R&D on the sliding comparison of standard and mini-drawers Tilecal week (7 October 2011) François Vazeille François Daudon, Gilles Magaud, Guy Savinel and Pierre Verdier + Irakli Minashvili and Loulou Main goals Set up in the building 175 Results Main conclusions and next steps 1

Main goals  Discussion on 2008 July 5th about the interests of having mini-drawers , half-long standard drawers: The main goal was about the handling and the space to the Tilecal access.  Here is what were my conclusions:  OK for the handling  Fully against for the rest ! 2

Set up in the building 175 (30-31 March 2011) Drawer types Weight (kg) 1 mini-drawer not loaded 12 1 standard drawer not loaded 15 2 mini-drawers not loaded 24 2 mini-drawers loaded or a standard drawer loaded 42 1 standard super-drawer loaded or a train of 4 mini-drawers loaded 84 3

(Better on Noryl girder rings) New Old mechanical links New sliding part Polyethylene (Better on Noryl girder rings) ~ a factor 2 expected. Loaded with iron 4

in horizontal position. Systematic comparison of standard/mini-drawers - In pulling and pushing operations. - In 3 differents positions. by making series of 20 measures with different operators. Module is horizontal: Drawers in vertical position Module at 45°: Drawers in medium position Module is vertical: Drawers in horizontal position. 5

Results Presentation of results Pulling Pushing Test # Drawer type Horizontal Medium Vertical 1 1 mini, no load 2.45  0.46 3.31  0.08 2.49  0.13 2.59  0.08 3.69  0.10 2.60  0.09 Pulling Pushing Results given in kg force (~ dAN). Uncertainty: standard deviation of the distribution of 20 measures, and not of the average  Bias on the operating way (operator, inertial bias): see later. 6

1 standard super-drawer Test # Drawer type Horizontal Medium Vertical 1 1 mini, no load 2.45  0.46 3.31  0.08 2.49  0.13 2.59  0.08 3.69  0.10 2.60  0.09 2 1 standard, no load 3.53  0.19 5.59  0.27 4.82  0.24 3.63  0.16 6.12  0.16 4.77  0.23 3 2 mini, V links 5.64  0.27 7.30  0.37 5.60  0.55 5.40  0.16 7.28  0.27 5.82  0.21 4 2 mini, standard links 5.75  0.37 6.68  0.29 5.82  0.37 5.49  0.25 7.04  0.26 5.60  0.30 5 2 mini, with loads, V links 8.56  0.44 11.83  0.68 9.60  0.71 8.70  0.26 11.84  0.29 9.66  0.22 6 1 standard, with loads 16.06  0.34 20.78  0.62 18.15  0.79 17.14  0.46 23.80  0.49 17.39  0.36 7 4 mini, with loads, V links 15.87  0.62 21.36  0.48 16.97  0.94 15.85  0.53 21.02  0.74 16.05  0.41 8 1 standard super-drawer 29.48  0.63 44.29  1.61 35.32  0.82 29.95  0.79 42.97  1.37 36.43  0.59 Global effects: ″Medium″ > ″Vertical″ > ″Horizontal″, but ″Medium″ is well above the other ones. - ″Pushing″ and ″Pulling″ are close altogether, but in average ″Pushing″ is 3% higher than ″Pulling″ … within a large uncertainty. 7

1 standard super-drawer Test # Drawer type Horizontal Medium Vertical 1 1 mini, no load 2.45  0.46 3.31  0.08 2.49  0.13 2.59  0.08 3.69  0.10 2.60  0.09 2 1 standard, no load 3.53  0.19 5.59  0.27 4.82  0.24 3.63  0.16 6.12  0.16 4.77  0.23 3 2 mini, V links 5.64  0.27 7.30  0.37 5.60  0.55 5.40  0.16 7.28  0.27 5.82  0.21 4 2 mini, standard links 5.75  0.37 6.68  0.29 5.82  0.37 5.49  0.25 7.04  0.26 5.60  0.30 5 2 mini, with loads, V links 8.56  0.44 11.83  0.68 9.60  0.71 8.70  0.26 11.84  0.29 9.66  0.22 6 1 standard, with loads 16.06  0.34 20.78  0.62 18.15  0.79 17.14  0.46 23.80  0.49 17.39  0.36 7 4 mini, with loads, V links 15.87  0.62 21.36  0.48 16.97  0.94 15.85  0.53 21.02  0.74 16.05  0.41 8 1 standard super-drawer 29.48  0.63 44.29  1.61 35.32  0.82 29.95  0.79 42.97  1.37 36.43  0.59 Comparisons of mechanical links The new V links are not better than the standard ones moreover: their handling is difficult  R&D on new links is requested. 8

1 standard super-drawer Test # Drawer type Horizontal Medium Vertical 1 1 mini, no load 2.45  0.46 3.31  0.08 2.49  0.13 2.59  0.08 3.69  0.10 2.60  0.09 2 1 standard, no load 3.53  0.19 5.59  0.27 4.82  0.24 3.63  0.16 6.12  0.16 4.77  0.23 3 2 mini, V links 5.64  0.27 7.30  0.37 5.60  0.55 5.40  0.16 7.28  0.27 5.82  0.21 4 2 mini, standard links 5.75  0.37 6.68  0.29 5.82  0.37 5.49  0.25 7.04  0.26 5.60  0.30 5 2 mini, with loads, V links 8.56  0.44 11.83  0.68 9.60  0.71 8.70  0.26 11.84  0.29 9.66  0.22 6 1 standard, with loads 16.06  0.34 20.78  0.62 18.15  0.79 17.14  0.46 23.80  0.49 17.39  0.36 7 4 mini, with loads, V links 15.87  0.62 21.36  0.48 16.97  0.94 15.85  0.53 21.02  0.74 16.05  0.41 8 1 standard super-drawer 29.48  0.63 44.29  1.61 35.32  0.82 29.95  0.79 42.97  1.37 36.43  0.59 Comparisons of train of 2 (4) mini to 1 standard (super-drawer) 5/6 and 7/8: the efforts are divided by 2 (as expected!). There was never a ″blocking″ of mini-drawers in ″zig zag″ … as feared!  We take benefit from the choice of polyethylene. 9

Comparison to calculations Not given here, but a good agreement (will be shown in a Tilecal Note). Warning: The operator must overcome the inertia when pushing and pulling, the effect being bigger in the first case  The given acceleration is depending from the weight. 10

Main conclusions and next steps Thanks to the improvement of the sliding - The use of mini-drawers is possible without blocking risks. - The efforts are lowered by at least a factor 2. Comment: these models of mini-drawers were not optimized with respect to their weights Present weights without loads: 12 kg Weights of standard drawers: 15 kg  possibility of saving 12- 7.5 = 4.5 kg/mini-drawer  18 kg for 4 mini-drawers  18/84 = 21% : a new decrease of about 20% of the efforts is possible if requested. The efforts are depending from the Module positions, but not very different in the insertion/extraction operations. These results are well explained by the calculations. A Tilecal note will report all the results: measures and calculations. 11

1. Study of new tools for the insertion/extraction  several reasons  Next actions 1. Study of new tools for the insertion/extraction  several reasons - Shorten drawers  bad guiding in the present situation. Mini-drawer  Present tool Finger: No guiding Module - Locations of the readout and HV electronics: could be inverted. Readout in the internal radius and HV in the external radius (if kept)  easier access. - The mini-drawers are electronically independent  No needs of a rotating tool. 12

+ making of a test bench to simulate the manipulations  New tool taking benefit of a guiding inside the Finger Only an example: The guiding would be supported by the tool. 2. Study of services: - Cables and fibers. - Cooling circuitry. + making of a test bench to simulate the manipulations Insertion/extraction, connections and tests. 13

3. Optimization of the drawer design with respect of all the constraints: - Electronics. - Services. - Mechanical links and handling facilities. R&D of about 1 year: Mechanics and electronics manpower. With planning and cost estimates for the production. 14