×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
A common method of demonstrating that a thing is "watertight" is to spray water on it.

Typically, there is a (seemingly arbitrary) set of requirements for water pressure, water flow rate, water velocity (usually not specified where the velocity is to be determined), and sometimes nozzle distance from the thing under test.  For example, MIL-STD-810.

But what determines the necessary values for these parameters?

Or, the actual point of my question - if a certain test facility can't simultaniously meet all of the required parameters, what compensation might be made to allow for an "equivalent" test.

Is a 20 minute test with a nozzle velocity of 100 ft/min and a flow fate of 100 gpm "equivalent" to a 10 minute test at 200 ft/min and 100 gpm?

What is it that actually challenges a seal and causes a leak?

My thoughts are that you need to consider the kinetic energy impinging on the surface under test, but I'm not certain that's sufficient.

It's easy to imagine a pressure washer causing a leak that a garden hose wouldn't.  But it's also easy to imagine something that would never leak when subjected to a garden hose - no matter how long you sprayed it.

Your thoughts on the subject would be welcomed, and actual references even more so.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Capillary action, perhaps?  This would be somewhat time dependent.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Are we talking about keeping water out of a specific area, or a tube trying to hold water in under pressure?

By the way your phrased your question, I'm assuming keeping water out of an area. In that case, I agree it has to do with the kinetic energy imparted on the surface. I'd also imagine that there is some normalizing factor, so that "equivalent" tests may be performed.

V

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I'd have to ascribe to the kinetic energy, opposed to residence time.
Having said that, what is the core of your problem? A watertight tank/pipe should have different tests than a water tight pump volute, a coating or a cloth. On a tank you'd want the pressure of the fluid to act for quite some time to detect leaks.
But on a strictly spray scenario, I'd have to think that velocity is the determining factor unless there is a wetability component to the material being sprayed. If with time and as TheTick mentions, capillarity could play a role, then you have time to consider as well.
 

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
vc66:  Yes, keeping water out of specific area - more specifically, a thing that may be exposed to rain, or wind-driven rain, or move under its own power through rain, or get washed on occasion.

 

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Pressure, sometimes; dwell time, sometimes.  There are lots of systems than "breathe" because of pressure changes caused by ambient temperature and sunlight.  At night, when dew forms, the internal pressure relaxes and the system will suck in the dew with no water pressure whatsoever.

So, for a rigorous test, you need a pressure spray test as well as a static temperature cycle test.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

What drives a leak during spray testing = Dynamic pressure = 1/2 rho V^2.  I'd say you could reasonably trade gpm and time, keeping velocity the same.  

Bigger issue is what the customer would say if you propose to take exception to the spec.
 

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
And there exactly is the point.  I am the customer.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Sorry, Mint, should've added that it's also implied in spray testing that any loose fitting covers, poorly designed splash guards, or poorly contained seals, will also be tested by the force of the spray.  Again, the spray velocity dominates the force developed, but gpm has a say in the matter also, via the momentum equation.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

When designing expensive electronic stuff to work underwater the hardest condition to seal is when it is floating on the surface, as the unequal pressure around the O rings (etc) stops them sealing properly, and the movement of the riing pumps water across the interface. Once the part is underwater everything works as planned.

As such I would be very wary about trading off between the variables in a spray test without some form of comparison test.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
Interesting.

Dynamic pressure X mass flow rate returns a unit of power.

Perhaps two test setups with equivalent power would be equivalent for an equal duration.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Presence of soap or salt in the water also makes a difference.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
Did the units wrong in my head last night. It's

Dynamic Pressure X Volumetric Flow Rate => Power

Does trading velocity and flow with equal power being considered an "equivalent" test make sense?   

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I would say that power was the normalizing factor I was thinking of in my earlier post.

Although, thinking about it practically--I don't know if they're equivalent. Something feels different to me between water at a higher velocity with a lower volumetric flow rate versus a lower velocity with a higher volumetric flow rate. Seems to me the higher velocity would do more damage. That's just my feeling though.

V

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I'd agree with VC66, however, the notion of a more prolonged exposure to the water will have more impact if capilarity has any part to play on the issue

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying " Damn that was fun!" - Unknown>>

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I also feel as though they're doing different kinds of damage. The higher velocity (I'd assume) would be "cutting" (think water jet), while the higher volume almost seems like its beating the surface, as a heavy rain would.

Hmmm... Interesting problem.

V

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
I agree that there are probably different failure modes for different types of seals.

A lip seal would seem vulnerable to high kinetic energy - causing deflection of the seal and opening a gap.

A compressed gasket may be more sensitive to capillary action and the wetting properties of the fluid on the mating surfaces.

A labyrinth might be sensitive to both kinetic energy and individual droplet size.

Since my TUT has all of these seal types I can't ask for different tests for different seals - well I could, but I'd get flack for it, and at the moment couldn't justify it.

Also, my original test parameters are "historical" - which means nobody knows how or why they were selected.  Most likely they were what some test facility that no longer exists was capable of doing.

It is an interesting problem however - might be a paper topic for some obscure conference...

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Look into the IP code testing standards.  ie IP67, IP69K, etc.

I also just reciently sat through a Design News web seminar on sealing/venting electronics.  Was pretty informative (although was 70% product pitching).  The jist is that without vents a completely sealed product can go through a rigorous even if not intended change in atmosphere.  So much that the pressure differences in the enclosure and outside of it will cause an almost vacuum like effect and actually suck in moisture past even the best seals.  

The idea of a vent that would allow a vapor/moisture guard, but still be breathable to atmosphere would take almost all of the stress off of the seals.  Allowing them to be much more efficient since they don't have to seal against differentials in pressure.

James Spisich
Design Engineer, CSWP

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I can't answer your questions directly but be very careful of equivalents. There are always subtleties to the test. Even for tests that are not historical or empirical in nature.

As an example. There is a test for packaging called the ISTA test. One of the tests is to drop a weight from a certain height onto the center of a long box supported on both ends. A little bit of physics says you have a shorter drop with a bigger mass and have an equivalent test. This should give the same energy and the same results.

However, a box that will pass the original test will fail the equivalent because it can not support the larger mass that is resting on it after the drop.

In a similar way the water my drain off at a certain rate so that a different flow rate would create different levels of water a each location. A seal that is only wet in one test cloud be submerged by another.

(However this is still a very interesting physics problem)

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
And we have not even discussed droplet size, nozzle spray angles and the distance of the nozzles from the TUT - all of which will affect the velocity at the test surface, and many other parameters as well.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Gotta love those "historical" test parameters.

V

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Jspisich  -
You don't need a 'vent' to eliminate pressure/vacuum if you use a diaphragm, therby maintaining the 'atmosphere' within the unit. Obviouisly designed large enough to cope with temperature changes involved.
B

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I know, just saying it's another option using a membrane vent that won't allow moisture or vapor in.

James Spisich
Design Engineer, CSWP

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

I always thought that an equilavent was an eqvivalent was an equivalent but one should design a test most like actual conditions.

The box example second test failed because the Supports weren't strong enough, not the box (it survived the falling weight).

Anyhow, getting back to what I was saying.  The test should test the seal effectiveness of the seal compound or material, as you have mentioned.  So, in your case, a baseline test would have to be designed based on the sealing compound or sealing material's typical or actual use and presumed light, normal and heavy water conditions.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Anyway, for MIL-STD-810, the specific requirements are to envelope some rational construct of "worst case" conditions.  For external military boxes, this boils down to two specific types of testing, already mentioned here; some sort of pressure spray environment, and a "dunk" test.

The pressure spray environment would occur as part of cleaning or decontamination, which may not be part of your specific UUT.  The dunk test would apply to UUTs that might get submerged, like a military vehicle that must ford a river or shipboard equipment that might get overwashed with waves.  These environments are all "soft" and uncontrolled, so many of the tests might well be "legacy", based on some historical or even mythical conditions.

Interestingly, the one test that isn't performed, is the "moisture getting sucked in by a pressure differential trick."  We had a camera system that did that so well there was water halfway up the camera aperture.   

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

(OP)
In fact, MIL-STD-810 recommends heating the water or precooling the TUT to avoid the cooling effect of the water spray from reducing the pressure inside and sucking water in.

I guess it didn't occur to the military that something that is actually hot inside when operating might get cooled when it starts raining.

At any rate, my test is not MIL-STD-810 per say, simply a similar generic spray test of unknown and likely arbitrary origin.

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Good luck with your test examining the physics of leaks!!  Its great fun making stuff up!

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

and so I have a question myself.
Will you be varying the volume and rate of the water water by the size opening of nozzle or at the pump producing the water's force?  

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks


 i am a little bit off topic here , but in case people want to look at leak testing for tanks , vessels , boxes etc

we often use compressed air on one side of the test object , and spray soapy water on the other side , it sometimes allows testing where hydrostatic or chemical penetrants like dyecheck cant be used.

either pressurise the vessel with 2 - 3 PSI , or run a blowgun along the internal seams while spraying soapy water outside.

hope its useful to someone  :)

RE: Watertightness - spray testing: The physics of leaks

Minty,
The test arrangements I encountered when working with automotive door seals made me believe that in order to assure leakproof joint one needed to have jets from multiple angles, volumes, and pressures.  One of the more interesting stations resembled a car wash with the nozzles moving the streams in cone shaped paths to cover all angles from which water could hit the vehicle.  Looked a lot like a carwash with the nozzles mounted on the top and each side of the carriage that usually carries the brushes.  IIRC, the techs said that the velocities had to simulate 120 mph.  That seemed unreasonably high until looked at in the perspective of 70 mph auto into a 50 mph wind.  

Griffy

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources