| Brand Name: | HongCe |
| MOQ: | 1 Set |
| Payment Terms: | T/T, L/C at sight |
| Supply Ability: | 6 Sets per Month |
A cold plate that weeps does not fail in your factory. It fails in a rack, a year later, when the coolant has been quietly topping itself up and the leak finally reaches something expensive. This two-chamber helium system is built to catch that defect at the line, at a takt the line can actually hold.
Almost never a hole you could see. The failures we are called in to explain come from the joining process, and they share one property: they are small enough to pass a water test and large enough to matter over a service life.
A hydrostatic test proves the plate will not burst today. It does not prove it will stay sealed for eight years, because the defects that cause returns are two to four orders of magnitude below what a water test resolves.
Air decay is cleaner and faster, but a cold plate has the worst possible geometry for it: a small internal volume, a large metal mass that fights temperature stability, and a criterion that is usually tighter than air can resolve inside a takt. You end up either accepting a coarse limit or waiting three minutes per part.
Helium inside the plate, vacuum outside it, and a mass spectrometer reading the rise. The plate is never exposed to internal vacuum, so a thin plate stack is not deformed by the test itself — which is a real risk on a 1 mm channel wall.
Leak rates confuse people because the units look academic. One useful conversion: 1×10-6 mbar·L/s is roughly 0.6 mL per minute of gas at atmospheric pressure — about 300 litres a year. For a coolant circuit that is a visible loss, not a theoretical one.
Which is why the acceptance criterion deserves a proper conversation. A plate specified at 1×10-5 mbar·L/s is allowed to lose litres of coolant over a service life. A plate at 1×10-7 is not. Both are "leak tested"; only one of them will keep a data hall dry.
Helium enters at up to 3.0 MPa and the pressure is held. A plate with a bridged weld is rejected in seconds, before the analyser is asked to work. This is what turns a three-minute test into a one-minute test.
While one chamber measures, the other is unloaded and reloaded. One operator, about a hundred plates an hour. A single chamber with the same sensitivity needs a second person to reach that output.
A hundred plates an hour, two shifts a day, is a lot of helium down the vent if you do not recover it. The loop is integrated with purification after the buffer, so what goes back into the next plate is still within specification.
If a plate has been through a water circuit, that moisture outgasses under vacuum and reads as a leak. We can add a dry-air purge step to the recipe, or you can test before the water circuit is filled — both work, guessing does not.
| Item | Specification |
|---|---|
| Machine configuration | Two chambers, phase-shifted, pneumatic lid, skid-mounted |
| Chamber internal size | 700 × 600 × 500 mm each, customisable |
| Minimum detectable leak | 1.0×10-9 mbar·L/s |
| Gross leak stage | 0.1 – 3.0 MPa helium charge with pressure hold |
| Cycle time | 60 s per plate typical; 45 s on small plates |
| Throughput | About 100 plates per hour with one operator |
| Helium recovery | ≥95% with recovery and purification loop |
| Vacuum system | Roots pump plus rotary vane pump per chamber, oil filtration |
| Control | PLC with 15-inch HMI, 100 recipes, multi-level access |
| Traceability | Barcode scan, per-plate result log, MES upload over Ethernet |
| Calibration | Automatic sequence with calibrated leak, 12-month interval |
| Power supply | AC 380 V, 3-phase, 50/60 Hz, 18 kW |
| Compressed air | 0.6 MPa dry, oil-free, 300 L/min |
| Weight | About 2800 kg |
| Test item | Typical defect | Why the factory test misses it |
|---|---|---|
| Friction stir weld seam | Worm holes, lack of penetration at the toe | Holds at low pressure, opens under cycling |
| Brazed channel joint | Braze voids, flux inclusions | Small enough to pass a water test |
| Tube-to-plate port joint | Relaxation after thermal cycling | Only leaks when warm and pressurised |
| Port threads and O-ring grooves | Thread cut too deep, damaged groove | Seal face never contacts |
| Channel wall | Machining porosity, thin wall at the bend | Below air-test resolution |
| Header and manifold welds | Cracks from the weld heat cycle | Invisible, grows in service |
| Plate after proof pressure | Damage caused by the pressure test | Nobody re-tests after proof |
| Method | Detectable band | Cycle | Effect on the plate | Where it belongs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-chamber helium, this machine | 1×10-9 mbar·L/s | 45–60 s | Dry, external vacuum only | 100% final inspection |
| Air pressure decay | About 1×10-3 mbar·L/s | 1–5 min | Dry | Gross defects only |
| Hydrostatic proof test | Burst strength only | Minutes | Wets the plate | Safety verification, not leak control |
| Helium sniffer spray | 1×10-7 mbar·L/s | 2–10 min | Dry | Locating failures at the rework bench |
The comparison that usually decides the purchase is not with the alternatives but with the cost of a field failure: a rack pull, a coolant cleanup, a customer visit and a reputational hit that no test machine budget can absorb. Once a customer has had one, 100% inspection stops being a cost argument.
Because a hydrostatic test answers a different question. It proves the plate will not burst at 1.5 times working pressure; it says nothing about a 10-6 mbar·L/s weep that will empty a coolant loop over a service life. And it leaves water in the channels, which then interferes with any sensitive test you run afterwards.
With recovery running, a few litres per shift for small plates. Losses come from lid sealing and venting rather than from the plate volume. We quote consumption per 1000 plates based on your chamber size and cycle count, because the per-part number is what your cost model needs.
Start from acceptable coolant loss over the service life, then convert. For server cold plates our customers typically work between 1×10-6 and 1×10-7 mbar·L/s. Bring the coolant volume and the loss target and we will help you do the arithmetic in the enquiry.
Yes, within the chamber envelope. Below that, a new fixture and a new recipe is normally all it takes. Keep the fixture drawings and a second plate family is a few days of work, not a second machine.
It is if you ignore it. Moisture outgasses under vacuum and reads as a leak. Either test before the water circuit is filled, or add a dry-air purge step — we build the recipe for the case you actually have.
The chamber test tells you it leaks; finding where is a probe job. A sniffer sweep along the weld and around the ports usually localises it in a couple of minutes, which is enough to decide between rework and scrap.
Less critical than with air testing, because the measurement is on helium rather than on a pressure difference. Avoid a station in direct sun or next to a furnace door, and the compensation has little to do.
Around 90 working days for a two-chamber system with fixtures. The chamber, recover loop and fixture are all built to order; standard sub-assemblies are held in stock to keep that date realistic.
Since 2003 we have built leak detection and electrical test equipment in Guangzhou, with 50–100 employees and around half of our production exported. Our engineers commission chamber systems, tracer gas hoods and air decay testers on the same floor, so the recommendation for a cold plate comes from test data rather than from a catalogue.
Every system is assembled, pump-down tested, calibrated and recorded under its serial number before it leaves us. When a question comes up three years later, the original test data is still on file.