CNRS INFN

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare

Position and orientation of the optics and benches to deal with the
vertical wedges

VIR-0267B-15

J. Degallaix, E. Genin, R. Gouaty, A. Chiummo, A. Paoli

for their respective subsystem and with contributionsf from ISC

Issue: 3
Date: December 8, 2015

VIRGO * A joint CNRS-INFN Project

Via E. Amaldi, I-56021 S. Stefano a Macerata - Cascina (Pisa)
Secretariat: Telephone (39) 050 752 521 * FAX (39) 050 752 550 * Email W3@virgo.infn.it
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 1 of 25

Contents
1 Introduction and goal 1
2 The current mirror positions 2
3 A simple model 4
4 The mirror definitions for Zemax 4
4.1 The tilt of the arm cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 The Beam splitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3 The West Input mirror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4 The North Input mirror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5 The West Compensation plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6 The North Compensation plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.7 The POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.8 PR and SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 Simulation results for the CITF 9
5.1 Beam positions and tilt at the CITF output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Center of mass of the CITF optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Comparison OSD - INJ results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6 Injection and Detection benches position and orientation 11

6.1 Injection bench position and tilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Detection bench (SDB1) position and tilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.1 Impact of the B1 vertical tilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.2 Impact of the horizontal shift of the B1 position at the bench input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3 Pick-off bench position and tilt of the POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7 Extraction of the pick off beams 17

7.1 Extraction of B5 on SDB1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2 Extraction of B6 and B9 on SPRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8 Modifications of the Detection suspended benches 20
8.1 Changes on SDB1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2 Changes on SPRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9 Possible impacts on stray-light 21

10 Conclusion 22
A Backup scenarios for the dark fringe beam 23
B Availability of the simulations 23
B.1 Zemax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.2 Optocad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.3 DarkF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References 24

1 Introduction and goal

In the middle of April, it was discovered that the beamsplitter wedge has the wrong orientation, the wedge is currently
vertical whereas it was planned in the TDR to be horizontal. Since this discovery, a systematic review of the wedges was
done, and it was found that the POP wedge has also an incorrect orientation (one more time, vertical instead of horizontal).
This unexpected configuration forced us to recalculate the mirrors and benches positions.
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 2 of 25

In the TDR, the calculation were made in 2D, the whole plane of the interferometer being implicitly tilted to take into
account the fact that the end mirrors are lower than the central optics. So for the first time, a full 3D simulations was done
and currently Zemax seems the only tool we have to handle this work.
The goal of this note is: first, to derive the new mirrors/benches positions and second, check that it is still possible
to extract the pickoff beams from the BS and CP AR surfaces. The first work will be done with Zemax with the mirror
positions defined in 3D in space and then we will propagate two beams from each input mirrors toward the injection and
detection.
The configuration tested here is called the reference solution: the BS is kept installed as it is, the POP is mounted such
as its thin part is up (so the wedge orientation is at the opposite of the BS ones) and the recombination of the beams on
the HR side of the beamsplitter happens at a height of -3 mm (instead of 0 mm presently). The reason of the 3 mm is due
to the global tilt of the arms. Indeed, the beam from the arm cavities is going upward toward the injection and detection
system, so in order to not arrive too high on those systems, it was decided to lower whole central CITF optics by 3 mm.

2 The current mirror positions

The expected mirror positions (center of mass) are derived from the measured tower positions [?, ?] with prism either
mounted on the F0 filter (better estimation of the mirror positions) or on the tower square flanges. The latter method
of calculation must be correct within a few millimeter. The current tower positions itself are measured by INF and the
coordinates are given in the Virgo Reference System (VRS). The mirror height (Z coordinate) is relative and is with
respect to the beamsplitter height (detailed explanation in the caption of figure 17).
The center of the system is very close to the beamsplitter, the X axis is toward the detection, the Y toward the North
arm and the Z axis is toward the roof. The table 1 sums up the expected current mirror positions.

WE

Z
Y

WI

NI NE
BS

PRM

Figure 1: Definition of the axis of the Virgo Reference System

 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 3 of 25

Table 1: Measured positions of the mirror center of mass. Height is quoted with respect to BS center, assumed to be zero.
Frame of reference for x and y: VRS, for z: ∆Z = ZV RS − ZBS . Below are the current mirror positions, not the one of
the reference solution (which will be given in table 2). The detailed table as provided by INF is shown in figure 17 (last
page).
Mirror coordinates Method
Mirror name X[m] Y[m] ∆Z[m]
BS 0.0015 0.0248 0 F0 (SAT suspension point)
WI −5.6033 0.0026 −0.0008 F0 (SAT suspension point)
NI −0.0026 5.7777 0.0024 F0 (SAT suspension point)
PR −0.0189 −6.0849 −0.0012 square flange center
SR 6.0422 0.0216 0.0031 DIMA center
NE 0.0129 3005.7877 −0.9020 square flange center
WE −3005.5847 0.0312 −2.2233 square flange center
IT −0.0336 −11.0015 −0.0048 F0 (SAT suspension point)
DT 10.9718 −0.0028 0.0046 F0 (SAT suspension point)
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 4 of 25

3 A simple model
Before going to the full Zemax simulation, a simple model could be derived to have some rough estimate of some very
relevant numbers. First we can calculate the tilt of the laser beam coming from the arms:
The West end mirror is around 2.2 m below the central interferometer. So the beam coming from the arm cavity will be
tilted by 2.2/3000 which is around -730 µrad. Similarly, with the North end mirror 0.9 m below the central interferometer,
the laser coming back from the north arm is tilted upward by -300 µrad.
Assuming the beamsplitter is at a height of 0, the West input mirror should be 6 × 730 × 10−6 lower than the BS (that
is -4.4 mm). For North input mirror, we found it is -1.8 mm. So the 2 input mirrors are always lower than the BS.
If we suppose the BS in the middle of the recycling cavities, the PR height will be determined by the beam tilt coming
from the North arm, whereas the SR height is derived by the beam coming from the West arm. So following, the previous
reasoning, we can expect PR and SR to be respectively 1.8 mm and 4.4 mm higher than BS. So that simple result high-
lights the fact that the whole plane of the interferometer is tilted.

Then a second useful number is the lateral shift in transmission from the beamsplitter. For a beamsplitter of thickness
t = 65.5 mm, refractive index n = 1.45 and with a beam incident at 45◦ , the lateral shift ∆y of the laser beam in
transmission is given by [?]:  s 
1 − sin2 θ 
∆y = t sin θ 1 −
n2 − sin2 θ

That gives us ∆y = 20.4 mm. The simple calculations presented here will explain most of the results in the next section,
where the exact shape and positions of the mirrors will be implemented.

4 The mirror definitions for Zemax

For Zemax, the mirror has to be defined as a front surface and with a particular thickness and orientation. Of course,
curvature, wedge and tilt could also be added. So here we will define the position of this front surface and the other
parameters to be directly entered in Zemax. To keep the convention of the software, the distance are in mm and the angles
in degree. The angles are given counter-clockwise around the given axis, a simplified drawing with exaggerated angle is
given for clarity. The high-reflectivity side of the optics is shown by a blue line.
The height along the Z axis is given with the respect to the current beamsplitter position which is currently set to 0.
In this section the transverse position of the mirrors are given as implemented in Zemax. However the lon-
gitudinal positions have not been corrected for the sidebands resonances. For optical simulations and further
references, the mirror positions to be used are given in table 2.

4.1 The tilt of the arm cavities

As highlighted by the table 1, the end mirrors are lower compared to the input mirrors by around 1 and 2 meters for
respectively the North and West arms. As the result, the beam inside the cavity is tilted as well as the mirrors which are
kept always perpendicular to the beams as showed in the following drawing:
The tilt is only present around the Y axis for the west arm cavity, no large noticeable tilt exists for the X axis. In a
similar fashion, a tilt exists for North arm around the X axis. For both arms, the end mirrors are lower than the input
mirrors.
In order for the beams from the arm cavities to be at a height of −3 mm at the beamsplitter, the height of the two input
mirrors have to be adjusted (lowered in fact). For the 2 other coordinates (X and Y) of the input mirrors, we have a mixed
approach: the coordinate along the propagation of the beam is set by the current mirror position (and later finely tuned
with Optocad) and the transverse coordinate (for example Y for WI) is set by the TDR value (0 in that case). At the time
of writing, WI payload has already been moved to its TDR value1 .
This solution with the BS positioned as planned in the TDS must ensure an optimal recombination on the HR side of
the BS for the two beams coming from the arm cavities. Once this is set, the positions of the other CITF optics (PR, SR
and POP) can be derived, as well as the position of the injection and detection suspended benches.
1 Virgo Logbook entry #32372
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 5 of 25

Z
Y
WI
WE
X

Figure 2: Exaggerated side view of the west arm

4.2 The Beam splitter

The beamsplitter has been positioned at its TDR values in X and Y in order for the West arm to be centered along Y = 0
and for the North arm to be centered with X = 0. As mentioned earlier, the use of the reference solution implies that the
beamsplitter center of mass should be at Z = -3 mm.
The center of the front surface is defined on the figure 3 by the red dot. The front surface is the HR surface of the BS.

BS
Z
Y

Figure 3: Zoom on the beamsplitter

The red dot coordinates and the front face tilts are given by:
Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
BS front -20.5 0 -3 0 0 45 0 0 785

BS is 65.5 mm thick has a vertical wedge of 380 µrad (0.022◦ ) with the thin part down. In the simulation, the wedge
was added to the AR side.

4.3 The West Input mirror

The center of the front surface is defined on the figure 4 by the red dot. Due to the lower West end mirror (∆Z2 =
−2.216 m), the West arm cavity beam is tilted by −739 µrad, and hence also the West input and end mirror is tilted by
the same value.
The red dot coordinates and the front face tilt are given by:
2 Height difference between the end mirror (-2.2234) and the input mirror (-0.0074).
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 6 of 25

WI
Figure 4: Zoom on the West input mirror

Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]

Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
WI front -5703.3 0 -7.4 0 -0.0423 0.0006 0 -0.739 0.001

WI is 200 mm thick has no wedge but two curved surfaces of radius 1420 m (meniscus lens). The X coordinate is
given from the tower position, the Y from the TDR whereas the Z coordinates is given by the desired recombination height
on the beamsplitter.

4.4 The North Input mirror

The center of the front surface is defined on the figure 5 by the red dot. Due to the lower North end mirror (∆Z =
−0.8530 m), the North arm cavity beam is tilted by −299 µrad, and consequently also the North input and end mirrors
are tilted by the same value.

NI
Figure 5: Zoom on the West input mirror

The red dot coordinates and the front face tilts are given by:
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 7 of 25

Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]

Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
NI front 0 5877.7 -4.9 -0.0171 0 0.0002 -0.299 0 0.004

NI is 200 mm thick has no wedge but two curved surfaces of radius 1420 m (meniscus lens).The X coordinate is given
from the TDR, the Y from the tower position whereas the Z coordinates is given by the desired recombination height on
the beamsplitter.

4.5 The West Compensation plate

For the plate to be perpendicular to the incoming beam we suppose the plate to be tilted by θy = −739 µrad. Then for the
proper extraction of the pick off beams from the AR sides, we will use the latest optimal values from DET (VIR-0182A-
15). In DET format, it is Tx = 375 µrad (rotation of the CP around its horizontal axis) and Ty 650 µrad (rotation of the
CP around its vertical axis). For the sign of Tx , the plate is tilted in such a way that seen from the beamplitter, the upper
part of the plate (Z > 0) is closer to the beamsplitter than the bottom part.
Theses 2 values Tx and Ty , could be translated in the Virgo Reference System as an extra tilt of θy = 375 µrad and
θz = 650 µrad.
The plate has a small wedge (< 20 µrad), which is included in the simulation, the thin part is down as it is now
installed. The coordinates for the CP front surface are given knowing the separation from the IM and the CP which is of
200 mm (from AR IM surface to CP first surface) according to the TDR.

CP W
Figure 6: Zoom on the West CP

The red dot coordinates and the front face tilts are given by:
Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
CP W front -5303.3 0.00 -7.4 0 -0.0209 0.0372 0 -0.364 0.650

The CP is 35 mm thick and has two flat surfaces.

4.6 The North Compensation plate

For the plate to be perpendicular to the incoming beam we suppose the plate to be tilted by θx = −299 µrad. Then for the
proper extraction of the pick off beams from the AR side, we will use the latest optimal values from DET (VIR-0182A-
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 8 of 25

15). In DET format, it is Tx = 375 µrad (rotation of the CP around its horizontal axis) and Ty −650 µrad (rotation of the
CP around its vertical axis). To be noted the change of sign with the CP W in the vertical tilt.
The 2 values, could be translated in the Virgo Reference System as an extra tilt of θx = 375 µrad and θz = −650 µrad.
This plate has also small wedge (< 20 µrad) which is included in the simulation, the thin part is down as it is now
installed. The coordinates for the CP front surface are given knowing the separation from the IM and the CP which is of
200 mm (from AR IM surface to CP first surface).

CP N
Figure 7: Zoom on the North CP

The red dot coordinates and the front face tilts are given by:
Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
CP N front 0 5477.7 -4.9 0.0044 0 -0.0372 0.076 0 -0.65

The CP is 35 mm thick and has two flat surfaces.

4.7 The POP

The center of the front surface is defined on the figure 8 by the red dot.

POP
Z
Y

Figure 8: Zoom on the POP

The red dot coordinates and the front face tilts are given by:
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 9 of 25

Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]

Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
POP front -20.4 -5939.9 0 0.2 0 6 3.4 0 104

POP is 35 mm thick has a vertical wedge of 1000 µrad (0.057◦ ) with the thin part up (at the opposite of BS). A slight
tilt along the horizontal plane of the POP is implemented in order to arrive at the right height on the first optic of the SPRB
telescope, the detailed explanation is given in section 6.3.

4.8 PR and SR
For the simulations done at LMA, PR and SR are not included in the simulation because their positions are results of the
simulation itself. For the expected positions of PR and SR, we took the actual position of the tower along the beam axis
(along Y for PR and along X for SR) to set that particular coordinate. The transverse coordinates are derived from the
simulations and are reported in the next section.
In the Zemax simulation, a screen (i.e. a position detector) is inserted at the position of PR (HR side), located
(−95 mm) along the y axis with respect to the POP front face, (PR Y = -6035 mm). Similarly, the SR screen is positioned
at the coordinate X = 5994 mm.

5 Simulation results for the CITF

This section gives the main results from the simulations. Once the optics have been implemented in Zemax, we launched
two beams at the input tower positions, one in each arms (taken inside in the cavity, so they have not yet passed the input
mirrors) centered on the input mirrors and tilted to be at normal incidence with the IMs surfaces. So those are simple rays
and not a proper Gaussian beam, but that is enough for the ray-tracing purpose we pursue.
To have a perfect recombination of the beams from the arm cavities, the beamsplitter tilt is finely tuned (by (0.001◦
along the X axis). The beam splitter position is also adjusted so the beam on the HR surface is centered on the beamsplitter
(so the transmitted beam is not centered on the AR side but according to the OSD simulations it has no consequences.)

5.1 Beam positions and tilt at the CITF output

The beam on PR has for coordinates and tilt:

Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
PR beam -19.4 -6035 -0.0 -0.004 0 0 -0.07 0 0
The beam is going slightly upward with a tilt of 70 µrad as seen from the BS toward the injection.

The beam (B1) on SR has for coordinates and tilt:

Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
SR beam 5994 20.3 2.6 0 0.055 0 0 0.961 0
The B1 beam is going upward as it propagates with a tilt of 961 µrad as seen from BS toward the detection.

The beam (B5), the reflection to the BS AR side from the beam coming from the North arm, on SR has for coordinates
and tilt:
Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
SR beam 5994 72.1 -3.2 0 -0.001 0 0 -0.015 0
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 10 of 25

The B5 beam is going slightly downward with a tilt of −15 µrad as seen from BS toward the detection.

5.2 Center of mass of the CITF optics

The use of two different softwares was necessary to derive the optimal center of mass of the optics:

1. with Zemax, we can get the transverse (perpendicular to the laser beam so also including the beam height) positions
of the optics. That what is explained in the previous section.
2. Optocad simulations have been done to check the longitudinal lengths in the recycling cavities, that is particularly
important to ensure the proper resonance of the sidebands. The results of the desired optimal mirror positions are
shown in the table 2. It is planned to also derive the optical path directly in Zemax in a near future for cross-
checking.

Table 2: Calculation of the positions of the mirror center of mass from the Zemax and Optocad simulations.
Coordinates
Mirror name X[mm] Y[mm] Z[mm]
BS 2.7 23.2 −3
WI −5599.9 0 −7.4
NI 0 5774 −4.9
PR −19.4 −6084.9 0.0
SR 6044.0 20.3 2.6

Table 3: How do we derive the above numbers:

Coordinates
Mirror name X [mm] Y [mm] Z [mm]
BS By design By design By design
WI Optocad By design Zemax
NI By design Optocad Zemax
PR Zemax Optocad Zemax
SR Optocad Zemax Zemax

Comparing the results from the Zemax and Optocad simulations (table 2) and the actual tower positions from the
beginning (table 1), one can derive the required mirror shift which are shown in the table 4.

Table 4: Difference between desired mirror positions from Zemax and Optocad and the actual tower positions (Zemax/Op-
tocad results - actual tower positions). The numbers indicated by how much the suspension has to be shifted to reach the
optimal position. The blue numbers are derived from Optocad.
Coordinates
Mirror name ∆X[mm] ∆Y[mm] ∆Z[mm]
BS 1.2 −1.6 −3
WI 3.4 −2.6 −6.6
NI 2.6 −3.7 −7.3
PR −0.5 0 1.2
SR 1.8 −1.3 −0.5
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 11 of 25

Three comments can be made from table 4:

1. The main adjustment to be done is along the z direction, that is expected since the reference plane is now 3 mm
lower and for the first time, the mirror positions have been derived in 3D, so taking into account the beam tilt due
to the arm cavities, the input mirrors have to be lower than the BS.
2. The adjustment to be made for PR and SR are reasonable, with less than 2 mm for the 3 coordinates.

3. WI is already planned to be adjusted at its nominal position3 .

5.3 Comparison OSD - INJ results

Two groups have independently developed a Zemax simulations for the central part of the interferometer: in EGO (E.
Genin for INJ) and at LMA (D. Hofman for OSD). The simulations have been developed separately because of the
different experiences of the users and also for different goals: INJ simulates the beam up to the injection bench whereas
for OSD, we stopped at the PR mirror.
Both results have been compared and are similar with errors in position less than 0.2 mm and in angle less than 0.001◦ .

6 Injection and Detection benches position and orientation

Once the beams going out from the interferometer are well defined, the positions of the injection and detection benches
can be calculated.

6.1 Injection bench position and tilt

The results presented here have been reported previously in the documents [?, ?, ?, ?] with some update related to the
latest table of optics expected positions. For what concerns INJ, we have made a 3D ray tracing simulation using Zemax
to determine where should be located the last element of SIB1 bench (the meniscus lens) in the Virgo Reference System
(VRS). The most important result which concerns INJ is presented on table 5.

Table 5: Meniscus lens optical center position in the Virgo reference system.
Coordinates [mm] Tilt [deg] Tilt [mrad]
X Y Z θx θy θz θx θy θz
ML front -19.2 -10656 0.4 -0.004 0 0 -0.07 0 0

Note that the meniscus lens (ML) should be tilted around θx by −0.004◦4 meaning that the whole bench and conse-
quently the beam should be tilted around θx by this amount.
According to what we have measured and extrapolated from the measurements, the meniscus lens center coordinates
are: XM L = (−16.8 ± 0.5) mm and ZM L = (−2.0 ± 0.5) mm

Indeed, starting from Injection tower filter 0 coordinates in the VRS measured by INF group [?], we get xIT F 0 =-33.6
mm. Since we know that the meniscus lens axis is shifted by 14 mm towards East respect to SIB1 bench center and that
SIB1 was moved by 4.2 mm towards East5 . xM L = −33.6 + 14 + 4.2 = −15.4 mm.
The vertical position of the meniscus lens center was estimated using a Leica level6 .Thus, the displacement of the Menis-
cus lens and consequently of the SIB1 bench is given in table 6.
In conclusion, horizontally, we have to move SIB1 bench, IMC end mirror by 3.8 mm westward. This should not be
a problem for what concerns the suspension according to SAT [?]. For SIB1, in order to re-center the bench blocking
3 Virgo Logbook entry #32372
4 Here one can notice, one difference from the OSD value which is found to be −0.003◦
5 Virgo Logbook entry #32426
6 Virgo Logbook entry #32334
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 12 of 25

Table 6: Meniscus lens optical center position difference respect the meniscus lens current estimated position.
∆X [mm] ∆Z [mm]
Difference respect to ML -3.8 2.4
estimated optical center

system we will have to move the bench blocking system and to move the ground coils supports. This operation will
require a re-opening of IB tower and might take one day. A top view of one ground coil magnet system of SIB1 south side
is depicted on figure 9. There should be a clearance of approximately 9.5 mm between the coil and the magnet support
since we have to move the bench by only 3.8 mm towards west it should be ok.

9.5 mm

Figure 9: top view of the South ground coils. As one can see on the figure the distance between the coil and the magnet
support (attached to SIB1) is of the order of 9.5 mm.
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 13 of 25

For the IMC end mirror, when the suspension point will have been moved by 3.8 mm an inspection inside MC tower
is required in order to check that there is no interference of the payload/marionette with all the safety structures installed
in MC tower around the payload.
Vertically, if we lower the ITF plane by 3 mm, SIB1 bench should be raised by only a few mm. The EIB height should be
ok (currently a laser beam located 100 mm from the optical table is at z=0mm in the VRS). No IMC end mirror vertical
displacement is required.
For what concerns aspects related to the planning, we give hereafter a list of tasks and an estimation of the time required
to modify the position of INJ benches to cope with the new ITF optical configuration. The main actions which have to be
done in the next months are listed below:
• Move SIB1 bench up by 2.4 mm.
• Move SIB1 bench westward by 3.8 mm.

• Check ground coils centering and re-center it and the blocking system (IB tower opening required).
• Move IMC end mirror westward by 3.8 mm.
• Check IMC payload and marionette safety structures (MC tower opening required).

• Input beam should be realigned to account for the bench displacement. SIB1 global realignment using on-board
actuators has to be foreseen.
Overall, we have to foresee 2 to 3 weeks of activity to make all this work and recover a proper functioning of INJ
subsystem.

6.2 Detection bench (SDB1) position and tilt

The BS vertical wedge has an impact on the position of the dark fringe beam (B1) which propagates through the SR mirror
and then through the suspended detection bench SDB1. The main differences with respect to the BS horizontal wedge
configuration are the following:

• As written in section 4.9, the dark fringe beam (B1) reaching the SR mirror and propagating towards the suspended
detection bench SDB1 is tilted vertically by 961 µrad, instead of the expected vertical tilt of (739 µrad) in the case
of a BS horizontal wedge. Given this tilt angle of 961 µrad, the dark fringe beam reaches the first component of the
SDB1 bench, i.e. the telescope meniscus lens, at an altitude Z = 7.1 mm in the VRS.
• With a BS horizontal wedge the B1 beam transmitted by the BS was tilted horizontally by 300 µrad (with respect to
the west arm axis) due to the crossing of the BS wedge. This horizontal tilt induced an horizontal shift of 3.2 mm of
the beam position at the entrance of the SDB1 bench. With the BS vertical wedge, the B1 beam is no longer tilted
in the horizontal plane, which implies that the beam position on the SDB1 bench changes by +3.2 mm along the Y
axis.
The impact of the B1 beam position at the entrance of the detection bench is discussed in the two sub-sections that follow.

6.2.1 Impact of the B1 vertical tilt

As quoted in Table 1 the geometrical center of the detection tower, hosting the SDB1 bench, is at the altitude Z0 = 4.6 mm,
while the B1 beam reaches the meniscus lens at the altitude Z = 7.1 mm. Accordingly the SDB1 bench will be raised by
Z − Z0 = 2.5 mm with respect to the tower center in order to maintain a difference of altitude of 100 mm between the
beam reaching the telescope meniscus lens and the bench floor.

Moreover, in order to compensate for the vertical tilt (961 µrad) of the B1 beam reaching the SDB1 bench, the tele-
scope meniscus lens will be shifted up in the vertical plane by 3.5 mm with respect to its current nominal position (ie
center of the lens at 100 mm from the bench floor). It has been checked with two independent simulations (Zemax,
Optocad) [?] that such a vertical shift of the meniscus lens allows to obtain in transmission of the lens a beam which
propagates horizontally (ie parallel to the bench surface) and at 100 mm from the bench floor. This is also the case for
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 14 of 25

beams at different wavelengthes than the YAG (790 nm for the Hartmann beam, 532 nm for the auxiliary laser). Indeed
it was checked with the Zemax simulation that the effect on the beams position and tilt of the different refractive index
of the meniscus lens at those wavelengths is well negligible. The Zemax simulation has also been used to check that the
vertical shift of the meniscus lens has a negligible impact on the theoretical mode matching with the OMC which remains
above 99.9%. Furthermore the needed shift (ie 3.5 mm) is half the available range of the picomotor (±6.3 mm) allowing
to adjust the vertical position of the meniscus lens mount.

As a consequence of the compensation of the vertical tilt of the incident beam by a vertical translation of the menis-
cus lens, the B1 beam will be miscentered by 3.5 mm with respect to the center of the lens. Given the lens diameter of
150 mm and the beam size (w = 22 mm), this miscentering is acceptable. It has also been checked with a Zemax simu-
lation [?] that in this configuration the B5 beam will be miscentered by 13 mm with respect to the center of the meniscus
lens, which is also OK for a negligible clipping on the edges of the optic mount.

Table 7: Expected position of the center of the SDB1 bench in the Virgo reference system, for the reference solution. The
Z position refers to the altitude of a point located at 100 mm above the bench floor, that is to say the expected altitude of
the beam.
Coordinates [m] Tilt [deg]
X Y Z θx θy θz
Center of SDB1 bench 10.9718 -0.0005 0.0071 0 0 0

Table 8: Expected position of the dark fringe telescope meniscus lens optical center in the Virgo reference system, for the
reference solution.
Coordinates [m] Tilt [deg]
Surface name X Y Z θx θy θz
ML front 10.6168 0.0203 0.0106 0 0 0

6.2.2 Impact of the horizontal shift of the B1 position at the bench input
By comparing the Y coordinate of the center of the meniscus lens given in table 8, and the Y coordinate of the B1 beam
reaching the SR mirror in section 4.9, one can notice a difference of 4.3 mm (20.3 mm-16 mm). This value is compatible
(with an error of about 1 mm) with the expected 3.2 mm miscentering on the meniscus lens due to having the BS wedge
becoming vertical. This implies that the beam will arrive on the meniscus lens with a horizontal miscentering by 4.2 mm,
with respect to the meniscus lens center as it was installed assuming a BS horizontal wedge. To deal with this, two actions
will be performed:

• The SDB1 bench will be translated by 2.3 mm along the Y axis, thus reducing the residual horizontal beam mis-
centering down to 2 mm with respect to the meniscus lens. The SDB1 bench translation will be performed by
displacing the suspension axis of the bench. The requested translation (2.3 mm) is compatible with the tuning
range of the suspension axis [?]. It must be underlined that a translation of the SDB1 bench will result in a similar
horizontal shift of the bench output beams which propagate towards the SDB2 bench. Therefore the translation
of the bench by 2.3 mm towards the Y axis, combined to the vertical translation by 2.5 mm (section 6.2.1), will
induce a √
miscentering of the beams passing through the mini-links between the SDB1 tower and SDB2 mini-towers
equal to 2.32 + 2.52 = 3.4 mm. Such miscentering remains lower than the foreseen margin for the mechanical
positioning of the mini-links (order of 5 mm) and is therefore acceptable.
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 15 of 25

• The residual miscentering of 2 mm with respect to the meniscus lens center will be compensated by a translation
(by 2 mm) of the meniscus lens along the Y axis. This translation can be applied with a picomotor already foreseen
to correct the beam miscentering. A Zemax simulation [?] was performed to check that a horizontal miscentering
of the beam by 3.2 mm (larger than the one foreseen) can be compensated by translating the meniscus lens by the
same amount. In the simulation the meniscus lens was also shifted vertically to compensate the beam vertical tilt
angle as mentioned in 6.2.1. The simulation shows that the horizontal translation of the meniscus lens allows to
recover a good matching and a good alignment with the OMC (above 99.8%) under the assumption of a 3.2 mm
miscentering. Moreover it has also been checked with the Zemax simulation that the horizontal translation of the
meniscus lens has a low impact on the position and tilt of the Hartmann beam (at 790 nm) and auxiliary beam (at
532 nm): indeed after 664 mm of propagation after the dark fringe telescope, the YAG beam and the Hartmann
beam are only separated by 0.2 mm (0.55 mm between the 532 nm and the 1064 nm beams) for a translation of the
lens of 3.2 mm (in reality the needed translation will be only 2 mm, and thus the beam separation even smaller).
This type of deviation between the YAG beam and the other wavelengthts should not require any correction on the
bench.
The actions described above correspond to the reference solution to deal with the horizontal shift of the dark fringe beam.
It must be underlined that alternative solutions exist, if for instance, the optical distortions induced by the dark fringe tele-
scope when the meniscus lens is translated turns out to be more significant than expected. In this case a possible solution
would be to correct the beam horizontal shift entirely by a translation of the bench. Backup solutions are discussed in
section A in case the needed translation to be applied on the SDB1 bench turns out to be larger than expected.

The expected position of the center of the SDB1 bench in the VRS coordinates is shown in Table 7. The bench coor-
dinates have been deduced from the coordinates of the center of the detection tower derived from the SAT suspension
point (cf. Table 1). The bench and the detection tower are expected to be at the same X coordinate, while the bench will
be shifted by +2.3 mm along the Y axis and by +2.5 mm along the Z axis with respect to the tower center. The expected
position of the meniscus lens, after applying the vertical translation to compensate the tilt of the incident beam and the
horizontal translation to compensate the residual horizontal miscentering of the beam is shown in table 8.

6.3 Pick-off bench position and tilt of the POP

In this section the impact of the pick-off bench (SPRB) altitude on the POP tilt is discussed. It must be underlined that the
orientation of the BS and POP wedges has very little impact for this discussion, however this section is included in the
present document for the sake of completeness.
The center of the SPRB minitower is expected to be at the same altitude as the BS and PR towers, that is to say at
Z = 0, with error bars of several mm due to the mechanical positioning of the minitower. Accordingly the bench floor
is expected to be near the altitude Z = −100 mm. Due to the large size of the pick-off beam (B4), the doublet of lenses
which is located at the intput of the pick-off bench has a diameter of 230 mm and its center is at a height of 119 mm
with respect to the bench floor (this differs from the usual 100 mm of vertical separation between the beam and the bench
floor on the other suspended benches in the central building). In order to keep the B4 beam centered on the doublet of the
pick-off telescope, the beam reaching the SPRB bench should be at the altitude Z = 19 mm. The altitude of the B4 beam
at the input of the pick-off telescope can be adjusted by tilting vertically the POP. The needed tilt is discussed below.
Due to the BS vertical wedge, the beam propagating from the BS mirror towards the POP is tilted vertically by about
470 µrad, and reached the POP at an altitude near Z = 0. Considering that the distance between the POP and the doublet
of the pick-off telescope is about 2.59 m, the beam reflected by the POP (B4) must be tilted vertically by 7.3 mrad in order
to reach the bench at the desired altitude Z = 19 mm. As schematized in Figure 10, this is achieved by tilting vertically
the POP by θx = 3.4 mrad (this value assumes that the main POP surface is parallel to the plumb line when the POP is
not tilted).
The B4 beam reaching the telescope doublet is at an altitude Z = 19 mm with a vertical tilt angle equal to 7.3 mrad.
As shown in Figure 11, the pick-off telescope is made of a doublet and a two-inches diverging lens (L2), located 3.94 m
after the doublet. Three folding mirrors (M1, M2, M3) are present along the optical path between the doublet and the L2
lens. These mirrors will be tilted in order to lower the beam at the altitude Z = 0 at the level of M3, and to suppress the
beam tilt angle so that it propagates parallel to the bench floor after being reflected on the M3 mirror. A simple geometrical
calculation shows that this is achieved for instance by tilting the M1 mirror by 9.4 mrad and the M3 mirror by 5.8 mrad
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 16 of 25

(with opposite sign) in the vertical plane. An Optocad simulation [?] of the pick-off telescope (simulating the optical path
projected in a vertical plane) has confirmed these results.

3.4 mrad Doublet on SPRB

2.59 m

POP
B4
19 mm
7.3 mrad
Z=0
470 µrad
Z From BS

Y
X

Figure 10: Tuning of the B4 beam altitude with a POP tilt angle.

Folding mirror M3 Folding mirror

M1

Lens L2

Doublet

Folding mirror
M2

Figure 11: Optical layout of the SPRB bench.

 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 17 of 25

7 Extraction of the pick off beams

In this section the impact of the BS and POP vertical wedges on the extraction of the auxiliary (called also pick off) beams
is discussed. The extraction of the pick off beams only happens on the detection side of the interferometer and are dumped
on the injection side.

7.1 Extraction of B5 on SDB1

As a consequence of the BS vertical wedge the B1 and B5 beams do no longer propagate in the same horizontal plane.
As written in section 5.1 the two beams are now tilted with respect to each others by 0.055 + 0.001 = 0.056◦ (972 µrad)
in the vertical plane (θy ), and they are separated horizontally (along the y axis) by 51.4 mm before the SR mirror. A
Zemax simulation has been used to propagate these beams through the SR lens and the dark fringe telescope [?]. The
input parameters considered in the simulation are a relative tilt angle of 971 µrad in the vertical plane and a horizontal
separation of 51.5 mm between the B1 and B5 beams after the BS, which is almost identical to the theoretical positions
quoted above.
The vertical position of the SR mirror has been adjusted to keep the B1 beam centered on the mirror and the SR mirror
has been tilted by 971 µrad in order to keep the mirror perpendicular to the B1 beam. The vertical position of the SDB1
bench and of the meniscus lens have been adjusted as described in section 6.2.1. The incident beam was considered hori-
zontally miscentered with respect to the meniscus lens by 3.2 mm (instead of the expected 2 mm miscentering discussed
in section 6.2.2), which was compensated by translating the meniscus lens along the Y axis by 3.2 mm. With all these
inputs, the propagation of the B1 and B5 beams have been simulated up to the mirror SDB1 B5 M1 which is located
664.5 mm (optical path length) after the second parabolic mirror of the telescope on the SDB1 bench (cf Figure 12).
At the level of the SDB1 B5 M1 mirror, the Zemax simulation shows that the B1 and B5 beams are separated vertically
by 21 mm and horizontally by 0.7 mm. With respect to the bench floor the B1 height is 100 mm while the B5 height is
121 mm. Considering the expected beam size (w = 1.3 mm), the vertical separation of 21 mm between the two beams is
sufficient for allowing their extraction without problems of clipping. A scenario for extracting the B5 beam in the plane
of the SDB1 B5 M1 folding mirror is schematized in Figure 13. The main difference with respect to the current optical
design is that the folding mirror has to be centered at 121 mm above the bench floor, and the B1 beam will propagate
straight below the mount holding the B5 folding mirror.
A simulation based on DarkF has also been run to cross-check the results obtained with Zemax and to propagate the
beams coming from the reflections on the AR coating of the compensating plates through the central interferometer and
then exiting by the dark fringe telescope. For this simulation the considered angles for the CP tilts are the same as the
ones described in sections 4.5 and 4.6. A differential offset was set between the two short Michelson arms in order to
obtain a power of 80 mW in the dark fringe, with a 73% matching to the TEM00 mode (a fraction of the dark fringe
power is in the first Laguerre-Gauss mode). One should note that a larger amount of power is expected in the dark fringe
with the real interferometer due to the side bands (not simulated with DarkF) and due to the high order modes generated
by the interferometer optical defects. The power of the other simulated beams (B5, CP reflections) correspond to what
is expected with the real interferometer. The results [?] are illustrated by Figure 14, which shows the distribution of the
B1, B5 and secondary beams induced by the CP reflections in a plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of
B1 and placed 575 mm after the second parabolic mirror of the dark fringe telescope, that is to say at the position where
it is foreseen to dump the CP reflections. The foreseen beam dump will consist in a screen covering all the CP beams
(the foreseen active surface of the beam dump is delimited by the pink dotted rectangle drawn in Figure 14) and made of
steel mirror with AR coating. Two holes will be machined in the beam dump in order to allow the transmission of the
B1 and B5 beams: the foreseen clear aperture of these holes is materialized by the pink dotted circles around the B1 and
B5 beams. As it can be seen on Figure 14 the beams induced by the CP reflections are well separated from the B1 and
B5 beams and will thus be dumped easily. The vertical separation between the B1 and B5 beams obtained with DarkF is
consistent with the one obtained with Zemax. For what concerns the horizontal separation between B1 and B5 (0.6 mm),
the results obtained with DarkF [?], Zemax [?] and also Optocad [?] are identical.
The impact of changing the meniscus lens vertical or horizontal position has also been checked with Zemax [?].
Instead of considering the meniscus lens vertically shifted by 3.5 mm as described in section 6.2.1, the center of the lens
was kept at 100 mm above the bench floor. In this situation the B1 beam is perfectly centered on the meniscus lens, but
the vertical tilt angle of the beam is not compensated and the beam transmitted by the telescope is no longer aligned with
OMC. Nevertheless the simulation shows that the vertical separation between the two beams B1/B5 remains the same
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 18 of 25

Figure 12: Top view of the SDB1 bench. The purple circle indicates the position of the SDB1 B5 M1 mirror where the
two beams B1 and B5 are separated. The red and yellow lines indicate the foreseen optical paths for B1 and B5 when the
BS wedge was supposed to be horizontal.

One-inch folding mirror

(tilted by 45 deg around vertical axis)

B5
mirror mount
B5
support
21 mm

B1

100 mm

BENCH FLOOR

Figure 13: Scheme of the B5 beam extraction with a one-inch folding mirror. The beams are drawn with a diameter equal
to 6w. The folding mirror is rotated by 45◦ with respect to the incident beams (and hence the oval shape of the mirror).
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 19 of 25

B5

B1

Figure 14: Projection of the B1, B5 and secondary beams coming from the CP reflections in a plane perpendicular to the
propagation of the B1 beam and located 575 mm after the dark fringe telescope, as predicted by the DarkF simulation.

(about 21 mm) under this assumption. Similarly a simulation was run assuming no horizontal shift of the incident beam
and lead to the same results concerning the B1/B5 separation. One can conclude that the separation between B1 and B5 at
the telescope output is rather independent from the selected strategy for dealing with the vertical tilt of the B1 beam and
its horizontal shift.

7.2 Extraction of B6 and B9 on SPRB

It is foreseen to extract part of the beams induced by the reflections on the CP at the level of the SPRB bench. In order to
properly separate the CP beams from B5 at the level of the SDB1 bench, and simultaneously to avoid any overlap between
the beams reflected on the front surface7 of the CP (B6p, B9p) and the beams reflected on the back surface of the CP (B6,
B9) at the level of the SPRB bench, one has set the requirements on the tilt angles of the CP which are given in sections
4.4 and 4.5.

By combining an Optocad simulation (to estimate the separating distance between B4 and the CP beams) and a geo-
metrical calculation (to extract the right position between the beams in 3D) [?], one obtains after the pick-off telescope,
on the SPRB bench, the distribution of beams shown in Figure 15. The beams B4, B6, B9, B6p and B9p are reflected
on the surface of the POP which points towards the BS, while the beams B4’, B6’, B9’, B6p’, B9p’ are reflected on the
surface of the POP pointing towards PR. With the thicker edge of the POP down, the B4’, B6’, B9’, B6p’, B9p’ beams
are obtained from the B4, B6, B9, B6p, B9p beams by a vertical down translation of 32.8 mm. As shown in Figure 15,
with this choice of wedge orientation, and CP tilts, all the beams are well separated, which makes possible the extraction
of the B6 and B9 beams.

The positions of the CP beams and the B4 beam after the pick-off telescope have also been checked with a DarkF
simulation. The predicted beam positions are shown in Figure 16. By comparing this figure with Figure 15, one can
notice an opposite sign on the relative altitude of the beams B4’, B6’, B9’, B6p’, B9p’ with respect to the beams B4,
7 The front surface of the CP is defined as the surface pointing towards the arm cavities, while the back surface is defined as the surface pointing

towards PR. B6 refers to the beam from the West CP and B9 from the North.
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 20 of 25

B6, B9, B6p, B9p: this is due to the fact that an opposite orientation have been chosen for the POP wedge in the DarkF
simulation. Another difference between the two simulations comes from the fact that multiple reflections on the CP have
been included in DarkF, which is why more beams are visible in Figure 16. Beyond these differences, the two figures are
very similar, which confirms that the positions of the CP beams with respect to B4 are well understood.

B9p B6p

B4
B6 B9 32.8 mm

B9p’ B6p’

B4’

B6’ B9’

Figure 15: Expected positions of the B4 beam and the beams coming from the reflections on the CP (B6, B9, B6p, B9p),
in a plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of B4 and located 280 mm after the pick-off telescope. The beams
are drawn with a diameter corresponding to 8w. B4, B6, B9, B6p, B9p refer to the beams reflected on the main surface
of the POP (ie the one with the higher reflectivity), while B4’, B6’, B9’, B6p’, B9p’ refer to the beams reflected on the
second surface of the POP.

8 Modifications of the Detection suspended benches

8.1 Changes on SDB1
For what concerns the SDB1 bench, the following actions need to be performed in order to tackle the BS vertical wedge
configuration:
• A new diaphragm needs to be designed and produced for dumping the CP beams while extracting the B1 and B5
beams. This part will replace an existing diaphragm already installed on the bench. The manufacturing and coatings
(AR+DLC) of the part will be supervised by SLC and may require a production time of 1-2 months, depending on
the reactivity of the external subcontractors.
• A new mechanical support (as the one shown in Figure 13) needs to be designed and manufactured for attaching
the one-inch folding mirror that will extract the B5 beam.
• Additionally, several posts along the B5 optical path will need to be modified for tackling the higher beam. This
concerns the posts of a lens, a quadrant photodiode and two folding mirrors. The B5 beam path will then need some
re-alignment.
• In order to accomodate both the vertical and horizontal shifts of the meniscus lens, the position of the telescope
diaphragm will be adjusted. To this purpose a modification of the diaphragm holding support will be performed.
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 21 of 25

B4’

B9p’ B6p’

B6’ B9’
B9p B6p

B6 B9

B4

Figure 16: Projection of the B4 and secondary beams coming from the CP reflections in a plane perpendicular to the
propagation of the B4 beam and located 251.3 mm after the pick-off telescope, as predicted by the DarkF simulation.
The prime beams are inverted compared to figure 15 because the POP wedge for the DarkF simulations was in opposite
direction.

• The bench should be rised by 2.5 mm as explained in section 6.2. A translation along the Y axis of the bench by
2.3 mm is also foreseen as explained in section 6.2.2.
• Once the optical components of the bench have been reshuffled, an adjustment of the bench balancing will be
needed.
• The meniscus lens will be rised by 3.5 mm as explained in section 6.2, and translated along the Y axis by 2 mm as
explained in section 6.2.2. These steps should be performed only when the real ITF beam is available on the SDB1
bench.
Overall it might take about 2 months between the time when a decision is made to go ahead with the proposed solution
for tackling the BS vertical wedge and the time when the reshuffling of the SDB1 bench is completed.

8.2 Changes on SPRB

On the SPRB bench, only the design of the diaphragm/beam dump foreseen for the extraction of the B4, B6 and B9
beams is impacted by the new ITF configuration. This part has not yet been produced. The design and realization of
this part may take between 1 and 2 months as there are coatings to be performed after the manufacturing. Nevertheless
a temporary solution can certainly be found to go ahead with the commissioning of the SPRB bench without having the
final diaphragm part yet installed.

9 Possible impacts on stray-light

In this section, we deal with stray-light in the central interferometer due to tilted surfaces with respect to the optical axis.
The orientation of the wedges on the optics of the central building could have three kinds of effects on the stray-light:
1. shift/rotate the angular distribution of the light scattered off the wedged surface with respect to the optical axis;
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 22 of 25

2. change the path of pick-off beams originated by residual reflection off the wedged surfaces;

3. change the path of pick-off beams refracted through the wedged surface.
The wedge angles considered here are of the order of some ∼100 µrad. Effects like in 1 could change the peak of
light back-scattered from the wedged surface so that if the maximum was expected at a given direction, it is now changed
to a direction rotated by 90◦ around the optical axis. However, due to the inherently cylindrical symmetry of the baffle
system inside vacuum vessels, this rotation does not represent a problem.

The effects 2 and 3 deals with the pick off beams circulating in the power recycling cavity. However, due to their
small angular tilt compared to the length of the PRC, those beams are always superimposed with the main beam and so
the baffles have little interaction with the circulating pick off beams. As explained before the separation main beam - pick
off beams is done after the different telescopes.
If we take into account the tilt of the arm cavities, the heights of the core-optics in the central area will be adjusted.
This means, in turn, that also the main optical axis is tilted with respect to the axes of the central links and flanges where
baffles are installed. However, baffles are designed to cope with centering accuracy of the order of ∼ 10mm while the
foreseen tilt of the optical axis is equivalent to an off-axis of ∼ 5mm.

As a conclusion, the change of orientation of the BS-wedge and the tilt of the arm cavity axes have negligible impact
on the baffle system in the CITF, while the beam-dumps and diaphragms on the suspended benches have to be designed
in order to cope with the new beam paths.

10 Conclusion
In this document, the reference solution proposed to manage the vertical wedges has been detailed. Since the beamsplitter
was the first suspended mirror of all the CITF optics, it was decided to leave it with its current wedge orientation. As
recommended by PAY, the beamsplitter and input mirrors have been slightly shifted to be at their nominal TDR values.
Then the PR, POP and SR postions have been calculated in 3D using Zemax. The recommended mirror positions are all
within 3.5 mm in the horizontal plane from their current expected positions. The proposed change are relatively small
since the wedge orientation has little impact on the beam positions in the CITF (as a consequence of the small wedge
angles used).
The suspended benches on the injection and detection sides have also to be tuned in position and tilt to manage
the new laser beam positions and inclinations. The present study found that the changes are manageable and could be
implemented. The bench and IMC tuning to accommodate the new position may take around 3 weeks on the injection
side. Regarding the detection, the reshuffling and tuning of the suspended benches may take 2 months.
The main incertitude was for the destination of the pick off beams. That concerned in particular the beam reflected by
the AR side of the beamsplitter (B5) which is extracted after the dark fringe detection telescope and the two reflections
from the CPs sides which have to be well separated from other beams on the SPRB bench. It was shown that the extraction
of that beams are still possible thanks to a modifications of the CP tilt and a new arrangement of the benches.
So no show-stopper has been found which can prevent us implementing the reference solution. As a reminder, the
table 9 summarises where the mirrors (center of mass) should be located.

Table 9: The implementation of the reference solution required the mirror center of mass to be at the following positions:
Coordinates
Mirror name X[mm] Y[mm] Z[mm]
BS 2.7 23.2 −3
WI −5599.9 0 −7.4
NI 0 5774 −4.9
PR −19.4 −6084.9 0.0
SR 6044.0 20.3 2.6
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 23 of 25

Appendix A: Backup scenarios for the dark fringe beam

Given the uncertainties on the expected relative position between the dark fringe beam and the SDB1 bench (which results
from the uncertainties on the tower positions, on the mechanical positioning of the bench and the mirrors with respect
to the towers, etc...), a risk exists that the reality may differ from the situation that has been described in this document.
Moreover, as explained in section 6.2.2, the position of the beams inside the SDB1/SDB2 mini-links can be impacted by
a translation of the bench needed to compensate a miscentering of the incident beam. This could start to become an issue
if, for instance, the beams going through the mini-links are miscentered by more than 10 mm. In this case, there is a risk
that beam clipping at the level of the mini-links affect the sensitivity of the interferometer in the long term. In order to
tackle this issue there are two main strategies which could be adopted:
• By acting on the SDB1 bench optics, one can adjust the position of the beams exiting the SDB1 bench, before they
reach the mini-links. This can easily be done for the B5, B1p, B1s1 and B1s2 beams for which folding mirrors are
available on the SDB1 bench to correct the beam position and the beam pointing. The position of the B1 beam could
also be adjusted by modifying the support of the OMC (for instance by reducing its height). If necessary one could
add a tilted thick plate along the path of the Hartmann beam on SDB1 to correct its position: this might require
some reshuffling of the bench to accomodate sufficient space on the bench. Another possible solution for correcting
the Hartmann beam position without adding a new mount on the bench would be to introduce a different wedge on
the dichroic mirror used to separate the YAG beam (in reflection) and the Hartmann beam (in transmission).
• A more invasive approach would consist in changing the position of the mini-links between SDB1 and SDB2. Such
modification would imply to change the DN1000 flange of the detection tower (the preparation of a new flange
would be performed by VAC and would take about one month, once the design of the flange is done), to re-adjust
the position of the SDB2 minitower and of the external detection bench (EDB), to unmount and to reinstall the
minilinks. It might take about 2 months between the time when such change is decided and the time when it is fully
implemented.
In term of planning the first strategy (correcting the beam positions with SDB1 optics) would be favoured. Both strate-
gies require a precise knowledge of the position of the real ITF beams, and such modifications (in particular the change
of the minilinks positions) would only be motivated by a serious problem of clipping found in the mini-links.

Appendix B: Availability of the simulations

Here some instructions, if someone would like to reuse the code which has been developed.

Appendix B.1: Zemax

On the TDS, in the annex of this document, two Zemax files are provided (.ZMX and .SES). The .ZMX file contains all
the data, where the .SES is about the display of the Zemax GUI. It is recommended to put the 2 files in the same folder
and opening one will automatically open the other. Zemax software is available at EGO (contact E. Genin), LMA (contact
D. Hofman) and APC (contact C. Buy).

Appendix B.2: Optocad

The Optocad file is also provided in the TDS and can be provided from there (once we have the final version). It is of
course possible to run Optocad on the Cascina machines, however right now, people are still debugging to make it run
smoothly following the huge computer upgrade (in particular Optocad is linked to an incorrect Fortran compiler). So right
now the best way is to run Optcotad on a local computer. So here a quick starter guide:
1. Download and install Optocad on a linux machine with a fortran compiler http://home.rzg.mpg.de/
˜ros/optocad.html
2. Export the current configuration file from SVN archive in Cascina to a local folder: https://svn.ego-gw.
it/svn/advsw/OptocadConfigs/trunk
 VIR-0267B-15
issue : 3
The reference solution date : December 8, 2015
page : 24 of 25

3. Launch the simulation inside the local folder (with Python installed):
p y t h o n AdV Layout . py

The Optocad guru at EGO is Antonino Chiummo.

Appendix B.3: DarkF

DarkF is installed in Cascina (but not the latest version, due to current upgrade problem). The DarkF folder at Cascina is
under:
optics/simulation/
In the folder please follow the readme file and the startup guide. The expert for this package is Mikhaël Pichot.
 Tower X (VRS) Y (VRS) Document Method Survey Date Z (VRS) Notes Z = ZVRS-ZBS
[m] [m] [m] [m]
BS 0.0015 0.0248 VIR-0523M-13 F0 (SAT suspension point) prism on F0 27-Oct-14 9.3979 TBC by SAT 0.0000
WI -5.6033 0.0026 VIR-0523M-13 F0 (SAT suspension point) prism on F0 16-Apr-15 9.4004 TBC by SAT -0.0008
NI -0.0026 5.7777 VIR-0523M-13 F0 (SAT suspension point) prism on F0 16-Apr-15 9.4166 TBC by SAT 0.0024
PR -0.0189 -6.0849 VIR-0500B-14 Square f ange center (geometrical construction - method A) prism on 8 pts sq. f ange 1-Oct-13 1.6232 average -0.0012
SR 6.0420 0.0196 VIR-0500B-14 Square f ange center (geometrical construction - method A) prism on 8 pts sq. f ange 27-Nov-12 1.6275 average 0.0031
SR 6.0422 0.0216 VIR-0523M-13 "Dima" center wrt old IVC prism on "dima" 4-Jun-13 1.7747 ---
NE 0.0129 3005.7877 VIR-0500B-14 Square f ange center (geometrical construction - method A) prism on 8 pts sq. f ange 18-Sep-13 0.7224 average -0.9020
WE -3005.5847 0.0312 VIR-0500B-14 Square f ange center (geometrical construction - method A) prism on 8 pts sq. f ange 16-Jul-14 -0.5989 average -2.2233
IT -0.0336 -11.0015 VIR-0523M-13 F0 (SAT suspension point) prism on F0 11-Apr-14 5.1928 TBC by SAT -0.0048
DT 10.9718 -0.0028 VIR-0523M-13 F0 (SAT suspension point) prism on F0 30-Jan-15 5.2063 TBC by SAT 0.0046
The reference solution
issue : 3
VIR-0267B-15

page : 25 of 25

towers. The spread of these differences for any single tower with respect to the BS was within a couple of mm.
date : December 8, 2015

Instead, we reported the average difference between the same reference points at the level of the square flange for different
we do not have the same measurement, so it was not possible to compare the same reference points for all the towers.
value of zBS = 9.3979 refers to the height of the F0 prism measured by A. Paoli for the BS suspension. For some towers
Figure 17: Detailed table of the expected mirror positions as provided by INF. The positions were confirmed by SAT. The