Reports 1-1 of 1 Clear search Modify search
VIS (EY)
lucia.trozzo - 18:40 Thursday 14 February 2019 (8088) Print this report
IP ETMY Position loop

After the investigation and the recovery of the ETMY suspension, today I started to work on the IP actuator diagonalization.

Here I report the informations about the ETMY diagonalization of the LVDT, acuators and IP position loops.

As reported in klog   7468,  in the interferometer  reference frame [X,Y], the position of each sensor is:

  • H1: a1=174 degree, 
  • H3 : a3=294
  • H2 : a2=54.

The projection of any horizontal motion of the Preisolator (with components L, T, Yaw)  on each horizontal LVDT is 

H_1 =  -L* cos (a1) -T *sin (a1) + R_h*Yaw

H_2 =  -L* cos (a2) -T *sin (a2) + R_h*Yaw

H_3 = -L* cos(a3) -T *sin (a3) + R_h*Yaw

 

where  R_h is the distance from the LVDT to the PI center (0.5940 m). 

The matrix S connecting  EUL to LVDT   as   [H0 H1 H2] = S* [L T, Yaw] is 
 
    -cos(a1)                   -sin(a1)                      R_h
    -cos (a2)                  -sin(a2)                      R_h
    -cos (a3)                  -sin(a3)                      R_h

and the sensing matrix  will be its inverse: S^-1

 

H1 H2 H3  
0.6630 -0.3919 -0.2712 L
-0.0697 -0.5393 0.6090 T
0.5612 0.5612 0.5612

Yaw
 

ETMY IP  driving matrix:

According to the entry 6118, to built the diagonalized virtual actuators,  I injected a line at 2 Hz for each coil:

new driving matrix (@2Hz): 

L T Yaw  
-2.4887 0.2149 -0.6127 H1
1.4549 1.949 -0.5803 H2
1.01180 -2.1816 -0.5896 H3
 
 

After diagonalizing the LVDT sensing and the driving, I measured again the IP TF (see Pic1) for each d.o.fs and I estimated the coupling as function of the frequency  (see Pic2):

1) we can see that the  mechanical couplings are very low (Pic2)

2) The IP mode along L is at 0.066 Hz (Pic1)

3) The IP mode along T is at 0.132 Hz (Pic1)

4) The IP mode along Y is at 0.4 Hz  (Pic1)

 I also implemented a position control loop for the longitudinal, transverse and yaw motion of the IP and I have also verified that it is  to move fast and smoothly all the three d.o.fs, by adding a offset.

 Pic3  show the fit of the diagonal TF for each d.o.fs and Pic 4 show the spectra of L,T,Y d.o.fs and respective rms  when the position control loops are open (red curve) and closed (green curve).

 
Details of the loops are reported below.

LONGITUDINAL

Mechanical TF (Fit)

Freq Q Pole or zero
0.0663 5 pole
0.156 30 zero
0.2107 40 pole
0.3906 140 zero
0.4531 50 pole
0.6016 50 zero
0.6562 50 pole
gain=-0.1190 freq_gain=0.0310 Hz  
 

Corrector filter

Freq Q pole/zero
0.001  Hz real pole
0.06    Hz 0.5 zero
5        Hz 0.7 pole
8       Hz 0.7 pole

UGF = 0.111 Hz (first cross)  phase margin= 41deg

TRANSVERSE

Mechanical TF (Fit)

Freq Q pole/zero
0.132 10 pole
0.156 380 zero
0.2422 10 pole
0.4141 100 zero
0.4453 80 pole
0.7188 30 zero
0.7578 60 pole
0.8203 40 zero
0.8359 40 pole
1.055 100 zero
1.07 90 pole
1.3670 200 zero
1.38 150 pole
GAIN = 0.00034 freq_gain= 2Hz  
     

GAIN = 0.00029 @ 2 Hz

Corrector filter

Freq Q pole/zero
0.001  Hz real pole
0.1    Hz 0.5 zero
5         Hz 0.7 pole
8      Hz 0.7 pole

UGF = 0.149 Hz (first cross)  phase margin= 38deg

YAW 

Mechanical TF (Fit)

Freq Q pole/zero
0.4141 50 pole
Gain=-0.0078 freq_gain=0.039  

Corrector filter

Freq Q pole/zero
0.001 real pole
0.35 real zero
0.4 0.5 zero
5 0.7 pole
8 0.7 pole

UGF = 0.320 Hz  (first cross) phase margin= 163deg

Note that the three mechanical TFs  have been also copied in photon as 'SUSMod', to make easier the adjustment of the loop parameters.

Images attached to this report
Comments to this report:
yoshinori.fujii - 20:14 Thursday 14 February 2019 (8094) Print this report

Can I ask the reason why the lowest resonant frequecy of IP-T transfer function was so different from that of IP-L? and the difference of the Q-factor of it as well?

Search Help
×

Warning

×