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. 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

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. 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