Listed below are the past 10 day trends. For further in-depth analysis, please refer to Jason O., Pete K. or Rick S.

Tried the following:

• Open awggui
• Choose H1:ASC-CHARD_P_EXC
• Frequency: 6.1 Hz
• Amplitude: 1 ct
• Gain: 0 ct, ramp 1 s, hit "set"
• Hit "set/run"
• Choose gain of 1 ct, hit "set"
• No counts are seen in H1:ASC-CHARD_P_EXCMON

Also applies to a range of other ASC channels, like CHARD_Y_EXC, INP2_P_EXC, CHARD_P_A_EXC, etc.

I tried an excitation in LSC-XARM_EXC and it worked fine.

I tried awg clear 19 * in the diag terminal; no change.

Am I missing something here?

0:59 UTC Kyle back from mid Y

Early in the evening I had to trend and move back the IMC PZT offsets to get the IMC to lock.
Commissioners have been working on RF90 centering.

Jenne, Hang, Ketia, Sheila, Kiwamu, Matt, Lisa, Robb, Evan, everyone in the control room...

today we mostly focused on RF centering.  

We made two model changes:

•  normalize the RF centering signals by their sums
•  adding the I+Q phases in quadrature to for each quadrant so that we will not have to worry about phasing 

We noticed that our normal DC centering loops for the AS port have eveloved to a bad state. In the end we have had about 5 degrees of phase margin and 40dB gain peaking in these loops with the nominal settings we used durring O1.  

We reduced the gain and switched over to 90 MHz centering.  The input matrix that resulted in an upper ugf around 2 Hz for all 4 loops is attached.  The next four attachments are OLG measurements of the centering loops, the blue curves are for the DC centering with the nominal settings used for O1, the red ones are with the input matrix shown in the attached screenshot.  

After adjusting the gains of the RF loops, we closed the BS pitch loop using AS36AQ (our normal sensor).  The closed loop response of the centering loop is clearly a feature of the MICH loop with this centering, as the 6th screenshot shows.  When we are on the DC centering, changing the bandwidth of the centering loops didn't change the shape of the MICH loop, but clearly it does with the RF centering, which must be responding to BS.  FOr the time being I turned off the ELF20Hz (a low pass in the centering loops), which gives us more phase and less gain peaking,  so that our MICH loops still seem stable.  This results in the OLG shown in purple in the 6th attachment.  The Yaw OLG is the 7th attachment.  (The MICH digital gains here were 0.8 for pit and 0.7 for yaw, our nominal settings are 0.7 for both, which is probably fine.)

We left the AS36I to SRM loop open and locked the IFO (including the DRMI on POP state which has coil drivers switching and caused problems last week) without any problems.  I checked that the MICH YAW gain was the same in full lock as it was in DRMI.  In engage ASC part 2 a 5Hz low pass is engaged on the MICH loop, this was not stable and blew the lock.  I've commented this out of the guardian for now. The next two locking attempts failed, AS90 dropped as we came into resonance and never recovered, which could be due to the SRC loop being open, or a problem with MICH loop.  I've saved an SDF snap with the current settings as ASC_progress_March3evening.snap

To sumarize changes:

• MICH P and Y FM5 are no longer engaged in ENGAGE_ASC_PART2
• ELF20s are off in DC3 and DC4 loops
• input matrix for DC3+4 is as in the screenshot
• We are manually not letting the SRC1 loops come on.

The next step is probably to open the MICH ASC loops after they have run in DRMI, and check in full lock that the lock point is still good.  It is clear that there is a difference between DC centering and RF centering when we reduce the CARM offset.  

C. Cahillane

I have been working on a preliminary calibration uncertainty budget for the parameter estimation group to come up with something more sophisticated than "10% and 10 degrees" spline fitting that is currently done.

The plot below shows my attempt at a numerical budget.  I have imported my analytical budget for simplicity of comparison.  They are the dark red lines.  Dashed lines represent the uncertainty envelope.  
What is plotted is the C01/C03 response function.  The deviations from 1 (mag) or 0 (phase) represent the systematic differences between our model and our measurements between our C01 (uncorrected) and C03 (perfect) calibration versions.
The light red dots illustrate the 100-iteration MC performed.  
These MCs were performed in the following way: The response function is a function of 14 parameters [R(f) = R(f|a1,a2,a3,...,a14)].  Each of these a_i have an associated uncertainty sigma_a_i.  
The person running the MC supplies 14 random samples from a 0-mean 1-std Gaussian distribution.  I take these random samples, multiply it by sigma_a_i, then alter a_i by the result [a_i_new = a_i + rand * sigma_a_i].  Then I recalculate the response function using a_i_new.  That gives me a single light red line.

The dark grey lines are the median (dots) and 1 sigma deviations from the median.  The deviations are found by looking for the 68% confidence interval.  For example, in this 100 iteration example, I look for the innermost 68 points and plot the limits on this as my "numerical envelope".  This envelope agrees fairly well with my analytical envelope.  If I increase the number of iterations the envelope should collapse to my analytical uncertainty envelope.

See the LLO Numerical Uncertainty Budget (LLO aLOG 25104)

Kyle, Chandra

1520 -1655 hrs local -> To and from Y-mid 

LN2 @ exhaust 3 min 5 secs with 1/2 turn open.  Next overfill to be Sat. 3/5 before 4:00 pm local.  

Since the ISI will trip its watchdog when the suspension it carries trips, a path to the particular tripped suspension seems convenient.  This already existed for the HAMs and I've now added it to the BSC ISIs.

On the ISI OVERVIEW medm, there is a Payload button in the middle left.  This will be ringed in red if the suspension is either tripped or its model stopped.   The PAYLOAD medm has a link to the suspension(s) (very convenient for the likes of HAM2,) and an override button.  If the SUS model is not running, the operator can hit the override button and untrip the ISI watchdog.  The override does not work for a running suspension.  The attached shows the medms.

Had to add sus variables to get the correct SUS medms to the ISI overview_macro files:

hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$ pwd
/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isi/h1/medm/bscisi
hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$  svn commit -m "Added sus medm style for payload display"
Sending        bscisi/H1_isibs_overview_macro.txt
Sending        bscisi/H1_isietmx_overview_macro.txt
Adding         bscisi/H1_isietmy_overview_macro.txt
Sending        bscisi/H1_isiitmx_overview_macro.txt
Sending        bscisi/H1_isiitmy_overview_macro.txt
Transmitting file data .....
Committed revision 12788.
hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$

And, edited two ISI medms:

hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$ pwd
/opt/rtcds/userapps/release/isi/common/medm/bscisi
hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$ svn commit -m "Completing links to SUS medm via PAYLOAD"
Sending        bscisi/ISI_CUST_CHAMBER_OVERVIEW.adl
Sending        bscisi/ISI_CUST_CHAMBER_PAYLOADMON.adl
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 12789.
hugh.radkins@opsws10:bscisi 0$

Added 72 channels. Removed 152 channels. Changes attached.

State of H1: down, reboots, locking to resume

Shift Summary:

Site Activities:

• Kyle to mids and LVEA
• Karen to LVEA and optics lab
• Kiwamu to Hartman Sensor table
• landscapers - worked clearing the roads on both arms
• Bubba/Nicole - LVEA and optics lab in OSB

Reboots/Restarts:

• DAC
• ASC model
• Verbal Alarms

Environment:

• Winds to 35mph - visible on 0.03-0.1Hz monitor
• Earthquake R waves arrived around 22:00UTC, making locking impossible for a while - visible on 0.03-0.1Hz monitor
• useism is below 5um/s

Current Status:

• Commissioners working on relocking

New code was restarted on h1asc. Because ch11 of dac1 was offloaded from the h1ascimc model over to the h1asc model, I first had to kill both models and then cleanly restart them to avoid two models using the same DAC channel. The h1asc model added and removed slow channels in the DAQ, so a DAQ restart was performed at 16:00PST.

I checked out the hardware/software we need for implementing POP_X:

• The WFS sensor head is available and "stored" on ISCT6
  needs to be moved to ISCT1 with some additional optics and a PZT steering mirror
• The WFS power supply is the one for REFLAIR_A (3rd channel of WFS interface chassis in R4)
• The DC signals are hooked-up to the DAQ and readout in the ASC model
• The entire demod chain (original REFL leapfrog) is available, powered up and read by the DAQ
• The in-rack RF cable for the 36MHz demod is being made
• The WFS cables will be taken from a REFL WFS (REFL_B 45 seems to reach/R2)
• We need to mount an MCL controller on top of ISCT1, requires power
• The feedthrough panel is on order as well as the required DB9 cables
• The cables between the MCL controller and the DE2SE converter in R1 are being made
• The h1asc model was updated to send the pit and yaw signals to the DAC channels
  (these channels were removed from the h1imcasc model, where they were hooked up, but not used)
  The models have been build, but not installed
• Some medm screens need to be updated

Documents:

• Issue tracker: 1128
• ISCT1 optical table: D1201103
• ISCT1 feedthroughs: D1201331
• ISCT1 rack mounting: D1201499
• RF distribution: E1100591
• DAQ channel assignment: T1100472
• Cable pull list: E1200408

Last Friday, the STS2-A near HAM2 had its igloo installed.  The masses still look well centered.  Attached is a view of the three LVEA instruments' ASD and coherence with each other.  The thin current traces are from 0100utc when wind and seismic was minimal; the thick reference traces are from a week ago.

The improved thermal state of the HAM2 unit is evident on the Z dof where all sensors follow each other well and the coherence is much improved especially below 40mHz.

However, HAM2's Y & X performance at low frequency but especially the Y dof, show that HAM2 continues to have a problem even though Quanterra had the machine in their vault for a month and could not determine an issue.  Since the Z signal is determined from all 3 masses, it suggests the problem might be in electronics converting U V W to Y and X.

The Z coherence plot suggests the HAM2 and HAM5 Z dofs are doing well but ITMY Z dof is flakey.  The Y coherence indicates the HAM5 and ITMY Y dofs are okay but the HAM2 Y is not.  The X coherence suggests the HAM2 is better than the ITMY as ITMY has worse coherence with both HAM2 & 5.

So summary:

The HAM2 unit, STS2-A does not work well in Y and is marginally better in X; it is good in Z.

The ITMY unit, STS2-B, does not work well in Z or X but is tolerable in Y.

The STS2-C, HAM5 unit works best even though we have to surmise X since both other units are poor in that dof.  Jim would agree based on detchar and sensor correction performance.

Plotting the cross-correlated DARM noise (band 5) and LEVA temperature on the same plot doesn't show any obvious relationship.  The .fig is included in case someone has a good idea of how to use this data.

I've been slowly trying to get stuff figured out for testing a wind fence set up at LHO, and am getting ready to try to set something up. I'll summarize where I think things are here.

Currently, I want to try a small, cheap wind fence at EX, mostly to explore how effective screens are at slowing wind, effects on ground motion and tumbleweed build up. The fence would be a couple of 4x4-ish 12-15 foot posts and some fine polymer netting like that used around tennis courts, gardens and the like. It may be necessary to add guy lines, as well.  In addition to the fence, Richard has said he will help me get an STS buried at EX, similar to Robert's set up at EY, and we are ordering 3 anemometers with stand alone data collection so no changes need to be made to CDS for this. I think this set up will allow me to look at a few of the concerns that people have brought up. So far the concerns I've heard are:

1. Increased ground motion. Fences slow wind by applying a force to the airstream, this is transmitted to the ground and produces increased tilt and other high frequency motion. I think the tilt can be addressed by placing the fence some few tens of meters from the building, per Robert's measurements of building tilt. Higher frequency motion can hopefully be addressed by design of the fence support structure, but we'll have to see how bad the motion is.

2. Similarly, the fence could make airflow more turbulent. I suspect that airflow at the building level is probably turbulent anyway. Hopefully, a well designed fence push turbulent flows around the building, while slowing most of the air makes it through.

3. Tumbleweed build up. Anything that blocks the wind will gather tumbleweeds around here, which could make a fence a fire hazard and maintenance issue.  This  could be addressed by leaving a gap at the bottom. The airflow below a few feet probably isn't a significant source of problems for us, but I don't know how big this gap would need to be. I also plan on using a mesh fine enough that tumbleweeds won't stick to the fence very easily. Industrial fences are flame resistant, and won't ignite on their own.

4. Wind damage. We have seen winds above 100 mph during a storm, this would create very high loads on any fence. I haven't been able to figure out how to calculate wind loads on a permeable wall yet, but Civil Engineers have building codes dealing with this. For my test, I'm trying to get some idea of the loads involved with moderatewind, and just making the fence so that the mesh will tear free in a way that won't damage the EX building if the wind gets too bad. Industrial fences are designed to stand similar wind loads, and their screens are held in place with replaceable break-away clips to prevent damage.

5. Cost/size. BrianL talked to a company that makes industrial fences a few months ago. The ball park figure for a 40 x 200 foot fence was about $250,000. That was a first pass at a price and the company had some suggestions at how to cut down on the cost. This price also needs to be weighed against the 10-15 % of down time we have due to wind. Something of that size would also probably have to be approved by the DOE. It's also unclear if we would have to completely surround each endstation, or if we could get away with less coverage. Probably, we don't need to "protect" EY along the X-axis, or EX along the Y-axis.

Comments, criticism, praise are all welcome.

svn up at .../SusSVN/sus/trunk/QUAD/Common/MatlabTools/QuadModel_Production/

Updates:

1) Added an option for optical lever damping that actuates at the PUM (L2) stage. Like top mass damping, this can be imported from the sites, or added in locally.

2) Added options for violin modes at all stages. Previously this was only available for the fibers. You can choose how many modes you want at each stage, doesn't have to be the same number.

3) Added an option to load damping from a variable in the matlab workspace. Previously this could only be done from a saved file or imported from the sites.

Detailed instructions fpr generate_QUAD_Model_Production.m are commented into the header. See G1401132 for a summary of the features, and some basic instructions on running the model.

I am tagging this to the svn now as

quadmodelproduction-rev7995_ssmake4pv2eMB5f_fiber-rev3601_h1etmy-rev7915_released-2016-03-01.mat

...the file is large (386 MB) so it is slow to upload.

The tagged model includes 25 violin modes for the fibers, 20 for the uim-pum wire, 15 for the top-uim wire, and 10 for the top-most wire. For the 25 fiber violin modes, the first 8 are based on measured frequencies from h1etmy, the remainder are modeled frequencies. All metal wire modes are modeled values. The oplev filters are turned off in this model as well (I imported the filters from LHO, and they were turned off at the time).

For reference, this is a summary of the history of model revisions in the svn:

* generate_QUAD_Model_Production.m

rev 7359: now reads foton files for main chain and reaction damping

rev 7436: Changed hard coded DAMP gains to get the correct values for LHO ETMX specifically.

rev 7508: Restored damping filter choice for P to level 2.1 filters as opposed to Keita's modification. Cleaned up error checking code on foton filter files, and allowed handling of filter archive files and files with the full path.

rev 7639: renaming lho etmy parameter file

rev 7642: Adding custom parameter file for each quad. Each one is a copy of h1etmy at this point, since that one has the most available data.

rev 7646: added ability to read live filters from sites, and ability to load custom parameter files for each suspension

rev 7652: updated to allow damping filters from sites from a specific gps time (in addition to the live reading option)

planned future revision - seismic noise will progate through the damping filters as in real life. i.e the OSEMs are relative sensors and measure the displacement between the cage and the suspension.

rev 7920: big update - added sus point reaction forces, top OSEMs act between cage and sus, replaced append/connect command with simulink files

rev 7995: added oplev damping with actuation at the PUM (L2); added options for violin modes at all stages, rather than just for the fibers; added option to load damping from a variable in the workspace, in addition to the existing features of loading damping from a previously saved or importing from sites.

* ssmake4pv2eMB5f_fiber.m

no recent (at least 4 years) functional changes have been made to this file.

* quadopt_fiber.m

- rev 2731: name of file changed to quadopt_fiber.m, removing the date to avoid confusion with Mark Barton's Mathametica files.

- rev 6374: updated based on H1ETM fit in 10089.

- rev 7392: updated pend.ln to provide as-built CM heights according to T1500046

- rev 7912: the update described in this log, where the solidworks values for the inertias of the test mass and pum were put into the model, and the model was then refit.  Same as h1etmy.m.

* h1etmy.m

- rev 7640: created the H1ETMY parameter file based on the fit discussed in 10089.

- rev 7911: the update described in this log, where the solidworks values for the inertias of the test mass and pum were put into the model, and the model was then refit. Same as quadopt_fiber.m.

Attached are 7 day pitch, yaw, and sum trends for all active H1 optical levers.