LAB PRACTICUM AND THEORY

In Magnetic Particle Examination, electric prods or a magnetic yoke are used to polarize or
magnetize a portion of the test specimen. If there are any breaks in this magnetized portion of the
test specimen a new north and south pole are created. The lines of force used to
polarize/magnetize the specimen are called flux lines. Discontinuities and cracks cause the flux
lines to move around the flaw and possibly out of the material. When they leave the material it is
known as flux leakage. Magnetic particles are attracted to this flux leakage revealing the flaw.
Magnetic particle examination takes advantage of this phenomenon in ferromagnetic materials to
find flaws close to the surface (typically max of 1/4” depth) when the flaw provides good
obstruction to flux lines.
For this lab we used the ASTM E1444-01 standard. First, you demagnetize the part to be
examined and make sure it is clean and free of contaminants. Then you decide on an orientation
for the magnetic yokes and make sure the yokes are no more than 6” to 8” apart. The yokes are
then applied. At the same time as the yoke application (Active shot) the dry magnetic particle
developer is applied in a light, uniform, dust-like coating. As mentioned above these particles are
attracted to the flux leakage in the part. After the powder is applied and before the yoke is
removed or turned off, excess powder is removed with a dry air current. This air current should
not be strong enough to disturb the particles held by flux leakage. Now the part can be evaluated
and indications are recorded with written description or photography. These steps are repeated in
a second position 90 degrees from the first to ensure no defects were missed. After testing the
specimen is degaussed to eliminate residual magnetic fields and cleaned to ensure all particles
and developer are removed from the surface.

EQUIPMENT LIST
 Test specimens: Structural Component/ Weld Test/ Elbow.
 Magnaflux powder: 3A Black, Part No-01-1748-81
 An adjustable magnetizing yoke: Magnaflux Corp, Model: Y-6, 115V.-60 HZ-6 A.
 Safety glass
 Safety boots
 Hand broom
DATA ANALYSIS
Table 1 below shows all results of the defects, location and magnetic field direction

Table 1: Results from Magnetic Particle Testing

Magnetic Field
Specimen Defect ID Defect Location
Direction
Welding joint
W1 Horizontal
(Top side)
#1 – Weld Test
Welding Joint
W2 Horizontal
(Bottom side
Left end
S1 Vertical
#2 – Structural (Top side)
Component Right end
S2 Vertical
(Bottom side
E1 The nameplate Circular
Left end
E2 Circular
#3 - Elbow (Top side)
Right end
E3 Circular
(Bottom side)

Specimen #1: Weld Test

Top Side

Figure 1: Defect in welding joint – W1 Figure 2: Defect in welding joint – W1

Bottom Side

Figure 3: Defect in welding joint - W2

Figure 4: Defect in bottom welding joint Figure 5: Defect in bottom welding joint
 With the weld test specimen, no defects were observed with the yoke in the longitudinal
magnetism orientation on either side. When the yoke was placed in the circumferential
orientation (AKA perpendicular to the weld) many near surface discontinuities were found on
top side and bottom side. However, as possible to observe in the figures, it was found that the
defects were not with the plates of steel themselves but where the plates met the weld. On the top
side, in figure 1 and 2 you can observe the magnetic particles were attracted to the area where the
bad weld meets the metal plate. These defects may have been caused by lack of weld fusion.
This can also be observed on the bottom side at figures, 3 and 4, where the weld does appear to
be better done, but a small amount of flux leakage still occurs where the weld meets the plate
indicating small cracks which can reduce the usability of the part and are therefore non-
conformances. The weld quality on the second side is of much higher quality than the weld on
top side. On bottom side, at Figure 5 the test results were inconclusive because welding slag
attracted the metal particles. In order to correct this further pre-cleaning may be necessary to
eliminate the slag from the surface and thus giving the opportunity of relevant results.

Specimen #2: Structural Component

The specimen is part of metal which has been tested by magnetic particle examination. The part
has four big holes, three small holes and two semi-circular holes at the end as shown in figure 6.
While during magnetic testing, two defects have been observed on the part. One defect at the left
hand side near the semi-circular hole, other at the right hand side of the part near the side edge of
the part.

Figure 6: Structural component

Source: Original (Patel)

DEFECTS
The first defect at the left hand side of the corner is shown in figure 7. It shows the small
crack around 12 mm long which may cause due to stress induced in it while it has been cut. It
may have been caused due to impact on the side and between the cutting tools. It is major defect
which may reduce the usability part due to the cracks in it.it is non-conformance.
The second defect at the right hand side corner near the side edge is shown in figure 8. It shows
the small crack around 10 mm long which may cause due to presence of microstructural cracks.it
is to be major defect which may cause failure to and which can reduce the safety of part because
of this crack. It is non-conformance.

Figure 7: Defect at left hand side semi-circular hole – S1

Source: Original (Patel)

Figure 8: Defect at right hand side near side edge – S2

Source: Original (Patel)

False Indication
False indications are shown in figure 9. The magnaflux powder shows at the two sides of the
corner side edges. This may be the reasons that the probe was held too much causing the large
particles to extend from the magnetic flux lines, or it’s caused due to the flux leakage at the side
of the part while it magnetized by turning 90 degrees.

Figure 9: False indications

Source: Original (Patel)

Specimen #3: Elbow

The part is an elbow of plumbing pipe made from metal as shown in Figure 10. There are so
many rusts and slags on the outside of the elbow, especially on the both ends. Magnetic particle
testing was carried out on the top side and bottom side with two orientation of magnetic field
(horizontal and circumferential)

Figure 10: elbow specimen

Defects
There is no indication of defect when the part was applied in circumferential orientation of
magnetic field.
There are 3 defects appeared when the horizontal direction of magnetic field was applied to the
elbow. The first one is shown in Figure 11, the particles were attracted around the name plate
which indicate minor cracks or openings around the nameplate.

Figure 11: Defect at the nameplate – S1

The second defect is at the right end of the top side as show in Figure 12. The particles were
attracted to concave areas of the slag which indicate porous defects or fracture.

Figure 12: Defect at right end of top side – S2

The third defect is on the right end of the bottom side. There are many particles appeared on the
welded joint, and the particles were distributed non-uniform. The welding condition is
deteriorated, there are so many porous indications.

Figure 13: Defect at the right end of bottom side – S3

Identification of Error Sources

The false indication in the specimen #2 shown in Figure 9 is probably caused by holding the
probe too much causing the large particles to extend from the magnetic flux lines. The indication
in Figure 5 is not clear, there so many particles covering a large area, this is because the
developer was applied too much. One very minor other thing we noticed was that when we
turned the magnetic yoke off the dust collected on the yoke fell on anything within the vicinity of
it. After making note of this we were careful to only turn off the yoke away from the test
specimen area.

Conclusion
After completing the magnetic particle examination and following all the proper procedures, the
results attained were as expected. As Indicated in the data analysis the procedure which we
followed proved the theory as we observed in the defects by using the ASTM standard.