PS Booster Studies with High Intensity Beams Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto Space Charge Collaboration Meeting 20-21 May 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Two-dimensional Effects on the CSR Interaction Forces for an Energy-Chirped Bunch Rui Li, J. Bisognano, R. Legg, and R. Bosch.
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.
SESAME – TAC 2012: M. Attal Maher Attal SESAME Booster Characterization.
Benchmark of ACCSIM-ORBIT codes for space charge and e-lens compensation Beam’07, October 2007 Masamitsu AIBA, CERN Thank you to G. Arduini, C. Carli,
Dr. Zafer Nergiz Nigde University THE STATUS OF TURKISH LIGHT SOURCE.
Space Charge meeting – CERN – 09/10/2014
E.Benedetto, 30/05/13, LIU-PSB Meeting, PSB chicane magnets: Inconel chamber PSB H- chicane magnets: Inconel vacuum chamber option & consequences on beam.
Linac4 Beam Commissioning Committee PSB Beam Optics and Painting Schemes 9 th December 2010 Beam Optics and Painting Schemes C. Bracco, C. Carli, B. Goddard,
Introduction Status of SC simulations at CERN
GRD - Collimation Simulation with SIXTRACK - MIB WG - October 2005 LHC COLLIMATION SYSTEM STUDIES USING SIXTRACK Ralph Assmann, Stefano Redaelli, Guillaume.
Loss maps of RHIC Guillaume Robert-Demolaize, BNL CERN-GSI Meeting on Collective Effects, 2-3 October 2007 Beam losses, halo generation, and Collimation.
AGS Polarized Proton Development toward Run-9 Oct. 3, 2008 Haixin Huang.
S.J. Brooks RAL, Chilton, OX11 0QX, UK Options for a Multi-GeV Ring Ramping field synchrotron provides fixed tunes and small.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, N.Kazarinov.
3 GeV,1.2 MW, Booster for Proton Driver G H Rees, RAL.
H. Bartosik, K. Cornelis, A. Guerrero, B. Mikulek, G. Rumolo, Y. Papaphilippou, B. Salvant, E. Shaposhnikova June 16 th, 2011.
New Progress of the Nonlinear Collimation System for A. Faus-Golfe J. Resta López D. Schulte F. Zimmermann.
Booster Beam Dynamics Christian Carli On behalf of the team working on and contributing to the study: M. Aiba did all ORBIT simulations (Booster modelling.
DTL: Basic Considerations M. Comunian & F. Grespan Thanks to J. Stovall, for the help!
Proton Driver: Status and Plans C.R. Prior ASTeC Intense Beams Group, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
Details of space charge calculations for J-PARC rings.
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
H - injection simulations 13th October 2014 Jose L. Abelleira, Chiara Bracco.
“Beam Losses” Christian Carli PSB H - Injection Review, 9 th November 2011 Several topics more or less related to beam losses, a study still somewhat at.
1 FFAG Role as Muon Accelerators Shinji Machida ASTeC/STFC/RAL 15 November, /machida/doc/othertalks/machida_ pdf/machida/doc/othertalks/machida_ pdf.
Electron Model for a 3-10 GeV, NFFAG Proton Driver G H Rees, RAL.
Optics considerations for ERL test facilities Bruno Muratori ASTeC Daresbury Laboratory (M. Bowler, C. Gerth, F. Hannon, H. Owen, B. Shepherd, S. Smith,
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
MTE vs CT D.Manglunki for BE/OP - pictures from M.Giovannozzi - details in “Fifty years of the CERN Proton Synchrotron (Vol I)” CERN
28-May-2008Non-linear Beam Dynamics WS1 On Injection Beam Loss at the SPring-8 Storage Ring Masaru TAKAO & J. Schimizu, K. Soutome, and H. Tanaka JASRI.
Project X RD&D Plan Beam Transfer Line and Recycler Injection David Johnson AAC Meeting February 3, 2009.
4 th Order Resonance at the PS R. WASEF, S. Gilardoni, S. Machida Acknowledgements: A. Huschauer, G. Sterbini SC meeting, 05/03/15.
Update on injection studies of LHC beams from Linac4 V. Forte (BE/ABP-HSC) Acknowledgements: J. Abelleira, C. Bracco, E. Benedetto, S. Hancock, M. Kowalska.
1 EMMA Tracking Studies Shinji Machida ASTeC/CCLRC/RAL 4 January, ffag/machida_ ppt & pdf.
ISIS Upgrade Modelling Dean Adams On behalf of STFC/ISIS C Warsop, B Jones, B Pine, R Williamson, H Smith, M Hughes, A McFarland, A Seville, I Gardner,
Simplified Modeling of Space Charge Losses in Booster at Injection Alexander Valishev June 17, 2015.
By Verena Kain CERN BE-OP. In the next three lectures we will have a look at the different components of a synchrotron. Today: Controlling particle trajectories.
Tunes modulation in a space charge dominated beam: The particles behavior in the “necktie” Space charge meeting – CERN - 21/11/2013 Vincenzo Forte Thanks.
Update on HI beams study Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto BE/ABP/HSC 16 September 2015.
The Introduction to CSNS Accelerators Oct. 5, 2010 Sheng Wang AP group, Accelerator Centre,IHEP, CAS.
E.Benedetto, 1/07/13, LIS Meeting, PSB chicane magnets: Inconel chamber PSB H- chicane magnets: Inconel vacuum chamber option & consequences on beam dynamics.
Case study: Energy deposition in superconducting magnets in IR7 AMT Workshop A.Ferrari, M.Magistris, M.Santana, V.Vlachoudis CERN Fri 4/3/2005.
Collimation in the CERN PS Booster Penny Jackson: John Adams Institute/University of Oxford/CERN This is a feasibility study.
PSB H- injection concept J.Borburgh, C.Bracco, C.Carli, B.Goddard, M.Hourican, B.Mikulec, W.Weterings,
STABILITY STUDIES OF THE PSB-TO-PS TRANSFER W. Bartmann, J. Abelleira With many inputs from: O. Berrig, J. Borburgh, S. Gilardoni, GP di Giovanni, B. Goddard,
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,
Transverse shaving on the Window Beam Scope in the PSB Magdalena Cieslak - Kowalska BE/ABP/HSI with precious help from E. Benedetto, J-M. de Cravero, B.
R. Miyamoto, MEBT Lattice Optimization, ESS AD Beam Physics Internal Review 1 MEBT Lattice Optimization Ryoichi Miyamoto (ESS) For Beam Physics Group,
Benchmarking Headtail with e-cloud observations with LHC 25ns beam H. Bartosik, W. Höfle, G. Iadarola, Y. Papaphilippou, G. Rumolo.
PS2 beam parameters and proposal for aperture strategy M. Benedikt , PS2 meeting1Beams and apertures, M.Benedikt.
Toward an Improved Model of the Fermilab Booster Synchrotron A. Drozhdin, J.-F. Ostiguy and W. Chou Beam Physics Department Introduction The Booster is.
Tracking simulations of protons quench test
Collimation Concept for Beam Halo Losses in SIS 100
Benchmarking MAD, SAD and PLACET Characterization and performance of the CLIC Beam Delivery System with MAD, SAD and PLACET T. Asaka† and J. Resta López‡
Impact of the current debuncher limitations (…can we get rid of longitudinal painting?)
Space charge studies at the SPS
Electron Cooling Simulation For JLEIC
Emittance growth AT PS injection
Sabrina Appel, GSI, Beam physics Space charge workshop 2013, CERN
Beam collimation for SPPC
SC Overview 2013 White & Rouge The Codes in Comparison The Noise Issue
Update on PTC/ORBIT space charge studies in the PSB
CNGS Proton beam line: news since NBI2002 OUTLINE 1. Overview
Preliminary results of the PTC/ORBIT convergence studies in the PSB
MEBT1&2 design study for C-ADS
Simulation of Multiturn Injection into SIS-18
First meeting of the LIS section: Welcome to the new members!!
Emittance Studies at Extraction of the PS Booster: Emittance Calculation S. Albright, F. Antoniou, F. Asvesta, H. Bartosik, G.P. Di Giovanni, M. Fraser,
Presentation transcript:

PS Booster Studies with High Intensity Beams Magdalena Kowalska supervised by Elena Benedetto Space Charge Collaboration Meeting May 2014

Outline: 1.High intensity beams in PS Booster 2.Motivations and proposal of PhD plans 3.History of the studies of collimation system in PSB 4.PS Booster collimation system for the future 5.Present case (50 MeV HI beam) 6.Studies of the future case (160 MeV HI beam) 7.Comments

Outline: 1.High intensity beams in PS Booster 2.Motivations and proposal of PhD plans 3.History of the studies of collimation system in PSB 4.PS Booster collimation system for the future 5.Present case (50 MeV HI beam) 6.Studies of the future case (160 MeV HI beam) 7.Comments

High Intensity and Emittance Beams Intensity at the extraction up to 1000 e+10 Normalized extracted horizontal emittance 15 mm mrad (max 1 sigma beam size ~19.5 mm) Normalized extracted vertical emittance 10 mm mrad (max 1 sigma beam size ~21 mm) cause strong space charge effect on beam i.e. ISOLDE Beam (most demanding case)

Motivations Radiation level is a concern in the PS Booster. Increase of injection energy (from 50 MeV to 160 MeV) and beam intensity will cause more harmful losses. Strategy is needed to mitigate the losses and control their locations.

“Analysis and control of beam losses in the PS Booster for high intensity beam” Identify aperture, thickness, material of the absorber by physics considerations and simulations using - PTC-(py)ORBIT (self consistent, containing collimation routine) - SixTrack (track only halo particles, used to design LHC collimators) Become familiar with the present beam loss pattern and activation mechanisms. Investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of a collimation system (absorber). Check weather the code’s implemented physics model is valid for the energies of interest. Reproduce the measurements at low energies, where space charge plays a major role.

History of the studies of PS Booster Collimation System Presently there is no collimation system in PS Booster Around 1995, first study was done by T. Trenkler and H. Schonauer on single turn system First investigations on collimation assuming (LHC like) multi turn approach (by student P. Jackson) showed that this design is not feasible for 160MeV The current idea is to build a single pass collimator And possible use existing Window Beam Scope* (aperture restriction) as an absorber (from Christian Carli “Beam Losses” at PSB H- Injection Review, 9th November 2011) Efficiency (simplified model) for vertical loss at 160 MeV (from a presentation by P. Jackson) Very thin primary collimators (otherwise no multi turn behaviour), heating an issue Salvador Dali, Soft Watch at the Moment of First Explosion, 1954

Horizontal aperture in present (50 MeV) case Horizontal 3 and 5 sigma beam passing through PS Booster lattice with misalignment and field errors calculated by Meghan McAteer (MAD-X). Losses are not foreseen in horizontal plane. (5 sigma) beam size is much smaller then the aperture restriction

Vertical aperture in present (50 MeV) case Horizontal 3 and 5 sigma beam passing through PS Booster lattice with misalignment and field errors calculated by Meghan McAteer (MAD-X). Losses are expected in many locations only in vertical plane due to the similar size of the bend’s scrapper and Window Beam Scope.

Vertical aperture in future (160 MeV) case If similar normalized emittances needed at ejection. Decrease of physical beam size. Decrease of the machine acceptance possible. We can profit from this fact in order to plug a collimation system.

Outline: 1.High intensity beams in PS Booster 2.Motivations and proposal of PhD plans 3.History of the studies of collimation system in PSB 4.PS Booster collimation system for the future 5.Present case (50 MeV HI beam) 6.Studies of the future case (160 MeV HI beam) 7.Comments

Better understanding of the nature of the present (50 MeV) case Radiation survey performed in 2013 and high level dosimetry, results from Example of shaving for LHC 50ns beam which also contributes to the losses generation: Aperture for the case with space charge on : losses are foreseen mostly in the vertical plane, which benchmarks with the predictions based on MAD-X optics calculations.

Outline: 1.High intensity beams in PS Booster 2.Motivations and proposal of PhD plans 3.History of the studies of collimation system in PSB 4.PS Booster collimation system for the future 5.Present case (50 MeV HI beam) 6.Studies of the future case (160 MeV HI beam) 7.Comments

Studies of the best beam profile (vertical plane), 160 MeV case With the H- injection we will have the possibility to paint transverse profile of the beam. Comparison between Supergaussian distribution for N=10 (in bars) and N=2 (in green)

Studies of the best beam profile (vertical plane), 160 MeV case Supergaussian with N=2 vs N=4 y plane Supergaussian with N=2 vs N=6 y plane Supergaussian with N=2 vs N=8 y plane Supergaussian with N=2 vs N=10 y plane Supergaussian with N=2 vs N=8 y plane Choice of the N parameter influence the beam profile shape. Distributions generated for different N with the same horizontal and vertical emittances.

Studies for different beam profiles Intensity evolution RMS horizontal emittance evolution RMS vertical emittance evolution Losses decrease with increasing N Legend: standard Gauss N=2 N=4 N=6 N=8 N=10 Emittances evolution follow the losses pattern

Tune spread as a function of beam profile (peak height), 160 MeV case ΔQx = ΔQy = Tune footprint for Supergaussian N=10 at 160 MeV ΔQx = ΔQy = ΔQx = ΔQy = Tune footprint for Supergaussian N=2 at 160 MeV

Tune spread as a function of beam intensity (peak height), 160 MeV case Tune footprint for Gaussian N=10 at 160 MeV with double intensity ΔQx = ΔQy = Tune footprint for Supergaussian N=10 at 160 MeV ΔQx = ΔQy = 0.449

Comments: We are facing now a big challenge of designing the collimation system for PS Booster. Space charge is playing significant role in the dynamics and losses generation for high intensity beams in the PS Booster. First step is to understand the nature of the existing losses by measurements and simulations. This will allow us to make some predictions for the future 160 MeV high intensity beams. PTC-(py)ORBIT and SixTrack are the codes chosen for the studies. Help from Space Charge community (and other experts) will be highly appreciated Thanks for your attention

New Window Beam Scope dimensions for 160 MeV Is an aperture restriction in PS Booster designed in the past to perform beam profile measurements. In current operation its main role is to shave the beam in order to have a controlled value of the intensity and emittances. With injection energy upgrade… physical size 50mm x 28.6mm declared in.dbx MADX file should be scaled as sqrt(bgam160/bgam50) ~= 1.35 Taking into account 5 mm of closed orbit distortion the new WBS aperture should be 38.18mm x 22.40mm ** * * Matthias Scholz “Simulationen zur H- Charge Exchange Injection in den CERN Proton Synchrotron Booster mit Linac4” Example of shaving for LHC 50ns beam: