Using Liquid Penetrants in a Variety of

Situations
Certain types of penetrants are more suited for specific
kinds of inspections,
from cracks and leaks to ceramics to periodic maintenance
testing
Information provided by Met-L-Chek Co., Santa Monica, Calif.

Penetrants not only locate surface cracks and flaws, but they are also excellent
leak finders, in certain circumstances. If one has a tank, for example, and a
leak is suspected in a weld joint, penetrants can often find this "through leak"
easily. Penetrant is applied to one side of the joint, for example on the inside
of the tank, and then developer is applied on the other side of the joint on the
outside of the tank. The penetrant goes through the leak, meets the developer
and the indication is seen. This system is used by a wide variety of
manufacturers and repair organizations to ensure tanks, containers, heat
exchangers and even caskets are leak free.
The process of applying penetrant is comprised of several steps: the surface of
the workpiece is cleaned, solvent is applied to dissolve contaminants, cracks
are now open to penetrant, penetrant is applied, surface penetrant is removed Fig. 1 - Contaminants must first be
after a few moments, penetrant is extracted to the surface and the indication removed from the surface.
develops - Figs. 1-7.
Where Penetrants Are Inadequate
But there are also instances where penetrants are not appropriate. For
example, suppose you wish to find the source of a leak in an automotive or
aircraft engine lubricating system. Penetrants are not appropriate because they
are diluted in the oiling system, and because the exterior of the engine is often
dirty or encrusted with soils as a result of the leak. Cleaning the exterior of
the engine is a sensible first step, but even if this cannot be done, there is a
system that usually works. A powerful fluorescent dye can be added to the oil
system causing the oil to fluoresce. The engine is then run in a darkened area Fig. 2 - Applying solvent will help
and the exterior is scanned with UV-A light, commonly referred to as black dissolve contaminants.
light or ultraviolet light. At any place where the oil has leaked, there will be a
fluorescent indication. This same practice can be used to locate fuel system
leaks and hydraulic system leaks. Most of these dyes are soluble in gasoline,
lubricating oil, hydraulic fluid and brake fluid.
Another example involves systems that contain water, such as radiators used
to cool internal combustion engines. The aforementioned fluorescent dye will
not work on these systems because it is not soluble in water. For these
systems, a different dye is used that works in the same way. In one dramatic
test, a radiator for a very large stationary internal combustion engine had just
been repaired by the maintenance department. Before returning to service,
dye was added to the water, and then the system was circulated. Scanning Fig. 3 - Cracks are now open to
with UV-A revealed 23 spots where there still were small leaks. Once located, penetrant.
these were easily marked and repaired so that the radiator was completely free
of leaks. The use of the dye resulted in a better repair and reduced the
possibility that the engine would later have to be prematurely taken out of
service to repair the radiator for leaks that had escaped detection.
Ceramics
Ceramics present special problems in surface crack detection. Ceramics can
be fired or unfired (called "green" in the industry). They may be as dense as
glass, or as porous as unfired flowerpots. Penetrants will work on hard, dense,
fired ceramics such as alundum where the performance is similar to the
performance on metals. But when the ceramic is more porous, the penetrant is
absorbed into the ceramic, and any flaw indications are lost in the intense
background that results. The most extreme case is unfired ceramics. For these Fig. 4 - Penetrant is applied.
materials, filtered particle fluids are used with great success. Filtered particle
fluids are not penetrants, and they rely upon a totally different mechanism that
depends upon the test material being porous. CFF-2000 from Met-L-Chek is a
filtered particle product that has been successfully used for many years by
leading ceramic manufacturers. CFF-2000 is sprayed onto the part being
tested, and after it has been absorbed, the part is examined with UV-A, or
black light. Defects show up as bright fluorescent lines.
Periodic Testing
Penetrant inspection lines using dip tanks need to be monitored on a regular
basis to ensure the penetrant liquids are satisfactory and the penetrant system
is performing properly. Samples of the penetrant liquids need to be taken at
specified intervals and their performance compared with the performance of
retained samples of the same liquids as they were received. These tests
require some specialized equipment and are usually performed by an outside
laboratory, but there are distinct advantages in having the tests made by a
penetrant manufacturer. For example, it is possible for a contaminated
penetrant to pass the fluorescent brightness test and other tests of the physical
attributes of the product. Yet this same penetrant may be contaminated in a
way that affects its performance adversely, and this may not be detected by a
laboratory that is unfamiliar with penetrant formulations and their behavior
under various conditions.

Fluorescent Brightness
As a quality control test, every batch of fluorescent penetrant must be tested
by the manufacturer for fluorescent brightness. Users of fluorescent penetrant
must also make periodic checks of the fluorescent brightness of in-use
penetrant to be sure it has not degraded. This is an intuitively sensible test to
make because brightness is a key to whether or not a flaw indication can be
seen. However, the means for making this test have been argued over for
years and there is still not a method that everyone agrees upon. Thus, there
are several innate problems.
* What an inspector wants is a bright indication on the part under test. But the
brightness tests that have been the standard for the past 30 years or so have
been made on pieces of filter paper soaked in diluted penetrant. There is little Fig. 5 - Surface penetrant has been
confirmation that the brightness measured in this way has any relevance at all removed.
to the brightness of the flaws on a part.
* What is the standard for measuring brightness? What should the penetrant
under test be compared to? For quality control at the penetrant manufacturer,
the penetrant was compared with the reference standard penetrant for that
particular sensitivity. For example, the brightness of a sensitivity level 3
penetrant was compared with the brightness of the sensitivity level 3
reference standard. The requirement was the test penetrant had to be at least
85% as bright as the standard.
* The identification of the reference standards for MIL-I-25135 is different
from the identification of the reference standards for AMS 2644. Fig. 6 - Developer layer blots
* One must measure the fluorescent brightness of the soaked filter paper
samples, and this is done with a fluorometer and a procedure as specified in penetrant to surface.
ASTM E1135. This specification allows the use of three fluorometers: the
Coleman, the Turner and the S291. Previous test work with these fluorometers
has demonstrated they do not provide statistically comparable results. Thus,
the brightness that is measured by one of these instruments will probably be
different than the brightness measured by either of the other two instruments.
Interpretation
If you are a penetrant user, and you must make periodic brightness tests, you
probably have nothing to worry about. The reason is simple. What you are
looking for is degradation in performance of the penetrant, as indicated by
lower brightness. It makes no difference what instrument you use because any
of the three will show what you are looking for. You need no reference Fig. 7 - Developed indication.
standard because you are comparing the used penetrant to an unused sample.
So the likelihood of any problem is almost nil. There is one exception,
however, although it is a very rare possibility. Suppose, for example, you
measure the brightness of the in-use penetrant with one of the approved
instruments and find that it has diminished, but not enough to require action.
Then suppose an auditor takes a sample of the penetrant and has the
brightness tested with one of the other two instruments. It is likely a different
result will be obtained. If the result is a higher brightness, there is no problem.
If the result is a lower brightness, then there will be a conflict between what
the auditor found and what the user found. How this could be resolved is
anyone's guess, since both instruments are approved under ASTM E1135.
Contrarily, if one is a manufacturer, one must perform a quality control test on
each new batch of penetrant. Although MIL-I-25135 has been superseded by
AMS 2644, some users still require that the product meet the military
specification. This means that two brightness procedures must be used: one in
which the sample is compared to the MIL-I-25135 reference standard of the
same sensitivity level, and one in which the sample is compared to the level
four standard. If the sample is a level two penetrant, there may be two
different reference standards, which will probably give two different results.
And, to add to the problem, there are three approved fluorometers, each of
which likely will give a still different result. One can easily see that finding
one's way through this maze is not an easy task.