on the sensitivity of two level Lighting
4 water-washable penetrants were examined. It was reported that sensitivity decreased as System Performance Check
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 Defect Nature
soluble in water and can be leached out during the washing processes. Health & Safety
-- Hyam, N. H., Quantitative Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Penetrant References
Systems, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 1972, pp. 31-38.
Quizzes
-
Brittian evaluated the effect of wash time on a water-washable, level 4 penetrant (Ardrox
970P25) and found that indication brightness decreases rapidly in the first minute of wash
and then slows. The brightness value dropped from a relative value of 1100 to
approximately 500 in the first minute and then continued to decrease nearly linearly to a
value of 200 after five minutes of wash. Brittian concluded that wash time for water-
washable systems should be kept to a minimum.
-- Brittain, P.I., Assessment of Penetrant Systems by Fluorescent Intensity, Proceedings

of the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 4, Published by
Perganon Press, 1988, pp. 2814-2823.
Robinson and Schmidt used a Turner fluorometer to evaluate the variability that some of
QC of Wash Page 2 of 2
the processing steps can produce in the brightness of indications. To find out how much
effect the wash procedure had on sensitivity, Tesco cracked, chrome-plated panels, were
processed a number of times using the same materials but three different wash methods.
The washing methods included spraying the specimens with a handheld nozzle, holding
the specimens under a running tap, and using a washing machine that controlled the water
pressure, temperature, spray pattern and wash time. The variation in indication brightness
readings between five trials was reported. The variation was 16% for the running tap
water, 14% for the handheld spray nozzle and 4.5% for the machine wash.
-- Robinson, S. J. and Schmidt, J. T., Fluorescent Penetrant Sensitivity and Removability

- What the Eye Can See, a Fluorometer Can Measure, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 42, No.
8, July 1984, pp. 1029-1034.

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Quality Control of Drying Process
Introduction
History
The temperature used to dry parts after the application of an aqueous wet developer or Improving Detection
prior to the application of a dry powder or a nonaqueous wet developer, must be —Visual Acuity
controlled to prevent "cooking" of the penetrant in the defect. High drying temperature —Eye's Response to Light
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 Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
cause the penetrant to dry in the the flaw, preventing it from migrating to the surface to Common Uses for PI
produce an indication. To prevent harming the penetrant material, drying temperature Pros and Cons of PI
should be kept to under 71oC.

PT Materials
The drying should be limited to the minimum length of time necessary to thoroughly dry Penetrants
—Surface Energy
the component being inspected. —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
QC of Developer Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Quality Control of Developer
Introduction
The function of the developer is very important in a penetrant inspection. It must draw History
Improving Detection
out of the discontinuity a sufficient amount of penetrant to form an indication, and it must — Visual Acuity
spread the penetrant out on the surface to produce a visible indication. In a fluorescent —Contrast Sensitivity
penetrant inspection, the amount of penetrant brought to the surface must exceed the —Eye's Response to Light
dye's thin film threshold of fluorescence, or the indication will not fluoresce.
Principles
Additionally, the developer makes fluorescent indications appear brighter than Steps for Liquid PI
indications produced with the same amount of dye but without the developer. Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
In order to accomplish these functions, a developer must adhere to the part surface and PT Materials
result in a uniform, highly porous layer with many paths for the penetrant to be moved Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
due to capillary action. Developers are either applied wet or dry, but the desired end —Surface Energy
result is always a uniform, highly porous, surface layer. Since the quality control —Specific Gravity
requirements for each of the developer types is slightly different, they will be covered —Viscosity
individually. —Why things Fluoresce
Dry Powder Developer —Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers
A dry powder developer should be checked daily to ensure that it is fluffy and not caked.
It should be similar to fresh powdered sugar and not granulated like powdered soap. It Methods & Techniques
should also be relatively free from specks of fluorescent penetrant material from previous Preparation
inspection. This check is performed by spreading a sample of the developer out and —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
examining it under UV light. If there are ten or more fluorescent specks in a 10 cm Technique Selection
diameter area, the batch should be discarded. Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
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 Quality & Process Control
blowing on the surface with air not exceeding 35 kPa or 5 psi. Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Wet Soluble/Suspendable Developer Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Wet soluble developer must be completely dissolved in the water and wet suspendable Developer
Lighting
developer must be thoroughly mixed prior to application. The concentration of powder in System Performance Check
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 Other Considerations
Defect Nature
specification. To check for contamination, the solution should be examined weekly using Health & Safety
both white light and UV light. If a scum is present or the solution fluoresces, it should be
replaced. Some specifications require that a clean aluminum panel be dipped in the References
developer, dried, and examined for indications of contamination by fluorescent penetrant
materials. Quizzes
-
These developers are applied immediately after the final wash. A uniform coating should
be applied by spraying, flowing or immersing the component. They should never be
applied with a brush. Care should be taken to avoid a heavy accumulation of the
developer solution in crevices and recesses. Prolonged contact of the component with the
developer solution should be avoided in order to minimize dilution or removal of the
penetrant from discontinuities.
Solvent Suspendable (AKA Nonaqueous Wet)
Solvent suspendable developers are typically supplied in an sealed aerosol spray can.
Since the developer solution is in a sealed vessel, direct check of the solution is not
QC of Developer Page 2 of 2
possible. However, the way that the developer is dispensed must be monitored. The spray
developer should produce a fine, even coating on the surface of the part. Make sure the
can is well shaken and apply a thin coating to a test article. If the spray produces spatters
or an uneven coating, the can should be discarded.
When applying a solvent suspendable developer, it is up to the inspector to control the

thickness of the coating. with a visible penetrant system, the developer coating must be
thick enough to provide a white contrasting background but not heavy enough to mask
indications. When using a fluorescent penetrant system, a very light coating should be
used. The developer should be applied under white light and should appear evenly
transparent.
Development Time
Parts should be allowed to develop for a minimum of 10 minutes and no more than 2
hours before inspecting.
QC of Lighting Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Quality Control of Lighting
Introduction
After a component has been properly processed, History
Improving Detection
it is ready for inspection. While automated vision —Visual Acuity
inspection systems are sometimes used, the focus —Contrast Sensitivity
here will be on inspections performed visually by —Eye's Response to Light
a human inspector, as this is the dominant

Principles
method. Proper lighting is of great importance Steps for Liquid PI
when visually inspecting a surface for a penetrant Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
indication. Obviously, the lighting requirements
are different for an inspection conducted using a PT Materials
visible dye penetrant than they are for an Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
inspection conducted using a fluorescent dye —Surface Energy
penetrant. The lighting requirements for each of —Specific Gravity
these techniques, as well as how light —Viscosity
measurements are made, are discussed below. —Why things Fluoresce
Lighting for Visible Dye Penetrant Inspections —Removability
Emulsifiers
When using a visible penetrant, the intensity of the white light is of principal importance. Developers
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 Preparation
inspectors must stay constantly aware of the lighting conditions and make adjustments —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
when needed. To improve uniformity in lighting from one inspection to the next, the use Technique Selection
of artificial lighting is recommended. Artificial lighting should be white whenever Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
possible and white flood or halogen lamps are most commonly used. The light intensity is Selecting Developer
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 Quality & Process Control
that could distract from the inspection. Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Lighting for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
When a fluorescent penetrant is being employed, the ultraviolet (UV) illumination and Developer
Lighting
the visible light inside the inspection booth is important. Penetrant dyes are excited by System Performance Check
UV light of 365nm wavelength and emit visible light somewhere in the green-yellow
range between 520 and 580nm. The source of ultraviolet light is often a mercury arc lamp Other Considerations
Defect Nature
with a filter. The lamps emit many wavelengths and a filter is used to remove all but the Health & Safety
UV and a small amount of visible light between 310 and 410nm. Visible light of
wavelengths above 410nm interferes with contrast, and UV emissions below 310nm References
include some hazardous wavelengths.
Quizzes
-
Standards and procedures require verification of lens condition and light intensity. Black
lights should never be used with a cracked filter as output of white light and harmful
black light will be increased. The cleanliness of the filter should also be checked as a
coating of solvent carrier, oils, or other foreign materials can reduce the intensity by up to
as much as 50%. The filter should be checked visually and cleaned as necessary before
warm-up of the light.
Since fluorescent brightness is linear with respect to ultraviolet excitation, a change in the
intensity of the light (from age or damage) and a change in the distance of the light
source from the surface being inspected will have a direct impact on the inspection. For
UV lights used in component evaluations, the normally accepted intensity is 1000
microwatt per square centimeter when measured at 15 inches from the filter face
QC of Lighting Page 2 of 2
(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 lose intensity over time. In fact, a
bulb that is near the end of its operating life will often have an intensity of only 25% of
its original output.
Black light intensity will also be affected by voltage variations. A bulb that produces
acceptable intensity at 120 volts will produce significantly less at 110 volts. For this
reason it is important to provide constant voltage to the light. Also, most UV light must
be warmed up prior to use and should be on for at least 15 minutes before beginning an
inspection.
When performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection, it is important to keep white light to

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

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

distance of 15 inches from the filter face to the sensor. The sensor should be centered in
the light field to obtain and record the highest reading. UV spot lights are often focused,
so intensity readings will vary considerable over a small area. White lights are seldom
focused and depending on the wattage, will often produce in excess of the 100 fc at 15
inches. Many specifications do not require the white light intensity check to be conducted
at a specific distance.
System Performance Check Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Introduction
System performance checks involve processing a History
Improving Detection
test specimen with known defects to determine if —Visual Acuity
the process will reveal discontinuities of the size —Contrast Sensitivity
required. The specimen must be processed —Eye's Response to Light
following the same procedure used to process

Principles
production parts. A system performance check is Steps for Liquid PI
typically required daily, at the reactivation of a Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
system after maintenance or repairs, or any time
the system is suspected of being out of control. PT Materials
As with penetrant inspections in general, results Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
are directly dependent on the skill of the operator —Surface Energy
and, therefore, each operator should process a —Specific Gravity
panel. —Viscosity
The ideal specimen is a production item that has —Dimensional Threshold
natural defects of the minimum acceptable size. —Removability
Some specification delineate the type and size of Emulsifiers
the defects that must be present in the specimen Developers
and detected. Surface finish is will affect

washability so the check specimen should have Preparation
the same surface finish as the production parts being processed. If penetrant systems with —Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
different sensitivity levels are being used, there should be a separate specimen for each Technique Selection
system. Application Technique
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer
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 Quality & Process Control
panel are usually made of stainless steel that has been chrome plated on one half and Temperature
Penetrant
surfaced finished on the other half to produced the desired roughness. The chrome plated Dwell
section is impacted from the back side to produce a starburst set of cracks in the chrome. Emulsifier
Wash
There are five impacted areas to produce range of crack sizes. Each panel has a Drying
characteristic “signature” and variances in that signature are indications of process Developer
Lighting
variance. Panel patterns as well as brightness are indicators of process consistency or System Performance Check
variance.
Care of system performance check specimens is critical. Specimens should be handled Defect Nature
Health & Safety
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 References
inspected under UV light to make sure that it is clean and not already producing an
indication. Quizzes
-
Nature of the Defect Page 1 of 2

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Nature of the Defect
Introduction
The nature of the defect can have a large affect on sensitivity of a liquid penetrant History
Improving Detection
inspection. Sensitivity is defined as the smallest defect that can be detected with a high — Visual Acuity
degree of reliability. Typically, the crack length at the sample surface is used to define —Contrast Sensitivity
size of the defect. A survey of any probability-of-detection curve for penetrant inspection —Eye's Response to Light
will quickly lead one to the conclusion that crack length has a definite affect on
Principles
sensitivity. However, the crack length alone does not determine whether a flaw will be Steps for Liquid PI
seen or go undetected. The volume of the defect is likely to be the more important Common Uses for PI
feature. The flaw must be of sufficient volume so that enough penetrant will bleed back Pros and Cons of PI
out to a size that is detectable by the eye or that will satisfy the dimensional thresholds of PT Materials
fluorescence. Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
Above is an example of fluorescent penetrant inspection probability of detection (POD)
curve from the Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book. Please note References
that this curve is specific to one set of inspection conditions and should not be interpreted
to apply to other inspection situations. Quizzes
-
In general, penetrant inspections are more effective at finding
z 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.
z deeper flaws than shallow flaws. Deeper flaws will trap more penetrant than
shallow flaws, and they are less prone to over washing.
z flaws with a narrow opening at the surface than wide open flaws. Flaws with
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Inspect... 24/09/2009
Nature of the Defect Page 2 of 2
narrow surface openings are less prone to over washing.

z 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.
z 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.
z 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.
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 & Safety Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Health and Safety Precautions in Liquid Penetrant
Inspection Introduction
History
Improving Detection
When proper health and safety precautions are followed, liquid penetrant inspection —Visual Acuity
operations can be completed without harm to inspection personnel. However, there are a —Contrast Sensitivity
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 Principles
addressed, only a few of the most common concerns will be discussed here. Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
Chemical Safety
PT Materials
Whenever chemicals must be handled, certain precautions must be taken as directed by Penetrants
the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the chemicals. Before working with a —Surface Energy
chemical of any kind, it is highly recommended that the MSDS be reviewed so that —Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
proper chemical safety and hygiene practices can be followed. Some of the penetrant —Color and Fluorescence
materials are flammable and, therefore, should be used and stored in small quantities. —Why things Fluoresce
They should only be used in a well ventilated area and ignition sources avoided. Eye —Stability of Penetrants
protection should always be worn to prevent contact of the chemicals with the eyes. —Removability
Many of the chemicals used contain detergents and solvents that can dermatitis. Gloves Emulsifiers
Developers
and other protective clothing should be worn to limit contact with the chemicals.
Ultraviolet Light Safety Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Ultraviolet (UV) light or "black light" as it is sometimes called, has wavelengths ranging Technique Selection
from 180 to 400 nanometers. These wavelengths place UV light in the invisible part of Penetrant Removal
the electromagnetic spectrum between visible light and X-rays. The most familiar source Selecting Developer
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 Quality & Process Control
Temperature
and eyes. Excessive UV light exposure can cause painful sunburn, accelerate wrinkling Penetrant
and increase the risk of skin cancer. UV light can cause eye inflammation, cataracts, and Dwell
Emulsifier
retinal damage. Wash
Drying
Developer
Because of their close proximity, laboratory devices, like UV lamps, deliver UV light at a Lighting
much higher intensity than the sun and, therefore, can cause injury much more quickly. System Performance Check
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 Other Considerations
Defect Nature
hours after the exposure. Skin and eye damage occurs at wavelengths around 320 nm and Health & Safety
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 References
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 Quizzes
-
condition.
References Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
References and Resources
Introduction
History
Cartz, Louis, Nondestructive Testing, ASM Intl, Metals Park, OH, 1995, ISBN: Improving Detection
0871705176 —Visual Acuity
Introduction to Capillary Testing Theory, Borovikov, A.S. (Ed.), Minsk, Nauka i
Tekhnika Publishing, 1988 Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
Common Uses for PI
Liquid Penetrant Testing, Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Volume 2, Tracy, Noel Pros and Cons of PI
(Tech. Ed.), Moore, Patrick (Ed.) American Society for Nondestructive Testing,
PT Materials
Columbus, OH, 1999, ISBN 1-57117-028-6 Penetrant Testing Matl's
Penetrants
Larson, B.F., Study of the Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Liquid Penetrant —Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
Inspections: Review of Literature Published from 1970 to 1998, FAA Technical Report —Viscosity
Number DOT/FAA/AR-01/95, Office of Aviation Research, Washington, DC, Jan 2002 —Color and Fluorescence
(pdf 1.0 meg) —Dimensional Threshold
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
Penetrant Quizzes Page 1 of 1

-
Introduction to
Penetrant Testing
Penetrant Inspection Quizzes
Introduction
History
These quizzes draw from the same database of questions and differ only in the number of Improving Detection
questions presented. Each time a quiz is opened, a new set of random questions will be —Visual Acuity
produced from the database. The Collaboration for NDE Education does not record the —Eye's Response to Light
names of individuals taking a quiz or the results of a quiz.
Principles
Steps for Liquid PI
20 Question PT Quiz Common Uses for PI
Pros and Cons of PI
35 Question PT Quiz
PT Materials
50 Question PT Quiz Penetrants
—Surface Energy
—Specific Gravity
—Viscosity
—Removability
Emulsifiers
Developers

Preparation
—Cleaning Methods
—Metal Smear
Technique Selection
Penetrant Removal
Selecting Developer

Temperature
Penetrant
Dwell
Emulsifier
Wash
Drying
Developer
Lighting
Defect Nature
Health & Safety
References
Quizzes
-
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Quiz/P... 24/09/2009
Liquid Penetrant Inspection 20 Question Quiz Page 1 of 4
Liquid Penetrant Inspection 20

Question Quiz
~ First name ~ ~ Last name ~
Which level of penetrant is the most sensitive?

1 Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Developer times are usually in the range of:

2 10 minutes
10 seconds
20-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:

3 Should only be used on aerospace parts
Will also produce the largest amount of irrelevant indications
Can only be used on small parts less than 10 inches in surface area
Should not be used in the field
Which type of penetrant is less vulnerable to contamination from

4 cleaning fluid?
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Generally, there is no harm in using a longer penetrant dwell time

5 as long as the penetrant:
Is not allowed to dry
Stays viscous
Does not form clumps on the surface of the part
Is mixed with emulsifier
Which method of penetrant removal is solvent removable?
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Quiz/pt... 24/09/2009
6 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:

7 Penetrant fading
Developer fading
Emulsifier sensitivity
Emulsifier fading
Which emulsifier system is oil based?

8 Hydrophilic emulsifier
Lipophilic emulsifier
Solvent removable emulsifier
All of the above have an oil base
Which of the following should be removed in order to obtain a

9 good penetrant test?
Varnish
Oxides
Plating
All of the above
Which developer form is used for water soluble developer?

10 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d
Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?

11 Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?

12 Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
When solvent removable penetant is used:

13 Care must be taken when removing the penetrant from the surface
of the part
It should be washed off the surface of the part at an angle of 45
degrees
A low impact emulsifier should always be used
A solvent removable emulsifier should also be used
The performance of a penetrant:

14 Will remain consistent as long is it is stored in a temperature range
of 50 to 100o F
Will only degrade of the temperature exceeds 120o F
Can be affected by contamination and aging
Can be adjusted with the dwell time
Most specifications limit water contamination to around:

15 1 percent
2 percent
5 percent
10 percent
White light intensity at the surface of the part when using

16 fluorescent penetrant should be:
A minimum of 100 foot-candles
A maximum of 100 foot-candles
Wet developers are applied:

17 After the part has been dryed
Immediately after the excess penetrant has been removed from the
parts surface
After the emulsifer dwell time
After the part has been dipped in cleaner/remover
Minimum penetrant dwell times are usually:

18 1-5 minutes
1-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
60-100 minutes
Which method of penetrant removal is water washable?
19 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
When a permanent record is required which type of developer can

20 be used:
Lacquer developer
Nonaqueous developer
Layered developer
Peeling developer
Copyright The Collaboration for NDT Education..

Question Quiz

Stays viscous
Once the surface of the part has been cleaned properly, penetrant
2 can be applied by:
Spraying
Brushing
Dipping
All of the above
The threshold of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision is

3 about:
0.003 inches
0.03 inches
0.03 mm
0.3cm
When performing a liquid penetrant test, the surface of the part

4 under inspection should be:
Slightly damp
Clean and smooth to the touch
Free of oil, grease, water and other contaminants
All of the above
What is the optimal temperature of penetrant materials and the

5 part under inspection in order to obtain the best results?
50 to 80o F
80 to 120o F
35 to 100o F
80 to 100o F
A good cleaning procedure will:

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

7 1 percent
2 percent
5 percent
10 percent
LPI can be used to test most materials provided the surface of the
8 part is:
Heated to a temperature above 100o F

Is not extremely rough or porous
Smooth and uniform
Cleaned with number 005 grit
The source of ultraviolet light (UV) if often a:

9 Mercury arc lamp with filter
Wave shift arc lamp
UV lamp with filter
Filter over a minimum 100 watt light bulb
The total time the penetrant is in contact with the part surface is
10 called the:
Penetrant dwell time
Developer time
Emulsifier time
Penetrant evaporation time
Which method is used to primarily to inspect small localized areas?

11 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D

12 Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
When the excess penetrant is removed from the surface of the part,
13 a course water spray should be directed at an angle of:
20 degrees
45 degrees
90 degrees
It does not matter what angle the spray is applied
The water content of water washable penetrant:s:

14 Should be performed daily
Should be performed weekly
Should be performed monthly
Must be checked regularly
The pentrants that are used to detect the smallest defects:

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

parts surface
Which type of penetrant is a fluorescent penetrant?

17 Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

18
Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
Which type of penetrant is most sensitive?

19 Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Which type of penetrant is less vulnerable to contamination from

20 cleaning fluid?
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Which emulsifier system is water based?

Type I emulsifier
Form A emulsifier
Nonaqeous developer is typically applied:

22 By dusting the surface of the part
By dipping the part is a mixed batch of developer
By splashing the surface with a brush
By aerosol spraying

23 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
A penetrant must:
24 Change viscosity in order to spread over the surface of the part
Spread easily over the surface of the material
Have a low flash point
Be able to change color in order to fluoresce
Which emulsifier system is oil based?

Solvent removable emulsifier

All of the above have an oil base
Application of the emulsifier should not be performed with a:

26 Spray
Brush
Dip
Both A and B
Which of the following is a disadvantage of LPI?

27 Only surface breaking flaws can be detected
Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity
Post cleaning is required
All of the above
Which developer form is used for dry powder developer?

28 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d
When fluorescent penetrant inspection is performed, the penetrant

29 materials are formulated to glow brightly and to give off light at a
wavelength:
Close to infrared light
Close to the wavelength of x-rays
That the eye is most sensitive to under dim lighting conditions
In the red spectrum
Developer times are usually in the range of:

30 10 minutes
10 seconds
20-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
When using a fluorescent penetrant, the brighness comparison is

31 performed to:
ASTM 410
API 410
ASNT TC-1A
ASTM E 1417
32
Water based, water washable penetrant are checked with a:
Centrifuge
Refractometer
Centrifuge scope
Crack block
When removing excess penetrant with water, the wash time should
33 be:
As long as the specifications allow
Based on the temperature of the part
As long as necessary to decrease the background to an acceptable
level
Longer if the water temperature increases
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified, lipophilic?

34 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
Which developer form is used for nonaqueous Type I developer?

35 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

Question Quiz

Stays viscous
When fluorescent penetrant inspection is performed, the penetrant

2 materials are formulated to glow brightly and to give off light at a
wavelength:
Close to infrared light
Close to the wavelength of x-rays
That the eye is most sensitive to under dim lighting conditions
In the red spectrum
White light intensity at the surface of the part when using a visible
3 dye penetrant should be:
Which developer form is used for water suspendible developer?

4 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d
If the surface of the part has been machined, sanded or grit

5 blasted:
The part may also require etching

It can be immersed in penetrant for its entire dwell time
It will require a shorter dwell time
It will need to be heated in order to open any cracks that have been
peened over
Raising the temperature will:

6 Raise the speed of evaporation of penetrants
Reduce the emulsifier time
Increase the developer time
Require the need of a post emulsified penetrant
Penetrant can be applied by:

7 Dipping
Brushing
Spraying
All of the above

parts surface
LPI can be used to test most materials provided the surface of the
9 part is:
Heated to a temperature above 100o F

Is not extremely rough or porous
Smooth and uniform
Cleaned with number 005 grit
Large defects can be hidden under a paint surface because:

10 The paint will fill in the cracks and change the fluorescence of the
penetrant
Paint is more elastic than metal and will not fracture
The penetrant will adhere to the paint resulting in maximum
fluorescence
All of the above apply
Dry developer can be applied:

11 To a wet part
To a partially wet part but needs to be placed in a dryer immediately
To a dry part
All of the above
When a permanent record is required which type of developer can

12 be used:
Lacquer developer
Nonaqueous developer
Layered developer
Peeling developer
The threshold of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision is

13 about:
0.003 inches
0.03 inches
0.03 mm
0.3cm
When removing excess penetrant with water, the wash time should
14 be:
As long as the specifications allow
Based on the temperature of the part
As long as necessary to decrease the background to an acceptable
level
Longer if the water temperature increases
Minimum penetrant dwell times are usually:

15 1-5 minutes
1-30 minutes
5-60 minutes
60-100 minutes
Which developer form is used for water soluble developer?

16 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified, lipophilic?

17 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
The source of ultraviolet light (UV) if often a:

18
Mercury arc lamp with filter
Wave shift arc lamp

UV lamp with filter
Filter over a minimum 100 watt light bulb
How often should the UV light intensity be performed?

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

20 Will only take place if the part has not been cleaned
Will occur because of the crossover between the penetrant and
developer
Will occur if the tank is not covered during the dwell time
Will change the surface tension and contact angle
Which developer form is used for dry powder developer?

21 Form a
Form b
Form c
Form d

22 Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Which of the following will produce higher sensitivity of a

23 penetrant test?
Leaving the part immersed in the penetrant for the entire dwell time
Leaving the part immersed in the wet developer for the entire
developer time
Using a nonaqueous wet developer
Allowing the specimen to drain-dwell during its dwell time
A penetrant must:
24 Change viscosity in order to spread over the surface of the part
Spread easily over the surface of the material
Have a low flash point
Be able to change color in order to fluoresce
Surface contaminants can lead to:

25 A shift in the fluorescent wavelength to a lower angstrom level
The part needing to be redipped in order to produce good results
Higher background fluorescence
All of the above
Application of the emulsifier should not be performed with a:

26 Spray
Brush
Dip
Both A and B
When the excess penetrant is removed from the surface of the part,
27 a course water spray should be directed at an angle of:
20 degrees
45 degrees
90 degrees
It does not matter what angle the spray is applied
POD stands for:

28 Product of discontinuities
Probability of defects
Probability of detection
Personnel over distributor
Which emulsifier system is water based?

Type I emulsifier
Form A emulsifier
Water based, water washable penetrant are checked with a:

30 Centrifuge
Refractometer
Centrifuge scope
Crack block
When using a fluorescent penetrant, the brighness comparison is

31 performed to:
ASTM 410
API 410
ASNT TC-1A
ASTM E 1417
A good cleaning procedure will:

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

33 Are most often used in the field
Should never be used in the field
Require a separate emulsifier to break the penetrant down and make
it water washable
Require a separate emulsifier to break down the cleaner and make it
solvent removable
Dye vaporization or sublimation can result in:

34 Penetrant fading
Developer fading
Emulsifier sensitivity
Emulsifier fading
Which of the following should be removed in order to obtain a

35 good penetrant test?
Varnish
Oxides
Plating
All of the above
The advantage that liquid penetrant testing has over an unaided

36 visual inspection is that:
The actual size of the discontinuity can be measured
The depth of the defect can be measured
The cause of the impact can be seen
It makes defects easier to see for the inspector
It is well recognized that machining, honing, lapping and hand

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

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

38 Dusting
Dipping
Spraying
All of the above
Which method is used to primarily to inspect small localized areas?

39 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
Water suspendible developers consist of a group of chemicals that

40 are:
Saturated in water and experience a chemical shift allowing it to
fluoresce on the parts surface
Only used on rough porous surfaces
Dissolved in water
Insoluble in water but can be suspended in the water after mixing or
agitation
Light intensity measurements are made using a:

41 Refractometer
Radiometer
Pie gauge
UV meter
The total time that the penetrant is in contact with the part surface
42 is called the:
Soak time
Baking time
Dwell time
Immersion time
Which developer is commonly considered as the least sensitive?

43 Dry developer
Non-aqueous wet developer
Hydrophilic developer
Lipophilic developer

44 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
White light intensity at the surface of the part when using

45 fluorescent penetrant should be:
Once the surface of the part has been cleaned properly, penetrant
46 can be applied by:
Spraying
Brushing
Dipping
All of the above
Which penetrant method is easiest to use in the field?

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

48 Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
Which method of penetrant removal is post emulsified,

49 hydrophilic?
Method A
Method B
Method C
Method D
The total time the penetrant is in contact with the part surface is
50 called the:
Penetrant dwell time
Developer time
Emulsifier time
Penetrant evaporation time

Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penetrant Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penetrant Testing Page 1 of 1

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Introduction to Penetrant Testing

Introduction Methods & Techniques

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

performed, the penetrant materials are formulated to glow

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Methods & Techniques

Quality & Process Control

X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Methods & Techniques

Quality & Process Control

Campbell, F. W. and Robson, J. G. (1968) Application of Fourier Analysis to the

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Methods & Techniques

Robinson, S. J. and Schmidt, J. T., Fluorescent Penetrant Sensitivity and Removability -

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

7. Inspection: Inspection is then performed under appropriate lighting to detect

Now you try it!

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

to inspect almost any material provided that its surface

z Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.) PT Materials

z Fatigue cracks References

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Primary Advantages Principles

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

characteristics. A penetrant must:

developed different formulations to address a

z Type 1 - Fluorescent Penetrants

Fluorescent penetrants contain a dye or

systems are more sensitive than visible

z Method A - Water Washable

z Level ½ - Ultra Low Sensitivity

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Methods & Techniques

Quality & Process Control

Force = 2 πrσ LG cosθ

r = radius of the crack opening (2pr is the line of contact

Capillary Pressure = (2 σ LG cosθ)/ r

Capillary Pressure = 2(σ SG - σs SL)/r = 2Σ /r

σ SG = the surface energy at the solid-gas interface.

Therefore, at times, it is the adhesion tension that is primarily responsible for a

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Force = hAp Methods & Techniques

P = density of the penetrant

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Penetrant Brightness References

Click here to learn why things fluoresce.

Gram, B., Mechanisms Contributing to Fluorescence and Visibility of Penetrants,

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Nondestructive Testing, May 1967,

Alburger, J.R., Signal-to-Noise Ratio in the Inspection Penetrant Process, Materials

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing

Where: Quality & Process Control

t = Thickness of the absorbing layer trolled to a certain degree

Gram, B., Mechanisms Contributing to Fluorescence and Visibility of Penetrants,

Home - Education Resources - NDT Course Material - Penetrant Testing