Optimisation of single bunch linac for FERMI upgrade

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Breakdown Rate Dependence on Gradient and Pulse Heating in Single Cell Cavities and TD18 Faya Wang, Chris Nantista and Chris Adolphsen May 1, 2010.
Advertisements

ISS meeting, (1) R. Garoby (for the SPL study group) SPL-based Proton Driver for Facilities SPL-based Proton Driver for Facilities at CERN:
CLIC drive beam accelerating (DBA) structure Rolf Wegner.
CARE07, 29 Oct Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters Alexej Grudiev.
1 X-band Single Cell and T18_SLAC_2 Test Results at NLCTA Faya Wang Chris Adolphsen Jul
Design of Standing-Wave Accelerator Structure
CLIC Drive Beam Linac Rolf Wegner. Outline Introduction: CLIC Drive Beam Concept Drive Beam Modules (modulator, klystron, accelerating structure) Optimisation.
Room temperature RF Part 2.1: Strong beam-cavity coupling (beam loading) 30/10/2010 A.Grudiev 5 th IASLC, Villars-sur-Ollon, CH.
1 C-Band Linac Development Satoshi Ohsawa 2004.Feb.19LCPAC.
Damped C-Band structures for ELI_NP proposal D. Alesini (LNF-INFN, Frascati, Italy) CERN, 18 July 2012.
Overview of CLIC main linac accelerating structure design 21/10/2010 A.Grudiev (CERN)
RF structure design KT high-gradient medical project kick-off Alberto Degiovanni TERA Foundation - EPFL.
New RF design of CLIC DB AS Alexej Grudiev, BE-RF.
CLIC RF manipulation for positron at CLIC Scenarios studies on hybrid source Freddy Poirier 12/08/2010.
X-Band Deflectors Development at SLAC
Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013.
A bunch compressor design and several X-band FELs Yipeng Sun, ARD/SLAC , LCLS-II meeting.
CLARA Gun Cavity Optimisation NVEC 05/06/2014 P. Goudket G. Burt, L. Cowie, J. McKenzie, B. Militsyn.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
RF scheme of electron linear accelerator with energy MeV Levichev A.E. Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS.
常伝導技術での LC の可能性 LC feasibility consideration with normal conducting technology 第5回「機構の研究推進について」の意見交 換会 (ILC の推進について ) 平成 24 年 2 月 13 日 加速器・肥後寿泰.
Cold versus Warm, parameters impacting LC reliability and efficiency contribution to the discussion on risk factors Giorgio Bellettini, Seul ITRP meeting,
Optimisation of single bunch linacs for possible FEL upgrades Alexej Grudiev, CERN 6/02/2014 CLIC14 workshop.
Optimization of CLIC-G structure & Design of CLIC open structure Hao Zha, Alexej Grudiev (CERN) Valery Dolgashev (SLAC) 27/01/2015.
TESLA DAMPING RING RF DEFLECTORS DESIGN F.Marcellini & D. Alesini.
CLIC developments Xband FEL linac introduction W. Wuensch Xband technology.
1 Design and objectives of test accelerating structures Riccardo Zennaro.
Accelerating structure prototypes for 2011 (proposal) A.Grudiev 6/07/11.
C/S band RF deflector for post interaction longitudinal phase space optimization (D. Alesini)
X-band Based FEL proposal
Feasibility and R&D Needed For A TeV Class HEP e+e- Collider Based on AWA Technology Chunguang Jing for Accelerator R&D Group, HEP Division, ANL Aug
PAL-XFEL Commissioning Plan ver. 1.1, August 2015 PAL-XFEL Beam Dynamics Group.
Advancements on RF systems D. Alesini (LNF-INFN) Quinto Meeting Generale Collaborazione LI2FE, Frascati 15-16/03/2011.
A. Aksoy Beam Dynamics Studies for the CLIC Drive Beam Accelerator A. AKSOY CONTENS ● Basic Lattice Sketches ● Accelerating structure ● Short and long.
Test Accelerating Structures Designs, Objectives and Critical Issues
Multi-stage pulse compressor
Multi-bunch Operation for LCLS, LCLS_II, LCLS_2025
A 6 GeV Compact X-ray FEL (CXFEL) Driven by an X-Band Linac
New test structures for CLIC (RF design)
Beam dynamics for an X-band LINAC driving a 1 keV FEL
Abstract EuSPARC and EuPRAXIA projects
Sara Thorin, MAX IV Laboratory
Positron capture section studies for CLIC Hybrid source - baseline
An X-band system for phase space linearisation on CLARA
Application of moderate (5 MW) X-band power sources for the CLIC accelerating structures testing program and other projects I. Syratchev, CERN.
Status of the CLIC main beam injectors
X-band FEL beam dynamics issues
NC Accelerator Structures
INJECTION SYSTEM UPDATE
CLIC Rebaselining at 380 GeV and Staging Considerations
Linac possibilities for a Super-B
Application of the moderate peak power (6 MW) X-band klystron’s cluster for the CLIC accelerating structures testing program. I. Syratchev.
Brief Review of Microwave Dielectric Accelerators
Review of rf structure test results
Developments on Proposed
Summary of the test structure design
Testing Infrastructure, Program and Milestones
CEPC injector high field S-band accelerating structure design and R&D
Notkestrasse 85, Hamburg, Germany
Update of CLIC accelerating structure design
Recent high-gradient testing results from the CLIC XBoxes
Few Slides from RF Deflector Developments and Applications at SLAC
SuperB project. Injection scheme design status
CLIC source update CLIC main beam injectors reminder
Status of the CLIC Injector studies
Progress in the design of a damped an
RF Pulse Shaping.
CLIC Feasibility Demonstration at CTF3
Kicker and RF systems for Damping Rings
Kicker specifications for Damping Rings
Presentation transcript:

Optimisation of single bunch linac for FERMI upgrade Alexej Grudiev, CERN 5/06/2013 HG2013, ICTP Trieste, Italy

Linac layout and energy ugrading Motivation Gerardo D’Auria from Present machine layout Ebeam up to 1.5 GeV FEL-1 at 80-20 nm and FEL-2 at 20-4 nm Seeded schemes Long e-beam pulse (up to 700 fs), with “fresh bunch technique” FEL-1 & FEL-2 beamlines Beam input energy ≥ 750 MeV New FEL beamline l < 1 nm Energy upgrade Space available for acceleration 40 m Accelerating gradient @12 GHz 60 MV/m X-band linac energy gain 2.4 GeV Injection energy .75 GeV Linac output energy 3.15 GeV ~50 m available 40 m (80%) available for acceleration For short bunch (< 100 fs) and low charge (< 100pC) operation GdA_CLIC Workshop_January 28 - February 1, 2013

Aperture scaling and BBU Growth rate of the BBU due to wakefield kick from head to tail: Present Upgrade Scaling factor γ’/γ Lt [m] 40 <β> [m] ~10 E0 [GeV] 0.75 EL [GeV] 1.5 3.15 1/2 σz [fs] 700 100 1/7 eN [pC] 500 1/5 ↓ a [mm] 5 5*0.35=1.75 ← 1/(2*7*5) γ 0.02 Keep const * Alex Chao, “Physics of collective beam instabilities in high energy accelerators”, 1993 ** Karl Bane, “Short-range Dipole Wakefields in Accelerating structures for the NLC”, SLAC-PUB-9663, 2003

Transient in a cavity -> pulse compression W V Pin P0 Pout Iin Vin Iref Vref Vrad Irad · Pin Pout Short-Circuit Boundary Condition: tp tk Analytical expression for the pulse shape

Pulse compression: example Example at 12 GHz: Q0 = 180000; Qe = 20000 tk = 1500 ns klystron pulse length tp = 100 ns compressed pulse length Average power gain = = average power in compressed pulse / input power = 5.6 Average power efficiency = = compressed pulse energy / input pulse energy = 34.7 %

Effective shunt impedance of Acc. Structure + Pulse Compressor * i.e. A. Lunin, V. Yakovlev, A. Grudiev, PRST-AB 14, 052001, (2011) ** R. B. Neal, Journal of Applied Physics, V.29, pp. 1019-1024, (1958)

Effective Shunt impedance in Const Impedance (CI) AS No pulse compression Rs0/R τs0 Rs/R Rs/R With pulse compression τs0 = 1.2564 => Rs0 /R = 0.8145 For Q = 8128; Q0 = 180000; Qe = 20000 τs0 = 0.6078 => Rs0 /R = 3.3538 But in general it is function all 3 Qs: Q, Q0, Qe

Undamped cell parameters for dphi=150o

CIAS pulse compression optimum Q0 = 180000 – Q-factor of the pulse compressor cavity(s) tk = 1500 ns – klystron pulse length Optimum attenuation: τs0 Averaged Shunt Impedance Rs0/R Rs0/R Point from slide above Point from slide above Optimum value of Qe ~ const: ranges from 20000 for Q=6000 up to 21000 for Q=8000

CIAS Effective Shunt Impedance: w/o and with pulse compression Rs0 No pulse compression Rs0 With pulse compression As expected ~ 4 times higher effective shunt impedance with pulse compression Optimum pulse length is ~ two times longer no pulse compression is used, still it is much shorter than the klystron total pulse length

CIAS linac 40 m long, <G>=60MV/m : w/o and with PC Total klystron power Optimum structure length Klystron power per structure ~# of structures per 0.8x50 MW klystron 2 -> 1/5 ~20 -> ~2

CIAS high gradient related parameters: w/o and with PC AS Pin(t=0) AS Esurf(z=0,t=0) AS Sc(z=0,t=0) Typical Pulse length Flat pulse: 230-290 ns Above the HG limits for larger apertures Peaked pulse: 122-136 ns 60-70 ns Assamption: Effective pulse length for breakdowns is ~ half of the compressed pulse Breakdown limits are very close for large a/λ and thin irises A dedicated BDR measurements are needed for compressed pulse shape

CIAS with PC: max. Lstruct < 1m Rs0 For high vg corner Shorter tp Lower Qe More Ptotal Less Pin/klyst. Lower field and power quantities

Const Gradient (CG) AS No pulse compression With pulse compression Rs Rs/R No pulse compression With pulse compression Rs/R Rs/R If the last cell ohmic and diffraction losses are equal => minimum vg. For 12 GHz, Q=8000, lc = 10mm: τs0 = 0.96; min(vg/c) = 0.032 - very low vg at the end BUT CGAS can reach higher Rs/R than CIAS Q = 8128; Q0 = 180000; Qe = 20000 τs0 = 0.5366 => Rs0 /R = 3.328 – function Q-factors Roughly the same as for CIAS with pulse compression vg_max = vg(1+0.5366); vg_min = vg(1-0.5366) Optimum vg variation is about factor 3.3 Lowest group velocity limits the CGAS performance

CIAS pulse compression optimum Q0 = 180000 – Q-factor of the pulse compressor cavity(s) tk = 1500 ns – klystron pulse length Optimum attenuation: τs0 Averaged Shunt Impedance Rs0/R Rs0/R Point from slide above Point from slide above Optimum value of Qe ~ const: ranges from 21000 for Q=6000 up to 22000 for Q=8000

CGAS Effective Shunt Impedance: w/o and with pulse compression Rs0 No pulse compression Rs0 With pulse compression CGAS has higher Rs compared to CIAS if no pulse compression is used and the same Rs with pulse compression Optimum pulse length is ~ 4.5 times longer if no pulse compression is used, still it is significantly shorter than the klystron total pulse length

CGAS linac 40 m long, <G>=60MV/m : w/o and with PC Total klystron power Optimum structure length Klystron power per structure ~# of structures per 0.8x50 MW klystron 2 -> 1/3 ~20 -> ~2 Optimum structure length and input power per structure are very similar to the CIAS

CGAS high gradient related parameters: w/o and with PC AS Pin(t=0) AS Esurf(z=0,t=0) AS Sc(z=0,t=0) Typical Pulse length Flat pulse: 250-650 ns Above the HG limits for larger apertures Peaked pulse: 122-138 ns 60-70 ns Due to much shorter compressed pulse the CGAS with PC is safer in terms of high gradient related parameters than w/o PC Also due to CG profile it is significantly safer than CIAS with PC

CGAS with PC: max. Lstruct < 1m Rs0 For high vg corner Shorter tp Higher vg_min More Ptotal Less Pin/klyst. A little bit lower field and power quantities

CIAS and CGAS with PC, different RF phase advance, no constraints CLIC_G_undamped: τs=0.31 < τs0=0.54; Ls=0.25m; Qe=15700; Pt = 400MW H75 : τs=0.50 ~ τs0=0.54; Ls=0.75m; Qe=20200; Pt = 613MW

CIAS and CGAS with PC, different RF phase advance, Ls < 1m

Small aperture linac, 2.4 GeV, 40m RF phase advance 2π/3 a/lambda 0.118 d/h 0.1 Pt 322 MW Ls 0.833 m # klystrons 8 # structures 8 x 6 = 48 a 2.95 mm d 0.833 mm vg/c 2.22 % tp 125 ns Qe 20700 Constant Impedance Accelerating Structure with input power coupler only P C RF load Klystron Pulse compressor Hybrid

Middle aperture linac, 2.4 GeV, 40m RF phase advance 2π/3 3π/4 a/lambda 0.145 d/h 0.1313 0.1 Pt 401 MW Ls 1 m # klystrons 10 # structures 10 x 4 = 40 a 3.62 mm d 1.09 mm 0.937 mm vg/c 3.75 % 3.29% tp 90 ns 102 ns Qe 18000 19000 Constant Impedance Accelerating Structure with input power coupler only P C RF load Klystron Pulse compressor Hybrid

Large aperture linac, 2.4 GeV, 40m Constant Impedance Accelerating Structure with input power coupler only RF phase advance 5π/6 a/lambda 0.195 d/h 0.183 Pt 602 MW Ls 1.333 m # klystrons 15 # structures 15 x 2 = 30 a 4.87 mm d 1.90mm vg/c 4.425 % tp 101 ns Qe 18500 P C RF load Klystron Pulse compressor Hybrid

Single- versus Double-rounded cells By doing double rounded cells instead of single rounded cells Q-factor is increased by 6% The total linac power is reduced only by 3.7% (not 6%) because optimum is adapted to the Q No tuning will be possible ~6%

Conclusions An analytical expression for effective shunt impedance of the CI and CG AS without and with pulse compression have been derived. Maximizing effective shunt impedance for a given average aperture gives the optimum AS+PC design of a single bunch linac Different constraints have been applied to find practical solutions for a FERMI energy upgrade based on the X-band 2.4 GeV, 60 MV/m linac