ALIGO HSTS Damping Loops Design Comparison J. Kissel, for the SUS and ISC Teams.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FINAL FOCUS: COMBINATION OF PRE ISOLATOR AND ACTIVE STABILISATION K. Artoos, C. Collette, R. Leuxe, C.Eymin, P. Fernandez, S. Janssens * The research leading.
Advertisements

Hierarchical Control Notes – Blending Style Follows quad example Note: coil drivers and ESD are LASTI style; seismic noise is outdated 1G v3.
Simulink/Front Model & MEDM Screen Mods from ECR E (For SUS’ in BSC Chambers) J. Kissel for the SUS and ISC Team G v3 1.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping G v8 1.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping Brett Shapiro Stanford University 1/32G v13 LIGO.
One Arm Cavity M0 L1 L2 TM M0 L1 L2 TRIPLE QUAD 16m R = 20m, T=1% R = ∞, T=1%  Optimally coupled cavity (no mode matched light reflected back)  Finesse.
G R LIGO Laboratory1 Advanced LIGO Research and Development David Shoemaker LHO LSC 11 November 2003.
Takanori Sekiguchi Italy-Japan Workshop (19 April, 2013) Inverted Pendulum Control for KAGRA Seismic Attenuation System 1 D2, Institute for Cosmic Ray.
Locking improvements after the end of VSR1 Gabriele Vajente for the Locking Group 14 th ILIAS WG1 meeting Cascina – March 6 th 2008.
LIGO-G M 1 Conceptual Design Review: Initial LIGO Seismic Isolation System Upgrade Introduction Dennis Coyne April 12, 2002.
LIGO-G W Proposed LHO Commissioning Activities in May 02 Fred Raab 29 Apr 02.
LIGO Magnetic External Pre-Isolator Richard Mittleman, David Ottaway & Gregg Harry April 18, 2003.
LIGO-G DPage 1 Modal Analysis and Feedback Control of HAM MEPI Oct 16, 2002 Lei Zuo Osamah Rifai Samir Nayfeh.
LIGO-G D 1 Requirements Environment and constraints Performance requirements Functional requirements.
Use ofSiesta in VIRGO commissioning Lisa Barsotti University of Pisa – INFN Pisa For the Virgo collaboration Caltech, December 19th 2003.
ALLEGRO G Z LSC, Livingston 23 March, Calibration for the ALLEGRO resonant detector -- S2 and S4 Martin McHugh, Loyola University New Orleans.
Suspension Control with Thoughts on Modern Control Brett Shapiro 19 May May GWADW- G – v3.
Making LIGO wind-resistant Krishna Venkateswara Borrowing from J. Kissel, B. Lantz, L. Barsotti, S. Dwyer, R. Schofield, D. Talukder, G. Vajente, M. Vidrio,
Advanced LIGO Commissioning Overview Stanford LVC Meeting, August 27, 2014 Peter Fritschel.
Stefan Hild 1Ilias WG1 meeting, Sep 2005, Perugia Title GEO 600 Commissioning progress Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut)
Towards aLIGO Heirarchical Control Scheme J. Kissel G v31.
Prototype Test of Vibration Isolation System Current Status & Schedule
SUSPENSION DESIGN FOR ADVANCED LIGO: Update on GEO Activities Norna A Robertson University of Glasgow for the GEO 600 suspension team LSC Meeting, Louisiana,
Conceptual Design for Advanced LIGO Suspensions Norna A Robertson University of Glasgow and Stanford University for the GEO suspension team +contribution.
Ideal Order of QUAD Testing J. Kissel, S. Aston for the SUS Team G v5 01/18/13 1G v5.
Takanori Sekiguchi External Review Alignment control servo for type-B/type-Bp (OpLev/WFS) 1 T. Sekiguchi.
Experimental tests of SA simulation Irene Fiori – Simulation Workshop – March 18, 2004 Virgo dataSiesta simulation 1. Inertial Damping simulation  test.
Takanori Sekiguchi External Review Control and tuning of suspension 1 T. Sekiguchi KAGRA 4th External Review.
System Identification for LIGO Seismic Isolation Brett Shapiro GWADW – 19 May G v1.
SUSPENSIONS Pisa S.Braccini C.Bradaschia R.Cavalieri G.Cella V.Dattilo A.Di Virgilio F.Fidecaro F.Frasconi A.Gennai G.Gennaro A.Giazotto L.Holloway F.Paoletti.
Cavity Work at LASTI LSC-VIRGO Meeting, Hannover - 24 th October 2007 Lisa Barsotti and Matthew Evans for the LASTI group G D.
LIGO-G D Commissioning, Part II PAC 12, June 2002 Peter Fritschel, LIGO MIT.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping Brett Shapiro Stanford University 1/36 LIGO G v15.
HAM-SAS fabrication weekly CALTECH, 4/26/06 V. Boschi, V. Sannibale HAM-SAS Mechanical Model Present Status.
Abstract The Hannover Thermal Noise Experiment V. Leonhardt, L. Ribichini, H. Lück and K. Danzmann Max-Planck- Institut für Gravitationsphysik We measure.
Poster Design & Printing by Genigraphics ® The commissioning of the prototype BSC-ISI has discovered a large number of structural resonances.
Calibration in the Front End Controls Craig Cahillane LIGO Caltech SURF 2013 Mentors: Alan Weinstein, Jamie Rollins Presentation to Calibration Group 8/21/2013.
ALIGO HAM-ISI, LHO Unit #1, Testing Validation LIGO-G v1 July 23, 2010 SEI Team Seismic Isolation Group (SEI)
1 Virgo Commissioning Status WG1 meeting Potsdam, 21 st July 2006.
Adaptive Control Loops for Advanced LIGO
The VIRGO Suspensions Control System Alberto Gennai The VIRGO Collaboration.
Type IV Cryomodule (T4CM) Vibration Analysis Update January 23, 2007 Mike McGee 3 rd T4CM Meeting at INFN-Milan.
MSC winter, short-term schedule Commissioning meeting Cascina 2 Oct 2006.
Mechanical Mode Damping for Parametric Instability Control
MSC recent activities COMM Cascina 5 Feb EM-MSC Commissioning-oriented running activity Operation and interface updates Hardware checkup.
LIGO Livingston Observatory Commissioning Status and Proposed Commissioning Activities Prior to S1 Mark Coles May 13, 2002.
20-22 July 2006 Maddalena Mantovani Automatic Alignment Noise Improvement M. Mantovani, H. Heitmann, J. Marque, P. Ruggi.
LIGO-G D Commissioning P Fritschel LIGO NSF review, 23 October 2002 M.I.T.
Yoichi Aso Columbia University, New York, NY, USA University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan July 14th th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves.
ALIGO QUAD "Level 2" Damping Loop Design (Supplemental to LLO aLOG 6949)LLO aLOG 6949 J. Kissel G v21.
Time domain simulation for a FP cavity with AdLIGO parameters on E2E
ALIGO BSFM “Level 2” Damping Loop Design (Supplemental to LHO aLOG 6392) J. Kissel G v1.
LIGO Commissioning June 10, 2002
Last stage SA F7 monitor/control
Type-A SAS Local Control Simulation (Current Status)
Conor Mow-Lowry Thanks to: Krishna, Jeff, Brian, Jim, Hugh, Robert
Next Generation Low Frequency Control Systems
Daniel Sigg, Commissioning Meeting, 11/11/16
LQR Linear Quadratic Regulator
Time domain simulation for a FP cavity with AdLIGO parameters on E2E
O2 DARM Loop Design Comparisons and Critiques
ALS Noise Budget and Model Status Report
ALS HIFO-X Noise Budget and Model Status Report
BSC HEPI Pier Amplification
Commissioning Progress and Plans
Features in the Quad State Space Model
Control of the KAGRA Cryogenic Vibration Isolation System
O1 DARM Loop Design Comparisons and Critiques
Commissioning progress Stefan Hild Ilias WG1 meeting, Sep 2005
Hierarchical Control Notes – Blending Style
Presentation transcript:

aLIGO HSTS Damping Loops Design Comparison J. Kissel, for the SUS and ISC Teams

3 Different Designs G v32 LHO Current Began with P. Fritschel’s “resg” design from LLO aLOG 4739LLO aLOG 4739 Slight increase of design complexity to strict velocity damping Some attention paid to sensor noise reinjection Evolved into disarray on a SUS-by-SUS basis because of disjointed install disjointed tweaking poor version control LLO Current Den’s (?) design (can’t find aLOGs) Focused on reducing Q’s and impulse response Consistently installed in all L1 HSTS Low Noise Recently designed by Betsy / Kissel Not implemented anywhere Focused on [Hz] noise performance, attempting to still get a good amount of damping Remember: there are no optical levers on these SUS

G v33 Resonant Gain at first resonance AC coupled, rises as f^1, “velocity” Various sensor noise roll-off tactics LLO LHO Low Noise

G v34 LLO LHO Low Noise Low-Q design of LHO and LLO produces mode splitting – locking to cage – at 0.7 [Hz] LHO LN LLO Lots of gain means phase margin is pretty tight in LLO design

G v35 Impulse response at top mass is twice as long for M1 to optic for LowNoise design New FOM! Even longer for for M2 to optic for LowNoise design Interesting -- LowNoise and LLO design are comparable at M3 stage – where high freq. lock acquisition impulses happen 1/e ringdown times Regardless of design – impulse response is worse as you get further from top mass

G v36 New FOM! Low Noise leaves high- Q features at high freq. in M1 and M2 LLO and LHO designs shift lowest mode frequencies up, and leave with high-Q on all stages

G v37 No surprise here, the LowNoise design is low noise at [Hz] LHO LLO LowNoise Goal for aLIGO Baseline For LHO and LowNoise designs I’m using increased range M3 driver Ground Transmission Sensor Noise Actuator Noise

G v38 Looking for simple L2P TFs for easy compensation? No design really gets it, but LowNoise is “better” High Q features left in LLO and LHO design New FOM!

G v39 How about simple plant for high-bandwidth WFS control? Pitch-to-Pitch has high-Q features for ANY design at ANY level New FOM!

G v310 Regardless of how squashed you make the top-to- top Closed Loop Gain TF Or how little phase margin … LHO LN LLO

G v311 Pitch is bad for impulses, regardless of design New FOM!

G v312 More Badness Highest vertical 27 [Hz] (uncontrollable from top) Gets kicked for every design – we will always need to notch these for global control New FOM!

G v313 Roll is just terrible – no stage is well damped at 1.5 [Hz] And again, highest 40 [Hz] mode gets kicked New FOM!

G v314 This guy right here is a “transverse” mode…

G v315 But well damped in Transverse

What have we learned? Each design has its pros and cons As expected, Low-noise design is low noise, Low-Q design (i.e. LLO) reduces Q for Longitudinal but … Just changing the overall gain is not the answer, nor is paying attention to only Longitudinal Lots of stuff doesn’t change with design – Pitch global TFs – Pitch impulse response – Exciting of highest Vertical and Roll modes – Roll impulse response L (and Y) global transfer functions are more complex for Low-Q, and drastically change depending on design G v316 Remember: there are no optical levers on these SUS

Conclusions I haven’t looked yet, but I’m sure the situation will be the same for other SUS types (and the worst for QUADs) If you want UGFs between 0.5 to 10 [Hz], it’s going to be hard, and will take careful, patient design Changing damping loop design will impact those global control designs (including L2P and L2Y decoupling filters) Perhaps we consider switching between designs (i.e. having both on hand, and change the configuration based on IFO needs)? Should LHO take the global control / decoupling redesign schedule hit and import LLO’s filters? In the limit of infinite time – can we explore a design that optimizes impulse response at the lowest stage from each stage and simplifies global control TFs and gets the [Hz] noise OK? Do we seriously start considering modal damping? Sure they’re good at noise, but how about these other FOMs? Suggestions welcome. G v317