Liquid Penetrant Testing
Liquid Penetrant Testing
Liquid Penetrant Testing
PENETRANT
TESTING
BSME 3B (GROUP 2)
BALANSAY, JENNY ROSE B.
BAUTISTA, BRYAN JAMES
BONGCATO, REGINA
TOMAS, JM
DEFINITION
• LIQUID PENETRANT TESTING (LPT) IS A TESTING METHOD THAT USES A DYE
OR FLUORESCENT PENETRANT TO DETECT SURFACE DISCONTINUITIES,
INCLUDING CRACKS, POROSITY, LAPS, SEAMS, AND OTHER SURFACE FLAWS.
THE PENETRANT IS INTRODUCED ONTO THE SURFACE AND ALLOWED TO SIT
TO PENETRATE ANY DEFECTS PRESENT.
• AFTER CLEANING THE EXCESS PENETRANT, A DEVELOPER IS APPLIED THAT
DRAWS THE DYE OUT OF ANY DISCONTINUITIES, MAKING THEM VISIBLE.
THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF LPT: VISIBLE DYE PENETRANT, FLUORESCENT
DYE PENETRANT, AND DUAL-PURPOSE PENETRANT WHICH CAN BE USED IN
BOTH VISIBLE AND FLUORESCENT MODE.
• LIQUID PENETRANT TESTING, ALSO KNOWN AS DYE PENETRANT INSPECTION
(DPI) OR LIQUID PENETRANT INSPECTION (LPI) IS ONE OF THE MOST
COMMON AND AFFORDABLE SOLUTION AND ONE OF THE OLDEST, IF
COMPARED TO NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING CHALLENGES.
• THIS METHOD INVOLVES APPLYING A LIQUID PENETRANT TO THE SURFACE
OF A MATERIAL OF A MATERIAL, ALLOWING IT TO SEEP INTO ANY CRACKS OR
DEFECTS, AND THEN USING A DEVELOPER TO MAKE THE PENETRANT
VISIBLE.
ADVANTAGES
• Liquid penetrant testing has the following advantages:
• Works on complicated geometric shapes
• LPI materials are compact Sensitive to small surface interruptions
• Few material limitations such as—works on non-metallic, metallic, non-magnetic, magnetic,
non-conductive and conductive materials Liquid penetrant testing materials are individually very
cost-effective
• Visual, real-world results
DISADVANTAGES
• Liquid penetrant testing has the following disadvantages:
• Liquid penetrant testing has the following disadvantages:
• Extensive, time-taking pre-cleaning critical—surface contaminants can mask defects
• Sensitive to surface-breaking defects only Direct connection to the surface under test necessary
• Works on relatively non-porous surface materials only
• No depth sizing
• Multi-process testing procedure Time-taking; post-cleaning also necessary
• No recordable data handy for progress monitoring
• User dependent
• Environmental concerns—may require disposing of chemicals and expensive handling
• The biggest disadvantage is that despite lower costs and over time (cheaper materials, less
training),
• Liquid penetrant testing is more than a screening tool; one can measure their length and locate
defects, but using this method, it’s impossible to monitor the advancement of defects or determine
the severity of its depth. It relegates the method to a pass/fail evaluation, that leads to discarding
healthy parts and retaining unhealthy parts—which can both prove expensive.
• Hence, in totality, despite the instant captivation of this cost-effective solution, it possesses
various downsides that must be looked at before dismissing more progressive and more expensive
inspection solutions, whether you contract inspections or perform them on your own.