C

5
H A P T E R

Leak Testing

John K. Keve, AREVE Federal Services, Richland,

Washington

Part 1. Management of Leak Testing, 136

Part 2. Selection of Leak Test Techniques, 145
Part 3. Bubble Testing, 153
Part 4. Mass Spectrometer Helium Leak Testing, 156
Part 5. Leak Testing with Halogen Tracer Gases, 158
Part 6. Other Techniques of Leak Testing, 163
Part 7. Leak Testing of Hermetically Sealed
Devices, 167
Part 8. Other Applications of Leak Testing, 170
References, 173
PART 1. Management of Leak Testing
Functions of Leak Testing
Leak testing is a form of nondestructive
testing used in either pressurized or
evacuated systems and components for
detection and location of leaks and for
measurement of fluid leakage. The word
leak refers to the physical hole that exists
and does not refer to the quantity of fluid
passing through that hole. A leak may be
a crack, crevice, fissure, hole or
passageway that, contrary to what is
intended, admits water, air or other fluids
or lets fluids escape (as with a leak in a
roof, gas pipe or ship). The word leakage
refers to the flow of fluid through a leak
without regard to physical size of the hole
through which flow occurs. Fluid denotes
any liquid or gas that can flow.
Surface nondestructive testing methods
or volumetric nondestructive testing
methods often reveal through-wall leaks
to a nondestructive testing technician.
However, it would not be economical to
perform a complete surface liquid
penetrant test of an object or component
in order to detect existing leaks. Many of
the penetrant indications would not be
leaks through the wall. Applying the
liquid penetrant to one surface and the
developer to the opposite surface would
increase the probability that only leaks
would be detected, but this liquid
penetrant technique is a leak test. This
complete dependency only on capillary
action to reveal leaks still would not
necessarily be proof that all leaks were
revealed. Adding even a small differential
pressure to aide that capillary action
would further enhance this leak testing
technique’s sensitivity.
Surface methods such as magnetic
particle would be of little value in
revealing leaks because they indicate
linear discontinuities such as cracks or
nonfusion, not through-wall leaks.
Volumetric methods such as radiography
or ultrasonic testing might be useful in
revealing the exact location of a
difficult-to-pinpoint leak, but only after
that leak is detected and known to exist.
A volumetric method such as acoustic
emission has leak testing techniques
useful in pinpointing leaks but such
techniques have rather limited test
sensitivity. Infrared thermography is
another method whose techniques are
directly related to leak testing. Other more
136 Nondestructive Testing Overview
specialized nondestructive testing
methods previously mentioned would be
of little use in detecting or pinpointing
leaks. In the environment of high vacuum
technology for things such as computer
chip production, X-ray tubes, linear
accelerators for both high voltage X-rays
and physics research for gravitational
waves and quarks, the main applicable
nondestructive testing method is leak
testing. Thus, leak testing and techniques
of leak testing must be included as a part
of the nondestructive testing field.
When the specification for the
manufacture of an object or component
has a required minimum leak size that
must be detected and/or has a required
maximum total leakage rate that must be
proven, then a technique of a leak testing
method must be performed to comply
with that specification requirement. No
other nondestructive test method could
be substituted to fulfill that requirement.
Need for Leak Testing
Leaks are special types of anomalies that
can have tremendous importance where
they influence the safety or performance
of engineered systems. The operational
reliability of many devices is greatly
reduced if enough leakage exists. Leak
testing is performed for three basic
reasons: (1) to prevent material leakage
loss that interferes with system operation;
(2) to prevent fire, explosion and
environmental contamination hazards or
nuisances caused by accidental leakage;
and (3) to detect unreliable components
and those whose leakage rates exceed
acceptance standards.
The purposes of leak testing are to
ensure reliability and serviceability of
components and to prevent premature
failure of systems containing fluids under
pressure or vacuum. Nondestructive
methods for rapid leak testing of
pressurized or evacuated systems and of
sealed components are thus of great
industrial and military importance.
Leak Testing to Detect Material
Discontinuities
Many leaks are caused by material
anomalies such as cracks and fissures.
Some of these can be detected by
measurement of leakage rates. Other leaks
can be detected by discontinuity detection
techniques that identify leak locations.
However, neither of these two leak testing
technique categories will detect all
anomalies. Leak testing is therefore
complementary to other nondestructive
testing methods used to find and evaluate
basic material anomalies.
Because service reliability is not
necessarily a direct function of the leakage
in a system, it is difficult to establish an
acceptance level for leakage rate. The
decision may be influenced by the fact
that increased leak testing sensitivity may
detect only a small number of additional
leaks at considerable added cost. This is
because most leaks in welded, brazed and
mechanical joints tend to be relatively
large. This is partly due to the clogging of
smaller leaks by water vapor and liquids
that occur in parts exposed to industrial
processes or to the atmosphere. The only
case where very small leaks of less than
10–8 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–7 std cm3·s–1) are
encountered is in parts that receive special
clean room treatment during
manufacture.
Leak Testing for Product
Serviceability
Most types of nondestructive tests are
designed to aid in evaluating serviceability
of materials, parts and assemblies. Tests
are used for determining integrity of
structure, measuring thickness or
indicating the presence of internal and
surface anomalies. For most
nondestructive test methods evaluation is
indirect; the quantities measured have to
be properly correlated to the serviceability
characteristics of the material in question.
Thus, the use of indirect tests depends on
the interpretation of the test results. Leak
testing procedures, on the other hand,
facilitate direct evaluation. The measured
leakage rate represents the physical effect
of a faulty condition and thus requires no
further analysis for practical assessment.
System Reliability through Leak
Testing
One important reason for leak testing is to
measure the reliability of the system
under test. Leak testing is not a direct
measure of reliability, but it might show a
fundamental fault of the system by a
higher than expected leakage rate
measurement. A high rate of leakage from
mechanical connections might indicate
that a gasket is improperly aligned or
missing. In the same manner, a high
leakage value might show the presence of
a misaligned or misthreaded flange.
Therefore, it is possible to detect
installation errors by high leakage values.
(However, the absence of high leakage
does not necessarily indicate the absence
of improperly installed components.)
Leakage measurements to detect
installation errors need not be extremely
sensitive, because the leakage rates to be
expected from serious error will be
relatively large (10–1 to 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 or
1 to 10–4 std cm3·s–1). Thus, leak locations
can usually be detected easily.
For practical discussions, a small leak is
often defined as having a low leakage rate,
that is, less than that which ensures water
tightness, about 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–4 std cm3·s–1). Leaks greater than
10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–4 std cm3·s–1) are
considered large.
Leak Test Sensitivity
A leak detector’s sensitivity is a measure of
the concentration or flow rate of tracer
gas that gives a minimum measureable
leak signal. Sensitivity depends on the
minimum detectable number of tracer gas
molecules entering the detector. The
sensitivity of a leak detector is
independent of the pressure in the system
being tested, provided that time is ignored
as a test factor.
Leak test sensitivity refers to the
minimum detectable amount of leakage
that will occur in a specific period of time
under specified leak test conditions. It is
necessary to state both the leakage rate
and the prevailing test conditions to
properly define leak test sensitivity in
terms of the smallest physical size leak
that can be detected. To avoid confusion,
a set of standard leak test conditions is
required.
The set of conditions most commonly
accepted as standard for pressure
measurement is that of dry air at 25 °C
(77 °F), for a pressure differential between
one standard atmosphere and a vacuum
(a standard atmosphere is roughly 100 kPa
or precisely 101.325 kPa). For practical
purposes, the vacuum need be no better
than 0.01 of an atmosphere or 1 kPa
(0.15 lbf·in.–2). When a leak is being
described and only the leakage rate is
given, it is assumed that the leakage rate
refers to leakage at standard conditions.
The sensitivity of a leak testing
instrument is synonymous with the
minimum detectable leakage or minimum
flow rate the instrument can detect. These
minima are independent of leak testing
conditions. When the instrument is
applied to a test, the leak testing
sensitivity depends on existing conditions
of pressure differential, temperature and
fluid type in addition to the instrument
sensitivity. However, the leak test
instrument should be more sensitive by at
least a factor of 2 than the minimum
Leak Testing 137
 leakage to be detected, to ensure
reliability and reproducibility of
measurements.
Example of Sensitivity of Bubble
Testing
Leak testing instrumentation costs
increase as required test sensitivity
increases, as sketched in Fig. 1.1 The test
equipment investment for determining a
leakage rate of 10–4 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–3 std cm3·s–1) is negligible compared
with that for a sensitivity of
10–13 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–12 std cm3·s–1), whose
cost is 10 000 times higher. Even after a
test technique has been selected, raising
leak sensitivity requirements within this
technique will result in an increase in
measurement cost. This increase is usually
caused by greater complexity of leak tests
with increased sensitivity. Cost increases
become particularly drastic when the
required sensitivity is higher than the
optimum operating range shown in Fig. 2.
Each modification of a leak testing
procedure has an optimum sensitivity
value at which it is most readily used.
Deviation from this optimum value of
sensitivity makes it more difficult to
perform the measurement and decreases
confidence in the results. Figure 2 shows
the influence of leak testing sensitivity
level on the ease of operation of test
equipment. In most cases, after reaching a
plateau, further increase of sensitivity
rapidly decreases the ease of operation.
Bubble testing by immersion in water is
FIGURE 1. Effect of required sensitivity on leak detection
equipment cost.
50000
Relative Leak Testing Equipment Cost (relative units)
Radioactive tracer techniques
5000
Mass
spectrometer
500
Halogen heated anode
50
Bubble testing
5
10–4 10–7 10–10 10–13
(10–3) (10–6) (10–9) (10–12)
Leakage Measurement Sensitivity
Pa·m3·s–1 (std cm3·s–1)
138 Nondestructive Testing Overview
an example of how the optimum value
affects the ease of performing the test.
The bubble testing sensitivity range
extends from 10–2 to 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–1 to 10–4 std cm3·s–1). In measuring for
10–2 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–1 std cm3·s–1) leaks, a
component may be placed in water and
observed quickly. Bubbles may emerge
from the pressurized component at such a
rapid rate that there is no question of the
existence of a leak. When checking for
leaks in the range of 10–3 to 10–4 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–2 to 10–3 std cm3·s–1), the operator
must be sure that the test object or
component is submerged long enough for
any bubbles coming from crevices to have
a chance to collect and rise. When
locating leaks in the 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–4 std cm3·s–1) range, the component,
after being immersed, has to be
completely stripped of attached air
bubbles so that the bubble formed by
leaking gas may be detected. The
10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–4 std cm3·s–1) leakage
range is near the limit of detectability of
the bubble technique, although longer
waiting periods theoretically could obtain
higher sensitivity. Longer waiting periods
become impractical when the rate of
bubble evolution approaches the rate at
which tracer gas is dissolving in the test
fluid.
Specifying sensitivity much greater
than 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–4 std cm3·s–1)
makes bubble testing exceedingly difficult.
For instance, bubble testing could be used
at higher sensitivity by saturating the
immersion liquid with the tracer gas used
in leak testing. However, it would be
better to change to a different leak testing
technique that is more effective at that
higher sensitivity. Bubble testing to detect
leaks greater than 10–2 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–1 std cm3·s–1) becomes difficult
because of rapid gas evolution and rapid
decay of pressure in the system under test.
FIGURE 2. Ease of test operation as function of leak testing
sensitivity (relative scales).
Great
Optimum
Ease of Operation
operating range
Low
Low High
Leak Testing Sensitivity
However, difficulties in the less sensitive
test range are usually not so great as in
the more stringent sensitivity range.
Overall Leakage Rates
through Pressure
Boundaries
Many leak tests of large vessels or systems
are concerned with the determination of
the rate at which a liquid, gas or vapor
will penetrate through their pressure
boundaries. Leakage may occur from any
location within a component, assembly or
system to points outside the boundary, or
from external regions to points within a
volume enclosed by a pressure boundary.
When a fluid flows through a small leak,
the leakage flow rate depends on (1) the
geometry of the leak, (2) the nature of the
leaking fluids and (3) the prevailing
conditions of fluid pressure, temperature
and type of flow. For purposes of leak
testing, an easily detectable gas or liquid
tracer fluid may be used, rather than air
or the system operating fluid. Leakage
typically occurs as a result of a pressure
differential between the two regions
separated by the pressure boundary.
The flow of fluid through a leak
typically results from a pressure
differential or a concentration differential
of a gaseous constituent that acts across
the pressure boundary. The flow
characteristics of a leak are often described
in terms of the conductance of the leak.
The leak represents a physical hole with
some equivalent length and internal
cross-sectional area or diameter. However,
because a leak is not manufactured
intentionally into a product or system,
the leak hole dimensions are generally
unknown and cannot be determined by
nondestructive tests. Therefore, in leak
testing, the quantity used to describe the
leak is the measured leakage rate.
The leakage rate depends on the
pressure differential that forces fluid
through the leak passageway. The higher
this pressure difference, the greater the
leakage rate through a given leak.
Therefore, leakage measurements of the
same leak under differing pressure
conditions can result in differing values of
mass flow rate. The leak conductance is
defined both by the leakage rate and the
pressure differential across the leak. Thus,
conductance or leakage rate at a given
pressure for a particular tracer fluid should
always be specified in reporting and
interpreting the results of a leak test.
The term minimum detectable leakage
refers to the smallest fluid flow rate that
can be detected. The leakage rate is
sometimes referred to as the mass flow
rate. In the case of gas leakage, the leakage
rate describes the number of molecules
leaking per unit of time, if the gas
temperature is constant, regardless of the
nature of the tracer gas used in leak
testing. When the nature of the leaking
gas and the gas temperature are known, it
is possible to use the ideal gas laws to
determine the actual mass of the leakage.
Pressure Measurements
Pressurizing of Gases
Atmospheric air and nitrogen are often
used as pressurizing fluids in leak testing
and leakage measurements. Their fluid
pressure serves to create pressure
differentials across pressure barriers or
walls. This pressure differential, in turn,
causes the pressurizing gas to flow, by
various mechanisms, through leaks in the
containment walls.
Leaks are the physical holes or
passageways that may exist in wall
materials, welds, mechanical seals or
joints. The fluid that flows through the
leak passageways constitutes leakage. The
rate of leakage in turn is taken as a
measure of the size of the leak.
In general, the higher the differential
pressure, the greater the rate of leakage.
With higher rates of leakage, the
sensitivity of leak detection and leakage
measurement is typically increased.
Closed systems with air or other gas
pressures above atmospheric pressure
(101.325 kPa) respond to leakage by
pressure changes (within closed systems)
or require inflow of gas to maintain
constant pressure conditions. These
pressure changes or rates of fluid flow can
be used to determine (1) the presence of
leaks or (2) the rates of leakage, when
internal volumes, fluid temperatures and
other variables are known or can be
measured accurately. The physical
properties and characteristics of the
pressurizing fluids must be known and
the effects of fluid reactions to various test
conditions must be calculated to make
quantitative measurements of leakage
rates. Pressurizing gases should obey the
ideal gas laws. In some cases, the effects of
water vapor and other gaseous materials
that do not obey the general gas laws
must be determined and their effects
subtracted from the pressure
measurements.
Fluid Compression
Gases are frequently regarded as
compressible and liquids as
incompressible. Strictly speaking, all fluids
are compressible to some extent.
Although air is usually treated as a
Leak Testing 139
 compressible fluid, there are some cases of
flow in which the pressure and density
changes are so small that the air may be
assumed to be incompressible. Examples
include the flow of air in ventilating
systems and the flow of air around aircraft
at low speeds. Liquids like oil and water
may be considered as incompressible in
many cases; in other cases, the
compressibility of such liquids is
important. For instance, common
experience shows that sound waves travel
through water and other liquids; such
pressure waves depend on the
compressibility or elasticity of the liquid.
Precise Pressure Measurements
Quantitative and reproducible leakage rate
testing by pressure change measurements
depends critically on the control and
measurement of test pressures applied to
systems under test. The most precise
pressure measuring instruments are
deadweight testers. These are used most
commonly only for calibrations of other
pressure measuring instruments. Water or
mercury manometers (U-tubes partially
filled with liquid) are also used for
calibration of other pressure gages and
instruments. Other pressure measuring
instruments include bourdon gages; rapid
response electrical output signal sensors
used in potentiometric, capacitance,
reluctance and piezoelectric pressure
gages; spiral wound quartz crystal and
wire resistance strain gages; and
specialized electronic gages with digital
output signals of pressure.
Flow Rate Measurement
The flow measurement procedure for
leakage testing consists of determining the
extent of leakage by measuring the rate of
flow of gas moving into or out of the
system or component under test. Flow
rates can be measured with a flow meter
or by means of pumping at known
volumetric pumping rates to maintain a
fixed system pressure or to compare rates
of change of pressure. The flow
measurement leakage test procedure can
be roughly separated into two broad
classes of technique: (1) observation and
measurement of gas flow rates or volume
of gas displaced and (2) analysis of effects
of pumping gas during pressurization or
evacuation of systems, on pressure or rates
of change of pressure. When leak testing
by the flow observation technique, the
amount of leakage is measured. The
system under test is pressurized or
evacuated and placed within a sealed
enclosure. The enclosure volume is
connected through a flow meter to a
regulated pressure source. The gas transfer
140 Nondestructive Testing Overview
by leakage between the system under test
and its enclosure causes a pressure
difference between the enclosure volume
and the regulated pressure source. The gas
transfer between the sealed enclosure and
the reference pressure source is measured
by flow meters, by movement of a liquid
(slug) indicator in a capillary tube in
which the leaking gas is accumulated or
by other techniques. In some cases, the
reference pressure may be atmospheric
pressure. Figure 3 shows a leakage testing
system using a fluid slug indicator of the
amount of gas leakage.
Pumping for Measuring Leakage
Rate
In the pumping technique of leakage
testing of evacuated systems, the system
under test is evacuated by a vacuum
pump. The rate of system pressure
decrease during pumpdown is then
compared with the rate of pressure
decrease during pumpdown of a leak tight
system.
In an alternative leak testing
procedure, the sealed enclosure can be
evacuated and allowed to reach pressure
equilibrium with its vacuum pumps. The
rate at which gas is being pumped to
maintain this equilibrium is then
measured to determine the rate of leakage
from the test volume into the enclosure.
In an alternative pumping technique
for measuring leakage rates, the test
volume can be pressurized and the
compressor is then operated only
sufficiently to keep the test system
pressure constant. The leakage rate can
then be calculated from the volumetric
pumping speed (m3·s–1) and the length of
time the compressor must operate to
regain a predetermined system pressure.
FIGURE 3. Arrangement for vacuum box bubble testing of
sump in flat bottom vessel.
Air ejector
Transparent
cover Gasket
Bottom Air
Gage
Sump
Test solution
(opposite side)
Blind flange
on end
Sensitivity of Flow Measurement
The sensitivity of leakage rate testing by
flow measurements is relatively low,
compared to the sensitivity of many other
leak testing techniques described in this
volume. In most cases, the leakage
sensitivity depends on that of the
instrument used to measure the flow rate
and is relatively independent of the test
system volume. In a flow observation
technique, leakage rates between 10–3 and
10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–2 and 10–4 std cm3·s–1)
can be detected, depending on the flow
instrument used. If a sealed system is
being evacuated, flow rates of the order of
0.1 Pa·m3·s–1 (1 std cm3·s–1) may be
observed. (Note that 1 Pa·m3·s–1 is
equivalent to 10 std cm3·s–1.)
The leakage sensitivity attainable with
the pumping pressure analysis technique
depends on the size (pumping speed ) of
the pumps. With evacuated test objects or
test systems, leakage sensitivity depends
critically on the outgassing within the
system being measured.
Advantages and Limitations of
Flow Measurements
Flow measurement leak testing procedures
are applicable to a large variety of test
systems. The procedures are useful only
for measurement of leakage. They are not
appropriate for locating leaks. They are
used to measure total leakage rates in
small sealed parts. They can be used to
measure total leakage rates in large sealed
systems and in systems that can be
pressurized or evacuated. The major
advantages of leak testing by means of
flow measurements are as follows.
1. No special tracer gas is necessary. The
flow measurement leak testing
procedure is applicable to whatever
fluid is present within the system to
be tested. The test system need not be
placed in any special environment for
leak testing. Instead, systems may be
tested in their normal operating
modes.
2. The cost of the equipment for flow
measurement leak testing is low.
3. The sensitivity of overall leakage
measurement is independent of
system volume.
4. The leakage rate can be measured
without extensive calibration.
However, the accuracy of leakage
measurement is not very high, as
compared with that for many other
techniques.
5. When calibration is required, it can be
readily attained with standard flow or
volume measurement equipment.
There are three disadvantages of flow
measurement leak testing.
1. The test sensitivity is low.
2. Some flow measurement procedures
have not gained wide recognition.
3. Flow measurement uses various types
of equipment with little similarity, and
different techniques are used to solve
individual leak testing problems.
Leak Tightness
In industry, the term leak tight has taken
on a variety of meanings. A water bucket
is tight if it does not allow easily
detectable quantities of water to leak out.
A high vacuum vessel is tight if the rate of
apparent leakage into the system cannot
be indicated with the equipment on
hand. One might even consider that a
gravel truck is leak tight so long as there
are no openings in the truck bed large
enough to allow the smallest nugget to
escape. The degree of leak tightness
depends on the individual situation. Leak
tightness requires that the leakage flow be
too small to be detected. However, leak
tightness is a relative term. Therefore, it
becomes a necessity to establish a
practical level of leak testing sensitivity
for any given component under test.
Thus, nothing is leak tight except by
comparison to a standard or specification.
Even then, the measured degree of leak
tightness can be ensured only at the time
of leak testing and under specific leak
testing conditions. Later operation at
higher pressures or temperatures might
open leaks.
In specifying the sensitivity of the leak
testing technique, an optimum leakage
sensitivity value should be sought first.
Large deviations from this optimum value
could increase the cost and the difficulty
of measuring the leakage rate. Second,
any increase in the sensitivity specified for
a particular leakage test automatically
increases the cost of leak testing.
Therefore, a compromise has to be
reached between testing cost and leakage
tolerance. Third, the sensitivity required
in leak testing depends on the particular
effects of leakage that must be controlled
or eliminated, as illustrated in the
following examples. Finally, the language
in which the leak testing specification is
written should be easy to interpret and to
implement in testing, to ensure that
management’s goals are achieved by the
leak test.
Tightness to Control Material Loss. The
first consideration in specifying the leak
tightness required of a fluid containment
system is to ensure that the system does
not leak sufficient material to cause
system failure during the operational life
of the system. Then the largest leakage
rate is the allowable total leakage divided
Leak Testing 141
 by the operational life of the system. Of
course, conversion might have to be made
between numerical values for the tracer
gas leakage during leak testing and those
for the material leakage under system
operation conditions.
Tightness for Environmental Quality.
Contamination failure of a system might
cause environmental damage, personnel
hazard or degraded appearance. The
environmental damage to a system may
be caused by material leaking either into
or out of the system. For example, system
damage may be caused to a liquid rocket
motor when the oxidizer leaks out of the
storage tank and reacts with parts of the
motor. On the other hand, electronic
components can fail when air or water
vapor enters a hermetically sealed
protective container. It is sometimes
difficult to calculate the very small
amount of material necessary to cause a
contamination failure to occur. However,
in most cases, such calculations are not
impossible if the failure can be defined.
For example, if some decision can be
made as to the allowable amount of
reaction between the oxidizer and the
rocket engine parts, the maximum
acceptable rate of total leakage of oxidizer
from the storage tank can be defined.
Similarly, in an electronic component, if
failure results from adsorption of a
monolayer of leaking molecules on the
surface, then knowing that 1015 molecules
form one monolayer on a square
centimeter of surface makes it possible to
calculate the allowable leakage rate for
this particular component. If failure
results from a pressure rise, then the
maximum allowable pressure, the planned
system operation time and system volume
are all that are necessary for calculation of
the allowable leakage rate.
Tightness for Safety. Material leakage can
cause personnel hazard during system
operation. If the tolerable concentrations
are known, and these are often reported
in literature, it is again quite easy to
calculate the maximum tolerable
equipment leakage rate.
Tightness for Appearance. An appearance
specification is a specification for
maximum leakage that is made because
leakage of a higher value will spoil the
appearance of the system. Appearance is
often specified when no more stringent
specification is necessary. A specification
for leakage of oil out of the oil pan of a
new car is a good example. This leakage
specification may not be a concern that
too much oil will be lost or that damage
to the car motor will occur; instead, it is
specified because the prospective buyer
would not be inclined to buy a car that is
dripping oil onto the showroom floor.
Tightness for System Operation. When
appearance sets the allowable leakage of
142 Nondestructive Testing Overview
the system, the leakage is often only a
nuisance. However, even leaks that are
largely a nuisance may alter the
effectiveness of the total system. For
example, during the East Coast power
blackout in the United States in
November 1965, a large steam generator
failed during the shutdown because the
auxiliary steam supply used for
lubrication purposes was not available.
This steam supply had been shut off
earlier by workers who were bothered by
excessive leakage of steam through some
valve packing. This steam leakage was not
critical, but it was enough of a nuisance
that the system was shut down for repair.
The repair did not take place in time and
the bearings of the generator burned out
during emergency shutdown of the
system.
Specifying to Locate Every Leak
Occasionally it is desirable to locate every
existing leak irrespective of size for the
following reasons.
1. Stress leaks have a habit of growing.
Very small leaks may become very
troublesome later, after repeated
stressing.
2. High temperature leaks may be very
small at test temperature but may
have higher leakage rates at system
operating temperatures.
3. Temperature cycling to either high or
cryogenic levels usually creates stress
that results in change of leakage rates.
The criterion whereby a decision is
made whether or not to seek greater
reliability should be the ratio of cost of
the leak testing procedure to the number
of leaks found. For example, improving
leak testing reliability from 10–6 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–5 std cm3·s–1) to a reliability of
10–7 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–6 std cm3·s–1) may not
be justified. The cost of obtaining the
small increase in reliability may be
prohibitive in relation to the value of the
increase in detection reliability.
The expected leak tightness of sealing
operations that will be used to isolate the
system during leak testing must also be
considered. The leak testing specification
should be written with advice from an
experienced engineer who makes a
judgment of the reasonable value of
allowable leakage rate. Factors to be
considered include the leak testing
technique; type, size and complexity of
the system under test; and the service
requirements and operating conditions
under which the tested system will be
used.
Impractical Specifications for Leak
Tightness
Aiming at absolute tightness is an
academic endeavor. In practice, all that
can be asked for is a more or less stringent
degree of tightness selected according to
the application requirements. Nothing
made by man can truly be considered to
be absolutely leak tight. Even in the
absence of minute porosities, the
permeation of certain gases through
metals, crystals, polymers and glasses still
exists.
Thus, it is necessary to establish a
practical leakage rate that is acceptable for
a given component under test. A
preliminary decision has to be made
concerning the definition of leak
tightness for the particular situation.
Because leak tightness is a relative term
and has no absolute meaning, the
sensitivity of the available leak testing
equipment is a practical guide to
attainable levels of leak testing sensitivity.
Any increase in required sensitivity of leak
testing increases the time required for leak
testing and increases test cost. This
increase in cost of leak testing reaches a
maximum when the leakage specification
is given in such impractical terms as no
detectable leakage, no measureable leakage,
no leakage and zero leakage.
Impractical leak testing specifications
are expensive to implement. They are also
very confusing unless the leak testing
method is precisely described. With
specifications in impractical terms, the
leak testing operator is always working
against background instrument noise. He
must then decide whether the leakage
reading obtained is caused by the random
fluctuations of test instruments or by the
actual detection of specific leakage. It is
much easier to discriminate whether a
measured leakage rate is above or below a
given standard than to discriminate
leakage from random instrument noise. It
is therefore suggested that, when
specified, zero leakage be defined as a
measurable quantitative value of leakage
rate that is insignificant in the operation
of the system. Such a definition allows the
system or the measurement sensitivity to
be compared with a flow through a
standard physical leak. In this way, a
qualification of the system performance
acceptability can be made during the test
operation.
Calibrated Reference Leaks
Terminology for Reference,
Calibrated or Standard Leaks
Physical leaks suitable for checking leak
detector performance and leak test
sensitivity are a vital component of
instrumentation for leak testing.
Calibrated physical leaks are designed to
deliver gas at a known rate. The most
common use of such leaks is in the
measurement of sensitivity of leak
detectors. However, calibrated leaks are
also used to measure the speed of vacuum
pumps and to calibrate pressure gages. A
standard physical leak makes feasible the
establishment of leakage rate
requirements for specifications. It also
provides a uniform reference standard for
calibrating leak detectors at different
locations where products are inspected.
This ensures more uniform agreement of
all tests. The terms reference, calibrated and
standard leaks have been used in the past
to identify these physical leaks. To many
people, the term calibration implies the
existence of a universally accepted
standard such as those at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
The National Institute of Standards and
Technology has performed calibration of
helium leaks (capillary and permeation)
over the range of 10–14 to 10–6 mol·s–1
(2.3 × 10–11 to 2.3 × 10–3 Pa·m3·s–1) on a
routine basis. The uncertainties in leak
rate vary from less than 1 percent at
10–6 mol·s–1 (2.3 × 10–3 Pa·m3·s–1) to as
much as 5 percent at 10–14 mol·s–1
(2.3 × 10–11 Pa·m3·s–1). Additionally, the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology will calibrate leaks with other
gases over this range on a special test
basis. All of these calibrations are
performed while the gas is exhausted into
a vacuum. Leaks may also be calibrated by
commercial companies that derive their
measurement uncertainty from either of
two techniques. The first is that they
derive their measurements from leaks
calibrated at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology and perform
calibrations using a comparison
technique. The second technique uses
indirect techniques that derive the leak
rate through measurements of pressure,
volume, temperature and time with
instruments whose calibration can be
traced to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. The
appropriate type of calibration will
depend on particular measurement
requirements including the required
accuracy, traceability or regulatory issues.
Leak Testing 143
 In some cases, accuracy in leakage Varieties of Calibrated Leaks
measurement is not of prime importance.
Permeation versus Orifices. Generally,
Rather, most practical situations require
leaks may be grouped into either of two
that some particular leakage value not be
categories: (1) leaks that permit the
exceeded. It need only be established that
permeation of some materials by certain
no leakage in the tested system is greater
gases and (2) leaks in orifices that permit
than this allowable maximum leakage
the flow of any gas when a pressure
rate. This practical approach to leakage
differential is exerted across the element.
specification requires some arbitrary
Variation of the material composition, the
standard. However, if any doubt exists,
membrane dimensions and the partial
one need only reduce the leakage of this
pressure differential of gas across the
arbitrary standard physical reference leak
element permit the attainment of an
by a sufficient safety factor to ensure that
almost infinite range of flow rates. The
test sensitivity meets the practical leakage
temperature coefficients of the
requirement within some estimated
permeation leak systems are appreciable.
confidence interval.
This provides an additional means of
extending the flow range, particularly
when the other parameters are fixed or
FIGURE 4. Categories of artificial physical leaks commonly limited.
spoken of as “reference,” “calibration” or “standard” leaks. Reservoirs. Calibrated leaks may be
divided into two distinct categories:
Leaks (1) reservoir leaks that contain their own
tracer gas supply and (2) nonreservoir
Reservoir Nonreservoir leaks to which tracer gas is added during
testing. Figure 4 shows a classification of
Permeation Capillary Porous plug Capillary Porous plug physical leaks used for reference,
calibration or standard leaks.
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Gaseous Flow. At least three additional
value value value value variables must be considered when using
Glass Fluorocarbon
resin
standard calibrated leaks: (1) the nature of
flow (viscous, transitional or molecular) of
gas passing through the leak, (2) the
Fixed Variable
value value specific tracer gas or gas mixture flowing
through the leak and (3) the pressure
differential acting across the leak.

144 Nondestructive Testing Overview

PART 2. Selection of Leak Test Techniques2
Figure 5 provides a graphical guide to
selection of leak testing techniques and
techniques for various applications. It
shows a decision tree with which the
choice of a leak testing technique
becomes a step-by-step process. The
selection processes suggested by Fig. 5
serve as a basic guide.1 Further
consideration of specific leak testing
requirements may suggest other methods
or techniques for test selection or cause
the test engineer to modify leak testing
procedures. See also Table 1. The final
selection of the leak testing technique will
typically be made from perhaps only three
or four possible test methods. The special
conditions under which tests must be
made can become a major factor in this
final test selection.
The first question to be asked when
choosing the best leak testing technique is
“Should this test reveal the presence of a
suspected leak, or is its purpose to show
the location of a known leak?” The
second question to be answered is, “Is it
necessary to measure the rate of leakage at
the specific leak?” If leakage measurement
is essential, use of calibrated or reference
leaks or other means to provide
quantitative leakage measurement is
required. In the decision tree of Fig. 5, the
first branch (or decision point) answers
TABLE 1. Leak testing methods and techniques.
Methods Techniques
Bubble solution immersion; film solution
Ultrasonic/acoustic sonic/mechanical flow; sound generator
Voltage discharge voltage spark; color change
Pressure hydrostatic; hydropneumatic; pneumatic
Ionization photo ionization; flame ionization
Conductivity thermal conductivity; catalytic combustible
Radiation absorption infrared; ultraviolet; laser
Chemical based chemical penetrants; chemical tracer gases
Halogen detector halide torch; electron capture; halogen
diode
Radioisotope krypton-85
Pressure change absolute; reference; pressure rise; flow
measurement; pressure decay; volumetric
Mass spectrometer helium or argon; tracer probe location;
hooding total leakage; detector probe
location; sealed objects; residual gas
analyzer
the preceding questions and determines if
the purpose or requirements of the test
lead to the upper branch of leak location
only or to the lower branch of leakage
rate measurements.
Access for Leakage Measurement
The lower half of the decision tree of
Fig. 5 is a guide for step-by-step selection
of optimum techniques for leakage
measurements. Leakage measurements can
be divided into two different types based
on the nature of the test objects whose
leakage is to be measured. The first
decision is based on the accessibility of
test surfaces on the pressure boundaries of
the test object. Test objects are classified
by accessibility into two groups.
1. Open units are accessible on both
sides of the pressure boundary, for
tracer probes or detector probes.
2. Sealed units are accessible only on
external surfaces.
The second category usually consists of
mass produced items such as transistors,
relays, ordnance components and sealed
instruments. In the lower portion of
Fig. 5, this choice is indicated first on the
decision path for leakage measurement.
Fluid Media in Leak Testing
Leak testing can be divided into three
main categories: (1) leak detection,
(2) leak location and (3) leakage
measurement. Each technique in all
categories involves a fluid leak tracer and
some means for establishing a pressure
differential or other means for causing
fluid flow through the leak or leaks.
Possible fluid media include gases, vapors
and liquids or combinations of these
physical states. Selection of the desired
fluid probing medium for leak testing
depends on operator or engineering
judgment involving factors such as:
(1) type and size of test object or system
to be tested; (2) typical operating
conditions of test object or system;
(3) environmental conditions during leak
testing; (4) hazards associated with the
probing medium and the pressure
conditions involved in testing; (5) leak
testing instrumentation to be used and its
response to the probing medium; (6) the
leakage rates that must be detected and
the accuracy with which measurements
Leak Testing 145
 must be made; and (7) compatibility of
test probing medium with test object and
content (to avoid corrosion etc.).
Detector Probe versus
Gases and vapors are generally Tracer Probe
preferred to liquid media where high One of the most difficult and important
sensitivity to leakage must be attained; decisions is the choice of which leak
however, liquid probing media are used testing method should be used. A correct
for leak testing in many specific choice will optimize sensitivity, cost and
applications. reliability of the leak testing procedure.
Choice of an incorrect test method makes
leak testing less sensitive and less reliable,

FIGURE 5. Graphical decision tree for step-by-step selection of leak testing techniques.

Halogen electron capture/halogen heated anode

Helium mass spectrometer
Infrared
Optical deflection
Gage response
Chemical reaction Higher sensitivity
Bubble Helium mass spectrometer
Inherent tracer Airborne ultrasonic Argon mass spectrometer
Laser imaging Residual gas analyzer
Gage in place Acoustic emission
Detector Infrared Compare these factors in
probe Hydrostatic choosing leak testing technique
Halogen heated anode

Pressurized High voltage discharge

system
Leak Gage response
location Pressure measurement
Evacuated Lower equipment cost
system Inherent detector Airborne ultrasonic

Tracer probe

Radioactivity
Helium mass spectrometer

Leak test Halogen heated anode

Low sensitivity
test run Infrared
Back pressurizing Helium mass spectrometer

Static testing
Dynamic testing

after high
sensitivity test Inherent gage Flow measurement Halogen heated anode
Evacuated Radioactivity
Pressure change

Multiple Mass spectrometer Helium mass Flow measurement

sealed spectrometer
Infrared
Leakage Halogen electron
rate Halogen capture/halogen
measurement Sealed with heated anode
heated anode Radioactivity
tracer
Infrared

High sensitivity Optical deflection Halogen electron capture/

Static testing

halogen heated anode

Dynamic testing

Back pressuring
Pressure measurement Infrared
Air sealed
Bubble Helium mass spectrometer

Flow measurement Bubble

Low sensitivity
Pressure measurement
Inherent tracer Gage in place
Flow measurement
Leak to vacuum
Open or single
sealed units
Inherent tracer Gage in place

Leak to atmosphere

146 Nondestructive Testing Overview

while adding to the difficulty of testing.
One simplified way to choose is to rank
various leak testing methods by means of
their leakage sensitivity. If this were
sufficient, the test engineer would only
need to decide what degree of sensitivity
is required and then to select the test
method from among those offering
adequate sensitivity for the specific test
application. However, each leak testing
technique can have a different test
sensitivity under different operating
conditions. For example, a mass
spectrometer leak detector is 10 000 times
more sensitive than a heated anode
halogen vapor detection instrument when
used for leak location in the tracer probe
leak location test of an evacuated vessel.
However, if these two instruments are
used for leak detection on a pressurized
test system, the halogen leak detector is
100 times more sensitive. The reason for
this apparent discrepancy becomes
obvious on close examination of the
operating characteristics of these two
instruments. The mass spectrometer is
designed for operation under vacuum
conditions, whereas the halogen leak
detector is designed for operation in air at
atmospheric pressure.
As another example, a helium mass
spectrometer leak detector may have a
leakage sensitivity of 10–12 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–11 std cm3·s–1) during routine leak
testing with dynamic leakage
measurement techniques. On very small
systems, this optimum sensitivity may be
increased to 10–15 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–14 std cm3·s–1), a gain of 1000×, by
using the static accumulation leakage
measurement technique. However, the
static leakage measurement technique is
not the standard method of using the
mass spectrometer leak detector.
Therefore, the last sensitivity stated above
is subject to some question. It must be
recognized that each method of leak
detection or measurement is usually
optimized for one particular type of leak
testing. Therefore, it can be a mistake to
compare sensitivities of various leak
testing methods under the same
conditions, if each test is not designed to
operate under these same conditions.
Tracer Gas for Leak Location
As shown on the upper branch of the
decision tree of Fig. 5, tracer gas tests
whose purpose is leak location only can
be divided into a tracer probe technique
and a detector probe technique (Fig. 6).1
When choosing either technique, it is
important that leak location be attempted
only after the presence of a leak has been
ascertained. The tracer probe technique is
used when the test system is evacuated
and the tracer gas is applied to the outside
of the pressure boundary of the test
system. The detector probe technique is
selected when the test system is
pressurized with gases including the tracer
gas (if used) and the sniffing or sampling
of the leaking gas is being done at
atmospheric pressure in the ambient air.
This selection corresponds to the second
decision point in the upper branch of the
decision tree of Fig. 5.
Detector Probe at Atmospheric
Pressure
When testing a pressurized system that is
leaking into the atmosphere, the next
decision point is whether or not the
leaking fluid can be used as a tracer (this
decision point lies along the top branch
of the tree of Fig. 5). For example, most
refrigeration and air conditioning systems
are charged with a refrigerant gas
(refrigerant-22 or -134a), a fluorocarbon to
which the heated anode halogen vapor
detector is specifically highly sensitive.
When searching for leaks in operating
systems of this type, the inherent tracer
dictates the use of the halogen leak
testing method. Because of potential
environmental effects from fluorocarbons,
some current systems are being charged
with refrigerant-134a gas or sulfur
hexafluoride for use, respectively, with
modified residual gas analyzer halogen
leak detectors or electron capture halogen
leak detectors.
If the pressurized test system contains
ammonia gas, a chemical type of leak
detector might prove to be optimum. In
FIGURE 6. Tracer gas probing for locating leaks with sensitive
electronic leak detection instruments: (a) tracer probe
technique; (b) detector probe technique.
(a) Probe
System
under
test Leak
detector
Source of
tracer gas
(b) Probe
System
under
test
Leak
detector
Source of
tracer gas
Leak Testing 147
 certain cases where the mass spectrometer
leak detector is to be used, the presence of
a specific gas (such as argon, helium or
neon) within the system provides an
excellent inherent tracer. Alternative
procedures involve pressurizing the test
system with such a tracer gas or a mixture
of air with tracer gas.
Some other methods for leak location
do not depend on the specific nature of
the leaking gas; among these are the
ultrasonic leak detector and bubble
testing. In some cases, the tracer gas
might be suitable for more than one
testing method; helium for example could
be used for bubble testing for large leaks
or for mass spectrometer testing for small
leaks or quantitative leakage
measurements.
The detector probe leak testing
methods, in order of increasing leak
sensitivity, time and costs, are ultrasonic,
bubble, chemical, pressure or flow gage
response, infrared gas detector, mass
spectrometer leak detector and halogen
vapor detector. These relative sensitivity
ratings apply for detector probes searching
with the detector inlet probe or sniffer
searching in air at atmospheric pressure.
These alternative leak test methods are
listed vertically at the right end of the top
branch of the decision tree of Fig. 5. The
lowest cost, highest speed, simplest leak
tests are at the bottom of this list. The
slower, more costly, higher sensitivity test
methods appear at the top of the list
shown to the right of the top branch of
the decision tree of Fig. 5.
Tracer Probe outside Evacuated
System
When testing an evacuated system that
has in-leakage from the ambient
atmosphere or from a tracer probe, the
first consideration in selection of a test
method is whether there is an inherent
detector within the system. The inherent
detector might be a pressure gage of an
electronic type or, more desirably, a gage
that is specifically responsive to the
partial pressure of a specific tracer gas.
Vacuum systems often contain one or
more types of vacuum gages. In Fig. 5,
this point appears in the second main line
from the top, for tracer probe testing of
evacuated systems, and is labeled inherent
detector.
If a vacuum gage does not exist within
the evacuated system under test, other
test methods must be examined
individually to determine their limitations
and advantages for leak testing of this
system. The tracer probe leak testing
methods, in order of increasing leak
sensitivity, time and cost, are ultrasonic,
pressure change gage response, high
voltage electrical discharge, heated anode
148 Nondestructive Testing Overview
halogen detector, infrared gas detector
and mass spectrometer helium leak
detector (highest in list). These methods
are listed vertically at the right end of the
second horizontal branch in Fig. 5.
The methods shown in the upper half
of Fig. 5 for leak location are those in
primary or most common usage. Other
methods, such as those using radioactive
tracer gases, are not generally used
because of safety and other operating
problems associated with their use.
However, if none of the leak location
methods described for detector probe or
tracer probe leak tests in the preceding
discussion is satisfactory for a specific
application, more complicated leak test
techniques may be considered during
selection of an appropriate leak test.
Leakage Measurement
with Tracer Gases
All leak detection with tracer gases
involved their flow from the high pressure
side of a pressure boundary through a
presumed leak to the lower pressure side
of the pressure boundary. When tracer
gases are used in leak testing, instruments
sensitive to tracer gas presence or
concentration are used to detect outflow
from the low pressure side of the leak in
the pressure boundary. Where leak tests
involve measurements of change in
pressure or change in volume of gas
within a pressurized enclosure, the loss of
internal gas pressure or volume indicates
that leakage has occurred through the
pressure boundary (or temporary seals
placed on openings of the pressure
boundary). When evacuated or low
pressure test systems or components are
surrounded by higher pressure media such
as the earth’s atmosphere, or a hood or
test chamber containing gases at higher
pressures, leakage can be detected by loss
of pressure in the external chamber or by
rise in pressure within the lower pressure
system under test.
Leakage rate measurement techniques
involving the use of tracer gases fall into
two other classifications known as
(1) static leak testing and (2) dynamic leak
testing. In static leak testing, the chamber
into which tracer gas leaks and
accumulates is sealed and is not subjected
to pumping to remove the accumulated
gases. In dynamic leak testing, the
chamber into which tracer gas leaks is
pumped continuously or intermittently to
draw the leaking tracer gas through the
leak detector instrumentation, as sketched
in Fig. 7.1 The leakage rate measurement
procedure consists of first placing tracer
gas within or around the whole system
being tested. A pressure differential across
 the system boundary is established either
by pressurizing the one side of the
pressure boundary with tracer gas or by
evacuating the other side. The
concentration of tracer gas on the lower
pressure side of the pressure boundary is
measured to determine leakage rates.
Leakage Measurements of
Open Test Objects
Accessible on Both Sides
When test objects have pressure
boundaries accessible on both sides, the
second decision in the selection of a
leakage measurement test method is
whether the unit can or should be
evacuated during leak testing. This
decision will determine if the leak test is
performed with the tracer probe or
detector probe. If one side of the pressure
boundary can be evacuated so that
leakage occurs to vacuum and the leak
detector is placed in the vacuum system,
more sensitive leak testing will usually
result. In vacuum, the tracer gases can
reach the detector quickly, particularly
with dynamic tests in which the
evacuated test volume is pumped rapidly
and continuously. In this case, there is
little possibility of stratification of tracer
gases.
However, evacuation does not always
produce the most sensitive and reliable
FIGURE 7. Leakage measurement dynamic leak testing using
vacuum pumping: (a) pressurized system mode for leak
testing of smaller components; (b) pressurized envelope
mode for leak testing of larger volume systems.
(a)
Envelope
Leak detector
System
under
test
Source of tracer gas
(b)
Envelope
System
under
test
Leak detector
Source of tracer gas
leakage measurements. If the test volume
is extremely large, high pumping speed is
necessary to reduce response time. Such
auxiliary pumping will cause split flow,
thus reducing the amount of tracer gas
reaching the leak detector. This, in turn,
can reduce signal levels and leakage
sensitivity. Other restraints may prevent
evacuation of the test system to a
sufficiently low absolute pressure.
Conventional helium mass spectrometer
leak detectors, for example, should be
operated at vacuum levels of 0.1 Pa
(1 mtorr) or lower. Conventional helium
mass spectrometers can operate with
manifold vacuums of 2 Pa (20 mtorr) or
lower whereas counterflow helium mass
spectrometers can operate with manifold
vacuums of 10 Pa (0.1 torr) and higher.
The structure of the equipment under test
(particularly if thin walls not intended to
withstand external pressure are involved)
may prevent use of leakage rate
measurement techniques in which the
leak detector must operate within a
vacuum. In Fig. 5, the lowest branch
leading to the junction of the leak to
vacuum path and the leak to atmosphere
path represents the point of decision
discussed in this paragraph.
Selecting Specific Method for Leak
Testing of Evacuated Test Units or
Systems
As indicated along the next-to-bottom
decision path at the center of Fig. 5, the
first approach to selecting leak test
methods for units that can be evacuated is
to determine whether or not there is an
inherent tracer in the test system while in
operation. For example, if in normal
operation the system under test contains
one of the specific tracer gases such as
helium or halogenated hydrocarbons, a
test method sensitive to that specific
tracer gas might be preferred. In this way,
considerable savings in test time and cost
can be realized if there is no need to fill
the system under test with a tracer gas.
If there is no inherent tracer gas within
the system under test, the next decision
step might be to determine if there is a
pressure or flow gage already present in
the evacuated system to be leak tested. If
so, this gage might be used for leakage
measurement in place of some additional
type of leak detector. This internally
available gage might be a simple vacuum
dial, thermocouple or ionization gage or,
in some fortunate cases, a mass
spectrometer that is incorporated into the
system as a part of its analytical
instrumentation or controls.
Consideration need not be limited to
those types of gages commonly used for
leak testing. Any gas concentration
measuring equipment that happens to be
Leak Testing 149
 available may be used for leakage
measurement and is accurate enough and
sensitive enough for the required results.
This decision point is that labeled gage in
place in the two bottom decision
pathways shown in Fig. 5.
Evacuated Systems without
Inherent Tracer
If there is no inherent tracer or adequate
gage present within an evacuated test
system, other vacuum mode leak testing
methods must be considered. Methods for
leak testing of evacuated systems, in order
of increasing leak sensitivity and cost of
leak testing equipment, include gas flow
measurement, pressure change
measurement, heated anode halogen
vapor leak detection and mass
spectrometer helium leak detection. These
methods, listed vertically at the end of the
next-to-bottom decision line in Fig. 5,
should each be considered individually
and evaluated in terms of their
advantages and limitations. In most cases,
all of the possible leak testing methods
should be considered. Selection depends
on pertinent factors. For example, a more
sensitive leak testing method might
involve higher initial costs for equipment
and test setups but, on the other hand, it
might result in great cost savings during
testing programs or provide greater
reliability in leak testing results.
Once the basic vacuum leak testing
method has been selected, a second
consideration involves selection between
static and dynamic test techniques. It is
usually preferable to perform leak tests
using a dynamic testing technique (tests
involving pumping of the vacuum system
throughout the test period). However,
static techniques of leakage rate
measurement should also be considered.
Static tests involving rise or loss in
pressure, or accumulation of tracer gases
over prolonged leak periods, are slower
than typical dynamic leak tests. However,
higher sensitivity can be achieved in static
tests if the volume under test is not
excessive; this may be worth the extra
effort.
Systems Leaking to
Atmospheric Pressure
The choice of pressure mode testing
methods — that is, for test systems
leaking to atmospheric pressure — should
be made by following the same type of
decision pattern as for leak testing of
evacuated systems. The decision path for
this case appears at the bottom of Fig. 5.
The leak testing methods applicable to
testing of systems leaking to atmosphere,
150 Nondestructive Testing Overview
in order of increasing test sensitivity, are
flow measurement, pressure measurement
(for larger volume systems), immersion
bubble testing, infrared gaseous leak
testing, heated anode and electron
capture halogen leak testing, mass
spectrometer helium leak testing and leak
testing using radioactive tracer gases. A
dynamic leak testing method should be
used wherever possible. After various
dynamic leak test methods have been
considered and those whose limitations
are unacceptable have been rejected, a
static leak testing method should also be
considered. Although a static technique
will increase leak testing time, it will also
increase leak testing sensitivity.
Locating of Individual
Leaks
Leak testing for the purpose of locating
individual leaks is required when it is
necessary to detect, locate and evaluate
each leak; unacceptable leaks then can be
repaired and total leakage from a vessel or
system brought within acceptable limits.
Methods for detecting and locating
individual leaks are generally quantitative
only in the sense that the lower limit of
detectable leak size is determined by the
sensitivity of the leak detecting indicators
and test method used. Thus, only rather
crude overall leakage rate information
could be approximated by adding the
leakage rates measured for the leaks that
are detectable. Numerous different leak
detecting, locating and measuring
techniques and devices are available. The
selection of test equipment, tracer gas and
leak detection method is influenced by
the following factors: (1) size of the leaks
to be detected and located; (2) nature and
accuracy of leak test information required;
(3) size and accessibility of the system
being tested; (4) system operating
conditions that influence leakage;
(5) hazards associated with specific leak
location methods; (6) quantity of parts to
be tested; and (7) ambient conditions
under which leak location tests are
required to be carried out (wind or lack of
air circulation and stratification effects
can influence test sensitivity and
personnel).
Techniques for location and evaluation
of individual leaks can be categorized in
various ways, including by types of leak
tracer used in the detection, location and
possible measurements of individual leaks.
A primary classification is that between
the use of liquid tracers and the use of
more sensitive gaseous tracers. Leak
location techniques that depend on tracer
gas properties are listed below in general
categories, in order of increasing leak
 testing sensitivity and complexity of test
methods:
1. leak location techniques independent
of any characteristic properties of the
tracer gas (use of candles, liquid and
chemical penetrants, bubble testing
and sonic or ultrasonic leak tests, for
example);
2. leak location techniques using tracer
gases with easily detectable physical or
chemical properties (gases with
thermal conductivities or chemical
properties differing from those of the
pressurizing gas, gaseous halogen
compounds and gases having
characteristic radiation absorption
bands in the ultraviolet or infrared
spectral ranges); and
3. leak location techniques involving the
use of tracer gases with atomic or
nuclear properties providing easily
detectable leak signals (helium and
other inert gases having specific
charge-to-mass properties that permit
their sensitive detection by mass
spectrometers and gaseous radioactive
isotopes detectable with particle
counters and radiation detectors).
Tables 2 and 3 list some typical leak
detection systems and give their leakage
sensitivities.
Leaks Location with Electronic
Detectors
Figure 6 shows arrangements of two basic
techniques for locating leaks with
electronic instruments that detect gas flow
or presence of specific tracer gases: (1) the
detector probe technique and (2) the
tracer technique. With either, it is
important that leak location pinpointing
be attempted only after the presence of a
leak has been ascertained. When choosing
between the pressure test technique and
the vacuum test technique, both of the
alternative techniques listed above must
be considered when the test object will
withstand either pressure or vacuum. If a
satisfactory choice of one technique has
been made, it is a good idea to compare it
with a satisfactory choice of the other
technique, to see if reduced cost or an
easier test method might be possible.
The detector probe leak location
technique is used when the system under
test is pressurized and testing is done at
ambient atmospheric pressure. The tracer
probe technique is usually used when the
system under test is evacuated and the
tracer gas comes from outside this system.
The tracer probe technique is usually the
most rapid test because the tracer gas
travels more rapidly in vacuum and so
reaches the leak detector in a shorter time.
On the other hand, a higher pressure
differential can be used with the detector
probe.
Overall Leakage Measurements
with Leak Location
Leakage rate measurement techniques do
not provide information on the number
and locations of individual leaks. The
latter can only be determined by leak
location test techniques. However, use of
the leak location techniques alone cannot
give reliable assurance that no leaks exist
or that tests have revealed all leaks that
do exist. Without prior assurance that
leaks do exist, leak location test
techniques become arbitrary in
application.
In practice, preliminary leakage testing
is often done first by less sensitive
methods to permit detection, location and
rectification of gross leaks. Next, the
operator can determine if any additional
leakage exists by an overall leakage
measurement of the entire test vessel,
system or component. Then each
individual leak should be discovered by
sensitive leak location techniques and
repaired if feasible, until all detectable
leak locations have been identified and

TABLE 2. Sensitivity limits of various methods of leak testing.

Minimum Detectable
Leakage Rate
Method Pa·m3·s –1 (std cm3·s –1) Comments

Mass loss time limited pressure change; generally limited to sizable leaks; good overall quantitative measure; no
information on leak location; time consuming
Ultrasonics 0.05 (0.5) leak location only; fast; no cleanup; can detect from distance; large leaks only
Penetrants ≤ 10–4 (≤ 10–3) simple to use; location only; may plug small leaks; requires cleanup
Bubbles 10–5 (10–4) for leak location; fluids may plug small leaks; requires cleanup
Thermal conductivity 10–6 (10–5) simple; compact; portable; inexpensive; sensitive to various gases; operates in air
Halogen 10–10 (10–9) operates in air; sensitive (10–12 claimed with sulfur hexafluoride); portable; requires cleanup;
loses sensitivity with use; sensitive to ambient halide gases
Mass spectrometer 10–13 (10–12) most accurate for vacuum testing; expensive; relatively complex; not as portable as halogen
detectors; much less sensitive when used in detector probing

Leak Testing 151

 their leaks rectified. For final assurance
TABLE 3. Relative ultimate leakage sensitivities of leak that the test object or system meets
testing methods under ideal conditions with very high leakage specification requirements, it may
concentrations of tracer gases.a be necessary to repeat the overall leakage
rate measurement to determine whether
Minimum Detectable the total leakage rate falls within the
Leakage Rate acceptable limits.
Test Method Pa·m3·s–1 (std cm3·s–1)

Liquid pressure drop —— b —— b

Gas pressure drop —— ——
Pressure rise —— c —— c
Ultrasonic leak detector 10 –2 (10 –1)
Volumetric displacementd 10 –3 (10 –2)
Gas discharge 10 –3 (10 –2)
Ammonia and phenolphthalein 10 –3 to 10–4 (10 –2 to 10–3)
Ammonia and bromocresol purple 10 –3 to 10–4 (10 –2 to 10–3)
Ammonia and hydrochloric acid 10 –3 to 10–4 (10 –2 to 10–3)
Ammonia and sulfur dioxide 10 –3 to 10–4 (10 –2 to 10–3)
Halide torch 10 –4 (10 –3)
Air bubbles in water 10 –4 to 10–5 (10 –3 to 10–4)
Air and soap or detergent 10 –4 to 10–5 (10 –3 to 10–4)
Thermal conductivity 10 –5 (10 –4)
Infrared 6 × 10–5 to (6 × 10–4 to
6 × 10–7 6 × 10–6)
Hydrogen Pirani 10 –7 –6
(10 )
Hot filament ionization gage 10 –7 to 10–8 (10 –6 to 10–7)
Mass spectrometer detector probe 10 –6 to 10–7 (10 –5 to 10–6)
Halogen diode detector 10 –7 to 10–9 (10 –6 to 10–8)
Hydrogen bubbles in alcohol 5 × 10–7 (5 × 10–6)
Paladium barrier detector 10 –8 to 10–9 (10 –7 to 10–8)
Mass spectrometer envelope test 10 –10 (10 –9)
Radioactive isotopes 10 –9 to 10–13 (10 –8 to 10–12)

a. Numbers not to be used as guides in practical leak testing.

b. Depends on volume tested and pressure range of gage.
c. Depends on volume tested.
d. Gas type flow meters.

152 Nondestructive Testing Overview

PART 3. Bubble Testing
Principles of Bubble
Testing
In leak testing by the bubble test
technique, a gas pressure differential is
first established across a pressure
boundary to be tested. A test liquid is
then placed in contact with the lower
pressure side of the pressure boundary.
(This sequence prevents the entry and
clogging of leaks by the test liquid.) Gas
leakage through the pressure boundary
can then be detected by observation of
bubbles formed in the detection liquid at
the exit points of leakage through the
pressure boundary. This technique
provides immediate indications of the
existence and location of large leaks, 10–3
to 10–5 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–2 to 10–4 std cm3·s–1).
Longer inspection time periods may be
needed for detection of small leaks, 10–5
to 10–6 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–4 to 10–5 std cm3·s–1),
whose bubble indications form slowly.
In bubble tests, the probing medium is
the gas that flows through the leak due to
the pressure differential. The test
indication is the formation of visible
bubbles in the detection liquid at the exit
point of the leak. Rate of bubble
formation, size of bubbles formed and rate
of growth in size of individual bubbles
provide means for estimating the size of
leaks (the rate of gas flow through leaks).
Bubble Test Liquids
Bubble test techniques for detecting or
locating leaks can be divided into three
major classifications related to the
technique of using the test liquid.
1. In the liquid immersion technique,
the pressurized test object or system is
submerged in the test liquid. Bubbles
are then formed at the exit point of
gas leakage and tend to rise toward the
surface of the immersion bath.
2. In the liquid film application
technique, a thin layer of test liquid is
flowed over the low pressure surface of
the test object. An example of this
solution film leak test is the well
known soap bubble technique used by
plumbers to detect gas leaks. Films of
detection liquid can be readily applied
to many components and structures
that cannot be conveniently immersed
in a detection liquid. For detection of
small leaks, this liquid should form a
thin, continuous, wetted film covering
all areas to be examined.
3. The foam application technique is
used for detection of large leaks in
which the applied liquid forms thick
suds or foam. When large leaks are
encountered, the rapid escape of gas
blows a hole through the foam
blanket, revealing the leak location.
Pressure Control in Bubble Testing
Subclassifications of these basic
techniques of bubble testing refer to
different techniques for controlling the
pressure differential acting across the
pressure boundary. Several techniques are
used to raise the pressure differential and
so to increase the rate of gas leakage and
the rate of formation of bubbles.
1. Pressurize the interior volume of the
test object or system before and during
the leak test. Internal gas pressure
should be applied across the pressure
boundary before test liquid contacts
the external surface. This tends to
prevent entry of liquid into leaks,
which might possibly clog the leaks to
gas flow. Protection against hazards of
overpressure must be provided.
2. Control the heating of sealed test
objects and small components to
cause internal gas expansion. This
increases the pressure differential and
causes outward gas flow through
possible leaks in the pressure
boundary.
3. Apply a partial vacuum above the
surface of the test liquid (immersion
liquid or solution film). This reduces
external pressure to the pressure
boundary. The resultant increase in
pressure differential across the system
boundary acts to cause gas flow
through any leaks that are present.
Advantages and
Limitations of Bubble
Testing
Bubble testing has the obvious advantages
of being relatively simple, rapid and
inexpensive. It is a fairly sensitive leak
detection technique and enables the
observer to locate the exit points of leaks
Leak Testing 153
 very accurately. (The point of exit may
not be directly opposite the entry point of
the leak, especially in welds or castings.)
Another major advantage of bubble
testing is that very large leaks can be
detected readily. Bubble test techniques
also provide very rapid responses even for
small leaks. (Some more sensitive leak
testing techniques often have responses so
slow that a leak may be missed while
probing.) With bubble tests, it is not
necessary to move a tracer probe or
detector probe from point to point. In
immersion bubble tests, the entire
pressurized component can often be
examined simultaneously for leaks on
exposed surfaces visible to the observer. In
some cases, test components may have to
be turned over to expose the underside to
view, so that leaks from this area can be
seen. All leaks are revealed independently
in immersion bubble testing. If desired,
large leaks can be first detected with rapid
bubble test techniques. These leaks can
then to sealed before refined leak testing
apparatus is used to detect smaller leaks.
The bubble testing technique lets the
observer distinguish real from virtual
leaks. (Virtual leakage is a primary
problem in leak testing of vacuum
systems but may also be encountered
when bubble testing.) In addition, during
bubble tests it is not necessary that all
connection pipes and valves be free from
leaks. However, detection of small leaks
requires operator patience and additional
test time for bubble or foam indications
to form. Care is required to ensure that all
detectable bubble indications present are
observed. Bubble testing is satisfactory for
detecting gross leakage. With inert
probing gases and test liquids, bubble
tests are fairly safe in a combustible
atmosphere. However, this depends on
selection of proper tracer gas and test
liquids. The required level of operator
training and skill is minimal, compared
with some more complex techniques of
leak testing.
Conditions that interfere with bubble
emission techniques of leak testing or
limit their effectiveness include the
following: (1) contamination of test
specimen surfaces; (2) improper
temperatures of test specimen surfaces;
(3) contaminated or foaming test liquids;
(4) improper viscosities of test liquids;
(5) excessive vacuum over surface of test
liquid; (6) low surface tension of test
liquids leading to clogging of leaks;
(7) prior use of cleaning liquids that clog
leaks; (8) air dissolved in test liquids or
outgassing from corroded test surfaces,
causing spurious bubble formations; and
(9) leaks with directional flow
characteristics, intermittent or very slow
leakage or porosity leaks.
154 Nondestructive Testing Overview
Prior bubble testing or contamination
may clog leaks and lower the sensitivity of
subsequent leak testing by more sensitive
techniques.
Vacuum Technique for
Bubble Testing with
Immersion
A minimum pressure differential of
100 kPa (1 atm) is typically required for
bubble testing of sealed components. Parts
that have atmospheric pressure inside can
meet this requirement by placing the
component within an enclosure and then
evacuating the enclosure. This technique
can give pressure differentials up to
100 kPa (1 atm). In the vacuum
technique, small specimens can be
immersed in the test liquid; the test liquid
container is then placed within the
vacuum chamber (Fig. 8).3 The pressure
within the vacuum chamber is then
reduced to a point that does not allow the
test liquid to boil but creates nearly
100 kPa (1 atm) of pressure differential.
The amount of vacuum used will depend
on the choice of test liquid. It should be
the maximum vacuum attainable without
making the test liquid boil. Viewing ports
in the vacuum chamber (or bell jar)
permit observation for a stream of bubbles
originating from a single point or of two
or more bubbles that grow and then are
released from a single point, as the
pressure in the vacuum chamber is
reduced. This technique is also applicable
to unsealed components or specimen
sections by use of the vacuum box
apparatus of Fig. 9.3
FIGURE 8. Vacuum chamber technique for
providing pressure differential across leaks
during bubble tests.
To vacuum pump
Seal
Test fluid Inner gate to prevent loss of
fluid while changing
specimens
O-ring
Test section or specimen
Liquid Film Technique for FIGURE 9. Vacuum box technique for providing pressure
difference across leaks in local areas of large test objects.
Bubble Testing without
Immersion Seams covered with bubble solution
ready for testing
A relatively simple procedure for bubble
testing with films of test liquid consists of
three basic steps.
Inspection box with clear top
1. Pressurize the system under test.
2. Apply a test liquid in the form of a
thin, continuous, wet film to the test
object surface.
3. Observe a bubble formation that
Bubbles indicating leakage
indicates a leak. A bubblefree solution
should be applied gently to preclude
bubble formation during liquid film
application. The detection solution Pressure gage
should be flowed or applied by a fine
orifice sprayer, but not brushed, onto
the test surface. The sensitivity of the Vacuum release valve
film application bubble test technique
is highly dependent on the time and
care taken by the operator in applying
the test liquid and observing the
Hose to vacuum pump
bubble formation. or air ejector
Numerous commercial leak testing
solutions can be used as solution film
bubble testing liquids. One film solution
for leak indication consists of 1 part liquid
soap or detergent, 1 part glycerine and
4.5 parts of water. This solution should be
prepared no more than 24 h before the
test. Its bubble formation properties
should be checked with a sample leak
periodically during the period of leak
testing. Homemade test solutions left over
at the end of each test period should be
discarded. Commercial leak testing
solutions kept in closed containers or
pressure spray cans may be used
intermittently and stored for later use, as
recommended by their manufacturers.

Leak Testing 155

PART 4. Mass Spectrometer Helium Leak Testing

All techniques of leak detection using a (6) choice of conventional or counterflow

mass spectrometer leak detector involve
the passage of a tracer gas through a
presumed leak from one side to the other
side of a pressure boundary and
subsequent detection of the tracer gas on
this lower pressure side. Figures 10 to 14
show some typical basic setups for leak
testing with helium tracer gases. For each
practical application, there is usually one
helium leak testing technique that gives
optimum results.
Factors to be considered when selecting
helium leak test techniques include the
following: (1) size, shape and location of
equipment to be tested, (2) choice
between pressure or vacuum or both for
testing, (3) maximum leakage rate
specified or that can be tolerated,
(4) degree of automatic leak testing
operation required, (5) number of parts or
complexity of the system to be tested and
FIGURE 10. Helium leak testing of evacuated vessel or system
with tracer probe.
Helium
tracer probe
System Valve Valve
under test
(evacuated)
leak detector.
Basic techniques for helium leak testing
include the following.
1. In the helium tracer probe technique
(Fig. 10), the mass spectrometer leak
detector is connected to the internal
volume of an evacuated test object
(such as a vessel or piping system)
while a helium spray tracer probe is
moved over the external surface to
detect the specific locations of leaks.
2. In the helium detector probe
technique (Fig. 11), the test object or
system is pressurized internally with
FIGURE 12. Hood technique of leak testing of evacuated
components inserted into hood or envelope containing a
helium atmosphere.
Hood containing helium-air mixture
System or object
under test
(evacuated)
Valve Auxiliary
mechanical
pump
Auxiliary
Standard Optional throttle
pump
leak valve

Optional Valve Helium Helium leak

turbomolecular or
high vacuum detector
pump
Optional Helium leak
throttle detector
valve
Helium
FIGURE 13. Leak testing of sealed components internally
pressurized with helium tracer gas and enclosed in a bell jar.
FIGURE 11. Helium leak testing of pressurized vessel or system
with detector probe.

Object
Standard Detector probe or pressurized
leak sampling probe with helium Standard
Leak

Optional throttle Optional throttle

valve valve Helium
System under leak
helium pressure Helium detector
leak detector
Auxiliary Vent valve
rough pump

156 Nondestructive Testing Overview

 helium or a gas mixture containing
helium. The mass spectrometer leak
detector is connected to the hose of a
scanning probe that collects samples
of gas leaking from the external
surface into the surrounding
atmosphere. To verify probe response
before scanning the test object, the
probe should be moved past the
orifice of a known helium source at
the same speed and distance as will be
used for the test object. The detector
probe technique can be used to
determine leak locations but is
inadequate for leakage measurement
or for finding leaks smaller than
10–7 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–6 std cm3·s–1).
3. When vacuum leak testing by the
hood technique (Fig. 12), the mass
spectrometer leak detector is
connected to the evacuated interior of
the system under test. The test object
or system is then placed under a hood
or within a chamber containing
helium gas or an air helium mixture
usually at atmospheric pressure. This
technique can be used to quantify the
total leakage rate of the system.
However, it cannot be used to
determine the specific locations of
leaks.
4. In the bell jar test technique (Fig. 13),
sealed components filled with helium
or a gas mixture containing helium are
placed in an evacuated testing
chamber. The mass spectrometer
connected to this vacuum chamber
detects helium leaking from any part
of the surfaces of the sealed test
objects in the vacuum chamber. This
test does not permit location of leaks
on the test object surfaces.
5. In leak testing large evacuated
systems, the accumulation technique
is used to increase sensitivity beyond
that which can be obtained by
dynamic testing. This technique is also
used on production line testing of
evacuated components passing
through a helium hood for a period of
time before sampling by a helium
mass spectrometer leak detector. In the
accumulation technique of leak testing
for pressurized objects (Fig. 14),
leaking helium tracer gas is allowed to
collect for a period of time before
being sampled by the leak detector.
This technique, also used in microliter
per liter (µL·L–1) testing, can be
adapted to several different leak
testing situations, as described
elsewhere. The accumulation
technique does not usually permit leak
location.
FIGURE 14. Proper connection of helium mass spectrometer
between high vacuum pump and foreline pump for
accumulation leak testing of diffusion equipment and large
vacuum systems at pressures below the 10 mPa (0.1 mtorr)
optimum operating pressure of helium mass spectrometer.
Hood containing helium
High vacuum
equipment
Standard
leak
Foreline
pump
Auxiliary turbomolecular
or diffusion pump Optional throttle
Helium valve
Helium leak
detector
Leak Testing 157
PART 5. Leak Testing with Halogen Tracer Gases

For example, if a closed component,

Halogen Vapor Tracer pipe, vessel or system is pressurized with
one of the halogen tracer gases or with a
Gases and Detectors mixture of a halogen gas with air or
Leak testing with halogen vapor tracer nitrogen, then a halogen vapor leak
gases uses leak detectors that respond to detector can be used to locate leaks and/or
most gaseous compounds containing to measure the rate of leakage. Three
halogens such as chlorine, fluorine, types of halogen leak sensors or detectors
bromine or iodine. (The elemental used in halogen leak testing are (1) the
halogen gases are not commonly used as halide torch, (2) the heated anode
tracers. They are toxic and typical halogen halogen detector and (3) the electron
vapor detectors do not respond sensitively capture (electronegative gas) detector. The
to these elemental gases.) Preferred uses of each of these halogen tracer gases
halogen tracer gases are nontoxic and detectors are described below.
chemical compounds such as the
common refrigerant gases and other leak Halogen Leak Detector
testing tracers listed in Table 4.
Concentration limits prescribed by the
Components
United States Occupational Safety and The typical halogen leak detector system
Health Administration should be consists of a halogen sensing element, a
observed.4 For example, refrigerant-134a is small air pump to draw the leakage
tetrafluoroethane. In addition to being a sample through the sensing element,
refrigerant, this gas is an excellent power supplies and amplifiers to provide
halogen tracer gas because it is inert, signal outputs. Leakage signals are usually
nontoxic, liquid at moderate pressures evidenced by an instrument indication, a
and readily available in convenient small variable frequency audio signal and a
and large containers. relay operating a leak signal lamp or
external alarm. The air sample is drawn
through the sensing element or probe at
about 0.5 L·min–1 (30 in.3·min–1).
TABLE 4. Halogen compound tracer gases used in halogen
vapor leak testing. Limits of atmospheric concentrations Halogen Tracer Gases
must be observed for health and safety reasons.
The most popular halogen tracer gases for
Chemical Trade Concentration leak testing are the gases refrigerant-22
Generic Name Formula Designation Limit (μL·L–1) (monochlorodifluoromethane, CHClF2)
and refrigerant-134a
Fluorotrichloromethane CCl3F R-11 1000 (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, C2H2F4). These
Dichlorodifuoromethane CCl2F2 R-12 1000 compounds are available from local
Chlorotrifluoremethane CClF3 R-13 No standard refrigeration suppliers in containers
Trifluoromonobromomethane CBrF3 R-13B1 1000 varying in size from small cans to full size
Dichloromonofluoromethane CHCl2F R-21 1000 pressurized liquid cylinders. Also available
Monochlorodifluoromethane CHClF2 R-22 No standard from such refrigeration suppliers are
Trichlorotrifluoroethane C2Cl3F3 R-113 1000 refrigerant fittings and hose.
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane C2Cl2F4 R-114 1000
Refrigerant-22 and refrigerant-134a gases
are stored as liquids under pressure at
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane C2H2F4 R-134a 1000
room temperature.
Sulfurhexafluoride SF6 Electronegative 1000
gas tracer
Carbon tetrachloride CCl4 10 Halogen Leak Testing Techniques
Methyl chloride CH3Cl 100 Five techniques of halogen leak testing are
Perchloroethylene C2Cl4 10 described in ASTM E 427: direct probing
(or tetrachloroethylene) with no significant halogen
Trichloroethylene C2HCl3 100 contamination in the atmosphere; direct
Vinyl chloride C2H3Cl 1 probing with significant halogen
contamination in the atmosphere; a
shroud test; an air curtain shroud test;
and an accumulation test.5

158 Nondestructive Testing Overview

Leak Searching with
Halogen Detector Probe
When searching for leaks from a vessel
pressurized with a halogen tracer gas, the
probe tip is moved over joints and seams
suspected of leaking (Fig. 15). Certain
precautions are necessary in this probe
exploration. Searching too rapidly may
miss the very small leak. If this risk is to
be avoided, the speed at which the probe
is moved must be in proportion to the
minimum leakage tolerance. In testing
welded seams for an allowable leakage of
the order of 10–6 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–5 std cm3·s–1), probe travel speed can
be about 20 to 50 mm·s–1 (50 to
120 in.·min–1). However, the probe speed
should be reduced to 10 mm·s–1
(25 in.·min–1) for smaller leaks.
The probe tip should lightly touch the
surface as it is moved over the test object
(Fig. 16). External forced ventilation must
be stopped during the actual leak testing
or care must be exercised to make certain
that drafts do not blow the leaking gas
away from the test probe. When the
probe passes over or close to a leak, the
tracer gas is drawn into the probe with
the air and through a sensitive element
where it is detected. The leak signal is
either audible or visual.
Halide Torch Detection of
Halogen Tracer Gas Leaks1
The halide torch is used to locate leaks in
systems filled with air containing halogen
tracer gas. The color of its flame changes
on introduction of halogen gas. The
halide torch consists of a burner
connected to a tank of halide free fuel
such as acetylene gas or alcohol (Fig. 17).
Some of the air for combustion is drawn
into the flame (chimney fashion) through
FIGURE 16. Manipulation of detector probe
when locating leaks by halogen tracer gases.
Suction pump causes probe to inhale air and
tracer gas escaping from leaks in pressurized
systems: (a) halogen detector probe lightly
touching weld during manual scanning of
test surface for leakage; (b) notched plastic
tubing tip on halogen detector to maintain
proper distance above leak surface.
(a)
(b)

FIGURE 15. Examples of halogen detector

probe technique for detecting halogen
tracer leaks from pressurized systems, weld
seams and components: (a) pressurized
vessel or air lock; (b) leak chase channel;
(c) pipe coil.

(a) Halogen leak detector

Probe

FIGURE 17. Halide torch for leak location.

Halogen-air or
halogen–inert
gas mixture Burner Hole to view flame

Copper plate
(b) Gas control valve Air intake tube
Halogen leak detector used to search
for leaks
Halide free gas
(acetylene)
Halogen mixture Probe

(c) Halogen leak

detector
Halogen mixture
Probe

Leak Testing 159

 a tube near the bottom of the burner. A
flexible extension of this air intake is a
detector probe tube used as a probe to
locate leaks. When the open end of this
tube passes near a halogen tracer gas leak,
some of the gas is drawn into the flame.
The halide flame detector is a small
burner arranged to pull primary
combustion air through a tube and into
the burner, which heats a copper plate.
The flame is a pale blue if only air is
pulled into the burner through the
suction hose. If small amounts of vapor
containing halogen compounds enter the
suction tube, the flame turns green,
characteristic of copper. The halide torch
procedure is used to locate leaks in
pressurized systems. It is a desirable
technique because of its low cost and
portability.
The torch permits locating leaks as low
as 250 or 300 g (8 or 10 oz) of refrigerant
gas per year. The sensitivity to refrigerant
gas is about 100 μL·L–1. This makes the
general sensitivity about 10–4 Pa·m3·s–1
(10–3 std cm3·s–1), with an air flow of
100 Pa·m3·s–1 (2 std ft3·min–1).
Advantages and Limitations of
Halide Torch
In general, the halide torch leak test is
about as sensitive and rapid as bubble
emission leak testing. In addition, the
torch technique permits location of leaks
in places where bubble indications could
not be seen. Moreover, no residue of test
solution must be removed before the test
apparatus can be used. Most of the
refrigerant gases are nonflammable. Once
a leak is detected, it may be soldered
without fear of explosion. Other
advantages of the halide torch are low
cost, portability, simplicity and ease of
operation.
The halide torch has no means of
accurate calibration. A single large leak
may mask other adjacent smaller leaks,
necessitating prior location (and
correction) of such larger leaks by separate
leak tests. The halide torch procedure uses
halogen tracer gases and therefore has the
same diffusion and stratification problems
as described above.
Heated Anode Halogen
Vapor Detector
Advantages
Advantages of the heated anode halogen
leak detector are that it (1) operates in air
at atmospheric pressure, (2) responds
specifically to halogen compound tracer
gases, (3) may detect oil clogged leaks and
160 Nondestructive Testing Overview
(4) is portable, efficient, safe and simple
to use.
The greatest advantage of the heated
anode halogen detector is that the
detector operates in air at ambient
pressures on the earth’s surface. It can
therefore be operated efficiently as a
detector probe and can be used without
vacuum pumping equipment. The
detector is relatively inexpensive and
portable. It can be used by leak testing
personnel without extensive instruction.
Another major advantage is that the
detectors are specific for halogen
compounds. Although halogen
contamination in the atmosphere will
sometimes present a problem, the
specificity leaves no doubt when the
tracer gas is being measured.
Another advantage of the halogen leak
detector stems from the fact that halogen
containing gases are soluble in oil. Oil
effectively plugs small leaks against
internal pressure. Even high pressure
differences are incapable of clearing oil
because of the small area of the hole.
However, oil has a high solubility for
halogen gases. Consequently, the halogen
gases diffuse through the oil clogging the
leak and can be picked up by the sensitive
halogen detector. The detector can be
operated in a quantitative mode
determining the relative size of individual
leaks.
Disadvantages
Disadvantages of heated anode halogen
leak detectors include the following.
1. Many of them are hazardous to use
near flammable materials or in
explosive atmospheres.
2. They respond to residual
contaminants that contain halogen
compounds.
3. Except for models in which the sensor
is in the hand piece, a time lag in
signal response results from detector
probe hose gas transit time.
4. Their leak signals tend to disappear
with prolonged exposure to halogen
tracer gases.
5. Their sensing elements deteriorate
with time or by excessive exposure to
halogen gases or vapors.
A primary disadvantage of some heated
anode halogen vapor detectors is that
they can be dangerous in any atmosphere
that contains combustible or explosive
gases. A second disadvantage of heated
anode detectors is that they respond to
any gases that contain halogen
compounds. For example, detectors will
respond to solder fluxes, cleaning
compounds and aerosol container
propellants. Care must therefore be taken
that these halogen containing compounds
are not present in the test area.
Electron Capture
Technique of Halogen
Vapor Leak Detection
The electron capture technique of halogen
leak detection uses the affinity of the
halide gases for electrons. It eliminates or
minimizes most of the difficulties
encountered with the heated anode
detectors. In this technique a small
amount of a gas that does not capture
electrons, generally nitrogen or argon, is
used as the background gas. (Air cannot
be used as the background gas, because
oxygen is an electron capturing gas.) The
background gas flows through the sensor
element where it is ionized to produce
free electrons by a weakly radioactive
tritium source. Tritium (1H3) decays by
electron emission to helium three (2He3)
with a half life of over 12 yr. The electron
is of comparatively low energy (19 kV), so
that radiation shielding is no problem so
long as the source (typically a titanium
foil impregnated with tritium) remains
sealed within the sensor element.
In use, air from the leak detecting
probe is also drawn through the sensor.
When this air contains halide gases,
electron capture occurs, thereby reducing
the electron current between the
electrodes. This reduction in current is the
measure of the concentration of the
halogen ions present.
The chief advantage of the electron
capture detector over the heated anode
halogen detector is calibration stability.
Although it can be desensitized
temporarily, the electron capture sensor
cannot be damaged nor can its calibration
be changed by any amount of use or
overexposure. Another advantage is that
there is no heated element that could
constitute a hazard.
Leak testing instruments based on the
electron capture method appear to be
considerably less sensitive than heated
anode halogen detectors to detectable
contaminants (such as smoke particles) in
the ambient atmosphere. This method
also seems to be particularly effective with
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) as a tracer gas.
Further, its sensitivity to some common
halogen tracer gases is comparable to that
of the heated anode instruments. It can
be used over a wider range of leakage
rates. Maximum sensitivity is claimed to
permit detection of leakage rates of
10–12 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–11 std cm3·s–1).
Technique for Halogen
Leak Testing of Vacuum
Systems
For locating leaks in a vacuum system, a
special leak detector is used. The control
unit is the same as for the pressure
application. However, the sensor of the
halogen leak detector is located separately
in a 16 mm (0.625 in.) diameter pipe
section about 100 mm (4.0 in.) long, with
one end closed. The open end of the
detector assembly is sealed into the
vacuum system. A jet of halogen tracer
gas is used to probe the outside of the
evacuated system with tracer gas, in the
same way that helium is used in tracer
probe leak testing with the mass
spectrometer leak detector. When the jet
of tracer gas is on a leak, the tracer gas
leaks into the vacuum system, reaches the
sensitive element and is detected. When
testing small evacuated volumes of about
50 L (1 to 2 ft3), leakage of about
10–7 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–6 std cm3·s–1) can be
detected. The response time is usually 1 to
2 s. During testing of large volume
vacuum systems, when the system being
tested has restrictions to flow of gases
between the leak and the detector, the
sensitivity of the leak detector is reduced
by a factor of ten or more and the
response time will be increased, as
described below.
Applications of Halogen
Leak Detection
Application of Halogen Leak Tests
to Pressurized Enclosures
Pressurized enclosures and piping can be
easily tested for leaks by using heated
anode halogen leak detectors. Leaks are
located by pressurizing these enclosures
with a halogen tracer gas and manually
probing seams, joins, welds etc. with the
detector probe of the detector. If a leak
exists in the enclosure, some of the
halogen gas will pass through the leak
and be detected by the leak detector.
Some examples of equipment that have
been leak tested with halogen leak
detectors are automobile air suspension
systems, automobile radiators, air
conditioning and refrigeration equipment,
pressurized radar systems, nuclear power
system structures and components, heat
exchangers, dairy equipment, air
compressors, steam boilers and piping,
valves and pipe fittings, lengths of pipes
and tubes, missile fuel tanks and fuel
lines, aircraft fuel tanks, aircraft hydraulic
systems, chemical and petroleum systems,
Leak Testing 161
 underground pipe lines, transformers and
hermetically sealed instruments and
components. These heated anode halogen
vapor detectors are suitable for use in any
atmosphere that does not contain
combustible or explosive gases.
Comparison of Halogen Vapor
Tests with Other Leak Tests
In most cases halogen leak detectors are
much more sensitive, faster, more reliable
and in general a cleaner and easier means
of leak testing than the ordinary methods
such as bubble, hydrostatic, pressure drop
or halide torch testing. However, there are
some applications where one of these
alternative methods may be more suitable
or more sensitive. For example, bubble
testing is better for locating leaks in a
tank filled with natural gas than is heated
anode leak detection, which presents the
hazard of an explosion. Safer alternative
methods would be to use an electron
162 Nondestructive Testing Overview
capture type of halogen leak detector or
ultrasound detector. With leak testing
equipment such as boilers that are given a
high pressure hydrostatic test as required
by law, it may be that the hydrostatic test
is actually more sensitive than the
halogen leak detector. This follows
because it is possible to use much higher
pressures with the hydrostatic test than
with tracer gas and compressed air, for
safety reasons. The extremely high
pressures possible during hydrostatic
testing sometimes cause leaks to open up
that do not exist at lower pressures.
There are a few cases such as those
cited above where the halogen vapor leak
detector may not be as suitable or as
sensitive as another method of leak
testing. However, for most applications,
the halogen test is among the most
sensitive, most positive, easiest and
cleanest to use of all methods of leak
detection for leakage to the atmosphere.
PART 6. Other Techniques of Leak Testing

The helium mass spectrometer leak

Airborne Acoustic Leakage
Detection
Airborne ultrasound detection is an
inspection technique applied to locate
leaks in pressurized or evacuated systems
and high frequency discontinuities in
mechanical and electrical components.
Fluid leakage generates sound waves when
the fluid flow through the leak is
accompanied by turbulence, cavitation or
high velocity flow. These sonic
disturbances can be transmitted through
the medium of the pressurizing fluid,
through the containment structure or
through the atmosphere surrounding the
leak location. Airborne ultrasound can be
detected at a distance from its source with
directional scanning microphones or
acoustic probes. Leak testing and location
from a distance through air or other fluids
involves remote scanning of suspected
leak areas with a directional probe and
coordinating the direction of leakage’s
characteristic hissing sound with the
relative sound intensity. Certain
precautions must be observed if the sound
source or leak location is to be reliably
determined. These involve (1) avoidance
of sound path blocks or sound absorbing
materials that create sound shadows
between the leak and the acoustic sensor
and (2) recognition of possible sound
reflectors such as flat, hard surfaces that
provide sound echoes from directions
other than that of the original leak source.
The most common application is the
detection of gas leaks with a scanning
probe (Fig. 18).
detector has become a commonly used
piece of shop and field equipment for
product quality control leak testing and
for maintenance of all types of piping
systems and many other applications. The
residual gas analyzer (RGA) has become a
commonly used device for continuous
monitoring of thin film vacuum
deposition and other manufacturing
processes because it provides dynamic,
real time information on the relative
amount of the various gases in the
system. A residual gas analyzer can be
used to warn when too much of an
unwanted gas appears, if a material is not
sufficiently outgassed, if there are other
indications of both poor and good process
conditions or if general vacuum system
performance needs to be monitored.
Visible Indications of Leak
Locations
Dyed Liquid Tracers
Testing for leaks by use of dyed liquid
tracers is a nondestructive testing process
closely related to the liquid penetrant test
method used to detect discontinuities
open to the surface in test objects. For
FIGURE 18. Gas leakage is detected with airborne acoustic
module.

Residual Gas Analysis

Leak testing of some type is required for
any device or system that must contain or
exclude a gas or liquid. These products
range from tiny integrated circuit
packages to systems as large as nuclear
power plants and 16 000 m3
(100 000 barrel) petroleum tanks. Many
techniques are available for leak testing.6
Electronics technology has made the
electronic gas analyzers suitable for the
factory environment, with simplified data
presentation, stable control circuits and
the possibility of operation by relatively
unskilled personnel.

Leak Testing 163

 leak testing, however, the liquid penetrant hundred to one. These conditions provide
is applied to one side of the enclosing high levels of tracer sensitivity and
wall of a test object or test system and, excellent visibility of the leak indications.
after allowing adequate time for the
penetrant to seep through leaks, visual Gas Phase Dye Tracers
testing for leak location is carried out on
the opposite side of the enclosure wall. Gas phase tracers, used with dye
Note that, in this type of test, indicators, have been developed to a high
pressurization of the test object is not level of leak detection sensitivity. Either a
usually required. The migration of the visible color or a fluorescent dye can be
liquid tracer through the leak passageway used to augment the sensitivity of a gas
is not due to an applied pressure phase leak tracer process. Detectors
differential. Instead, the physical forces consist of a dye and a tracer gas that will
required to cause the liquid to penetrate react with each other to produce a change
through the leak are provided by surface of color or fluorescence in the dye. A
wetting capillary action and by surface simple technique of gas phase leak testing
tension effects characteristic of the liquid with dye indicators is to pressurize the
penetrant tracer and of the material system to be tested with ammonia gas.
surfaces that this tracer touches. Note that ammonia gas is possibly
Significant differences exist between dangerous to use in leak testing unless it
liquid tracers used in leak testing and is carefully controlled and exhausted from
liquid penetrants used for detection of work areas to avoid injury to personnel.
surface discontinuities in test objects. With ammonia gas as the leak tracer,
These differences exist mainly in strips of pH indicator paper, moistened
connection with the way applicable with water, can be used as probes to
indicator dyes are used, their search out any points of ammonia gas
concentrations and the techniques for
augmenting the detectability of leak
indications. FIGURE 19. Leak testing using fluorescent
tracer liquids: (a) fluid is added to air
Liquid Tracers conditioning system; (b) ultraviolet radiation
causes leaking fluid to fluoresce.
Liquid leak tracers are typically composed
of a vehicle or carrier such as oil or water (a)
and of a tracer dye system incorporated
into the liquid carrier to enhance visibility
of leakage indications. The dye solubility
in various carrier liquids as well as the
coloration power of the dyes in dilute or
in concentrated solutions in the carriers
become important factors that control the
sensitivity and ease of use of the liquid
tracers. Nonfluorescent visible color dyes
that may exhibit intense coloration in
concentrated solutions usually lose their
coloration power rapidly as they are
extensively diluted in a solvent. For water
base tracers, basic dyes provide the most
intense colors. Solvent dyes usually yield
the strongest colors for oil soluble tracer
systems.
However, a fluorescent dye that has a
reasonable efficiency in the conversion of
ultraviolet radiation to visible light is
usually much more effective as a leak
(b)
tracer than is the average visible color
dye. This occurs partly because of the
greater response of fluorescent dyes in
dilute solutions and partly because of the
enhanced visibility or brightness contrast
of fluorescent leak indications seen
against a dark background (Fig. 19). In
closeup applications where leak testing
can be carried out with an ultraviolet
lamp under subdued white light
conditions, it is often possible to get
brightness contrast values for fluorescent
leak indications that exceed several

164 Nondestructive Testing Overview

leakage. This technique provides a reaction, contains no explosive materials
medium-to-high leak test sensitivity for and has been assumed to be nontoxic.
the detection of gas leaks but is awkward
to use and ammonia fumes are unpleasant
or toxic for test operations.
Thermal Techniques of
Chemical Fumes Leak Testing
The chemical smoke or fumes leak
indicator technique depends on a Infrared Thermographic Leak
chemical reaction between a tracer fluid Testing
and a chemical reagent to produce visible
leak indications. Various nonstandardized A body emits thermal radiation, the
chemical indicator leak tests exist, of largest part of which is in the form of
which a few representative examples are infrared waves, with wavelengths in the
described next. Tracer gases or vapors used rage of 1 to 50 µm.
in chemical indicator leak testing include Infrared thermographic leak testing
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon techniques are accurate and cost effective
dioxide. Both ammonia and hydrogen processes for water, sewer, steam,
sulfide are considered hazardous or toxic petroleum, chemical and gas pipeline
gases and should be used with proper rehabilitation programs and for locating
safety precautions. The chemical indicator leak discontinuities in storage facilities
techniques are static leak testing and manufacturing programs.7,8 These
techniques used fundamentally as leak techniques have been used to test
location procedures. The longer the leak petroleum transmission pipelines,
test is run, the more sensitive it becomes. chemical plants, water supply systems,
A major advantage of these tests is their steam power plants, natural gas pipelines
relatively low cost because no expensive and sewer systems.
instrumentation is required. Major
limitations of these tests include the
possibility that reactive chemicals might FIGURE 20. Smoke generators: (a) titanium
damage materials or parts of systems tetrachloride smoke stick; (b) dye based
being tested or present hazards to smoke candles.
personnel.
(a)
Smoke Bombs
Gas and smoke bombs (Fig. 20) can be
used for detecting and locating leaks.
Generally speaking, a volume of smoke
sufficient to fill a volume five or six times
larger than the volume of the vessel or
system to be tested is required for a smoke
test. Medium size volumes such as
pressure vessels can be tested by closing
all vents, igniting a smoke candle or
smoke bomb and placing it inside the
vessel to be tested. All openings in the test
system should then be closed. Almost
immediately, smoke will be seen issuing
from the larger leaks present in the test (b)
object. The order of escaping smoke will
also assist in pinpointing the locations of
leak exits. When smoke tests are made on
steam generating boilers and similar
equipment with volumes of 2.8 × 103 m3
(105 ft3) or larger, it is frequently desirable
to apply air pressure to the interior
volume of the system under test.
Smoke candles can be obtained that
provide from 100 m3(4 × 103 ft3) of smoke
in 30 s to 4 × 103 m3 (1.4 × 105 ft3) of
smoke in 2 or 3 min. The color of the
smoke may vary from white to gray,
depending on the smoke density and
available lighting. The smoke used in leak
location is generated by chemical

Leak Testing 165

 Thermography makes it possible to
inspect large areas, from remote distances,
with 100 percent coverage. In addition,
certain infrared thermographic techniques
have the capability to locate voids and
erosion areas surrounding buried
pipelines, making their testing capabilities
unique and highly desirable.
Infrared thermographic leak testing
techniques can be divided into three main
categories: (1) infrared emission pattern
techniques, (2) infrared absorption
techniques and (3) infrared photoacoustic
techniques. The first two techniques rely
on using an infrared thermographic
imager to image either the infrared energy
emitted by a leak and the effect it has on
its surroundings or to absorb a specific
frequency of infrared energy. The third
technique is based on using a laser with a
specific frequency in the infrared
spectrum to cause leaking gas to emit an
acoustic signal.
Thermal Conductivity Technique
for Leak Testing of Vacuum
Systems
The thermal conductivity leak testing
technique can be used with either the
pressurized system (detector probe)
technique or the evacuated system (tracer
probe) technique. In the evacuated system
mode of leak testing, gages normally
found on the system are used. In the
pressurized system mode, special leak
detectors are necessary.
Tracer Probe Technique of
Thermal Conductivity Leak Testing
The tracer gas detector for the tracer probe
technique evolved from thermal
conductivity gages present on vacuum
systems. Either thermocouple or pirani
gages normally mounted on the vacuum
system are used for thermal conductivity
leak testing by the tracer probe technique.
Because these gages best respond to a
pressure between 100 Pa and 10 mPa
(1 torr and 0.1 mtorr), they are used on
systems with low pumping speed.
Alternatively, these gages can be placed
between the turbomolecular or diffusion
pump and the fore pump on a vacuum
166 Nondestructive Testing Overview
system. The thermal conductivity
technique is very old, yet it is continually
used in leak location on vacuum systems.
New tracer fluids are used to enhance the
technique and modifications are made on
the pumping equipment to increase the
leakage sensitivity.
Because the response of a thermal
conductivity gage depends on the mass of
the gas molecules, these gages can be used
with a tracer gas to find leaks. When a
leak is covered with a light gas such as
helium, the gage will read higher than for
an air leak. Conversely, a heavy gas such
as argon will cause the gage reading to
decrease. Volatile liquids such as acetone
or alcohol can also be used but the
response will depend on whether the
vapors enter the leak or the liquid freezes
in the leak, temporarily sealing it. One
must keep in mind that (because of the
fairly long response time of thermal
gages) the leak may have been covered
some time before the gage gives any
indication. Hence, the leak may have to
be located by successive approximations
— a characteristic of most leak detection
techniques. Because most vacuum systems
will have either a thermocouple or pirani
gage to monitor fore pressure, these gages
in the pressure range from 0.1 to 30 Pa
(1 to 300 mtorr) are both simple and
convenient.
Thermal Conductivities of
Different Tracer Gases
In principle, any tracer gas having a
thermal conductivity different from that
of air could be used with thermal
conductivity leak detectors. The leakage
sensitivity depends on differences among
the thermal conductivities of the gases.
Both hydrogen and helium show large
relative differences and are therefore the
most sensitive tracer gases with this
technique. For special applications, it is
sometimes desirable to use one of the
other tracer gases. Gases with a thermal
conductivity greater than air (such as
helium or methane) or those with thermal
conductivities less than air (such as
halogenated hydrocarbons, argon or
carbon dioxide) would be suitable.
PART 7. Leak Testing of Hermetically Sealed
Devices
Hermetic Seals
By strict definition, a hermetically sealed
device or system is one in which the gas
or gases contained in the internal free
volume of the sealed system cannot
escape or be exchanged with any gas,
vapor or liquid contained in the
environment external to the sealed
system.
In reality, such hermetic seals do not
exist: given enough time, any gas should
be able to permeate or diffuse through
any known material. For this reason,
either maximum rates of leakage or
degrees of hermeticity are usually
specified for particular operating
environments and applications. If a device
passes the specified leak testing
requirements for the hermetic seal, this
device can then be stated as being
hermetically sealed to the degree specified.
This does not imply, however, that the
same part or device could not leak later
because of its deterioration, mishandling,
more stringent service, environment or
other causes.
Hard vacuums are those with pressure
below the level of 100 µPa (1 µtorr). These
low pressures cause problems in sealing
not encountered when sealing for higher
vacuum pressures. The low pressures of
hard vacuum cause volatilization of
materials such as plasticizers in elastomer
sealing materials. There can also be
outgassing or sublimation of rubber
materials into the vacuum. It has been
suggested that most elastomers have
vapor pressures between 10 mPa and
100 nPa (100 and 0.001 µtorr), so that
they will vaporize selectively as pressures
are reduced in a hard vacuum system.
For hermetic seals to have very low
leakage rates, it is essential that the seals
and envelopes be fabricated from
materials having very low permeabilities
to passage of vapors, gases and liquids.
Fluids travel directly through permeable
materials by a process somewhat like
osmosis. The main difference is that
permeability refers to transmission of
gases, whereas osmosis refers to
transmission of liquids. Like solvents,
different gases have different rates of
travel through any specific permeable
material. Conversely, a single type of gas
travels through different permeable
materials at different rates.
Gross Leak Testing of
Hermetically Sealed
Devices
Gross versus Fine Leak Testing of
Hermetic Seals
The gross end of the range of leakage rates
of hermetic seals is defined as those
devices with leakage rates greater than
10–7 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–6 std cm3·s–1). Although
these leakage rates are called gross, the
leaks are those that would occur with
circular holes with diameters in the range
of micrometers. Figure 21 shows the
theoretical relationship between
equivalent circular hole size and leakage
rates. Actually, the leaks in hermetic seals
are not circular holes, but rather consist of
cracks or pores of various sizes. Thus, the
task of leak testing such devices is more
difficult than would normally be implied
by the word gross. In hermetically sealed
packages, overall leakage rates greater
than 10–8 Pa·m3·s–1 are typically found to
be harmful.
The fine end of the range of hermetic
seal leakage rates extends downward from
10–7 Pa·m3·s–1 to an indefinite limit,
perhaps as low as 10–12 Pa.m3·s–1. For high
reliability uses, hermetically sealed devices
with leakage rates greater than some
prescribed value are rejected. This limit
may be as small as 1 × 10–9 Pa·m3·s–1
(1 × 10–8 std cm3·s–1). Leak test screening
FIGURE 21. Theoretical relation of leakage rate to ideal
circular hole leak diameter, assumed for hermetic seals.
Empirical test data obtained with capillaries ranging from
8 to 30 mm (0.3 to 1.2 in.) in length.
10.0 (40)
Leak diameter, µm (10–5 in.)
1.0 (4.0)
0.1 (0.4)
0.01
10–9 10–8 10–7 10–6 10–5 10–4
(10–8) (10–7) (10–6) (10–5 ) (10–4) (10–3)
Leakage rate, Pa·m3·s–1 (std cm3·s–1)
Leak Testing 167
 has been necessary for achievement of
high reliability systems, not just for
military uses but for many other uses.
Major Leak Testing Techniques
Used for Gross Leak Testing of
Hermetic Devices
Gross leak testing techniques used for
testing hermetically sealed electronic
devices in the gross leakage rate range
from 10–7 to 10–3 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–6 to
10–2 std cm3·s–1) have included (1) liquid
dye penetrant tests, (2) elevated
temperature bubble tests, (3) back pressure
bubble tests, (4) weight gain leak tests,
(5) holographic leak tests and
(6) krypton-85 pressurization techniques.
Each of the preceding leak tests will
detect leaking devices. However, the
choice of which test to use depends on
the type of package used to enclose the
device, as well as on the choice of
additional fine leak tests to be used on the
same device packages. Cleanliness is
absolutely essential for accurate leakage
testing with hermetically sealed device
packages.
Fine Leak Testing of
Hermetically Sealed
Devices with Krypton-85
Gas
Major Leak Testing Techniques
Used for Fine Leak Testing of
Hermetic Devices
Basically, there are only two fine leak test
techniques that are widely used in
industry for leak testing of hermetically
sealed devices: (1) the radioisotope tracer
gas leak testing technique and (2) the
helium tracer gas leak testing technique.
Wide variance has existed in both the test
conditions and the resultant leak test
sensitivity limits, depending on such
factors as the pressure differentials or
bombing pressures, the low pressure
conditions into which leakage occurs and
the sensitivities of the leak testing
instruments (used in vacuum or in air at
atmospheric or other pressures).
In the past, many procedures and
specifications used for fine leak testing
specified a maximum leakage rate when
measured at a differential pressure of
100 kPa (1 atm). The latter was not a
realistic requirement for the helium test,
because if the device were a leaker, the
pressure differential of 100 kPa (1 atm)
would not be maintained as time
progressed after pressurization and during
the leak test exposure. More recently,
168 Nondestructive Testing Overview
efforts have been initiated to develop
more realistic and consistent standards for
helium and radioisotope tracer gas fine
leak tests of hermetically sealed devices.
Krypton-85 Fine Leak Test
Methods for Hermetically Sealed
Devices
In the radioisotope gas leak test
technique, the tracer gas is usually the
radioactive (but chemically inert)
krypton-85 gas, typically diluted in
gaseous nitrogen. The sealed hermetic
devices are bombed, or subjected to the
radioactive gas and its carrier gas under
pressure, nominally 300 to 800 kPa
absolute (45 to 120 lbf·in.–2), for specified
periods of time. The maximum external
pressure the device package can withstand
must be determined in advance so that as
high a bomb pressure as possible can be
used to minimize the bombing time. In
most cases, the bomb pressure and
bombing time are specified in advance for
specific types of components and package.
During the radioisotope leak testing,
the packages are placed within the
bombing chamber. Before introduction of
the krypton-85 mixture, the chamber is
evacuated to remove the air and prevent
dilution of the krypton gas mixture. The
bombing chamber is then backfilled with
the radioactive tracer gas mixture to a
specified pressure and the devices are
exposed to this pressurized tracer gas
mixture for a specified period of time.
The bombing time is chosen to permit
a sufficient quantity of krypton-85 tracer
gas to enter a leaking device to ensure
detectability. The quantity of tracer
required is about 1011 molecules of
krypton-85. That concentration is
sufficient to produce an easily measured
radioactive emission through the walls of
the device. Typically, in small cavity
packages, the krypton-85 concentration
represents about 1 part per 108 parts of air
inside the part. The radioactive gas
pressurization mixture is then pumped
out of the bombing chamber into a
permanent tracer gas storage system.
Following completion of bombing and
purging operations, the bombing chamber
is opened and each package device is
placed (either individually or in batches)
within the well of a scintillation counting
radiation detector system. They are easily
tested by carrying the devices on a
conveyor belt through a tunnel type
scintillation crystal detector at rates of
one per second. The radiation emitted
from external surface adsorbed gas is
typically beta radiation (electrons) that
can be stopped by thin layers of
absorbers. The more energetic gamma
radiation produced by disintegrations of
krypton-85 gas molecules contained
within the packages can then be detected
and counted with suitable scintillation
counters.
The leakage rate is then calculated
from the counting rate caused by
emissions proportional to the amount of
krypton-85 that has entered the device
during the bombing step and still remains
within the device package at the time of
the scintillation counter measurement.
This rate depends on the amount of
radioactive gas introduced during
bombing and on the loss of that gas
through the leak following the bombing
operation. Thus, measurements are being
made during transient conditions of tracer
gas pressure within the test devices. The
transient conditions have little effect on
the krypton-85 test, because very small
partial pressures are needed for substantial
detectability.
Fine Leak Testing of
Hermetically Sealed
Devices with Helium Gas
Helium Fine Leak Test Methods
for Hermetically Sealed Electronic
Devices
The helium tracer gas leak test technique
is the second of two widely used
techniques for fine leak testing of
hermetically sealed electronic devices. The
helium mass spectrometer fine leak test is
relatively simple and does not require
compliance with regulations governing
nuclear byproducts that produce ionizing
radiations (such as krypton-85 tracer gas).
Helium is the lightest inert gas. Its
molecules will penetrate through even the
smallest leaks but will not clog the leak.
Helium is not hazardous and is present in
the earth’s atmosphere only as a tracer
element present in a concentration of
about 5 μL·L–1 of air (about 1 part in
201 000 in air). In normal production leak
testing, the mass spectrometer leak test
equipment provides capabilities for
detecting leakage rates in the range from
about 10–6 to 10–10 Pa·m3·s–1 (10–5 to
10–9 std cm3·s–1).
With gross leakers it is possible that so
much tracer gas may escape before mass
spectrometer leak tests of the devices that
little or no tracer gas is left to escape
during the actual leak test period. Such
loss of contained tracer gas makes leak
detection much less reliable.
Principles of Helium Fine Leak Test
Operation
In leak tests, the helium tracer gas is
introduced into the devices under test
either (1) initially during device
manufacture just before or during the
hermetic sealing process or (2) by back
pressure (bombing) techniques applied
any time after the hermetic sealing of the
device has been completed. The tracer gas
may vary from commercially pure
100 percent helium to a mixture of
10 percent helium with 90 percent
nitrogen (if pressuring up is to be used
and the cost of helium is a deterrent to its
use). During tests, the sealed devices are
placed in a test chamber that is evacuated
and connected to a properly calibrated
helium mass spectrometer leak. With
proper calibration, the helium mass
spectrometer leak detector can detect
leakage rates in the range from about 10–7
to about 10–11 Pa·m3·s–1 (about 10–6 to
about 10–10 std·cm3·s–1). The free volume
of the evacuated test chamber containing
the devices under test should be held to a
practical minimum level. Any empty
space within the chamber has an adverse
effect on the limits of leakage sensitivity
attainable with the helium mass
spectrometer during leak tests of sealed
devices with small internal helium filled
volumes.
Leak Testing 169
PART 8. Other Applications of Leak Testing

seam samples in the laboratory and

Primary Containment nondestructive seam testing in the field.
The following discussion describes the
Leakage Rate Testing in purpose of destructive and nondestructive
Nuclear Power Industry testing of seams, introduces the various
nondestructive test techniques, discusses
The primary containment completely
the procedures for the most common
encloses the reactor vessel. It is designed
techniques in detail and recommends
to retain its integrity as a radioactive
means for testing bumps and other areas
material barrier during and following
difficult to seam.
accidents that release radioactive material
Nondestructive test methods for
into the primary containment volume.
geosynthetic membranes are summarized
Primary containment is considered to be
in Table 5.9 Of these methods, the
intact when it can be demonstrated that
vacuum box, air pressure and air lance
the total containment leakage rate is less
tests are routinely used because of their
than the maximum allowable leakage rate
simplicity. The probe test is typically used
(La) when the containment is maintained
for small lengths of seam because it is
at the calculated peak accident pressure
time consuming.
(Pac).
Vacuum testing and air lance testing
Leakage rate for test purposes is defined
can be performed by construction laborers
as that leakage that occurs in a unit of
with minimal training. The vacuum test
time, stated as a percentage of weight of
requires some specialized equipment. The
the containment air volume at the leakage
air pressure test requires a more skilled
rate test pressure that escapes to the
individual but can be performed using
outside atmosphere in 24 h.
Three types of leakage rate tests are
performed in the nuclear power industry,
Type A, B and C testing. The Type A test is FIGURE 22. Multibarrier containment vessel
a test of the entire containment structure for boiling water reactor nuclear power
(Fig. 22) and all of its potential air leakage plant.
pathways; this is also referred to as the
integrated leakage rate test. Type B tests are
intended to detect local leaks in nonvalve
type penetrations such as hatches, flanges
and metallic bellows. Type C tests are
intended to measure leakage rates through
valves. Type B and C testing is also known
as local leakage rate testing.

Integrated Leakage Rate Testing

This is a pressure decay test of the entire
containment structure. The integrated
leakage rate test has six distinct phases:
pressurization, stabilization, leakage rate
measurement, the verification test and
depressurization.

Leak Testing of
Geosynthetic Membranes
Seam testing is routinely performed as an
integral part of the construction quality
control and quality assurance programs
for installation of geosynthetic
membranes or pond liners. Seam testing
routinely consists of destructive testing of

170 Nondestructive Testing Overview

 equipment purchased at a hardware store.
Vacuum testing and air pressure testing
are used for stiff geosynthetic membrane
such as high density polyethylene (HDPE)
and very low density polyethylene
(VLDPE) geosynthetic membranes. The air
lance test is used for flexible geosynthetic
membranes such as polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) and chlorosulfonated polyethylene
(CSPE) geosynthetic membranes.
Ultrasonic testing is not commonly
used, primarily because specialized
equipment and an experienced operator
are required.
The spark test requires a technician
familiar with installing the conductive
wire. A conductive wire is incorporated
into the geosynthetic membrane seam
during installation. An improperly
installed wire may be more detrimental to
the seam integrity than not testing the
seam. Because specialized equipment is
required, the spark test is usually used in
areas that cannot be tested through other
nondestructive test methods.
The ponding test is an effective
procedure for testing the primary
geosynthetic membrane of a double liner
systems in sumps and at pipe penetration.
The test is conducted by filling the sump
with water. In the case of pipe
penetrations, it may be necessary to build
a small dike around the penetration using
sand bags or other temporary barriers.
Liquid in the leak detection system is an
TABLE 5. Methods for leak testing of geosynthetic membranes.
Recording
Test Method Speed Method
Air lance fast manual
Air pressure (dual seam) fast manual
Electric sparking (to ground) fast manual
Electric wire fast manual
Electrical leak location fast manual or automatic
Probe (mechanical point) slow manual
Ultrasonic moderate automatic
Vacuum box slow manual
indication of leaks in the primary liner. If
a leak is detected, the sump is drained and
the geosynthetic membrane is visually
monitored for discontinuities. If possible,
the seams are tested by using one of the
methods in Table 5.
The electrical leak location method is
used to find holes in the parent material
as well as discontinuities in the seams of
geomembrane liners. The test is used to
find holes in an inservice liner that is
known to be leaking or is incorporated as
part of a construction quality assurance
monitoring program. After the liner
system is completely installed, the
potential for further damage is minimal.
The test is conducted with the liner under
water or soil (Fig. 23). The electrical leak
location method is the only method that
can reliably and accurately locate leaks in
landfill liners covered with protective soil.
Storage Tanks
Leak testing of petrochemical storage
tanks is an area of concern to the general
public, to the regulatory agencies that
represent the public and to the owners of
the tanks. Petrochemical structures consist
of various types of tanks and vessels for
storage and processes in petroleum
refineries and petroleum related chemical
plants. Failures and liquid leakage from
petrochemical tanks have on occasion
Operator
Dependency Operation
high Air is blown through nozzle at a seam. Disbonds
are indicated where membrane vibrates.
low In double seamed membrane, intermediate
channel is pressurized and pressure is
measured. Sections up to 100 m (330 ft) can
be tested.
low Leakage of high voltage current (15 to 30 kV) to
ground causes spark, indicating pinholes or
other discontinuity in thermoplastic liner.
low Conductive wire is embedded in seam and
connected to probe. Amplitude of about 20 kV
is used to indicate discontinuities in
membrane.
low to moderate Current flows through leak from electrode in
containment area to electrode on other side
of liner. Separate instrument is used to scan for
leakage location.
very high Seam is poked with stiff instrument such as
screwdriver. Results are qualitative and not
very reproducible.
moderate Ultrasonic techniques (impedance, pulse echo
and through-transmission) are applicable to
fused, not adhesive, seams and are reliable
when conducted by experienced operators
over small areas.
moderate Segments of seam are isolated in vacuum box
for bubble testing.
Leak Testing 171
 caused contamination of soil and both
groundwater and surface water supplies.
The costs of remediation following a
leak or failure are very high. In some cases
the challenges of remediation exceed the
existing technologies, creating
environmental problems that will remain
for generations to come. The near term
costs associated with preventing liquid
leakage or detecting it early and at small
quantities are modest in comparison to
remediation costs.
In addition to concerns for liquid
leakage, the petrochemical tank owner
must address the leak tightness of the
tank system with respect to product
vapors. Product vapors can be an
important air pollution concern. Vapors
may also be a concern from a plant safety
perspective including both fire hazard and
vapor toxicity issues.
Aboveground and Underground
Storage Tanks
Aboveground storage tanks are typically
larger than underground tanks and are
also easier for the inspector to access. The
floor or bottom of the aboveground tank
is typically an area of concern because it
may easily corrode and begin leaking
unobserved.
Aboveground storage tanks and
underground storage tanks are different in
both design and nondestructive testing
approach.
FIGURE 23. Electrical leak location method for leak testing of
geosynthetic membranes (pond liners).
Remote
current
return I
Current source electrode
electrode
Moving measurement
V electrodes
Earth
Liquid
Power supply Current flow
Geosynthetic
Leak path membrane
172 Nondestructive Testing Overview
Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tanks have been the
focus of considerable regulatory attention.
The technology and regulations applicable
to underground storage tank leak testing
are constantly changing. The owners,
operators and constructors of
underground storage tanks should request
the latest publications from the federal,
state and local regulatory agencies that
may have jurisdiction for a given tank
location. In the United States, the primary
federal regulatory agency concerned with
leak testing of underground storage tanks
has been the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Acknowledgments
This chapter of this Overview volume was
compiled from excerpts of many chapters
in the Nondestructive Testing Handbook,
third edition: Vol. 1, Leak Testing.10 A list
follows of contributors with sponsors:
Gerald L. Anderson, American Gas and
Chemical Company Limited, Northvale,
New Jersey; John F. Beech, GeoSyntec
Consultants, Atlanta, Georgia; Mark D.
Boeckmann, Vacuum Technology, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; Glenn T. Darilek, Leak
Location Services, San Antonio, Texas;
Gary R. Elder, Gary Elder and Associates,
Fort Myers, Florida; James P. Glover,
Graftel, Chicago, Illinois; Charles N.
Jackson, Richland, Washington; Daren L.
Laine, Leak Location Services, San
Antonio, Texas; Robert W. Loveless,
Nutley, New Jersey; Thomas G. McRae,
Laser Imaging Systems, Punta Gorda,
Florida; George R. Neff, Isovac
Engineering, Glendale, California; Jimmie
K. Neff, Isovac Engineering, Glendale,
California; Donald J. Quirk, Fisher
Controls International, North Stonington,
Connecticut; Paul B. Shaw, Chicago Bridge
and Iron Company, Houston, Texas;
Stuart A. Tison, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland; Carl A. Waterstrat, Varian
Vacuum Products, Lexington,
Massachusetts; Gary J. Weil, EnTech
Engineering, Saint Louis, Missouri.
References
1. Marr, J.W. Leakage Testing Handbook.
Report No. CR-952. College Park, MD:
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Scientific and
Technical Information Facility (1968).
2. ASTM E 432, Standard Guide for
Selection of a Leak Testing Method. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International (2011).
3. ASTM E 515, Standard Practice for Leaks
Using Bubble Emission Techniques. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International (2011).
4. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical
Hazards. Washington, DC: United
States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare [DHEW],
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health [NIOSH];
Superintendent of Documents, United
States Government Printing Office
(2007).
5. E 427-95, Standard Practice for Testing
for Leaks Using the Halogen Leak
Detector Alkali-Ion Diode). West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society
for Testing and Materials (1996).
6. O’Hanlon, J.F. A User’s Guide to Vacuum
Technology, third edition. New York,
NY: Wiley (2003).
7. Weil, G.J. “Infrared Thermography
Based Pipeline Leak Detection
Systems.” Thermosense 13. Vol. 1467.
Bellingham, WA: International Society
for Optical Engineering (1991): p 18.
8. Ljungberg, S.Å. “Infrared Techniques
in Buildings and Structures: Operation
and Maintenance.” Infrared
Methodology and Technology. X.P.V.
Maldague, ed. Langhorne, PA: Gordon
and Breach Science Publishers (1994):
p 211-252.
9. Beech, J.F. “Nondestructive Testing of
Geomembrane Seams.” MQC/MQA and
CQC/CQA of Geosynthetics.
Philadelphia, PA: Geosynthetic
Research Institute (1992).
10. Nondestructive Testing Handbook, third
edition: Vol. 1, Leak Testing.
Columbus, OH: American Society for
Nondestructive Testing (1998).
Leak Testing 173