Component Penetrant Testing With Solid Blasting for Automated Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing penetrant testing methods, particularly in turbomachines, suffer from manual processes that are difficult to automate, leading to inconsistent parameter control and potential washout of penetrant from defect sites, compromising detection accuracy.

Innovation Solution

A method involving the use of a solid blasting material to abrade excess penetrant from the component surface, controlled by pressure and exposure time, combined with robotic application, to differentiate between defect sites and penetrant residues, using a liquid-solid mixture or separate nozzles for targeted removal.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If manual mechanical abrasion with brush and solvent is used to remove excess penetrant, then penetrant removal is achieved, but automation is difficult and process parameters cannot be consistently controlled

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation of penetrant removalVSAvoidmanual operation complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical abrasion with brush and solvent with a pneumatic system that uses compressed air to blow excess penetrant off the component surface. This substitution enables full automation while maintaining effective penetrant removal, as the air stream can be precisely controlled and directed without requiring manual intervention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The invention employs pneumatic principles by using compressed air flow to remove excess penetrant. The system utilizes air pressure and flow rate control to achieve consistent penetrant removal across different components and operating conditions, enabling automated operation with reproducible results.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #29Pneumatics and hydraulics

2Manufacturing precision

If excessive solvent is used to ensure complete penetrant removal, then surface cleaning is improved, but washout from defect sites occurs reducing detection accuracy

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesurface cleaning qualityVSAvoiddefect detection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The pneumatic system uses controlled air pressure and flow to remove penetrant selectively. The air stream removes excess penetrant from the surface through aerodynamic forces without requiring large amounts of solvent, thereby preventing washout from defect sites while still achieving adequate surface cleaning for accurate detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #29Pneumatics and hydraulics

Solution Approach 2:

The invention changes the removal mechanism from solvent-based chemical action to air-based physical action. By adjusting air pressure and flow rate parameters, the system achieves optimal balance between surface cleaning and preventing defect site washout, improving both surface quality and detection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If manual abrasion process is used, then penetrant removal is achieved, but process parameters vary greatly depending on test type

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocess parameter flexibilityVSAvoidparameter consistency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The pneumatic system provides consistent and reproducible penetrant removal through controlled air pressure and flow rate. These parameters can be precisely regulated and maintained constant across different test types, eliminating the variability inherent in manual operations while remaining adaptable to different component geometries and test requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #29Pneumatics and hydraulics

Solution Approach 2:

The system allows dynamic adjustment of air pressure and flow rate parameters to suit different test types and component configurations. This dynamic control capability maintains parameter consistency within each test type while providing versatility across different applications, resolving the contradiction between adaptability and reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

Enhances reproducibility and automation, preventing washout from small cracks, improving detection accuracy and enabling reliable identification of defects in turbomachine components.

Implementation Method 1

the surface is blasted after the introduction of the penetrant and prior to the optical detection, namely by using a solid blasting material; a rather excessive amount of penetrant, at least proportionally, is then abraded from the component surface

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectAbrasion: Abrasion

Implementation Method 2

The penetrant is applied into the defect sites, based on capillary forces for example, so that said sites are well visible in a subsequent optical inspection

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectCapillary action: Capillary Action

Data Source

PatentUS12372477B2Method for testing a component
Publication Date: 2025.07.29 MTU AERO ENGINES GMBH
  • US12372477B2 patent drawing
  • US12372477B2 patent drawing
  • US12372477B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention relates to a method for testing a component by a penetrant test, in which a penetrant is introduced onto a surface of the component; at least one portion of the penetrant is removed from the surface by blasting the surface with a solid blasting material; the surface is optically detected after the blasting.