1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. (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

5. 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

6. 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

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
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

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 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 = 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

12. 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

13. + 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

14. 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