8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 1 Freddy Poirier DESY ILC-LET Workshop Dispersion Free Steering in the ILC using MERLIN.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Update on ILC ML Lattice Design Alexander Valishev, for the FNAL LET group FNAL AP Dept. Meeting March 7, 2007.
Advertisements

Update of RTML, Status of FNAL L-band and CLIC X-band BPM, Split SC Quadrupole Nikolay Solyak Fermilab (On behalf of RTML team) LCWS2010 / ILC 10, March.
Emittance dilution due to misalignment of quads and cavities of ILC main linac revised K.Kubo For beam energy 250 GeV,
Emittance dilution due to misalignment of quads and cavities of ILC main linac K.Kubo For beam energy 250 GeV, TESLA-type optics for 24MV/m.
On Cavity Tilt + Gradient Change (Beam Dynamics) K. Kubo K. Kubo.
Issues in ILC Main Linac and Bunch Compressor from Beam dynamics N. Solyak, A. Latina, K.Kubo.
Main Linac Simulation - Main Linac Alignment Tolerances - From single bunch effect ILC-MDIR Workshop Kiyoshi KUBO References: TESLA TDR ILC-TRC-2.
Author - Title (Footer)1 LINEAR LATTICE ERRORS AT THE ESRF: MODELING AND CORRECTION A. Franchi, L. Farvacque, T. Perron.
Emittance Measurement: Quadrupole Scan C. Tennant USPAS – January 2011.
Beam-Based Alignment with New Parameters Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator.
ATF2 FB/FF layout Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group FONT meeting January 11, 2007.
Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator Center LCLS Undulator Alignment.
BBA Related Issues Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Undulator.
Optics for Skew Correction and Emittance Measurement Leo Jenner This talk is going to look familiar if you were at the recent LC-ABD meeting in Manchester…
1 ILC Main Linac Alignment Simulations using Conventional Techniques and Development of Alignment Model John Dale LCWS08 & ILC08.
Update on ILC ML Lattice Design Alexander Valishev, for the FNAL LET group FNAL AP Dept. Meeting March 7, 2007.
Alignment and Beam Stability
Ground Motion + Vibration Transfer Function for Final QD0/SD0 Cryomodule System at ILC Glen White, SLAC ALCPG11, Eugene March 21, 2011.
Y. Ohnishi / KEK KEKB-LER for ILC Damping Ring Study Simulation of low emittance lattice includes machine errors and optics corrections. Y. Ohnishi / KEK.
Y. Ohnishi / KEK KEKB LER for ILC Damping Ring Study Lattice simulation of lattice errors and optics corrections. November 1, 2007 Y. Ohnishi / KEK.
ILC Feedback System Studies Nikolay Solyak Fermilab 1IWLC2010, Geneva, Oct.18-22, 2010 N.Solyak.
FLS2006 Workshop, HamburgEduard Prat, DESY DISPERSION MEASUREMENT AND CORRECTION IN THE VUV-FEL (FLASH) Winni Decking, Torsten Limberg, Eduard Prat 37th.
ILC BDS Static Beam-Based Alignment and Tuning Glen White SLAC 1.Aims. 2.Error parameters and other assumptions. 3.Overview of alignment and tuning procedure.
Alignment (Survey) Tolerances in Main Linac from Beam Dynamics Simulations Kiyoshi Kubo.
EMMA Horizontal and Vertical Corrector Study David Kelliher ASTEC/CCLRC/RAL 14th April, 2007.
Jan Euro-TeV meeting 1 Integrated Simulation of DFS Paul Lebrun Fermilab CD/AMR.
Status of Reference Network Simulations John Dale TILC09 20 April 2009.
July 19-22, 2006, Vancouver KIRTI RANJAN1 ILC Curved Linac Simulation Kirti Ranjan, Francois Ostiguy, Nikolay Solyak Fermilab + Peter Tenenbaum (PT) SLAC.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Containing a.
Analysis of Multipole and Position Tolerances for the ATF2 Final Focus Line James Jones ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.
1 Alternative ILC Bunch Compressor 7 th Nov KNU (Kyungpook National Univ.) Eun-San Kim.
1 Alternative Bunch Compressor 30 th Sep KNU Eun-San Kim.
Placet based DFS simulations in the ILC Main Linac. Some preliminary results of error scans open for discussion Javier Resta Lopez JAI, Oxford University.
J. Pfingstner Imperfections tolerances for on-line DFS Improved imperfection tolerances for an on-line dispersion free steering algorithm Jürgen Pfingstner.
Kiyoshi Kubo Electron beam in undulators of e+ source - Emittance and orbit angle with quad misalignment and corrections - Effect of beam pipe.
Emittance Tuning Simulations in the ILC Damping Rings James Jones ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.
Coupler Short-Range Wakefield Kicks Karl Bane and Igor Zagorodnov Wake Fest 07, 11 December 2007 Thanks to M. Dohlus; and to Z. Li, and other participants.
1 DFS Studies on the Main Linac with Rnd-walk-like motion (preliminary) Accelerator Physics Meeting 02 october 2007 Freddy Poirier.
1 DFS Studies on the Main Linac with Rnd-walk-like motion LET Beam Dynamics Workshop 12 th December 2007 Freddy Poirier.
DMS steering with BPM scale error - Trial of a New Optics - Kiyoshi Kubo
Main Linac Tolerances What do they mean? ILC-GDE meeting Beijing Kiyoshi Kubo 1.Introduction, review of old studies 2.Assumed “static” errors.
Isabell-A. Melzer-Pellmann LET Beam Dynamics Workshop, Lumi scans with wakefields in Merlin Lumi scans with wakefields in Merlin Isabell-A.
Simulations - Beam dynamics in low emittance transport (LET: From the exit of Damping Ring) K. Kubo
April Recent work on Low Emittance Transport, Main Linac Paul Lebrun CD/FNAL.
ERHIC Orbit Correction Studies (Minor Update) Using Oct’14 lattice and dispersion diagnostic January 5, 2015Stephen Brooks, eRHIC FFAG meeting1.
DRAFT: What have been done and what to do in ILC-LET beam dynamics Beam dynamics/Simulations Group Beijing.
Wakefield effect in ATF2 Kiyoshi Kubo
Freddy Poirier - DESY Preliminary Merlin DFS studies following discussion (Very preliminary) Freddy Poirier DESY.
Progress in CLIC DFS studies Juergen Pfingstner University of Oslo CLIC Workshop January.
Review of Alignment Tolerances for LCLS-II SC Linac Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermilab 27 th April 2016, LCLS-II Accelerator Physics Meeting.
ILC Main Linac Beam Dynamics Review K. Kubo.
From Beam Dynamics K. Kubo
Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Correlated Misalignments Studies for LCLS-II SC Linac
Dispersion Matched Steering and Alignment Model in Main Linac
Tolerances & Tuning of the ATF2 Final Focus Line
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Beam Dynamics in Curved ILC Main Linac (following earth curvature)
ILC Z-pole Calibration Runs Main Linac performance
Update on ILC ML Lattice Design
DFS Simulations on ILC bunch compressor
Adaptive Alignment & Ground Motion
3rd ATF2 Project Meeting, December 18-20, 2006
ILC Main Linac Alignment Simulations
Beam-Based Alignment Results
High Level Physics Applications for LCLS Commissioning
Motivation Technique Simulations LCLS LCLS DOE Review, April 24, 2002
Start-to-End Simulations for the TESLA LC
BEAM REALISTIC ERROR ORBIT IMPACT ON SASE PERFORMANCE
Main Linac Beam Optics and Tolerances
Presentation transcript:

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 1 Freddy Poirier DESY ILC-LET Workshop Dispersion Free Steering in the ILC using MERLIN

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 2 Scope: Differences between curved and straight machines –Scans with various BPM resolution and orbit weight (1 to 5  m) –Model of BPM linear scale error –Impact of BPM noise –Impact of Iteration –Model of Beam jitter

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 3 Lattice Simple lattice from TESLA TDR ~ 9.5 km long lattice, 6852 structures, 191 BPMs 60 o FODO  max = 172 m constant beta lattice 6 cryomodules / fodo cell Cell length 99.5 m 500 GeV machine studied Vertical kink between cryomodules (2.7  rad). Injection emittance  y = 20 nm, injection On-energy = 5 GeV Initial Uncorrelated energy spread 2%

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 4 Dispersion Free Steering Minimisation of the absolute trajectory of the beam (wrt to a design orbit) and the difference orbit when the energy is changed W diff : Constrain on difference orbit (nominal = 5  m) W abs : Constrain on absolute orbit (nominal = 360  m) DFS technique is applied on segment of the linac: –40 quads –20 quads overlapping Constant Energy Difference at beginning of each segment = 20% –At beginning of linac: On-energy beam = 5 GeV Off-Energy beam = 4 GeV –Beam artificially changed (i.e. no gradient modification) Assume launch condition is re-establish for Off-energy pulse.

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 5 Normal Conditions Transverse Quadrupole300 µmWrt to CM axis Rotation Quadrupole300 µrad Transverse BPM Alignment error200 µmCM Transverse RF Structure300 µmCM Rotation RF Structure300 µradCM Cryomodule Offset200 µmAccel. Ref BPM Resolution5 µm (10 µm in TDR) Nominal weight:

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 6 Definitions Nb of runs / Bin  y [nm] Nominal parameters Wdiff = 5  m  cut  cut [nm] W diff = BPM noise (1 to 10  m) 41.7nm 90% 90% Limited Normalised Emittance 500 (200) runs with a new set of generated random numbers 1. Binned histogram 2. Calculate the integral and plot for latter scan the emittance for a 90% level. 90% Limited Corrected Emittance Same procedure as normalised emittance + Energy correlation numerically removed Equivalent of a perfect dispersion bump at exit of linac

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 7 DFS Scans 90% limit normalised vertical emittance BPM from 1 to 5  m Wdiff: 1 to 5  m  Dependance of projected emittance (  y ) to both the weight and BPM.  Substantial gain with better BPM resolution BPM\Wdiff Normalised emittance scans Difference between both straight and curved linac Maximum difference between curved and straight scenario< 3% In nm Curved machine Bpm= W diff =1 Bpm= W diff =5 Cv27 nm35 nm st27 nm35 nm

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 8 Difference curved-straight W diff (  m) BPM resolution (  m) The difference between both straight and curved linac is defined at each scan point as: Each scan point = 500 runs (seeds) Maximum difference = 3% No real difference between linac following earth curvature and straight laser linac is observed.

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 9 BPM response In previous study only BPM resolution was modeled (RMS error). In the following study spatial BPM response is modeled with a linear slope error: BPM offset a 1 = Gaussian random generated number centered on 1 with an rms error varying from 1 to 10%

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 10 Emittance Growth - St Laser Straight Linac - Large impact of BPM slope error when orbit difference weight is small. - This impact can be minimized by taking a large weight at the cost of getting an emittance growth larger than the minimum possible at a slope error of 1%. Relative Emittance growth: is, in nm, the corrected normalized emittance at the 90% limit at the end of the linac =20 nm is the injection vertical emittance at the beginning of the linac. No iteration Slope\ Wdiff 12  m20  m 1%64%82% 10%173%82%

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 11 Emittance Growth - Cv The relative emittance growth vs the orbit weight difference is in the following studied: Relative Emittance growth: is, in nm, the corrected normalized emittance at the 90% limit at the end of the linac =20 nm is the injection vertical emittance at the beginning of the linac. The number of runs (seeds) for each data point of the diagrams is 200. Slope error (%) minimum (nm) Minimum relative emittance growth W diff (  m) No error2735%1-4 1%2737%2-4 5%3681%11 10%3890%>55 37% Curved Machine BPM noise = 1  m

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 12 Difference st-cv Difference in the 90% limit corrected emittance wrt orbit difference weight: The difference between each machine scenario is in overall more important with a slope error of 10% than with one of 1% and the absolute difference increases drastically for a low orbit difference weight Slope error (%)(nm) 1%81%3686%375% 10%82%36110%4332% At W diff = 20  m curvedstraight

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 13 Impact of BPM noise - With a large weight W diff, the emittance growth is constant at a fixed slope error when BPM noise increases. - The emittance growth increases with the slope error. Curved Machine BPM from 1 to 10  m Slope error on BPM response = 1, 5 or 10% W diff =20  m No iteration Slope error % (nm)%<30nm (nm) 1%87%3773%43 5%92%3868%47 10%114%4356%52

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 14 Impact of BPM Noise(2) Difference between both machine of the 90% limit emittance growth Difference between curved and straight machine on the emittance growth is less than 25%. Difference decrease with BPM slope error. BPM from 1 to 10  m Slope error on BPM response = 1, 5 or 10% W diff =20  m No iteration

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 15 Impact of Iterations Iterations of Dispersion Free Steering correction within each segment BPM noise = 1  m Iteration impact studied for the curved geometry slope error a 1 =10% Error on energy of off-energy beam = 2% With 1 iteration, the 90% limit corrected emittance growth can be divided by 4 (at least) compared to no iteration. But impact of more than 2 iterations is not very clear. 160% 109%

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 16 Beam Energy Jitter Deal with random jitter in the initial beam centroid, This perturbation is Propagated linearly through linac. launch condition Random jitter Sum of individual responses of upstream kicks. No additional sources assumed in linac

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 17 Summary Differences between straight and curved machines: –When BPM linear slope error is at 10% –When Orbit difference weight is small  Care when optimising weight for DFS Large impact of BPM slope response error with Orbit difference Weight lower than 10  m (both), This impact can be minimised with a large orbit difference weight (20  m), The BPM noise does not seem to have an impact on emittance growth with a large weight –Beam jitter is now added to simulation: BPM noise expected to have here impact. Iterations provide a way to minimise the emittance growth when Orbit difference weight lower than 10  m. Simulation on the way to be more “realistic”

8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 18 A tentative interpretation 1 – smallest is best (BPM resolution) 2 – linear slope error results: smallest not enough. Have to know also well this error 3 – To be in a more stable area  higher orbit difference weight 4 – With this weight, BPM noise impact is reduced Possible solution: Iteration BPM noise expected to play a role when beam jitter in