by Sara McCaslin Sara McCaslin 1 Comment

Why Compression Set is not Enough for High-Performance Seals

A seal is a system, not just a compound. A material can meet published compression-set, hardness, and chemical-compatibility requirements yet still fail early because the qualification plan did not reproduce the governing service conditions or establish sufficient margin across the seal, gland, and hardware tolerance stack.

High-performance sealing applications can combine elevated temperature, pressure cycling, aggressive media, long required life, and tight dimensional tolerances. Under these conditions, a single static material property rarely predicts field performance. The relevant question is whether the complete seal-and-hardware system retains enough contact pressure, extrusion resistance, and chemical stability to meet its defined leakage requirement throughout service. 

This article looks at the complications that can arise from depending too heavily on compression set when selecting a material for a high-performance seal.

The Property Everyone Tests vs. The Property That Actually Predicts Failure

The industry’s default screening test for high-performance seals is compression set because it measures how much strain an elastomer or polymer fails to recover after a sustained compressive load is removed. It is useful as a baseline for comparing materials and monitoring production batch consistency.

However, compression set does not directly measure in-service sealing force, but remains useful for assessing permanent deformation and loss of available interference after unloading. It should be interpreted alongside force-retention, environmental-aging, and assembly-level data.

A more relevant property is actually stress relaxation. When an elastomer or polymer is held at constant strain, the stress it exerts against the sealing surfaces decreases progressively over time. Even when the gland holds the seal at nominally constant deflection, the compressive counterforce can decay with time

In many static sealing applications, loss of contact force can be a primary contributor to leakage, provided that the remaining contact pressure falls below the level required by the pressure differential, media, surface condition, and the gland geometry.

Consider this: a material can look suitable on a compression set chart, but still be quietly losing its sealing force while in service. This is why premature seal failures cannot be explained by the data the design team already has.

Why This Gap Matters More as Applications Get More Demanding

In high-performance systems, such as those with elevated temperature, pressure cycling, aggressive chemical exposure, tight gland tolerances, and long required service life (often occurring simultaneously), the mechanisms that reduce contact stress accelerate, while gland clearances under pressure introduce a secondary risk: extrusion.

Whether stress relaxation, creep, or both govern depends on the boundary condition and system compliance. A rigid, fixed-depth gland more closely resembles constant-strain loading, while a compliant flange joint or spring-loaded system may permit deformation growth and load redistribution. 

Standard compression set testing is typically run under a single fixed set of conditions, and these conditions may not represent the actual thermal and chemical environment the seal experiences in service. This means that the datasheet number may not transfer to the actual service application at all.

For applications that require a predictable service life, methods that model degradation over time are increasingly used to estimate realistic storage or service life rather than relying on a single-point spec.

Qualify for the Application, Not the Spec Sheet

When you have a high-performance sealing application, a datasheet property serves as an excellent screening tool but not a guarantee of performance. When evaluating seals for demanding service, ask whether the qualification data you are looking at reflects the actual service environment, not just whether the material passed a standard test.

Want to learn how to better qualify high-performance seals? Read the second part of this article series, From Datasheet to Service Life: A Better Framework for Seal Qualification. And contact us for your sealing solution needs!

by Sara McCaslin Sara McCaslin No Comments

The Case for Polymer BURs in High-Pressure Seals

Engineers are intensely frustrated when an O-ring is specified for a design and it still fails. This is likely because the O-ring needed a backup ring (BUR), not because the O-ring was not specified correctly. In fact, polymer BURs remain an underrated but critical component in many systems, in industries ranging from food to oil & gas. 

This article looks at the main problem BURs solve, the benefits of opting for polymer BURs, and commonly used polymers. 

O-Rings and Extrusion

The clearance gap is the space between mating parts where the O-ring sits. Under high pressure, the O-ring is going to behave more like a fluid than a solid. It will get forced, or flow, into the clearance gap. When the O-ring extrudes into the clearance gap, it can lead to two different failure modes: nibbling and spiral failure.  Nibbling looks like something has taken multiple small bites from the O-ring. Spiral failure refers to tearing and cracking around the circumference of the O-ring.

This type of failure is irreversible and inevitably leads to weeping or a catastrophic leak. For hydraulic systems operating at high pressure, it will either manifest as a slow leak (weeping) or a catastrophic failure.

How BURs Solve O-Ring Extrusion (and More)

A backup ring (BUR) is installed against the O-ring, downstream of the pressure, to ensure it stays within the clearance gap. In short, a BUR physically closes the clearance gap, giving the seal nowhere to migrate. This not only prevents unwanted leaks but can extend the life of a seal from cycles to years.

BURs are often used in high-temperature or high-pressure applications. BURs can also help to evenly distribute pressure in applications involving varying clearance gaps or pressure fluctuations. Additionally, BURs help to reduce the effects of wear and friction on O-rings and serve as a thermal barrier to protect them from excessive heat.

Benefits of Using Polymer BURs

There are several benefits to using polymer BURs

Extrusion prevention – They effectively fill the clearance gap between mating parts, stopping the primary elastomer seal from being forced (extruded) into that gap under pressure, which would otherwise cause premature seal failure.

Extended pressure and temperature range – By protecting the O-ring from extrusion, polymer BURs allow the overall seal assembly to withstand higher pressures and wider temperature swings than an O-ring alone could handle.

Reduced wear on the primary seal – BURs absorb mechanical stress and abrasion so that the O-ring experiences fewer issues with friction and deformation, thus extending its service life.

Design flexibility with looser tolerances – Because the BUR compensates for extrusion risk, designers can use larger clearance gaps. The use of larger clearance gaps, in turn, simplifies the machining process and reduces manufacturing cost.

Compatibility across dynamic and static applications – Different polymers (PTFE, PEEK, nylon, polyurethane, acetal) let engineers tailor the backup ring’s flexibility, hardness, and chemical resistance to match whether the seal is static, reciprocating, or rotating.

Corrosion and chemical resistance – Unlike metal backup rings, polymers can be chosen that will not corrode or react with process fluids. This facet is particularly important in chemical, oilfield, or food-grade applications.

Lightweight and cost-effective – Polymers are generally cheaper and lighter than metal without sacrificing performance in most standard pressure ranges needed for BURs.

Ease of installation – Many polymer backup rings (especially PTFE) are flexible enough to be installed without requiring the use of special tools. This is in contrast to rigid metal rings that may require more complex assembly procedures.

System reliability – By preventing extrusion-related blowouts, polymer BURs reduce the risk of unplanned downtime, leaks, or catastrophic seal failure in critical systems like hydraulics, pneumatics, and downhole tools.

In short, polymer BURs let engineers push seal assemblies harder in terms of more pressure, wider gaps, tougher environments. And they do so while protecting the seal from the system.

Backup Ring Materials

When choosing a BUR material, ensure it is harder than the seal material to effectively prevent migration. They must also have lower coefficients of expansion than the seal and are engineered to be both rigid and tough. 

Polymer BURs are often used in place of elastomeric versions because they offer significantly better resistance to extrusion, deformation, and chemical exposure, as well as reduced long-term creep under high pressure.

Commonly used polymers include ….

Material Temp Range Chemical Resistance Friction Extrusion Resistance Cost Best Use Case
PTFE (virgin/filled) -70°F to 575°F Excellent
nearly universal
Very Low Good
better filled
Moderate High-temp, chemically aggressive, low-friction dynamic seals
PEEK -50°F to 590°F Excellent Moderate Excellent
highest strength
High High-pressure, large extrusion gaps, oilfield/downhole
Nylon (PA) -40°F to 180°F Fair to Good Moderate Good Low General-purpose hydraulics, cost-sensitive designs
Polyurethane (PU/AU) -40°F to 210°F Good
poor w/ water/steam
Mod–High Good
flexible
Low–Mod Dynamic seals needing toughness and abrasion resistance
Acetal (POM/Delrin) -40°F to 180°F Good Low–Mod Very Good
rigid
Low–Mod Static or low-speed dynamic, tight-tolerance applications

In general, PEEK wins over PTFE based on strength and extrusion resistance at high pressure, but PTFE wins on friction and chemical universality. Nylon is more rigid and dimensionally stable than polyurethane, but polyurethane flexes better in dynamic strokes. However, polyurethane degrades faster than Nylon in wet/steam environments. Acetal is often the “in-between” choice because it is more rigid than nylon or Polyurethane, but not as chemically or thermally capable as PTFE or PEEK.

Conclusion

Polymer BURs serve as cheap insurance against otherwise expensive failures. In fact, they are almost indispensable in chemical processing, hydraulics, oil & gas, and aerospace applications. And remember: it is best to decide on the inclusion of a BUR before failure, not after. But whether you need BURs before or after design, contact Advanced EMC for help. Our sealing engineers are ready to put their experience to work for you.