engineering studies of fluorescent penetrant inspection papers/dwg oct 06 lbrasche.pdfprogram...

Engineering Studies of Engineering Studies of Fluorescent Penetrant Fluorescent Penetrant

InspectionInspection

Lisa Brasche, Iowa State UniversityLisa Brasche, Iowa State [email protected]@cnde.iastate.edu

Defense Working GroupDefense Working GroupOctober 2006October 2006

http://www.cnde.iastate.edu/faahttp://www.cnde.iastate.edu/faa--casr/fpi/index.htmlcasr/fpi/index.html

Program TimelineProgram Timeline

1999 1999 –– 2002 2002 –– Cleaning and Drying Cleaning and Drying Studies performed as part of the Engine Studies performed as part of the Engine Titanium ConsortiumTitanium Consortium2002 2002 –– 2006 2006 –– Engineering Assessment of Engineering Assessment of Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection performed as part of Center for Aviation performed as part of Center for Aviation Systems Reliability effortSystems Reliability effort


Engineering Assessment of FPIEngineering Assessment of FPI

Provide engineering data to Provide engineering data to support decisions regarding support decisions regarding the safe application and the safe application and relevant use of FPIrelevant use of FPIIncludes data to support Includes data to support changes in specificationschanges in specificationsGenerate tools for use by Generate tools for use by airlines and OEMS that airlines and OEMS that improve FPI processesimprove FPI processesStrong industry team with Strong industry team with extensive experienceextensive experience

Program PartnersProgram PartnersIndustrial Advisory Panel

Boeing - Long BeachDwight Wilson, John Petty

Boeing - SeattleSteve Younker, Mike Davis

Delta Airlines - AtlantaLee Clements

United Airlines - IndianapolisDave Arms, Bob Stevens

Pratt & Whitney - EH and WPBKevin Smith, John Lively

Rolls Royce - Indianapolis and DarbyPramod Khandelwal, Keith Griffiths, Bill Griffiths, Tom Dreher

GE Aircraft EnginesTerry Kessler, Thadd Patton, Wayne Kitchen, Phil Keown

Sherwin - CincinnatiSam Robinson

D&W Enterprises - DenverWard Rummel

Cooperative Cooperative university/industry program university/industry program which brings together which brings together aircraft and engine OEMs, aircraft and engine OEMs, airlines, vendors, as well as airlines, vendors, as well as technical expertise from the technical expertise from the NDE community. NDE community.

ISU: Lisa Brasche, Rick Lopez, Dave Eisenmann, Bill Meeker

FAA: Al Broz, Paul Swindell, Dave Galella

Technical ApproachTechnical Approach

Define factors for which engineering data is deficientDefine factors for which engineering data is deficientChange in process, e.g., environmental changesChange in process, e.g., environmental changesChange in applicationsChange in applicationsData not available in the public domainData not available in the public domain

Design engineering study that provides quantitative Design engineering study that provides quantitative assessment of performanceassessment of performance

Brightness measurementsBrightness measurementsDigital recording of UVA indicationDigital recording of UVA indicationProbability of DetectionProbability of Detection

Complete study using either lab or shop facilities as Complete study using either lab or shop facilities as appropriateappropriateDistribute results through use of webDistribute results through use of webSupport changes to industry specifications as warrantedSupport changes to industry specifications as warrantedUtilize results to update/create guidance materialsUtilize results to update/create guidance materialsTransition process to airlines for internal, selfTransition process to airlines for internal, self--assessmentassessment


Brightness MeasurementBrightness Measurement

Used rigid fixturing to Used rigid fixturing to assure repeatability assure repeatability with transportability with transportability for brightness for brightness measurementsmeasurementsPhoto Research PR-880 Photometer used to record indication brightness in ft-Lamberts

Brightness MeasurementsBrightness Measurements

10.5”10.5”

12”12”

24 deg24 deg

20 deg20 deg

14 1/8”14 1/8”

6.5”6.5”

14”14”

19”19”

10.5”10.5”

12”12”

24 deg24 deg

20 deg20 deg

14 1/8”14 1/8”

6.5”6.5”

14”14”

19”19”


Field StudiesField Studies

Requires access to typical Requires access to typical drying, cleaning and FPI drying, cleaning and FPI methods used in commercial methods used in commercial aviationaviationSeveral partners have Several partners have provided access to their provided access to their facilitiesfacilities

Access to cleaning lines for Ti Access to cleaning lines for Ti and Ni as well as mechanical and Ni as well as mechanical blasting facilities blasting facilities FPI line for sample processingFPI line for sample processingInspection booth for Inspection booth for characterization and brightness characterization and brightness measurementsmeasurements


15 15 -- 20 samples per basket 20 samples per basket 20 minute penetrant dwell20 minute penetrant dwell90 second pre90 second pre--washwash120 seconds emulsifier 120 seconds emulsifier contact with vertical motioncontact with vertical motionTwo 30 second cycles of air Two 30 second cycles of air agitated water rinse, then a agitated water rinse, then a 90 second post90 second post--washwash



Samples dried for 8 minutes Samples dried for 8 minutes at 150at 150ººF F DragDrag--through application of through application of developerdeveloper10 minute development time10 minute development timeBrightness reading using Brightness reading using SpotmeterSpotmeterLength reading using UVA Length reading using UVA and image analysis softwareand image analysis software

Engineering StudiesEngineering StudiesTopics for engineering Topics for engineering studies selected and studies selected and prioritized by teamprioritized by teamSubteamsSubteams developed for developed for experimental design experimental design with review by the full with review by the full teamteamExperimental efforts to Experimental efforts to take place at various take place at various industry locations industry locations Definition currently Definition currently underwayunderway

ES ES –– 1 1 –– Developer StudiesDeveloper StudiesES ES –– 2 2 –– Cleaning Studies for Ti, Cleaning Studies for Ti, Ni and AlNi and AlES ES –– 3 3 –– Stress StudiesStress StudiesES ES –– 4 4 –– Assessment tool for Assessment tool for dryness and cleanlinessdryness and cleanlinessES ES –– 5 5 –– Effect of surface Effect of surface treatments on detectabilitytreatments on detectabilityES ES –– 6 6 –– Light level StudiesLight level StudiesES ES –– 7 7 –– Detectability StudiesDetectability StudiesES ES –– 8 8 –– Study of Prewash and Study of Prewash and Emulsification ParametersEmulsification ParametersES ES –– 9 9 –– Evaluation of Drying Evaluation of Drying TemperaturesTemperaturesES ES –– 10 10 –– Part geometry effectsPart geometry effectsES ES –– 11 11 –– Penetrant Application Penetrant Application StudiesStudiesES ES –– 12 12 –– Relationship of part Relationship of part thickness to drying methodthickness to drying method

Developer Chamber CharacterizationDeveloper Chamber Characterization

Utilized standard sample process with Utilized standard sample process with baseline established using dip/drag baseline established using dip/drag method of developer applicationmethod of developer applicationEvaluated four developer chambers and Evaluated four developer chambers and wand application methods at two locationswand application methods at two locationsSame penetrant process (level 4 PE) and Same penetrant process (level 4 PE) and chemistry use through outchemistry use through out

Baseline CharacterizationBaseline Characterization

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18002

-017

02-0

31

02-0

35

02-0

38

02-0

43

02-0

45

02-0

52

02-0

55

02-0

58

02-0

60

02-0

63

02-4

00

02-4

07

02-4

09

02-4

15

02-4

20

02-4

23

02-4

32

02-4

35

02-4

37

02-4

41

02-4

45

02-4

49

02-4

53

02-4

56

02-4

57

02-4

61

02-4

75

Brig

htne

ss

Loc 1 - BL-1Loc 1 - BL-2Loc 1 - BL-3Loc 2 - BL-1Loc 2 - BL-2Loc 2 - BL-3BL AVG

Developer Application MethodsDeveloper Application Methods

Chamber a Chamber a –– Developer applied through linear Developer applied through linear diffuser located at top and bottom of chamber diffuser located at top and bottom of chamber Chamber b Chamber b –– Developer applied from circular Developer applied from circular diffuser located at top and bottom of chamberdiffuser located at top and bottom of chamberChamber c Chamber c –– Developer applied from circular Developer applied from circular diffuser located at top of chamberdiffuser located at top of chamberChamber d Chamber d –– Developer applied from two nozzle Developer applied from two nozzle diffusers located at bottom of chamberdiffusers located at bottom of chamberManual spray Manual spray –– Low pressure, high volume Low pressure, high volume manual applicationmanual applicationDip/drag Dip/drag –– Hand application of individual Hand application of individual samples. Used for baseline measurements. samples. Used for baseline measurements.

Chamber D CharacterizationChamber D CharacterizationChamber contains two jets, at Chamber contains two jets, at approximately approximately ¼¼ and and ¾¾ of the of the chamber lengthchamber lengthJets located below rollersJets located below rollersTypical operation of 5 sec developer Typical operation of 5 sec developer application followed by 10 min dwell application followed by 10 min dwell in chamberin chamber

Chamber D CharacterizationChamber D Characterization

Chamber d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

AVG Brightness

Brig

htne

ss

BL - 1

BL - 2

BL - 3

BL AVG

Run 1 - 20 sec with evac - D

Run 2 - 20 sec - S

Run 3 - 20 sec - U

Run 4 - new developer - D

Run 4 - new developer U

Run 5 - 40 sec - D

Run 5 - 40 sec - U

Linear (Run 1 - 20 sec with evac - D)

Linear (Run 2 - 20 sec - S)

Linear (Run 3 - 20 sec - U)

Linear (Run 4 - new developer U)

Linear (Run 4 - new developer - D)

Linear (Run 5 - 40 sec - D)

Linear (Run 5 - 40 sec - U)

UP

DOWN

Chamber B CharacterizationChamber B Characterization

Chamber B

0

30

60

90

0 30 60 90

AVG BL Brightness

Brig

htne

ss

BA-AVG

BL-1

BL-2

BL-3

Run 1 - 20 sec with evac D

Run 1 - 20 sec with evac U

Run 3 - 20 sec without evac U



Run - 40 sec without evac U



Linear (Run 1 - 20 sec with evac D)

Linear (Run 1 - 20 sec with evac U)

Linear (Run 3 - 20 sec without evac U)



Linear (Run - 40 sec without evac U)



UP

DOWN

Manual Spray ApplicationManual Spray Application

Low pressure, high volume sprayLow pressure, high volume spray5 and 25 sec runs completed using lobster cage with 5 and 25 sec runs completed using lobster cage with cracks in D, S or U positioncracks in D, S or U position60 and 120 sec runs completed with samples all in U 60 and 120 sec runs completed with samples all in U positionposition

Manual Spray ApplicationManual Spray Application

Increasing time of Increasing time of manual spray manual spray application from 5 to application from 5 to 25 sec showed 25 sec showed significant significant improvements in improvements in brightness brightness Emphasize as part of Emphasize as part of future training future training opportunitiesopportunities

Comparision of time ( Run 4A[5sec] and 4B[25sec]) in Site1

Developer application method

Cor

rect

ed B

right

ness

010

2030

4050

5 25

" "#

#

$

$

%%&

&

'

'

( ())

* *+

+

, ,- -

02-44102-42202-03502-43402-03402-05302-43902-40802-02702-05702-04302-01702-04402-03102-45602-46102-42002-04902-40902-03802-44502-055

"#

02-04502-03902-44602-43702-06002-45702-05202-41202-06302-06402-443

$%&'()*+,-

02-03602-46202-43202-05902-45002-41602-44902-40402-42302-06102-058

Comparision of time ( Run 4A[5sec] and 4B[25sec]) Specimens with small CBrightness in Site1

Developer application method

Cor

rect

ed B

right

ness

-10

12

34

5

5 25

02-44102-03402-05302-43902-40802-02702-05702-04302-01702-03102-45602-46102-42002-049

02-03802-44502-05502-03902-44602-45702-412

02-06302-06402-46202-05902-45002-41602-44902-42302-06102-058

Statistical Analysis of Chamber EffectsStatistical Analysis of Chamber Effects

Statistical analysis showed:Statistical analysis showed:Differences were found in location within the Differences were found in location within the chamberschambers

Right/left effects in Chamber B but not Chamber A for cracks Right/left effects in Chamber B but not Chamber A for cracks in up positionin up positionImproved brightness in middle of Chamber B compared to Improved brightness in middle of Chamber B compared to either end for cracks in up positioneither end for cracks in up positionMore variation at front of Chamber D than middle and back More variation at front of Chamber D than middle and back of chamberof chamberNo right/left, front/back or level effects for cracks in down No right/left, front/back or level effects for cracks in down positionpositionNo level (top, middle bottom) effect found in Chamber A, B No level (top, middle bottom) effect found in Chamber A, B or Dor D

Most significant effect was crack orientation (up, Most significant effect was crack orientation (up, down, sideways)down, sideways)

Importance of Sample OrientationImportance of Sample Orientation

Completed POD study Completed POD study which correlates which correlates brightness to brightness to detectabilitydetectabilityUsed two sample sets, Used two sample sets, two inspectors under two inspectors under multiple UV intensity multiple UV intensity level, white light level level, white light level combinationscombinationsEvaluated indication Evaluated indication location (top or bottom) location (top or bottom) of panel of panel Significant differences Significant differences can occur can occur 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PO

D

POD with fc= 0 Surface= B with 95% lower confidence bound

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PO

D

POD with fc= 0 Surface= T with 95% lower confidence bound

Importance of BrightnessImportance of BrightnessPOD is correlated to POD is correlated to brightnessbrightnessUVA intensity of UVA intensity of 5000 5000 μμwatts/cmwatts/cm2 2

lead to ~15 mil lead to ~15 mil improvement in POD improvement in POD when compared to when compared to 1000 and 3000 1000 and 3000 μμwatts/cmwatts/cm2 2

Increasing Increasing whitelightwhitelightcontamination led to contamination led to significant significant reductions in POD in reductions in POD in excess of 100 milsexcess of 100 mils

AvgBright (mW/cm^2) 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PO

D

POD with fc= 0 Surface= TPOD with fc= 1 Surface= TPOD with fc= 0 Surface= BPOD with fc= 1 Surface= B

Length (Inches)0.002 0.005 0.020 0.050 0.200

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PO

DHit-Miss POD with 95% lower confidence bound

R3.I2.5kuva.0fc

Length (Inches)0.002 0.005 0.020 0.050 0.200

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PO

DHit-Miss POD with 95% lower confidence bound

R4.I2.DevCh.5kuva.0fc

Preliminary ConclusionsPreliminary ConclusionsDeveloper application is critical to overall FPI performanceDeveloper application is critical to overall FPI performanceDeveloper application by dip/drag yields brighter indication Developer application by dip/drag yields brighter indication than with any of the developer chamber or wand application than with any of the developer chamber or wand application methodsmethodsNo indications were No indications were ““lostlost”” but detectability improves with but detectability improves with brightness brightness –– optimal process will yield bright indicationsoptimal process will yield bright indicationsSample orientation matters Sample orientation matters

Avoid barriers that prevent direct application of the developer Avoid barriers that prevent direct application of the developer Ensure chamber configuration or part handling fixtures (rollers,Ensure chamber configuration or part handling fixtures (rollers,baskets, etc.) donbaskets, etc.) don’’t hamper applicationt hamper applicationNo metalNo metal--toto--metal contactmetal contactMay require multiple trips through the chamber to ensure adequatMay require multiple trips through the chamber to ensure adequate e coverage on all surfacescoverage on all surfaces

White light contamination mattersWhite light contamination matters

ETC Drying StudyETC Drying Study

Drying study parametersDrying study parametersUltrasonic acetone clean 30 minutesUltrasonic acetone clean 30 minutesFlash dryFlash dry

Water bath at RT (82F Water bath at RT (82F –– 28C)28C)Flash dry at 150F (66C)Flash dry at 150F (66C)

Oven dry Oven dry Water bath at RT (82F Water bath at RT (82F –– 28C)28C)Oven dry at 225F (107C) for 30 minutesOven dry at 225F (107C) for 30 minutes

FPI ProcessFPI ProcessCool to 40C prior to FPICool to 40C prior to FPIZLZL--37 37 –– UltraHighUltraHigh Sensitivity Post Emulsified Sensitivity Post Emulsified PenetrantPenetrant

Spotmeter brightness and digital recording of Spotmeter brightness and digital recording of imageimage

Drying StudyDrying Study

Nickel Drying Study - June 20 - 22, 2001

0

50

100

150

200

25001

-038

01-0

31

01-0

36

01-0

35

01-0

32

01-0

39

00-1

08

01-0

09

00-1

21

01-0

20

00-1

27

00-1

10

01-0

26

00-1

16

00-1

17

01-0

08

01-0

27

00-1

20

00-1

24

01-0

28

01-0

34

01-0

33

01-0

30

01-0

56

01-0

21

01-0

03

01-0

22

00-1

11

01-0

25

01-0

55

00-1

26

00-1

25

01-0

23

00-1

19

01-0

05

00-1

06

01-0

07

01-0

29

00-1

05

Sample number

Brig

htne

ss

Flash dry 1Flash dry 2Flash dry 3Flash dry 4FD AvgOven dry 1Oven dry 2Oven dry 3Oven dry 4OD AvgDelta Avg


Nickel Drying Study - June 20 - 22, 2001

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.2501

-038

01-0

31

01-0

36

01-0

35

01-0

32

01-0

39

00-1

08

01-0

09

00-1

21

01-0

20

00-1

27

00-1

10

01-0

26

00-1

16

00-1

17

01-0

08

01-0

27

00-1

20

00-1

24

01-0

28

01-0

34

01-0

33

01-0

30

01-0

56

01-0

21

01-0

03

01-0

22

00-1

11

01-0

25

01-0

55

00-1

26

00-1

25

01-0

23

00-1

19

01-0

05

00-1

06

01-0

07

01-0

29

00-1

05

Sample number

UVA

Len

gth

(in.)

Flash dry 1 Flash dry 2 Flash dry 3 Flash dry 4

FD Avg Oven dry 1 Oven dry 2 Oven dry 3

Oven dry 4 OD Avg Delta BL Avg


ETC Drying StudyETC Drying StudyStatistical analysis of brightness and UVA lengths did not Statistical analysis of brightness and UVA lengths did not reveal significant differences between the two drying reveal significant differences between the two drying methods at the temperatures used in this study, i.e., flash methods at the temperatures used in this study, i.e., flash drying at 150drying at 150°°F and oven drying at 225F and oven drying at 225°°FFPotential factors not considered in the current study are the Potential factors not considered in the current study are the effect of thermal mass, potential differences in penetrant effect of thermal mass, potential differences in penetrant level, and a range of drying temperatures. Additional studies level, and a range of drying temperatures. Additional studies that explore these factors are underway. that explore these factors are underway. While significant differences were not found between the two While significant differences were not found between the two methods, the importance of process monitoring and control methods, the importance of process monitoring and control for either method should be emphasized in specifications, for either method should be emphasized in specifications, standard practice documents, and training/guidance standard practice documents, and training/guidance materials. Without careful adherence to the recommended materials. Without careful adherence to the recommended practices, reductions in detectability can occur with either practices, reductions in detectability can occur with either method. method. A comparison of the results of quantitative brightness A comparison of the results of quantitative brightness measurements such as completed in this program and the measurements such as completed in this program and the more traditional POD study is underway more traditional POD study is underway

CASR Drying Study CASR Drying Study –– ES ES --99Samples included shot Samples included shot peenedpeenedand as machined surfacesand as machined surfacesPenetrantsPenetrants

Level 4 ultrahigh Level 4 ultrahigh postemulsifiablepostemulsifiable: : Magnaflux ZL Magnaflux ZL –– 3737Level 3 surfactant based water Level 3 surfactant based water wash: Magnaflux ZL wash: Magnaflux ZL –– 6767Level 2 oil based water wash: Level 2 oil based water wash: Magnaflux ZL Magnaflux ZL –– 60D60D

Additional drying parametersAdditional drying parametersPOD data generatedPOD data generated


Drying Study ResultsDrying Study Results

Results analyzed as Results analyzed as function of function of penetrant method, penetrant method, drying parameter, drying parameter, and surface finishand surface finishStrongest factor was Strongest factor was surface finishsurface finishExpected differences Expected differences found between found between penetrant levelspenetrant levels

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Crack length (inches)

Ln(B

right

ness

)

M - Run 2 (Level 4 -225OD) M- Run 3 (Level 4 -185FD) M - Run 4 (Level 4 -250OD) M - Run 5 (Level 4 -225OD) M - Run 6 (Level 4 -185FD) M - Run 7 (Level 3 -185FD) M - Run 8 (Level 3 -225OD) M - Run 9 (Level 4 - 225OD) M - Run 10 (Level 2 -185FD) M - Run 11 (Level 2 -225OD) S - Run 2 (Level 4 -225OD) S - Run 3 (Level 4 -185FD) S - Run 4 (Level 4 -250OD) S - Run 5 (Level 4 -225OD) S - Run 6 (Level 4 -185FD) S - Run 7 (Level 3 -185FD) S - Run 8 (Level 3 -225OD) S - Run 9 (Level 4 - 225OD) S - Run 10 (Level 2 -185FD) S - Run 11 (Level 2 -225OD) Linear (M - Run 2 (Level 4 -225OD) ) Linear (M- Run 3 (Level 4 -185FD) )Linear (M - Run 4 (Level 4 -250OD) ) Linear (M - Run 5 (Level 4 -225OD) )Linear (M - Run 6 (Level 4 -185FD)) Linear (M - Run 7 (Level 3 -185FD) )Linear (M - Run 8 (Level 3 -225OD)) Linear (M - Run 9 (Level 4 - 225OD) )Linear (M - Run 10 (Level 2 -185FD) ) Linear (M - Run 11 (Level 2 -225OD) )Linear (S - Run 2 (Level 4 -225OD) ) Linear (S - Run 3 (Level 4 -185FD) )Linear (S - Run 4 (Level 4 -250OD) ) Linear (S - Run 5 (Level 4 -225OD) )Linear (S - Run 6 (Level 4 -185FD)) Linear (S - Run 7 (Level 3 -185FD) )Linear (S - Run 8 (Level 3 -225OD)) Linear (S - Run 9 (Level 4 - 225OD) )Linear (S - Run 10 (Level 2 -185FD) ) Linear (S - Run 11 (Level 2 -225OD) )

l

ConclusionsConclusionsFor sample size and crack size used, differences were For sample size and crack size used, differences were not found between the two drying methods. Factors not not found between the two drying methods. Factors not considered include thermal mass which will be accessed considered include thermal mass which will be accessed as part of future studies using real parts and appropriate as part of future studies using real parts and appropriate fixtures. fixtures. Differences were found between the two surface finish Differences were found between the two surface finish conditions. Detectability in shot conditions. Detectability in shot peenedpeened surfaces present surfaces present on these samples was lower than machined surfaces. on these samples was lower than machined surfaces. Differences were found between penetrant method with Differences were found between penetrant method with Level 4 found to be more sensitive than Levels 3 or 2. Level 4 found to be more sensitive than Levels 3 or 2. Differences between levels 2 and 3 were not significant Differences between levels 2 and 3 were not significant for the rinse times used in this study. for the rinse times used in this study.

ObjectiveObjective

Evaluate geometry and Evaluate geometry and high thermal mass effects high thermal mass effects on brightness in response on brightness in response to changes in processing to changes in processing parameters.parameters.Utilized real part with Utilized real part with fatigue cracks generated fatigue cracks generated during spin pit test and during spin pit test and provided for use by Rolls provided for use by Rolls Royce.Royce.

Weights approx. 300 lbs Weights approx. 300 lbs WaspaloyWaspaloy material material Changing geometryChanging geometryHigh mass to volume ratioHigh mass to volume ratioShot Shot peenedpeened surfacesurface

Baseline ProcessBaseline ProcessVapor degrease 5 Vapor degrease 5 minsmins @ 183F (This increased to default of 20 @ 183F (This increased to default of 20 minsminsdue to persistent FPI indications).due to persistent FPI indications).

Oven dry @ 225F for 30 Oven dry @ 225F for 30 minsmins

Cool to 104F (forced air cooled using fan)Cool to 104F (forced air cooled using fan)

Level 4, PE penetrant (ZLLevel 4, PE penetrant (ZL--37), dipped and dwelled for 20 37), dipped and dwelled for 20 minsmins

Wash 60 secondsWash 60 seconds

Emulsify using ZREmulsify using ZR--10B with agitation for 120 seconds10B with agitation for 120 seconds

Wash 60 secondsWash 60 seconds

Pre developer dry @ 160F for 20 minutesPre developer dry @ 160F for 20 minutes

Dry powder developer, ZPDry powder developer, ZP--4B, hand processed 10 minute dwell4B, hand processed 10 minute dwell

Temperature MonitoringTemperature Monitoring

Temperature gages Temperature gages used to determine used to determine variation with part variation with part geometrygeometryOrder of increasing Order of increasing temperature:temperature:

Inner (bore)Inner (bore)Outer (rim)Outer (rim)Middle (flange)Middle (flange)

boreborerimrim

flangeflange

crack locationcrack location

Bore RimFlange

Results of Flash Dry ComparisonResults of Flash Dry Comparison

Similar average brightness between FD and OD in Mar 04Similar average brightness between FD and OD in Mar 04More variability and lower average brightness found with FD in MMore variability and lower average brightness found with FD in Mar ar 05 than 225OD, possibly due to emulsifier effects05 than 225OD, possibly due to emulsifier effects

Flash Dry

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

1 2

2A 2B

3 4

4A 4B 5A 6A

7 8

8B 8C 8D 8E 8F 9

9A 9B 10A

Indication ID

Brig

htne

ss

AVERAGE - 225OD

MAX - 225OD

MIN - 225OD

Mar 04 - R7 - 160FD

Mar 04 - R9 - 160FD

Mar 05 - R8-183FD-hand

AVERAGE - FD (Mar 04 &Mar 05)

AVERAGE - Mar 04 FD

Thermal Mass Drying Study ConclusionsThermal Mass Drying Study Conclusions

Average brightness similar for both oven dry Average brightness similar for both oven dry temperatures, i.e., 225F and 250F temperatures, i.e., 225F and 250F FD data requires additional statistical analysisFD data requires additional statistical analysis

More variation found with FD when compared to More variation found with FD when compared to 225OD, original emulsifier225OD, original emulsifierWith new emulsifier, FD and OD performed similarlyWith new emulsifier, FD and OD performed similarly

Dust chamber application shows similar brightness Dust chamber application shows similar brightness debits to those found using lcf samplesdebits to those found using lcf samplesUse of heavy duty alkaline clean led to Use of heavy duty alkaline clean led to improvements in brightnessimprovements in brightnessRecommend final study to establish minimum Recommend final study to establish minimum acceptable drying temperature for parts, i.e., acceptable drying temperature for parts, i.e., energy savings benefitsenergy savings benefits

More informationMore informationWebsite to provide Website to provide background info and publish background info and publish technical resultstechnical resultsLink to FAA Reports Link to FAA Reports available available


engineering studies of fluorescent penetrant inspection papers/dwg oct 06 lbrasche.pdfprogram...

Documents