TITLE:- DYE PENETRANT INSPECTION(DPI) NAME:- ANUDEEP SHETTY Abstract:Dye Penetrant Inspection (DPI) and are two of the

most commonly used Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques in industry. Both techniques do rely heavily on human judgment and visual capability to identify any faults or defects on the specimen at the end of the process. Despite the fact that human plays an important role on the reliability of the NDT test results, very little research work has been carried out to study the ergonomics and human factors in using these NDT methods. In this paper, several human factors which could affect the reliability of the tests are discussed and some recommendations are also provided to improve the tests. Aim:Liquid penetrant inspection (LPI) is one of the most widely used nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. Its popularity can be attributed to two main factors: its relative ease of use and its flexibility. LPI can be used to inspect almost any material provided that its surface is not extremely rough or porous. Materials that are commonly inspected using LPI include Metals (aluminum, copper, steel, titanium, etc.),Glass,Many ceramic materials,Rubber,Plastics. Literature Review:Penetrant inspection systems have been developed to inspect some very large components. In DC-10 banjo fittings are being moved into a penetrant inspection system at what used to be the Douglas Aircraft Company's Long Beach, California facility. The large machined aluminum forgings are used to support the number two engine in the tail of a DC-10 aircraft. 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 MILI-25135 and Aerospace Material Specification 2644, Penetrant Inspection Materials. The reliability of non-destructive inspection has been a topic of concern for at least forty years and liquid penetrant testing was examined in the very earliest studies. In 1968, Packman et al. [14] reported on an in-depth investigation into the reliability of the four NDT methods in regular use for crack detection at that time: radiography, dye penetrant, magnetic particle and ultrasonics. They assigned a reliability index to each method which was a product of the sensitivity, accuracy to determine crack size, and accuracy to determine crack location. The experimental results did not show an increasing trend in reliability with crack size. The term minimum detectable flaw first appears in literature of this era and probability of detection (POD) a few years later NDT reliability was first quantified using POD as a function of defect size in a Martin Marietta Aerospace project funded by NASA to establish design allowable flaw sizes for the NASA Space Shuttle program in the early 1970s [16]. This project investigated the performance of a wide range of inspection techniques including

ultrasonics, fluorescent penetrant, radiography, acoustic emission and eddy current. The techniques were optimised for the detection of tightly closed cracks in 2219 T-87 aluminium alloy. The designallowable flaw sizes adopted by NASA were based on a demonstration of 95% POD with 95% statistical confidence. The raw hit/miss data obtained during this study have subsequently been reanalysed by Rummel and Matzkanin using modern analysis techniques for inclusion in the Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book , which will be discussed in Section 3.2. In the 1970s, the Lockheed Georgia Company, on behalf of the US Air Force Logistics Command, conducted a very significant program to determine the reliability of NDT in the USAF [18]. This study involved 21 different Air Force bases and 300 US Air Force NDT technicians and was probably the largest NDT reliability assessment exercise in history, which became known colloquially as the Have Cracks Will Travel study. This study was specifically designed to support the NDT reliability assumptions that were specified in MILA-83444 Airplane Damage Tolerance Design Requirements [19], which assumed that a 0.5 inch in-service flaw would have 90% POD demonstrable with 95% statistical confidence. Unfortunately, the program failed to demonstrate 90% POD with 95% confidence for any defect size using typical inspection techniques applied by the average technician. With one exception, the NDI techniques employed in the program demonstrated considerable difficulty achieving a 50 percent probability of detection with 95 percent confidence for inch crack sizes . The Have Cracks Will Travel study used a selection of ex-service aircraft components and specimens simulating aircraft components which contained laboratory generated fatigue cracks. Teardown of the components after the POD trial provided accurate information about the true defect population. There are no details provided in reference regarding the penetrant inspections applied, but it may reasonably be assumed that the inspections were performed using the standard processes in routine use at each USAF base at the time. The penetrant inspection results gave a best estimate 90% POD for defects of size a90 = 8.9 mm (0.35 inch) but the lower 95% confidence limit did not UNCLASSIFIED reach 90% for any defect size. In fact, the lower 95% confidence limit only approached 60% POD for a 20 mm defect. Despite these poor results, no changes were made to the detectable defect sizes assumed for the purpose of damage tolerance analysis, and the current standard, JSSG-2006, recommends exactly the same values as the 1974 standard, MIL-A-83444. However, the results from the Have Cracks study triggered corrective measures in USAF training programs to improve the POD through better technician performance, better equipment and better procedures . An extensive NDT reliability assessment program was undertaken by Martin Marietta during the 1980s for detection of fatigue cracks in the high-strength alloys, Inconel 718 and Haynes 188 . These trials included reliability assessments for liquid penetrant, eddy current and ultrasonic inspection methods. Reference [21] is significant because it includes direct comparison of the different forms of liquid penetrant testing. However, the statistical analysis of the hit/miss POD data in this report is simplistic. A point estimate of POD was found by dividing the data into crack length intervals. Confidence limits were applied to that estimate using binomial statistics, and POD curves were generated as a moving average with defect size. The Martin Marietta study included systematic comparison of the different penetrant types, sensitivity levels, method and form of developer. Table 2 gives an extract of data from reference [21] examining the performance of different penetrant types and sensitivity levels, which show that the false call rate increases systematically with increased sensitivity level but the estimated POD does not! Indeed, for Type 1 penetrants, the reported POD for

the crack length range 0.101 0.150 inch actually decreased with increasing penetrant sensitivity level. The data from this 1988 Martin Marietta study were reanalysed by Rummel and Matzkanin for inclusion in the NDE Capabilities Data Book [17]. However, whilst the data were reprocessed using more sophisticated statistical analysis, the data were subdivided to give separate POD curves for the different methods, technicians and institutions, resulting in 29 different POD curves presented for the water-washabble variant alone. This makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about the average performance of LPT. Data for other variants of LPT examined by the 1998 Martin Marietta study from reference [21] are not included in reference [17]. Main Topic:Below are the main steps of Liquid Penetrant Inspection: Pre-cleaning: The test surface is cleaned to remove any dirt, paint, oil, grease or any loose scale that could either keep penetrant out of a defect, or cause irrelevant or false indications. Cleaning methods may includesolvents, alkaline cleaning steps, vapor degreasing, or media blasting. The end goal of this step is a clean surface where any defects present are open to the surface, dry, and free of contamination. Note that if media blasting is used, it may "work over" small discontinuities in the part, and an etching bath is recommended as a post-blasting treatment. Application of Penetrant: The penetrant is then applied to the surface of the item being tested. The penetrant is allowed "dwell time" to soak into any flaws (generally 5 to 30 minutes). The dwell time mainly depends upon the penetrant being used, material being tested and the size of flaws sought. As expected, smaller flaws require a longer penetration time. Due to their incompatible nature one must be careful not to apply solvent-based penetrant to a surface which is to be inspected with a water-washable penetrant. Excess Penetrant Removal: The excess penetrant is then removed from the surface. The removal method is controlled by the type of penetrant used. Water-washable, solvent-removable,lipophilic postemulsifiable, or hydrophilic post-emulsifiable are the common choices. Emulsifiers represent the highest sensitivity level, and chemically interact with the oily penetrant to make it removable with a water spray. When using solvent remover and lint-free cloth it is important to not spray the solvent on the test surface directly, because this can remove the penetrant from the flaws. If excess penetrant is not properly removed, once the developer is applied, it may leave a background in the developed area that can mask indications or defects. In addition, this may also produce false indications severely hindering your ability to do a proper inspection. Application of Developer: After excess penetrant has been removed a white developer is applied to the sample. Several developer types are available, including: non-aqueous wet developer, dry powder, water suspendable, and water soluble. Choice of developer is governed by penetrant compatibility (one can't use water-soluble or suspendable developer with water-washable penetrant), and by inspection conditions. When using non-aqueous wet developer (NAWD) or dry powder, the sample must be dried prior to application, while soluble and suspendable developers are applied with the part still wet from the previous step. NAWD is commercially available in aerosol spray cans, and may employ acetone, isopropyl alcohol, or a propellant that is a combination of the two. Developer should form a semi-transparent, even coating on the surface. The developer draws penetrant from defects out onto the surface to form a visible indication, commonly known as bleed-out. Any areas that bleed-out can indicate the location, orientation and possible

types of defects on the surface. Interpreting the results and characterizing defects from the indications found may require some training and/or experience [the indication size is not the actual size of the defect] Inspection: The inspector will use visible light with adequate intensity (100 foot-candles or 1100 lux is typical) for visible dye penetrant. Ultraviolet (UV-A) radiation of adequate intensity (1,000 micro-watts per centimeter squared is common), along with low ambient light levels (less than 2 foot-candles) for fluorescent penetrant examinations. Inspection of the test surface should take place after 10 to 30 minute development time, depends of product kind. This time delay allows the blotting action to occur. The inspector may observe the sample for indication formation when using visible dye. It is also good practice to observe indications as they form because the characteristics of the bleed out are a significant part of interpretation characterization of flaws. Post Cleaning: The test surface is often cleaned after inspection and recording of defects, especially if post-inspection coating processes are scheduled. Objective:The main objective of dye pentrant inspection is to: Find out any crack or defect on the surface of the metal plate so as to give a better finished product. Used in almost all the industries which uses metals to make their finished product. This will in turn reduce the cracks in the finished product. The industry and military specifications that control penetrant materials and their use, all stipulate certain physical properties of the penetrant materials that must be met. Some of these requirements address the safe use of the materials, such as toxicity, flash point, and corrosiveness, and other requirements address storage and contamination issues. Still others delineate properties that are thought to be primarily responsible for the performance or sensitivity of the penetrants. The properties of penetrant materials that are controlled by AMS 2644 and MIL-I-25135E include flash point, surface wetting capability, viscosity, color, brightness, ultraviolet stability, thermal stability, water tolerance, and removability.

Hypothesis: DPI is based upon capillary action, where low surface tension fluid penetrates into clean and dry surface-breaking discontinuities. Penetrant may be applied to the test component by dipping, spraying, or brushing. After adequate penetration time has been allowed, the excess penetrant is removed and a developer is applied. The developer helps to draw penetrant out of the flaw so that an invisible indication becomes visible to the inspector.

Inspection is performed under ultraviolet or white light, depending on the type of dye used - fluorescent or nonfluorescent (visible). Penetrants are classified by sensitivity levels. Visible penetrants are typically light green in color, and represent the lowest sensitivity. Fluorescent penetrants contain two or more dyes that fluoresce when excited by ultraviolet (UV-A) radiation (also known as black light). Since fluorescent penetrant inspection is performed in a darkened environment, and the excited dyes emit brilliant yellow-green light that contrasts strongly against the dark background, this material is more sensitive to defects. When selecting a sensitivity level, many factors must be considered, including the environment under which the test will be performed, surface finish of the specimen, and size of defects sought. One must also ensure that the test chemicals are compatible with the sample so that the examination will not cause permanent staining or degradation. This technique can be quite portable because, in its simplest form, the inspection requires only 3 aerosol spray cans, lint free cloths, and adequate visible light. Stationary systems with dedicated application, wash, and development stations are more costly and complicated, but result in better sensitivity and higher sample throughput.

0.076 mm (0.003 inch) in diameter, it does not really matter if it is a dark spot on a light background or a 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 even though contrast is increased. Furthermore, with a light indication on a dark background, indications down to 0.003 mm (0.0001 inch) were detectable when the contrast between the flaw and the background was high.

Research Methodology:The selection of a liquid penetrant system is not a straightforward task. There are a variety of penetrant systems and developer types that are available for use, and one set of penetrant materials will not work for all applications. Many factors must be considered when selecting the penetrant materials for a particular application. These factors include the sensitivity required, materials cost, number of parts, size of area requiring inspection, and portability. When sensitivity is the primary consideration for choosing a penetrant system, the first decision that must be made is whether to use fluorescent penetrant or visible dye 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 on a dark background and the eye is naturally drawn to a fluorescent indication. The graph below presents a series of curves that show the contrast ratio required for a spot of a certain diameter to be seen. The ordinate is the spot diameter, which was viewed 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 background (representative of visible dye penetrant testing); and to the right of one, the spot is brighter than the background (representative of fluorescent penetrant inspection). Each of the three curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one are for different background brightness (in foot-Lamberts), but simply consider the general trend of each group of curves right or left of the contrast ratio of one. The curves show that for indication larger than

The penetrant material can be applied in a number of different ways, including spraying, brushing, or immersing the parts in a penetrant bath. The method of penetrant application has little effect on the inspection sensitivity but an electrostatic spraying method is reported to produce slightly better results than other methods. Once the part is covered in penetrant it must be allowed to dwell so the penetrant has time to enter any defect present. There are basically two dwell mode options, immersion-dwell (keeping the part immersed in the penetrant during the dwell period) and drain-dwell (letting the part drain during the dwell period). Prior to a study by Sherwin, the immersion-dwell mode was generally considered to be more sensitive but recognized to be less economical because more penetrant was washed away and emulsifiers were contaminated more rapidly. The reasoning for thinking this method was more sensitive was that the penetrant was more migratory and more likely to fill flaws when kept completely fluid and not allowed to lose volatile constituents by evaporation. However, Sherwin showed that if the specimens are allowed to drain-dwell, the sensitivity is higher because the evaporation increases the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the specimen. As pointed-out in the section on penetrant materials, sensitivity increases as the dyestuff concentration increases. Sherwin also cautions that the samples being inspected should be placed outside the penetrant tank wall so that vapors from the tank do not accumulate and dilute the dyestuff concentration of the penetrant on the specimen.

Implication:DPI is the most important non-destructive testing which can be done without destroying the metal. This can be used by each amd every industry whose raw material is metal. As it is the initial step to

find crack on the surface of the metal block before getting started by manufacturing of the product. It is higly applicable in automobile industries, metal industries, Aeronotic industries etc. This will help them to use proper penetrant for method of checking the cracks in metal. This will also reduce the cost of manufacture by reasonable amount. This will also help in deciding the method that can be used for applying the penetrant as that also plays a major role in this type of inspection as industries require confirm reports of the testing that you do on the raw material. This is also very cheap and portable as compared other type of testings to detect crack on or in the metal. Conclusion:Like all nondestructive inspection methods, liquid penetrant inspection has both advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages and disadvantages when compared to other NDE methods are summarized below. The method has high sensitivity to small surface discontinuities.The method has few material limitations, i.e. metallic and nonmetallic, magnetic and nonmagnetic, and conductive and nonconductive materials may be inspected.Large areas and large volumes of parts/materials can be inspected rapidly and at low cost.Parts with complex geometric shapes are routinely inspected.Indications are produced directly on the surface of the part and constitute a visual representation of the flaw.Aerosol spray cans make penetrant materials very portable.Penetrant materials and associated equipment are relatively inexpensive. Only surface breaking defects can be detected.Only materials with a relatively nonporous surface can be inspected.Precleaning is critical since contaminants can mask defects.Metal smearing from machining, grinding, and grit or vapor blasting must be removed prior to LPI.The inspector must have direct access to the surface being inspected.Surface finish and roughness can affect inspection sensitivity.Multiple process operations must be performed and controlled.Post cleaning of acceptable parts or materials is required.Chemical handling and proper disposal is required. The main advantages of DPI are the speed of the test and the low cost. Disadvantages include the detection of only surface flaws, skin irritation, and the inspection should be on a smooth clean surface where excessive penetrant can be removed prior to being developed. Conducting the test on rough surfaces, such-as "as-welded" welds, will make it difficult to remove any excessive penetrant and could result in false indications. Water-washable penetrant should be considered here if no other option is available. Also, on certain surfaces a great enough color contrast cannot be achieved or the dye will stain the workpiece.[1] Limited training is required for the operator although experience is quite valuable. Proper cleaning is necessary to assure that surface contaminants have been removed and any defects present are clean and dry. Some cleaning methods have been shown to be detrimental to test sensitivity, so acid etching to remove metal smearing and reopen the defect may be necessary

2. 3. 4.

Kohan, Anthony Lawrence, 1997, Boiler operator's guide (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 240. Flaherty, J. J., 1941-61, History of Penetrants: The First 20 Years, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 44, No. 12.. Boisvert, B.W., Hardy, G., Dorgan, J.F., and Selner, R.H., February 1983, The Fluorescent Penetrant Hydrophilic Remover Process, Materials Evaluation, pp. 134-137. Sherwin, A. G., March 1993, Overremoval Propensities of the Prewash Hydrophilic Emulsifier Fluorescent Penetrant Process, Materials Evaluation, pp. 294-299. Robinson, Sam J., August 1992, Materials Evaluation, Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! Replacing Methyl Chloroform in the Penetrant Process, Vol. 50, No. 8, pp. 936-946. Rummel, W., August 1998, Materials Evaluation, Cautions on the Use of Commercial Aqueous Precleaners for Penetrant Inspection, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 950-952. Glazkov, Y.A., January 1990, The Soviet Journal of Nondestructive Testing, New York, NY Plenum/Consultants Bureau, Some Technological Mistakes in the Application of Capillary Inspection to Repairs of Gas Turbin Engines, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 361367.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Refrences:1. Cartz, Louis, 1995, Nondestructive Testing, ASM Intl, Metals Park, OH,