1 / 36

P14474: Hydrostatic Test Apparatus

P14474: Hydrostatic Test Apparatus. Jake Manley Anushka Kalicharan Mitchell Sedore Brian Benner Kyle Abbott. Project Overview. Goals Control pressure, ramp rate, and time Test enclosures against UL1203, UL2225, and CSA 22.2 no. 30

ziven
Download Presentation

P14474: Hydrostatic Test Apparatus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. P14474: Hydrostatic Test Apparatus Jake Manley Anushka Kalicharan Mitchell Sedore Brian Benner Kyle Abbott

  2. Project Overview Goals • Control pressure, ramp rate, and time • Test enclosures against UL1203, UL2225, and CSA 22.2 no. 30 • Control test automatically with minimal operator interaction Constraints: • Must reuse current fixed displacement pump • 10,000 psi max pressure • Ability to capture results during test • Future Labview Integration

  3. Customer Requirements Top Customer Requirements • Test Automation complies with Standards • Ability to Interface with Current Cooper Product Line • Ability to Acquire Data from Test • Complete Apparatus for On-Site Testing • Control of Pressure, Hold Time, and Ramp Rate

  4. Engineering Requirements

  5. Engineering Requirements Top Engineering Requirements • Deliver Maximum Required Pressure to Enclosure • Withstand Maximum Internal System Pressure • Deliver Minimum Required Pressure to Enclosure • Pressure Ramp Rate • Hold Time for 4X Max Internal Explosion Pressure • Hold Time for 1.5X Max Internal Explosion Pressure

  6. Functional Decomposition

  7. Functional Decomposition

  8. Functional Decomposition

  9. Functional Decomposition

  10. Concept Selection

  11. Alternatives Considered • Hold Components: Manifold vs. Inline • Data Transmission: Wired vs. Wireless • Test Control: Hybrid (Digital and Manual) vs. Strictly Digital.

  12. Manifold vs. Inline Design for Holding Components Manifold • Pro’s • Compact, single unit • Less plumbing connections • Less opportunities for leakage • Con’s • Large manifold • Difficult to manufacture • Less flexibility in component placement Inline • Pro’s • Flexible location of components • Small components • Easy to manufacture • Con’s • More parts and connections

  13. Ranking of Manifold vs. Inline

  14. Wired vs. Wireless Method for Data Transmission Wired • Pro’s • Simple • Reliable • Inexpensive • Secure • Con’s • Requires Physical Routing • Possible Data loss due to Wire Damage Wireless • Pro’s • Easy to add Components • Con’s • Expensive • Less Secure • Susceptible to Interference

  15. Ranking of Wired vs. Wireless

  16. Hybrid vs. Strictly Digital Manner of Test Control Hybrid • Pro’s • Fail-Safe • Full Automation • Allows for Manual Override • Con’s • More Components • More Complexity Strictly Digital • Pro’s • More Compact • Full Automation • Con’s • No Backup System

  17. Ranking of Hybrid vs. Strictly Digital Controller

  18. Selected Concept Overview

  19. System Controller Overview

  20. Risk Analysis

  21. Risk Analysis Highest Risk

  22. Testing Plan • Pressure Sensor(s) • Apply varying pressures to sensor(s) to verify output matches expected values. • Calibrate sensor(s) as necessary. • Structural Integrity of Piping and Hose. • Perform calculations to determine approximate pressure for conduit failure. • Simulate stress experienced by conduit with finite element model if deemed necessary from calculations.

  23. Testing Plan • System Controller • Simulate logic before programming the controller to debug as necessary. • Apply stimulus to controller to recreate input from pressure sensor and observe output waveforms to verify functionality. • Pressure Control System • Apply stimuli to pressure controller to simulate input from test controller to verify functionality and response time. • Attach to test controller and apply stimuli to controller. • This simulates input from pressure sensor and can be used to verify reaction time and functionality of pressure controller.

  24. Project Timeline

  25. Questions?

  26. BACKUP SLIDES

  27. What is a Hydrostatic Test? • Tests structural integrity of the product • Product: Electrical enclosures • Simulates explosion within the electrical enclosure • —High Pressure Tests : • Proof Test • Hold time at specified pressure • Destructive Test • Test to failure • Determines safety factor (UL Standards)

  28. Standards • —UL1203 • Electrical enclosure: 10 sec hold time without rupture • Safety factor of 4x internal explosion pressure • —UL2225 • Cable sealing: 10 sec hold time w/o rupture • Safety factor of 4x internal explosion pressure • Pressure: 100-600psi/min • CSA22.2 no.30

  29. Current Hydrostatic Test Apparatus • —Fully functional • —Manually controlled by technicians • —Analog pressure and time measurements • —Isolated Test Environment • —Follows standards: • UL1203 • —UL2225 • —CSA22.2 no.30

  30. Project Deliverables • —Hardware • —Complete onsite test apparatus • —Documentation • Maintenance Recommendations • —Model for fatigue predictions • —User guide for operation • —Engineering Drawings

  31. Stakeholders • —Cooper-Crouse Hinds • Joe Manahan • —Lab Technicians • —Secondary Customers • RIT • MSD Group • —Ben Varela • —Mike Zona

  32. Customer Requirements

  33. Engineering Requirements

  34. House of Quality

  35. Photos

  36. Photos

More Related