Recommended Groove Dimensions (Inch)
| AS568 Series | Cross Section (CS) | Groove Depth | Groove Width | Gland Fill Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0XX (000) | 0.040 | 0.030 – 0.032 | 0.055 – 0.065 | 65–75% |
| 1XX (100) | 0.070 | 0.052 – 0.056 | 0.090 – 0.105 | 65–75% |
| 2XX (200) | 0.103 | 0.077 – 0.082 | 0.130 – 0.150 | 65–75% |
| 3XX (300) | 0.139 | 0.104 – 0.111 | 0.175 – 0.200 | 65–75% |
| 4XX (400) | 0.210 | 0.157 – 0.168 | 0.260 – 0.300 | 65–75% |
What matters for your customer (and why this works)
- Lower friction vs standard O-Ring
Quad rings have 4 sealing lips, so they seal better with less squeeze. That means smoother motion and less wear. - More stable in dynamic use
They resist rolling and twisting. That’s a big win in reciprocating or light rotary applications. - Controlled compression (20–30%)
These groove depths keep compression in a safe range so you’re not cutting life short. - Gland fill stays in the sweet spot
65–75% avoids overpacking, which is where most failures come from in the field.
Straight talk from experience
If this is going into anything dynamic, I’d lean Quad rings all day over a standard O-Ring. Less friction, less failure, happier customer.
If it’s static, they still help, but groove control matters more than profile.