Does traditional water testing in airtightness testing 'save money' or 'burn money'? Data tell you the truth

Precision Industrial Technology plowing airtightness testing for more than ten years, we have witnessed too many enterprises in the airtightness testing link to fall. These failures have a common feature: there are clear signs of disaster before it happens, but companies choose to turn a blind eye.

Today we discuss two types of risks: oneHidden dangers that accumulate over time and can be foreseen but are actively ignored; the other category isSudden and unpredictable external shocks. Both can destroy an organization's quality system, but with very different coping strategies.

Ⅰ. Risk category I: knowingly incurring technical debt

This type of risk is characterized byVisible, Measurable, ImprovableHowever, enterprises choose to delay because of cost considerations or a lucky break. They are like chronic diseases that are not fatal but will continue to consume the vitality of the enterprise until a sudden outbreak at some point.

Case 1: Mold aging triggers a chain crash

A consumer electronics company's enclosure molds had been in use for more than three years, and the sealing groove dimensions had deviated by 0.2mm. The quality department had repeatedly found edge leaks during internal inspections, but had suppressed them through rework.

breaking point: A major customer raided the IP68 high-pressure waterproof test, and the whole batch of products failed to reach 37%.

Financial impact::

• Loss of entire batch of returns: $4.8 million
• Emergency mold change cost: $1.2 million
• Liquidated damages for delayed delivery: $2 million
• Loss of brand reputation: unquantifiable

root cause: It ended up costing $8 million to save $150,000 in tooling modifications.

This is not a technical problem, it is a decision-making problem. When management prioritizes short-term costs over long-term risks, the stage is set for disaster.

Case 2: The efficiency trap of traditional water testing

It's 2025, and there are still factories testing water resistance by throwing products in the sink and watching for bubbles. Everyone knows the problems with this method:

• Tiny leaks undetectable(Surface tension creates a false seal)
• Extremely inefficient testing(requires soaking, drying, repeated validation)
• Results cannot be quantified(can only judge leakage or non-leakage)
• Highly subjective(relies on the empirical judgment of the inspector)

true costs: An outdoor camera manufacturer is well aware of these problems, and quality engineers have repeatedly recommended the introduction of Precision Industrial Technology'sAir tightness testing equipment. However, the equipment was quoted in the tens of thousands of dollars, and the owner's attitude was, "TheWe've always water tested and had no major problems, so why spend this wasted money?"

As a result, the products were sold to Southeast Asia and then encountered the rainy season, and moisture intrusion occurred in bulk. The total cost of cross-country returns, rework, customer complaint handling, and damage to the brand's reputation exceeded one million dollars, a figure that aAir tightness testing equipmentDozens of times the price.

underlying logic: When the accuracy of the testing method is lower than the product requirements, quality incidents are only a matter of time. The cost of equipment saved will eventually be repaid tens of times over.

Case III: Accumulation of interest on technical debt

Waterproofing standards in the smart wearable industry have rapidly escalated from IP54 to IP68, with some products even requiring IP69K (high pressure, high temperature spray).

However, the production capacity of many enterprises is still stuck at the old standard:

• Plastic parts tolerance control in ± 0.3mm(while the new standard requires ±0.1mm)
• Ultrasonic welding parameters are not optimized and strength is not stable
• Ordinary airtight test equipment does not have temperature compensation and data drift is severe.

predicament: When customers suddenly demanded an upgrade in protection level, these companies realized that they simply could not come up with a qualified product. The cost of catching up with standards is much higher than the investment in getting it right in the first place.

deep-rooted lesson: Technical debt, like financial debt, has a compounding effect. The longer it is delayed, the higher the cost of repayment.

II. Risk category II: unanticipated external shocks

This type of risk is characterized byLow probability, high impact, difficult to predictIt can be said to be the manufacturing industry's "Black Swan (PRC appliance brand)". No amount of prudence on the part of an organization can completely prevent this, but losses can be reduced through system redundancy and rapid response mechanisms.

Shock One: Compliance Crisis Due to Sudden Regulatory Changes

In the past, waterproofing tests were only required to prove that "thewatertight", but more and more markets are now demanding the provision ofQuantitative leakage rate reportThe

specification::

• EU medical devices: sccm must be provided(standard cubic centimeters per minute)Level of leakage data
• North American Energy Equipment: Requirements Pa(Pa.)Levels of pressure drop recorded
• Consumer electronics: need complete test curves and historical data

effectiveness of a strike: A large number of factories that only do water testing are instantly faced with a triple dilemma - substandard equipment, gaps in the documentation system, and personnel who don't have the relevant skills.

It's not that companies aren't working hard enough, but the rules of the game have changed. Those companies that have laid out their airtightness testing capabilities in advance have instead gained a competitive advantage.

Shock 2: The Butterfly Effect on the Supply Chain

A company has long relied on a Taiwanese supplier for O-Ring seals. One day a fire broke out in the factory, shutting down the production line and interrupting supplies for 40 days.

chain reaction::

• Total production line shutdown(Vulnerability of a single source of supply)
• Urgent search for alternatives(Slight variation in seal specifications from new suppliers)
• Re-perform airtightness test verification(Additional time and cost)
• Delayed delivery leads to lost orders

Core revelations: Supply chain resilience is not a matter of saving money, it's a matter of survival. There must be alternatives for critical materials.

Shock 3: The downward spiral of technological generations

When a competitor suddenly introduces an AI-based leak rate detection system, visual leak location technology, or temperature compensation algorithms under the Precision Engineering brand, traditionalairtightness meterThe manufacturer's pressure decay method and flow method equipment instantly seemed obsolete.

Market Feedback: Customers start to ask "What is the best way to get the job done?Does your equipment support real-time data analysis? Can you automatically generate quality reports?"

predicament: It's not your equipment that's broken, it's the industry standard that's upgraded. Technology is iterating faster than most businesses expect.

III. Systematic methodology for risk management

Addressing the first type of risk: being proactive

Core principles: Nip hidden dangers in the bud.

Specific measures::

Type of risk	Monitoring Indicators	intervention threshold	treatment program
Mold aging	Tolerance of sealing groove dimensions	±0.15mm	Arrange for mold change immediately
Outdated detection methods	Detection rate of defective products	Below industry average	Upgrade to gas tightness testing
lagging standards	Trends in customer complaints	Rising for the third consecutive month	Reassessment of testing standards

Key actions: Conduct regular technical audits that will "Wait until something goes wrong." was replaced with the followingEarly detection of problems".

Addressing type II risks: building redundancy

Core principles: Assume the worst will happen and prepare a response plan in advance.

Specific measures::

1. Reservation of equipment capacity: PurchaseAir tightness testing equipmentWhen selecting a model that can support a higher level of protection, leave room for technical upgrades.
2. Vendor Backup: Maintain at least two suppliers for critical seals, even at a slightly higher cost
3. knowledge base: Develop the team's understanding of new testing technologies rather than relying exclusively on equipment vendors

critical thinking: It's not 'will it happen' but 'what will happen when it happens'.

Ⅳ. Suggestions for Practices of Sincere Engineering

Based on more than ten years of rich industry experience, we have summarized the three principles of risk management for airtightness testing:

Principle I: Data-driven decision-making

Using accurate leakage rate data(sccm, Pa)An alternative to human eye judgment and empirical estimation. Decision-making is simplified when risks are quantifiable.

Principle II: Systematic prevention

Don't wait for problems to erupt before remedying them. Establish a preventive maintenance mechanism by regularly inspecting molds, calibrating equipment, and updating test standards.

Principle III: Specialized support

Airtightness testing is not a simple process, but a core node of the quality system. Establish long-term relationships with specialized suppliers to gain technical support and industry insight.

Summarize

The first type of risk tests a company'senforceability--You know what the problem is and are willing to spend the money to fix it.

The second type of risk tests a company'sresourcefulness--Whether your system is tough enough when the unexpected happens.

The common thread between the two types of risk is:Procrastination and fluke are always the most expensive optionThe

If you want to re-examine the airtightness testing capability of your production line, JCGK is willing to provide professional technical consultation and system solutions. Not to sell equipment, but to help you establish a truly reliable quality defense.

After all, in manufacturing.Prevention is always cheaper than remedyThe

Original Statement:this paper was written byShenzhen Jingchenggongke Technology Co., Ltd.Written by the technical team, reproduced with attribution.Data sources:Precision Engineering internal test data and customer cases.