Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Comparison of Candidate Seal 

Designs for Future Docking Systems

NASA/TM—2012-217722

September 2012

AIAA–2012–4075
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Comparison of Candidate Seal 

Designs for Future Docking Systems

NASA/TM—2012-217722

September 2012

AIAA–2012–4075

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

48th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

cosponsored by the AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE

Atlanta, Georgia, July 30–August 1, 2012
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the International Low Impact Docking System team from NASA Johnson Space Center for their 

support on this project. The authors would also like to acknowledge Parker Hannifin Corporation’s Composite Sealing Systems 

Division (San Diego, CA) for fabricating all of the seal test specimens that were evaluated in this study. Portions of the works 

that were referenced in this study were supported by NASA contract number NNC08CA35C.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification 

only. Their usage does not constitute an official endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2012-217722 1

A Comparison of Candidate Seal Designs for

Future Docking Systems

Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract

NASA is developing a new docking system to support future space exploration missions to low Earth 

orbit, the Moon, and other destinations. A key component of this system is the seal at the main docking 

interface which inhibits the loss of cabin air once docking is complete. Depending on the mission, the seal 

must be able to dock in either a seal-on-flange or seal-on-seal configuration. Seal-on-flange mating would 

occur when a docking system equipped with a seal docks to a system with a flat metal flange. This would 

occur when a vehicle docks to a node on the International Space Station. Seal-on-seal mating would occur 

when two docking systems equipped with seals dock to each other. Two types of seal designs were 

identified for this application: Gask-O-seals and multi-piece seals. Both types of seals had a pair of seal 

bulbs to satisfy the redundancy requirement. A series of performance assessments and comparisons were 

made between the candidate seal designs indicating that they meet the requirements for leak rate and 

compression and adhesion loads under a range of operating conditions. Other design factors such as part 

count, integration into the docking system tunnel, seal-on-seal mating, and cost were also considered 

leading to the selection of the multi-piece seal design for the new docking system. The results of this 

study can be used by designers of future docking systems and other habitable volumes to select the seal 

design best-suited for their particular application.

Nomenclature

AO atomic oxygen

CBM Common Berthing Mechanism

GRC Glenn Research Center

ISS International Space Station

kip one thousand lbf

LEO low Earth orbit

SOF seal-on-flange

SOS seal-on-seal

Introduction

NASA is developing a new docking system to enable in-space mating of vehicles and structures for 

missions to low Earth orbit (LEO) and deep space. A key component of this system is the seal at the main 

docking interface on the top of the docking system tunnel (Figure 1). This seal is relatively large with a 

diameter on the order of 50 in. (127 cm) and is compressed during the docking process. After docking, the 

seal must exhibit extremely low leak rates for extended missions to the International Space Station (ISS) 

or the Moon, for example.
NASA/TM—2012-217722 2

Figure 1.—Docking interface seal location.

The design for the docking interface seals has evolved with the docking system, so this trade study 

was conducted to ensure that the best seal design would be used for the most recent iteration of the 

docking system. The goals for this study were to:

• Identify candidate seal designs for the docking system,

• Assess their performance against a baseline set of requirements, and

• Summarize the key advantages and disadvantages of each candidate design for this application.

Key Requirements

The key seal requirements considered in this study are summarized in this section. Additional details 

on requirements for docking system seals can be found in the papers by Dunlap et al. (Refs. 1 and 2).

Leak Rate

The most important function for the docking interface seal is to minimize leakage through the 

interface between two mated systems. Leak rates on the order of 2.5×10–3 lbm of air (lbm,air) per day 

(1.1×10–3 kg/day) are required at this interface to ensure that the astronauts have sufficient breathable air 

during extended-duration missions.

Compression Loads

When two vehicles or structures mate during a mission, the seals at the interface between them will 

generate loads as they are compressed. To stay within the capabilities of the mechanisms that join the two 

vehicles together (e.g., latches), the seal loads must stay below prescribed limits so that full closure can 

occur without overloading the mechanisms (Figure 2). Seal compression loads per linear inch of seal must 

be less than approximately 70 lbf per in. (122 N per cm) to ensure that the total compression load for a 

pair of 50 in.-diameter seals is less than 22 kip. 

Docking interface seal
NASA/TM—2012-217722 3

Figure 2.—Representative views of docking interface (a) just before latch mechanisms engage and (b) after 

latches have fully compressed the seal.

Figure 3.—Cross sections through the interface between two mated systems showing (a) seal-on-seal mating 

and (b) seal-on-flange mating.

Adhesion Loads

The seals must also exhibit very low adhesion forces when two mated systems separate. High seal 

adhesion loads could potentially restrict the ability of the systems to separate and perhaps even prevent 

the vehicles from undocking. High adhesion loads could also damage the seals during undocking, thereby 

preventing the vehicle from re-docking in the future. To prevent this from occurring, full-scale seal 

adhesion loads of 200 lbf or less are desired.

Mating Configuration

Docking can occur in an androgynous seal-on-seal configuration in which both sides of the interface 

have seals installed or in a seal-on-flange configuration with a seal on one side of the interface and a flat, 

smooth metal flange on the other. Seal-on-flange mating would occur when a vehicle with a seal installed 

on its docking system docks to a node on the ISS with a flat metal flange. Seal-on-seal mating would 

occur when two vehicles equipped with seals on their docking systems dock to each other. Figure 3

illustrates both of these configurations for a candidate seal design.

(a) (b)

Sealing surface

Docking 

interface seal

Latch mechanism

Seal-on-seal 

interface

Vehicle A

(a) Vehicle B (b)

Seal-on-flange 

interface

Vehicle A

Vehicle B
NASA/TM—2012-217722 4

Use of Redundant Sealing Features

Manned space systems require that all seal locations with diameters larger than 6.0 in. (15 cm) have a 

minimum of two seals for redundancy. Because future docking system seals will likely have diameters on 

the order of 50 in. (127 cm), redundant sealing features must be implemented. This allows the sealed 

interface to be single fault tolerant wherein it can still satisfy the leak rate requirement even if one of the 

seals has been compromised.

Engagement Conditions

Under certain conditions, the seals may not be fully compressed when they are mated resulting in 

metal-to-metal joint separation (or “gapping”) at the sealing interface. Periodic gapping can also occur 

between latching mechanisms due to flange deflections around the perimeter of the docking tunnel. Either 

situation can occur under steady state or transient conditions, although these situations are more likely 

under transient conditions when dynamic loads are applied across the interface.

The sealing surfaces on each system will likely not be perfectly radially aligned during mating due to 

several factors:

• Manufacturing and assembly tolerances of the docking interface components, including the seals

• Differences in tunnel temperatures between mating vehicles

Radial misalignments do not typically affect seal-on-flange mating because the seal on one side of the 

interface is able to form an effective seal when it is compressed anywhere against the flat metal flange. 

However, seal-on-seal mating can be greatly affected by radial misalignments. When tolerance stackups 

are combined with differences in mating tunnel temperatures, radial offsets on the order of 0.125 in. 

(0.315 cm) between mating seal bulb centerlines can occur. Under these conditions, the amount of seal-toseal contact is reduced resulting in less effective sealing and potentially higher leak rates.

Candidate Seal Designs

Two types of seals were evaluated in this study: a composite Gask-O-seal design produced by Parker 

Hannifin Corporation (San Diego, CA) and a multi-piece seal design co-invented by The University of 

Akron (Akron, OH) and NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC).

Gask-O-Seals

Gask-O-seals are formed by molding silicone elastomer seals directly into the grooves of a metallic 

(e.g., aluminum) retainer to form a single-piece seal assembly. Each seal features a bulb in the center of 

the groove with voids on either side to allow the bulb to spread out when it is compressed. The seal bulb 

is sized to prevent the incompressible rubber from completely filling the groove when it is fully 

compressed. This design has space flight experience and has been used as a static seal in multiple 

locations on the ISS including seals for the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) (Ref. 3), windows, 

hatches, and electrical connectors.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the Gask-O-seal designs evaluated in this study have dual bulbs on both the 

“front” and “back” sides of the retainer to meet the redundancy requirement. The seal bulbs on the front 

side are compressed during docking, and those on the back side are compressed when the seal assembly is

installed on the docking system tunnel. In the design shown in Figure 4, the cross sections of the two front 

seal bulbs are identical. The back seal bulbs are also identical, although they are smaller than the front 

seals. However, the sizes and shapes of the seal bulbs could all be the same and can be tailored to meet 

the needs of a specific application. 
NASA/TM—2012-217722 5

Figure 4.—Cross section through Gask-O-seal showing silicone seals molded into grooves on 

front and back surfaces of metal retainer.

Figure 5.—Photograph of 54-in. diameter (EDU-54) Gask-O-seal installed in test apparatus showing dual 

front seal bulbs and fastener holes.

This seal assembly was designed to be installed directly on the top of a docking system tunnel 

without requiring a separate groove or flange. Alignment pin holes in the retainer (not shown) are used to 

align the axes of the seal and the docking system tunnel during seal installation, and fasteners are used to 

attach the seal assembly to the top of the tunnel. Figure 5 shows a close up view of a 54-in. diameter seal

installed in a leak test apparatus at NASA GRC.

Several different Gask-O-seal designs were evaluated in this study: EDU54, EDU58-1, EDU58-2, 

EDU58-3, and EDU58-4. The cross sections of the seal bulbs for each design were different, but the 

details are proprietary and can only be described in general terms. For the EDU54 seals, the “free heights” 

of the seal bulbs above the surrounding metal retainer for the front and back seals were nominally 

0.040 in. (1.0 mm) and 0.023 in. (0.58 mm), respectively (Ref. 4). The four EDU58 seal designs had 

different bulb cross sections than those for the EDU54 seals. All four EDU58 designs were similar to each 

other except for the heights of their front side seal bulbs. The EDU58-1 seals had the shortest seal bulbs, 

and those for the EDU58-2, EDU58-3, and EDU58-4 were 11, 20, and 31 percent taller than the EDU58-1 

design, respectively (Ref. 5).
NASA/TM—2012-217722 6

Multi-Piece Seal Design

The multi-piece seal design consists of an elastomer element with two seal bulbs connected by a web 

and a separate metal retainer with periodic bosses that pass through openings in the web (Figure 6 and 

Figure 7). Whereas the Gask-O-seal would be installed directly on the top of a docking system tunnel, the 

multi-piece seal would be installed in a groove on the top of a tunnel. A series of fasteners secures the 

seal assembly to the base of the seal groove.

Like the Gask-O-seal design, the elastomer seal element is molded out of silicone and has two seal 

bulbs to satisfy the redundancy requirement. However, unlike the Gask-O-seal, the metal retainer is a 

separate element (or elements for a multi-segment retainer), and the elastomer seal bulbs are not molded 

directly into it. The retainer in this design anchors the elastomer seal element to the tunnel and locates and 

centers the seal assembly in the tunnel groove.

Figure 6.—Cross section through multi-piece seal assembly (a) at fastener location and (b) at location between 

fasteners.

Figure 7.—Photograph of subscale multi-piece seal 

installed in groove in test apparatus.

Elastomer seal 

bulbs

Metal 

retainer

Fastener

Seal groove

Retainer 

boss

(a) (b)

Elastomer seal 

bulbs

Metal 

Seal groove retainer

Web 

between 

bulbs
NASA/TM—2012-217722 7

Seal Materials

All performance comparisons made in this study are for seals made of S0383-70, a 70 durometer 

silicone material. This material has been used in a variety of space flight applications including those 

mentioned previously for Gask-O-seals and has been shown to meet outgassing requirements when 

properly cured (Ref. 6). Evaluating seals made of the same material allows comparisons to be made solely 

on the basis of design differences.

Although silicone seals are well-suited for space flight applications, their adhesion loads have been 

shown to be quite high if left untreated (Refs. 7 to 10). In many cases, these loads are beyond the push-off 

capabilities of planned docking system separation mechanisms. However, these same studies also showed 

that pre-treatment of the seals with low doses (e.g., 1×1020 atoms/cm2

) of atomic oxygen (AO) drastically 

reduced seal adhesion loads without adversely affecting seal compression loads or leak rates. Banks et al.

(Refs. 11 and 12) showed that AO passivates silicone elastomers and significantly reduces the adhesion of 

the sealing surfaces. The current study includes comparisons of both families of seal designs (Gask-Oseals and multi-piece seals) with and without AO pretreatment.

Performance Assessments and Comparisons

The performance of the EDU54 Gask-O-seal design has been documented by Smith et al. (Ref. 4) and 

Wasowski et al., (Ref. 6) while Garafolo et al. (Refs. 9 and 13) and Bastrzyk et al. (Ref. 5) tested the 

various EDU58 designs. Multi-piece seal performance testing has been reported on by Oravec et al.

(Refs. 14 and 15) and Dunlap et al. (Ref. 16). The results of these works are compared to each other and 

to the design requirements in the sections below.

Leak Rate

Effects of Mating Configuration

Figure 8 compares the leak rates for EDU54 (Refs. 4 and 6) and EDU58-1 (Ref. 9) Gask-O-seals and 

multi-piece seals (Ref. 16) across a range of temperatures from –58 to 122 °F (–50 to 50 °C) when fully 

compressed in a seal-on-flange configuration. The values plotted in this figure are extrapolated leak rates 

for 50-in. diameter versions of each seal design based on leakage measured for seals of various diameters. 

This was done so that fair comparisons could be made between the different designs.

For each seal design, the leak rate increased as the test temperature increased. This has been attributed 

to an increase in the permeability of the elastomer as the temperature rises (Ref. 13). An increase in seal 

leakage was also observed for the EDU58-1 seals after they were pretreated with AO. However, in all 

cases, the projected leak rates were well below the leakage threshold of 2.5×10–3 lbm,air/day.

Leak rates in the seal-on-seal configuration have only been documented for the EDU54 Gask-O-seals. 

Smith et al. (Ref. 4) performed a series of tests on the EDU54 seals at room temperature and measured 

leak rates on the order of 1×10–6 lbm,air/in./day for fully compressed seals. This corresponds to a leak rate 

of approximately 1.6×10–4 lbm,air/day for a 50 in. diameter seal. Although this is a higher leak rate than 

what was projected for the same seal in a seal-on-flange configuration (3.7 to 7.7×10–5 lbm,air/day), it is 

still an order of magnitude below the leakage threshold.

Effects of Incomplete Compression

Several studies have evaluated the ability for the candidate seal designs to meet the leak rate 

requirement under various levels of compression. Smith et al. (Ref. 4) showed that the EDU54 seal design 

formed an effective seal at room temperature when the mating sealing surfaces were gapped by as much 

as 0.035 in. in a seal-on-flange configuration and up to 0.075 in. when mated seal-on-seal. Garafolo et al.

(Ref. 13) showed that the leak rate for the EDU58-3 seal design increased as the amount of compression 
NASA/TM—2012-217722 8

Figure 8.—Extrapolated leak rates for 50 in. diameter versions of 

candidate seal designs based on leakage measured for fully 

compressed seals in the seal-on-flange mating configuration across a 

range of temperatures.

on the seal was reduced for seal-on-flange mating. However, even at the warmest test temperature of

122 °F (50 °C) and only 48 percent closure, the seal still satisfied the leak rate requirement by an order of 

magnitude. Based on the results of these tests, both the EDU54 and EDU58-3 seal designs have been 

shown to be tolerant of incomplete compression and able to satisfy the leak rate requirement under those 

conditions.

Effects of Radial Misalignment

Radial misalignment is only an issue for the candidate seal designs when they are mated in the sealon-seal configuration. As noted earlier, only Smith et al. (Ref. 4) has published results for any of the 

candidate seal designs in that configuration. In that study, the leak rate for the EDU54 seal was shown to 

slowly increase as the amount of radial misalignment was increased to a value of 0.120 in. However, the 

seal still met the leak rate requirement under those conditions. The leak rate exceeded the leakage 

threshold when the seal test specimens were misaligned by 0.150 in.

Compression Loads

All of the seal designs considered in this study met the compression load requirement under the 

conditions in which they were evaluated. Figure 9 plots compression loads measured for EDU54 (Ref. 4)

and EDU58-1 (Ref. 9) Gask-O-seals and multi-piece seals (Ref. 14) in the seal-on-flange mating 

configuration across a range of temperatures from –58 to 167 °F (–50 to 75 °C). The values plotted in this 

figure represent the force required to compress the front seal bulbs for the Gask-O-seals and the entire 

seal bulbs for the multi-piece seals. These loads were measured from the first load cycle for the EDU54 

seals and multi-piece seals and are the average of 20 load cycles for the EDU58-1 seals. 
NASA/TM—2012-217722 9

Figure 9.—Compression loads measured for candidate seal designs 

in the seal-on-flange mating configuration across a range of 

temperatures.

Several observations can be made from this figure:

• Loads measured for the multi-piece seal were comparable to those measured for the Gask-Oseals.

• For all of the Gask-O-seals that were tested, the force required to compress the seals increased 

with test temperature. However, this was not true for the multi-piece seal design as the load 

measured at 73 °F was less than those measured at –58 and 167 °F.

• EDU58-1 seals pre-treated with AO had comparable compression loads as those that were not 

treated. 

• In all cases, the measured compression loads were below the threshold of 70 lbf per in. of seal. 

Figure 10 compares the compression loads measured for the EDU54 (Ref. 4) Gask-O-seals and multipiece seals (Ref. 14) in the seal-on-seal mating configuration from –58 to 167 °F (–50 to 75 °C). As with 

Figure 9, the loads were measured from the first load cycle for these two seal designs. Several 

observations can be made:

• Compression loads for both designs were lower for seal-on-seal mating than for seal-on-flange 

mating. This was observed by both Smith (Ref. 4) and Oravec (Ref. 14) and was attributed to 

differences in boundary conditions at the mating interface. During seal-on-flange mating the seal 

interacts with a metal surface, and friction with that surface inhibits the seal from expanding in 

the radial direction. However, during seal-on-seal mating the two seal bulbs are able to spread 

laterally more easily thereby reducing compression loads.

• The multi-piece seals exhibited higher compression loads than the EDU54 seals did when tested 

under seal-on-seal conditions. This was in contrast with the seal-on-flange configuration in which 

the two seal designs exhibited similar compression loads.

• Compression loads for both designs were well below the 70 lbf per in. requirement.
NASA/TM—2012-217722 10

Figure 10.—Compression loads measured for candidate seal designs 

in the seal-on-seal mating configuration across a range of 

temperatures.

Adhesion Loads

Untreated Seals

As noted previously, seal adhesion loads have been shown to be quite high for untreated seals. 

Because of this, several studies have been conducted to assess the effects of AO pretreatment on seal 

adhesion loads (Refs. 9 and 15). Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13 compare projected adhesion loads 

for EDU58 Gask-O-seals (Refs. 5 and 9) and multi-piece seals (Ref. 15) in an as-received, untreated state 

for dwell periods from 1 to 15 hr. The values plotted in these figures are extrapolated adhesion loads for 

50-in. diameter versions of each seal design based on adhesion loads measured for subscale seals of 

various diameters. Note that both seal bulbs are considered in these values. These results are presented for 

both mating configurations, seal-on-flange (SOF) and seal-on-seal (SOS), at –58, 73, and 167 °F (–50, 23, 

and 75 °C). 

Temperature had the greatest impact on seal adhesion loads. The projected adhesion loads for each 

seal design were highest at –58 °F (–50 °C). This has been attributed to an increase in the surface energy 

of the material as the temperature decreases (Ref. 5). Projected adhesion loads at room temperature (73 °F 

(23 °C)) were lower than those at –58 °F (–50 °C) for all of the seal designs (Figure 12). Although the 

projected adhesion loads were still fairly high at room temperature, loads for the EDU58-1, EDU58-2, 

and EDU58-3 seals in the seal-on-flange configuration were all below the 200 lbf threshold. At 167 °F 

(75 °C), no adhesion was measured for the EDU58 seals, continuing the trend of decreasing adhesion 

loads with increasing temperatures. However, these results were for a dwell period of only 15 hr, and 

additional testing is warranted for longer dwell periods before an untreated seal would be considered for 

the docking seal application.

Seal bulb height also affected adhesion loads. For the EDU58 family of seal designs, the projected 

adhesion load increased with seal bulb height. As noted previously, the EDU58-1 seals had the shortest 

front seal bulbs, and the EDU58-4 seals had the tallest. As such, the EDU58-1 seals exhibited the lowest 

projected adhesion loads, and the EDU58-4 seals had the highest projected loads. This was expected since 

taller seal bulbs project a larger contact area on the mating surface when fully compressed.
NASA/TM—2012-217722 11

The multi-piece seals exhibited comparable adhesion loads for seal-on-flange and seal-on-seal mating 

at the dwell times evaluated. In all cases, the projected adhesion loads exceeded the 200 lbf threshold even 

for these short dwell times. During an actual mission in which the seals could remain docked for much 

longer periods of time (e.g., months), adhesion loads would be expected to increase. Interestingly, loads 

for the multi-piece seals at 167 °F were comparable to those at room temperature for the dwell periods 

evaluated. This is in contrast with the EDU58 seals which exhibited decreased adhesion loads at 167 °F.

Figure 11.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions 

of candidate seal designs based on measured adhesion for 

untreated subscale seals in the SOF and SOS mating 

configurations for various dwell times at –58 °F (–50 °C).

Figure 12.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions 

of candidate seal designs based on measured adhesion for 

untreated subscale seals in the SOF and SOS mating 

configurations for various dwell times at 73 °F (23 °C).

Adhesion limit

Adhesion limit
NASA/TM—2012-217722 12

Figure 13.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions 

of candidate seal designs based on measured adhesion for 

untreated subscale seals in the SOF and SOS mating 

configurations for various dwell times at 167 °F (75 °C). (Note: All 

data points for EDU58 seals are 0 lbf at 15 hr.)

In general, projected adhesion loads for the multi-piece seals were higher than those for the EDU58 

seals. Factors contributing to this included the width and shape of the seal bulbs. The wider, flatter bulbs 

of the multi-piece seals increased their contact surface area, whereas the narrower, more rounded shape of 

the EDU58 seals allowed them to separate from the opposing surface more easily. Overall, projected 

adhesion loads for the untreated seals were higher than the adhesion load limit. Based on this, some form 

of adhesion reduction treatment is recommended to ensure that the seals satisfy the adhesion load 

requirement.

AO Pretreated Seals

Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16 compare projected adhesion loads for EDU58 Gask-O-seals

(Ref. 9) and multi-piece seals (Refs. 15 and 16) for various dwell periods and levels of AO pretreatment. 

These results are presented for both mating configurations, SOF and SOS, at –58, 73, and 167 °F (–50, 

23, and 75 °C).

At all three test temperatures, the projected adhesion loads for the AO pretreated EDU58 and multipiece seals were considerably less than those in an as-received, untreated state even after longer dwell 

periods. This is consistent with previous studies showing that AO pretreated seals had significantly lower 

adhesion loads (Refs. 9 and 15). The only test case in which the projected adhesion load exceeded the 

200 lbf limit was for a multi-piece seal pretreated to an AO fluence of 1.5×1020 atoms/cm2 and 

compressed for 624 hr (26 days) at –58 °F (–50 °C) (Figure 14). These findings indicate a need to limit 

dwell times at the coldest temperatures prior to undocking or conversely the need to heat the interface 

after extended docking periods prior to undocking. All other cases evaluated for the EDU58 and multipiece seals exhibited projected adhesion loads less than the 200 lbf limit.

Adhesion limit
NASA/TM—2012-217722 13

Figure 14.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions of candidate 

seal designs based on measured adhesion for AO pretreated subscale seals in the 

SOF and SOS mating configurations for various dwell times at –58 °F (–50 °C).

Figure 15.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions of candidate 

seal designs based on measured adhesion for AO pretreated subscale seals in the 

SOF and SOS mating configurations for various dwell times at 73 °F (23 °C).

Adhesion limit

Adhesion limit
NASA/TM—2012-217722 14

Figure 16.—Extrapolated adhesion loads for 50 in. diameter versions of candidate 

seal designs based on measured adhesion for AO pretreated subscale seals in the 

SOF and SOS mating configurations for various dwell times at 167 °F (75 °C).

Other Considerations

In addition to the performance assessments noted above, several other parameters can be used to 

evaluate and compare the candidate seal designs.

Part Count

Full-scale, 50-in. diameter versions of each of the candidate seal designs would likely use a 

comparable number of fasteners to secure them to the docking system tunnel. However, the seal designs 

themselves would be composed of different quantities of parts. One of the advantages of the Gask-O-seal 

design is that it can be fabricated in a single piece with the seal bulbs molded directly into the metal 

retainer. This allows the entire seal to be installed directly onto the tunnel as a single part. However, the 

multi-piece seal is composed of separate elements that are combined together to form the sealing system. 

The elastomer seal element would typically be molded as a single piece, while the separate metal retainer 

could be made as a single piece or in multiple segments. Thus, from a part count perspective, the 

candidate Gask-O-seal designs have an advantage over the multi-piece seal design. 

Installation and Interaction with Docking System Tunnel

As noted earlier, Gask-O-seals would be installed directly on the top of a docking system tunnel 

without having to be installed in a separate groove whereas the multi-piece seal would likely need a 

groove in the tunnel surface. The amount of compression on the Gask-O-seal bulbs is controlled by the 

depth of the seal grooves in the metal retainer (Figure 4), and the load path through the interface goes 

directly through the seal retainer after docking (Figure 2(b)). For the multi-piece seals, though, the 

amount of compression on the seal bulbs is controlled by the depth of the groove in the tunnel (Figure 6). 

The height of the retainer is less than the depth of the groove so it does not become part of the load path 

Adhesion limit
NASA/TM—2012-217722 15

after docking. This results in lower retainer stresses for the multi-piece seals since they are not subjected 

to the entire spectrum of docking loads.

Mating Configuration

One of the reasons that there is less seal-on-seal performance data published for the Gask-O-seal 

designs is that those types of designs are less amenable to seal-on-seal mating. Given the same flange 

width on the top of the docking system tunnel in which to fit the seal, candidate Gask-O-seal designs have

narrower seal bulbs than comparable multi-piece seals due to the nature of the Gask-O-seal configuration 

(Figure 4). Because the seal bulbs are molded into the retainer, material must be left on either side of the 

bulbs to form the seal grooves. This limits the width of the seal grooves. Also, void space must be left on 

either side of the seal bulbs to allow them to spread out as they are compressed. These features result in 

narrower seal bulbs. In contrast, the bulb width for the multi-piece seal design is limited only by the width 

of the seal groove in the tunnel and the retainer installed between the seal bulbs (Figure 6). This 

configuration allows wider bulbs to be used which increases the seal’s ability to accommodate larger 

tunnel-to-tunnel offsets and form an effective seal during seal-on-seal mating.

Cost

While the Gask-O-seal has an advantage over the multi-piece seal from a part count perspective in that 

the seal and retainer are integral, this feature also makes the Gask-O-seals more expensive. For seal-onseal applications, greater control on the exact placement of the seal bulbs in their grooves is necessary in 

order to tolerate large tunnel-to-tunnel misalignments. Precision fixturing is required between the seal 

retainer and mold hardware to achieve accurate bulb positioning. This can prove challenging during seal 

fabrication resulting in greater part rejection and increased part costs. In contrast, the retainer for the 

multi-piece seals is not integrally molded thereby eliminating the need for precision fixturing during the 

molding process, increasing yield, and reducing fabrication costs.

The retainer for the multi-piece seal design can be fabricated as a continuous ring for precise centering 

in the seal groove or in a multi-piece configuration. In applications considered to-date, the wider seal 

bulbs for this design allowed the multi-piece retainer approach to be pursued. For a 50 in. diameter seal, 

six arc segments nominally 26 in. in length would be less expensive to fabricate than the single-piece 

retainer that would be required for a Gask-O-seal of that size.

Retainer Material Strength

Another advantage for the multi-piece seal design is that the processing steps for the elastomer and 

retainer elements can optimized for their unique purposes. For instance, elastomer molding requires cure 

cycles at elevated temperatures to achieve low outgassing properties. When performed on a Gask-O-seal, 

these processes can reduce the yield strength of the integral aluminum retainer thereby limiting the loads 

under which the seals can operate. However, decoupling the elastomer and retainer elements in the multipiece seal design overcomes this issue as each element is processed separately.

Performance Assessments and Comparisons

Table I summarizes the performance assessments and comparisons that were made between the 

candidate seal designs. This includes the five specific types of Gask-O-seals (EDU54, EDU58-1, EDU58-

2, EDU58-3, and EDU58-4) each of which had a different cross section. In the table, boxes that are 

marked in green indicate requirements that a specific seal design met or had a relative strength, while red 

boxes indicate that the seal design did not meet the requirement or had a relative weakness.
NASA/TM

—2012-217722 16

TABLE I.—SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND COMPARISONS FOR CANDIDATE SEAL DESIGNS. 

(Note: Green boxes = Seal design met requirement or had a relative strength. Red boxes = Seal did not meet requirement or had a relative weakness.)
NASA/TM—2012-217722 17

Summary and Conclusions

NASA is developing advanced, space-rated vacuum seals for future docking systems to seal the 

interfaces between mated vehicles and structures for missions to LEO and deep space. Two main types of 

seal designs were identified for this application: Gask-O-seals and multi-piece seals. Both types of seals 

had a pair of seal bulbs to satisfy the redundancy requirement. Based on the performance assessments and 

comparisons described above, the following conclusions and observations were made:

1. Several of the Gask-O-seal designs (EDU54, EDU58-1, and EDU58-3) satisfied the leak rate 

requirement when fully compressed in the seal-on-flange configuration at –58, 73, and 122 °F 

(–50, 23, and 50 °C). The multi-piece seal design also met the leak rate requirement under these 

conditions, but published data was only available at room temperature.

2. Both the EDU54 and EDU58-3 seal designs were shown to be tolerant of incomplete compression 

and able to satisfy the leak rate requirement under those conditions.

3. The EDU54 Gask-O-seals met the leak rate requirement when fully compressed at room 

temperature in the seal-on-seal configuration. This seal design was also able to satisfy the leak 

rate requirement when misaligned radially by as much as 0.120 in.

4. The EDU54 and EDU58-1 Gask-O-seals and the multi-piece seals all met the compression load 

requirement in the seal-on-flange configuration, and the EDU54 and multi-piece seals met the 

requirement in the seal-on-seal configuration.

5. Higher than desired adhesion loads were projected for as-received, untreated, full-scale versions 

of the candidate seal designs. Based on this, some form of adhesion reduction treatment is 

required to ensure that the seals satisfy the adhesion load requirement.

6. Projected adhesion loads for AO pretreated EDU58 and multi-piece seals were considerably less 

than those tested in an as-received, untreated state even after longer dwell periods. AO pretreated 

multi-piece seals satisfied the adhesion requirement after dwell periods as long as 45 days at 

room temperature (the longest test performed to-date).

7. From a part count perspective, the single-piece Gask-O-seals would have an advantage over the 

multi-piece seal design. However, the large, single-piece retainer ring required for the Gask-Oseals and other molding considerations for seal-on-seal applications would likely make them 

more expensive.

8. Gask-O-seals can be installed directly on the top of a docking system tunnel whereas multi-piece 

seals require a separate groove in the tunnel surface for installation.

9. The wider seal bulbs of the multi-piece seal design make them more effective for seal-on-seal 

mating than the Gask-O-seals.

Based on these observations, designers of future docking systems and other habitable volumes can select 

the seal design best-suited for their particular application.

References

1. Dunlap, P.H., Daniels, C.C., Wasowski, J.L., Garafolo, N.G., Penney, N., and Steinetz, B.M., 

“Pressure Decay Testing Methodology for Quantifying Leak Rates of Full-Scale Docking System 

Seals,” NASA/TM—2010-216244, AIAA-2009-5319, April 2010.

2. Dunlap, P.H., Daniels, C.C., Steinetz, B.M., Erker, A.H., Robbie, M.G., Wasowski, J.L., Drlik, G.J., 

Tong, M.T., and Penney, N., “Full-Scale System for Quantifying Leakage of Docking System Seals 

for Space Applications,” NASA/TM—2007-215024, AIAA-2007-5742, October 2007.

3. “C-1 Common Berthing Mechanism System Brief,” JSC-36333 Vol. 2, 15 April 2005.

4. Smith, I.M., Daniels, C.C., Dunlap, P.H., and Steinetz, B.M., “Performance of Sub-scale Docking 

Seals under Simulated Temperature Conditions,” AIAA-2008-4713, July 2008.
NASA/TM—2012-217722 18

5. Bastrzyk, M.B. and Daniels, C.C., “The Mechanical Performance of Subscale Candidate Elastomer 

Docking Seals,” AIAA-2010-3129, April 2010.

6. Wasowski, J.L., Penney, N., Garafolo, N.G., and Daniels, C.C., “Leak Rates of a Candidate Main 

Interface Seal at Selected Temperatures,” AIAA-2009-5320, August 2009.

7. Daniels, C.C., de Groh III, H., Dunlap, P.H., Finkbeiner, J.R., Steinetz, B.M., Bastrzyk, M.B., 

Oswald, J.J., Banks, B.A., Dever, J.A., Miller, S.K., and Waters, D.L., “Characteristics of Elastomer 

Seals Exposed to Space Environments,” NASA/TM—2008-215005, AIAA-2007-5741, January 2008.

8. de Groh III, H.C., Miller, S., Smith, I.M., Daniels, C.C., and Steinetz, B.M., “Adhesion of Silicone 

Elastomer Seals for NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle,” AIAA-2008-4625, July 2008.

9. Garafolo, N.G., Bastrzyk, M.B., and Daniels, C.C., “The Effects of Atomic Oxygen on the Sealing 

and Mechanical Performance of an Elastomer Seal,” AIAA-2010-1440, January 2010.

10. Panickar, M.B., Wasowski, J.L., and Daniels, C.C., “Adhesion of an Elastomer Seal to Metal and its 

Mitigation with Atomic Oxygen Pretreatment,” AIAA-2011-0426, January 2011.

11. Banks, B., Rutledge, S., Sechkar, E., Stueber, T., Snyder, A., de Groh, K., Haytas, C., and Brinker, 

D., “Issues and Effects of Atomic Oxygen Interactions With Silicone Contamination on Spacecraft in 

Low Earth Orbit,” NASA/TM—2000-210056, May 2000.

12. Banks, B.A., de Groh, K.K., Rutledge, S.K., and Haytas, C.A., “Consequences of Atomic Oxygen 

Interaction With Silicone and Silicone Contamination on Surfaces in Low Earth Orbit,” NASA/TM—

1999-209179, May 1999.

13. Garafolo, N.G. and Daniels, C.C., “An Experimental Investigation of Leak Rate Performance of a 

Subscale Candidate Elastomer Docking Space Seal,” AIAA-2010-6907, July 2010.

14. Oravec, H.A., Panickar, M.B., Wasowski, J.L., and Daniels, C.C., “Influence of Elastomer 

Compound and Test Temperature on the Compression Force of Candidate Space Seals: A Preliminary 

Study,” AIAA-2011-5709, August 2011.

15. Oravec, H.A., Wasowski, J.L., and Daniels, C.C., “The Effect of Temperature and Dwell on the 

Adhesion Force of Silicone Elastomer Seals,” AIAA-2012-0803, January 2012.

16. Dunlap, P.H., Martin, R.E., Garafolo, N.G., Oravec, H.A., and Steinetz, B.M., “Durability Testing of 

Docking System Seals for Space Applications,” AIAA-2011-5710, August 2011.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-09-2012 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Comparison of Candidate Seal Designs for Future Docking Systems 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Dunlap, Patrick, H., Jr.; Steinetz, Bruce, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 401769.06.02.01.10 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18433 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2012-217722 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 37 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

NASA is developing a new docking system to support future space exploration missions to low Earth orbit, the Moon, and other 

destinations. A key component of this system is the seal at the main docking interface which inhibits the loss of cabin air once docking is 

complete. Depending on the mission, the seal must be able to dock in either a seal-on-flange or seal-on-seal configuration. Seal-on-flange 

mating would occur when a docking system equipped with a seal docks to a system with a flat metal flange. This would occur when a 

vehicle docks to a node on the International Space Station. Seal-on-seal mating would occur when two docking systems equipped with seals 

dock to each other. Two types of seal designs were identified for this application: Gask-O-seals and multi-piece seals. Both types of seals 

had a pair of seal bulbs to satisfy the redundancy requirement. A series of performance assessments and comparisons were made between 

the candidate seal designs indicating that they meet the requirements for leak rate and compression and adhesion loads under a range of 

operating conditions. Other design factors such as part count, integration into the docking system tunnel, seal-on-seal mating, and cost were 

also considered leading to the selection of the multi-piece seal design for the new docking system. The results of this study can be used by 

designers of future docking systems and other habitable volumes to select the seal design best-suited for their particular application.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Seals; Design; Leakage; Compression tests; Adhesion tests; Load tests; Docking 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

26 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18