Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Q20: The X-band collider has much tighter requirements for the alignment of the beam orbit with the structure axis, yet the basic instrumental precision.
Advertisements

CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
1 Bates XFEL Linac and Bunch Compressor Dynamics 1. Linac Layout and General Beam Parameter 2. Bunch Compressor –System Details (RF, Magnet Chicane) –Linear.
Linear Collider Bunch Compressors Andy Wolski Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory USPAS Santa Barbara, June 2003.
Issues in ILC Main Linac and Bunch Compressor from Beam dynamics N. Solyak, A. Latina, K.Kubo.
SuperB and the ILC Damping Rings Andy Wolski University of Liverpool/Cockcroft Institute 27 April, 2006.
SLAC ILC Accelerator: Luminosity Production Peter Tenenbaum HEP Program Review June 15, 2005.
July 22, 2005Modeling1 Modeling CESR-c D. Rubin. July 22, 2005Modeling2 Simulation Comparison of simulation results with measurements Simulated Dependence.
Luminosity Stability and Stabilisation Hardware D. Schulte for the CLIC team Special thanks to J. Pfingstner and J. Snuverink 1CLIC-ACE, February 2nd,
ILC RTML Lattice Design A.Vivoli, N. Solyak, V. Kapin Fermilab.
1 Q3 Main linac starting gradient, upgrade gradient, and upgrade path Results of WG5 discussions.
Summary of AWG4: Beam Dynamics A. Latina (CERN), N. Solyak (FNAL) LCWS13 – Nov 11-15, 2013 – The University of Tokyo, Japan.
8/28/07RTML EDR KOM1 Cornell Plans for RTML EDR Work G. Dugan Cornell LEPP.
ILC Start-End Simulations Glen White, SLAC May 13, 2014 AWLC14, Fermilab.
DESY GDE Meeting Global Design Effort 1 / 12 Status of RTML Design and Tuning Studies PT SLAC.
Beam dynamics on damping rings and beam-beam interaction Dec 포항 가속기 연구소 김 은 산.
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
Alignment (Survey) Tolerances in Main Linac from Beam Dynamics Simulations Kiyoshi Kubo.
Simulations Group Summary K. Kubo, D. Schulte, N. Solyak for the beam dynamics working group.
SB2009/ Low energy running for ILC International Workshop on Linear Colliders 2010 Andrei Seryi John Adams Institute 19 October 2010.
Global Design Effort - CFS ILC Accelerator Design and Integration Meeting 1 ILC AD&I MEETING CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES AND SITING GROUP UPDATE V.
Luminosity expectations for the first years of CLIC operation CTC MJ.
Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013.
Report of 2 nd ILC Workshop (Snowmass) Working Group Kiyoshi KUBO references: Slides of the plenary talks in the workshop by P.Tenembaum and.
CLIC main activities and goals for 2018 Design and Implementation studies: CDR status: not optimized except at 3 TeV and not adjusted for Higgs discovery,
16 August 2005PT for US BC Task Force1 Two Stage Bunch Compressor Proposal Snowmass WG1 “It’s the latest wave That you’ve been craving for The old ideal.
BDS Andrei Seryi, Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Emmannual Tsesmelis, Rogelio Tomas, Andrea Latina, Daniel Schulte Detectors Civil engineering.
SINGLE-STAGE BUNCH COMPRESSOR FOR ILC-SB2009 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop (BAW-2) SLAC, Jan , 2011 N.Solyak, Single-stage.
CLIC Energy Stages Meeting D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
Beam stability in damping ring - for stable extracted beam for ATF K. Kubo.
1 Update on Q2 Main linac starting gradient, upgrade gradient, and upgrade path Results of WG5 discussions after feedback from plenary on Tuesday New Option.
Beam Dynamics WG Summary N.Solyak, K.Kubo, A.Latina LCWS 2014 – Oct 6-10, 2014 – Belgrade, Serbia.
GG3 Operations & Reliability (Availability) Eckhard Elsen Tom Himel
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.
CLIC Energy Stages D. Schulte1 D. Schulte for the CLIC team.
13 September 2006 Global Design Effort 1 ML (x.7) Goals and Scope of Work to end FY09 Nikolay Solyak Fermilab Peter Tenenbaum SLAC.
J. Pfingstner Imperfections tolerances for on-line DFS Improved imperfection tolerances for an on-line dispersion free steering algorithm Jürgen Pfingstner.
Low Emittance Generation and Preservation K. Yokoya, D. Schulte.
Emittance Tuning Simulations in the ILC Damping Rings James Jones ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.
Main Linac Tolerances What do they mean? ILC-GDE meeting Beijing Kiyoshi Kubo 1.Introduction, review of old studies 2.Assumed “static” errors.
Status of RTML design in TDR configuration A.Vivoli, N. Solyak, V. Kapin Fermilab.
Introdcution to Workpackage/Activity Reflection D. Schulte.
N. Walker, K. Yokoya LCWS ’11 Granada September TeV Upgrade Scenario: Straw man parameters.
@ Fermilab ILC bunch-compressor and linac rf requirements Sergei Nagaitsev Fermilab Feb. 9, 2006.
Simulations - Beam dynamics in low emittance transport (LET: From the exit of Damping Ring) K. Kubo
Introduction D. Schulte for K. Kubo and P. Tenenbaum.
Warren Funk, Daniel Schulte, Tetsuo Shidara Curved, Piece-Wise or Laser Straight Tunnel Beam dynamics favours laser straight tunnel Kryogenics favours.
Peak temperature rise specification for accelerating structures: a review and discussion CLIC meeting
Emittance preservation in the RTML of ILC and CLIC Andrea Latina (CERN) Nikolay Solyak (FNAL) LCWS University of Texas at Arlington - Oct
Progress in 2006 of ELAN- BDYN and INSTR D. Schulte G. Blair.
DRAFT: What have been done and what to do in ILC-LET beam dynamics Beam dynamics/Simulations Group Beijing.
BDS, Start to End Simulation, Simulation Codes Summary D. Schulte.
TBL experimental program Status and Results  Introduction  Status  Experimental program for 2010 and beyond  Outlook ACE, Steffen Döbert.
1 R&D Plans for Impedance Driven Single-Bunch Instabilities (WBS 2.2.1) M. Venturini ( presented by M. Zisman) LBNL LCWS07 DESY, Hamburg May 30 - June.
N.Solyak, RTMLLCWS’08, Chicago Nov.16-20, RTML progress 2008 Nikolay Solyak.
15-August-2005Peter Tenenbaum for WG1 Convenors 1 Low Emittance Transport and Beam Dynamics (WG1) Snowmass Meeting “I hear the roar of the big machine,
ILC Main Linac Beam Dynamics Review K. Kubo.
Frank Stulle, ILC LET Beam Dynamics Meeting CLIC Main Beam RTML - Overview - Comparison to ILC RTML - Status / Outlook.
The Engineering Test Facility for nLC
Arun Saini, N. Solyak Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
ILC DR Lower Horizontal Emittance, preliminary study
ILC - Upgrades Nick Walker – 100th meeting
For Discussion Possible Beam Dynamics Issues in ILC downstream of Damping Ring LCWS2015 K. Kubo.
Emittance Dilution and Preservation in the ILC RTML
Wake field limitations in a low gradient main linac of CLIC
CLIC Rebaselining at 380 GeV and Staging Considerations
CLIC Klystron-based Design
Accelerator Physics Technical System Group Review
The Proposed Conversion of CESR to an ILC Damping Ring Test Facility
Start-to-End Simulations for the TESLA LC
Presentation transcript:

Summary of WG1 K. Kubo, D. Schulte, P. Tenenbaum

Goals at Snowmass Agreement on beam parameters with GG1 Bunch compressor design Main linac configuration Agreement on model assumptions Agreement on necessary data standards Agreement on plan for coming 16 months –Definition of tolerances and specifications –Beam dynamics simulations / benchmarking

Bunch Compressor A few designs for bunch compressors have been developed –Will be collected on the web for evaluation Conclusion sofar –One stage can go from 6mm to 0.3mm –Two-stage compressor can go from 6/9mm to 0.15mm, has lower enery spread –Two-stage preferred can accept longer bunches, provide shorter bunches, has looser tolerances –Question to WG3b is 9mm needed?

Bunch Compressor 2 Two-stage compressor range from 0.35 to 1.4km –Need to understand relative benefits –Tolerance studies are in different state for different designs –Need to bring them to the same level –Sofar: amplitude stability 0.1%, phase tolerance degree, cavity position tolerances seem OK, cavity tilt is tight –Question to WG1+all: Do we need 0.15mm?

Main Linac Lattice Lattice concept is very simple Different configurations have been simulated –Optimum depends on assumptions of imperfections and beam-based alignment But choice of design should be relatively transparent for other working groups, affects mainly length –Different module lengths should be OK

Tunnel Layout Do we need to have a straight tunnel or can we follow the curvature of the earth (or have a few kinks)? Closely linked to civil engineering / cryogenics, may be site dependent Preliminary simulations indicate that curved tunnel is acceptable for the main linac –Will be continued

Beam Delivery System Details of the lattice are more important than in main linac Some lattices exist (WG4) Wait for narrowed choice But already did some simulations for some lattices

Beamline from Damping Ring to Main Linac Could be useful to have beam extracted from damping ring in opposite direction of main linac Turn around would allow to use feed forward to compensate beam jitter The necessary beam line should be studied In certain cases a low energy, low emittance transport line may be necessary

Integrated Simulations Necessary to predict luminosity and to define system specifications and tolerances –Realistic bunch shapes are necessary for realistic performance prediction –Need to understand the timescales for beam- based alignment, tuning and feedback as well as their interaction –Need to understand the dynamic imperfections and how they impact machine performance –Still in an early stage

Tracking Codes Typical problem: –Tracking in bunch compressor and beam delivery system (non-linear systems) –Tracking in main linac (linear but wakes) –Beam-beam interaction Some code packages exist / are under development which allow fully integrated studies –Benchmarking essential, some potential problems already found

Models for Imperfection A simple scattering model exists for prealignment A model (LICAS) for the survey line is interfaced to one code Ground motion models exist Vibration model not satisfactory RF stability looks easier than for X-FEL A central documentation would be useful

Pre-Alignment Link from pre-alignment (LICAS) to beam dynamics simulation established First results indicate a closer look is necessary Is there another system to be considered? A number of details needs to be established / verified –Alignment of elements in cryomodule –We are using TDR numbers but would like them to be cross checked

Other Imperfections RF stability seems sufficient but detailed model should be made available Quadrupole problem: we do not reliably know the position jitter –Should be determined with higher priority Long range wakefields need to be understood (rotating modes), since they might be harmful –Split tune lattice would help

Ground Motion A number of measurements are ongoing Need to agree on some set of models for different sites (as for TRC) Need to specify acceptable levels –Requires all the feedback, alignment and tuning studies

Beam-Based Alignment Has been discussed for main linac Several people are working on it Different methods are being investigated Needs also to be addressed for beam delivery system, bunch compressor and some other beam lines Benchmarking will be essential

Status for Main Linac Not yet satisfactory –Several methods used reach performance in the right regime –But in some cases the target is met in some not –A number of details needs checking, in some cases more effects need to be added –Ideas for improved procedures exist –Cannot yet specify BPM resolution, different conclusions, but range (1-10um) –Study of robustness started but much more remains to be done

Tuning Studies Tuning of the emittance or luminosity is a valuable tool Studies showed very promising improvements compared to beam-based alignment alone –Could make the difference to meeting the target Need to develop coherent concept of bumps Need realistic modelling (started) Integrated simulation studies with benchmarking

Feedback Studies Pulse-to-pulse and intra-pulse feedback can be used A number of studies are being performed Predictions look mainly promising but a number of problems still needs to be solved –E.g. energy jitter in BDS feedbacks –Interplay of feedbacks and tuning / alignment –Full optimisation of the feedback layout Benchmarking of codes is essential

Outlook for Next Week Provide input for discussion on parameters Agree on data standards and repositories Agree on models or at least on how to derive them Make a plan to continue with beam dynamics studies to provide system specifications Sit together and solve some of the detailed problems in front of a computer