S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O I.Pre-S4 “fixes” II.Some S4 veto issues III. Early coupling results from S4 PEM injections.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Stratagem EH4 Field Evaluation of Data Quality.

Advertisements

1 S5 Environmental Disturbances: August ‘06 Robert Schofield, U of O Erik Katsavounidis (MIT), Laura Cadonati (MIT), Michele Zanolin (MIT), Dennis Ugolini.

Bicoherence studies on LLO data Vijay Chickarmane, Gabriela Gonzalez LSU Offline analysis of bicoherence of 6hrs of data, July 12, 2002 using functions.

Adaptive Noise Cancellation: A Panacea M.Evans, R. Adhikari.

MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR GRAVITATIONSPHYSIK ALBERT-EINSTEIN-INSTITUT Karsten Kötter1 DC Data Analysis SEI/SUS (Suspensions & Seismic Isolation)

Takanori Sekiguchi Italy-Japan Workshop (19 April, 2013) Inverted Pendulum Control for KAGRA Seismic Attenuation System 1 D2, Institute for Cosmic Ray.

GWDAW-10 (December 14, 2005, University of Texas at Brownsville, U.S.A.) Data conditioning and veto for TAMA burst analysis Masaki Ando and Koji Ishidoshiro.

E12 Report from the Burst Group Burst Analysis Group and the Glitch Investigation Team.

Lecture #19- Seismometers

G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R Upconversion Study with the Hilbert-Huang Transform Jordan Camp Kenji Numata John Cannizzo Robert Schofield.

1 S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O John Worden, Richard McCarthy, Doug Cook, Hugh Radkins, LHO Josh Dalrymple, SU I.Pre-S4 “fixes”

LIGO-G M 1 Conceptual Design Review: Initial LIGO Seismic Isolation System Upgrade Introduction Dennis Coyne April 12, 2002.

Scientific motivation –Measurement and characterization of gravitational radiation –Special interest in “burst” sources, especially in association with.

LIGO-G0200XX-00-M LIGO Laboratory1 Pre-Isolation Dennis Coyne LIGO Laboratory NSF LIGO Annual Review, at MIT 23 October 2002.

Oregon Proposal, Jim Brau, PAC, December 5, Jim Brau Univ. of Oregon December 5, 2002 Oregon Proposal for LIGO Research LSC collaborator since formation.

LIGO-G M LIGO Laboratory1 Pre-Isolation Dennis Coyne LIGO Laboratory NSF LIGO Annual Review, at MIT 23 October 2002.

1 Environmental Disturbances: S4 and Pre-S5 Robert Schofield, U of O Doug Cook, Fred Raab, Richard McCarthy, LHO I.Seismic up-conversion II.Some peak identification.

LIGO-G D 1 Requirements Environment and constraints Performance requirements Functional requirements.

LIGO-G W Commissioning Data on Vibration Isolation & Suspensions Fred Raab 24 October 02.

Investigation of the influence of suspended optic’s motion on LIGO detector sensitivity Sanichiro Yoshida Southeastern Louisiana University.

1 Environmental Disturbances: Early S5 and S4 Robert Schofield, U of O Rana Adhikari, CIT, Richard McCarthy, John Worden, LHO I.HVAC flow rate reduction.

LIGO-G M 1 Initial LIGO Seismic Isolation System Upgrade Dennis Coyne LIGO Seminar March 29, 2002.

LIGO-G D 1 MEPI electroMagnetic External Pre-Isolator Backup alternative to the Hydraulic actuator approach Goal: maximum commonality with HEPI.

1 S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O John Worden, Richard McCarthy, Doug Cook, Hugh Radkins, LHO Josh Dalrymple, SU I.Pre-S4 “fixes”

Making LIGO wind-resistant Krishna Venkateswara Borrowing from J. Kissel, B. Lantz, L. Barsotti, S. Dwyer, R. Schofield, D. Talukder, G. Vajente, M. Vidrio,

Recent Developments toward Sub-Quantum-Noise-Limited Gravitational-wave Interferometers Nergis Mavalvala Aspen January 2005 LIGO-G R.

Advanced LIGO Commissioning Overview Stanford LVC Meeting, August 27, 2014 Peter Fritschel.

1 Update on PEM - related activities: March 2012 Robert Schofield (Oregon), Anamaria Effler (LSU), Richard McCarthy (LHO), Rich Abbott (CIT), Thomas Abbott.

1 LIGO-G D LIGO Commissioning PAC Meeting, 18 May 2005, LIGO Livingston Joe Giaime, LSU & LLO, for the entire commissioning team. PAC Meeting,

LIGO-G D Commissioning PAC11, 2001 Daniel Sigg, LIGO Hanford Observatory.

LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

ILIAS GW Meeting Mallorca - October 23-24, 2005Luca Taffarello Status of the commissioning of the AURIGA detector Luca Taffarello (INFN Sezione di Padova)

LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.

Environmental noise studies at VIRGO Environmental contributions to Virgo readout noise (C-runs) many sources identified through coherency analyses with.

1 Environmental Coupling During S5 Robert Schofield (University of Oregon) I. PEM injection overview II.Acoustic/seismic coupling III.Seismic upconversion.

LIGO-G Z E7 Correlations Nelson Christensen, Russ Bainer - Carleton College Adrian Ottewill - University College Dublin Steve Penn - Syracuse.

Enhanced LIGO with squeezing: Lessons Learned for Advanced LIGO and beyond.

G R LIGO R&D1 Wireless optical controls of LIGO static suspensions actuators Maria Paola Clarizia University of Sannio Mentor: Riccardo De Salvo.

Advanced interferometers for astronomical observations Lee Samuel Finn Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, Penn State.

1 Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search: Where do we stand? Alessandra Di Credico Syracuse University LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM) June.

1 LESSONS FROM VIRGO+ May 17th 2010 E. Calloni for the Virgo collaboration.

LIGO-G D 1 Status of Detector Commissioning LSC Meeting, March 2001 Nergis Mavalvala California Institute of Technology.

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.

LSC Meeting: 3/14/01Inspiral Upper Limit - Detector Characterization 1 Inspiral Upper Limit: Detector Characterization Needs Nelson Christensen Carleton.

Gabriele Vajente ILIAS WG1 meeting - Frascati Noise Analysis Tools at Virgo.

LIGO-G W Prospects for the S5 Run Fred Raab, LIGO Hanford Observatory November 8, 2005.

LIGO-G Z GWDAW9 December 17, Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO Science Run 2 Data John G. Zweizig LIGO / Caltech for the LIGO.

Detector Characterisation and Optimisation David Robertson University of Glasgow.

LIGO Livingston Observatory Commissioning Status and Proposed Commissioning Activities Prior to S1 Mark Coles May 13, 2002.

LIGO-G Z Report on E3/E4 Lock Losses K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Report on E3/E4 Lock Losses David Chin, Dick Gustafson Keith.

LIGO-G D Commissioning P Fritschel LIGO NSF review, 23 October 2002 M.I.T.

Active Vibration Isolation using a Suspension Point Interferometer Youichi Aso Dept. Physics, University of Tokyo ASPEN Winter Conference on Gravitational.

Yoichi Aso Columbia University, New York, NY, USA University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan July 14th th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves.

Type-A SAS Local Control Simulation (Current Status)

Conor Mow-Lowry Thanks to: Krishna, Jeff, Brian, Jim, Hugh, Robert

Daniel Sigg, Commissioning Meeting, 11/11/16

Back-scattered light noise in Virgo 2nd Science Run data

Reaching the Advanced LIGO Detector Design Sensitivity

Fred Raab, LIGO Hanford Observatory November 8, 2005

Nergis Mavalvala Aspen January 2005

Commissioning Progress and Plans

PEM pre-O1 1) Current status of PEM system pre-O1: 80/90% working

LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies

Commissioning the LIGO detectors

Stochastic background search using LIGO Livingston and ALLEGRO

S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update

Environmental Monitoring: Coupling Function Calculator

Progress Report: Noise Storms and Beam Splitter Oscillations

S2 Bilinear Couplings Study

Improving LIGO’s stability and sensitivity: commissioning examples

Presentation transcript:

S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O I.Pre-S4 “fixes” II.Some S4 veto issues III. Early coupling results from S4 PEM injections

In E12, H2 AS_Q was dominated by FMY roll mode when excited by chiller FMY roll mode peak in AS_Q increases when chiller matches frequency drifting chiller seismic peak ? staging building chiller Solution: resonant gain at FMY roll mode, seismic isolation of chiller. Office building chiller LVEA

10 Hz seismometer (etc.) peaks from RF card reader original set up after improving ground isolation of RF reader

Transformers near test-masses contribute to 60 Hz AS_Q peak AS_Q peak produced by transformer-sized magnetic field Recommendation: keep transformers at least 15 feet away from chambers (annulus ion pumps?).

Protecting sensitivity to the crab pulsar Crab GW frequency Pump shut downPump left on Coherence between LVEA seismic and H1, H2 AS_Q

Up-conversion of low frequency seismic noise seismic noise from distant excavation night spectrum excites stack modes in AS_Q up-conversion reduces interferometer sensitivity night spectrum

Up-conversion experiments Mechanical shaker at EX produces up-conversion in AS_Q But matched injection into DARM and optical lever servo (pitch and yaw) does not produce up-conversion. This suggests that up-conversion is not produced in servo systems or by optic motion.

Up-conversion of low frequency seismic transients Produces large in-band event (and event triggers) coincident on both interferometers. Small fast-traveling seismic transient

time series of same transient, 0.7 to 2 Hz steep band-pass, seismometers at all stations H2 AS_Q, 0.7 to 2 band-pass H2 AS_Q, 70 to 200 Hz band-pass

Coincident 1-3 Hz seismic, and Hz AS_Q spikes MY Seis Z 1-3 Hz MZ Seis Z 1-3 Hz H1 AS_Q Hz H2 AS_Q Hz This event does not produce up- conversion. However, this event does not show up in a sharper 0.7 to 2 Hz band.

Why are airplanes signals so bursty in AS_Q? Continuous acoustic sources can produce 5x bursts in AS_Q. Microphone signal (BP) from sound injection at REFL port Band Pass on resulting acoustic peak in AS_Q Bursts correspond with slight drops in arm power Makes vetoing more complex!

S4 LHO LVEA acoustic coupling from PEM injections

S4 LHO out-station acoustic coupling

S4 LLO corner and EY acoustic coupling

S4 LHO EX, EY magnetic coupling

Summary I.Pre-S4 partial fixes a. Wandering chiller seismic peak b. 10 Hz from RFID c. Transformers near test masses d. Crab protection II.Some S4 Issues a. Up-conversion of low frequency “continuous” seismic noise b. Vetoing up-converting Hz seismic transients c. Continuous environmental sources can produce AS_Q bursts III.Preliminary coupling results from S4 PEM injections a. LHO LVEA ambient sound level generally less than 1/5 SRD above 60 Hz b. LHO out-station ambient sound level generally less than 1/10 SRD

Mechanical shaker near corner of chamber produces pitch, yaw and displacement motion as well as causing up-conversion in AS_Q. Mechanical shaker beside chamber produces side motion, but little pitch, yaw or displacement, and does not produce up-conversion.