NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING IN

THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY

Lecture 6
04 April 2015

Topic
1.Introduction in Nondestructive testing.
2.Discontinuities , origin and classification
3.Visual testing.
4.Liquid penetrant inspection method.
5.Process control and interpretation of liquid penetrant
inspection
6.Magnetic particle testing theory.
7.Magnetic particle inspection applications and interpretations
8.Ultrasonic inspection method.
9.Ultrasonic inspection equipments and materials.
10.Ultrasonic inspections process control and safety.
11.Eddy current inspection method.
12.Application on eddy current inspection
13.Acoustic emission testing.
14.Thermal infrared testing.

5. Process control and

interpretation
of liquid penetrant inspection

TECHNIQUES AND VARIABLES

It should be apparent by now that there are a number of PT techniques that
can be used with the different materials described.
A summary of these techniques is listed in table.

Technique I, Process A (I-A)

Technique I Process A uses a fluorescent waterremovable penetrant that can be used with either dry,
aqueous, or non-aqueous developers. This technique is
generally used for the following applications:
1. When a large number of parts or large surface areas
are to be examined.
2. When discontinuities that are not broad or shallow are
anticipated.
3. When parts to be examined have complex
configurations such as threads, keyways, or other
geometric variation.
4. When the parts to be examined have surfaces that are
rough, such as with sand castings or as-welded conditions

Advantages:
1. Higher sensitivity
2. Excess penetrant is easily removed with a coarse spray
3. Easily adaptable for large surfaces and large quantities
of small parts
4. The cost is relatively low
Limitations:
1. A darkened area is required for evaluation
2. Under- or over removal of penetrant material is
possible
3. Water contamination can degrade the effectiveness of
the penetrant
4. Not effective for broad or shallow discontinuities
5. Dryers are required (usually) when using developers
6. This technique is usually not portable

Technique I Process B (Lipophilic)

Process D (Hydrophilic)

and

Technique I, Processes B and D use a fluorescent

postemulsifiable penetrant, a lipophilic (L) or hydrophilic
(H) emulsifier, and dry, aqueous, or nonaqueous
developers.
The materials used are very similar to those described for
Technique I Process A, except that these penetrants are
not water-removable without emulsification.
A lipophilic or hydrophilic emulsifier must be used after
the dwell time has expired.

This technique is generally used in the following

situations:
1. When a large quantity of parts must be examined
2. When discontinuities that are broad and shallow
are anticipated
3. For the detection of stress cracks or intergranular
corrosion
4. For the detection of small discontinuities such as
grinding cracks
5. Applications requiring higher-sensitivity techniques

Advantages:
1. High sensitivity for the detection of smaller
discontinuities
2. For broad or shallow discontinuities (when they are
expected)
3. Adaptable for high-quantity testing
4. Not easily affected by acids
5. Less susceptible to over removal than Technique I-A

Limitations:
1. This technique has an additional step, which
requires an emulsifier. Therefore, more time and
material is necessary.
2. It is not as effective for parts with complex shapes
(e.g., threads) or rough surfaces, as is Technique I-A.
3. The emulsification time must be closely controlled.
4. As with Technique I-A, it requires drying prior to
the application of dry or non-aqueous developers.
5. It is usually not portable.

Technique I, Process C (I-C)

Technique I Process C uses a fluorescent penetrant,
which is solvent-removable, a solvent cleaner/remover,
and a non-aqueous developer.
The excess surface penetrant is first removed with a dry
cloth, followed by cleaning with a cloth dampened with a
solvent remover.
This process is generally used when removal with water
is not desirable due to part size, weight, surface
condition, water availability, or when a heat source is not
readily available for drying.

Advantages:
1. Can be used for spot examinations on large parts
2. Effective when water removal is not feasible
Limitations:
1. The use of solvent for removal limits this technique to
smaller areas
2. A black light and darkened area are required
3. The sensitivity can be reduced if excessive remover is
applied
4. A background may occur with this technique, which
could affect the contrast ratio, especially with rougher
surfaces

Technique II Process A (II-A)

Technique II Process A uses a visible color-contrast, waterremovable penetrant and an aqueous or non-aqueous
developer. Dry developer is not usually used with Technique II
penetrants. Some specifications, in fact, do not permit the use
of dry developers with Technique II penetrants.
The penetrant contains an emulsifier, making it waterremovable. This technique is generally used for the following
applications:
1. Examinations of a large quantity of parts or large surface
areas
2. For discontinuities that are generally tight
3. For the examination of parts with threads, keyways, and
other complex geometries
4. For parts with generally rough surfaces

Advantages:
1. No black light or darkened area is required for evaluation.
2. It is relatively quick and inexpensive.
3. The excess penetrant is easily removed with a coarse water
spray.
4. It is effective for the examinations of a large quantity of parts.
5. It can be used for rough surfaces, keyways, threads, and other
complex geometries.

Limitations:
1. Its sensitivity is inferior to Technique I-A.
2. Penetrant can be over removed.
3. Water contamination can degrade the effectiveness of the
penetrant.
4. It is not usually effective for the detection of broad or shallow
discontinuities.

Technique II Process B (II-B)

Technique II Process B uses a visible color-contrast,
postemulsifiable penetrant, an emulsifier, and an aqueous or
non-aqueous developer. The materials used (except for the
penetrant) are very similar to those described for Technique I
Process B. An emulsifier (usually lipophilic) is applied to the
surface penetrant after the dwell time to make it waterremovable.
Technique II Process B is generally used for the following
applications:
1. When a large quantity of parts must be examined
2. Whenever lower sensitivity than that achieved with
Technique I is acceptable
3. When broad and shallow discontinuities are anticipated

Advantages:
1. No black light or darkened area for evaluation is required.
2. Broad or shallow discontinuities may be detected.
3. Useful when there are large quantities of parts to be
examined.
4. This technique is not as susceptible to over removal, as are
the Process A penetrants.

Limitations:
1. The additional step of an emulsifier requires more time and
additional material.
2. It is not as effective for parts with a complex geometry (e.g.,
threads), as is Process A.
3. The emulsification time is very critical and must be closely
controlled.
4. Drying is required if non-aqueous developers are used.

Technique II, Process C (II-C)

Technique II Process C uses a visible, color-contrast,
solvent-removable
penetrant,
a
solvent
cleaner/remover, and an aqueous or non-aqueous
developer.
The excess penetrant is not water-removable and
must be removed with a solvent remover.
This technique is widely used for field applications
when water removal is not feasible, or when
examinations are to be conducted in a remote
location.

Advantages:

1. This technique is very portable and can be used virtually anywhere.

2. It can be used when water removal is not possible.
3. Black lights or darkened evaluation areas are not required. Evaluation is
done in visible light.
4. It is very adaptable for a wide range of applications.
Limitations:
1. The use of solvent to remove excess surface penetrant limits the
examinations to smaller areas and parts without a complex geometry.
2. Sensitivity is reduced when an excessive amount of remover is used during
the removal step.
3. Excess penetrant removal is difficult on rough surfaces, such as sand casting
and as welded surfaces, and usually results in a background.
4. This technique has a lower level of sensitivity compared to Technique I
penetrants.
5. It is more operator-dependent due to the variables involved in the
removal step.

EVALUATION AND DISPOSITION

After the penetrant process has been completed and the indications are
observed and recorded, the final step will be to establish whether or
not these conditions are acceptable or rejectable.
The size of the indication can usually be related to the amount of
penetrant entrapped in the discontinuity. The larger the discontinuity
volume, the greater the amount of penetrant that will be entrapped and,
therefore, the larger the bleed-out after development.
The shape of the indication is important because it relates to the type
or nature of the discontinuity; e.g., a crack or lack of fusion will show up
as a linear bleed-out rather than a rounded one.
A linear indication, by most codes and specifications, is defined as a
bleed-out whose length is three times or greater than its width. The
intensity of the bleed-out gives some evidence as to how tight the
discontinuity is.

A broad shallow type discontinuity will tend to be diluted, to an

extent, by the remover liquid, and not be as brilliant as a bleedout from a very tight discontinuity.
It is essential that corrective action be taken to remove or
repair the discontinuity if it is deemed to be rejectable.
In most cases, a crack or other serious discontinuity will be
cause for the rejection or scrapping of the part. Repairs to
discontinuities will often be accomplished by grinding.
A recommended technique to assure complete removal of an
indication after grinding is to merely reapply the developer.
This usually verifies whether the discontinuity has been
removed, since the bleed out will reappear if it has not.

This process should be repeated, i.e., grinding, reapplication of developer, and then
grinding again until no further bleedout occurs.
At that point, the area that has been ground out must be reexamined, following the
penetrant procedure from the beginning, to assure that in fact, the discontinuity has
been totally removed.

It is further recommended that the grinding be performed in the same direction as

the longest dimension of the discontinuity.
This is to minimize the possibility of smearing the material over the discontinuity.

After the repair is completed, the repaired surface must be reexamined. During the
evaluation process, it is necessary that a suitable light source be used.
For visible penetrants, a light source of 100 foot-candles is common, although codes
and specifications may require different light intensities.
A black light is used for evaluation of fluorescent penetrants.
An intensity of between 800 to 1200 W per square centimeter is typically required.

Penetrant indications must be recorded.

For recording purposes, a number of satisfactory
techniques can be used, including photographs, hand
sketches, and the transparent tape lift-off technique.
Photographic techniques employed for recording visible
penetrant indications are quite standard. When
photographing indications under black light conditions,
specialized exposures and filters may be necessary when
using photographic film.
Digital cameras are usually quite exceptional for
recording both visible and fluorescent penetrant
indications.
Hand drawings, when used with test reports, should be
prepared with as much accuracy and detail as possible.

PENETRANT TESTING APPLICATIONS

Penetrant testing is extremely versatile and has many applications. It is used in

virtually every major industry and for a wide variety of product forms.
Industries that widely use penetrant testing techniques include:

Power generation, both fossil- and nuclear-fueled

Petrochemical
Marine/Shipbuilding
Metalworking, including foundries and forging shops
Aerospace
Virtually all of the various welding processes and metals-joining industries

Another unique application of penetrant testing is for the detection of

through-wall leaks.
With this application, penetrant is applied to one surface, for example, of a
tank, and developer applied to the opposite surface. If there is an unimpeded
through leak, the penetrant will follow that path and be exposed on the
opposite developed surface as an indication.
Some leak tests, such as those for complex components and piping systems
that must be evaluated to determine the source and location of a leak path,
are conducted using fluorescent tracers.

LIQUID PENETRANT PROCESS CONTROL

This section provides basic, operating and advanced
level information on the procedures necessary to
assure a high quality performance from the penetrant
inspection system.
We present the reasons for process and materials
control.

QUALITY CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS

In order to control the many variables associated with
penetrant testing, there are a number of quality control
(QC) checks that should be made periodically. The
applicable requirements will specify which ones must be
made and how often.
There are three major areas that include the various QC
issues, and once these are identified as essential or
required, they should be added to the procedure.
The three major categories are:
1. Material checks
New
In-use
2. System checks
3. Equipment checks

Materials and process deficiencies are not always

obvious. It is not easily determined if a penetrant has lost
its ability to penetrate into a given flaw.
Penetrant inspection, as well as, all other nondestructive
inspection processes, is not a perfect process. Flaws can
be present and not be indicated for a number of reasons.

The two main reasons for discrepancies in inspection

results are:
Substandard inspection materials due to either receipt
of bad material from the manufacturer or degradation in
storage or service.
Process deviations in equipment, procedures, or
operating conditions

Material ChecksNew
All incoming or new penetrant materials should be
verified to assure compliance with specifications.
Some codes and specifications contain unique
requirements
regarding
the
presence
of
contaminants in the PT materials such as chlorine,
sulfur, and halogens.
Some codes and standards include analytical tests to
determine the amount of these contaminants but
most of the penetrant manufacturers will provide
material certifications that specify the amount in that
particular batch of materials.

Material ChecksIn-Use
It is good practice, and in some cases a requirement, that penetrant materials
be checked periodically to assure that they have not degraded and are still
performing satisfactorily.

These checks may include but are not limited to the following:
1. Contamination of the penetrant
2. Water content in the penetrant (for water-removable penetrants)
3. Water content in lipophilic emulsifier
4. The condition of the dry developer (fluorescent penetrant carry-over, etc.)
5. Wet developer contamination
6. Aqueous developer concentration (using a hydrometer)
7. Hydrophilic emulsifier concentration
The results of these checks should be entered in a logbook to permit periodic
reviews of the condition and the trends of the materials as they are being
used.

Causes of Material Degradation.

Materials Contamination. Materials contamination is a primary
source of penetrant system performance degradation. There are a
number of contaminating materials and their effect on performance
depends upon the contaminant type. Some of the common
contaminants frequently encountered are:
Water- Probably the most common type of contaminant. This can
occur by careless or improper rinsing or carry over from other parts.
Organic materials - Paint, lubricants, oils, greases, and sealant are
other sources of contamination. These materials, if not removed
from parts during precleaning, can dissolve in the penetrant and
react with or dilute it, so it loses some or all of its ability to function.
Organic solvents - Degreaser fluid, cleaning solvent, gasoline, and
antifreeze solution are common types of solvent contaminants.
These materials dissolve in the penetrant and reduce its
effectiveness in proportion to the amount present.

 Dirt, soil, other insoluble solids - Soil/solid contamination can

be carried into the penetrant, emulsifier, and developer as a
result of improper pre-cleaning and carry-over from other
parts. Another common source of soil contamination occurs
when the dwell stations are used to store parts. Most dwell
stations have drain pans, which return the effluent back to the
immersion tanks. Any soil falling from unclean parts into the
drain pan will be washed into the tank with the drain effluent.
Acid and alkaline materials - Acid and alkaline contamination
is extremely serious. They react with the penetrant to destroy
fluorescence brightness even when present in fairly small
quantities. They are usually residues from etching; plating or
the cleaning processes.
Penetrant - Penetrant is a normal contaminant of emulsifier in
the postemulsifiable process. It can be carried in on penetrant
covered parts during the penetrant dwell step. As the penetrant
builds up in volume, it will gradually slow the emulsifying
action, and if the level becomes high enough, the emulsification
process will stop.

Evaporation Losses. Penetrant materials used in open tanks are

continuously undergoing evaporation. The rate of evaporation is
increased with warmer temperatures and large tank surfaces.
Evaporation losses of penetrant result in an increase in viscosity,
thus slowing penetration and emulsification. Evaporation of water
washable penetrant may slow or speed washability, depending on
the penetrant formula. Evaporation losses in developer solutions
increase the concentration, which produces a heavier coating that
may mask smaller indications. Since evaporation losses take place
very gradually, performance change may become significant before
it is noticed.
Process Degradation. Not only do materials degrade, but
equipment and procedures (other elements of the process) can
deteriorate as well. Black-light bulbs age, degrade, and also become
dirty, reducing their output. Drying oven thermostats can be
improperly set or may malfunction, resulting in excessive
temperatures causing critical procedures to be performed
incorrectly. Materials, equipment, and procedures SHALL be
periodically audited during their service life to assure satisfactory
process performance.

Heat Degradation. Penetrants, especially fluorescent

penetrants, are sensitive to elevated temperatures.
Exposing penetrants to temperatures over 60C can
reduce the fluorescence; and temperatures over 121C
may destroy the penetrant completely. High
temperatures also speed evaporation of the volatile
components of penetrants, causing undesired
performance changes. High temperatures exposure of
penetrants can occur from the following:
Immersion of heated or hot parts.
Inspection of hot surfaces resulting from exposure to the
sun, such as flight-line aircraft.
Improper storage of penetrant materials (such as in direct
sunlight) before being placed in use.
Excessive exposure to heat in drying ovens.

System checks
Probably the most effective overall checks of the
performance of penetrant systems involve the
periodic use of panels or samples containing known
discontinuities There are other systems checks that
may be waived if the system performance check with
the panels is satisfactory.
They include tests for:
1. Penetrant brightness
2. Penetrant removability
3. Penetrant sensitivity
4. Emulsifier removability

Equipment Checks
There are routine checks that should be made on the
equipment that is used in the PT process.

They include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Black lightsfor intensity, filter condition, bulb, and reflector.
2. Light meters, black and whitefor functionality and
calibration status. Some codes require that these meters be
periodically calibrated; this is usually done by the meter
manufacturer.
3. The temperature of the drying ovento assure that it is
within the specified range.
4. The water used for removaltemperature and pressure.
5. Pressure gauges, when compressed air is used for application
of the penetrant, emulsifiers, and developers

Acceptance criteria for visual testing (VT),

magnetic particle testing MT) and
penetrant testing (PT)

Extract from
NORSOK standard M-601

Application of Liquid Penetrant like a chemical tracers

to find leakage
Flaws which extend completely through thin-wall metal
containers tanks, tubing, and vessels are readily
detected by the dye penetrant process. The procedure
differs from the standard process: dye penetrant is
applied to one side while developer is applied to the
opposite side; there is no dye penetrant removal step.
Dye penetrant leak test procedures are often used for
inspection of tank walls. During leak testing, the inside
of the tank is coated with dye penetrant. The other side
is covered with developer. The dye penetrant migrates
through the flaw, and when it reaches the opposite side,
reveals the flaw as a red mark on a white background.

Flaw passages must be free of contaminants water, solvents,

or oils. Moisture from air pressure tests conceivably can
interfere with through penetration. The dye penetrant leak test
should be used prior to other tests, such as hydrostatic and
ultrasonic, to minimize the possibility of flaw passage
contamination.
An extended dye penetrant dwell time is usually necessary. Dye
penetrant leak testing has limitations and, typically, the process
is restricted to wall thicknesses of 1/4 inch or less.

The rate of through penetration depends in part on the shape

of the capillary passage with a narrow tube providing the best
passage.
Porosity retards dye penetrant movement. If wall thickness is
near maximum and if poor capillary action is anticipated, the
dwell time should be extended.
Thirty minutes is suggested. A second application of dye
penetrant during the 30 minute dwell may also prove
advantageous.

Another application is to incorporate a small amount

of fluorescent penetrant inside a pressurized system,
taking care to ensure that the penetrant is
compatible with the system fluid, then to examine
the accessible side with an ultraviolet light.
This is an extremely sensitive technique for finding
pinholes in welds.
Example : examining a heat exchanger wall for
leakage.
Another application is to detect and locate leak
points in an automobile radiator. The method is
inexpensive yet accurate.

END