40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log  Not logged in ELOG logo
Entry  Tue Oct 8 08:08:18 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, PEM BLRMS anomaly PEManomaly.png
    Reply  Wed Oct 23 11:49:21 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, PEM BLRMS anomaly seisAll_20191021.pdfspecGrams.zip
       Reply  Thu Oct 24 18:37:15 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, T240 checkout 
          Reply  Tue Nov 5 12:37:50 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, T240 interface unit pulled out T240_recenter.pdfffPotential.pdf
             Reply  Wed Nov 13 19:34:45 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisAll_20191111.pdfffPotential.pdf
                Reply  Wed Nov 13 20:15:56 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                   Reply  Wed Nov 13 23:40:15 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisAll_20191111_1Hz.pdf
                      Reply  Thu Nov 14 12:11:04 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                      Reply  Fri Nov 15 00:18:41 2019, rana, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion MCshake.pdf
                         Reply  Fri Nov 15 12:16:48 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion BS_ZspecGram.pdf.zip
                            Reply  Mon Nov 18 14:32:53 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion 
                               Reply  Tue Nov 19 21:53:57 2019, gautam, Update, PEM, Follow-up on seismometer discussion seisxSpec.pdf
Message ID: 15036     Entry time: Tue Nov 19 21:53:57 2019     In reply to: 15032
Author: gautam 
Type: Update 
Category: PEM 
Subject: Follow-up on seismometer discussion 

The shaking started earlier today than yesterday, at ~9pm local time.

While the IFO is shaking, I thought (as Jan Harms suggested) I'd take a look at the cross-spectra between our seismometer channels at the dominant excitation frequency, which is ~1.135 Hz. Attachment #1 shows the phase of the cross spectrum taken for 10 averages (with 30mHz resolution) during the time period when the shaking was strong yesterday (~1500 seconds with 50% overlap). The logic is that we can use the relative phasing between the seismometer channels to estimate the direction of arrival and hence, the source location. However, I already see some inconsistencies - for example, the relative phase between BS_Z and EX_Z suggests that the signal arrives at the EX seismometer first. But the phasing between EX_Y and BS_Y suggests the opposite. So maybe my thinking about the problem as 3 co-located sensors measuring plane-wave disturbances originating from the same place is too simplistic? Moreover, Koji points out that for two sensors separated by ~40m, for a ground wave velocity of 1.5 km/s, the maximum phase delay we should see between sensors is 30 msec, which corresponds to ~10 degrees of phase. I guess we have to undo the effects of the phasing in the electronics chain.

Does anyone have some code that's already attempted something similar that I can put the data through? I'd like to not get sucked into writing fresh code.

🤞 this means that the shaking is over for today and I get a few hours of locking time later today evening.

Another observarion is that even after the main 1.14 Hz peak dies out, there is elevated seismic acitivity reported by the 1-3 Hz BLRMS band. This unfortunately coincides with some stack resonance, and so the arm cavity transmission reports greater RIN even after the main peak dies out. Today, it seems that all the BLRMS return to their "nominal" nighttime levels ~10 mins after the main 1.14 Hz peak dies out.

Attachment 1: seisxSpec.pdf  5 kB  | Show | Show all
ELOG V3.1.3-