Tower Categorization and Integrated Systems Overview
Explore the categorization of towers and the integration of different systems, emphasizing optical layouts and local integrated systems. Discover examples and requirements for various system types in a detailed analysis.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Tower Categorization L. Lucchesi R. Meijer 2025-02-18
Grouping 114 nodes by type Integrated systems Distributed systems Local integrated systems Integrated local instrument or infrastructure subsystems, nodes , heavy emphasis on systems integration Examples: HF Input Test Mass node, Cavern type A, Mode-matching Telescope node 1P, Lv 1 2 3 4 Nodes Type A Type B 2
Local integrated system (node) example HF Input Test Mass Integrated systems Distributed systems Local integrated systems 4
S5SO-CRYO (CAT 5 single optic / CRYO) Requirements - Special feature: - Payload type: - In-band Residual motion: - Frequency: - Working cleanliness: Cryogenic SO (Single Optic) CAT 5 / ~1.9E-20 m/sqrt(Hz) >3 Hz [Procedure, more strict on particulates/hydrocarbons/water vapour from VAC pov, ISO x] Small (<0.5m) Placement flexibility: - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: Bottom 4 LF-ITM (2x), LF-ETM (2x) - - - SUS concepts: Refer to ET-LF Tech note ~13m SUS (tower height approx. 14m) Baseline = outer dia 5m (presented by Fulvio). Interface - CRYO concepts: between CRYO and SUS to be defined in Orsay such that footprint is not increased Cryostat drives tunnel diameter in triangle - 6 -
S4BB-LABM (CAT 4 bottom-loaded bench / lateral access) Required Special feature: Payload type: In-band Residual motion: Frequency: Cleanliness: Placement flexibility: - BB (bottom-loaded bench) CAT 4 / 5.6E-18 m/sqrt(Hz) >3 Hz [ISO x] 0.5 - [x] m (depends on technical uncertainties/upgrade path) - - - - - - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: Lateral (except beam splitter?) 7 - - - Action item: ZM Opening angle + cryotrap clash, limiting footprint reduction (requires optical layout shuffle). Constrained by L between LZM1 and LZM2 & LITM HZM5 lose cryostat + ~2 stages, reasonable height ~9m - 7 From SUS pov: -
S3SO-LAMT/LABM (CAT 3 Single Optic / lateral access - above beampipe/regular) Required Special feature: Payload type: In-band Residual motion: Frequency: Cleanliness: Placement flexibility: LAMT in triangle (above 2L), LABM in 2L top-loaded bench CAT 3 / 9.4E-22 m/sqrt(Hz) >30 Hz [HF stricter from point absorbers, ISO x] Small 0.5 m - - - - - - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: For SUS at 30 Hz, Shorter, simpler, more rigid driven by controls Lateral 4 - - - - 8
S2TB/BB-LOFF (CAT 2 top/bottom-loaded bench / lateral access offset) Required Special feature: Payload type: In-band Residual motion: Frequency: Cleanliness: Placement flexibility: - top/bottom-loaded bench CAT 2 / 2.8E-19 m/sqrt(Hz) >30 Hz [ISO x] 0.5 - [x] m (depends on technical uncertainties/upgrade path) - - - - - - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: Always necessary for HF folding Lateral 6 - - - - 9
S2TB-LABM /S2BB-LABM (CAT 2 top/bottom-loaded bench / lateral access) Required Special feature: Payload type: In-band Residual motion: Frequency: Cleanliness: Placement flexibility: - top-loaded bench CAT 2 / [quantitative value] >3 Hz and > 30 Hz (crossover point LF HF) [ISO x] 0.5 - [x] m - - - - - - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: Concepts: Frequency-agnostic main SUS with on-bench smaller suspensions depending on HF or LF application ~3.5m SUS (similar to CAT 1 heights) LIMC-I, LINJ and LIMC-E should be considered higher level RM (jitter) Lateral 28 - - - - - 10
S1TBp/S1TBg-MTLA (CAT 1 top-loaded bench / minitower lateral access) Required Special feature: Payload type: Bench footprint (m x m): In-band Residual motion: Frequency: Cleanliness: - TB small and large 1.8 x 1.8 or 2.5 x 2.5 CAT 1 / [quantitative value] >3 Hz and >30 Hz (crossover point LF HF) [ISO x] - - - - - - Design parameters Access type: # of nodes per split ITF: Locations: Lateral 60 - - - Nominal SUS height ~3.5m; Footprint largest impact on INFRA. Look at co-locating optics on larger benches (SQZ but also main ITF). Order of magnitude RM to be estimated but similar Constraining: RMS motion + scattered light might influence RM - 11 -
Action items and summary Mapping and layout - Convert heatmap to 2L - Synchronizing nodes with optical layout work - Discuss w/ optical layout about merging node vessels RM Computation - CAT 1 and 2 to be further evaluated - Input optics (IMCs + LINJ) to be more carefully - Validate guesstimates LF - Not too much change from previous layouts, but reduction in height of ET-LF suspension to 13 m - ~ 14 m tower height would help lowering cavern height. HF - - Significant height shrinkage is plausible. Additional height, over exact LIGO solutions is due to larger optics, and subsequently larger suspension stages. 12
