ILIASGeneva 29 March 2007
Virgo suspension control progress
E. MajoranaINFN
Mirror Suspension Control workgroup
EM-ILIAS-290307 2
Thermal noise
Soft isolator concept:1. very efficient passive
attenuation2. active controls for
normal mode damping
The usual “standard-super-attenuator” suspension …
EM-ILIAS-290307 3
The mission of Mirror Suspension Control workgroup: commissioning-oriented activity
Virgo sensitivity (at LF !) Virgo duty-cycle
In fall 2006 the majority of main ITF control issues had been addressed:- lock acquisition strategy - automatic alignment (~)
-suspensions and local controls allowed all above
To start noise hunting, stable operation was needed:=> MSC performance started to be integrated in ITF issues
EM-ILIAS-290307 4
Our plan was clear thanks to the previous efforts of MSC Workgroup, during the first part of the commissioning,
and to some ideas matured meanwhile.
Unavoidable acknowledgments to my friends and colleaguesGiovanni Losurdo and Paolo Ruggi
EM-ILIAS-290307 5
Disturbance rejection
Sensor blending optimizationGlobal Inverted Pendulum Control
Interface with ITF
Angular control strategies(Local/automatic)
Beam centering
All-the-possible-handles(completion needed!)
Lock force re-allocation (BS)SA-chain damping from ground
Vertical dampingSafe-and-soft operation interfaces
Noise budget
Suspension control chain(read-out,numerical,digital,actuator)
NOW
EM-ILIAS-290307 6
Focus on:
- improvement of disturbance rejection - reduction of control noise through the suspension - reduction of ITF coupling with the control noise
EM-ILIAS-290307 7
> disturbance rejection: vertical damping needed (1/9)
V-damp ON/OFFvs alignment
EM-ILIAS-290307 8
> disturbance rejection: vertical damping needed (2/9)
One-By-One
ALL OFF
ALL OFF
ALL ON
ALL ON
O-B-OOFF
O-B-OOFF
No crucialImprovementduring OBOOFF Test.
Clear ImprovementAll OFF/ON
Relationship withAngular fluctuations
EM-ILIAS-290307 9
> disturbance rejection: vertical damping needed (3/9)
TOP stage
Last stage
ITF
One-By-One (detailed)
EM-ILIAS-290307 10
> disturbance rejection: top stage sensor blending (4/9)
ACC
LVDT
+
HP
LPcross IP
fcrossover = 50 mHzTrade-off between: 30 mHz (wind disturbance through ACC)and70 mHz (seism disturbance through LVDT)
Winter issues: STD scheme and blending used until Dec 2006
EM-ILIAS-290307 11
30 mHz crossover N-arm70 mHz crossover W-arm
cavities locked independently
pulling back the crossover: benefit expected
unexpected !wind-noise
seism (sea) produces angular excitation of the payload.
wind (reasonably through the tilt) fake acceleration re-injected.
Key solutions :- smart experiments to simulate the disturbance ;- tools to optimize the blending on-the-fly ;- other smart ideas ….
EM-ILIAS-290307 12
Sensor blending:TWO-SIDE OPTIMIZATION
characterizing Suspension-control_vs_disturbance
EM-ILIAS-290307 13
hybrid filters (on-the-fly tuning)
mix =0.5 :“medium” attenuation of seism noise
old new
mix =0 (wind):not worse than old filters against seism + tilt noise attenuation below 50 mHz
old new
mix =1 (seism) :“strong” attenuation of seism noise with slightly worsened tilt noise attenuation.
old new
> disturbance rejection: top stage sensors, first attempts (5/9)
ACC
LVDT
HPs
LPs
IP
HPw
LPwcross
+
+
mix
The answer is worked outthrough a deeper analysis
How much is it enough ?
OUR TARGET
EM-ILIAS-290307 14
hybrid filters in use: noise percolation paths
Calm period
mix=1 Ineffective@ 0.45 Hz, (IP notch)
Pitch excitation (payload mode)
yaw bump (due to large zM correction)
Large zM due to tilt disturbance through accelerometers
3 mechanisms (at least): F0_z zCorr, F0_z x, F0_z y
> disturbance rejection: top stage sensors (6/9)
EM-ILIAS-290307 15
WSR7, heuristic threshold for mix adjustment in-line
wind (mix 0) sea (mix 1)hic sunt leones
> disturbance rejection: top stage sensors (7/9)
EM-ILIAS-290307 16
LP/HP optimization, given the standard actual corrector (cross)
CL TF
ACC
LVDT
HPLP mix
cross IP
seism
mix=0.70mix=0.90 mix=0.95 mix=1
LP/HP ratio versus CL TF
Hz
Two regions can be distinguished:A) LP/HP ratio plays a role
attenuating LVDT sensor disturbance (seism)
B) No effect of LP/HP attenuation
LVDT noise projection into zCorr (NE@step 1)
Hz
V/s
qrt(
Hz)
> disturbance rejection: top stage sensors (8/9)
EM-ILIAS-290307 17
WSR7 => WSR8 (optimization example)
Hz Hz
Hz Hz
ms-2
HP: anti-wind (
previous WSR7
WSR8 LP: accel. comparison
note: cleaner (LP+HP=1) blending allows to re-tune HP to reduce tilt re-injection
patches added to LP to reduce mirror tilt excitation due to SA seismic noise disturbance
(=> heavier computation…)
EM-ILIAS-290307 18
WSR7 => WSR8 optimization
Hz Hz
Hz Hz
ms-2
LP: anti-seismprevious WSR7
WSR8 accel. comparison
EM-ILIAS-290307 19
WSR7 => WSR8 overall tuning (mix 0-1)
LP/HP
mix 0 => 1wind => sea
mix 1 => 0sea => wind
A) assessing how much it is enough to enhance LP/HP to beat tilt re-injection is not easy. B) more data needed in windy-only conditions… C) optimization not significantly efficient around the crossing frequency.
EM-ILIAS-290307 20
Marionette locking force can be distributed to both input and End mirrors
Since WSR8 the lock correction is applied to four marionettes (NI,NE,WI,WE) instead of two (NE,WE): A) reduction of direct locking force budget and B) non-linear torque negligible in case of wind (=> reduction of large zM by a factor 2 lightens gain request to AA).
> disturbance rejection and noise budget: 4-marionette (9/9)
EM-ILIAS-290307 21
Novel strategy (…one smart idea):GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION
anti-seism plus coherent wind compensation
EM-ILIAS-290307 22
GIPC (Global Inverted Pendulum Control)
benefits: wind disturbance rejection, lock acquisition, duty-cycle.
Once the ITF is locked, the mirror position, provided by the Global Control, can be used instead of LVDTs, referred to the ground.
Features: - automatic engagement (soft!)- anti-wind blending in NE-WE-BS-PR- anti-seism in NI-WI
GC (reconstructed z)
LVDT
LVDTSplitted anti-seism /anti-seism
EM-ILIAS-290307 23
Example1: NE_GIPC,WE_GIPC only
NE “follows” NI WE “follows” WI
step9
EM-ILIAS-290307 24
Example 2: NE_GIPC, WE_GIPC only
step9
EM-ILIAS-290307 25
Example 3: NE_GIPC, WE_GIPC, BS_GIPC, PR_GIPC
step9
EM-ILIAS-290307 26
Example3: NE_GIPC,WE_GIPC only
Thanks toGIPC
GIPC benefit toAutomaticAlignment
step9
Short suspension (i.e.beam) improvementnecessary ?
EM-ILIAS-290307 27
A major effortnecessary at LFduring stormy weather!
Next improvements and studies
EM-MSC-041206
A curiosity: in November GIPC had already been tested but we needed to improve our knowledge and to optimize the blending
EM-ILIAS-290307 28
Example 4:environmental (central Bld. shock absorption)
EM-ILIAS-290307 29
> noise budget: actuation noise & reallocation
-Suitable resistors are used to reduce coil-drivers noise (ln=lownoise/HP=highPowe to accomplish sensitivity/locking)-a trade-off with DAC noise using Emphasis/deemphasis was found.
Still some work:
BS requires marionette reallocation.
WE,NE have a seism peak that should be reduced by further force reallocationto the marionette.
Too large correction directly on the mirror
Low frequency component that can be moved upwards (marionette)
EM-ILIAS-290307 30
> synthesis: net improvement of recent activity
Much more seism and similar peak at 130 mHz
In this example:- red data (now) show up much larger seism
In spite of this:
=> the force reallocated to the marionetteis smaller
EM-ILIAS-290307 31
> conclusions
It was mandatory to accomplish this task by considering the suspension system as a single component of the interferometer
The development was a bit delayed by the requirement of checking the performance under actual environmental disturbance. Tools to emulate crucial situation have been developed.
A large effort was spent on sensing optimization and on “soft operation”
Now it is possible to reduce by a factor 3 the rms disturbance due to the wind, while seism (sea) does not seem to be the main source of problems.
To be done before (possibly before the MegaRun):-further technical noise reduction-improvement of short suspension performance (InjB,MC,OutB)