Featured Video
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Metrology Features
Gary Bell
Create better products and designs while saving money and reducing scrap
Mike Richman
An extravaganza of industry coverage on Manufacturing Day 2018
Dirk Dusharme @ Quality Digest
Industry is trying to create its own skilled workforce
Dirk Dusharme @ Quality Digest
Our last show from IMTS

More Features

Metrology News
High-performance, 3D metrology value accessible to all industries
They are the ultimate solution in force measurement versatility
Designed to hold delicate round parts without distortion for vision inspection
Parts can be checked for defects without being transferred to a measurement lab
Software enables seamless communication between Verisurf AUTOMATE and popular CMM and head controllers
IoT platform uncovers insights into tooling optimization to enhance machine reliability for customers
Replace mechanical indicating applications in smallest AGD size specification class
The FDA wants medical device manufactures to succeed, new technologies in supply chain managment
A new path for local hardware connectivity

More News

Quality Digest


The Evolution of Leak Testing

Enhancing pressure decay with hydrogen trace gas

Published: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 22:00

Pressure decay has been the most widely used method of leak testing in manufacturing production lines for decades. The process is uncomplicated, inexpensive and easily automated. Air is simply injected into a test object and any decrease in air pressure over time signifies a leak. However, the pressure decay method has significant shortcomings such as limited sensitivity and the inability to determine leak location.

A relatively new technology, hydrogen leak testing, addresses these shortcomings. Hydrogen testing functions as an enhancement to pressure decay systems or as a substitute method, depending on the application. The hydrogen and pressure decay methods are complementary, utilizing similar test procedures and test apparatus.

The hydrogen method employs a robust, self-calibrating and maintenance-free microelectronic probe that’s extremely sensitive and 100 percent selective to hydrogen. The test gas (a nonflammable mix of hydrogen and nitrogen) is injected into the test object and leakage is detected in a variety of ways: The test object can be enclosed in an accumulation chamber, where the presence of hydrogen is measured over a certain time interval to determine the total leakage. Alternatively, a hydrogen probe can scan the object’s exterior, either manually or robotically, to pinpoint the location of leaks.

Prior to the invention of hydrogen leak testing probes, helium was the only tracer-gas method used for automated leak testing. Unfortunately, helium proved cost-prohibitive for many leak testing applications. Helium testing offers high sensitivity, but it utilizes a mass spectrometer—an expensive and delicate apparatus—which requires regular maintenance depending on the contamination levels to which it’s exposed. This makes it more appropriate for a laboratory than a manufacturing floor.

Moreover, helium testing is typically performed within a vacuum, requiring the installation and maintenance of a well-engineered vacuum chamber and multiple stages of vacuum pumps. Perhaps most significantly, the helium gas itself is an expensive, scarce natural resource.

Hydrogen testing offers equivalently high sensitivity without the high cost and complexity of the helium method. The price of the hydrogen gas mixture costs significantly less than the price of helium. The hydrogen testing instrument is far less expensive to purchase and maintain than mass spectrometers and the process doesn’t require a vacuum chamber. In general, the process, testing apparatus, training requirements and cost of the hydrogen method more closely resembles pressure decay.

There are different limitations of pressure decay testing and the many ways in which hydrogen testing addresses these limitations.

Finding the leak location
Pressure decay is an integral test: It measures the total leakage from an entire object. It doesn’t locate the specific source or sources of leakage. Determining the location of leaks is necessary if rejected items are to be repaired, and it’s also important for quality assurance to implement the appropriate corrective action in the manufacturing process.

 Leak testing in action

Leak location is easily done with hydrogen. A tracer gas charging unit can be incorporated into a pressure decay test system. When the pressure decay system detects a leak, hydrogen is injected into the object and the hydrogen probe scans the exterior of the object, manually or robotically to quickly and accurately pinpoint the location.

Alternatively, objects rejected by the pressure decay system can be set aside and subsequently tested offline by a separate hydrogen-based leak detection system. It’s also possible to manually perform leak-location testing by submerging objects in water or applying soap bubbles to the exterior, but these methods are messy, very time-consuming, prone to operator error and possibly corrosive to the test objects.

Maintaining the testing apparatus
The pressure decay method measures total leakage including any leaks in the test equipment itself, as well as possible leaks in seals and connections to the test object. Several false rejections can occur before this problem is suspected. Detecting the location of the defect in the testing system can be difficult and time-consuming.

By adding a hydrogen charging unit and a hydrogen probe to the pressure decay system, it’s possible to easily pinpoint and correct such defects, thereby significantly reducing downtime.

Increasing sensitivity
The pressure decay method provides limited sensitivity, and it’s really only viable for rigid objects with a relatively small internal volume. For pressure decay, sensitivity is a function of the object’s size and the time interval of the test. Medium and large objects require an unacceptably long cycle time to achieve an adequate level of sensitivity for most applications. For medium-size objects, sensitivity is limited to the detection of leaks emitting 0.5 – 1.0 cc/min, ten times less sensitive than the new tightness specifications for automotive components containing fuel and several orders of magnitude away from the requirements for components containing gas, such as refrigeration and air conditioning parts.

Improving reliability and cycle time
Another problem with pressure decay testing is the susceptibility to distortion by changes in the temperature of the air inside the test object. Temperature rises as air is compressed and the test processes must wait until the temperature stabilizes. Some pressure decay systems now employ software algorithms and thermometers that can compensate for temperature distortion to a limited degree, but it’s not possible to fully eliminate this problem.

External temperature variations can also have an effect. For example, the heat from a human hand or a breeze from an open door can completely throw off the test results and cause the false acceptance of an aluminum object.

The pressure decay method is also ill suited to testing elastic or plastic materials. Elasticity counteracts the pressure decay and plasticity may give the opposite effect if material gives way under pressure.

 Sensitor probe testing on a plastic case

Substituting when necessary
It isn’t possible to completely fix these sensitivity, reliability and cycle time limitations of the pressure decay method. As an alternative , hydrogen testing is introduced when one or more of the issues discussed above render pressure decay not suitable. Existing pressure decay systems can be upgraded or retrofitted to utilize hydrogen or replacement systems can be installed.

A combination approach is sometimes possible for objects with multiple compartments that have differing sizes, materials and tightness specifications. Figure 1 shows a system that employs the pressure decay method to one compartment of a gearbox and employs the hydrogen method, the H2000 from Sensistor Technologies, to a different compartment of the same object. In this case, the latter compartment needs to meet a more stringent tightness standard because it will operate at a higher oil pressure.

This combination approach can also be used for objects with a single compartment. Pressure decay can be employed as an integral test for the object as a whole, while hydrogen testing can be conducted with a local enclosure applied to particularly sensitive locations. A similar approach is also useful when the test object contains elastic or highly plastic subcomponents such as hoses.

Enhancing pressure decay with hydrogen
Hydrogen and pressure decay are compatible methods that can be deployed interchangeably or in conjunction with each other depending on the requirements of the manufacturing process and the quality standards.

Because the testing process, the test apparatus, the training requirements and the cost of the hydrogen method closely match the characteristics of pressure decay, it’s easy for manufacturers to incorporate hydrogen into their existing pressure decay systems or replace them with hydrogen systems in order to achieve higher sensitivity, leak location ability, improved reliability and shorter cycle time.


About The Author

Quality Digest’s picture

Quality Digest

For 35 years Quality Digest has been the go-to source for all things quality. Our newsletter, Quality Digest, shares expert commentary and relevant industry resources to assist our readers in their quest for continuous improvement. Our website includes every column and article from the newsletter since May 2009 as well as back issues of Quality Digest magazine to August 1995. We are committed to promoting a view wherein quality is not a niche, but an integral part of every phase of manufacturing and services.