×
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

Leak testing systems with Helium - comparing inboard and outboard results

Leak testing systems with Helium - comparing inboard and outboard results

Leak testing systems with Helium - comparing inboard and outboard results

(OP)
Hi everyone,

I have a pilot metal system where the burst discs (with a burst indicating strip) of the vessels are joined to a piping network leading to a crash tank via sanitary connections. I am able to perform outboard leak testing using helium on this system and have found that the sanitary flange connection has an average leak rate of 10e-4 mbar*L/s. The system has vessels that range from 200L to 50L and interconnecting piping (total length on the order of 200ft). The lab scale system for the same chemistry is an order of magnitude smaller vessel volume wise and very little tubing runs; KF connections are used on the lab scale system instead of sanitary connections. The glass system had an inboard leak test performed at the KF fittings and their average leak rate was 10e-6 atm*cc/s. Is there an accepted method to compare these leak rates given the geometry difference of the gas flow path (even if it was one style of fitting despite the leak testing style)?

My current thought is to compare the leak rates normalized to the respective dP (absolute value of the difference between the system pressure and the pressure of the surroundings) of the two different methods given the simplification that the actual leak behaves as flow through an orifice is both instances.

Thanks for your time.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - Implementing a Multi-Domain System
IoT systems are multi-domain designs that often require AMS, Digital, RF, photonics and MEMS elements within the system. Tanner EDA provides an integrated, top-down design flow for IoT design that supports all these design domains. Learn more about key solutions that the Tanner design flow offers for successful IoT system design and verification. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close