1. Vibration measurements with and without Monalisa 15/07/09 Benoît BOLZON (LAPP) David Urner (Oxford) Paul Coe (Oxford) 1 Benoît BOLZON

2. 2. Comparison of Monalisa vertical vibrations on the wood prototype: - with no pressure - with pressure but no regulation - with pressure and regulation  Goal: influence of regulation (too dangerous on real set-up) Outline 1. Relative motion calculation using representative absolute motion 3. Impact of Monalisa on vibrations (3 directions) between: - Shintake and QD0 with and without pressure - QD0 and QF1 with pressure  Comparison of measurements with/without Monalisa  Measurements without MONALISA have been repeated two weeks ago with cooling water flowing inside FD 4. Conclusion

3. 3 1. Calculation of relative motion using representative absolute motion measured at ATF2

4. Choice of a representative ground motion measured at ATF2 Choice of a high ground motion during shift period Friday 12/12/08 at 3pm  Above 0.2Hz: 218nm  Above 1Hz: 128nm Amplitude almost the same during 4 hours of shift  Choice of ground motion at 3pm representative 4 Relative motion calculation by taking this ground motion PSD gm H(k)= TF (SM/FD) PSD x (k)=TF (FD/floor) *PSD gm

5. 2. Comparison of Monalisa vibrations put on the wood prototype : - With no pressure - With pressure but no regulation - With pressure and regulation 5 Wood prototype only Wood prototype with Monalisa on it 3 MG102S accelerometers: On Shintake On QD0 On the floor

6. Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Coherence Transfer Function (TF) Magnitude Phase 6  No additional vibrations (TF magnitude)  No change in phase (TF phase and coherence) With the regulation system:

7. 7 Relative motion of Shintake to QD0  No influence of pressure and regulation on relative motion  If put on the real set-up which is really more rigid, results can not be different

8. 8 3. Impact of Monalisa on vibrations between: - Shintake and QD0 with and without pressure - QD0 and QF1 with pressure  Comparison of measurements with/without Monalisa Vibration measurements between Shintake and QD0 Vibration measurements between QD0 and QF1

9. 9 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Vertical direction  Almost same coherence: - With/without Monalisa - With/without pressure  Only difference: QD0 resonance slightly lower due to Monalisa weight - No Monalisa: 65.3Hz - With Monalisa: 60.3Hz  With Monalisa: Same transfer function with/without pressure

10. 10 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Vertical direction No pressure Transfer function measurements done during 4 hours the night (quiet)  Frequency resolution: 0.016Hz  Time resolution: 19 minutes Pressure Time Frequency Amplitude Frequency Amplitude Time Vibration measurements (with pressure in Monalisa) done simultaneously with frange measurements of SM  Same transfer function (with and without pressure) over time

11. 11 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Vertical direction  Below 4Hz: increase of relative motion due to not enough high SNR (coherence very close to 1: relative motion should not increase) Relative motion above 4Hz (should be the same than above 0.1Hz) :  Relative motion above 4Hz: - No Monalisa: 5.0nm - Monalisa with pressure: 5.7nm - Monalisa without pressure: 5.8nm Almost no change compared to tolerances

12. 12 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Direction parallel to the beam  Almost same coherence: - With/without Monalisa - With/without pressure  Only difference: QD0 resonance slightly lower due to Monalisa weight - No Monalisa: 18.0Hz - With Monalisa: 16.6Hz  With Monalisa: Same transfer function with/without pressure

13. 13 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Direction parallel to the beam  Same relative motion with/without Monalisa (even better with Monalisa above 7Hz)  Same relative motion with/without pressure in Monalisa

14. 14 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Direction perpendicular to the beam  Almost same coherence: - With/without Monalisa - With/without pressure  QD0 resonance almost the same: - No Monalisa: 20.4Hz - With Monalisa: 19.2Hz  With Monalisa: Same transfer function with/without pressure  SM resonance higher with Monalisa (59.6Hz  55.0Hz): good!

15. 15 Vibration transmission between Shintake and QD0 Direction perpendicular to the beam  Same relative motion with/without Monalisa (even better with Monalisa above 10Hz)  Same relative motion with/without pressure in Monalisa

16. 16 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Vertical direction With Monalisa: QD0 and QF1 resonances slightly appear (factor 5) since QD0 resonant frequency is slightly lower (due to Monalisa weight) Without Monalisa: QD0/QF1 resonances almost do not appear (very thin peak) since:  their frequencies are almost the same  QD0/QF1 move in phase (very close to each other)

17. 17 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Vertical direction Relative motion increase of 2nm with Monalisa due to QD0/QF1 resonances (decrease of QD0 resonant frequency) : very low!  Solution: put a mass on QF1 to decrease its resonant frequency down to QD0 resonant frequency

18. 18 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Direction parallel to the beam With Monalisa: QD0/QF1 resonances slightly appear (factors 5) since QD0 resonant frequency is slightly lower (due to Monalisa weight) Without Monalisa: QD0/QF1 resonances almost do not appear (factors 2/3) since:  their frequencies are almost the same  QD0/QF1 move in phase (very close to each other)

19. 19 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Direction parallel to the beam Relative motion increase of 15nm with Monalisa due to QD0/QF1 resonant frequencies  Very low increase compared to tolerances (500nm)

20. 20 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Direction perpendicular to the beam With Monalisa: QD0/QF1 resonances slightly appear (factors 5 and 3) since QD0 resonant frequency is slightly lower (due to Monalisa weight) Without Monalisa: QD0/QF1 resonances almost do not appear (factor 2) since:  their frequencies are almost the same  QD0/QF1 move in phase (very close to each other)

21. 21 Vibration transmission between QD0 and QF1 Direction perpendicular to the beam Relative motion increase of 25nm with Monalisa due to QD0/QF1 resonant frequencies  Very low increase compared to tolerances (500nm)

22. 22 4. Conclusion

23. 23 With GM/flowing cooling water, relative motion of SM to QD0: ToleranceWithout Monalisa With Monalisa (Press/No press) Vertical 7 nm5.0nm5.7nm/5.8nm Perpendicular to beam ~ 500 nm16.7nm Parallel to the beam ~ 10,000 nm17.2nm  Tolerances still achieved with Monalisa (almost no influence)  N.B: No influence of the regulation system With GM/flowing cooling water, relative motion of QF1 to QD0: Without Monalisa With Monalisa and pressure Vertical 5.0nm7.0nm Perpendicular to the beam 8.9nm34.2nm Parallel to beam 10.9nm26.2nm In vertical direction: almost no influence of Monalisa In horizontal directions: still acceptable because of the large tolerances A solution: put a mass on QF1 to get same resonances than QD0 ones This is not an issue!!

24. 24 Analysis of transient vertical vibrations during pumping with Monalisa put on wood prototype ANNEXES

25. 25 Transfer function between Shintake and QD0  Vertical vibrations stationary during pumping when Monalisa put on the wood  If put on the real set-up which is really more rigid, results can not be different (or can be even better)  Frequency resolution: 2Hz  Time resolution: 1s