The CLIC Decelerator Beam Dynamics

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emittance dilution due to misalignment of quads and cavities of ILC main linac revised K.Kubo For beam energy 250 GeV,
Advertisements

R. Miyamoto, Beam Physics Design of MEBT, ESS AD Retreat 1 Beam Physics Design of MEBT Ryoichi Miyamoto (ESS) November 29th, 2012 ESS AD Retreat On behalf.
1 Bates XFEL Linac and Bunch Compressor Dynamics 1. Linac Layout and General Beam Parameter 2. Bunch Compressor –System Details (RF, Magnet Chicane) –Linear.
1 ILC Bunch compressor Damping ring ILC Summer School August Eun-San Kim KNU.
ATF2 FB/FF layout Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group FONT meeting January 11, 2007.
CTF3 commissioning status R. Corsini - CTF3 committee 17 th September 2009 Update on CTF3 Operations and schedule This time I will try to give a more complete.
Beam dynamics studies and test facilites SLAC Accelerator Seminar January 28, 2010 Erik Adli, Department of Physics, University of Oslo and CERN.
LCLS-II Transverse Tolerances Tor Raubenheimer May 29, 2013.
ATF2 Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group 5th ATF2 project meeting, KEK December 19-21, 2007.
From one module to a long string 6 th CLIC Advisory Committee February 3, 2011 Erik Adli, Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Norway.
Drive Beam Linac Stability Issues Avni AKSOY Ankara University.
Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum.
Details of space charge calculations for J-PARC rings.
2nd CLIC Advisory Committee (CLIC-ACE), CERN January 2008 Introduction to the CLIC Power Extraction and Transfer Structure (PETS) Design. I. Syratchev.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
Overview and beam physics International Workshop on Linear Colliders 2010 October 20, 2010 Erik Adli, Department of Physics, University of Oslo and CERN.
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.
CLIC Decelerator Instrumentation - Ideas and outlooks – non exhaustive - Erik Adli, July 9, 2008.
Consideration for a plasma stage in a PWFA linear collider Erik Adli University of Oslo, Norway FACET-II Science Workshop, SLAC Oct 14,
Aaron Farricker 107/07/2014Aaron Farricker Beam Dynamics in the ESS Linac Under the Influence of Monopole and Dipole HOMs.
The SPS as a Damping Ring Test Facility for CLIC March 6 th, 2013 Yannis PAPAPHILIPPOU CERN CLIC Collaboration Working meeting.
Beam Dynamics WG K. Kubo, N. Solyak, D. Schulte. Presentations –N. Solyak Coupler kick simulations update –N. Solyak CLIC BPM –A. Latina: Update on the.
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.
University of Oslo and CLIC Short overview for first “NorduCLIC” meeting Erik Adli and Steinar Stapnes, University of Oslo May 19, 2008.
Main Linac Tolerances What do they mean? ILC-GDE meeting Beijing Kiyoshi Kubo 1.Introduction, review of old studies 2.Assumed “static” errors.
The Introduction to CSNS Accelerators Oct. 5, 2010 Sheng Wang AP group, Accelerator Centre,IHEP, CAS.
Injector Options for CLIC Drive Beam Linac Avni Aksoy Ankara University.
S. Bettoni, R. Corsini, A. Vivoli (CERN) CLIC drive beam injector design.
The CLIC Decelerator Beam Dynamics 3rd CLIC Advisory Committee (CLIC-ACE) Erik Adli, CERN/University of Oslo, September 3 rd 2008 Lots of input by D. Schulte.
TBL experimental program Status and Results  Introduction  Status  Experimental program for 2010 and beyond  Outlook ACE, Steffen Döbert.
Vacuum specifications in Linacs J-B. Jeanneret, G. Rumolo, D. Schulte in CLIC Workshop 09, 15 October 2009 Fast Ion Instability in Linacs and the simulation.
X-band Based FEL proposal
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.
CLIC 09 Workshop - C. Biscari C. Biscari, D. Alesini, A. Ghigo, F. Marcellini, LNF-INFN, Frascati, Italy B. Jeanneret, F. Stulle, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
12 GHz PETS conditioning with recirculation First Analysis
ILC Main Linac Beam Dynamics Review K. Kubo.
The Cockroft Institute
A. Aksoy Beam Dynamics Studies for the CLIC Drive Beam Accelerator A. AKSOY CONTENS ● Basic Lattice Sketches ● Accelerating structure ● Short and long.
Halo and Tail Generation Studies and Application to the CLIC Drive Beam Presented by: Miriam Fitterer Acknowledgements: Erik Adli, Ijaz Ahmed,
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.
From Beam Dynamics K. Kubo
Primary Beam Lines for the Project at CERN
The Engineering Test Facility for nLC
RF-kick in the CLIC accelerating structures
Correlated Misalignments Studies for LCLS-II SC Linac
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
Wake field limitations in a low gradient main linac of CLIC
Alignment studies Decelerator, TBL and CTF3 linac
RF Power Generation and PETS Design
CLIC Klystron-based Design
Optimization of Triplet Field Quality in Collision
Jeffrey Eldred, Sasha Valishev
Multiturn extraction for PS2
Beam-beam R&D for eRHIC Linac-Ring Option
Overview Multi Bunch Beam Dynamics at XFEL
LHC (SSC) Byung Yunn CASA.
MEBT1&2 design study for C-ADS
Physics Design on Injector I
CLIC Feasibility Demonstration at CTF3
DTL M. Comunian M. Eshraqi.
Physics 417/517 Introduction to Particle Accelerator Physics
Kicker and RF systems for Damping Rings
Kicker specifications for Damping Rings
Yuri Nosochkov Yunhai Cai, Fanglei Lin, Vasiliy Morozov
Presentation transcript:

The CLIC Decelerator Beam Dynamics 3rd CLIC Advisory Committee (CLIC-ACE) Erik Adli, CERN/University of Oslo, September 2008

Outline Intro Longitudinal dynamics / power production (short) Transverse dynamics Sources of envelope growth PETS Short summary of work with PETS Effect of transverse wakes Alignment tolerances Beam Based Alignment Drive beam generation Failure Modes (short / selected topics) TBL

Intro

The objective of the decelerator: The CLIC decelerator CLIC decelerator (one sector) The objective of the decelerator: Produce the correct power for accelerating structures, timely and uniformly along the decelerator, while achieving a high extraction efficiency Uniform power production implies that the beam must be transported to the end with very small losses

Lattice 24 decelerator sectors per main linac Varying sector length due to number and size of main linac quadrupoles Baseline for PETS: longest sector (1050 meter) with a PETS fill-factor of 71% ("worst case for beam dynamics") Tight FODO focusing (large energy acceptance, low beta) Lowest energy particles see phase-advance m90 (higher energy sees weaker focussing)

Baseline parameters for this study Baseline parameters from [CLIC paramaters 2008] E0  2.4 GeV sE=0 in most simulations (because sE of few % is insignificant wrt. the energy spread due to deceleration) I  100 A d = 25 mm (bunch spacing, fb = 12 GHz) t  240 ns (2900 bunches) Gaussian bunch, z  1 mm eN  150 mm  x,y  0.3 mm (at bmax) Simulation tool: PLACET (D. Schulte)

Longitudinal dynamics

PETS energy extraction Single particle energy loss: example for Gaussian bunch PETS longitudinal d-wake, including group velocity: field builds up linearly (and stepwise, for point-like bunches) Energy loss from leading bunches + single bunch component: Approx: sb component equal to mb, and linear field increase: if mb assumption is good, wake function is recognized for particle energy loss of z Integrating DE over bunch gives second form factor, and times fb gives extr. power: (x 1/2 for linac-Ohms)

The effect of deceleration l(z) E S=(E-Ě) / E = 90% Ě Ě = E(1-S) =E-NPETSDÊ = 24 MeV tb = 83ps sz = 1mm tfill = (LPETS/vg)(1-bg) g = 1ns tz = 3ps Power extracted from beam (ss) : P  (1/4) I2 Lpets2 FF2 (R’/Q) wb / vg = 135 MW Transport of the decelerator beam becomes more challenging with increasing S and decreasing Ě – in this study S=90% used Power extraction efficiency (ss) : h = Ein/Eext = S FF hdist = 84%

Transverse dynamics How to keep the entire beam (particles of all energies) within the vacuum chamber, along all the decelerator

Metrics Because of the minimum-loss requirement we use as metric the 3-sigma envelope for the worst particle, defined as : Simulation criterion for minimum-loss transport: r < ½a0 =5.75 mm Factor ½ : margin for unmodelled higher order fields (especially wake fields!) Requiring pclic=99%. 50 accelerator sectors  psector=99.98% of machines should satisfy this criterion (!)

Simulation overview The following effects are included in the transverse dynamics studies PETS model (baseline) Transverse wakes (long and short range) RF-kicks Adiabatic undamping Lattice component misalignment (baseline) PETS misalignment (offset, angle) Quadrupole misalignment (offset, angle) BPM misalignment (offset, angle) BEAM perturbations (studied separately) Beam offset Beam jitter

Results: baseline Beam envelope, r, for baseline (incl. component misalignment) : In order to improve the situation we first disentangle the contributions to the beam envelope

Minimum final envelope Initial beam: modelled as slices with given energy and transverse distribution Ad. undamping in a perfect machine Relative orientation of distribution: irrelevant for r we don't care about "chromaticity" not necessarily useful to study emittance growth To study increase fo beam envelope it is useful to work with a "pencil beam" of centroid only, where centroid envelope is den. rc

The effect of quadrupole kicks Thus: quadrupole kicks alone drives the beam envelope above our limit (perhaps a bit surprinsingly)

Results: baseline Base + case w/o transverse wakes Quadrupole kicks alone + undamping already leads to unacceptable beam envelope

Transverse dynamics - PETS

PLACET input: dipole wake function PETS Impedance simulated and a set of discrete dipole modes are extracted to represent the impedance (I. Syratchev) Each mode implemented in PLACET (fT, wT, QT, bT) and included in the PETS element (D. Schulte) Slide: I. Syratchev

Input to PETS design During the 12 GHz PETS design, beam dynamics simulations were done in an iterative process with the PETS design to ensure small amplification due to transverse wakes

Origin of wake amplification Further investigation shows the amplification of the envelope occurs towards the end of the bunch -> mainly the single bunch wake that drives the amplification Collorary: since single bunch wake is sine-like, shorter bunch-length might reduce wake amplification significantly

Instabilities along the beam NB: Q-factor larger than the nominal increase multi-bunch wake and might lead to instability along the beam Here illustrater for Q=Q0 and Q=2Q0 Deemed unacceptable (even if centroid rc envelope is constrained) NB: trapped modes*** Q=2Q0 Q=Q0

Conclusion: PETS design Effect PETS transverse wakes mitigated efficiently for nominal PETS parameters Stability sensitive to higher Q values

Alignment tolerances

(the rest of presentation: baseline parameters) Procedure (the rest of presentation: baseline parameters) We want to specify lattice element alignment tolerances We require that no single misalignment should drive our centroid (pencil beam) envelope more than 1 mm, rc < 1 mm (max. of 100 machines)

Limits

Quadrupoles effect limit of static alignment Update table ***

Beam-based alignment

1-to-1 steering Using simple 1-to-1 steering (SC) forces the beam centroid through the center of each BPM We assume a BPM accuracy of 20um (limited mainly by static alignment?) As result the centroid also passed in the order of *** um from each quad

Results 1-2-1 steering Even if *** [plot of distribution over machines]

Dispersion-free steering 1-to-1 correction does not give an adequate steering due to the large variation of dispersive trajectories We therefore seek to minimize the dispersive trajectories by applying Dispersion-Free Steering (DFS, [Raubenheim** and Ruth, ***] Our implementation minimized We want a difference trajectory with large leverage

DFS: test-beam generation Advantages with this method quadrupole strengths are kept constant main-beam and test-beam can be combined in one pulse Large energy-leverage

Results: DFS Start of lattice: DFS not effective, due to the small energy difference of the test-beam, but does not matter since ***

Current jitter Dispersion-free steering: Dependence on current, versus bins Lowest energy particles: XX phase-space revolutions Highest energy partices: YY phase-space revolutions DFS technique will be performed in bins, with a max. size depending on the current difference need to perform DFS technique in bins

Decelerator: discussion and conclusion

Not included in the simulations Resistive-wall wake The following estimate Higher-order wakes Effect should be limited within r < ½a0 (but probably worth looking further into) Longitudinal effects and phase jitter Some work in [D. Schulte] On-going work Halo simulations On-going work by I. Ahmed

Failure modes Selected topics

Quadrupole failure

PETS: estimation of accepted break down voltage

PETS: effect of inhibition "Petsonov" Simulated as R/Q=0, QT=2QT0 (worst-case) the lack of deceleration leads to higher minimum beam energy and thus less adiabatic undamping and less energy spread dipole wake kicks increase; for a steered trajectory the change of kicks will in addition spoil the steering the coherence of the beam energy will increase, and thus also the coherent build up of tranverse wakes

TBL versus the decelerator

From Model to Reality 1: The Test Beam Line (TBL) The Test Beam Line (TBL) is under construction as part of the CLIC Test Facility 3 (CTF3). TBL will be a first prototype for the CLIC decelerator. The targets are, among others, to investigate beam stability and minimum-loss transport during deceleration with high power extraction efficiency. In addition the TBL will serve as test-bed for Beam-Based Alignment of a decelerated beam, and as a general benchmarking of the simulation codes.

TBL versus CLIC - parameters

Effect of quadrupole kicks

Wake amplification