dependence on QL can not longer be seen

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tom Powers Practical Aspects of SRF Cavity Testing and Operations SRF Workshop 2011 Tutorial Session.
Advertisements

of LFD Compensation Study S1 Global Cryomodule
Overview of SMTF RF Systems Brian Chase. Overview Scope of RF Systems RF & LLRF Collaboration LLRF Specifications for SMTF Progress So Far Status of progress.
J. Branlard ALCPG11 – March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading P K |Q L studies at FLASH.
Lorentz force detuning measurements on the CEA cavity
Stephen Molloy RF Group ESS Accelerator Division
On Cavity Tilt + Gradient Change (Beam Dynamics) K. Kubo K. Kubo.
Power Requirements for High beta Elliptical Cavities Rihua Zeng Accelerator Division Lunds Kommun, Lund
Piezo Studies and Temperature Measurements Ruben Carcagno May 11, 2005.
RF Systems and Stability Linac Coherent Light Source Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
SLHC-PP – WP7 Critical Components for Injector Upgrade Plasma Generator – CERN, DESY, STFC-RAL Linac4 2MHz RF source Thermal Modeling Gas Measurement and.
1 9 mA study at FLASH on Sep., 2012 Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LCWS12(Sep.24) Shin MICHIZONO Outline I.Achievement before Sep.2012 II.Study items for ILC III.
E. KAKO (KEK) 2010' Sept. 10 KEK Global Design Effort 1 Lorentz Force Detuning Eiji Kako (KEK, Japan)
November LCWS08 S. Fukuda 1 KEK HLRF Status and S1- global S. FUKUDA KEK.
1 Results from the 'S1-Global' cryomodule tests at KEK (8-cav. and DRFS operation) Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) LOLB-2 (June, 2011) Outline I. 8-cavity installation.
Proposed machine parameters Andrei Seryi July 23, 2010.
RF Cavity Simulation for SPL Simulink Model for HP-SPL Extension to LINAC4 at CERN from RF Point of View Acknowledgement: CEA team, in particular O. Piquet.
LLRF Cavity Simulation for SPL
Proposed TDR baseline LLRF design J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.
LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.
Clustered Surface RF Production Scheme Chris Adolphsen Chris Nantista SLAC.
Recent LFD Control Results from FNAL Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert TTF/FLASH 9mA Meeting on Cavity Gradient Flatness June 01, 2010.
John Carwardine 5 th June 2012 Developing a program for 9mA studies shifts in Sept 2012.
W. 3rd SPL collaboration Meeting November 12, 20091/23 Wolfgang Hofle SPL LLRF simulations Feasibility and constraints for operation with more.
RF Cavity Simulation for SPL
Marc Ross Nick Walker Akira Yamamoto ‘Overhead and Margin’ – an attempt to set standard terminology 10 Sept 2010 Overhead and Margin 1.
1 SPL Collaboration Meeting dec 08 - WG1 Introduction First SPL Collaboration Meeting Working Group 1 High Power RF Distribution System Introduction.
W. 5th SPL collaboration Meeting CERN, November 25, 20101/18 reported by Wolfgang Hofle CERN BE/RF Update on RF Layout and LLRF activities for.
1 Simulation for power overhead and cavity field estimation Shin Michizono (KEK) Performance (rf power and max. cavity MV/m 24 cav. operation.
ILC FAST TUNER R&D PROGRAM at FNAL Status Report CC2 Piezo Test Preliminary Results Ruben Carcagno (on behalf of the FNAL FAST TUNER Working Group) 4/5/06.
Preparation for Sept 9mA studies: Follow-up items from February J. Carwardine, 22 May 2012.
Aug 23, 2006 Half Current Option: Impact on Linac Cost Chris Adolphsen With input from Mike Neubauer, Chris Nantista and Tom Peterson.
LCLS-II Physics Meeting, May 08, 2013 LCLS-II Undulator Tolerances Heinz-Dieter Nuhn LCLS-II Undulator Physics Manager May 8, 2013.
John Carwardine 21 st October 2010 TTF/FLASH 9mA studies: Main studies objectives for January 2011.
Beam Dynamics Meeting Bolko Beutner, DESY Summary of new FLASH CSR studies Bolko Beutner, DESY Beam Dynamics Meeting
POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LHC HARMONIC CAVITIES WITH THE FULL-DETUNING SCHEME P. Baudrenghien, T. Mastoridis, CERN BE-RF 2nd LHC Harmonic Cavity meeting,
1 Data Analysis of LLRF Measurements at FLASH Shilun Pei and Chris Adolphsen Nov. 16 – Nov. 20, 2008.
John Carwardine 13 th April, 2011 Report on the 9mA program.
Preliminary Results from First Blade Tuner Tests in HTS Yuriy Pischalnikov Warren Schappert Serena Barbannoti Matteo Scorrano.
John Carwardine (Argonne) First Baseline Allocation Workshop at KEK September 2010 Experience from FLASH ‘9mA’ experiments Gradient and RF Power Overhead.
GDE 4/Mar/20081 Lorentz Detuning Calculation for the transient response of the resonant cavity Introduction “Two modes” model Method of the.
SPL waveguide distribution system Components, configurations, potential problems D. Valuch, E. Ciapala, O. Brunner CERN AB/RF SPL collaboration meeting.
John Carwardine January 16, 2009 Some results and data from January studies.
1 LLRF requirements/issues for DRFS Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) BAW1 (Sep.8, 2010)
Summary of Relative RF Distribution Costs with Gradient Considerations (Work in Progress) Chris Adolphsen SLAC.
Warren Schappert Yuriy Pischalnikov FNAL SRF2011, Chicago.
Overview of long pulse experiments at NML Nikolay Solyak PXIE Program Review January 16-17, PXIE Review, N.Solyak E.Harms, S. Nagaitsev, B. Chase,
Operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association for the U. S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 6 March.
C/S band RF deflector for post interaction longitudinal phase space optimization (D. Alesini)
1 Tuner performance with LLRF control at KEK Shin MICHIZONO (KEK) Dec.07 TTC Beijing (Michizono) S1G (RDR configuration) - Detuning monitor - Tuner control.
RF control and beam acceleration under XFEL conditions Studies of XFEL-type Beam Acceleration at FLASH Julien Branlard, Valeri Ayvazyan, Wojciech Cichalewski,
Overview Step by step procedure to validate the model (slide 1 and 2) Procedure for the Ql / beam loading study (slide 3 and 4)
John Carwardine TDR Writing: FLASH 9mA Experiment.
Longitudinal dynamic analysis for the 3-8 GeV pulsed LINAC G. Cancelo, B. Chase, Nikolay Solyak, Yury Eidelman, Sergei Nagaitsev, Julien Branlard.
LLRF regulation of CC2 operated at 4˚K Gustavo Cancelo for the AD, TD & CD LLRF team.
RF Issues with Configuration Options Project X retreat Nov 2, 2010 Brian Chase, Julien Branlard, Gustavo Cancelo, Warren Schappert, Yuriy Pischalnikov.
High precision specification and test of power converters at CERN
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Space charge studies at the SPS
SCRF 21-25/Apr/2008 Measurement & Calculation of the Lorentz Detuning for the transient response of the resonant cavity Introduction “Two.
Studies Leader Report: 9mA webex meeting, 15th March 2011
RF operation with fixed Pks
LLRF systems status update
Cavity Theory Feng QIU.
Outlook of future studies to reach maximum gradient and current
LLRF Functionality Stefan Simrock How to edit the title slide
TTC meeting, Milano Global Design Effort
Accelerator Physics Particle Acceleration
Strategic Communications at TRIUMF
Summary of the maximum SCRF voltage in XFEL
Presentation transcript:

dependence on QL can not longer be seen Analysis of coupling effect, observed during the February 2011 9mA run at FLASH Julien Branlard, with the FNAL-ILC collaboration Abstract Flattening Individual Cavity Gradients FLASH ‘fixed’ Power Distribution To prevent transverse beam kicks due to cavity misalignment, the International Linear Collider (ILC) requires individual cavity gradient vectors to be held constant over the RF flattop in addition to the gradient vector sum. The proposed solution consists of adjusting the cavity loaded Q's (QL) to compensate for beam induced gradient tilts. To illustrate its feasibility, this approach was implemented at FLASH during the 9mA-test in DESY in February 2011. During this study, numerous coupling effects between QL, cavity detuning and inter-cavities power distribution were observed. For example, up to 5% change in QL could be induced by adjusting the loaded Q of a neighboring cavity. Similarly, +/-0.5 dB fluctuations in the power distribution between cavities were observed during QL adjustments. Details and characterization of these observed coupling effects are reported in this contribution. The fixed power distribution at FLASH ACC6 and ACC7 imposes to rely solely on changing the QL to flatten the cavities. As reported in other papers, the proof of principle was verified and individual cavity gradients were flattened to ~1% Simulation and experimental validation of ACC6 and ACC7 cryomodules at FLASH under now beam (left) and under 3mA beam loading (right). Although the vector sum is kept flat, individual cavity gradients above (below) show a positive (negative) tilt, as seen on the left. On the right, the same cavities after QL change are flat during beam. FLASH DAQ data simulated data vector sum * Why do we care about individual flat gradients? “Effect of Cavity Tilt and RF Fluctuations to Transverse Beam Orbit Change in ILC Main Linac”, K. Kubo, Jan. 2010 On this plot, one can see the measured tilts induced by beam loading. Individual cavity tilts result in an undesired transverse kick to the beam.  assumes “perfect” tuning  solve for QLi when possible “Good gradients in seconds flat”, by Leah Hesla ILC NewsLine, 4 August 2011 cavity i loaded Q cavity i forward power during fill time [W] DC beam current [A] fill time ( beam arrival time) [s] fill time to flat top voltage ratio (including beam compensation) One can compensate for beam induced tilts by adjusting individual powers and/or QLs. This plot shows a simulation of the optimal QL values required to maintain a flat top for all cavities, as a function of beam current. Full results are reported in “Results from 9mA studies on achieving flat gradients with beam loading” - PK |QL studies at FLASH during the Feb. 2011 test in DESY, J.Branlard, ALCPG11 – 19-23 March 2011 – Eugene OR, USA * “Note on solving QL for flat gradients at FLASH ACC6 and ACC7”, J. Branlard, Feb 2011, FNAL Beams-doc-3796 “Analytical solution to the cavity tilt problem.docx”, G. Cancelo, Feb 2011 “PkQl-like control for ACC6/7 at FLASH”, Shin Michizono, Sept. 2010 “To flatten the cavity gradient for ACC6/7” , Shin Michizono, Nov. 2010 Source: V. Katalev : flash_wg_20100214-1.xls QL – Detuning Coupling QL – PK Coupling Corrected forward powers When looking at the forward and reflected power during a pulse, the corrected power has a profile closer to the text book diagram. During QL scans: The motors changing the loaded Q’s are exercised to measure the QL tuning range of each cavity. It appears that the measured detuning is affected by the QL scan. During QL scans: We observed variations in the PFWD ratios during the QL scans, (up to 1.5dB). The forward power ratios are calculated for each cavity as the ratio of the forward power to the vector sum power, averaged over the flat top region. Ratio plot with corrected forward powers The top plot shows the QL values as a function of the night-shift time. The QL scan time period is clearly seen. The middle plot shows the forward power ratios calculated with the direct forward power. The bottom plot shows the ratio calculated with the corrected forward powers. Pref – Pfwd coupling For the two left-most plots (QL = 6 and QL = 3x106), the forward power profiles are similar. The QL scan was performed open loop, so one should not see an influence on the forward power, but only on the reflected power. Indeed, changing QL is equivalent to changing the cavity impendance so the reflected power changes with QL. On the right plot (QL = 106) however, one sees a net difference in the shape of the forward power, which is unexpected. One can also notice that for this case, the reflected power changes phase around 300 usec, when Pref=0) QL changes (top plot) induce a detuning measurement change (bottom) ratio 𝑖 = 𝑃 𝐹𝑊𝐷 𝑖 𝑃 𝐹𝑊𝐷 𝑖 ratio 𝑖 = 𝑉 𝐹𝑊𝐷 𝑖 + 𝛼 𝑖 𝑒 −𝑖𝜃 × 𝑉 𝑅𝐸𝐹 𝑖 2 𝑉 𝐹𝑊𝐷 𝑖 + 𝛼 𝑖 𝑒 −𝑖𝜃 × 𝑉 𝑅𝐸𝐹 𝑖 2 Example study: the particular case of ACC6 cavity 1 and cavity 2: Looking at the forward and reflected power gives some insight on this coupling effect as illustrated below for the case of ACC6 cavity 1 and 2 This apparent “coupling” is actually due to Lorentz force detuning. Indeed, changing QL can have a strong impact on the cavity amplitude, changing its peak gradient by >10 MV/m as illustrated below. Lorrentz force detuning scales with the square of the gradient: which can account for ~1kHz detuning for gradients ranging from 3 MV/m to 25 MV/m QL(1) scan Corrected forward powers To truely compare the power ratios for different QL values, one needs to take the reflected power of the cavity and the reflected power of its paired cavity into account : where each coefficient is a complex number This corresponds to the directivity of the circulator and the isolation at the waveguide splitter. Note that one needs to work with voltages, not powers, to take the phase into account. Then one can convert the corrected voltages into their corresponding powers. QL(2) scan PFWD(2) affected PFWD(1) affected dependence on QL can not longer be seen PREF(2) not affected PREF(1) not affected In this study, the coupling coefficients have been calculated by hand without any effort to automation or optimization effort. Typical values are: We can see from plot 2 and 3 that the forward power of cavity 1 is affected by the QL scan of cavity 1 and cavity 2. However, the reflected power of 1 is only affected by the scan of cavity 1. Amplitude and phase plot for ACC6 cavity 1 at different stages of the QL scan. The dramatic impact of the Ql change on the cavity gradient changes the detuning due to Lorentz forces.