Diagnosing Static Seal Failure, Rod Damage and Installation-Related Problems
Hydraulic cylinders installed inside injection molds operate in a particularly demanding environment.
They are often installed in confined spaces, exposed to repeated movements, hydraulic pressure, temperature variations, vibration and contamination. In many mold designs, the cylinder is also difficult to inspect because it is partially or completely enclosed by the tooling.
This creates an important maintenance challenge:
When a hydraulic cylinder begins to leak inside an injection mold, identifying the actual cause of the leakage can be more difficult than simply replacing the seal.
A real Vega technical case, Case 137, illustrates this problem particularly well.
The case concerns a series of hydraulic cylinders installed in a mold. The customer reported oil leakage from several cylinders and, on one cylinder, visible damage to the rod. Vega subsequently investigated the cylinders, checked their dimensional and geometric characteristics, and carried out a technical assessment of the reported problems.
The case provides several important lessons about static seals, rod damage, quality control, installation, troubleshooting and preventive maintenance.
A Real Maintenance Case: Oil Leakage Inside a Mold
The original correspondence concerned a series of cylinders supplied for a mold application.
The customer reported two principal problems:
- oil leakage from the cylinders;
- a visible dent or damage on the rod of one cylinder.
The situation was complicated by the fact that the cylinders were installed inside the mold.
In an earlier communication, the customer questioned how the rod of a cylinder could have been damaged because the rod was located inside the mold and, according to the customer, the cylinders had never been dismantled.
This is a particularly interesting point for mold designers and maintenance engineers.
A hydraulic cylinder can be perfectly functional when it leaves the manufacturer, but its operating environment and installation can subsequently influence its reliability.
Therefore, when a failure appears after installation, the investigation should not immediately assume that the cylinder itself was defective.
The First Reported Cause: Deterioration of a Static O-Ring
In the technical response, Vega identified the reported oil leakage as being associated with deterioration of the static O-ring of the seal-cartridge assembly.
This distinction is important.
A hydraulic cylinder contains several sealing interfaces, and a leakage problem must be associated with the correct sealing function before the appropriate corrective action can be determined.
A static O-ring is designed to seal between components that do not move relative to one another during normal operation.
This is different from a dynamic rod seal, which seals around a moving rod.
Therefore, the fact that the cylinder is moving does not automatically mean that every leakage problem originates from the rod seal.
In Case 137, the technical documentation specifically refers to deterioration of the static O-ring located in the seal-cartridge assembly.
Why a Static Seal Failure Requires Investigation
A damaged or deteriorated O-ring is a symptom, but it does not necessarily explain why the seal deteriorated.
Possible contributing factors can include:
- incorrect assembly;
- damage during installation;
- inappropriate lubrication;
- contamination;
- incorrect positioning;
- excessive compression;
- insufficient compression;
- damage to the sealing groove;
- dimensional problems;
- incompatible working conditions.
However, Case 137 does not establish which of these mechanisms caused the O-ring deterioration.
This distinction is important.
Vega’s technical investigation reported that dimensional and geometric checks did not reveal anomalies attributable to manufacturing or design defects. At the same time, Vega stated that it could not completely exclude an assembly error and therefore recognized a commercial warranty.
The correct technical conclusion is therefore not:
“The O-ring failed because of incorrect assembly.”
Rather, the documented conclusion is:
No dimensional or geometric anomaly attributable to manufacturing or design was identified, while an assembly-related error could not be excluded.
That is a much more technically defensible statement.
The Difference Between a Failed Seal and the Cause of Failure
This distinction is essential in hydraulic-cylinder troubleshooting.
Suppose a cylinder is leaking and the O-ring is damaged.
The immediate finding is:
Damaged O-ring → leakage
But the maintenance investigation should continue:
Why was the O-ring damaged?
Only after answering that question can the corrective action be considered reliable.
Replacing the O-ring without identifying the mechanism that damaged it may solve the immediate leakage but leave the underlying problem unresolved.
This becomes particularly important when multiple cylinders in the same mold show similar symptoms.
In Case 137, the customer reported that other cylinders were also experiencing oil leakage. Vega therefore requested the return of the affected cylinders for additional examination.
When several apparently similar components develop the same problem, the investigation should consider not only the individual component but also the common installation and operating environment.
When Several Cylinders Leak, Look at the Common Factors
The case involved more than one cylinder.
The customer reported that four additional cylinders were showing leakage, although the oil remained inside the mold and therefore the problem was not necessarily immediately visible.
This is a critical maintenance issue.
A leak inside a mold can remain hidden for a considerable period.
The cylinder may continue operating while hydraulic oil accumulates in an enclosed area.
Consequently, the absence of visible oil around the outside of the mold does not necessarily mean that the hydraulic system is leak-free.
For this reason, maintenance procedures for molds containing hydraulic cylinders should include inspection points that allow technicians to detect:
- oil accumulation;
- pressure loss;
- abnormal cylinder movement;
- changes in cycle time;
- contamination;
- seal deterioration.
The Rod Damage: A Separate Technical Issue
Case 137 also involved visible damage to the rod of one cylinder.
Vega’s technical response specifically states that it did not consider itself responsible for the rod damage because the cylinders were 100% tested on the company’s test bench before shipment.
This is important because rod damage and seal deterioration should not automatically be treated as the same failure.
A damaged rod can potentially affect sealing performance because the rod passes through the sealing area during operation.
However, the Case 137 documentation does not establish that the observed rod damage caused the reported oil leakage.
Therefore, the technically correct approach is to treat the two findings separately:
Finding 1
Deterioration of the static O-ring.
Finding 2
Visible damage to the rod.
The investigation must then determine whether there is a causal relationship or whether they are independent problems.
Why Rod Surface Condition Matters
The hydraulic cylinder rod is a critical functional surface.
Its geometry and surface condition interact directly with the sealing system.
A rod that is damaged, scratched, dented or contaminated can potentially compromise the sealing interface, depending on the position and severity of the damage.
For this reason, rod inspection should form part of any serious hydraulic-cylinder maintenance procedure.
The inspection should consider:
- visible dents;
- scratches;
- corrosion;
- surface contamination;
- abnormal wear;
- straightness;
- mechanical interference;
- contact with surrounding mold components.
But again, the presence of a mark on the rod is not sufficient to establish its origin.
The engineer must determine when, where and how the damage occurred.
100% Testing Before Shipment
One of the most significant pieces of information in Case 137 concerns Vega’s manufacturing quality-control procedure.
Vega stated that the cylinders were tested 100% on the company’s test bench before shipment, rather than being tested only by sampling.
This is important because it establishes a quality-control checkpoint before the cylinder enters the customer’s production environment.
The logic is straightforward:
Manufacturing → dimensional and geometric inspection → functional pressure testing → shipment → installation → operation
If a cylinder passes the manufacturer’s final test but develops a problem after installation, the investigation should examine the complete chain rather than automatically assigning the cause to either the manufacturer or the user.
Why Final Testing Cannot Replace Correct Installation
A successful factory test demonstrates that the cylinder passed the specified checks before shipment.
It does not eliminate the importance of correct installation.
The cylinder can subsequently be exposed to conditions that were not present during the factory test, including:
- incorrect alignment;
- mechanical interference;
- excessive side loading;
- installation damage;
- contamination;
- incorrect hydraulic connections;
- inappropriate pressure;
- unexpected mold movement.
This is particularly relevant for hydraulic cylinders installed inside molds because access may be restricted and the cylinder can be difficult to observe during operation.
The Vega Technical Manual treats installation and operating conditions as important aspects of cylinder reliability, particularly where external loads and mold mechanisms are involved.
The Hydraulic System Must Also Be Investigated
Another important element in Case 137 is the request to perform a test of the hydraulic system.
The correspondence indicates that Vega was expected to carry out an installation/system test and retrieve cylinders for testing.
This is a crucial troubleshooting principle.
If multiple cylinders show leakage, inspecting only the cylinders may not be sufficient.
The hydraulic system itself should also be considered.
The investigation can include:
- operating pressure;
- pressure peaks;
- hydraulic connections;
- hoses;
- fittings;
- contamination;
- installation conditions;
- cycle frequency;
- oil temperature;
- mounting alignment.
The objective is to determine whether the cylinder is the source of the problem or whether the cylinder is being affected by an external condition.
Why Pressure Testing Matters
Hydraulic cylinders can experience loads that are not obvious from the nominal operating pressure.
A hydraulic system may have:
- normal operating pressure;
- transient pressure peaks;
- pressure generated during rapid deceleration;
- pressure caused by mechanical stops;
- pressure generated by an incorrectly adjusted valve.
Therefore, simply knowing the nominal pressure setting of the hydraulic system may not be enough for a complete failure analysis.
The system should be tested under the actual operating conditions whenever possible.
This is particularly important when several cylinders installed in the same mold show similar symptoms.
The Mold Environment Can Hide the Evidence
One of the most interesting aspects of Case 137 is that the cylinders were installed inside the mold.
The customer specifically questioned how the rod could have become damaged because the rod was effectively hidden within the mold and the cylinders had not been dismantled.
This creates an important diagnostic challenge.
When a component is inaccessible, technicians may have very little information about what happens to it during the molding cycle.
For example, a cylinder may experience:
- repeated mechanical impacts;
- misalignment;
- interference with moving mold components;
- contamination;
- thermal cycling;
- abnormal loading.
Without inspection during operation, some of these conditions may remain invisible.
Why Multiple Failures Are Particularly Valuable for Diagnosis
If only one cylinder fails, the investigation may initially focus on that individual component.
If several cylinders installed in the same mold develop the same symptom, the investigation becomes different.
A common factor may exist.
In Case 137, the customer reported additional cylinders with leakage, and Vega requested that they be returned for examination.
This is a sensible diagnostic approach because comparing several failed components can reveal patterns.
For example, engineers can compare:
- O-ring condition;
- seal damage;
- rod condition;
- wear pattern;
- contamination;
- dimensional characteristics.
If all failed cylinders show a similar failure pattern, the common cause becomes easier to investigate.
The Importance of Laboratory Analysis
Vega’s technical response also indicates that damaged O-rings would be submitted to the seal supplier for analysis in its laboratory.
This is an important step in professional failure analysis.
A visual inspection can establish that an O-ring is damaged.
A laboratory analysis may provide additional information about the nature of the damage.
For example, it may help distinguish between different failure mechanisms.
However, the Case 137 documentation does not report the final laboratory result.
Therefore, we should not claim that the O-rings failed because of a particular chemical, temperature or mechanical mechanism.
The correct conclusion is simply that Vega planned additional analysis through its seal supplier.
A Structured Approach to Hydraulic Cylinder Failure Analysis
Case 137 suggests a useful troubleshooting sequence for injection-mold maintenance.
Step 1 – Identify the symptom
Is the problem:
- oil leakage;
- rod damage;
- loss of force;
- slow movement;
- abnormal noise;
- positioning problem?
Step 2 – Identify where the leakage occurs
A leak from a static interface is different from a leak around the moving rod.
Step 3 – Inspect the cylinder
Check:
- O-rings;
- seals;
- rod;
- body;
- cartridge;
- mounting interfaces.
Step 4 – Check dimensions and geometry
Confirm whether manufacturing or design anomalies exist.
Step 5 – Check the hydraulic system
Verify pressure and installation conditions.
Step 6 – Examine multiple failed components
Look for common patterns.
Step 7 – Perform laboratory analysis where necessary
For example, seal analysis can provide additional information.
Step 8 – Establish the root cause
Only after the evidence has been collected should responsibility and corrective action be determined.
Case 137: What Vega Actually Established
The documentation allows several conclusions to be stated with confidence.
1. The cylinders were inspected
Vega reports that dimensional and geometric checks were performed. No anomalies attributable to manufacturing or design were found.
2. A static O-ring had deteriorated
The reported leakage was associated with deterioration of the static O-ring of the seal-cartridge assembly.
3. Assembly error could not be excluded
Vega explicitly stated that an assembly error by its specialized personnel could not be excluded and therefore recognized a commercial warranty.
4. Rod damage was disputed
Vega did not accept responsibility for the rod damage and referred to its 100% pre-shipment testing.
5. Additional cylinders required investigation
Other cylinders were reported to have leakage, and Vega intended to inspect them and analyze the damaged O-rings.
These distinctions are important because they prevent a technical case study from turning into speculation.
What This Case Teaches Mold Designers
Case 137 demonstrates that hydraulic-cylinder reliability is not determined by the cylinder alone.
The final performance of a cylinder installed in an injection mold depends on the complete system:
Cylinder
↓
Sealing system
↓
Hydraulic circuit
↓
Mounting
↓
Mold mechanism
↓
Operating conditions
↓
Maintenance
A failure in any one of these areas can produce symptoms that appear to originate from the cylinder.
For this reason, a professional failure investigation must examine the complete installation.
Conclusion
The Case 137 experience shows why oil leakage from hydraulic cylinders installed inside injection molds should be investigated systematically.
In this case, Vega identified deterioration of the static O-ring in the seal-cartridge assembly and reported that dimensional and geometric checks did not reveal manufacturing or design anomalies. At the same time, Vega could not completely exclude an assembly error and therefore recognized a commercial warranty.
A separate issue concerned visible damage to the rod. Vega referred to its 100% pre-shipment testing and did not accept responsibility for the damage.
The case also involved additional cylinders showing possible leakage, making it necessary to examine the common hydraulic and installation conditions rather than focusing on a single component.
The most important lesson is therefore:
When a hydraulic cylinder leaks inside an injection mold, replacing the seal is only the beginning of the investigation. The engineer must determine why the seal deteriorated, inspect the rod and cylinder, verify the hydraulic system and installation conditions, and compare the evidence from all affected cylinders.
A reliable solution comes from identifying the root cause, not simply from replacing the failed component.
Root Cause Analysis, Seal Installation and Preventive Maintenance
In Part 1 we examined Case 137, in which several hydraulic cylinders installed inside an injection mold developed oil leakage, while one cylinder also showed visible damage to the rod.
The Vega technical investigation found deterioration of the static O-ring of the seal cartridge, but the dimensional and geometric checks did not identify anomalies attributable to manufacturing or design. At the same time, Vega could not completely exclude an assembly error and therefore recognized a commercial warranty.
The case becomes particularly interesting when we look at it from a broader engineering perspective: how should a manufacturer and mold builder distinguish a defective seal from a seal that has been damaged by installation or operating conditions?
A Failed O-Ring Is Not Necessarily the Root Cause
When oil is found around a hydraulic cylinder, the most immediate reaction is usually:
Replace the seal.
That may restore the cylinder temporarily, but it does not necessarily explain why the seal failed.
A proper investigation should distinguish between:
failure symptom → damaged component → failure mechanism → root cause
For example:
Oil leakage → damaged O-ring → O-ring deterioration → cause still to be determined
That last step is the most important.
If the underlying cause is not eliminated, a replacement seal may eventually fail again.
The Vega Technical Manual reinforces the importance of correct sealing surfaces and assembly. It identifies the cartridge as the main element responsible for sealing the cylinder toward the outside and supporting the rod, while emphasizing the importance of precision machining.
The Cartridge Is a Critical Part of the Sealing System
The cartridge is not simply a mechanical holder for the seals.
It is an important part of the cylinder’s sealing architecture.
According to the Vega Technical Manual, the cartridge supports the rod and provides the sealing interface toward the outside of the cylinder. Vega also uses two rod seals in the cartridge on its cylinders to improve sealing performance.
This means that an investigation into leakage should consider the complete cartridge assembly:
- cartridge geometry;
- sealing grooves;
- O-rings;
- rod seals;
- scraper;
- guide bushes;
- rod surface;
- assembly condition.
Replacing one O-ring without examining the surrounding components can therefore leave part of the failure mechanism unexplored.
Static O-Ring and Rod Seal Are Different
The Case 137 documentation specifically refers to the deterioration of the static O-ring of the cartridge.
This is important because hydraulic-cylinder cartridges can contain several different sealing elements.
The Vega Technical Manual’s maintenance section identifies, among others:
- scraper ring;
- scraper O-ring;
- guide bush;
- rod seal;
- rod-seal O-ring;
- cartridge O-ring.
Each component has a different function.
Therefore, simply saying that “the cylinder seal failed” is technically imprecise.
A good failure report should identify which sealing element failed and where it is located.
Correct Seal Position and Orientation Matter
The Vega Technical Manual provides a specific procedure for seal replacement and illustrates the correct position and direction of the seals.
This is significant because an O-ring or sealing element can be damaged during assembly if it is:
- incorrectly positioned;
- twisted;
- pinched;
- damaged while entering the groove;
- contaminated;
- installed in the wrong location.
The manual specifically instructs the technician to place the internal O-rings in their correct grooves and warns about handling the guide bushes during assembly.
This provides an important connection with Case 137.
Vega could not exclude an assembly-related error in the original case.
Therefore, assembly quality is not a secondary detail. It is part of the sealing system’s reliability.
Why Installation Inside a Mold Makes the Problem More Difficult
Hydraulic cylinders installed inside injection molds are often surrounded by steel plates, slides, cores, inserts and other mechanisms.
The cylinder may therefore be difficult to inspect once the mold is assembled.
This can make it difficult to determine:
- when the leakage began;
- whether the rod is correctly aligned;
- whether there is mechanical interference;
- whether contamination is entering the sealing area;
- whether the cylinder reaches its complete stroke;
- whether abnormal forces are acting on the rod.
The Vega Technical Manual specifically notes that the rod must provide wear resistance, sealing capability and mechanical strength, and that rod-end types are important for the cylinder’s resistance and general behavior. It also notes that incorrect use or installation can cause rod-end problems.
The Rod Is Part of the Sealing System
A hydraulic rod is not simply the component that transmits force.
Its surface is directly involved in sealing performance.
The Vega Technical Manual states that rod wear resistance and sealing capability are connected to the surface condition of the rod. It describes Vega rods as alloy-steel components that can be hard-chrome plated, ground and polished, with the chrome surface providing high hardness and resistance to scratches and wear.
This explains why the rod damage reported in Case 137 deserves separate investigation.
A visible dent does not automatically prove that it caused the leakage.
But because the rod passes through the sealing system, its condition should always be examined when investigating a leakage problem.
Rod Damage and Seal Damage Should Not Automatically Be Linked
Case 137 contains two different findings:
Finding A: deterioration of the static cartridge O-ring.
Finding B: visible damage to the rod of another cylinder.
The available documentation does not establish that one caused the other.
This is an important point for technical communication.
A failure analysis should not transform a correlation into a proven cause.
Instead, the correct approach is:
Inspect the rod damage, determine its characteristics and location, and establish whether it could have interacted with the sealing system.
If the damage is far from the sealing area, its relationship with the leakage may be weak.
If the damage is located exactly where the rod passes through the sealing system, the investigation becomes more significant.
100% Testing Provides an Important Reference Point
Vega’s response to the rod-damage claim states that the cylinders were tested 100% on the company’s test bench before shipment, rather than being tested only by sampling.
This is an important part of the failure-analysis timeline.
The cylinder has at least two distinct states:
Before shipment
The manufacturer verifies the cylinder according to its quality-control procedure.
After installation
The cylinder is exposed to the actual mold, hydraulic system, mechanical loads and operating environment.
If damage appears after installation, the investigation should therefore consider everything that happened between these two points.
This does not automatically establish responsibility.
It establishes the sequence of evidence that should be investigated.
Why Several Leaking Cylinders Change the Investigation
Case 137 is especially useful because the problem was not limited to one cylinder.
The customer reported that additional cylinders were also leaking, and Vega intended to receive them for inspection. The damaged O-rings were also expected to be examined with the involvement of the seal supplier.
This is extremely useful from an engineering perspective.
If several cylinders installed in the same mold develop similar symptoms, the investigation should ask:
What do all these cylinders have in common?
Possible common factors could include:
- same hydraulic circuit;
- same installation method;
- same mold environment;
- same pressure;
- same assembly procedure;
- same seal specification;
- same contamination source;
- same mechanical loading.
The available Case 137 documentation does not establish which of these was responsible, so they should remain investigation hypotheses, not conclusions.
Compare Failed Components, Not Just One Component
When several cylinders are returned, a useful failure-analysis strategy is to compare them.
For each cylinder, engineers can record:
| Inspection point | Cylinder 1 | Cylinder 2 | Cylinder 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Static O-ring | Condition | Condition | Condition |
| Rod | Condition | Condition | Condition |
| Cartridge | Condition | Condition | Condition |
| Guide bush | Condition | Condition | Condition |
| Rod seal | Condition | Condition | Condition |
| Contamination | Present/absent | Present/absent | Present/absent |
| Dimensional condition | OK/problem | OK/problem | OK/problem |
The objective is to identify a repeating failure pattern.
If every cylinder exhibits the same type of O-ring damage, the common cause becomes more interesting than an isolated manufacturing anomaly.
If only one cylinder shows abnormal damage, the investigation can focus more strongly on its individual installation or operating history.
Laboratory Analysis Can Provide Additional Evidence
Case 137 states that Vega intended to submit damaged O-rings to the seal supplier’s laboratory for additional analysis.
This is an appropriate step when visual inspection alone cannot establish the failure mechanism.
Laboratory analysis can potentially help characterize the damage, but the Case 137 documentation does not contain the final laboratory result.
Therefore, we should not claim that the O-rings failed because of:
- excessive temperature;
- chemical incompatibility;
- pressure;
- incorrect material;
- mechanical damage;
unless such a conclusion is actually supported by the analysis.
For this case, the technically correct statement is simply:
The damaged O-rings were to be submitted for further analysis by the seal supplier.
Hydraulic System Verification Is Essential
When several cylinders installed in the same mold show leakage, the investigation should extend beyond the individual cylinders.
The hydraulic system should also be checked.
Important parameters include:
- operating pressure;
- pressure peaks;
- hydraulic connections;
- hoses and fittings;
- oil cleanliness;
- oil temperature;
- flow conditions;
- cylinder synchronization;
- mechanical stops.
The reason is straightforward:
A cylinder does not operate in isolation.
Its seals experience the pressure, temperature and mechanical conditions generated by the complete hydraulic and mechanical system.
The Vega Technical Manual also notes that hydraulic cylinders are precision components and that sealing and moving surfaces require tight tolerances, suitable surface finishing and appropriate hardness.
Preventive Maintenance Should Look for the Cause
A maintenance department should therefore avoid a cycle like this:
Leak → replace O-ring → leak → replace O-ring → leak → replace O-ring
This approach treats the symptom repeatedly without necessarily identifying the cause.
A better sequence is:
Leak
↓
Identify the exact leakage point
↓
Inspect seal, cartridge and rod
↓
Check installation
↓
Check hydraulic operating conditions
↓
Compare other affected cylinders
↓
Analyse damaged components
↓
Identify root cause
↓
Implement corrective action
This is particularly valuable when the mold contains multiple hydraulic cylinders.
The Vega Technical Manual Supports a Structured Maintenance Approach
The manual does not treat seals as generic interchangeable components.
Its maintenance section provides dedicated information on ring-seal replacement and identifies the correct position and direction of the different sealing components.
This is important because sealing reliability depends on the interaction between:
seal material + seal geometry + groove + cartridge + rod surface + assembly
A replacement seal that is technically correct but incorrectly installed may still produce poor results.
What Mold Builders Can Learn from Case 137
There are several practical lessons.
1. Do not automatically blame the seal
A failed seal is evidence of a problem, not necessarily the root cause.
2. Identify the exact sealing element
A static cartridge O-ring is different from a dynamic rod seal.
3. Inspect the rod
Rod surface condition directly affects sealing performance.
4. Verify installation
Incorrect assembly can damage sealing components even when the cylinder itself is correctly manufactured.
5. Investigate the complete hydraulic system
Especially when several cylinders exhibit similar problems.
6. Compare multiple failed components
Patterns can reveal common causes.
7. Use laboratory analysis when necessary
Case 137 specifically involved planned analysis of damaged O-rings by the seal supplier.
8. Document the evidence
Distinguish clearly between:
observed fact → technical hypothesis → confirmed root cause
This is one of the most important habits in professional engineering.
Case 137: What We Can Conclude
The documented facts allow us to make several firm conclusions.
Vega performed dimensional and geometric checks and did not find anomalies attributable to manufacturing or design.
The reported leakage was associated with deterioration of the static O-ring of the cartridge sealing assembly.
Vega could not exclude an assembly error and therefore recognized a commercial warranty.
The rod damage was treated separately, with Vega referring to its 100% pre-shipment testing and not accepting responsibility for the reported damage.
Finally, because additional cylinders showed leakage, Vega planned further inspection and analysis of the returned components and damaged O-rings.
The Engineering Lesson
The real lesson of Case 137 is not simply how to replace an O-ring.
It is how to investigate a hydraulic-cylinder failure without confusing the visible symptom with its underlying cause.
A professional approach should always ask:
What failed?
Then:
Why did it fail?
And finally:
What must change so that it does not fail again?
For injection molds, this approach is particularly important because hydraulic cylinders are integrated into a larger mechanical and hydraulic system.
The cylinder, sealing system, rod, cartridge, mold, hydraulic circuit and installation conditions all interact.
Therefore:
Replacing a damaged seal restores the component. Identifying and eliminating the root cause restores the reliability of the system.
