C

3
H A P T E R

Characteristics of Liquid
Penetrant and Processing
Materials

Vilma G. Holmgren, Magnaflux Division of Illinois Tool

Works, Glenview, Illinois
Bruce C. Graham, Arlington Heights, Illinois
Amos G. Sherwin, Sherwin Incorporated, South Gate,
California
PART 1. Liquid Properties of Liquid Penetrant
Penetrants and their ancillaries must have
physical properties that fall within fairly
narrow ranges. None are difficult to attain
but properties cannot stray very far from
optimum. The coverage of these topics is
essentially practical. Some physical
chemistry is included, particularly relating
to capillarity, light absorption and
scattering but not enough to require that
the reader be a professional physical
chemist. Discussions are limited to
descriptions of usable processes and how
they work. No effort is made to discuss
unproved processes or theories.
For readers who have interests in other
theories behind the mechanisms of
penetration, surface wetting, adsorption
and development and other fundamental
physical chemistries of liquid penetrant
testing, additional readings1-7 are
suggested.
Penetration
The very name penetrant suggests that the
ability to penetrate into voids is the major
feature of a penetrant. This is no doubt
true but it is not a critical feature. Very
nearly any liquid will wet a solid surface
and penetrate into voids. In fact, it is not
easy to find a liquid that will not
penetrate. If it wets, it will penetrate; if
not, it will not.
Wetting of smooth, chemically clean
surfaces has been studied extensively with
relationships worked out between surface
tension, interfacial tension, wetting
contact angle, energy of adhesion. None
are very appropriate because many of
these quantities are not measurable on the
kinds of surfaces that are tested with
liquid penetrant. Even a cleaned surface
can pick up a molecular monolayer of oil
or oxide in a very short time. The
slightest taint of oil on a surface can
change a surface and cause a penetrant
film to become less wet and to pull up
into droplets. As a practical matter, this is
not too serious. Reapplication of
penetrant will usually dissolve this film
and allow testing to proceed.
Surface tension can be defined as the
force needed to expand (or pull apart) the
surface of a liquid. It results from the
attraction of all the molecules within the
liquid for each other. At the surface, with
no more liquid outside, the net force is
84 Liquid Penetrant Testing
toward the liquids interior, and the
surface acts like a skin. It acts to minimize
the surface area of the liquid and it
requires effort (the surface tension) to
stretch this skin.
Contact angle is the measured angle
that a drop of liquid makes with a solid
surface. If contact angle is zero, cos = 1
and the liquid will wet and spread. If the
contact angle is 90 degrees or more, cos
= 0 and the liquid will not wet but will
remain as a rounded drop. Intermediate
contact angles indicate intermediate
degrees of wetting. Contact angles can be
measured on special sample surfaces with
special equipment.
Energy of adhesion is a measure of the
strength of attraction of a liquid to a solid
surface and is of more theoretical than
practical value.
Penetration of a discontinuity is
primarily a capillary effect. The forces
involved are those associated with
capillary action and are called capillary
pressure or excess surface pressure. This
pressure is given by Eq. 1:
2
(1) P =
R
where is the surface tension of the liquid
and R is the radius of curvature of the
liquid surface. The effect of this capillary
pressure can best be shown by examining
the two systems depicted in Figs. 1a
and 1b.
In Fig. 1a the liquid wets the capillary
and the pressure P1 is up. In Fig. 1b the
liquid does not wet the capillary and the
pressure P2 is down. The ability to wet or
not wet determines in which direction the
surface will curve, whereas the degree of
wetting determines to what extent the
surface will curve. Therefore, the first
requirement for penetration is its ability
to wet the surface of the discontinuity.
The dimensions of the capillary are
also important and the radius of the
capillary can be related to the capillary
pressure by examining Fig. 1c. It is found
that R = r/cos , i.e., cos = r/R, where r is
the radius of the tube and is the angle
of contact of the liquid and the tube.
Equation 1 becomes:
2 cos
(2) P =
r
FIGURE 1. Liquid in capillary: (a) wet capillary, pressure up; (b) dry capillary, pressure down; (c) relationship of
capillary radius to capillary pressure.

(a) (b) (c)

R1 P1

r

R2 P2
R

Legend
P = pressure
R = radius of liquid surface curvature
r = tube radius
= angle of contact between liquid and tube

Using this equation and assuming = 8VL

0 degrees, the capillary pressure for tubes (4) T =
of various radii with liquids that have r 4 P
surface tensions of 0.025 and 0.035 Nm1
(1.7 103 and 2.4 103 lbfin.1) can be and because the tube is just being filled:
calculated. The latter two values are taken
because they span the range of most (5) V = r 2L
penetrants. Table 1 presents these data. then:
The capillary pressure increases directly
with the surface tension of a penetrant 8L2
and inversely with the radius of the (6) T =
capillary. But unless is less than 90 r 2P
degrees (cos > 0), P will be zero and Because the pressure P is given by Eq. 2,
there will be no wetting and no then:
penetration.
The rate at which a liquid will fill a 4 L2
(7) T =
capillary is determined primarily by its r cos
viscosity. The coefficients of viscosity
are given by: Because L for most open voids is usually
very small, T is usually very small too (a
r 4 T P few seconds at most), unless the
(3) =
8V L viscosity is really huge. High viscosities
lead to too much dragout and wastage of
where T is the time for the volume V of penetrant, besides slow penetration.
liquid to flow through a tube of radius r Penetrants generally do not fill a void
and length L under the influence of a from the top down, compressing the air
pressure P. within it. It is often possible to observe
Solving for T, Eq. 3 becomes: bubbles leaving a submerged crack, as the

TABLE 1. Capillary pressure P versus surface tension.

Capillary Radius
_________________________________________________________________________________
1.0 mm 0.1 mm 0.01 mm 1.0 m 0.5 m
(4 102 in.) (4 103 in.) (4 104 in.) (4 105 in.) (2 105 in.)

Surface Tension Capillary Pressure P

_________________________________________________________________________________
Nm1 (lbfin.1) 2
Pa (lbfin. ) 2
Pa (lbfin. ) Pa (lbfin.2) Pa (lbfin.2) Pa (lbfin.2)

0.025 (1.7 103) 50 (7) 500 (70) 5000 (700) 50 000 (7000) 100 000 (200 000)
0.035 (2.4 103) 70 (10) 700 (100) 7000 (1000) 70 000 (10 000) 140 000 (20 000)

Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials 85

 liquid penetrant fills it. Capillary pressure
is highest where the crack is narrowest;
this is where the liquid penetrant
enters. The bubbles exit at the widest part.
Volatility of Liquid
Penetrants
Low volatility is a practical requirement of
liquid penetrant; it plays only a small part
in sensitivity. Low volatility has four
advantages: (1) low economic loss because
of evaporation, (2) low fire hazard because
few flammable vapors form above the
liquid, (3) low toxicity because of low
hazardous vapor concentrations in the
test area and (4) uniform removal and
fluorescent properties. The liquid
penetrant film during the liquid penetrant
dwell time changes very little in
composition, so that removal and
fluorescent properties do not vary over
the surface, where penetrant may be
present in both thick (slow drying) and
thin (fast drying) layers.
Volatility does not have to be as close
to zero as possible. A good level is that
which provides a flash point of slightly
over 93.3 C (200 F) in a closed cup
test. This puts it in the OSHA Class IIIB
fire hazard range8 yet does not force the
liquid penetrant to be uneconomically
viscous. Within most series of chemical
solvents, viscosity increases linearly as the
flash point rises. As a result, insisting on
higher flash points than optimum will
merely drive viscosity higher, along with
its increase in dragout losses.
surfaces. Aside from the constant S,
dragout is proportional to the square root
of the liquid penetrants viscosity and
inversely to the square root of the drain
time. When penetrants are volatile, this
relationship breaks down, as evaporation
losses add to drainage losses and increase
the measured value of D.
Equation 8 is a basis for comparing the
economy of usage of low volatility liquid
penetrants. On smooth surfaces, S is small
and consumption of a liquid penetrant
will vary as the square root of its
viscosity. For example, if liquid penetrant
X has a viscosity of 4 mm2s1 = 4 106
m2s1 (0.04 St) and liquid penetrant Y has
a viscosity of 9 mm2s1 = 9 106 m2s1
(0.09 St) then on the same smooth surface
and at the same drain time, 50 percent
more of liquid penetrant Y will be dragged
out or used: (9/4) = 3/2. If drain times
were adjusted to equalize consumption,
liquid penetrant Y would have to drain 50
percent longer than liquid penetrant X.

Viscosity
Liquid penetrants drain off surfaces at a
rate that depends on their viscosities and
to an extent that depends on drainage
time and surface roughness. Studies in the
laboratory with nonvolatile liquids
draining from calibrated, vertical surfaces
led to Eq. 8:

(8) D = S + 7.86 10 3
T

where D is dragout (volume of liquid

penetrant in liter per 24.5 m2 of surface
(gallon per 1000 ft2 of surface), S is surface
volume (same units as for dragout), is
kinematic viscosity (in stokes [where 1 St
= 0.0001 m2s1]) and T is time (minute).
Surface volume S expresses the amount
of penetrant left behind after an
unlimited drain time and is a measure of
surface roughness. It is small for a mirror
smooth surface, around 0.004 Lm2 =
4 106 m3m2 (1 104 galft2 = 0.1 gal
per 1000 ft2), and much larger on rough

86 Liquid Penetrant Testing

PART 2. Liquid Penetrant Removal
Solvent Rinse
Solvent rinse or vapor degreasing have
been tried in a few cases where it was very
difficult to clean surfaces before applying
developer and inspecting. They quickly
and thoroughly remove liquid penetrant
from all but the deepest of voids while
leaving surfaces attractively clean. They
are not recommended for liquid penetrant
removal where sensitivity is important.
Solvent Wipeoff
Removing excess liquid penetrant by
wiping the surface with a solvent
dampened rag is the technique normally
used with aerosol liquid penetrants and
developers. It requires skill on the part of
the inspector but has worked well for over
40 years.
The solvent must dry quickly and
thoroughly so as not to dilute liquid
penetrant entrapments and dim their
fluorescence. Desirable properties are low
toxicity, solvency for liquid penetrants
and some compromise between maximum
drying speed and minimum fire
hazard. This is difficult because solvent
dry times increase rapidly at higher flash
points. Figure 2 plots data for a broad
range of volatile chemical solvents. Flash
point is a familiar indicator of fire hazard
with limits proposed by the Occupational
FIGURE 2. Spot dry time versus flash point of volatile
solvents.
1000
Spot dry time (s)
100
10
30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
(22) (4) (14) (32) (50) (68) (86) (104) (122)
Flash point, C (F)
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
as well as the Department of
Transportation (DOT). Spot dry time is an
old fashioned, rough-and-ready test for
speed of drying. A droplet of solvent is
placed on a filter paper circle and its
disappearance is timed to the minute and
second. The data are scattered but it is
obvious that dry time rises exponentially
with flash point.
Ordinary varnish makers and painters
(VM&P) naphtha flashes at around
12.8 C (55 F) and dries in about 85 s. A
safety solvent flashing at 37.8 C (100 F)
will take about 5 min to dry and one that
flashes at 48.9 C (120 F) will take nearly
10 min. Low volatility (high flash point)
solvents can be used without slowing
down the test time if they are applied
with dampened rags and are promptly
and completely removed with a clean, dry
rag so as not to dilute indications and
stain the developer films. Drying time is
not important if there is nothing left to
be dried.
Water Wash
The earliest commercial fluorescent liquid
penetrants, dating back to the 1940s, were
water washable. That is, they contained
chemical emulsifying agents that forced
the liquid penetrant to disperse
spontaneously into a spray of rinse water
or into the water in an immersion wash
tank.
Water washable liquid penetrants are
still widely used because of their
simplicity: simply rinse with water and
dry. Early water washable liquid
penetrants contained sulfur bearing
emulsifying agents that washed more
quickly in hotter water. Modern water
washable liquid penetrants, formulated to
avoid the presence of sulfur, use agents
that act in a slower and more controllable
manner. It is a lot harder to overwash
them.
However, if the test surface is hard to
rinse clean, the inspectors tendency is to
use a long and vigorous wash that can
still remove liquid penetrant from
entrapments and dim subsequent
indications. Solving this drawback led to
50
the development of postemulsifiable
liquid penetrants.
Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials 87
 Lipophilic Emulsifier
The lipophilic liquid penetrant system
uses two materials, a liquid penetrant and
a separate emulsifier. The liquid penetrant
is not emulsifiable and cannot be easily
removed by rinsing with water. The
emulsifier is applied at the end of the
desired liquid penetrant dwell time by
dipping a part into the emulsifier
reservoir. The lipophilic emulsifier is a
viscous liquid that slides off the test
surface and drains back into the reservoir,
taking much of the surface excess of
liquid penetrant with it. The emulsifier
remaining on the part then slowly
diffuses into the surface liquid penetrant
layer, making it emulsifiable and
removable with water. If the emulsifier
dwell is timed correctly, it does not diffuse
much into liquid penetrant entrapments,
which remain inert to water rinsing.
The improved sensitivity allowed by
this system made it the standard for high
sensitivity testing for many years. Its
disadvantages have become more obvious
over the last few years and it is rapidly
becoming obsolete.
The first disadvantage is the high rate
of consumption of the emulsifier. It has to
be viscous or it removes liquid penetrant
too rapidly to control. But it drains from
surfaces very slowly, causing a high
dragout loss. This effect is aggravated on
complex geometry parts, resulting in
nonuniform removal. Lipophilic
emulsifiers have a large liquid penetrant
tolerance and rarely need to be discarded
because of excessive liquid penetrant
contamination. However, the activity or
diffusion rate of the emulsifier decreases
with increasing amounts of liquid
penetrant contamination. Their loss
through dragout is so high that users
must constantly replenish the reservoir
with fresh emulsifier that holds the
contamination at a low level.
The excess emulsifier that does not
drain off ends up, of course, in the rinse
water where it becomes a heavy dose of
water pollution a second major
disadvantage.
A third disadvantage became apparent
when the hydrophilic emulsifier removal
technique was being developed in the
laboratory. At the end of the lipophilic
emulsifier dwell time, emulsifier was
actually beginning to diffuse into liquid
penetrant filled cracks. There was not
enough to make the entrapments emulsify
but enough to contaminate them and dim
indication fluorescence.
88 Liquid Penetrant Testing
Hydrophilic Emulsifier
Hydrophilic emulsifiers are basically
dispersant/detergent concentrates that are
dissolved into water. They remove excess
surface liquid penetrant by
(1) preferentially wetting the test surface
and literally peeling the liquid penetrant
away and (2) by dispersing or dissolving
droplets so that they do not redeposit on
the surface. This action occurs during
final rinse as well as during immersion,
whether assisted by gentle agitation or
not.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers yield brighter
indications because they do not dissolve
into and contaminate entrapped liquid
penetrant. Their propensity for removal of
entrapped liquid penetrant is minimal.
For this reason, the hydrophilic emulsifier
liquid penetrant processing technique is
most often recommended for critical
hardware, e.g., rotating turbine engines.
Dragout is low, as hydrophilic
emulsifier solutions are nearly as thin as
water. They yield brighter indications,
because they do not dissolve into liquid
penetrants and contaminate
them. Because of their high water
content, however, they cannot tolerate as
much liquid penetrant contamination as
the lipophilic emulsifiers. A hydrophilic
emulsifier solutions tolerance for liquid
penetrant contamination depends on its
individual formula and also on the
contaminating liquid penetrants formula.
Tolerance for a liquid penetrant with a
high percentage of petroleum distillate is
lower than for one with less petroleum oil
or distillate. A generalization would be
that a 10 percent solution will tolerate
two percent liquid penetrant
contamination before becoming spent; a
20 percent solution, four percent
contamination; and a 30 percent solution,
six percent. A tank of spent hydrophilic
emulsifier solution must be emptied and
recharged.
Hydrophilic emulsifiers can be applied
by spray or immersion and, in rare
instances, as foam. Maximum
concentration for spray application is five
percent and usually is applied in a much
lower concentration, one or two percent.
Metering pumps are available that can
meter such amounts directly into a water
stream. Sprayed hydrophilic emulsifiers
are not collected for reuse.
For dip applications, concentrations
range from five percent up to
33 percent. Specific concentrations are
often mandated by specifications but also
can be worked out by experiment for each
application.
The hydrophilic emulsifier is a
combination of solvents and dispersants
(wetting or surfactant agents). The
solvents remove surface liquid penetrant
by dissolving action and the surface active
or dispersant agent by emulsifying action,
suspending and preventing the redeposit
of removed surface liquid penetrants.
Hydrophilic emulsifier formulations differ
between manufacturers. Some are more
solvent action dependent; others, more
surfactant dependent.
Typically, specifications for liquid
penetrant materials require an emulsifier
(hydrophilic or lipophilic) and a liquid
penetrant from the same manufacturer to
be used together according to specific
processing parameters. Otherwise, a liquid
penetrant test may become desensitized.
Water pollution can be minimized by
prerinsing the test piece with a plain
water spray before applying the
hydrophilic emulsifier. This removes the
loose surface excess of liquid penetrant by
mechanically emulsifying it. If the liquid
penetrant is completely water repellent,
entrapments within voids are not
touched. If the prerinse drainage is
contained, an oily liquid penetrant layer
quickly migrates to the top of the of fairly
clean rinse water, because the emulsion is
not chemically stabilized. Further, the
final removal step generates less water
pollution because up to 90 percent of the
oily liquid penetrant can be separated
from the prerinse drainage before it
becomes waste.
A prerinse decreases the necessary
exposure time to the emulsifier solution
very slightly. However, the prerinse
greatly extends the life of solutions used
in dip applications by eliminating about
90 percent of the contamination.
Experimentation has shown that the
final rinseoff of the emulsifier solution
can be overdone. Up to 2 min spraying on
a nickel chrome test panel can noticeably
dim indications. The best overall rule for
liquid penetrant removal is to do just
enough to clean excess fluorescence off
the surface. Doing the job more
thoroughly will not help but can surely
hurt.

Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials 89

 PART 3. Color of Liquid Penetrants
MOVIE. Nonfluorescent Liquid
Visible red dye
liquid
Penetrants
penetrant Indications from nonfluorescent (visible)
bleeds out. liquid penetrants cannot be seen unless
they contrast strongly with the test
surface. The strongest contrast is dark on
white, typically dark red indications on a
snow white background. Thus, visible
liquid penetrants must be used with a
white developer and must be deeply
colored.
The relative sensitivity of visible liquid
penetrants can be displayed with
nickel-chrome test panels, chrome plated
panels with cracks having depths equal to
the thickness of the plating. A panel with
nickel-chrome plate of thickness of 50 m
(2.0 103 in.) contains cracks that have a
volume of about 2.5 103 mm3 per
1 mm of length (3.9 106 in.3 per
1 in. of length). Only this much liquid
penetrant can be crammed into
them. With a good liquid penetrant and
developer, the indications are fairly dark,
continuous and easy to see. The cracks in
the 30 m (1.2 103 in.) panels have a
volume of only 9 104 mm3 per 1 mm
(1.4 106 in.3 per 1 in.), about a third as
much. Indications are spotty, a pale pink
and require a careful procedure, good
lighting and a sharp eyed inspector to
find. Cracks in nickel-chrome test panels
with 20 and 10 m (8 107 and
4 107 in.) deep cracks are generally
impossible to find with visible liquid
penetrants. Crack volumes are
4 104 mm3 and 1 104 mm3 per 1 mm
of length (6.2 and 1.6 in.3 per 1 in. of
length).
Deeply colored visible liquid penetrants
absorb light even in microscopically thin
layers. When a film of colored liquid (or
visible liquid penetrant) is exposed to a
beam of light (of intensity I0), some of the
light IT is transmitted through the film
and some light IA is absorbed within it.
(9) I0 = IT + IA
The small amount of light that is reflected
from the surface is ignored.
The amount of light absorbed depends
on the light absorption coefficient e of the
dye in the liquid penetrant, the
concentration c of the dye and the
thickness t of the liquid penetrant
90 Liquid Penetrant Testing
film. The Beer-Lambert law expresses this
relationship as:
(10) IT = I 0 10 ect
Combining Eqs. 9 and 10, the amount
of light absorbed by a film of liquid
penetrant is:
(11) IA = (
I 0 1 10 ect )
where t is thickness (millimeter), the
product (ec) is a constant for a particular
liquid penetrant and IA is a fraction of
I0. The relationship is presented
graphically in Fig. 3.
A good visible liquid penetrant is
opaque in films thicker than 0.1 mm,
nearly opaque at 0.01 mm but falling off
to nearly transparent (and invisible) in
thinner layers. Smaller cracks yield smaller
seepages that approach invisibility at the
smallest sizes.
Finding the tiniest discontinuities
requires sensitive fluorescent liquid
penetrants.
Fluorescent Liquid
Penetrants
Before a fluorescent liquid penetrant can
fluoresce, it must absorb near ultraviolet
radiation (UV-A). The Beer-Lambert law
(Eq. 11) applies, just as with
nonfluorescent liquid penetrant
indications. The dye in fluorescent liquid
penetrants converts the absorbed near
ultraviolet radiation into visible light. The
resulting fluorescent brightness F is given
by Eq. 12:
(12) F = Q IA
where Q is the quantum efficiency of the
dye. Q can be defined as the ratio of
photons emitted as fluorescence to the
photons of near ultraviolet radiation
absorbed. Values of Q for liquid
penetrants seem to be below 0.1.
Substituting IA from Eq. 11 gives:
(13) F = Q I 0 (1 10 ect )
With the variables Q, e and c constant for
a given liquid penetrant, the brightness
curve is the same shape as in Fig. 3 but
FIGURE 3. Typical light absorption characteristics of liquid penetrant films.

1.2

Relative amount absorbed (IA/I0)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.00001
(400) (40) (4) (0.4) (0.04) (0.004) (0.0004)

Thickness, mm (103 in.)

extends into much thinner layers to the

right.
Fluorescent liquid penetrants function
in very thin layers for three
reasons. (1) The absorption coefficient e is
about three times larger for fluorescent
dyes than for visible ones. (2) Visual
contrast is light-on-dark, much more
favorable than the dark-on-light contrast
of visible liquid penetrant. (3) Most
importantly, the light scattering that takes
place between developers and fluorescent
liquid penetrants increases indication
brightness by nearly an order of
magnitude. The effect of this light
scattering is covered below.

Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials 91

PART 4. Action of Developers

because they were too heavy to stick to

Developer Options
No Developer
Liquid penetrant seeps into voids without
help. After excess surface liquid penetrant
is removed, it can seep back out onto the
surface.
seepage and build an indication.
Dry developer is nearly invisible on a
test surface and hence offers no contrast
to visible liquid penetrants. Therefore,
even though indications develop, they are
invisible. Dry developers are not approved
for use with color contrast (visible) liquid
penetrants.

Dry Developers Aqueous Particulate Developers

These were first formulated in the
Fluffy dry developers contain particles
1940s. Basically they are powder
ranging from 0.1 m (4 106 in.) to
compositions that can be dispersed into
about 15 m (6 104 in.) in diameter
water, containing wetting agents and
and provide a superior capillary path to
corrosion inhibitors, to form a sort of
suck liquid penetrants out of voids and
spread them at up to 100 times the width
of the void. Figures 4 to 6 demonstrate
the simple magnifying effect of
developers. The developed indication is FIGURE 5. Photograph of fluorescent liquid
very much wider than the crack itself. penetrant indication of crack shown in Fig. 4
Note the increase in the area of the without developer.
indication in Fig. 6 compared with
Fig. 5. Like many other developers, dry
developers scatter light in a way that
greatly increases fluorescent output.
The trace seepage of liquid penetrants
is what allows fluffy dry developers to
work. Because the developer particles are
very small (less than 1 m in diameter)
they easily stick to the invisibly thin
liquid penetrant seepage at voids and
build up in a mound of particles that
pulls up most of the entrapped liquid
penetrant. Before 1950, dry developers
were coarse (greater than 10 m in
diameter) and showed poor sensitivity

FIGURE 6. Photograph of fluorescent liquid

FIGURE 4. Photograph of crack under white penetrant indication of crack shown in Fig. 4
light. with developer.

92 Liquid Penetrant Testing

whitewash. They are commonly referred
to as water suspendible developers. They
should be oven dried. They yield a white
film that is good for both visible and
fluorescent liquid penetrants. They are
easy to apply in high volume testing, emit
no hazardous dust or fumes and scatter
light.
Solvent Based Particulate
Developers
Solvent based developers are the most
sensitive. The thin, volatile solvents
speedily diffuse into liquid penetrant
entrapments, dissolve them and quickly
drag them to the surface, after which they
evaporate away. The particles then spread
the indications. They provide contrast for
visible liquid penetrants and scatter light
for fluorescent ones.
The evaporating solvents pose both a
health hazard and a fire hazard. This
limits their use to locations where it is not
possible to use water and drying ovens in
fixed installations. They are the
developers of choice for portable liquid
penetrant kits.
Water Soluble Developers
Water soluble developers are designed to
provide an aqueous developer that does
not need to be stirred up constantly and
that rinses off easily. The sort of
crystalline substances that dissolve readily
into water usually dry to give a coarse
grained film with marginal light scattering
and capillarity. Like dry powder
developers, they do not offer good
contrast for visible liquid penetrant
indications.
Unusual Developers
Solvent based lacquer developers have had
a limited use, as they can (with some
difficulty) be peeled off a surface and
mounted in a logbook for future
reference. Photography can provide a
better record of both fluorescent and
visible indications.
Importance of Light
Scattering for Fluorescent
Liquid Penetrant Testing
Partially fill a clear glass container, beaker
or cylinder with fluorescent liquid
penetrant, place it under a near ultraviolet
lamp and look at it from above. What you
see is a dim greenish fluorescent liquid
surface. Next squat down and view the
liquid penetrant surface from the
edge. What you now see is a thin bright
yellow layer at the surface with nothing
Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials
but nonfluorescent green liquid
beneath. All the near ultraviolet radiation
is absorbed in this thin top layer. No
fluorescence is possible below this layer
because no ultraviolet radiation is
left. Finally drop a pinch of fluffy dry
developer onto the liquid surface. When
viewed from above, the developer glows
as brightly as the edge fluorescence. You
are seeing the effects of internal reflection
and of light scattering (Fig. 6).
The fluorescent light that is emitted
from each tiny region of a liquid
penetrant film radiates in all
directions (see Fig. 7). It cannot escape
from the liquid surface to be seen unless it
impinges on the surface at an angle less
than about 45 degrees from
perpendicular. The exact angle at which
total internal reflection occurs depends on
the liquid penetrants index of refraction:
1
(14) sin =
n
where n is the liquid penetrants index of
refraction and is the angle at which
total internal reflection begins. Most
penetrants have an index of refraction of
about 1.4; consequently is near 45
degrees. Roughly 12.5 percent of the
generated fluorescence reaches the surface
within this 90 degree cone. The other
87.5 percent is caught in this light
trap. With a highly reflective test surface
more fluorescence may be reflected up,
but not reliably. The fluorescence that
reaches the edge of the liquid penetrant
seepage may be bright but will remain
unseen unless the inspector can bring
eyes within a few micrometers of the test
surface.
Developers break up this light trap by
scattering the fluorescent light
(Fig. 8). Because of multiple reflections
from particles, nearly all the fluorescent
light escapes to be seen. This amounts to
an eight fold increase in fluorescent
brightness.
FIGURE 7. Fluorescent liquid penetrant light
trap.
Penetrant layer
Part surface
Legend
= Angle at which total internal reflection begins
93
 test surface is not reflective, the light only
FIGURE 8. Breaking of light trap. passes through once.
Fine developer particles embedded in
the liquid penetrant seepage scatter the
ultraviolet radiation throughout the layer,
ensuring that it all gets absorbed by the
Layer of liquid liquid penetrant (see Fig. 10). Remember,
penetrant and it is not how much ultraviolet radiation is
developer present that matters; it is how much gets
absorbed. In effect, scattering the incident
ultraviolet radiation makes t very large,
maximizing visible light F of the
Part surface indication.

FIGURE 9. Ultraviolet radiation passing

through thin layer of fluorescent liquid
penetrant on a test surface.

I0 It

Penetrant layer

Part surface

FIGURE 10. Multiple scattering of ultraviolet radiation among

developer particles.

I0

Layer of developer
and liquid penetrant

Part surface

Light scattering plays one more role in

enhancing light intensity and
sensitivity. As stated by Eq. 15, the
fluorescent brightness of a liquid
penetrant seepage is given by:

(15) F = Q I 0 (1 10 ect )

With tiny seepages, t is microscopically

small, which diminishes the value of
fluorescent brightness F. Figure 9 shows
that little of the exciting ultraviolet light
is absorbed as it passes through the thin
layer of liquid penetrant, is reflected by
the test surface and passes through the
layer for the second and last time. If the

94 Liquid Penetrant Testing

PART 5. Viewing Indications
Visible Indications
Visible liquid penetrants are sometimes
called color contrast liquid penetrants
not a very accurate description. The
contrast of dark indications against a
white background is far more striking
than the contrast of, say, a green liquid
penetrant against a red or purple
background. Visible liquid penetrants are
red because formulators can achieve much
darker indications than with brighter
colors such as green, yellow or orange.
Red indications appear black if viewed
under green light or under white light
while the inspector wears green glasses. In
some test applications, this expedient
might usefully increase the contrast of the
indication on the background and may be
worth trying.
Developers that form an even, white
film are required for use with visible
liquid penetrants. Most test surfaces are
much too dark to provide contrast. Dry
powder developers leave transparent films
in normal thicknesses. If applied by
electrostatic spraying or fluid bed
techniques, dry developers can be built up
to thick white coatings that can slide off
the test surface and take indications with
them. Thin developer layers are not likely
to fall off.
White developers deposited from liquid
suspensions have superior cohesion and
adhesion; they cannot be jarred
loose. Water based developers are best
applied by dipping, followed by draining
and oven drying. Spraying is possible but
their necessary wetting agent content
generates copious amounts of foam,
which can obliterate indications. They
can be air dried, if time is not important
but then indications tend to be faint and
fuzzy. The wetting agent content of
aqueous developers spreads indications
too much during the extended air dry
time.
Solvent based developers, on the other
hand, must be applied by
spraying. Brushing or dipping dissolves
and brings far too much liquid penetrant
from the cracks on the test surface. This
tends to deplete liquid penetrant
entrapments and smear them all over the
surface before drying is complete. Of
course, it is possible to spray on too much
solvent based developer, with the same
unwanted results.
Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials
This is where operator skill is
important. A good inspector does not
splatter a heavy coat of developer in one
or two quick, sloppy passes. Instead, he or
she applies a series of thin, fast drying
layers; never allowing the surface to
become wet enough to get runny. Finally,
the inspector stops spraying before the
film becomes thick enough to be dead
white and opaque. Fine liquid penetrant
entrapments simply lack sufficient liquid
penetrant to soak through a thick
developer coat in quantities capable of
being detected. A good rule of thumb is to
stop spraying a developer just before the
test surface texture and color become
totally hidden. This requires skill and
practice. At this point the indication is
fully and visibly developed against a near
optimum white background.
Lighting intensity for viewing is often
specified. In general, lighting should be
about the same as is required for reading
fine print on white paper.
Fluorescent Indications
When viewed under 10 Wm2
(1000 Wcm2) of 365 nm ultraviolet
radiation, most indications fluoresce in a
range of intensities centered around 54 to
108 lx (5 to 10 ftc). If visible light
intensity in the test area exceeds this
level, there is a loss in contrast of the
indication to its background. Now the
inspector is looking for bluish to greenish
indications on a typically blue or white
background. No brightness contrast, just
color contrast. To avoid this predicament,
the test area must be kept dark. It should
not be greater than 10.8 to 21.6 lx (1 to
2 ftc) because this much visible purple
(violet and red) radiation is emitted from
the ultraviolet lamp. Actually, this
amount of purplish light is necessary;
without it the inspector would literally be
blind, stumbling around in total
darkness. What is not necessary is stray
light from adjacent areas, leaky ultraviolet
lamp housings, fluorescent clutter from
spilled liquid penetrant and optically
bleached white clothing from within the
area.
Preliminary laboratory work has shown
an approximate relationship between the
intensity of visible light in an test area
and the level of near ultraviolet radiation
95
 required to intensify indications enough
to offset the ambient light. As can be seen
from Fig. 11, near ultraviolet intensity
requirements get absurdly high in well
lighted surroundings.
FIGURE 11. Intensity of near ultraviolet radiation required in
liquid penetrant test viewing area versus ambient visible light
in area.

intensity, Wm2 (Wcm2)

100 (10 000)
Table 2 shows representative visible

Required ultraviolet
light intensities measured in various
lighting environments. 10 (1000)
Eyesight is very important to any
inspector and much has been written
about the need for vision acuity and dark 1 (100)
adaptation. Other factors exist. Cataracts
can affect the ability of an inspector to see 0.1 (10)
fluorescent indications. First there is a 10.76 107.60 1076.00
defocusing that can be partially corrected (1) (10) (100)
with glasses. Second, the eyes lenses
become yellow and absorb the violet Ambient visible light intensity, Ix (ftc)
(405 nm) emission peak from the visible
fluorescent radiation, making it appear
red. Thus acuity decreases, but because
less violet radiation is seen the field of
view darkens and contrast
increases. Replacing cataracts with clear
plastic lenses allows the 405 nm radiation
to be seen. Ultraviolet lamps then seem to
emit an intense violet light that washes
out faint indications.
Assessing vision acuity can become
very complex, as there are a wide range of
eye conditions that may affect an
inspectors ability to see and evaluate
indications. Color blindness and ordinary
ability to resolve tiny lines and spots are
only the most well known
conditions. None of this has much to do
with liquid penetrant materials
themselves but as long as human eyes are
part of the liquid penetrant testing
process, their performance must be
anticipated in planning tests and
considered in evaluating test results.

TABLE 2. Representative ambient visible

light intensities. 10.8 lux (lx) =
1 footcandle (ftc).
______________
Intensity
Light conditions lx (ftc)

General plant 108 to 324 (10 to 30)

General office 270 to 324 (25 to 30)
Laboratory 324 to 432 (30 to 40)
Bright interior 1080 (100)
Storage area 54 to 75.6 (5 to 7)
Ultraviolet
inspection booth 10.8 to21.6 (1 to 2)

96 Liquid Penetrant Testing

References

1. Section 7, Dynamic Characteristics of 8. 29 CFR 1910.106, Flammable and

Liquid Penetrants and Processing Combustible Liquids. [Code of Federal
Materials. Nondestructive Testing Regulations: Title 29, Labor.]
Handbook, second edition: Vol. 2, Washington, DC: United States
Liquid Penetrant Tests. Columbus, OH: Department of Labor, Occupational
American Society for Nondestructive Safety and Health Administration;
Testing (1982): p 273-319. United States Government Printing
2. Prokhorenko, P.P. and Office (1998).
N.P. Migun. Introduction to the Theory
of Capillary Testing. Minsk, Russia:
Nauka I Tekhnika (1988).
3. Prokhorenko, P., N. Migun and
A. Kornev. Influence of Gas
Dissolution and Diffusion in Defects
for Sensitivity of Penetrant Testing.
6th European Conference on
Non-Destructive Testing. [Nice, France,
24-28 October 1994]. Vol. 1. European
Council for Nondestructive Testing
(1994): p 479-480.
4. Prokhorenko, P., N. Migun and
N. Dezhkunov. Development of
Penetrant Test Theory Based on New
Physical Effects. Non-Destructive
Testing 92: Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing
[Sao Paulo, Brazil, October
1992]. Vol. 1. C. Hallai and P. Kulcsar,
eds. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier
(1992): p 538-542.
5. Prokhorenko, P.P. and
N.P. Migun. Kinetics of Absorption of
Penetrant by Sorption Developer from
Defects of Porous Objects. Soviet
Journal of Nondestructive
Testing. Vol. 26, No. 1. New York, NY:
Plenum Consultants Bureau
(September 1990): p 53-59.
6. Dezhjunov, N.V. and
P.P. Prokhorenko. Interaction of Two
Liquids in a Capillary and Its Role in
the Technology of Liquid-Penetrant
Testing. Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing
[Amsterdam, Netherlands, April
1989]. J. Boogaard and G.M. Van Dijk,
eds. Vol. 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier Science Publishers (1989):
p 413-416.
7. Prokhorenko, P.P., N.P. Migun and
M. Adler. Sensitivity of Penetrant
Inspection in the Absorption of the
Penetrant by a Sorption Detector from
Plane Parallel Cracks. Soviet Journal of
Nondestructive Testing. Vol. 21,
No. 7. New York, NY: Plenum
Consultants Bureau (July 1985):
p 502-513.

Characteristics of Liquid Penetrant and Processing Materials 97