Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free Steering in the Main Linac of CLIC Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 ILC Bunch compressor Damping ring ILC Summer School August Eun-San Kim KNU.
Advertisements

R Scrivens, CERN, ABI Workshop, 12/2008 The Feschenko Bunch Shape Monitor User experience at CERN Developed by INR, Troitsk. High resolution bunch shape.
Issues in ILC Main Linac and Bunch Compressor from Beam dynamics N. Solyak, A. Latina, K.Kubo.
Tests of DFS and WFS at ATF2 Andrea Latina (CERN), Jochem Snuverink (RHUL), Nuria Fuster (IFIC) 18 th ATF2 Project Meeting – Feb – LAPP, Annecy.
Main Linac Simulation - Main Linac Alignment Tolerances - From single bunch effect ILC-MDIR Workshop Kiyoshi KUBO References: TESLA TDR ILC-TRC-2.
Luminosity Stability and Stabilisation Hardware D. Schulte for the CLIC team Special thanks to J. Pfingstner and J. Snuverink 1CLIC-ACE, February 2nd,
Progress towards nanometre-level beam stabilisation at ATF2 N. Blaskovic, D. R. Bett, P. N. Burrows, G. B. Christian, C. Perry John Adams Institute, University.
Direct Wakefield measurement of CLIC accelerating structure in FACET Hao Zha, Andrea Latina, Alexej Grudiev (CERN) 28-Jan
CLIC programme at FACET Update on CERN-BBA A. Latina, J. Pfingstner, G. De Michele, D. Schulte (CERN) E. Adli (Univ. of Oslo), J. Resta Lopez (IFIC) In.
Tests of Dispersion-Free Steering at FACET (CERN-BBA) A. Latina, J. Pfingstner, D. Schulte (CERN) E. Adli (Univ. of Oslo/SLAC) In collaboration with: F.J.
CERN, BE-ABP (Accelerators and Beam Physics group) J. Pfingstner Beam jitter studies at ATF and ATF2 Jürgen Pfingstner Hector Garcia Morales 25 th of January.
Verification of Beam-Based Alignment Algorithms at FACET A. Latina, J. Pfingstner, D. Schulte (CERN) E. Adli (Univ. of Oslo) With the collaboration of:
Influence of the Third Harmonic Module on the Beam Size Maria Kuhn University of Hamburg Bachelor Thesis Presentation.
CERN, BE-ABP (Accelerators and Beam Physics group) Jürgen Pfingstner Orbit feedback design for the CLIC ML and BDS Orbit feedback design for the CLIC ML.
ILC Feedback System Studies Nikolay Solyak Fermilab 1IWLC2010, Geneva, Oct.18-22, 2010 N.Solyak.
SPPS, Beam stability and pulse-to-pulse jitter Patrick Krejcik For the SPPS collaboration Zeuthen Workshop on Start-to-End Simulations of X-ray FEL’s August.
CERN, BE-ABP-CC3 Jürgen Pfingstner Verification of the Design of the Beam-based Controller Jürgen Pfingstner 2. June 2009.
CERN, BE-ABP (Accelerators and Beam Physics group) J. Pfingstner Beam jitter studies at ATF and ATF2 Jürgen Pfingstner, Hector Garcia Morales 15 th of.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
1 FFAG Role as Muon Accelerators Shinji Machida ASTeC/STFC/RAL 15 November, /machida/doc/othertalks/machida_ pdf/machida/doc/othertalks/machida_ pdf.
The CLIC decelerator Instrumentation issues – a first look E. Adli, CERN AB/ABP / UiO October 17, 2007.
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.
Beam breakup and emittance growth in CLIC drive beam TW buncher Hamed Shaker School of Particles and Accelerators, IPM.
Beam-Based Alignment Tests at FACET and at Fermi A. Latina (CERN), E. Adli (Oslo), D. Pellegrini (CERN), J. Pfingstner (CERN), D. Schulte (CERN) LCWS2014.
E211 - Experimental verification of the effectiveness of linear collider system identification and beam-based alignment algorithms A. Latina (CERN), E.
J. Pfingstner Imperfections tolerances for on-line DFS Improved imperfection tolerances for an on-line dispersion free steering algorithm Jürgen Pfingstner.
CERN, BE-ABP (Accelerators and Beam Physics group) Jürgen Pfingstner Adaptive control scheme for the main linac of CLIC Jürgen Pfingstner 21 th of October.
1 DFS Studies on the Main Linac with Rnd-walk-like motion LET Beam Dynamics Workshop 12 th December 2007 Freddy Poirier.
Main Linac Tolerances What do they mean? ILC-GDE meeting Beijing Kiyoshi Kubo 1.Introduction, review of old studies 2.Assumed “static” errors.
Emittance preservation in the main linacs of ILC and CLIC Andrea Latina (CERN) Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK) LCWS University of Texas at Arlington - Oct
… Work in progress at CTF3 … Davide Gamba 01 July 2013 Study and Implementation of L INEAR F EEDBACK T OOLS for machine study and operation.
Simulations - Beam dynamics in low emittance transport (LET: From the exit of Damping Ring) K. Kubo
G.R.White: F.O.N. T. From Ground Motion studies by A.Seryi et al. (SLAC) ‘Fast’ motion (> few Hz) dominated by cultural noise Concern for structures.
FJPPL-FKPPL ATF2 Workshop Jitter studies March 18, 2014 Beam jitter localization and identification at ATF2 Marcin Patecki Jürgen Pfingstner 18 th of March.
Pushing the space charge limit in the CERN LHC injectors H. Bartosik for the CERN space charge team with contributions from S. Gilardoni, A. Huschauer,
Direct Wakefield measurement of CLIC accelerating structure in FACET Hao Zha, Andrea Latina, Alexej Grudiev (CERN) 18/06/2015 High Gradient work shop 2015.
Beam-based alignment techniques for linacs Masamitsu Aiba, PSI BeMa 2014 workshop Bad Zurzach, Switzerland Thanks to Michael Böge and Hans Braun.
8 th February 2006 Freddy Poirier ILC-LET workshop 1 Freddy Poirier DESY ILC-LET Workshop Dispersion Free Steering in the ILC using MERLIN.
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.
Studies of emittance preservation methods and the status of their experimental validation Erik Adli 1, W. Farabolini 2, Reidar Lillestol 1, Jürgen Pfingstner.
From Beam Dynamics K. Kubo
FACET Tests Update A. Latina, J. Pfingstner, D. Schulte,
Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
RF-kick in the CLIC accelerating structures
ILC BDS Alignment, Tuning and Feedback Studies
Beam jitter experiment of exchanging power supplies
Orbit Response Matrix Analysis
Electron acceleration behind self-modulating proton beam in plasma with a density gradient Alexey Petrenko.
Steering algorithm experience at CTF3
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Emittance Dilution and Preservation in the ILC RTML
ILC Z-pole Calibration Runs Main Linac performance
Wake field limitations in a low gradient main linac of CLIC
Low Emittance Tuning Tests at the Diamond Light Source (Rutherford Labs) Dec R. Bartolini, S. Liuzzo, P. Raimondi SuperB XV Meeting Caltech, CA,
New algorithms for tuning the CLIC beam delivery system
DFS Simulations on ILC bunch compressor
Adaptive Alignment & Ground Motion
IHEP-CLIC Collaboration (Beam Dynamics)
Other beam-induced background at the IP
Update of CLIC accelerating structure design
Beam-beam R&D for eRHIC Linac-Ring Option
The Cornell High Brightness Injector
Cornell Injector Performance
ILC Main Linac Alignment Simulations
Beam-Based Alignment Results
Start-to-End Simulations for the TESLA LC
Yuri Nosochkov Yunhai Cai, Fanglei Lin, Vasiliy Morozov
Presentation transcript:

Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free Steering in the Main Linac of CLIC Effects of Accelerating Cavities on On-Line Dispersion Free Steering in the Main Linac of CLIC E. Adli 1, Jürgen Pfingstner 1,2, D. Schulte 2 1 University of Oslo, Norway 2 CERN, Switzerland 5 th of May 2015

Outline 1.On-line DFS. 2.Issues due to wake fields. 3.Issues due to cavity tilts. 4.Conclusions.

1. On-line DFS

Motivation: Long-term ground motion Initial beam-based alignment: Long-term ground motion (> 1 minutes): Effects on the main linac of CLIC: -Ground motion model: ATL law [1] with constant A of μm/m/s. -Emittance increase Δε y ≈ 7.5% / hour (scaling law from simulation). -E.g. Δε y of 100% in 13 hours. Orbit feedback steers beam onto golden orbit. Orbit feedback steers beam onto dispersive orbit.

Dispersion free steering (DFS) Method [2,3]: Step 1: The dispersion η at the BPMs is measured by varying the beam energy. Step 2: Corrector actuations Δy 1 (quadrupole movements) are calculated to minimise dispersion η and the beam orbit b. Considering many BPMs and quadrupoles leads to linear system of equations [4]: DFS is applied to overlapping sections of the accelerator (36 for ML of CLIC). Corrections Δy are computed in least square sense. with b

On-line DFS Goal: Perform DFS parasitically during physics data taking. Problem: -Only very small beam energy variation δ acceptable (< 1 per mil). -Measurement are strongly influenced by BPM noise and usual energy jitter. Solution: -Many measurements are averaged. -Use of a Least Squares estimate (pseudo-inverse), which can be significantly simplified by the choice of the excitation:

Performance of on-line DFS 1. ATL motion (13h) correction for different ω: 2. BPM noise sensitivity for different ω: 4. Robustness: -Robust to all envisioned imperfections apart from two. -Accuracy of wake field monitors. -Tilt of accelerating structures. 3. Correction performance: -ATL motion: Δε y = 0.2% after 3 rd iteration. -BPM noise: Δε y = 0.2% (BPM noise 10nm). -Averaging time: 144s x 3 iter. (7 minutes)

2. Issues due to wake fields

Dispersion from wake fields Since wake fields create dipole kicks, they also create dispersion. Dispersion profile: -Quadrupoles: uniform along beam. -Wake fields: stronger towards tail. DFS can only cancel the dispersion on average Dispersion of opposite sign remains in head and tail. Hence, dispersion from wake fields cannot be compensated all along the beam by dispersion from quadrupole magnets (DFS). Wake fields and DFS Wake field kicks In cavity with offset Δx, head beam creates asymmetric mirror currents. Resulting wake fields apply dipole kicks to beam. Kick is zero at the head and rises towards the tail.

Wake fields and DFS performance At CLIC, cavities are aligned to the beam to reduce the wake fields (RF alignment): -σ WF = 3.5 μm. -Δε y = 5%. Remaining wake fields causes problems for DFS. For the target energy change δ of 0.1% the DFS correction is insufficient. DFS works only for large energy changes δ.

Analysis of wake field sensitivity Energy dependence of dispersion Dispersions of the same dipole kick depends is larger for smaller energy change δ : Dispersion from wake fields Dispersion from wake fields is small and can be neglected for emittance growth. However, wake field dispersion deteriorates the DFS correction: -Dispersion from wake fields, can only be compensated by DFS (quadrupoles) on average along the beam. -Dispersion with opposite sign remains in head and tail. -Wake field dispersion is added from many cavities upstream. -This wake field dispersion creates large measured signals in the correction bin.

Counter-measure against wake field sensitivity Properties of dispersion (for small δ): -Only grows to large values far downstream of kick. -But stays small just after the kick. Baseline for CLIC: global δ creation (via change of drive beam charge). But a local δ creation can be implemented in different ways, e.g.: -Switch off structures with On/Off mechanism of PETS. -De-phasing of drive beam bunches. Dispersion of wake fields after RF alignment for global and local energy change δ. No DFS applied upstream of DFS bin. Hence, dispersion from wake fields can be kept small, if δ is produced just shortly before the bin to be corrected.

Improvement due to wake field counter-measure Local δ creation decreases wake field sensitivity significantly: -Wake fields: Δε y = 7.0% -ATL motion: Δε y < 0.2% after 3 rd iteration. -BPM noise: Δε y = 0.2%. -Averaging time: 144s x 3 iterations. Wake fields are the dominant Δε y source.

3. Issues due to cavity tilts

Cavity tilts and dispersion Kicks due to cavity tilts: Field of a tilted cavity has also a transverse field component E kick. Resulting kick deflects whole bunch. Mitigation of cavity tilt effects: Kicks are corrected by BPM steering. -σ φ = 140 μrad. -Δε y = 3%. Remaining dispersion is small and can be neglected for DFS. Remaining emittance growth due to a “wake field-like” effect: -Longitudinal wake fields weaken E cav towards beam tail. -Hence, transverse kick is stronger for head than for tail.

Cavity tilts and DFS performance After steering, remaining emittance growth is due to “wake field-like” effect: -σ tilt = 140 μrad. -Δε y = 3%. For global large energy changes δ, DFS correction is not influenced by cavity tilts. Small δ worsen DFS performance. But especially local δ changes destroy the correction completely.

Analysis of cavity tilt sensitivity For dispersion measurement, a beam energy change δ has to be created: -Energy change δ is created by changing cavity gradients. -Gradient change also causes change of transverse tilt kicks. -Beam orbit is changed. Orbit change overlaps with dispersion signal in DFS bin. Orbit change signal is interpreted as dispersion and destroys correction. Higher relative gradient changes make the problem worse: -Local scheme is worse than global one. -This is not only true for small δ, but also for ordinary DFS.

Counter-measures against cavity tilt sensitivity Goal: Remove orbit change due to tilt kick change from measured dispersion. Problem: Mixture of orbit change and dispersion in DFS bin. Solution: Predict orbit change Δb bin in DFS bin from BPM measurements in upstream bin Δb up : 1.Fit orbit change Δb up in upstream DFS bin by virtual quadrupole offsets Δx up. 1.Use only few singular values for the SVD inversion to improve robustness. 3.Predict orbit changes Δb bin in DFS bin via the corresponding orbit response matrix: 4.Finally, the predicted orbit can be removed:

Improvement due to cavity tilt counter-measure Removal of the orbit change decreases tilt sensitivity significantly: -Tilts: 2.5% -Wake fields: Δε y = 9.0% -ATL motion: Δε y < 0.2% after 3 rd iteration. -BPM noise: Δε y = 0.2%. -Averaging time: 144s x 3 iterations. Wake field effect is worsened, because removal technique also acts on wake field signals.

4. Conclusions On-line DFS is necessary to suppress ground motion effects on the time scale of hours. The scheme can compensates ground motion effects on-line despite of BPM noise. Two imperfections cause problems: 1.Resolution of wake field monitors. 2.Tilt of acceleration cavities. Effect of these imperfection on DFS has been analysed and counter-measures have been successfully implemented. The emittance growth due to dispersion can now be corrected during physics data taking to the same level as with off-line DFS. The necessary energy change δ of only 0.1% is 50 times smaller than before, which is also very interesting for the application of DFS in the BDS.

Thank you for your attention! References: [1] V. Shiltsev. Observations of random walk of the ground in space and time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, (2010). [2] T.O. Raubenheimer and R.D. Ruth. A dispersion-free trajectory correction technique for linear colliders, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 302, (1991). [3] A. Latina et al. Experimental demonstration of a global dispersion-free steering correction at the new linac test facility at SLAC, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 17, (2014). [4] A. Latina and P. Raimondi, A novel alignment procedure for the final focus of future linear colliders, In Proc. of the 25 th Linear Accel. Conf. (LINAC10), MOP026 (2010).