40m QIL Cryo_Lab CTN SUS_Lab TCS_Lab OMC_Lab CRIME_Lab FEA ENG_Labs OptContFac Mariner WBEEShop
  40m Log, Page 317 of 344  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Author Type Categoryup Subject
  16703   Sat Mar 5 02:03:46 2022 KojiUpdateSUSETMY 1Y4 Electronics Replacement

Oplev saga


- The new coil driver had not enough alignment range to bring the oplev beam back to the QPD center
- The coil driver output R was reduced from 1.2k to 1.2k//100 = 92.3 +/- 0.4 Ohm
- Now the oplev spot could be moved to the center of the QPD

- The damping gains (POS/PIT/YAW) and the oplev gains were reduced by a factor of 1/10.
- The damping and the oplev servos work now. Fine gain tuning is necessary.

To Do:
- DC value / TF measurements
- Adjust damping gains
- RFM issue
- Connection check
- Cable labeling

== Alignment Range ==

- Since c1auxey was removed, we no longer have C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_COMM and C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_COMM. At this moment, all the alignment is taken with the offset input from the fast real-time system via C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_OFFSET and C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_OFFSET.

- The oplev spot could not be moved on the center of the QPD without exceeding the DAC output range (~+ or -32000) for the coils. (Attachment 1)

- This is because the old system had a slow but large current range (Rout = 100) and a small current range for the fast control. Until we commission the new HV BIAS Driver, we have to deal with the large DC current with the HAM-A coil driver.

== Modification to the output resistances ==

The following units and the channels were modified. Each channel had a differential current driver and two output resistances of 1.2K. 100Ohm (OHMITE 43F100, 3W) wire wound resistors were added to them in parallel, making the resulting output R of ~92Ohm.

- ETMY HAM A Coil Driver 1: S2100622 (Attachments 2/3) CH1/2/3
- ETMY HAM A Coil Driver 2: S2100621 (Attachments 4/5) CH3

- This modification allowed me to align the oplev spot to the center of the QPD. C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_OFFSET and C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_OFFSE are +2725 (8%FS) and -2341 (7%FS), respectively.
- The previous alignment slider values were -0.9392 and 0.7615 (out of 10). These are the reasonable numbers, considering the change of the Rout from 100 to 92Ohm, and the sign flip.
(By the way, autoBurt files for c1auxex and c1auxey were not properly configured and the history of C1:SUS-ETM*_*_COMM was not recorded.)

== Damping Servos ==

- Now, the POS/PIT/YAW servos experience ~x10 gains. So temporarily these gains were reduced (POS 20->2, PIT 6->0.6, YAW 4->0.4) and the loops are stable when engaged.
- Also the gains of the OPLEV servos were reduced from -4.5 to -0.45. The loops are stable when engaged.

== Snapshot of the working condition ==

Attachent 6 shows the screenshot for the snapshot of the working condition.

To Do

- The damping servos were tested without proper PD whitening compensation.
  -> It turned out this is not necessary as our modified PD whitening has the pole and zero at the same freqs as before.

- Compare the DC values of the OSEM outputs and compensate for the gain increase by the "cts2um" filter.

- The end RTS suffers from the RFM issue. There is no data transmitted from the vertex to the end. I suspect we need to restart the c1rfm process. But this will likely suspend all the vertex real-time machines. Careful execution is necessary.

- c1iscey has all the necessary analog connections. But they are not tested. When we lock the green/IR cavity, we'll need them.

- The cable labeling is only half done.

Attachment 1: oplev_spot.jpg
Attachment 2: PXL_20220305_090003837.jpg
Attachment 3: PXL_20220305_090023436.jpg
Attachment 4: PXL_20220305_091232290.jpg
Attachment 5: PXL_20220305_091306604.MP.jpg
Attachment 6: Screenshot_2022-03-05_01-37-26.png
  16709   Mon Mar 7 16:44:15 2022 Ian MacMillanUpdateSUSETMY SUS Electronics Replacement

Now that the ETMSUS is back up and running I reran my measurements from the beginning of the process. The results below show a change in gain between the before and after measurements. I have given values of the low-frequency section below.

Average Gain difference from the TFs: 18.867  (excluding thee side change)

  Before After Gain difference
UL -31 dB -5 dB 19.952
UR -36 dB -10 dB 19.952
LR -27 dB -2 dB 17.782
LL -37 dB -12 dB 17.782
SIDE -48 dB -45 dB 1.412

I also am noting the new values for the OSEM DC output: average gain increase: 9.004

OSEM DC OFFSET Before DC OFFSET After Gain increase
UL 557 5120 9.19
UR 568 5111 8.99
LR 780 7041 9.02
LL 385 3430 8.91
SD 328 2922 8.91

In addition, the oplev position was:

  Before After
 OPLEV_PERROR -16.055 -16.715
 OPLEV_YERROR -6.667 -16.597

All data and settings have been included in the zip file

From the average gain increase of the TFs which indicates the increase of the whole system and the increase in gain from the OSEM we can calculate the gain from the actuators.

18.867/9.004 = 2.09

thus the increase in gain on the actuator is about 2.09

EDIT: I updated the side TF with one with better SNR. I increased the excitation amplitude.

Attachment 1: UR_TF_Graph.pdf
Attachment 2: UL_TF_Graph.pdf
Attachment 3: LR_TF_Graph.pdf
Attachment 4: LL_TF_Graph.pdf
Attachment 5: SD_TF_Graph.pdf
Attachment 6: 20220307_SUSElectronicsAfterTests.zip
  16722   Thu Mar 10 10:05:49 2022 PacoUpdateSUSAS1 free swing test

[Paco, Ian]

  • Begin free swinging test for AS1 at 10:05 AM, set for ~ 2.04 hours.
    • Test failed because damping failed to disable.
  • Restart free swinging test for AS1 at 15:06, set for 2.04 hours.
    • Success (Attachment #1 shows the DOF input matrix diagonalization effect)

Of slight concern is the side to other degrees of freedom coupling, but this is definitely an improvement from last time.

Attachment 1: SUS_Input_Matrix_Diagonalization.pdf
  16723   Fri Mar 11 16:43:03 2022 Ian MacMillanUpdateSUSETMY SUS Electronics Replacement

I updated the gain of the ct2um filter on the OSEMS for ETMY and decreased their gain by a factor of 9 from 0.36 to 0.04.

I added a filter called "gain_offset" to all the coils except for side and added a gain of 0.48.

together these should negate the added gain from the electronics replacement of the ETMY

  16731   Thu Mar 17 11:40:41 2022 PacoUpdateSUSETMY green PZT HV supply

[Anchal, Paco]

We installed a HV kepco power supply for the green PZT steering the YAUX beam. We did this in anticipation of the YARM alignment to take place this afternoon. We borrowed an unused DC power supply labeled "OMC Power spply" and made an appropriate SMA connection (Attachment #1), Then we set the Vset to 100.0 Volts and the current limit to 10 mA. Once we enabled the output we saw the 5.6 mA of current drawn by the eurocard in accordance with the wiki log (Attachment #2). 

It may not be possible to use the PZT as per this so this work may not have a direct impact on our upcoming alignment task.

We probably bumped the ethernet cable (martian network) on c1iscey, so the FE models stopped showing up on the medm screens. When we connected it back, it seemed like the FE kept running the model and only IPC showed error. We restarted the rtcds models on c1iscey and burtrestored to today morning 5:19 am.

burtwb -f /cvs/cds/rtcds/caltech/c1/burt/autoburt/today/05:19/c1scyepics.snap -l /tmp/controls_1220317_115006_0.write.log -o /tmp/controls_1220317_115006_0.nowrite.snap -v

ETMY is properly damping now and the oplev is roughly centered as well but the OPLEV Servos are off. We did not turn them on.
We should be able to carry out our cavity arm alignment today afternoon on both arms now.

  16738   Mon Mar 21 14:22:52 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSETMY Alignmnet offsets needed to be changed

I'm not sure why but the PIT and YAW offset values of +2725 and -2341 were not sufficient for the reflected OPLEV beam to reach the OPLEV QPD. I had to change the C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_OFFSET to 5641 and C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_OFFSET to -4820 to come back to center of the OPLEV QPD. We aligned the Oplevs to center before venting, so hopefully this is our desired ETMY position.

On another note, the issue of ETMY unable to damp was simple. The alignment offsets were on to begin with with values above 1000. This meant that whenever we enabled coil output, ETMY would necessarily get a kick. All I had to do was keep alignment offsets off before starting the damping and slowly increase the alignment offsets to desired position.


- This modification allowed me to align the oplev spot to the center of the QPD. C1:SUS-ETMY_PIT_OFFSET and C1:SUS-ETMY_YAW_OFFSE are +2725 (8%FS) and -2341 (7%FS), respectively.

  16743   Fri Mar 25 11:39:14 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSETMY SUS Electronics Replacement - Questions

After Ian updated the cts2um filters for OSEM, shouldn't the damping gains be increased back by factor of 10 to previos values? Was the damping gain for SIDE ever changed? we found it at 250.

Can you explain why gain_offset filter was required and why this wasn't done for the side coil?


I updated the gain of the ct2um filter on the OSEMS for ETMY and decreased their gain by a factor of 9 from 0.36 to 0.04.

I added a filter called "gain_offset" to all the coils except for side and added a gain of 0.48.

together these should negate the added gain from the electronics replacement of the ETMY


  16746   Mon Mar 28 16:25:34 2022 Ian MacMillanUpdateSUSETMY SUS Electronics Replacement - Questions

The point of changing the gains was to return the system to its origional state. ie I wanted the over all gain of the physical components to be the same as when we started. From the CDS side of things nothing else should be changed. The damping filters should remain at their origional values. The cts2um filter was changed to counteract a change in the electronics (replacing them). These changes should cancel eachother out. As for the side control, on 3/4/22 koji reduced the output resistors for the 4 face OSEMs but did not change the the SD one. there fore the SD did not need the same adjustment as the others.


After Ian updated the cts2um filters for OSEM, shouldn't the damping gains be increased back by factor of 10 to previos values? Was the damping gain for SIDE ever changed? we found it at 250.

Can you explain why gain_offset filter was required and why this wasn't done for the side coil?


I updated the gain of the ct2um filter on the OSEMS for ETMY and decreased their gain by a factor of 9 from 0.36 to 0.04.

I added a filter called "gain_offset" to all the coils except for side and added a gain of 0.48.

together these should negate the added gain from the electronics replacement of the ETMY



  16748   Tue Mar 29 17:35:54 2022 PacoUpdateSUSDamping fix on BS, AS4, PR2, and PR3

[Ian, Paco]

  • We removed the "cheby" filters from AS4, PR2 and PR3 which had been misplaced after copying from the old SUS models. After removing them, the new SOS damped fine. Note that because of the Input matrices, the filters have to be enabled all at once for the MIMO loop to make sense.
  • We also disabled the "Cheby" filter on BS and saw it damp better. We don't understand this yet, but perhaps it's just a consequence of the many changes in the BSC that have rendered this filter obsolete.
  • we also reduced the damping gains on PR2, PR3 and AS4 to prevent overflow values. After the adjustments the optics were damping fine.
  16791   Wed Apr 20 16:11:08 2022 KojiUpdateSUSOutpur resistors updated for LO1 coil drivers / for SR2, LO2, AS1, and AS4 in progress

[JC Koji]

To give more alignment ranges for the SUS alignment, we started updating the output resistors of the BHD SUS coil drivers.
As Paco has already started working on LO1 alignment, we urgently updated the output Rs for LO1 coil drivers.
LO1 Coil Driver 1 now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3, and LO1 Coil Driver 2 has the same mod only for CH3. JC has taken the photos and will upload/update an elog/DCC.

We are still working on the update for the SR2, LO2, AS1, and AS4 coil drivers. They are spread over the workbench right now. Please leave them as they're for a while.
JC is going to continue to work on them tomorrow, and then we'll bring them back to the rack.

Attachment 1: IMG_0527.jpeg
Attachment 2: IMG_0528.jpeg
Attachment 3: IMG_0529.jpeg
Attachment 4: IMG_0530.jpeg
Attachment 5: IMG_0531.jpeg
Attachment 6: IMG_0532.jpeg
  16795   Thu Apr 21 15:22:44 2022 KojiUpdateSUSOutpur resistors updates for SR2, LO2, AS1, and AS4 done

[JC Koji]

Quick report: JC has done all the mods for the coil driver circuit in the morning and we worked on the reinstallation of them in the afternoon.
I'll check the damping loops / sus servo settings. JC is going to make an ELOG entry and DCC updates for more precise record of the mods.

  16873   Wed May 25 16:38:27 2022 yutaUpdateSUSSuspensions quick health check

[JC, Yuta]

We did a quick health check of suspesions after the pump down.

 - ITMX LRSEN is too bright (~761) and not responding to any optic motions (we knew this before the pump down)
 - ITMY ULCOIL is not working
 - LO1 LLCOIL is not working
 - Damping loops need to be retuned, especially for ETMY (too much damping), SRM, PR3 and AS4 (damping too weak)
 - MC1 sensor outputs are minus instead of plus
 - LO2 OSEMs got stuck during the pump down, but now it is free after some kicks. OSEM sensorr values almost came back (see attached)

What we did:
 1. Kicked optics with C1:SUS-{optic}_{UL,LL,UR,LR,SD}COIL_OFFSET one by one with offsets of +/- 10000 (or 100000), and checked if C1:SUS-{optic}_{UL,LL,UR,LR,SD}SEN_OUT16 move in both directions.

 2. Check if the optic damps nicely.

 3. Attached photo of the note is the result.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-05-25_16-46-13.png
Attachment 2: OSEMcheck.JPG
  16891   Mon Jun 6 09:37:16 2022 JCUpdateSUSInMatCalc

[Paco, JC]

Paco and I attempted to calculate the input matrices from May 24, 2022, but the OSEM data was all saturated and not very useful. Therefore, we decided to manually investigate the appropriate coil offsets for all BHD SUS. Before, the default offset kick was 30000 counts, but we found that LO1, AS1, AS4, and PR2 cannot take more than 5000 counts. As for LO2, SR2, and PR3 cannot take more than 2000 counts before saturating. Note that all these kick test were taken by kicking OSEM UL on all BHD Optics.


We started the freeSwing.py script on tmux freeSwing session for tomorrow at 1:00 am for only the 5000 count offset SUS.


  16896   Tue Jun 7 17:26:21 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery not solved

[Paco, Yuta]

We investigated the ITMY ULCOIL issue (40m/16873).
ULSEN is sensing the optic motion but ULCOIL cannot move the optic.
We confirmed that the coil input is there upto satellite amplifier output.
We also checked that ULCOIL have 3.3 mH and 16 Ohms, which are consistent with other coils.
Mystery remains...
We need to investigate ITMY ULCOIL in the next vent.

What we did:
 - Checked again that C1:SUS-ITMY_ULCOIL_OFFSET does not kick ITMY using OSEM sensor signals and oplev signals. ULSEN moves when ITMY is kicked by other coils.
 - Checked that kick gives voltage changes at coil driver and satellite amplifier output. We unplugged J1 DB25 cable from the feedthru flange and checked the signals sent to coil with oscilloscope.
 - Measured inductance (using BK PRECISION LCR meter) and resistance (using Fluke) of coils for ITMY. Below is the result. UL coil seems to be consistent with other coils. (It seems like BK PRECISION one wil give wrong resistance if the dial is set to the resistance value which is too low compared with the one you want to measure. If you want to measure 16Ω, set the dial to larger than 20Ω, not 2Ω)

Feedthru connector: ITMY1
Pin 3-15 / R = 16.3Ω / L = 3.32 mH (UL)
Pin 7-19 / R = 16.4Ω / L = 3.30 mH (UR)
Pin11-23 / R = 16.2Ω / L = 3.31 mH (LL)

Feedthru connector: ITMY2
Pin 3-15 / N/A
Pin 7-19 / R = 16.3Ω / L = 3.30 mH (SD)
Pin11-23 / R = 16.4Ω / L = 3.33 mH (LR)

 - UL is the only short OSEM in ITMY OSEMs.
 - ITMY have dumbells for magnets.
 - If UL magnet is off, ULSEN would not work. Something not magnetic is working for shadow sensing for UL? Dumbells?
 - ULSEN just sensing some coupling from other OSEMs?

Attachment 1: ULCoilInductance.JPG
Attachment 2: ULCoilResistance.JPG
Attachment 3: WrongSetting.JPG
  16898   Tue Jun 7 19:13:12 2022 yutaUpdateSUSAgreement on suspension damping loop polarity conventions

Anchal, Paco and I agreed to follow the polarity conventions below for suspension damping loops.
Some of the polarity/gains were changed to homogenize all the suspensions to the convention.
All the suspensions are homogenized except for MC1 (which have all - in sensor inputs and all - in coil outputs) and AS1 (SDCOIL_GAIN have the same sign as LL).

*SEN_GAIN to be +1
INMATRIX to be the following, and calibrated so that SUSPOS/SIDE_IN will be um and SUSPIT/YAW_IN1 will be urad (calibration to be done later)
+ + + + *
+ + - - *
+ - - + *
* * * * +
SUS*_GAINS to be +

TO_COIL gains to be the following
+1 +1 +1  *
+1 +1 -1  *
+1 -1 +1  *
+1 -1 -1  *
 *  *  * +4
*COIL_GAIN to be the following or flipped one so that SUS*_GAINS will be +

To do this, the following changes were made

For BS, ITMX, ITMY, PRM, SRM, ETMX, ETMY, MC1, MC2 and MC3 ("old" suspensions), TO_COIL_5_4_GAIN (for side) is changed from +1 to +4 and SUSSIDE_GAINs are divided by 4 accordingly.
For ETMX, the sign of SUSSIDE_GAIN is flipped to +, and SDCOIL_GAIN to be -1 (it was +1).
For MC1, *SEN_GAINs are - (not following the convension; see 40m/16894). The sign of INMATRIX_4_5 (for side) is flipped to +, SUSPOS/PIT/YAW_GAIN are flipped to +, and *COIL_GAIN are flipped to - (not following the convension). IMC WFS output matrix components for MC1 were also flipped. 

Attachment 1: NoteBeforeChanges.JPG
  16899   Tue Jun 7 19:40:45 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSITMY changed output matrix to disable use of UL coil

Since UL coil actuation is lost, we modified the output matrix of ITMY to use only UR, LR and LL face coils for POS, PIT and YAW actuation. The output matrix was changed to following:

UL 0 0 0 0
UR 1 1 0 0
LL 1 0 1 0
LR 0 -1 -1 0
SIDE 0 0 0 1






After this change, the damping was still working as good as before. I took PIT to POS/PIT/YAW and YAW to POS/PIT/YAW coupling measurements by exciting C1:SUS-ITMY_ASCPIT[YAW]_EXC and seeing effect at C1:SUS-ITMY_SUS[POS/PIT/YAW]_IN1 when the damping loops were off. Attached are the results. We were able to reduce PIT to YAW and YAW to PIT coupling by 10 dB by this simple change in output matrix. More coil balancing or off-diagonal termsmight help more and should be attempted if required. The coupling to POS did not change much.

Note that attachment 1 shows transfer functions from excitation point to the DOF sensing inputs while attachment two looks at ratio of C1:SUS-ITMY_SUS[POS/PIT]_IN1 to C1:SUS-ITMY_SUSYAW_IN1 which is the actual quantity of interest. I didn't repeat the PIT measurement due to lack of time.

Also note that all such measurements are being recorded in our new measurements git repo. We'll populate this repo with diaggui template+data files as we do measurements.

Attachment 1: ITMY_PIT_to_POS-PIT-YAW_Coupling.pdf
Attachment 2: ITMY_YAW_to_POS-PIT-YAW_Coupling.pdf
  16903   Wed Jun 8 18:16:20 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

To see if the ULCOIL channel of the ITMY coil driver is working or not, I swapped ITMY coil driver and ITMX coil driver by swapping DB15 cable (see Attachment #2).

With this swap, I confirmed that ITMX can be kicked with C1:SUS-ITMY_ULCOIL_OFFSET, but ITMY cannot be kicked with C1:SUS-ITMX_ULCOIL_OFFSET (see Attachment #1).

This means that the issue is not the in-air electronics.
Mystery remains again...
We need to investigate ITMY ULCOIL in the next vent.

I revereted the swap and confirmed that damping loops work fine again.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-08_18-10-44.png
Attachment 2: SWAP.JPG
  16904   Thu Jun 9 23:08:39 2022 ranaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

what was the result of the inductance measurement? should be ~3.3 mH as measured from the flannge or cable that goes to the flange from sat amp.


  16905   Fri Jun 10 13:02:14 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

ITMY ULCOIL was measured to have ~3.3 mH as measured from the flange. RTFE 40m/16896 .


what was the result of the inductance measurement? should be ~3.3 mH as measured from the flannge or cable that goes to the flange from sat amp.



  16907   Fri Jun 10 15:02:04 2022 yutaUpdateSUSServo gain sign flipped for MC1 WFS relief

The servo gain for MC1 in /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/MC/WFS/reliefWFS was flipped to account for COIL_GAIN flip done in 40m/16898.
The reliefWFS script now works fine.

ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g ${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM & 
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g ${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM & 
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g -${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM &  
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g -${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM & 
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g ${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM & 
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g ${g} -t ${ts} C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM & 

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-10_15-04-46.png
  16908   Fri Jun 10 15:04:23 2022 ranaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

Its good that the inductance test passed. This means that the coil is OK. How does the inspection photo look? This is the one you guys took of the ITM OSEM that shows the position of the magnet w.r.t. the coil. Also, how does the free swinging spectra look? Either one of these might indicate a broken magnet, or a sticky EQ stop.

  16910   Fri Jun 10 21:10:01 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL mystery: Coil driver swap test

We checked the photos we have, but we didn't have the photos which show ULCOIL situation clearly.

Free swing of ITMY (and others) will be done this weekend to see the OSEM spectra and resonant frequencies.

  16913   Tue Jun 14 18:45:43 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSLO2 lower magnets are stuck in coil, won't come off

[Anchal, Yuta]

In the weekend, I ran a free swing test on all optics. During this test, LO2 magnets got stuck to the coil because LO2 PIT alignment was very high, making its lower OSEMs almost fully dark and upper OSEMs almost fully bright. Today we realized that LO2 is actually stuck and is not coming off even when we dither PIT alignment. We tried several ways but could not get this off. sad

Do we have any other method to get magnets off in vaccum?

It will be pretty bad if we try anything related to BHD with LO beam reflecting off a stuck mirror. Does anyone have any suggestions other than venting and fixing the issue?

  16914   Tue Jun 14 19:34:06 2022 yutaUpdateSUSResonant frequency identification from the free swing test

[JC, Anchal, Yuta]

We are working on resonant frequency idendification from the free swing test done last weekend.
Table below is the resonant frequencies identified, and attached are the plots of peak identification for some of our new suspensions.
To identify the resonant frequencies, the kicks were done in each degrees of freedom so that we can assume, for example, SUSPOS will be mostly excited when kicked in POS and the heighest peak is at the POS resonant frequency.
For PR3, AS1 and ETMY, the resonant frequency idendification needs to be done in the order of POS, PIT, YAW, SIDE and identified frequencies need to be removed when finding a peak.
Other than that, the identification was done without any prior assumptions on the suspensions.
For ITMY, ETMY, PR2, PR3, AS1, AS4, yaw has lower resonant frequencies than pitch, as opposed to other suspensions.
For LO1, POS and PIT frequencies might be swapped because LLCOIL is not working (40m/16898) and POS/PIT kicks both might be excited SUSPOS/PIT.
LO1 coil output matrix was temporarily modified so that we use only two coils for POS/PIT/YAW excitation (Attachment #7), as we did for ITMY (40m/16899).

The scripts for the free swinging test and analysis live in /Git/40m/scripts/SUS/InMatCalc

     POS    PIT    YAW    SIDE
BS   0.990  0.748  0.794  0.959 
ITMY 0.987  0.739  0.634  0.948 fPIT > fYAW
ETMY 0.979  0.816  0.649  0.954 fPIT > fYAW
ITMX 0.978  0.586  0.758  0.959 
ETMX 0.962  0.725  0.847  1.000 
PRM  0.939  0.541  0.742  0.990 
PR3  1.019  0.885  0.751  0.989 fPIT > fYAW
PR2  0.996  0.816  0.724  0.999 fPIT > fYAW
SRM  0.969  0.533  0.815  0.985 
SR2  0.978  0.720  0.776  0.997 
LO1  0.926  1.011  0.669  0.993 POS AND PIT MIGHT BE SWAPPED
LO2  0.964  0.998  0.995  0.990 WRONG DUE TO STUCK (40m/16913)
AS1  1.028  0.832  0.668  0.988 fPIT > fYAW
AS4  1.015  0.800  0.659  0.991 fPIT > fYAW
MC1  0.967  0.678  0.797  0.995 
MC2  0.968  0.748  0.815  0.990 
MC3  0.978  0.770  0.841  0.969 
Attachment 1: LO1.png
Attachment 2: AS1.png
Attachment 3: AS4.png
Attachment 4: PR2.png
Attachment 5: PR3.png
Attachment 6: SR2.png
Attachment 7: Screenshot_2022-06-14_21-07-09.png
  16918   Wed Jun 15 15:07:07 2022 KojiUpdateSUSLO2 SUS stuck fixed

I checked the state of the LO2 suspension. I found that the coil driver Enable Mon was all red. Meaning, the actuation signals were not delivered to the coil driver. I wasn't sure if this was intentional or not.

Enabled the coils with "WD Master" Shutdown -> Normal.

Immediately I saw the OSEMS flipped the sign because there was an (non-intentional) alignment offset in pitch. I've adjusted the pitch offset so that all the OSEM PDs have the voltages 4~5V.

That's it.

Attachment 1: Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-00-22.png
Attachment 2: Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-00-40.png
  16919   Wed Jun 15 15:45:37 2022 yutaUpdateSUSLO1 LLCOIL now working, it was loose connection

We tracked the issue of LO1 LLCOIL not actuating LO1, and found that the DB9 cable from the coil driver to the sat amp was loose.
I tightened the screws and now it is working.
Never ever connect cables without screwing the connectors tightly! angryno

What I did:
 - Measured the resistance and the inductance of each coil with BK PRECISION LCR meter, as I did for ITMY (Attachment #1, 40m/16896). The result is the following and it shows that LLCOIL is there.

Feedthru connector: LO1 1
Pin 3-15 / R = 16.0Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UL)
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.8Ω / L = 3.27 mH (UR)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.7Ω / L = 3.27 mH (LL)

Feedthru connector: LO1 2
Pin 3-15 / N/A
Pin 7-19 / R = 15.6Ω / L = 3.22 mH (SD)
Pin11-23 / R = 15.9Ω / L = 3.30 mH (LR)

 - Swapped the DB25 cable which goes to the feedthru LO1 1 and feedthru LO1 2. LLCOIL could be drived from LR coil driver and LRCOIL could not be drived from LL coil driver. SD and UR worked fine with the swap. This means that there is something wrong with the LL driving.
 - Went to see the rack which have coil drivers and sat amp for LO1, and immediately found that the DB9 cable was loose (Attachment #2). Tightened them and the issue was fixed.
 - C1:SUS-LO1_TO_COIL matrix gains were reverted to default values (Attachment #3).

Attachment 1: Measurement.JPG
Attachment 2: BAD.JPG
Attachment 3: Screenshot_2022-06-15_15-59-05.png
  16920   Wed Jun 15 17:03:17 2022 yutaUpdateSUSITMY ULCOIL issue solved, loose connection in sat amp box

[Anchal, Yuta]

We fixed the issue of ITMY ULCOIL not driving ITMY by replacing one of the 64pin ribbon cable in the satellite amplifier box.
We thought the coil driver and the sat amp box are OK by checking the voltage change at the output of the sat amp box by giving an offset to UL coil driver, but it was not giving a current change, probably due to too much contact resistance in the cables.
It was sneaky because it was not completely disconnected.

All the coils for our suspensions are now working!

What we did:
 - Using breakout boards, the output current of sat amp box was measured using FLUKE multimeter. It turned out that UL is not giving measurable current. We also confirmed that UR coil driver can drive UL by re-directing the current from UR coil driver to UL. This means that the UL magnet was not de-magnetized!
 - Measured the coil resistance from at the coil driver output and found that UL coil seen from there has too high resistance which cannot be measured with the multimeter, whereas UR coil was measured to be ~30 Ohms.
 - Went back to the feedthru and measured the resistance of UL coil. Upto the output of the Satellite Amp Terimator, the resistance was measured to be ~16 Ohms, but not at the input of the Satellite Amp Terimator (Attachment #1,2).
 - It turned out that #16 pin of 64pin ribbon cable in between the Satellite Amp Terimator (LIGO-D990021) and the Satellite Amp board (LIGO-D961289) at the Satellite Amp Terimator side was not good (Attachment #3).
 - Replaced the cable and confirmed that ULCOIL can kick ITMY (Attachment #4).
 - C1:SUS-ITMY_TO_COIL matrix was reverted to default values.

 - We might have to re-commission Yarm ASS again since pitch-yaw coupling have changed. -> EDIT: Checked that it works (except for ITM PIT L), including offloading offsets (writeASS_offsets.py), 18:30 local.
 - Now that LO1 LLCOIL issue is solved and LO2 stuck is solved, we should do the free swing test again to identify the resonant frequencies.
 - OSEM sensor diagonalization (input matrix), coil balancing (and F2A)

Attachment 1: Measured16Ohms.JPG
Attachment 2: SatAmpTerminator.JPG
Attachment 3: BAD.JPG
Attachment 4: SUCCESSFUL_KICK.png
  16925   Thu Jun 16 18:30:07 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSNew diagonalized input matrices applied

I used the same fre swing data to diagnolize input matrices of following optics:
MC1, MC2, MC3



For all these optics, the new input matrices worked well. Next step should be to take the local damping open loop transfer functions and standardize the loops to same UGF.

What didn't work:

  • The calculated input matrix for ITMX differed from existing matrix too much, including overall sign of rows POS and PIT. Even after correcting those signs, I was not able to get a good damping loop configuration. So I have committed the new matrix to the repo but have not implement it. More close analysis or another test might be required for this optic.
  • LO1, LO2, and ITMY were not analysed because their free swing test was not valid. LO1 and ITMY had non-working coils and LO2 was stuck during the test. We'll take another free swing test for these three optics (and possible ITMX) in near time.

All diagonalization results are present in https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/tree/main/SUS/InMatCalc

For looking at the results at this point, go to this commit: https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/tree/7ef6a47d1b2051a0732f46477624a9e625737fe8

Attachment 1: SUSInpMatDiag_MC1_MC2_MC3_BS_IMTX_ETMX_ETMY_AS1_AS4_SR2_PR2_PR3.pdf
  16931   Tue Jun 21 08:36:50 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSDiagonalized input matrices for LO1, freeSwing on ITMY and ITMX

Over the weekend, I ran freeSwing test with sequential kicks in specific DOFs for LO1, ITMY, ITMX. LO1 results were successfully used to diagonalize LO1 input matrix. There are some issues for ITMY, ITMX still. I could not run LO2 test.


The free swing test ran successfully, resonant frequencies for different DOFs was extracted, and new input matrix was calculated. The new matrix was only slightly different from before and it worked fine with existing damping loops. The observed resonance frequencies were different from previous values by POS: -6 mHz, PIT : -3 mHz, YAW: -9 mHz, SIDE: -2 mHz. Attached are the diagonalization result.


The peculiarity of ITMX remained even after the second free swing test. The calculated input matrix is very different from existing one with sign flips across PIT and POS rows. I found that our LR osem is always bright in ITMX at the current alignment position. I see that LR osem comes in range when C1:SUS-ITMX_PIT_COMM is raised above 0.5. Maybe we should run this test when we know for sure ITMX is in correct position.


In ITMY on the other hand, I found that SIDE OSEM was completely bright. This happened during the YAW kick to ITMY. We'll need to reduce kick amplitudes for ITMY and redo this test.


For LO2, I could not initiate the test. On reducing the alignment offsets for LO2 (so that it doesn't get stuck in the fre swing test), the damping loops were not working. This is a clear evidence also that input matrix is different for different positions of the optic. We need to think about some other strategy to do this test, maybe see if ideal input amtrix works at no offsets and use that to damp during the test.

Attachment 1: SUSInpMatDiag_LO1.pdf
  16973   Wed Jul 6 15:28:18 2022 TegaUpdateSUSOutput matrix diagonalisation : F2P coil balancing

git repo : https://git.ligo.org/40m/scripts/-/tree/main/SUS/OutMatCalc

local dir:  /opt/rtcds/caltech/c1/Git/40m/scripts/SUS/OutMatCalc


Here is an update on our recent attempt at diagonalization of the SUS output matrices. There are two different parts to this: the first is coil balancing using existing F2P code which stopped working because of an old-style use of the print function and the second which should now focus on the mixing amongst the various degrees of freedoms (dof) without a DC/AC split I believe. The F2P codes are now working and have been consolidated in the git repo.  



  • The remaining task is to make it so that we only call a single file that combines the characterization code and filter generation code, preferably with the addition of a safety feature that restores any changed values in case of an error or interruption from the user. The safety functionality is already implemented in the output matrix diagonalization stem of the code, so we just need to copy this over.  
  • Improve the error minimization algorithm for minimizing the cross-coupling between the various dof by adjusting the elements of the output matrix. 


Previous work 









  16997   Wed Jul 13 12:49:25 2022 PacoSummarySUSSUS frozen

[Paco, JC, Yuta]

This morning, while investigating the source of a burning smell, we turned off the c1SUS 1X4 power strip powering the sorensens. After this, we noticed the MC1 refl was not on the camera, and in general other vertex SUS were misaligned even though JC had aligned the IFO in the morning to almost optimum arm cavity flashing. After a c1susaux modbusIOC service restart and burt restore, the problem persisted.

We started to debug the sus rack chain for PRM since the oplev beam was still near its alignment so we could use it as a sensor. The first weird thing we noticed was that no matter how much we "kicked" PRM, we wouldn't see any motion on the oplev. We repeatedly kicked UL coil and looked at the coil driver inputs and outputs, and also verified the eurocard had DC power on which it did. Somehow disconnecting the acromag inputs didn't affect the medm screen values, so that made us suspicious that something was weird with these ADCs.

Because all the slow channels were in a frozen state, we tried restarting c1susaux and the acromag chassis and this fixed the issue.

  17073   Wed Aug 10 20:30:54 2022 TegaSummarySUSCharacterisation of suspension damping

[Yuta, Tega]

We diagnosed the suspension damping of the IMC/BHD/recycling optics by kicking the various degree of freedom (dof) and then tuning the gain so that we get a residual Q of approx. 5 in the cases where this can be achieved.

MC1: Good
MC2: SIDE-YAW coupling, but OK
MC3: Too much coupling between dofs, NEEDS ATTENTION
LO1: Good
LO2: Good
AS1: POS-PIT coupling, close to oscillation, cnt2um off, NEEDS ATTENTION
AS4: PIT-YAW coupling, cannot increase YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
PR2: No cnt2um, No Cheby
PR3: POS-PIT coupling, cannot increase POS/PIT/YAW gain because of coupling, No cnt2um, No Cheby, NEEDS ATTENTION
SR2: No cnt2um

Attachment 1: BHD_SUSPIT_KICK.png
Attachment 2: BHD_SUSPOS_KICK.png
Attachment 3: BHD_SUSSIDE_KICK.png
Attachment 4: BHD_SUSYAW_KICK.png
Attachment 5: IMC_SUSPIT_KICK.png
Attachment 6: IMC_SUSPOS_KICK.png
Attachment 7: IMC_SUSSIDE_KICK.png
Attachment 8: IMC_SUSYAW_KICK.png
Attachment 9: PRSR_SUSPIT_KICK.png
Attachment 10: PRSR_SUSPOS_KICK.png
Attachment 11: PRSR_SUSSIDE_KICK.png
Attachment 12: PRSR_SUSYAW_KICK.png
  17092   Fri Aug 19 14:46:32 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of BHD optics

[Anchal, Tega]

As a first step to characterize all the local damping loops, we ran an open loop transfer function measurement test for all BHD optics, taking transfer function using band-limited (0.3 Hz to 10 Hz) gaussian noise injection at error points in different degrees of freedom. Plots are in the git repo. I'll make them lighter and post here.

We have also saved coherence of excitation at the IN1 test points of different degrees of freedom that may be later used to determine the cross-coupling in the system.

The test ran automatically using measSUSOLTF.py script. The script can run the test parallelly on all suspensions in principle, but not in practice because the cdsutils.getdata apparently has a limitation on how many real-time channels (we think it is 8 maximum) one can read simultaneously. We can get around this by defining these test points at DQ channels but that will probably upset the rtcds model as well. Maybe the thing to do is to separate the c1su2 model into two models handling 3 and 4 suspensions. But we are not sure if the limitation is due to fb or DAQ network (which will persist even if we reduce the number of testpoints on one model) or due to load on a single core of FE machines.

The data is measured and stored here. We can do periodic tests and update data here.

Next steps:

  • Run the test for old optics as well.
  • Fit the OLTF model with the measured data, and divide by the digital filter transfer function to obtain the plant transfer function for each loop.
  • Set maximum noise allowed in the local damping loop for each degree of freedom, and criteria for Q of the loop.
  • Adjust gains and or loop shape to reach the requirements on all the suspensions in a quantitative manner.
  • (optional) Add a BLRMS calculation stream in SUS models for monitoring loop performance and in-loop noise levels in the suspensions.
  • More frequency resolution, please. (KA)
  17096   Sat Aug 20 20:26:10 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of Core optics

I made measurements of old optics OLTF today. I have reduced the file sizes of the plots and data now. It is interesting that it is allowed to read 9 channels simultaneously from c1mcs or c1sus models, even together. The situation with c1su2 is a bit unclear. I was earlier able to take measurements of 6 channels at once from c1su2 but not I can't read more than 1 channel simultaneously. This suggests that the limit is dictated by how much a single model is loaded, not how much we are reading simultaneously. So if we split c1su2 into two models, we might be able to read more optics simultaneously, saving time and giving us the ability to measure for longer.

Attached are the results for all the core optics. Inferences will be made later in the week.

Note: Some measurements have very low coherence in IN2 channels in most of the damping frequency region, these loops need to be excited harder. (eg PIT, POS, YAW, on ITMs and ETMs).


Attachment 1: ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf
ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf ALL_CORE_SUS_OLTF_2022-08-20-merged.pdf
  17097   Mon Aug 22 14:36:49 2022 ranaUpdateSUSOpen loop transfer function measurements for local damping loops of Core optics

for damping and OL loops, we typically don't measure the TF like this because it takes forever and we don't need that detailed info for anything. Just use the step responses in the way we discussed at the meeting 2 weeks ago. There's multiple elog entries from me and others illustrating this. The measurement time is then only ~30 sec per optic, and you also get the cross-coupling for free. No need for test-point channels and overloading, just use the existing DQ channels and read back the response from the frames after the excitations are completed.

  17102   Wed Aug 24 12:02:24 2022 PacoUpdateSUSITMX SUS is sus UL glitches?

[Yehonathan, Paco]

This morning, while attempting to align the IFO to continue with noise-budgeting, we noted the XARM lock was not stable and showed glitches in the C1:LSC-TRX_OUT (arm cavity transmission). Inspecting the SUS screens, we found the ULSEN rms ~ 6 times higher than the other coils so we opened an ndscope with the four face OSEM signals and overlay the XARM transmission. We immediately noticed the ULSEN input is noisy, jumping around randomly and where bigger glitches correlated with the arm cavity transmission glitches. This is appreciated in Attachment #1.

Signal chain investigation

We'll do a full signal investigation on ITMX SUS electronics to try and narrow down the issue, but it seems the glitches come and go... Is this from the gold satamp box? ...

Attachment 1: ITMX_UL_badness_08242022.png
  17105   Thu Aug 25 16:05:51 2022 YehonathanUpdateSUSTrying to fix some SUS

I tried to lock the Y/X arms to take some noise budget. However, we noticed that TRX/Y were oscillating coherently together (by tens of percent), meaning some input optics, essentially PR2/3 are swinging. There was no way I could do noise budgeting in this situation.

I set out to debug these optics. First, I notice side motion of PR2 is very weakly damped .

The gain of the side damping loop (C1:SUS-PR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN) was increased from 10 to 150 which seem to have fixed the issue. Attachment 1 shows the current step response of  the PR2 DOFs. The residual Qs look good but there is still some cross-couplings, especially when kicking POS. Need to do some balancing there.

PR3 fixing was less successful in the beginning. I increased the following gains:

C1:SUS-PR3_SUSPOS_GAIN: 0.5 -> 30




But the residual Q was still > 10. Then I checked the input matrix and noticed that UL->PIT is -0.18 while UR->PIT is 0.39. I changed UL->PIT (C1:SUS-PR3_INMATRIX_2_1) to +0.18. Now the Q became 7. I continue optimizing the gains.

Was able to increase C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN: 50 -> 100.

Attachment 2 shows the step response of PR3. The change of the entry of the input matrix was very ad-hoc, it would probably be good to run a systematic tuning. I have to leave now, but the IFO is in a very misaligned state. PR3/2 should be moved to bring it back.

Attachment 1: PR2_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_16-23.pdf
PR2_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_16-23.pdf PR2_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_16-23.pdf PR2_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_16-23.pdf PR2_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_16-23.pdf
Attachment 2: PR3_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_18-37.pdf
PR3_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_18-37.pdf PR3_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_18-37.pdf PR3_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_18-37.pdf PR3_Step_Response_Test_2022-08-25_18-37.pdf
  17133   Tue Sep 6 17:39:40 2022 PacoUpdateSUSLO1 LO2 AS1 AS4 damping loop step responses

I tuned the local damping gains for LO1, LO2, AS1, and AS4 by looking at step responses in the DOF basis (i.e. POS, PIT, YAW, and SIDE). The procedure was:

  1. Grab an ndscope with the error point signals in the DOF basis, e.g. C1:SUS-LO1_SUSPOS_IN1_DQ
  2. Apply an offset to the relevant DOF using the alignment slider offset (or coil offset for the SIDE DOF) while being careful not to trip the watchdog. The nominal offsets found for this tuning are summarized below:
Alignment/Coil Step sizes
LO1 800 300 300 10000
LO2 800 300 400 -10000
AS1 800 500 500 20000
AS4 800 400 400 -10000
  1. Tune the damping gains until the DOF shows a residual Q with ~ 5 or more oscillations.
  2. The new damping gains are below for all optics and their DOFs, and Attachments #1-4 summarize the tuned step responses as well as the other DOFs (cross-coupled).
Local damping gains
LO1 10.000 5.000 3.000 40.000
LO2 10.000 3.000 3.000 50.000
AS1 14.000 2.500 3.000 85.000
AS4 15.000 3.100 3.000 41.000

Note that during this test, FM5 has been populated for all these optics with a BounceRoll (notches at 16.6, 23.7 Hz) filter, apart from the Cheby (HF rolloff) and the 0.0:30 filters.

Attachment 1: LO1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-19.pdf
LO1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-19.pdf LO1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-19.pdf LO1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-19.pdf LO1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-19.pdf
Attachment 2: LO2_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-30.pdf
LO2_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-30.pdf LO2_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-30.pdf LO2_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-30.pdf LO2_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-30.pdf
Attachment 3: AS1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-53.pdf
AS1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-53.pdf AS1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-53.pdf AS1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-53.pdf AS1_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_17-53.pdf
Attachment 4: AS4_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_18-16.pdf
AS4_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_18-16.pdf AS4_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_18-16.pdf AS4_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_18-16.pdf AS4_Step_Response_Test_2022-09-06_18-16.pdf
  17134   Wed Sep 7 14:32:15 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSUpdated SD coil gain to keep all coil actuation signals digitally same magnitude

The coil driver actuation strength for face coils was increased by 13 times in LO1, LO2, SR2, AS1, AS4, PR2, and PR3.

After the change the damping strenghth of POS, PIT, and YAW were reduced, but not SIDE coil output filter module requires higher digital input to cause same force at the output. This wouldn't be an issue until we try to correct for cross coupling at output matrix where we would want to give similar order of magnitude coefficients for SIDE coil as well. So I did the following changes to make input to all coil output filters (Face and side) same for these particular suspensions:

  • C1:SUS-LO1_SUSSIDE_GAIN 40.0 -> 3.077
    C1:SUS-AS1_SUSSIDE_GAIN 85.0 -> 6.538
    C1:SUS-AS4_SUSSIDE_GAIN 41.0 -> 3.154
    C1:SUS-PR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 150.0 -> 11.538
    C1:SUS-PR3_SUSSIDE_GAIN 100.0 -> 7.692
    C1:SUS-LO2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 50.0 -> 3.846
    C1:SUS-SR2_SUSSIDE_GAIN 140.0 -> 10.769
  • C1:SUS-LO1_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
    C1:SUS-AS1_SDCOIL_GAIN 1.0 -> 13.0
    C1:SUS-AS4_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
    C1:SUS-PR2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
    C1:SUS-PR3_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
    C1:SUS-LO2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0
    C1:SUS-SR2_SDCOIL_GAIN -1.0 -> -13.0

In short, now 10 cts of input to C1:SUS-AS1_ULCOIL would create same actuation on UL as 10 cts of input to C1:SUS-AS1_SDCOIL will on SD.

In reply to

Quote: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16802

[Koji, JC]

Coil Drivers LO2, SR2, AS4, and AS1 have been updated a reinstalled into the system. 

LO2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100008

LO2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100530

SR2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100614

SR2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100615

AS1 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100610

AS1 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100611

AS4 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3        Unit: S2100612

AS4 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD)now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH3                    Unit: S2100613


Quote: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/16791

[JC Koji]

To give more alignment ranges for the SUS alignment, we started updating the output resistors of the BHD SUS coil drivers.
As Paco has already started working on LO1 alignment, we urgently updated the output Rs for LO1 coil drivers.
LO1 Coil Driver 1 now has R=100 // 1.2k ~ 92Ohm for CH1/2/3, and LO1 Coil Driver 2 has the same mod only for CH3. JC has taken the photos and will upload/update an elog/DCC.

We are still working on the update for the SR2, LO2, AS1, and AS4 coil drivers. They are spread over the workbench right now. Please leave them as they're for a while.
JC is going to continue to work on them tomorrow, and then we'll bring them back to the rack.


Quote: https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8081/40m/16760

[Yuta Koji]

We took out the two coil driver units for PR3 and the incorrect arrangement of the output Rs were corrected. The boxes were returned to the rack.

In order to recover the alignment of the PR3 mirror, C1:SUS_PR3_SUSPOS_INMON / C1:SUS_PR3_SUSPIT_INMON / C1:SUS_PR3_SUSYAW_INMON were monitored. The previous values for them were {31150 / -31000 / -12800}. By moving the alignment sliders, the PIT and YAW values were adjusted to be {-31100 / -12700}. while this change made the POS value to be 52340.

The original gains for PR3 Pos/Pit/Yaw were {1, 0.52, 0.2}. They were supposed to be reduced to  {0.077, 0.04, 0.015}.
I ended up having the gains to be {0.15, 0.1, 0.05}. The side gain was also increased to 50.


Overall, the output R configuration for PR2/PR3 are summarized as follows. I'll update the DCC.

PR2 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR) / S2100616 / PCB S2100520 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH1/2/3

PR2 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD) / S2100617 / PCB S2100519 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH3

PR3 Coil Driver 1 (UL/LL/UR) / S2100619 / PCB S2100516 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH1/2/3

PR3 Coil Driver 2 (LR/SD) / S2100618 / PCB S2100518 / R_OUT = (1.2K // 100) for CH3


  17147   Tue Sep 20 18:18:07 2022 AnchalSummarySUSETMX, ETMY damping loop gain tuning

[Paco, Anchal]

We performed local damping loop tuning for ETMs today to ensure all damping loops' OLTF has a Q of 3-5. To do so, we applied a step on C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_POS/PIT/YAW_OFFSET, and looked for oscillations in the error point of damping loops (C1:SUS-EMTX/Y_SUSPOS/PIT/YAW_IN1) and increased or decreased gains until we saw 3-5 oscillations before the error signal stabilizes to a new value. For side loop, we applied offset at C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_SDCOIL_OFFSET and looked at C1:SUS-ETMX/Y_SUSSIDE_IN1. Following are the changes in damping gains:

C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSPOS_GAIN : 61.939   ->   61.939
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSPIT_GAIN :   4.129     ->   4.129
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSYAW_GAIN : 2.065     ->   7.0
C1:SUS-ETMX_SUSSIDE_GAIN : 37.953  ->   50

C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSPOS_GAIN : 150.0     ->   41.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSPIT_GAIN :   30.0       ->   6.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSYAW_GAIN : 30.0       ->   6.0
C1:SUS-ETMY_SUSSIDE_GAIN : 50.0      ->   300.0


  17218   Tue Nov 1 15:41:18 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filter design and trial on MC1

Following discussion in this elog thread (40/6004), I used the design of F2A (force to angle(pitch)) decoupling filter as mentioned in this DCC doc T010140. This document is very useful as it talks about the overall control loops of a suspension, including sensor signal conditioning, damping filter shapes, force to pitch decoupling, pitch to position decoupling, and coil strength balancing. In future, if people are working on suspension characterization and damping, this document is a good resource to read.

Force to Angle (Pitch) decoupling filter

The document address this problem with first principle calculation using the geometry of single suspensions. As a first pass, I decided to use the design value of these geometric paramters to create a filter design for upper coils and one for lower coils. The parameters are listed in table 2. I used following:

  Description Value used
L Vertical dis-tance  from  the  suspension  point  to  the  wire  take-off  point 247.1 mm
h Pitch distance (distance above the center-of-mass of the wire take-off point) 0.9 mm
l L + h 248 mm
D Vertical distance from a magnet to the center of the optic 24.7 mm
Q Q value used in poles of the filter (doc says to use 1000) 3, 5, 10
\omega_0 Position resonant angular frequency given by \sqrt{g/l} 6.288 rad/s

Using above parameters, we can define the F2A filter for upper coils as:

T(s) = \frac{s^2 + \omega_0^2(1 + h/D)}{s^2 + s \omega_0 /Q + \omega_0^2}

and for lower coil:

T(s) = \frac{s^2 + \omega_0^2(1 - h/D)}{s^2 + s \omega_0 /Q + \omega_0^2}

I used the design values as listed in the table above and got the filters as shown in attachment 1 for Q=3 case. I think the Q is higher than what other f2a filters I have seen for example at ETMY, the filters are as shown in attachment 2.

I tried turning on MC1 f2a filters but the watchdog tripped in about 4 minutes. This was the case when WFS were turned off. Another trial also lead to the same result. I tried this on MC2 and MC3 as well, all of them tripped after som time. See attachment 3 to see MC1 tripping on these filters.

I'll now try to use a lower Q filter.

Attachment 1: 20221101_MC1_F2A_Filters.pdf
Attachment 2: ETMY_F2A_Filters_Already_There.pdf
Attachment 3: MC1_F2A_Test.png
  17219   Tue Nov 1 17:17:27 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSModified F2A filter design and trial on MC1

After a quick discussion with Yuta, we figured that the introduction of a finite Q that Peter Fritschel does in this DCC doc T010140 for the poles pair, he should have done the same for the zeros pair as well otherwise there will be a notch at around 1 Hz. So I simply modified the filter design to have same Q for both zero pair and pole pair and got following transfer functions:

For upper coils:

T(s) = \frac{s^2 + s\omega_0\sqrt{1 + h/D}/Q + \omega_0^2(1+h/D))}{s^2 + s\omega_0/Q + \omega_0^2}

for lower coils:

T(s) = \frac{s^2 + s\omega_0\sqrt{1 - h/D}/Q + \omega_0^2(1-h/D))}{s^2 + s\omega_0/Q + \omega_0^2}

Attachment 1 shows the new filter design. I tested this filter set on MC1 and the optic kept on going as if nothing changed. That is atleast a good sign. Now next step would be test test if this actually helped in reducing the POS->PIT coupling on MC1, maybe using WFS signals.

The filters were added using this createF2Afilters.py script.


Attachment 1: 20221101_MC1_F2A_Filters_Q_On_Both.pdf
  17220   Tue Nov 1 17:59:23 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSAdded F2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3

I've cleared all old attempts on F2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3, and added the default F2A filter described in the last post. I added 3 such sets of filters, with Q=3, 7, and 10. I have turned on Q=3 filter for all IMC optics right now. I'll setup some test of switching between different Q filters in future.

  17222   Thu Nov 3 14:00:29 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC1 coil strengths balanced

I balanced the face coil strengths of MC1 using following steps:

  • At all points, keep sum(abs(coil_gains)) = 4
  • After reading coil gains, remove the signs. Do the operations as below, and before writing put back the signs.
  • Butterfly to POS decoupling:
    • Drive butterfly mode at 13 Hz using LOCKIN2 on MC1 and look at C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ for position fluctuations
    • Subtract 0.05 times the BUT vector to coil strengths to see the effect on C1:IOO-MC_F_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
    • Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no POS actuation when driving butterfly mode.
  • POS to PIT decouping:
    • Drive LOCKIN2 in POS mode at 13 Hz and look for PIT signal at C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_P_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
    • Subtract 0.05 times the PIT vector to coil strengths
    • Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no PIT actuation when driving POS.
  • POS to YAW decoupling:
    • Drive LOCKIN2 in POS mode at 13 Hz and look for YAW signal at C1:IOO-MC_TRANS_Y_DQ using diaggui exponential averaging of 5, BW=1.
    • Subtract 0.05 times the YAW vector to coil strengths
    • Use Newton-Raphson from here to reach to no YAW actuation when driving POS.

By the end, I was able to see no actuation on POS when butterfly is driven with 30000 counts amplitude at 13 Hz. I was able to see no PIT or YAW actuation when POS is driven with 10000 counts at 13 Hz.

Final coil strengths found:


I used this notebook while doing the above work. It has a couple of functions that could be useful in future while doing similar balancing.


  17223   Thu Nov 3 14:42:57 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC2 coil strengths balanced

Balanced MC2 coil strengths using the same method.

Final coil strengths found:


  17225   Thu Nov 3 16:22:11 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSMC3 coil strengths balanced

Balanced MC3 coil strengths using the same method.

Final coil strengths found:



  17227   Thu Nov 3 17:36:00 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3 set to test at 1 am

 I'll setup some test of switching between different Q filters in future.

The f2A filters are set to test on IMC optics. The script used is testF2AFilters.py. The script is running on rossa in a tmux session named f2aTest. It will trigger at 1 am, Nov 4th 2022. First the script will turn off all F2A filters on IMC optics, wait for an hour, then it will try out the three F2A filter sets with different Q values, one at a time, for one hour each. So the test should last for roughly 4 hours. The gpstime stamps will be written in a logfile that can be used later to readback noise performance of IMC with different filter. The script has a try-except failsafe to revert things to original state if something fails. To stop the script from triggering or stop it during runtime, do following on rossa:

tmux a -t f2aTest


  17230   Mon Nov 7 08:36:10 2022 JCUpdateSUSIMC out of alignment -- f2A failure

[Paco, JC]

We came in this morning and noted the IMC was grossly misaligned, with MC3 still damped but with >= 100 rms motion in all coil monitors no (a lot but not enough to trip the WD)... Turning off the WFS didn't do much so it was obviously an issue with the recent f2A output filters, so we turned all off (though only MC3 had this excess motion). After this we aligned IMC, engaged the lock and turned WFS back on.

There was no elog about f2A beyond this test scheduled to run Friday, I guess the filters were meant to stay on long term?

  17231   Mon Nov 7 11:24:05 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSF2A filters on MC1, MC2, and MC3 set to test at 1 am

This test was not successfull as IMC lost lock during the f2A filter trial. However, we do have 1 hour off data when all f2A filters were turned off in between following GPS times:

start gpstime: 1351584077

stop gpstime: 1351587677

After this gpstime, the f2A filters were turned ON for all IMC optics. After about 2000 seconds of no issues, the MC3 suspension suddenly rung up 1 Hz oscillations around 1351590720 gpstime. See attachment one for noise spectra of local damping error signals for MC3 before and after this event. See attachment 2 for time series of this event.

So, after this point, MC3 remained rung up and IMC remained unlocked, so no WFS signals are meaningful after gpstime 1351590720.

I have seen this happening out of nowhere to MC3 today too when PSL shutter was closed and only thing interacting with MC3 was the local damping loop. This suggests that some glitch event happens in MC3 which is not taken well by the f2a filter on it. The ringing goes down as soon as we turn OFF the f2a filter. The other optics show no such signs.

We'll do more tests in future to figure out the issue. For now, MC3 f2a filters are kept off. Maybe we need custom filter for MC3 rather than the design value default filter we are using right now. I'm attaching foton bode plot for MC3 f2a filters for verification that correct filters are in place.

Attachment 1: MC3_f2a_failure_analysis.pdf
Attachment 2: MC3_f2a_Failure_Event.png
Attachment 3: MC3_f2aQ3_filters.pdf
  17232   Mon Nov 7 12:02:15 2022 AnchalUpdateSUSIMC test with PSL shutter closed.

Following configurations were kept today morning:

Start Time Stop Time HEPA PSL Shutter MC1 f2a MC2 f2a MC3 f2a MC3 ringing Notes


10:04:45 PST
18:04:45 UTC


10:09:39 PST
18:09:39 UTC

ON OFF ON ON ON NO Found later that MC3 started ringing at 1351879797


10:09:39 PST
18:09:39 UTC


10:35:07 PST
18:35:07 UTC

ON OFF ON ON ON YES This is the duration when MC3 was ringing


10:35:07 PST
18:35:07 UTC


10:50:39 PST

OFF OFF ON ON ON YES We turned off HEPA filter during this time, MC3 was still ringing.


10:50:39 PST
18:50:39 UTC


10:52:08 PST
18:52:08 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON ON NO I noticed MC3 rining and reset f2a filter by turning it off, waiting for it to damp down and restarting it.


10:52:08 PST
18:52:08 UTC


11:09:48 PST
19:09:48 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON ON YES MC3 started ringing again soon.


11:09:48 PST
19:09:48 UTC


11:44:32 PST
19:44:32 UTC

OFF OFF ON ON OFF NO MC3 f2a filters turned off due to repeated failure.


11:44:32 PST
19:44:32 UTC


12:17:49 PST
20:17:49 UTC

ON OFF ON ON OFF NO Turned ON HEPA for completeness of data.


ELOG V3.1.3-