Selection of a Penetrant

Technique

The selection of a liquid

penetrant system is not a
straightforward task. There are
a variety of penetrant systems
and developer types that are
available for use, and one set
of penetrant materials will not
work for all applications. Many
factors must be considered
when selecting the penetrant
materials for a particular
application. These factors
include the sensitivity required, materials cost, number of parts, 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 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.
From this data, it can be seen why a fluorescent penetrant offers an
advantage over a visible penetrant for finding very small defects. Data
presented by De Graaf and De Rijk supports this statement. They
inspected "identical" fatigue cracked specimens using a red dye penetrant
and a fluorescent dye penetrant. The fluorescent penetrant found 60
defects while the visible dye was only able to find 39 of the defects.

Ref: De Graaf, E. and De Rijk, P., Comparison Between Reliability,

Sensitivity, and Accuracy of Nondestructive Inspection Methods, 13th
Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation Proceedings, San Antonio, TX,
published by NTIAC, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, April
1981, pp. 311-322.

Ref: Thomas, W.E., An Analytic Approach to Penetrant Performance, 1963

Lester Honor Lecture, Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 21, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
1963, pp. 354-368.

Under certain conditions, the visible penetrant may be a better choice.

When fairly large defects are the subject of the inspection, a high sensitivity
system may not be warranted and may result in a large number of
irrelevant indications. Visible dye penetrants have also been found to give
better results when surface roughness is high or when flaws are located in
areas such as weldments.

Since visible dye penetrants do not require a darkened area for the use of
an ultraviolet light, visible systems are more easy to use in the field.
Solvent removable penetrants, when properly applied, can have the highest
sensitivity and are very convenient to use. 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.