1 / 37

Mirror Suspension Control VSR1 learning

Mirror Suspension Control VSR1 learning. E. Majorana INFN MSC workgroup. LSC-Virgo joint meeting Hannover 25-10-2007. outline. MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder. MSC tuning during VSR1. Noise issues. Post-VSR1 considerations and perspective.

quincy
Download Presentation

Mirror Suspension Control VSR1 learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mirror Suspension ControlVSR1 learning E. Majorana INFN MSC workgroup LSC-Virgo joint meeting Hannover 25-10-2007

  2. outline MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder. MSC tuning during VSR1. Noise issues. Post-VSR1 considerations and perspective.

  3. MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder

  4. Mirror Suspension Control at VSR1 startup: essentials Compensation of actuator non-linear recoil: for both Marionette and SuperAttenuator. Global-Inverted-Pendulum-Control (partial): to increase Pos/Acc sensor crossover frequency (up to 70 mHz) without significant Seism re-injection (0.15-0.7 Hz). Pos/Acc prefiltering strategy tunable on-the-fly according to the wind (0.02-0.7) or sea (0.15-0.6) disturbance. Lock force hierarchically controlled through 4 marionette (two FP arms): to avoid saturations at low frequency. Local control roll-off (NI,WI,BSyaw) reduced to improve stability. IMC Suspensions (MC,IB) non-optimized and with no V-damp.

  5. MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder (2-3). MSC tuning during VSR1

  6. MSC tuning and improvement during VSR1 • NI-WI LVDT/ACC : anti-Wind => anti-Sea => anti-Wind (Jun 5) • MARIO lock re-allocation on NI-WI OFF (NE,WE only) (Jun 6) • BS LC tuning to improve regions with small phase margin (Jul 4) • Seism-Free Reconstruction of PR top stage Err Signal (Jul 6) • EQG Guardian to disable GIPC in case of EarthQuake (Jul mid) • NI-WI mirror re-centring on beam (Jul mid) • GIPC and mSFR complete configuration (Sep 15) Overall Mirror Suspension Control Noise: no significant limitation of present Virgo sensitivity. Open issues: worse sensitivity during bad weather days (seism and wind).

  7. Initial Vs final: sensor prefiltering Example.. old old old new new new ACC HPw LPw mix cross IP HPs seism LPs LVDT + + mix =0 (wind-earthqukes, f <70mHz): “aggressive” attenuation of accelerometer tilt noise. mix =1 (seism, 150-600 mHz) : “aggressive”, slightly worsened against tilt noise. mix =0.5 ‘medium’ attenuation of LVDT seism noise Compared to the starting config (crossover @ 50 mHz). hybrid filters (on-the-fly tuning) HPLP mix VSR1: sensor prefiltering tuned, after few days, to reject wind diturbance injected by accelerometers.

  8. Initial Vs final: overall control strategies differential position deduced from GC reconstructed by local DSP Also the Acceleration ! seism coherent in the central area SFR possible by referring PR and BS to NI and WI seism incoherent along the arm baseline Seism reduced at END sites by using position referred to INPUT; misfunction during EQ WE GIPC PR NE BS GlobalControl INPUT TOWERS AS GROUND REFERENCE

  9. MSC Vs robustness (1): earhquakes/HNSNS drops/EQG patch Coherent excitation fast recover An automated Guard to disable GIPC: EQG zCorr Saturation Top-stage corr. from locking M6.5 GIPC cannot be used under coherent excitation (far EQ*) Mpc m m V V V 4-min to recover H instead of 30-40 min without EQG (*MSC talk at LSC-Virgo May07, plenary):

  10. MSC Vs rrobustness (2): earhquakes/stable GIPC MARIO: small residual correction (~7 m) Comparison of two events with similar local amplitude A “lucky” occurrence !* 40 m peak Previously we had saturation as the amplitude was less than 20 m The system is much more robust . Correction dynamics more than doubled. (*Indonesia M6.8, Sep-20-08.31):

  11. MSC Vs roboustness (3): earhquakes overall no unlock no unlock through GIPC disabling (EQG) unlock Local seismometric SA response Vs ITF lock m SFR_PR+EQG SFR_PRBS+stableGIPC day EQG action no longer needed. We use EQG as alarmed on-line seismometer

  12. Sub-conlcusion II higher cross-over (70 mHz) (lower wind noise without seism re-injection) & Coherent response to EQs Next ! ENV-TUNED GUARD Top-stage control strategies involving suspension operation as-a-whole improve disturbance rejection capability. EQ GUARD used in monitor mode. SFR (Central Area) GIPC (ARMs)

  13. MSC Vs seism (3) : main path/payload motion Effective attenuation of seism at the payload attenuation at the suspension point The lock force applied to the marionette corrects the residual payload motion, whose rms above 100 mHz is ~ 1 order of magnitude smaller than the ground motion.

  14. MSC Vs seism (4) : rejection VSR1start-VSR1stop quiet Monitoring of channels used for top-stage control at VSR1 start setup. Combined channels used at VSR1 stop: SFR (Seism-Free Reconstruction) and GIPC (Global-Inverted-Pendulum Control)

  15. MSC Vs seism (5) : rejection VSR1start-VSR1stop sea Monitoring of channels used for top-stage control at VSR1 start setup. Combined channels used at VSR1 stop: SFR (Seism-Free Reconstruction) and GIPC (Global-Inverted-Pendulum Control)

  16. MSC Vs seism (1): high seism day during VSR1 seism > 1.5 mrms Sensitivity stability seism < 1.5 mrms Sensitivity main misalignment indicators main stability indicators Horizon increase unaddressed noise bump seism decrease seism < 1 mrms: No effect Diff pitch at DF DF before OMC IBpitch OMC transmission Sideband pwr probe Carrier pwr probe

  17. Noise impact study using VSR1 data and sub-conlcusion III What is the coupling path ? Higher gain for injection bench angular control (pitch) necessary to improve stability during high sea activity. Even though the seism disturbance is the the range of suspension resonant frequencies, the overall impact at the level of the mirror is relatively small: a factor 10 of rms at the ground worsens by a factor 2 the accuracy of controlled signals at the ITF level.

  18. MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder (2-3). MSC tuning during VSR1 (4-10). Noise issues).

  19. MSC status at VSR1 startup: quick reminder. MSC tuning during VSR1. Noise issues. Post-VSR1 considerations and perspective.

  20. OBO: attempts for systematics seism OBO multiple OBO multiple OBO Single NE_top WE_top NI_top WI_top BS_top PR_top IB_top MC_top OB_top ………. One-By-One injection to mimic seism disturbance occurred during VSR1 Probes Quiet Locking feedback on end mirror payload (zGC) Locking feedback on BS and PR (zCorr) End Mirror Alignment (B1p_q1_AC_pv) Input Mirror Alignment (B1p_DC) Injection beam jitter (IB_ty,IB_tz) ? Sideband power (B1_DC) …….. …….. …….. …….. 4 entry-points: END, INPUT,BS,PR,ISYS 3 d.o.f: longitudinal (z), transversal (x), vertical (y)

  21. OBO: injection at NE-WE top-stage, a “positive” clear result. activated probe END mirror pitch OBO SA TOP Payoad ITF GW channel Actual seism zGC pitch perturbed yaw unperturbed An efficient way to produce Horizon drops similar to actual one as seism rms is ~ 3 m is through mirror pitch noise (consistent with VSR1 experience).

  22. significant effect 200-300 Hz Injection @ NE-WE As expected, due to GIPC, injections @ NI-WI produce very similar effects.

  23. OBO: injection at IMC top-stages Very difficult to excite the IB simply injecting pseudo Seismic noise at the top-stage. Power fluctuations close to the actual ones only by using a strong line, tuned on IB main pitch mode.

  24. Injection @ InputMC no effect a surprisingly “negative” clinical result, Some hidden path…

  25. Sub-conlcusion IV and summary Two main effects ITF Power fluctuations Specific coupling with sensitivity due to diff.pitch Improvement of IB angular control (coming soon) • In order to cope with a noise bump at 200-300 Hz (that should be removed) we can: • decrease the gain demand to alignment • control (by setting input mirrors under AA) • - improve the strategy (higher LVDT/Acc • crossover and tuned reallocation techniques). Quite reasonably achievable to gain a factor 2 In spite of suspension resonances, normally there is no environmental seismic effect on the sensitivity. High seism means that the ground shake in the range 0.2-0.7 Hz can increase up to 10 times, worsening mirror control signals by a factor 2.

  26. Not used

  27. STANDARD CONFIGURATION FOR LONG SUSPENSIONS stage variable actuator ref SA TOP Pos/Accel 3D+yaw Ground(~)/stars SA BOTTOM Position yaw Ground PAYLOAD Position 2D+pitch/yaw SA BOTTOM Basic requirements: sensing and actuationdiagonalization + hiearchical control

  28. Virgo “standard-super-attenuator”suspension … • Soft isolator concept: • very efficient passive attenuation • active controls for normal mode damping

  29. seism Vs VSR1 sensitivity: quicklook to the data/seism > 1.5 mrms mSeism level: 3 m rms mSeism level: 2.5 m rms mSeism level: 2 m rms mSeism level: 1.5 m rms mSeism level: 1 m rms mSeism level: 0.5 m rms 100-500 Hz: power fluctuations due to injection misalignment driven + specific bump coupled to ITF pitch misalignments Other features: 10-100 Hz: glitches uncorrelated to power fluctuations 500-10000 Hz: small noise floor fluctuations well correlated to power fluctuations

  30. MSC Vs seism (2): main path/ground excitation LVDT sensor measures the position of top-stage suspension point (top of the IP) with respect to a grounded rigid mechanical frame. Top-stage LVDT channels provide the best measurement of ground noise

  31. MSC Vs seism (6) : residual impact Impact on the ITF longitudinal error signals

  32. MSC Vs seism (7) : residual impact Impact on the ITF angular error signals, in loop full bandwidth

  33. MSC Vs seism (8) : residual impact Impact on the ITF angular error signals, DC controlled in loop full bandwidth

  34. MSC Vs seism (9) : residual impact Impact on the IMC angular error signals, in loop longitudinal

  35. Injection @ BS small effect Not enough to explain the noise in actual condition, considering that the applied disturbance was much larger in OBO tests.

  36. Noise injection at BS suspension top-stage With a similar excitation of the top stage, the longitudinal accuracy is much worse. The angular motion is larger in tx, smaller in ty.

  37. Noise budget now + what next? (E. Tournefier) Control noises: further reduction - sensing/driving matrices improvements / 8 MHz? - angular control filters/ better signals with new end benches telescope Actuator noise is not far at low frequency => new coil driver (more filtering) Where is the Eddy current noise? Remaining mystery noise => Brewster removal + diffused light mitigation 700 Hz monster?? Cleaning of the mirrors + TCS will the error signals get cleaner?

More Related