Ideal Order of QUAD Testing J. Kissel, S. Aston for the SUS Team G1100693-v5 01/18/13 1G1100693-v5.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hierarchical Control Notes – Blending Style Follows quad example Note: coil drivers and ESD are LASTI style; seismic noise is outdated 1G v3.
Advertisements

Simulink/Front Model & MEDM Screen Mods from ECR E (For SUS’ in BSC Chambers) J. Kissel for the SUS and ISC Team G v3 1.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping G v8 1.
LIGO - G R 1 HAM SAS Test Plan at LASTI David Ottaway November 2005 LIGO-G Z.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping Brett Shapiro Stanford University 1/32G v13 LIGO.
QUAD Testing Outline, Phase 2B Fiber Lower “half” Build-up and Testing M. Barton, B. Bland, D. Cook, J. Kissel, N. Robertson, J. Romie, T. Sadecki, for.
One Arm Cavity M0 L1 L2 TM M0 L1 L2 TRIPLE QUAD 16m R = 20m, T=1% R = ∞, T=1%  Optimally coupled cavity (no mode matched light reflected back)  Finesse.
Takanori Sekiguchi Italy-Japan Workshop (19 April, 2013) Inverted Pendulum Control for KAGRA Seismic Attenuation System 1 D2, Institute for Cosmic Ray.
LIGO-G D Suspensions Update: the View from Caltech Phil Willems LIGO/Caltech Livingston LSC Meeting March 17-20, 2003.
April 27th, 2006 Paola Puppo – INFN Roma ILIAS Cryogenic payloads and cooling systems (towards a third generation interferometer) part II: the Vibration.
March 4, 2005 All rights reserved Torque – Angle in Slip Ring - Non-Contact Rotary Torque Sensor Installation Tips Foot mount torque sensor Driver Load.
LIGO Magnetic External Pre-Isolator Richard Mittleman, David Ottaway & Gregg Harry April 18, 2003.
40m Suspension Electronics Benjamin Abbott California Institute of Technology 10/18/01 G R.
LIGO-G D 1 Requirements Environment and constraints Performance requirements Functional requirements.
Ilya Berdnikov, Cornell University. Characterization of the LIGO 40m Lab Mode Cleaner Digital Suspensions Summer Project by Ilya Berdnikov Mentors:
LIGO-G D Suspensions Design for Advanced LIGO Phil Willems NSF Review, Oct , 2002 MIT.
Active Seismic Isolation Systems for Enhanced and Advanced LIGO Jeffrey S. Kissel 1 for the LSC 1 Louisiana State University The mechanical system for.
1 ATF2 project: Investigation on the honeycomb table vibrations Benoit BOLZON 33rd ATF2 meeting, 24th January 2007 Laboratories in Annecy working on Vibration.
Vibration measurements on the final doublets and the Shintake Monitor Benoît BOLZON7th ATF2 project meeting, 16/12/08.
LIGO-G Z1 E2e modeling of violin mode S. Yoshida Southeastern Louisiana University V. Sannibale M. Barton, and H. Yamamoto Caltech LIGO NSF: PHYS
GWADW 2010 in Kyoto, May 19, Development for Observation and Reduction of Radiation Pressure Noise T. Mori, S. Ballmer, K. Agatsuma, S. Sakata,
Stefan Hild 1Ilias WG1 meeting, Sep 2005, Perugia Title GEO 600 Commissioning progress Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut)
1 Ist Virgo+ review Cascina H. Heitmann Alignment: Virgo+ changes.
Fiber-Optic Accelerometer Using Wavefront-Splitting Interferometry Hsien-Chi Yeh & Shulian Zhang July 14, 2006.
Towards aLIGO Heirarchical Control Scheme J. Kissel G v31.
Prototype Test of Vibration Isolation System Current Status & Schedule
Takanori Sekiguchi Anual Meeting of Physics Society of Japan Sep. 22nd, 2013) Prototype Test of Vibration Isolation System Current Status & Schedule 1.
Takanori Sekiguchi ALPS Report, Dec. 26th, 2013 Prototype Test of Type-B 1 Takanori Sekiguchi KAGRA F2F MEETING Feb
SUSPENSION DESIGN FOR ADVANCED LIGO: Update on GEO Activities Norna A Robertson University of Glasgow for the GEO 600 suspension team LSC Meeting, Louisiana,
Conceptual Design for Advanced LIGO Suspensions Norna A Robertson University of Glasgow and Stanford University for the GEO suspension team +contribution.
G M 1 Advanced LIGO Update David Shoemaker LSC/Virgo MIT July 2007.
Takanori Sekiguchi External Review Alignment control servo for type-B/type-Bp (OpLev/WFS) 1 T. Sekiguchi.
Takanori Sekiguchi External Review Control and tuning of suspension 1 T. Sekiguchi KAGRA 4th External Review.
The purpose of the change of basis matrices is to combine local instruments to sense (or drive ) the platforms rigid body motions along the axis of the.
System Identification for LIGO Seismic Isolation Brett Shapiro GWADW – 19 May G v1.
E v3 aLIGO SEI Testing and Commissioning Overall Plan
Cavity Work at LASTI LSC-VIRGO Meeting, Hannover - 24 th October 2007 Lisa Barsotti and Matthew Evans for the LASTI group G D.
STEPPER MOTORS Name: Mr.R.Anandaraj Designation: Associate. Professor Department: Electrical and Electronics Engineering Subject code :EC 6252 Year: II.
Global longitudinal quad damping vs. local damping Brett Shapiro Stanford University 1/36 LIGO G v15.
ELECTRIC MOTORS Lesson 11. The motor principle  Michael Faraday was the first person to create a device that used electromagnets with a permanent magnet.
Monolithic suspension assembly procedure (DRAFT) Status 27 th May 2009 LIGO-T v2.
LIGO-G D 1 Status of Detector Commissioning LSC Meeting, March 2001 Nergis Mavalvala California Institute of Technology.
ALIGO HAM-ISI, LHO Unit #1, Testing Validation LIGO-G v1 July 23, 2010 SEI Team Seismic Isolation Group (SEI)
Laser Frequency Stabilization – 2004, May 04 1 Laser Frequency Stabilization François BONDU CNRS – ARTEMIS, Nice VIRGO How it works (Design) Make it work.
The VIRGO Suspensions Control System Alberto Gennai The VIRGO Collaboration.
Paolo La Penna ILIAS N5-WP1 meeting Commissioning Progress Hannover, July 2004 VIRGO commissioning progress report.
LSC Meeting at LHO LIGO-G E 1August. 21, 2002 SimLIGO : A New LIGO Simulation Package 1. e2e : overview 2. SimLIGO 3. software, documentations.
Low frequency anti-vibration system of LCGT Vibration Isolation Group R. Takahashi (ICRR), K. Yamamoto (ICRR), T. Uchiyama (ICRR), T. Sekiguchi (ICRR),
Mechanical Mode Damping for Parametric Instability Control
Advanced LIGO UK 1 LIGO-G Z Development issues for the UK Advanced LIGO project Caroline Cantley Glasgow University for the UK Advanced LIGO Team.
Torsion Pendulum Dual Oscillator (TorPeDO) David McManus, Min Jet Yap, Robert Ward, Bram Slagmolen, Daniel Shaddock, David McClelland.
Practical considerations for quad suspension upgrades Giles Hammond, Norna Robertson, Travis Sadecki, Brett Shapiro, Betsy Weaver G v3.
ALIGO HSTS Damping Loops Design Comparison J. Kissel, for the SUS and ISC Teams.
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
ALIGO BSFM “Level 2” Damping Loop Design (Supplemental to LHO aLOG 6392) J. Kissel G v1.
LIGO Commissioning June 10, 2002
Type-A SAS Local Control Simulation (Current Status)
HLTS Kickoff Presentation Derek Bridges Bobby Moore July 7, 2011
LV Meeting – 22 September 2009 Brett Shapiro G v1
Next Generation Low Frequency Control Systems
VIRGO–KAGRA Meeting about bottom filter damping
Time domain simulation for a FP cavity with AdLIGO parameters on E2E
Laboratories in Annecy working on Vibration Stabilization
Gingin Advisory Committee Meeting 08 Dec 2009
Features in the Quad State Space Model
O1 DARM Loop Design Comparisons and Critiques
Superattenuator for LF and HF interferometers
Technician Licensing Class
HAM SAS Test Plan at LASTI
Presentation transcript:

Ideal Order of QUAD Testing J. Kissel, S. Aston for the SUS Team G v5 01/18/13 1G v5

Learn as much as you can about the systems, as early as possible Assembly and Testing are synonomous, not separate, as should be the teams Test simple cases first, then your understanding of the full thing will be more clear Test report should contain everything you need to *prove* it works, but does not contain every test you’ve done to *make* it work (Results vs. Tests vs. Sanity Checks) We’re still developing the production line – not all tests that we’ve [done in the past / will do in the future] are useful, but we don’t know until we try This is an ideal list. Reality maybe force us to measure less. We need not go back and get results, if the oppurtunity has passed. ⇒ We care about the performance / response / reports in the final configuration (fiber build, fully assembled, in-vac) the most Driving Principles 01/18/13 2G v5

Order of Operations - LINGO Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 2a Phase 2b Phase 2c Phase 3a Metal Build, Assembly & Tests Metal Build, Fully Assembled Testing Metal Build, Fully Assembled Sanity Checks Lower Half Fiber Build, Assembly & Tests Fiber Build, Fully Assembled Testing Fiber Build, In-Chamber, In-Air Testing Acceptance! Commissioning Fiber Build, In-Chamber Testing 01/18/13 3G v5 Phase 3b Fiber Build, In-Chamber, In-Vacuum, Testing Move full assembly to Chamber-Side (from storage or assembly area) Cartridge Install

LINGO – Stages of Testing Phase 1b Phase 2a Phase 2c Phase 3a & 3b Phase 1a Phase 2b Commissioning 01/18/13 4G v5

Results Main Chain (MC), Reaction Chain (RC) suspended mass’ mass (ICS) Trim mass allocation at all stages (ICS) Blade Characterization Data (Stiffness Pass/Fail) M0, R0, L1, L2 Magnet Strength Data (Strength Pass/Fail) (Manufacturer’s Spec) (Merely ensure that all specs are in hand) M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEM Inventory; S/N, Configuration, Open Light Voltage (Open Light Voltage Pass/Fail) (Update ICS, Update OSEM Chart E ) M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEM Coil Resitance and Inductance (Tolerance Pass/Fail) (Merely ensure that all data is in hand) M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEM sensor noise assessment (Noise Floor Pass/Fail) (Merely ensure that all data is in hand) Individual Vibration Absorber Characterization (Resonant Bandwidth Pass/Fail) (Merely ensure that all data is in hand) Phase 1a Wire Build, Assembly and Testing Tests DC Alignment (from Levels and Optical Levers) Magnet Polarity Check Ensure appropriate model infrastructure has been restored Determine M0, R0, L1, L2 Open Ligh Current 01/18/13 5G v5

Results Phase 1 SUS alignment assessment (Tolerances Pass/Fail) Final Calibrated OSEM Spectra of M0, R0, L1, L2 Motion (Resonances & Noise Floor Pass/Fail) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with single Reference Measurement) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping Off, (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model ) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements and Model) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping ON (Model and Ref. Meas Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model ) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements and Model) Phase 1b Wire Build, Fully Assembled Testing Tests DC Alignment/Balancing (from Optical Levels and Levers) Ability to Sense M0, R0 M0, R0 OSEM Centering M0, R0 OSEM Sensor Diagonalization / Perpendicular Alignment M0, R0 Sensor Sign Checks Expected Watchdog behavior Ability to Actuate M0, R0 M0, R0 Actuator Sign Checks Reaction Chain Cable Dressing Rough L1, L2 OSEM Centering and alignment L1, L2 Sensor Sign Checks Rubbing Checks (EQ Stops, etc) Damping Loop Closure Physically Move M0,R0 Take a set of Top to Top TFs Take single-frequency V & Y Top to Top TFs Take a set of Top to Top TFs Top DC Offsets 01/18/13 6G v5 DC Offsets Use speedometers Physically Move M0,R0 Use speedometers Take a set of Top to Top TFs “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0

Results M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEM Open Light Current (Open Light Current Level Pass/Fail) (Updated OSEM Chart E ) Final Calibrated OSEM Spectra of M0, R0, L1, L2 Motion (Resonances & Noise Floor Pass/Fail) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with single Reference Measurement) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with Prior Stage Results) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping Off, (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model ) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Prior Stage Results, and Model) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping ON (Model and Ref. Meas Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model ) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Prior Stage Results, and Model) Phase 2a Wire Build, Fully Assembled Sanity Checks Tests DC Alignment/Balancing (from Optical Levels and Levers) Ensure front-end model infrastructure is in place Determine M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEM Open Light Current Center M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEMs Ability to Sense M0, R0 M0, R0 Sensor Sign Checks Expected Watchdog behavior Coil Driver BIO switches’ functionality confirmed Ability to Actuate M0, R0 Rubbing Checks (EQ Stops, etc) Ability to Sense L1, L2 Damping loop closure Take a Spectra Take a set of Top-Top TFs 01/18/13 7G v5 “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0 Use speedometers DC Offsets Physically move the Suspension Take a Spectra

Results Fiber Characterization Data (Metrology and/or Profile, Load Pass/Fail) (Merely ensure that all data is in-hand) Ear Characterization Data (Metrology Pass/Fail) (Merely ensure that all data is in-hand) ESD Characterization (Continuity, Mapping, Metrology Pass/Fail) Ring Heater Characterization (Continuity Pass/Fail) Calibrated L, V, P, Y Single Pendula (PUM->TST) Spectra (Resonances Pass/Fail) Phase 2b Fiber Build, Assembly and Testing Tests (Before install of Fiber Protection) PUM/TST DC alignment in Wire Hang Check/Record (single) fiber profile 15 kg load (single) fiber proof test DC Alignment (from Optical Levels and Levers) Rubbing checks (EQ Stops, etc.) Single-hang (PUM Locked) modal frequency assessment (see T ) 01/18/13 8G v5 “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0

Results Final IAS alignment checkout (Tolerances Pass/Fail) Watchdog connection with BSC-ISI, Damping Loop Functionality (Expected Protection Pass/Fail) Final Calibrated OSEM Spectra of M0, R0, L1, L2 Motion (Resonances & Noise Floor Pass/Fail) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with single Reference Measurement) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with previous stage) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping Off, (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping ON (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Assess Vibration Absorber Performance (Suitable Reduction of Resonances, Decoupling from ISI Pass/Fail) Phase 2c Fiber Build, Fully Assembled Testing Tests DC Alignment (using Optical Levels and Levers, full IAS Blessing) Full IAS Alignment Checkout (Test Mass Height, Test Mass/Reaction Mass Gap check, Chain Alignment, etc) Center M0, R0, L1, and L2 OSEMs Ability to Sense M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEMs Expected Watchdog behavior, including interactions with BSC-ISI Ability to Actuate M0 and R0 ESD Continuity, Ring Heater resistance Assess absense of Ground Loops in Cable Routing Reaction Chain Cable Dressing Rubbing Checks (EQ Stops, etc.) Assess Table Mounting / Dog Clamping with B&K Hammer & Accelerometer (Vibration Absorbers OFF) Assess Vibration Absorber Functionality with B&K Hammer & Accelerometer (Vibration Abosorbers ON) Damping Loop Closure Assess Coupling to ISI with BSC-ISI ST2 transfer function Take a set of Top-Top TFs 01/18/13 9G v5 “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0 Take Spectra Use Speedometers Use Digital Multimeter Take a set of Top-Top TFs

Results M0, R0, L1, and L2 OSEM Open Light Current (Open Light Current Level Pass/Fail) (Updated OSEM Chart E ) Final Calibrated OSEM Spectra of M0, R0, L1, L2 Motion (Resonances & Noise Floor Pass/Fail) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with single Phase 3a Reference Measurement) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with previous stages) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping Off, (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping ON (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Phase 3a Fiber Build, In-Chamber, In-Air Testing Tests Assess electronics chain continuity through feedthrus (ESD continuity, Ring Heater resistance, etc) Assess cable routing stiffness/compliance from Optical Table, through ISI, to Feedthrough Determine M0, R0, L1, and L2 Open Light Current Final Centering of M0, R0, L1, L2 OSEMs (including bouyancy compensation for vertical OSEMs) Final Setting of EQ Stop Distances (including bouyancy compensation for vertical stops) Ability to Sense / Actuate M0/R0 Ability to Sense L1, L2 Final Rubbing Checks (EQ Stops, etc.) Damping Loop Closure Assess coupling to ISI with BSC-ISI ST2 transfer function (if Phase 2c test was polluted by ambient noise) 01/18/13 10G v5 “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0 DC Offsets Take a set of Top-Top TFs Take a Spectra Take a set of Top-Top TFs

Results Final Calibrated OSEM Spectra of M0, R0, L1, L2 Motion (Resonances & Noise Floor Pass/Fail) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with single Reference Measurement) Comparison Set (Euler and OSEM Basis ASDs, compared with previous stage) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping Off, (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Final Calibrated Top to Top Transfer Functions, Euler and OSEM basis, Damping ON (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) Individual Set (Euler and OSEM Basis TFs, compared with Model) Comparison Set (Euler Basis only, compared with Reference Measurements, Previous Stage Results, and Model) Final Calibrated L1, L2 to L1, L2, L3 Transfer Functions, Euler Basis, Damping Off (Model and Ref. Meas. Comparison Pass/Fail) M0, L1, L2 Actuation Range Test using OSEMs (or OpLev if available) L3 Actuation Range Test using OpLev Phase 3b Fiber Build, In-Chamber, In-Vacuum Testing Tests Ability to Sense/Actuate M0, R0, L1, L2, L3 Rubbing Checks via Transfer Functions 01/18/13 11G v5 ACCEPTANCE!! Take OSEM/Oplev Spectra Take a set of Top-Top TFs “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0

Goals OSEM Spectra of M0, R0 Motion, compare with Phases 2c, 3a, 3b, with BSC-ISI/HEPI in various states (ON/OFF, Damping ON/OFF, Low/High Perf, etc. etc.) M3 Motion measured by IFO, compare with Phases 2c, 3a, 3b, OpLev, with BSC-ISI/HEPI in various states (ON/OFF, Damping ON/OFF, Low/High Perf, etc. etc.) Calibrated M0 to TST transfer functions, measured by IFO Calibrated L1 to UIM, PUM, and TST transfer functions using UIM driver, measured by IFO Calibrated L2 to PUM and TST transfer functions using PUM driver, measured by IFO Calibrated L3 to TST transfer functions, using ESD driver, measured by IFO Calibrated BSC-ISI STG2 to M3 Transfer Functions measured by IFO Measure Fiber Violin modes with IFO Measure Acoustic Modes with IFO Length – to –Angle measurements / decoupling Test Mass Charging/Discharging measurements with ESD Ring Heater Performance Design/Install High performance Damping Filters, performance measured with IFO Experiment with Heirarchical Control / Offloading to BSC-ISI Experiment with Modal Damping Commissioning In-Chamber, as part of IFO 01/18/13 12G v5 “Top to Top” = M0 to M0 & R0 to R0