Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy SNS Injection and Extraction Systems Issues and Solutions by M. Plum for the SNS team and our BNL collaborators.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
5/3/2015J-PARC1 Transverse Matching Using Transverse Profiles and Longitudinal Beam arrival Times.
Advertisements

Alexandr Drozhdin March 16, 2005 MI-10 Injection.
August 11, 2004SPEAR3 Chicane Lattice Review Lifetime and injection efficiency vs. Dynamic and physical aperture; Measurement & simulation.
Super-B Factory Workshop April 20-23, 2005 Super-B IR design M. Sullivan 1 Status on an IR Design for a Super-B Factory M. Sullivan for the Super-B Factory.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 IR Upgrade M. Sullivan 1 PEP-II Interaction Region Upgrade M. Sullivan for the Super-B Factory Workshop Hawaii.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 Super-B IR design M. Sullivan 1 Interaction Region Design for a Super-B Factory M. Sullivan for the Super-B.
ALPHA Storage Ring Indiana University Xiaoying Pang.
Internal target option for RHIC Drell-Yan experiment Wolfram Fischer and Dejan Trbojevic 31 October 2010 Santa Fe Polarized Drell-Yan Physics Workshop.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Collimation System for Beam Loss Localization with Slip Stacking Injection in the Fermilab Main Injector Bruce C. Brown Main Injector Department Accelerator.
Alignment and Beam Stability
Review on PSB 160 MeV H- Injection Nov 9-10, 2011 Closeout by P. Cruikshank, M. Giovannozzi, D. Johnson, B. Jones, B. Pine, M. Plum, D. Tommasini.
Eric Prebys USPAS, Knoxville, TN, Jan , 2014.
3 GeV,1.2 MW, Booster for Proton Driver G H Rees, RAL.
1/18 The Distribution of Synchrotron Radiation Power in the IR C. H. Yu IR Overview SR Distribution in the IR The Protection of SR Power.
January 13, 2004D. Rubin - Cornell1 CESR-c BESIII/CLEO-c Workshop, IHEP January 13, 2004 D.Rubin for the CESR operations group.
October 31, BDS Group1 ILC Beam Delivery System “Hybrid” Layout 2006e Release Preliminary M. Woodley.
S.J. Brooks RAL, Chilton, OX11 0QX, UK Extending FETS with a Ring Electron models are not sufficient for simulating the beam.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, A.Drozhdin, N.Kazarinov.
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy High Intensity Effects in the SNS Accumulator Ring Jeff Holmes HB 2008 August 27, 2008.
800 MeV Injection into Booster in the PIP-II Era David Johnson AD/PIP-II Department October 14, 2014 Beams-doc 4683.
Design of an Isochronous FFAG Ring for Acceleration of Muons G.H. Rees RAL, UK.
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Analysis of 2008 Beam Instability Data S. Cousineau, V. Danilov, M. Plum HB2008.
“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.
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Using Online Single Particle Model for SNS Accelerator Tuning Andrei Shishlo, Alexander Aleksandrov.
Overview of Booster PIP II upgrades and plans C.Y. Tan for Proton Source group PIP II Collaboration Meeting 03 June 2014.
BEAM TRANSFER CHANNELS, BEAM TRANSFER CHANNELS, INJECTION AND EXTRACTION SYSTEMS OF NICA ACCELERATOR COMPLEX Tuzikov A., JINR, Dubna, Russia.
Vertical Emittance Tuning at the Australian Synchrotron Light Source Rohan Dowd Presented by Eugene Tan.
Frequency Map Analysis Workshop 4/2/2004 Peter Kuske Refinements of the non-linear lattice model for the BESSY storage ring P. Kuske Linear Lattice My.
Analysis of Multipole and Position Tolerances for the ATF2 Final Focus Line James Jones ASTeC, Daresbury Laboratory.
Project X RD&D Plan Beam Transfer Line and Recycler Injection David Johnson AAC Meeting February 3, 2009.
1 EMMA Tracking Studies Shinji Machida ASTeC/CCLRC/RAL 4 January, ffag/machida_ ppt & pdf.
1 Experience at CERN with luminosity monitoring and calibration, ISR, SPS proton antiproton collider, LEP, and comments for LHC… Werner Herr and Rüdiger.
Accelerator Systems DivisionOak Ridge National Laboratory March 10-12, 2003 ORBIT SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS Jeff Holmes Accelerator Physicist September 30,
Dave Johnson July 12, 2010 NOvA/ANU Recycler Upgrades Review Optics, Apertures, and Operations Nova-doc 4930.
1 Fast kicker study Machine Time 2011/10/18~10/29(2 weeks) TB meeting 2011/01/14 T.Naito.
Principals of fast injection and extraction R. Apsimon.
Dave Johnson July 12, 2010 NOvA/ANU Recycler Upgrades Review Optics, Apertures, and Operations Nova-doc 4930.
PSB H- injection concept J.Borburgh, C.Bracco, C.Carli, B.Goddard, M.Hourican, B.Mikulec, W.Weterings,
Beam losses and collimation at the Oak Ridge Spallation Neutron Source by Mike Plum Beam losses and collimators in transfer lines workshop Lund May 13-14,
A Possible Source of the Tune Drift on the Front Porch in the Tevatron.
RCS design Valeri Lebedev AAC Meeting November 16-17, 2009.
Accumulator & Compressor Rings with Flexible Momentum Compaction arccells MAP 2014 Spring Meeting, Fermilab, May 27-31, 2014 Y. Alexahin (FNAL APC)
CEPC DA due to magnets' error Sha Bai, Dengjie Xiao, Yiwei Wang, Huiping Geng, Dou Wang, Tianjian Bian, Feng Su, Jie Gao The first IHEP-BINP CEPC Accelerator.
Status and plan of Beta-matching in Extraction line Kiyoshi Kubo.
2nd ATF2 Project Meeting (May 30, 2006)M. Woodley [SLAC]1 ATF2 Layout/Optics (v3.3) nBPM (SLAC) nBPM (KEK) FONT Compton / laserwire ODR Existing ATF Extraction.
Simulation of Extinction Channel Eric Prebys Mu2e Extinction Technical Design Review 2 November 2015.
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for the US Department of Energy Commissioning experience of SNS Ring By M. Plum ICFA mini-workshop on beam commissioning.
Mitglied der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Hit Reconstruction for the Luminosity Monitor March 3 rd 2009 | T. Randriamalala, J. Ritman and T. Stockmanns.
4 th ATF2 Project Meeting, 31 May 2007 A. Seryi 1 Summary of SLAC simulation study of emittance growth in the ATF extraction line SLAC team: J. Amann,
MAIN DUMP LINE: BEAM LOSS SIMULATIONS WITH THE TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov E. Marin, G. White (SLAC) LCWS14 Workshop, Belgrade, October 7, 2014.
Recycler Injection with Carbon Foils Dave Johnson, Alexandr Drozhdin, Leonid Vorobiev September 8, 2010 Project X Collaboration Meeting.
Design challenges for head-on scheme Deepa Angal-Kalinin Orsay, 19 th October 2006.
Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy SNS Ring TiN Coating Experience CERN Anti E-Cloud Coating Workshop Oct 12-13, 2009 by M. Plum, Ring.
BEAM TRANSFER CHANNELS, INJECTION AND EXTRACTION SYSTEMS
High Intensity Challenges
The Interaction Region
Alternate Lattice for LCLS-II LTU Y
Compact and Low Consumption Magnet Design The DESY Experience
ILC BDS Emittance Diagnostics: Design and Requirements
The PEP-II Interaction e+e- Factories Workshop
Beam Injection and Extraction Scheme
Electron Beam Setup for Bubble Chamber
Strip-line Kicker R&D at KEK-ATF
CEPC main ring magnets’ error effect on DA and MDI issues
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Yuri Nosochkov Yunhai Cai, Fanglei Lin, Vasiliy Morozov
Electron Collider Ring Magnets Preliminary Summary
Upgrade on Compensation of Detector Solenoid effects
Sha Bai CEPC AP meeting Work summary Sha Bai CEPC AP meeting
Presentation transcript:

Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy SNS Injection and Extraction Systems Issues and Solutions by M. Plum for the SNS team and our BNL collaborators HB2008 Nashville, TN Aug , 2008

2Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop SNS injection Ring injection area 4 magnet chicane Gradient septum Quadrupole magnet and dual-plane dipole corrector Injection septum Secondary foil Primary foil 150 kW Injection dump Injection dump beam line HEBT beam line Ring Injection painting kicker magnets

3Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Functions of chicane magnets  Closed orbit bump of about 100 mm  Merge H - and circulating beams with zero relative angle  Place foil in 2.5 kG field and keep chicane #3 peak field <2.4 kG for H 0 excited states  Field tilt [arctan(By/Bz)] >65 mrad to keep electrons off foil  Funnel stripped electrons down to electron catcher  Direct H − and H 0 waste beams to IDmp beam line

4Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop SNS injection issues  Chicane magnets do not function as designed –Bend angles have been adjusted to give good injection into ring, but this causes problems in the injection dump beam line  Original design did not allow individual control over the H 0 and H − waste beams –We’ve since added a C-magnet just downstream of the septum magnet  High beam loss in injection dump beam line –Beam halo –Scattering in the secondary stripper foil  Beam profile and position info at the vacuum window / dump difficult to determine –We plan to add a view screen at the vacuum window

5Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Inj. dump beam line modifications to date Oversize & thicker primary stripper foil Thinner, wider secondary stripper foil Increase septum magnet gap by 2 cm New C-magnet New WS, view screen, BPM, NCD (ridicules) Shift 8 cm beam left Electron catcher IR video Radiation monitor on vacuum window water cooling return pipe beam line drawing from J. Error

6Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Beam loss due to scattering  For a given aperture, the probability of Rutherford (large angle Coulomb) scattering outside the aperture separately depends on the target and the apertures  By replacing the secondary foil with a thicker material we can estimate the fraction of the loss due to scattering (R. Macek, 2004 ) target angles Foil total Foil VS ratio (Plots from J. Holmes) Scattering angle (mrad) Number exceeding angle Ratio

7Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Single beam species tuned to minimize beam loss One well-tuned beam Simulated H 0 beam, production tune Foil: (total loss) = a x (scattering) + b x (base loss) View screen: (total loss) = 50 x a x (scattering) + b x (base loss) Conclude that for simulated H 0 beam, 30 to 90% of beam loss is due to foil scattering. We need a thinner foil! We expect similar numbers for production case with both H − and H 0 waste beams ratio VS foil x10 ratio VS foil x10

8Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Foil scattering losses with thinner sec. foil One well-tuned beam – old foil One well-tuned beam – new foil Replaced secondary stripper foil August 2008 Old foil 18 mg/cm 2 carbon-carbon (Allcomp) New foil 3.2 mg/cm 2 polycrystalline graphite (ACF Metals) Ratio of losses view screen / foil increased from 50 to 300 Conclude that beam loss due to scattering is now ~6x less ratio VS foil x10 ratio VS foil x100

9Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop HB2008 injection Q&A  Does the system perform as expected? Did the simulations/calculations performed during the design stage accurately predict the actual performance? –No. Design bend angles of chicane set points were not correct. Beam loss in injection dump beam line was much higher than expected. Vertical deflection in chicane #4 was not expected.  What are the major limitations in performance? Were they known in the design stage? –Beam loss in the injection dump beam line. Not known in the design stage.  If someone were to begin now designing the same type of system for a similar machine, what is the one piece of advice that you would give them? –3-D field simulations and tracking in complex regions such as injection area. Map magnets well enough to determine higher order multipoles, for a wide range of currents. Allow independent control over multiple beams.

10Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Ring extraction Extraction kickers Lambertson septum magnet RTBT beam line

11Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Extraction system issues  Tilted beam (cross plane coupling) –Due to large skew quad component in the extraction septum magnet  Lack of diagnostics to measure beam path in ring and first 27 m of the RTBT –Have not yet found set points that give a good launch into the RTBT  Lack of beam profile and position info at the vacuum window and target –Diagnostic closest to target is 9.5 m away –Still have a discrepancy between halo thermocouple monitor and the BPM extrapolation method

12Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Tilted beam caused by skew quad component in extraction septum magnet Tilted beam on the target view screen horizontal vertical RTBT20 wire scanner for 3 different horizontal injection kicker amplitudes Beam distribution at BPM25 in the extraction line, reconstructed using single minipulse injection and varying extraction time (S. Cousineau & T. Pelaia) (S. Cousineau) X (mm) Y (mm)

13Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Harmonics calculation (see J.G. Wang HB2008 poster) Integrated skew quad component 0.26 – 0.28 T at 1 GeV beam energy ~75% due end effects ~5% due to proximity of quad

14Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop End of RTBT BPM Wire scanner or harp Wire scanners Harp 9.52 m from last BPM & profile monitor to face of target Thermocouple halo monitor

15Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop How we determine position and profile at the target  Thermocouple halo monitor used to center beam on target  Physics application “RTBT Wizard” –Determines beam position based on upstream beam position monitors – ~4 - 8 mm different than halo monitor –Determines beam density and rms beam size based on on-line model and fitted profiles S. Cousineau and T. Pelaia

16Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop HB2008 extraction Q&A  Does the system perform as expected? Did the simulations/calculations performed during the design stage accurately predict the actual performance? –Except for cross plane coupling, as near as we can tell, it is working as expected. We knew there were not as many diagnostics as we’d like.  What are the major limitations in performance? Were they known in the design stage? –Difficult to determine extraction kicker set points due to lack of beam position information. Difficult to determine beam size, density, and position on target. We knew this in the design stage.  If someone were to begin now designing the same type of system for a similar machine, what is the one piece of advice that you would give them? –Map magnets well enough to determine higher order multipoles, and take into account field distortion due to nearby magnets. Especially important for large beams. –Install adequate diagnostics to allow easy determination of critical beam parameters

17Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy M. Plum, HB2008 Workshop Summary & future work  SNS injection issues are fairly well understood –Beam loss is still too high –We are working on a view screen for the injection dump –We are now considering another increase in the aperture of the injection dump beam line  SNS extraction issues are well understood –We are working to modify the extraction septum magnet to reduce skew quad component –We are working on a view screen for the target