FD Jitter Tolerance Study Min-Huey Wang. 2 Introduction Investigate three BDS designs L* 4.5 m, L* 4.0 m and L* 3.5 m. Using 500 GeV baseline parameters.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

4.1/9.1m L* Optics & Performance Glen White, SLAC SiD Meeting, SLAC Jan 13, 2015.

Advertisements

BDS Change Request: Support of Single L* Optics Configuration Shared by both Detectors Glen White, Nick Walker Sept MDI/CFS Ichinoseki.

K. Buesser & N. Walker TF Studies: A very first look.

1 MULTI-BUNCH INTEGRATED ILC SIMULATIONS Glen White, SLAC/QMUL Snowmass 2005.

Transport formalism Taylor map: Third order Linear matrix elementsSecond order matrix elements Truncated maps Violation of the symplectic condition !

MERLIN 3.0 only considers first order (dipole) modes. Kick is linearly proportional to offset. For offsets close to the axis this is a reasonable approximation.

ATF2 FB/FF layout Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group FONT meeting January 11, 2007.

27 June 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit ILC BDS 27 June 06.

Some simulation results on FF/FB system for ATF2 Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group FONT meeting January 25, 2008.

1 August 12, 2005 Running 2mrad IR in e-e- mode: BDS constraints A.Seryi August 12, 2005.

July 22, 2005Modeling1 Modeling CESR-c D. Rubin. July 22, 2005Modeling2 Simulation Comparison of simulation results with measurements Simulated Dependence.

Beam Crossing Angle for  Tohru Takahashi Hiroshima University International Linear Collider January 2005 MDI Workshop SLAC.

1 27 Sep 05 Discussion of anti-DID ( “DIDNT” ? ) A.Seryi September 27, 2005.

Status of ongoing studies for comparing 2-mrad and 20-mrad IRs T. Maruyama SLAC.

2 February 2005Ken Moffeit Spin Rotation scheme for two IRs Ken Moffeit SLAC.

Vibration measurements on the final doublets and the Shintake Monitor Benoît BOLZON7th ATF2 project meeting, 16/12/08.

Ground Motion + Vibration Transfer Function for Final QD0/SD0 Cryomodule System at ILC Glen White, SLAC ALCPG11, Eugene March 21, 2011.

ATF2 Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group 5th ATF2 project meeting, KEK December 19-21, 2007.

CLIC main detector solenoid and anti-solenoid impact B. Dalena, A. Bartalesi, R. Appleby, H. Gerwig, D. Swoboda, M. Modena, D. Schulte, R. Tomás.

Bernhard Holzer, CERN-LHC Parameter Space for HL-LHC IR8 * IP5 IP1 IP2 IP8 LEB Meeting.

NLC Intra-Pulse Fast Feedback Simon Jolly Oxford University NLC Beam Delivery Meeting July 2001.

Feedback On Nano-second Timescales: An IP Feedback System for the Future Linear Collider Requirement for a fast IP beam-based feedback system Simulation.

Vibration Measurement on the Shintake Monitor and Final Doublet Takashi Yamanaka (Univ. of Tokyo) Benoît Bolzon (LAPP) ATF2 weekly meeting 26 November,

Matching recipe and tracking for the final focus T. Asaka †, J. Resta López ‡ and F. Zimmermann † CERN, Geneve / SPring-8, Japan ‡ CERN, Geneve / University.

October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.

ILC BDS Static Beam-Based Alignment and Tuning Glen White SLAC 1.Aims. 2.Error parameters and other assumptions. 3.Overview of alignment and tuning procedure.

Optimization of L(E) with SB2009 Andrei Seryi, for BDS and other working groups LCWS 2010 / ILC 2010 March 28, 2010.

ILC Beam Delivery System / MDI Issues for LCC-phase (~

Simulation of Beam-Beam Background at CLIC André Sailer (CERN-PH-LCD, HU Berlin) LCWS2010: BDS+MDI Joint Session 29 March, 2010, Beijing 1.

11th December 2007 LET workshop, SLAC 1 Beam dynamics issues in Beam Delivery System Deepa Angal-Kalinin ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.

19 July 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit (via Eric Torrence) VLCW06 19 July 06.

Luminosity of the Super-Tau-Charm Factory with Crab Waist D. Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk TAU’08 Workshop, Satellite Meeting “On the Need for a Super-Tau-Charm.

Analysis of Multipole and Position Tolerances for the ATF2 Final Focus Line James Jones ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.

Study of alternative ILC final focus optical configurations Dou Wang (IHEP), Yiwei Wang (IHEP), Philip Bambade (LAL), Jie Gao (IHEP) International Workshop.

1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.

1 DR -> IP Beam Transport Simulations with Intra-Train Feedback Glen White, SLAC Jan 19 th 2006.

SLAC SD0/QD0 Cryomodule Jitter Tolerance Glen White SLAC March 27 th 2007.

ILC luminosity optimization in the presence of the detector solenoid and anti-DID Reine Versteegen PhD Student CEA Saclay, Irfu/SACM International Workshop.

ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013.

BDS Lattice Design : EDR plans GWP03 Meeting 04/12/2007.

L. Keller 3/18/02 Beam-Gas-Bremsstrahlung and Coulomb Scattering in the NLC Beam Delivery System Conditions for Calculation: 1. Program is DECAY TURTLE.

BDS Alignment, Tuning, Feedback update and Integrated Simulation Plans Glen White.

Main Linac Tolerances What do they mean? ILC-GDE meeting Beijing Kiyoshi Kubo 1.Introduction, review of old studies 2.Assumed “static” errors.

Beam Dynamics IR Stability Issues Glen White / SLAC September IRENG07 Vibration tolerances for final doublet cryomodules Settlement of detector.

Isabell-A. Melzer-Pellmann LET Beam Dynamics Workshop, Lumi scans with wakefields in Merlin Lumi scans with wakefields in Merlin Isabell-A.

Vibrations studies for the nominal optics and the ultra-low beta optics Benoît BOLZON 1 B. Bolzon, A. Jeremie (LAPP) P. Bambade, Y. Renier (LAL) A. Seryi.

COMPENSATION OF DETECTOR SOLENOID FIELD WITH L*=4.1M Glen White, SLAC April 20, 2015 ALCW2015, KEK, Japan.

Interaction Region Design and Detector Integration V.S. Morozov for EIC Study Group at JLAB 2 nd Mini-Workshop on MEIC Interaction Region Design JLab,

Beam-beam Simulation at eRHIC Yue Hao Collider-Accelerator Department Brookhaven National Laboratory July 29, 2010 EIC Meeting at The Catholic University.

G.R.White: F.O.N. T. From Ground Motion studies by A.Seryi et al. (SLAC) ‘Fast’ motion (> few Hz) dominated by cultural noise Concern for structures.

1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.

1 Error study of non-scaling FFAG 10 to 20 GeV muon ring Shinji Machida CCLRC/RAL/ASTeC 26 July, ffag/machida_ ppt.

Beam dynamics in crab collision K. Ohmi (KEK) IR2005, 3-4, Oct FNAL Thanks to K. Akai, K. Hosoyama, K. Oide, T. Sen, F. Zimmermann.

Wakefield effect in ATF2 Kiyoshi Kubo

1 Impact de l’effet faisceau-faisceau sur la precision de la mesure de la luminosité à l’ILC Cécile Rimbault, LAL Orsay SOCLE,19-20 Novembre 2007, Clermont-Ferrand.

ILC BDS Commissioning Glen White, SLAC AWLC 2014, Fermilab May 14 th 2014.

MAIN DUMP LINE: BEAM LOSS SIMULATIONS WITH THE TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov E. Marin, G. White (SLAC) LCWS14 Workshop, Belgrade, October 7, 2014.

Baseline BDS Design Updates Glen White, SLAC Sept. 4, 2014 Ichinoseki, MDI/CFS Meeting.

Emittance Diagnostics

In collaboration with P. N. Burrows, A. Latina and D. Schulte

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‡

Beam Dynamics in Curved ILC Main Linac (following earth curvature)

SD0/QD0 Cryomodule Jitter Tolerance

Impedance localization in SPS ring

Discussion of gamma-gamma parameters

Start-to-End Simulations for the TESLA LC

Low Energy Electron-Ion Collision

MEIC New Baseline: Luminosity Performance and Upgrade Path

Alejandro Castilla CASA/CAS-ODU

CLIC luminosity monitoring/re-tuning using beamstrahlung ?

Presentation transcript:

FD Jitter Tolerance Study Min-Huey Wang

2 Introduction Investigate three BDS designs L* 4.5 m, L* 4.0 m and L* 3.5 m. Using 500 GeV baseline parameters from TDR Table 2.1 and Table 8.2. Using elegant + GUINEA-PIG to simulate LUMI loss criteria for QF1/SF1/OC1 and QD0/SD0/OC0 offset with IP fast-feedback compensating. Three locations of FFB thin length kickers are simulated (beam direction). - At middle of QF1 and QD0 - Before SD0 - After QD0 (L* 4.0 m) Track 80k macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS vibration in horizontal and vertical planes.

3 IP FFB kicker position QD0QF1 SD0SF1 Simulate the kicker effect at three locations IP

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 4 L* 3.5 m waist (FFB kickers 1.5 m upstream SD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 5 L* 3.5 m waist (FFB kickers right before SD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 6 L* 4.0 m waist (FFB kickers 1.27 m upstream SD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 7 L* 4.0 m waist (FFB kickers right before SD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 8 L* 4.0 m waist (FFB kickers after QD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 9 L* 4.5 m waist (FFB kickers 1.25 m upstream SD0)

Track 80K macro particles (e- & e+ side) from QF1 -> IP with RMS SF1/QF1 and SD0/QD0 vibration in horizontal and vertical planes. Results show mean and range of luminosities from 100 consecutive pulses. 10 L* 4.5 m waist (FFB kickers right before SD0)

11 Summary The FFB kickers close to or after QD0 have less negative impact on beam luminosity

12 Jitter tolerance of 2% luminosity loss L* Between QF1 QD0< Before QD0< <25 After QD

13 Summary The luminosity of idea beam w/o waist shift is 1.36/1.51/1.45E34 cm -2 s -1 (L*4.5/4.0/3.5) from GUINEA-PIG. It is close to geometric luminosity of 1.47E34 cm -2 s -1 in TDR. Scanning the y waist the best luminosity is 1.69/1.70/1.58E34 cm - 2 s -1 (L*4.5/4.0/3.5) at y waist 405/300/240  m. The jitter tolerances of three BDS designs are similar. The effect of distance of FFB kickers from SD0 start to take effects with incresing RMS jitter.