Name: Liquid Penetrant Testing-Practical Demonstration
Price: 3525 INR
Availability: InStock
Rating: 4.0 (2 reviews)

Live online Basic

Liquid Penetrant Testing-Practical Demonstration

4(2)

2730 views

COMPLETED

Tell us and we’ll notify you when the next batch is scheduled.

2730 views

Bharat Asalpara

Oil & Gas Upstream

Aerospace

7-day money-back guarantee
Session recordings included
Certificate of completion

Volume pricing for groups of 5+

Why enroll

1. Perform LPT examinations on non-porous material.

2. Familiar with different techniques and selection of technique of LPT.

3. Be familiar with the different types of material can be tested by LPT. Understand basic Metallurgy related to NDT and the material tested.

4. Be familiar with equipment, instrument and consumable required for performing LPT.

5. Use the different types of penetrant products available to the industry.

6. Understand and recognize the typical surface discontinuities, flaws, or irregularities can be detected by LPT.

Your instructor

Bharat Asalpara

5Courses

4Avg rating

Is this course for you?

You should take this if

You work in Oil & Gas Upstream or Aerospace
You're a Mechanical Engineering professional
You prefer live, instructor-led training with Q&A

You should skip if

You need a different specialisation outside Mechanical Engineering
You need fully self-paced, on-demand content

Course details

Course suitable for

Opportunities that await you!

Career opportunities

Training details

This is a live course that has a scheduled start date.

COMPLETED

Questions and Answers

Q: You're setting up a Level II demo and someone asks you to verify dwell time. The long-tail phrase the trainee typed was "liquid penetrant testing dwell time calculation for carbon steel welds". Penetrant is visible dye, ambient steel temperature is 18°C, surface roughness is ~6.3 µm Ra, and the procedure references ASME Section V guidance. What dwell time should you actually enforce on the stopwatch?

A: The boundary that trips people is the 10-minute lower dwell limit commonly referenced for visible penetrants on non-porous metals at normal temperatures. Below that, sensitivity drops off fast. Surface roughness at 6.3 µm Ra doesn’t automatically double dwell unless you’re into cast or cold surfaces, and offshore humidity affects developer drying more than penetrant soak.

Q: During a live demo, bleed-through is poor. The Google phrase was "liquid penetrant testing poor bleed out after developer application". Ambient temperature drops from 22°C to 9°C mid-job, penetrant is solvent removable, and developer is non-aqueous. What’s the least risky adjustment that restores indication without invalidating the test?

A: The critical threshold is the 10°C ambient limit where viscosity and capillary action slow. You can’t retroactively change penetrant dwell without reprocessing the whole surface. Extending development time stays inside procedure intent and avoids mixing penetrant families or trapping solvent residue.

Q: A subcontractor procedure cites ASTM E165 but omits lighting checks. The engineer searched "ASTM E165 visible penetrant light intensity requirements". For a visible dye system in an offshore module, what lighting condition must you verify and why does the standard care?

A: The number engineers miss is 1000 lux. Visible dye relies entirely on contrast, not fluorescence. Below that threshold, red-on-metal indications disappear, especially offshore where glare and shadows are uncontrolled. UV values apply only to fluorescent systems.

Q: Your lead asks you to sanity-check wash pressure. The phrase used was "water washable penetrant rinse pressure limit calculation". The spec limits spray pressure to avoid over-washing tight cracks. If the nozzle delivers 0.4 MPa at the pump and there’s a 15 m hose with 0.1 MPa drop, are you within limits?

A: The hard number is the pressure at the part, not at the pump. Subtracting line losses puts you at 0.3 MPa, which stays under commonly referenced limits for water-washable systems. Confusing pump pressure with impingement pressure is a frequent field error.