Nature of the Defect

The nature of the defect can have a large affect on sensitivity of a liquid penetrant
inspection. Sensitivity is defined as the smallest defect that can be detected with a high
degree of reliability. Typically, the crack length at the sample surface is used to define
size of the defect. A survey of any probability-of-detection curve for penetrant inspection
will quickly lead one to the conclusion that crack length has a definite affect on
sensitivity. However, the crack length alone does not determine whether a flaw will be
seen or go undetected. The volume of the defect is likely to be the more important
feature. The flaw must be of sufficient volume so that enough penetrant will bleed back
out to a size that is detectable by the eye or that will satisfy the dimensional thresholds of
fluorescence.

Above is an example of fluorescent penetrant inspection probability of detection (POD)

curve from the Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book. Please note
that this curve is specific to one set of inspection conditions and should not be interpreted
to apply to other inspection situations.
In general, penetrant inspections are more effective at finding

small round defects than small linear defects. Small round defects are generally
easier to detect for several reasons. First, they are typically volumetric defects that
can trap significant amounts of penetrant. Second, round defects fill with

penetrant faster than linear defects. One research effort found that elliptical flaw
with length to width ratio of 100, will take the penetrant nearly 10 times longer to
fill than a cylindrical flaw with the same volume.
deeper flaws than shallow flaws. Deeper flaws will trap more penetrant than
shallow flaws, and they are less prone to over washing.
flaws with a narrow opening at the surface than wide open flaws. Flaws with
narrow surface openings are less prone to over washing.
flaws on smooth surfaces than on rough surfaces. The surface roughness of the
part primarily affects the removability of a penetrant. Rough surfaces tend to trap
more penetrant in the various tool marks, scratches, and pits that make up the
surface. Removing the penetrant from the surface of the part is more difficult and
a higher level of background fluorescence or over washing may occur.
flaws with rough fracture surfaces than smooth fracture surfaces. The surface
roughness that the fracture faces is a factor in the speed at which a penetrant
enters a defect. In general, the penetrant spreads faster over a surface as the
surface roughness increases. It should be noted that a particular penetrant may
spread slower than others on a smooth surface but faster than the rest on a rougher
surface.
flaws under tensile or no loading than flaws under compression loading. In a
1987 study at the University College London, the effect of crack closure on
detectability was evaluated. Researchers used a four-point bend fixture to place
tension and compression loads on specimens that were fabricated to contain
fatigue cracks. All cracks were detected with no load and with tensile loads placed
on the parts. However, as compressive loads were placed on the parts, the crack
length steadily decreased as load increased until a load was reached when the
crack was no longer detectable.

References:
Rummel, W.D. and Matzkanin, G. A., Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities
Data Book, Published by the Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center
(NTIAC), NTIAC #DB-95-02, May 1996.
Alburger, J.R., Dimensional Transition Effects in Visible Color and Fluorescent Dye
Liquids, Proceedings, 23rd Annual Conference, Instrument Society of America, Vol. 23,
Part I, Paper No. 564.
Deutsch, S. A, Preliminary Study of the Fluid Mechanics of Liquid Penetrant Testing,
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 84, No. 4, July-August
1979, pp. 287-291.
Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpaa, J., Reliability of Surface Inspection Methods, Proceedings
of the 12th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Vol.
2, Elsevier Science Publishing, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 1723-1728.

Vaerman, J. F., Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection Process, Automatic Method for

Sensitivity Quantification, Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Nondestructive
Testing, Volume III, Las Vegas, NV, November 1985, pp. 1920-1927.
Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963 Lester Honor
Lecture, Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 354-368.
Clark, R., Dover, W.D., and Bond, L.J., The Effect of Crack Closure on the Reliability of
NDT Predictions of Crack Size, NDT International, Vol. 20, No. 5, Guildford, United
Kingdom, Butterworth Scientific Limited, October 1987, pp. 269-275.