Manual cleaning, dry blasting, and chemicals: why each falls short of NDT requirements
The three processes most commonly used ahead of wet blasting share a common failure: none of them reliably produce the consistent, contamination-free surface that accurate NDT depends on.
vs. dry blasting: Dry media blasting creates a fundamental conflict with NDT. The impact-driven process can peen the surface, closing the very discontinuities - cracks, micro-porosity, fatigue initiations - that the inspection is designed to find. Dry blasting also embeds media particles into the surface, adding a new source of false signal. It generates dust throughout, requiring full component cleaning and drying before inspection can proceed, adding a handling stage and time. When working with titanium engine components, dry blasting introduces ATEX filtration requirements that raise both the capital cost and the operational complexity of the process.
vs. chemical cleaning: Chemical processes can remove combustion deposits and heat scale effectively but carry their own cost. Multi-stage immersion processes - alkaline degreasing, acid etch, rinse, neutralise, dry - are time-consuming, require controlled disposal of effluent, and are poorly suited to in-line production environments. They can also attack substrate material at concentrations necessary to fully remove tenacious deposits, and they provide no mechanical action to open crack faces for penetrant entry.
vs. manual cleaning and hand scrubbing: Cleaning time for a typical compressor hub by hand can run to six hours or more per part. That is a skilled inspector's time consumed before a single measurement is taken. The result varies with operator, with fatigue, and with tool access. Complex geometries - fir tree slots, blade roots, cooling holes - are rarely fully cleaned. Residual contamination in these areas suppresses FPI penetrant migration and distorts eddy current signals, producing unreliable indications.
Find out how wet blasting compares with other finishing processes