Bevan Moss wrote:

Today Maico completed the new leak testing tool and blank off. He tested them with C-seals without springs and all was leak tight. He then inspected the crushed seals and noticed that there was an area that was crushed less on both seals (more prominent in one,  20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1020975) and that this reduced crushed zone only appears on one side of the seal. This is similar to the failure seen on both sets of the heat shield lines. On the seal with the greatest change in crush zone the average crush zone was ~0.025 and the reduced crush zone was ~0.012". He inspected the leak tester and the blank off and determined they were within tolerance and that they had a total seal goove height of 0.074" which is nominal. New seals were selected and one had a visible dimple prior to crushing (20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1020978)  and the other had some defects on the inside (20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1020962). These defects were marked and crushed using the same leak testing tool and blank off. The seal with the dimple showed a reduced crush zone in the same area (20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1030021) and the seal with the defects on the inside showed less or undetectable change in crush zone. Maico then inspected (20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1020991) and crushed the "thicker seals" (more indium coating). When inserting the seals he noticed that they fit tight on the counter bore of the blank off. He then attempted to crush the seal to the point where the copper faces would touch (as design intent) but the seal locked. The gap between the 2 copper faces was measured to be ~0.001". This setup was leak tested and found to be leak tight. When inspecting the crushed thicker seals it was found that the material had actually been pushed sideways causing a lip to form around the crush zone (20130906_tm3sourtrayefurb_P1030003). Maico then fitted the wires for the testing of the module and the heat shield line.

 Hello all,

As an addendum to Bevan's e-Log:

Maico also prepared eight (8) new retainer spring windings out of the .025" diameter stainless welding wire for the next seals that we will attempt in the Hot Cell and Ante Room

Maico, Bevan, Keith and I had a discussion about the bolt torque related to the c-seal and water block compression:
- It was found that not much torque is required to compress the "standard" design "thin" c-seals (Ultra-Seal P/N 50606 .001 - .0015 thou indium plating) - basically hand tight only with an allen wrench
- By hand-tightening the bolts with an allen key until the faces of the blocks came together, and then measuring the torque with a torque wrench, Maico discovered that about 8 foot-lbs = 96 inch-lbs (or 5/8ths of a turn past finger tight) was required
- The c-seals are fully compressed when the faces of the blocks are contacting... any additional torque applied is only to pre-load the bolts to ensure that they do not come loose due to temperature cycling and mechanical vibration
- Chad's Hot Cell torque tool is nominally set to about 168 - 180 inch-lbs (or about 14 to 15 foot lbs) based on an e-mail update from him 3-June-2013 - this torque is normal chart torque for a 1/4"-28 UNF SAE Grade 8 bolt pre-load of 3,250 lbs
- see http://www.imperialsupplies.com/pdf/A_FastenerTorqueCharts.pdf
- This amount of bolt pre-load torque may not be required if the bolts are SAE Grade 5.  I recommend at this point that the minimum possible pre-load torque be applied to achieve the chart recommended pre-load for the grade of the bolt, which should be investigated
- This is to ensure that we do not over-stress the thread inserts on the water blocks... if these inserts are damaged, we will basically render the service chase unusable and ruin the module

Cheers,

Grant