1. Stave#1 and Handling Frame Profile Metrology Survey Maarten, Coralie, Franck, Didier August 3 rd 2011 NB: Survey metrology done by using the UniGe Mitutoyo metrology machine Metrology to be compared with mounted free stave metrology survey done at CPPM

2. Tooling Metrology – Two endblock supports Origin support block Middle support Alignment support block Surface metrology Y+ Y- Y+ Y-

3. Stave Metrology – Stave 1 Maarten, DidierJuly 29 th, 2011 E1 E2 E3 E4 F1 F2 F3F33 F34 F35 Reference plane in Z arbitrary taken on 4 points at the 2 end-blocks XY origin X alignment Stave profile before loading with 3 fixation points and plus 2 intermediate supports

4. Stave 1 Metrology after Loading Detail A Reference plane define by 4 points namely: A, B, C, D With intermediate feet Without intermediate feet

5. 1.The two handling frame end‐block supports of the stave has to be flat and coplanar within few microns. What is observed is that: The alignment support block has up to 13 microns longitudinal slope and about 2 microns lateral slope. This could generate a significant bow of up to ~ 200‐ 300 microns! The origin support block has less defect but the longitudinal slope is 4microns and the lateral slope is ‐2 microns. The combination of the two should drive a twist of the stave once mounted on the handling frame which is what is observed on the stave#1 once mounted even with the middle point. 2.The stave#1 once mounted onto the handling frame tighten by 3 points including the middle point is showing 200microns negative bow on the left part from the middle point and rather flat part on the right hand‐side. When adding intermediate support the bow almost disappear and the stave is staying withing +/‐ 50 micons. 3.It is also observed that the endblocks are not coplanar to the face plate and even an asymmetry of 120microns between E1‐E2 is observed and that could indicate a twist or a parallelism stave problem. 4.During loading Maarten and Coralie observed that when trying to get the face plate parallel to the cradle surface by tuning the adjustable four feet that a twist was given to the stave. They decided to stabilize and have an average coplanarity of the stave but not twisting the stave. NB: This observation means that the stave is already twisted on the stave. 5.After loading each Si‐heaters were measured with and without the intermediate points. In both cases a clear twist of 120 microns is seen. Without the two intermediate support points the stave remains in an envelope of 350 microns while with the intermediate support feet it remains within 200 microns. Would such stave envelope acceptable for production and the for integration?Summary

6. Addendum: CFRP handling frame Origine : xy Plan Z0 Z9 Z1 Z3 Z4 Z2 Z5 Z7 Z8 Z6Point IDHF #1 [mm]HF #2 [mm] Z1 0.0010.000 Z2 -0.002-0.001 Z3 -0.0010.000 Z4 0.0010.002 Z5 0.002-0.001 Z6 0.0030.000 Z7 -0.0010.000 Z8 0.002-0.003 Z9 -11.508-11.537 ΔZ Max: 5  m Significant improvement! Design value: -11.505 Only plan for prototype staves but tested for future production Update from Aug 30 th 2011