Time domain simulation for a FP cavity with AdLIGO parameters on E2E

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping G v8 1.
Advertisements

8/13/2004 Stefan Ballmer, MIT / LIGO Hanford 1 Length and angular control loops in LIGO Stefan Ballmer Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Hanford.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping Brett Shapiro Stanford University 1/32G v13 LIGO.
Takanori Sekiguchi Italy-Japan Workshop (19 April, 2013) Inverted Pendulum Control for KAGRA Seismic Attenuation System 1 D2, Institute for Cosmic Ray.
1 Virgo commissioning status M.Barsuglia LAL Orsay.
E2E school at LLO1  Han2k »Model of the LHO 2k IFO »Designed for lock acquisition study  SimLIGO1 »Model of all LIGO 1 IFOs »Designed for –noise hunting.
40m Suspension Electronics Benjamin Abbott California Institute of Technology 10/18/01 G R.
LIGO- G060XXX-00-R E2E meeting, September How to design feedback filters? E2E meeting September 27, 2006 Osamu Miyakawa, Caltech.
Use ofSiesta in VIRGO commissioning Lisa Barsotti University of Pisa – INFN Pisa For the Virgo collaboration Caltech, December 19th 2003.
40m Modeling and Experiment 1 Modeling the 40m QND Workshop, Hannover Dec 15, 2005 Robert Ward Seiji Kawamura, Osamu Miyakawa, Hiro Yamamoto, Matthew Evans,
Suspension Control with Thoughts on Modern Control Brett Shapiro 19 May May GWADW- G – v3.
Recent Developments toward Sub-Quantum-Noise-Limited Gravitational-wave Interferometers Nergis Mavalvala Aspen January 2005 LIGO-G R.
LIGO-G Z1 E2e modeling of violin mode S. Yoshida Southeastern Louisiana University V. Sannibale M. Barton, and H. Yamamoto Caltech LIGO NSF: PHYS
Virgo Control Noise Reduction
GWADW, May 2012, Hawaii D. Friedrich ICRR, The University of Tokyo K. Agatsuma, S. Sakata, T. Mori, S. Kawamura QRPN Experiment with Suspended 20mg Mirrors.
GWADW 2010 in Kyoto, May 19, Development for Observation and Reduction of Radiation Pressure Noise T. Mori, S. Ballmer, K. Agatsuma, S. Sakata,
Design of Stable Power-Recycling Cavities University of Florida 10/05/2005 Volker Quetschke, Guido Mueller.
Interferometer Control Matt Evans …talk mostly taken from…
GEO‘s experience with Signal Recycling Harald Lück Perugia,
Amaldi conference, June Lock acquisition scheme for the Advanced LIGO optical configuration Amaldi conference June24, 2005 O. Miyakawa, Caltech.
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.
G D LSC Changes in Preparation of High Power Operations Commissioning Meeting, May 5, 2003 Peter Fritschel, Daniel Sigg, Matt Evans.
Arm Length Stabilisation for Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors Adam Mullavey, Bram Slagmolen, Daniel Shaddock, David McClelland Peter Fritschel, Matt.
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.
LIGO-G0200XX-00-M LIGO Scientific Collaboration1 First Results from the Mesa Beam Profile Cavity Prototype Marco Tarallo 26 July 2005 Caltech – LIGO Laboratory.
LSC August G Z Gingin High Optical Power Test Facility (AIGO) 1 High Optical Power Test Facility - Status First lock, auto-alignment and.
LSC-March  LIGO End to End simulation  Lock acquisition design »How to increase the threshold velocity under realistic condition »Hanford 2k simulation.
Advanced LIGO Simulation, 6/1/06 Elba G E 1 ✦ LIGO I experience ✦ FP cavity : LIGO I vs AdvLIGO ✦ Simulation tools ✦ Time domain model Advanced.
LIGO-G Z The Status of VIRGO E. Tournefier for the Virgo Collaboration GWADW 2004, Aspen From the CITF to VIRGO Commissioning of the Fabry-Perot.
LIGO-G D 1 Status of Detector Commissioning LSC Meeting, March 2001 Nergis Mavalvala California Institute of Technology.
M. Mantovani, ILIAS Meeting 7 April 2005 Hannover Linear Alignment System for the VIRGO Interferometer M. Mantovani, A. Freise, J. Marque, G. Vajente.
Dual Recycling in GEO 600 H. Grote, A. Freise, M. Malec for the GEO600 team Institut für Atom- und Molekülphysik University of Hannover Max-Planck-Institut.
The status of VIRGO Edwige Tournefier (LAPP-Annecy ) for the VIRGO Collaboration HEP2005, 21st- 27th July 2005 The VIRGO experiment and detection of.
Laser Frequency Stabilization – 2004, May 04 1 Laser Frequency Stabilization François BONDU CNRS – ARTEMIS, Nice VIRGO How it works (Design) Make it work.
Modeling of the Effects of Beam Fluctuations from LIGO’s Input Optics Nafis Jamal Shivanand Sanichiro Yoshida Biplab Bhawal LSC Conference Aug ’05 LIGO-G Z.
Martin Hewitson and the GEO team Measuring gravitational waves with GEO600.
The VIRGO Suspensions Control System Alberto Gennai The VIRGO Collaboration.
LSC Meeting at LHO LIGO-G E 1August. 21, 2002 SimLIGO : A New LIGO Simulation Package 1. e2e : overview 2. SimLIGO 3. software, documentations.
Aligning Advanced Detectors L. Barsotti, M. Evans, P. Fritschel LIGO/MIT Understanding Detector Performance and Ground-Based Detector Designs LIGO-G
Gabriele Vajente ILIAS WG1 meeting - Frascati Noise Analysis Tools at Virgo.
LIGO-G Z March 2007, LSC meeting, Osamu Miyakawa 1 Osamu Miyakawa Hiroaki Yamamoto March 21, 2006 LSC meeting Modeling of AdLIGO arm lock acquisition.
Caltech, February 12th1 Virgo central interferometer: commissioning and engineering runs Matteo Barsuglia Laboratoire de l’Accelerateur Lineaire, Orsay.
Monica VarvellaIEEE - GW Workshop Roma, October 21, M.Varvella Virgo LAL Orsay / LIGO CalTech Time-domain model for AdvLIGO Interferometer Gravitational.
Elba Gravitational Wave Adv. Detector Workshop1May 22, 2002 Simulation of LIGO Interferometers 1. End to End simulation 2. Lock acquisition 3. Noise.
1 Frequency Noise in Virgo by Matt Evans. 2 The Actors  Noise Sources  Input Mode Cleaner length noise  Sensing noise on IMC lock  Frequency Servo.
LIGO-G D Commissioning P Fritschel LIGO NSF review, 23 October 2002 M.I.T.
The Proposed Holographic Noise Experiment Rainer Weiss, MIT On behalf of the proposing group Fermi Lab Proposal Review November 3, 2009.
Thoughts on an SPI for AdLIGO SPI: Suspension Point Interferometer, or Seismic Platform Interferometer with Rana Adhikari and Matt Evans.
Advanced SA Specifications & Scientific Motivations S.Braccini, Cascina 21 Settembre 2007.
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
LIGO Commissioning June 10, 2002
Daniel Sigg, Commissioning Meeting, 11/11/16
The Proposed Holographic Noise Experiment
Main Interferometer Meeting
Progress toward squeeze injection in Enhanced LIGO
Nergis Mavalvala Aspen January 2005
Dennis Coyne LIGO Laboratory, Caltech 26 Aug 2017
Yoichi Aso on behalf of the LCGT ISC Group
The Advanced LIGO Angular Control System (ASC) (Hanford edition)
Design of Stable Power-Recycling Cavities
Workshop on Gravitational Wave Detectors, IEEE, Rome, October 21, 2004
Advanced LIGO optical configuration investigated in 40meter prototype
Alignment Simulation Tool
Progress report from 40m team for the Advanced LIGO
Talk prepared by Stefan Hild AEI Hannover for the GEO-team
Radiation pressure induced dynamics in a suspended Fabry-Perot cavity
Measurement of radiation pressure induced dynamics
Presentation transcript:

Time domain simulation for a FP cavity with AdLIGO parameters on E2E Osamu Miyakawa, Hiroaki Yamamoto Caltech 8/14/2006 LSC meeting at LSU Is it possible to acquire lock with radiation pressure? Is it possible to control alignment with radiation pressure? Optical spring in ASC? Do we need test mass actuator for ASC? both ETM and ITM? Is the actuator dynamic range enough? Noise performance?

What implemented Main Ref. AdLIGO Quad suspension (Mark’s model 03/31/2006) Local damping (6 DOFs of M0) Seismic motion and optical table motion on X,Y, tY and tZ (length, side, pitch and yaw) 3995m FP single cavity with AdLIGO parameters ROC = 2076m for both ITM, ETM test mass Full laser power inside cavity = 0.73MW Radiation pressure force on length and alignment Shot noise and radiation pressure noise Length control for M3 through M1, M2, M3 M3 alignment control through M2 using WFS Electronic noise of WFS PD Main Ref. Top mass (M0) Upper Intermidiate mass (M1) Penultimate mass (M2) Test mass(M3) Z X Y

PDs Optics E2E ETM Laser Quad Suspension Seismic motion Main mass Feedback filters Laser Main mass Ref. Actuator Local Damping FP summation cavity Rdiation pressure

Local damping Main Ref. Example M0: pitch Zero @ 0Hz Pole @ 10,10Hz 6(6) 0(3) 0(0) Damped DOFs (OSEM DOFs) Zero @ 0Hz Pole @ 10,10Hz

Local damping: impulse response Example M0: pitch E2E simulation Measured data

Quad suspension with radiation pressure (length) LSC only, no ASC Only TEM00; misalignment not break lock Test masses are pushed by radiation pressure. ETM test mass is pushed back by LSC keeping distance between test masses. Position shift ~10 wave length Angle shift ~10mrad ITM ETM LSC LSC Radiation pressure LSC 1.2e-5 m 8e-6 rad

Lock acquisition with radiation pressure Locked No lock Locked 60nm/sec :enough slow to acquire lock for LSC by Matt Evans Radiation pressure and alignment incleded Full power : 0.7MW Lock can be acquired with less than few kW Is it possible such low power? Offset lock used at 40m? ->Optical spring Needs Monte Carlo simulation

Alignment instability with no ASC Lost lock After lock acquisition, input power increased with no ASC. Pitch motion due to Radiation pressure breaks lock with 10%(70kW) of full power if there is no ASC

Test mass alignment control through M2 with radiation pressure Control M3 through M2 f 3 filter Boost at 2Hz 10Hz control band width ITM ETM Radiation pressure LSC 1.3e-5 m ASC

Two modes of optical instability Differential : stable -> spring Common : unstable -> no spring

Opt-mechanical (suspension) TF Optical spring Optical spring TF from M2 actuator to WFS error signal, simulated in time domain. Low frequency gain and peak are suppressed. Needs compensating gain for full power Optical spring in differential mode at 4.5Hz for pitch and 4.1Hz for yaw. Control BW must be higher than optical spring frequency.

Open loop TF of ASC 10Hz control band width Gain in low frequency is suppressed a lot by radiation pressure

Noise performance Residual RMS: <10-9 rad (depends on servo) of 10-9rad requirement Actuation torque(force): 3x10-5 Nm (1x10-4 N) on M2 OSEM (max 20mN)

Noise performance in spectra Spectrum depends on seismic noise model. Length to pitch coupling is not ignorable, but can be avoided using unbalance of OSEM. High frequency is limited by shotnoise at 10-14 rad/rHz with 100mW input(25mW for each quadrant).

Electronic noise with low power WFS ON 10% of full power M2 OSEM Dynamic range Start increasing power Locked with 1kW Full power: 0.7MW with electronic noise of 10-6rad/V, 100mVmax, 10nV/rHz 10-14rad/rHz (same level as shotnoise), force: 3x10-4Np-p (maximum:20mN) Low power: 1kW for lock acquisition, 7x10-4rad/V, 100mVmax, 10nV/rHz 7x10-12rad/rHz, force: 20mNp-p(maximum:20mN) -> OSEM saturation

Electronic noise with low power M2 OSEM Dynamic range Electronic Noise Enhancement Feedback Penultimate mass(M2) and test mass(M3) for both ITM and ETM? Low/High gain WFS? Variable transimpedance of factor sqrt(700)? Same level as shotnoise of low power case Pole around 30Hz?

2-pole at 30Hz WFS ON 10% of full power M2 OSEM Dynamic range Start increasing power Locked with 1kW Seems stable

Conclusion Is it possible to acquire lock with radiation pressure? Yes, with less than few kW Is it possible to control alignment with radiation pressure? Yes, with 10Hz control band-width Optical spring in ASC? Yes, 4-5Hz Do we need test mass actuator for ASC? both ETM and ITM? No for full power, penultimate mass actuator enough, but might be necessary for low power Is the actuator dynamic range enough? Yes for full power: 1mN of 20mN, but No for low power: 20mN of 20mN -> low-pass filter around 30Hz Noise performance? < 10-9 rad

Next step Unbalance on OSEM Miss-centering Another g-factor Monte-Carlo lock acquisition test Lock acquisition for full DRFPMI case simulation time : real time = 10 : 1 for single FP cavity = 200 : 1 for DRFPMI with LSC only = 400000 : 1 for DRFPMI with ASC ->needs summation DRMI for alignment