S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor Sergey Klimenko University of Florida Other contributors: E.Daw (LSU), A.Sazonov(UF), J.Zweizig (Caltech)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Cascina, January 25th, Coupling of the IMC length noise into the recombined ITF output Raffaele Flaminio EGO and CNRS/IN2P3 Summary - Recombined.
Advertisements

Calibration of the gravitational wave signal in the LIGO detectors Gabriela Gonzalez (LSU), Mike Landry (LIGO-LHO), Patrick Sutton (PSU) with the calibration.
Spring LSC 2001 LIGO-G W E2 Amplitude Calibration of the Hanford Recombined 2km IFO Michael Landry, LIGO Hanford Observatory Luca Matone, Benoit.
E3/E4 Line Noise Investigation LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko Soma Mukherjee Bernard Whiting Bob Coldwell August 15, 2001 Outline  LLO line noise (E4.
Auto-tuning for Electric Guitars using Digital Signal Processing Pat Hurney, 4ECE 31 st March 2009.
Introduction The aim the project is to analyse non real time EEG (Electroencephalogram) signal using different mathematical models in Matlab to predict.
Collaboration FST-ULCO 1. Context and objective of the work  Water level : ECEF Localization of the water surface in order to get a referenced water.
Implement a 2x2 MIMO OFDM-based channel measurement system (no data yet) at 2.4 GHz Perform baseband processing and digital up and down conversion on Nallatech.
Frequency Lines Identification: cmt package for On-line (by Fd ) and Off-line Virgo data quality Sabrina D’Antonio Roma2 Tor Vergata Roma 1 Pulsar group:
LIG O HW S Update on Monitoring Bicoherence Steve Penn (HWS) LIGO-G Z.
LIGO Reduced Data Sets E7 standard reduced data set RDS generation for future runs decimation examples LIGO-G Z Isabel Leonor (w/ Robert Schofield)
LIG O HW S Introduction to Bicoherence Monitors: BicoViewer & BicoMon Steve Penn (HWS)
Use ofSiesta in VIRGO commissioning Lisa Barsotti University of Pisa – INFN Pisa For the Virgo collaboration Caltech, December 19th 2003.
Introduction To Signal Processing & Data Analysis
ALLEGRO G Z LSC, Livingston 23 March, Calibration for the ALLEGRO resonant detector -- S2 and S4 Martin McHugh, Loyola University New Orleans.
Advanced Phasor Measurement Units for the Real-Time Monitoring
LIGO-G E ITR 2003 DMT Sub-Project John G. Zweizig LIGO/Caltech Argonne, May 10, 2004.
LIGO-G Z NSF Review LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan 1 LSC Participation in Initial LIGO Detector Characterization.
DOLPHIN INTEGRATION TAMES-2 workshop 23/05/2004 Corsica1 Behavioural Error Injection, Spectral Analysis and Error Detection for a 4 th order Single-loop.
LIGO-G DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.
UF S.Klimenko LIGO-G Z l Introduction l Goals of this analysis l Coherence of power monitors l Sign X-Correlation l H2-L1 x-correlation l Conclusion.
LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
LIGO-G E Data Compression study with E2 data S. Klimenko, B. Mours, P. Shawhan, A. Sazonov March LSC 2001 meeting Baton Rouge, Louisiana LSC Session.
LIGO-G9900XX-00-M ITR 2003 DMT Sub-Project John G. Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.
The Analysis of Binary Inspiral Signals in LIGO Data Jun-Qi Guo Sept.25, 2007 Department of Physics and Astronomy The University of Mississippi LIGO Scientific.
S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), G.Mitselmakher (UF),
LIGO-G D Global Diagnostics and Detector Characterization 9 th Marcel Grossmann Meeting Daniel Sigg, LIGO Hanford Observatory.
LIGO-G Z 3/15/01Penn State1 The datacondAPI Sam Finn, for the datacondAPI Team: W. Anderson, K. Blackburn, P. Charlton, P. Ehrens, A. Gonzalez,
Experiments on Noise CharacterizationRoma, March 10,1999Andrea Viceré Experiments on Noise Analysis l Need of noise characterization for  Monitoring the.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Software Tools K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Status Report on CW Discriminator Work Keith.
LSC Meeting, 19 March 2003 Shawhan, Leonor, MarkaLIGO-G D Introduction to Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Isabel Leonor, Szabi Márka.
Paolo La Penna ILIAS N5-WP1 meeting Noise analysis in Virgo Cascina, 7-8 July 2004 Analysis of noise in VIRGO.
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data LSC Inspiral Analysis Working Group LIGO-G Z LSC Meeting Andres C. Rodriguez.
Z bigniew Leonowicz, Wroclaw University of Technology Z bigniew Leonowicz, Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland XXIX  IC-SPETO.
Calibration in the Front End Controls Craig Cahillane LIGO Caltech SURF 2013 Mentors: Alan Weinstein, Jamie Rollins Presentation to Calibration Group 8/21/2013.
LIGO-G Z Status of MNFTmon Soma Mukherjee +, Roberto Grosso* + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernberg, Germany LSC Detector.
HACR at Virgo: implementation and results Gabriele Vajente 12 th ILIAS WG1 meeting Geneva, March 29 th -30 th 2007.
GEO++ Online Detector Characterization System. LIGO-G Z GEO++ working group GEO++ working group Cardiff University: Birmingham University Cardiff.
S.Klimenko, August 2003, Hannover LIGO-G Z How optimal are wavelet TF methods? S.Klimenko l Introduction l Time-Frequency analysis l Comparison.
S.Klimenko, LSC March, 2001 Update on Wavelet Compression Presented by S.Klimenko University of Florida l Outline Ø Wavelet compression concept E2 data.
LIGO- G D E7: An Instrument-builder’s Perspective Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting Upper Limits Plenary Session 22 May 2002 LIGO Livingston.
GEO Online Detector Characterization System R. Balasubramanian Cardiff University LSC March 2003 LIGO-G Z.
Gabriele Vajente ILIAS WG1 meeting - Frascati Noise Analysis Tools at Virgo.
This material is based upon work supported in part by National Science Foundation Award PHY May 30-31, 2003, LIGO G Z APS NW Section Meeting.
May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.
S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.
S.Klimenko, G Z, March 20, 2006, LSC meeting First results from the likelihood pipeline S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), A.Mercer (UF),G.Mitselmakher.
Data Analysis Algorithm for GRB triggered Burst Search Soumya D. Mohanty Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville On.
S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.
Analysis of Traction System Time-Varying Signals using ESPRIT Subspace Spectrum Estimation Method Z. Leonowicz, T. Lobos
S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Burst detection method in wavelet domain (WaveBurst) S.Klimenko, G.Mitselmakher University of Florida l Wavelets l Time-Frequency.
Error Function Filter Robert L. Coldwell University of Florida LSC August 2005 Reducing the number of data points LIGO-G Z.
LIGO-G Z r statistics for time-domain cross correlation on burst candidate events Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC collaboration meeting, LLO march.
ALLEGRO GWDAW-9, Annecy 16 December, Generating time domain strain data (h(t)) for the ALLEGRO resonant detector or calibration of ALLEGRO data.
Monica VarvellaIEEE - GW Workshop Roma, October 21, M.Varvella Virgo LAL Orsay / LIGO CalTech Time-domain model for AdvLIGO Interferometer Gravitational.
S.Klimenko, LSC, Marcht 2005, G Z BurstMon diagnostic of detector noise during S4 run S.Klimenko University of Florida l burstMon FOMs l S4 run.
S.Klimenko, LSC March, 2001 Line Noise Investigation l Outline Ø Line Noise Investigation task Ø E2 data, line monitoring Ø Documentation Ø Lines observed.
LIGO-G E Data Simulation for the DMT John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.
LIGO-G Z March 21, 2007 March 2007 LIGO/Virgo Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Cataloguing Keith Thorne for the Spectral Line Working Group.
Data Quality Investigation LIGO-G E John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO Liivingston, March 18, 2003.
LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
National Mathematics Day
WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans
WaveBurst upgrade for S3 analysis
Line tracking methods used in LineMon
M Ashley - LSC Meeting – LIGO Hanford, 12 Nov 2003
ALLEGRO calibration for the LLO-ALLEGRO stochastic analysis
Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data
LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Michigan
Presentation transcript:

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor Sergey Klimenko University of Florida Other contributors: E.Daw (LSU), A.Sazonov(UF), J.Zweizig (Caltech) l Outline  Introduction  Line Monitor  Basics  Design & Implementation  Input & Output  Usage & Performance  Conclusion  Examples LIGO-G Z

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 E4 L1:LSC-AS_Q Lines Introduction l Narrow lines in the LIGO detector output:  mechanical (violin modes, mirror modes, stacks&suspensions)  environmental (power (60Hz and harmonics), generators&equipment ) l Line Monitor is a tool  to monitor parameters of selected line  frequency  amplitude  phase  to study narrow lines (LM is a main tool for LNI group)

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Line Monitoring l line interference signal I(t) – sum of line harmonics l given a data set with time stride T and sampling rate f 0, use approximation of line interference signal I(t) in the form  we assume that the harmonic’s amplitudes a n and linear functions  n (t) do not change much during time T (line width << 1/T ) to monitor lines we estimate the I(t) signal (or a n, f and  n ) for sequence of data strides l The I(t) signal is estimated using the QMLR algorithm

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 The QMLR Algorithm basis of orthogonal Fourier functions: F k (n)=e -2    n k/N, k,n = 0,..,N-1;  ij =  n F i (n) F j (n) for sampled harmonic signal L(n)=a e -i2  n f/fo,  f - harmonic signal frequency  f o - sampling rate  L(n) ~F k (n) - one of the basis Fourier functions, if f /f o =k/N l estimating of I(t) { L k (n) }.  resample data with new sampling rate f s : f s /f = int( f o /f)+1  select data sample length: N = k f s /f, k-integer  estimated interference signal in F domain: I F =  k L k =  k a k F k

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Fundamental Line Frequency l To monitor lines an accurate measurement of line fundamental frequency f is required. DFT gives rough estimate of f :  f~f 0 /N=1/T, T – time stride l f estimation:  re-sample data for given f and find harmonic amplitudes a k  tune f to maximize  k a k a k * for all (or group of) harmonics Spectral leakage function 40m data Hz*T normalized  k a k a k * for single harmonic 180Hz 300Hz normalized  k a k a k * for 60Hz harmonics 40m data Hz*T T=1sec T=0.5sec

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Line Interference Signal  in Time domain (  k =1) :  I(t) is a periodic function (period T )  T - period of fundamental harmonic  I T - one period of the line Interference signal  allows avoid FFT of long data sets l signals s’(t)-I(t) and I(t) are orthogonal by definition s’(t) T I T =  T l Estimate the I(t) from re-sampled signal s’(t)  in Fourier domain (comb filter) I F =  k a k F k *  k  a k - Fourier coefficient for k th harmonic   k - optimal filter;  k = 1, if neglect noise for k th harmonic

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Design & Implementation l LineFilter - distributed with DMT shared library (ROOT)  apply(s) – process time series s and store trend data  fScan(s) – estimate fundamental frequency  Interference(s) - estimate the Line Interference Signal  data access functions  DumpTrend(file) – dump trend data into file  LoadTrend(file) - load data from trend file to LineFilter object  getTrend(data) - access specified data in the LineFilter database l LineMonitor – a DMT monitor input parameters LM constructor: list of LineFilter objects Process Data Loop input data online or offline output

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Input & Output l LineMonitor Input  configuration parameters  command line (for single line)  configuration file (for many lines or if run by DMT process manager)  data for ONE selected channel from online buffer OR frame files  to monitor several channels, several monitors should be lunched l LineMonitor Output  trend data (one file/line): a(t),  (t), f(t), SNR(t), ….  can be red and processed in ROOT using LineFilter access functions  data to the DMT viewer  html summary

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 html summary monitored by LM -specified in conf. file -trend data produced -serve to DMT viewer detected by LM - no monitoring - no trend data - no DMT viewer Legend in the end of the page is available

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor Parameters l useage: LineMonitor [list of parameters]  -c [required]  -H [synthesized]  -l (*:Both_arms_locked for IFO chan.)  -f [60.]  -t [1.]  -I [1]  -n [1]  -s  -F [1]  -L [1]  -S [0]  -R [2.]  -d n=[1]  -b length=[1024]  -W  -i [optional] (required to monitor many lines)

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Configuration File (ASCII) -c H1:LSC-AS_Q // channel name -l H1:Both_arms_locked // lock condition -H h1_darm.html // html output file -t 64. // stride -d 5 // dump every 5 strides -W 3 // dicimate down to 2kHz -f n 16 -W 4 // list of lines -f n 16 -W 4 -f n 16 -W 3 -f n 16 -W 3 -N 9 -f 60. -n 8 -L 10 -f n 16 -f n 8 -L 2 -t 32 -f n 8 -L 2 -t 32

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Usage & Performance l LineMonitors run by process manager  predefined list of channels, lines & parameters  max 3 LM/interferometer, total 9 monitors  channels: X:LSC-AS_Q, X:LSC-CARM_CTRL, X:IOO-MC_F  still working to define the “standard” configuration l LineMonitors for expert use  executable is distributed with the DMT  customized set of lines & parameters  user defined input&output l Help  If to call LineMonitor without parameters, help is printed out. l Performance:  one monitor consumes 2%+0.5%/line of one CPU on sand or delaronde.

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Conclusion l monitoring tool  stationarity of line noise  monitoring of violin modes & power lines  run standard configurations for E & S runs l investigation tool  characterization of line noise (including classification of lines)  accurate measurement of line frequencies (~mHz)  measurement of Q of violin modes l development  in first approximation completed  add option to write some trend data to database  no plans for GUI development l documentation  publish LIGO note

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Violin Lines mHz resolution excitation in the beginning of lock section

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 calibration lines (amplitude) l E4 run l 8 calibration lines for X arm  ITMX(35, 71, 271, 1001) (red curves)  ETMX(36, 72, 272, 1002) (black curves) 271Hz (red), 272Hz(black) 1001Hz (red), 1002Hz(black) 35Hz (red), 36Hz(black) 71Hz (red), 72Hz(black)

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 calibration lines (phase) Non-stationary TF around 270Hz 271Hz (red), 272Hz(black) 1001Hz (red), 1002Hz(black) 35Hz (red), 36Hz(black) 71Hz (red), 72Hz(black) red – end of lock section blk – start of lock section  30 o

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 Magnetometers study l time-frequency analysis of L0:PEM-EX_MAG1X & H0:PEM-EX_MAG1X  correlation of Im and Re parts of data in Fourier domain  for details see S.Mukherjee report at data section (E3) 1800s long: GPS time see pixels with r Hz odd harmonics 60Hz even harmonics 56.7 Hz harmonics

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor results l close look at L0:PEM-EX_MAG1X with the Line Monitor 60Hz even harmonics Hz odd harmonics Hz harmonics Hz modulation Hz Hz

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor results (continue) l What happened?  2 sets of power lines – power mains & compressor  at 212sec motor was switched off -  56.76Hz lines shifted to 59.94Hz amplitudes of 56.76Hz & 59.94Hz harmonics are exactly the same  does it affect the interferometer channel? T<212s T>212s 2x x x x59.94