ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38.

Copyright 2008, 2011,

American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Monitoring Capability of Penetrant System Performance Panels

George Hopman
NDE Solutions Inc.
PO Box 30085, Phoenix, AZ 85046
(602) 595-1033; email George@ndesolutions.net

INTRODUCTION
One of the more controversial issues within the aerospace industry is the use of starburst panels for monitoring
penetrant system performance. Countless hours have been spent in performance of this test, managing the
cleanliness of these panels and responding to related audit findings. But what is the capability of these panels to
detect variability within the penetrant process? There does not appear to be any published studies on this issue.
There are process controls in place for each step of the penetrant process. The stated intent of the System
Performance test is to detect sudden changes in the systems that are not detected in the tests already performed.
Regarding this test, one major aerospace engine manufacturer mandates that The defects in the standard will be
capable of demonstrating unsatisfactory system performance. What is this standard? Is it our starburst panel?
This paper documents experiments not performed under laboratory conditions, but done in a real-world shop
atmosphere where the process was deliberately violated. A baseline was established and documented with a black
light photograph. Then mandated process variables were changed while running the panel and pictures again taken
to determine if the panel could detect the change. Nadcap HB 7114/1 states that, Results of the system performance
test, utilizing the in-use materials, must indicate the same number and appearance (e.g., size, etc.) of the flaws
detected originally when the baseline was established. In practice, this standard is subjective; yet this was the
criteria used to judge the acceptability of these tests.

BASELINE PROCESS
A Level 3 WW and PE penetrant from the same manufacturer were chosen to baseline the process in this limited
experiment. It is generally recognized that there is significant variability between brand new starburst panels. A more
expansive study would have included variability between panels and other brands/sensitivities of penetrant material.
The panels were stored in acetone and cleaned with acetone before each use. The panels were checked under UV
illumination before each use. If any fluorescence was noted, the starbursts were sprayed with nonaqueous developer
and baked in the penetrant drying oven. If any fluorescence persisted, the panels were spray with Replica Transfer
Coating to further pull any penetrant out.
The clean panel was brushed with virgin penetrant and allowed to dwell exactly ten minutes. Since ASTM E1417
does not require a washability or emulsifier removability test unless the starbursts fail, only the starbursts were
coated with penetrant. The panel was rinsed at no closer than 12 under proper illumination with water at 35 psi
with a temperature of approximately 88. The panel was blown off to minimize water spots; then dried until dry
(approximately 5 minutes) in an oven at 140. Virgin dry developer was applied by puffer bulb and allowed to
dwell 10 minutes. The panels were photographed under consistent proper UV illumination using a 10 Megapixel
digital camera with yellow filter. The camera was affixed to a stand for consistent results. For Method D removal,
a pre-rinse was performed, the emulsifier (different brand) was applied by spray at a concentration of 3% for
approximately 10 seconds, and a standard post-rinse performed.

CONTAMINATION
Multiple studies have documented that water and other contaminants will negate a proper penetrant inspection. That
is not debatable. Perhaps the worst contaminant is acid. For those who work in a foundry, pre-penetrant etch is often
a necessity. If a proper cleaning is not performed before the penetrant process, the potential for system degradation
emerges. 5 mL of WW penetrant was contaminated with approximately 1% volume of nitric acid and a sample
painted on the starbursts. The penetrant itself underwent noticeable physical changes. Several certified inspectors

33

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38. Copyright 2008, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

remarked that the penetrant didnt look right when dwelling on the panel. Duplicating the baseline test with this
contaminated penetrant yielded a satisfactory system performance test. Figure 1(a) shows a unique panel used for
the baseline and the nitric acid contamination run. The picture obtained after the resultant test did not yield any
noticeable difference from the baseline photograph.

Figure 1: (a) Baseline and nitric acid contamination.

(b) Baseline and 20% water contamination.

Water is a more common contaminant within the penetrant process. Sources of water could include rinse overspray,
a leaky roof, and parts that were not properly dried in the pre-clean process. Per ASTM E1417, recycled penetrant
is checked monthly for a maximum of 5% water contamination. WW penetrant was contaminated with 20% water.
The penetrant became cloudy with the contaminant. Figure 1(b) shows a unique panel used for the baseline and the
contamination run. The contaminated panel was under-washed but did not yield any noticeable difference from the
baseline check.

PENETRANT DWELL
Depending upon the discontinuity morphology, penetrant dwell time may be important. The starburst panels contain
open cracks that are supposed to be clean. They are not tight fatigue cracks, forging laps or cold shuts that would
justify a relatively longer penetrant dwell time. The second edition of ASNTs Liquid Penetrant Handbook states that
penetrant takes only two seconds to enter an open crack. Figure 2(a) documents the baseline and Figure 2(b)
shows the panels appearance with only a 30 second penetrant dwell time. The 30 second penetrant dwell panel was
obviously under-washed but the starburst results are essentially identical to the baseline.

34

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38. Copyright 2008, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 2: (a) Baseline.

(b) 30 Sec penetrant dwell.

(c) 14 hour penetrant dwell.

How about violating maximum dwell time? Penetrant will not dry, even with lengthy dwell times at 125 F1. The
WW penetrant was allowed to dwell for 14 hours. The penetrant did not dry, washed off easily and did not appear
any different than the baseline photograph (Figure 2(c)).

RINSE PARAMETERS
The rinse water already is monitored with a temperature and pressure gage. But, can the panel pick up temperature
violations? The WW panel was wiped with water that was heated to 185 in a microwave. Water wipe with a clean
cloth is an authorized form of removal in accordance with ASTM E1417. Figure 3(a) documents the WW baseline
and Figure 3(b) shows the panels appearance with after wiping the panel with water heated to 185. The results did
not appear any different than the baseline photograph.
The WW panel was wiped with water that was cooled in a freezer to 33. Figure 3(c) documents the results of the
penetrant removal deviation. The results did not appear any different than the baseline photograph.

35

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38. Copyright 2008, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 3: (a) Baseline.

(b) 185 Water.

(c) 33 Water.

(d) Overwash.

The principal variable within the rinse booth is the inspector. The inspector controls the distance and the time of the
wash. The WW panel was washed at a distance of 4 for two minutes. The results (Figure 3(d)) show a degradation
in the largest starburst but not the smaller ones. Other iterations of this test showed better results with the largest
starburst.
A unique starburst panel was used for the post emulsified process. Again, the principal variable within the rinse
booth is the inspector. The inspector controls the distance and the time of the wash. The Method D emulsifier was
sprayed at a distance of 4 for three minutes. Figure 4(a) documents the post-emulsified baseline and Figure 4(a)
shows the panels appearance with an abusive emulsifier dwell time. The results are slightly degraded but within
acceptable variance.

36

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38. Copyright 2008, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 4: (a) Baseline.

(b) 3 Minute spray emulsification at 4.

The drying process may be critical to the penetrant operation. Multiple findings have been written against users for
leaving parts in the oven longer than necessary. Depending upon the temperature, panels only take a few minutes to
dry completely. The WW panel was dried six times longer than necessary, i.e., 30 minutes. Figure 5(a) documents
the WW baseline and Figure 5(b) shows the panels appearance after drying in the oven for 30 minutes and
completing the proper developer dwell time. The test panel was under-washed but with the exception of the smallest
starburst, the results did not appear any different than the baseline photograph.
No panel was run without developer since the lack of wet or dry developer is easily detected.

37

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2008 [Charleston, SC, November 2008]: pp 33-38. Copyright 2008, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Fi
4A B li
Figure 5: (a) Baseline.

Fi

4B 30 Mi
D i
(b) 30 Minute drying at 140.

CONCLUSIONS
The experiments conducted were deliberately extreme in order to demonstrate sudden drastic changes rather than
gradual changes. The results would seem to indicate that starburst panels are not very discriminating in detecting
process variability. In light of this, consideration should be given to modifying the requirements for this process
control. The test does not seem to add value to the process. At the very least, audit findings surrounding this process
control should be classified as minor.

REFERENCES
1.

Hopman, G., Extended Dwell Times and Drying of Penetrant, ASNT Fall Conference, 2003.

38