Reports until 07:43, Monday 17 August 2015
H1 SEI (DetChar)
nairwita.mazumder@LIGO.ORG - posted 07:43, Monday 17 August 2015 - last comment - 07:35, Friday 04 September 2015(20589)
Seismic Noise Budget Model performance for ITMY
The attached pdf contains current Stage-1 and Stage-2 NB model performance of ITMY chamber for X,Y,Z and RZ dof. 

Fig 1- ST1 ITMY X
Low frequency near microseism model performance is limited by the ground blend filter (HEPI L4C+IPS)
1-5Hz frequency band is limited by GND-STS passing through the sensor correction path
5Hz and above (upto 10Hz say) is limited by Stage-2 back reaction
Below microseism model does not match with actual performance.       (May be because of some tilt coupling??  But it looks like actual measurement is limited by the sensor noises (T240/CPS) via isolation filter. - Not sure about it)

Fig 2- ST2 ITMY X
Instead of T240 BLND OUT,  I have used T240 BLND IN as the input (stage-1 displacement) to the ST-2 model.
Though the model and measured GS13 are in agreement above blend frequency (250mHz), the shape between 1-3Hz are not same. The model output looks more like the input signal T240 BLND IN.  May be a better input noise model will work better. 
Since the stage-2 model performance above ~1Hz is highly dependent on stage-1 displacement, we can san say that the Stage-2 back reaction on stage-1 can have effect on the final performance of the model. 
Fig 3 - ST1 ITMY Y

Most of the features and model performance are same as X dof.

Fig 4 - ST2 ITMY Y

Though this one is same as ST2 ITMY X only thing I have noticed here is the actual IFO ST1 performance is better than ST2  between ~ 300-500 mHz. 

Fig 5- ST1 ITMY Z

ST-1 model performance matches the actual measurement at almost all the frequency range of interest.  
The conclusions derived for ground model and Stage-2 back reaction hold here too.   

Fig 6- ST2 ITMY Z

Unlike X and Y dof, the model performance between 60 to 250 mHz is quite good (I am still trying to figure out why this sort of discrepancy exists between these dofs ???)
At the same time the mismatch between model and actual performance above 5Hz is noticeable. Model is over estimating the actual performance here (though the model has already included stage-2 back reaction in Stage-1)
Fig 7- ST1 ITMY RZ

Apart from the limitations of the model due to ground noise at low frequencies, the performance of this stage is mostly limited by CPS sensor noise via BLEND+ISO  path.

Fig 8- ST1 ITMY RZ
   
Please DO NOT go through this figure. Still need to sort out the problems.

   
Same sort of features can be seen in almost all the BSC chambers except BS where the stage-2 controllers are not in use. 
Non-image files attached to this report
Comments related to this report
nairwita.mazumder@LIGO.ORG - 07:35, Friday 04 September 2015 (21204)SEI
T240 and GS13 sensor noise floors are added to the seismic noise budget plots.
Non-image files attached to this comment