1. RFQ CAD Model Tolerance Studies Simon Jolly 14 th December 2011

2. Extending Comsol Modelling Comsol/Matlab/GPT process now pretty stable: –Create quadrant model in Comsol (use symmetries). –Modelled many different CAD models (from SAT-files): checked machining tolerances. –Using 3D removal map rather than rmax statementto give more accurate particle losses. However…with this method we can’t test asymmetries! –Single quadrant only allows models that are symmetric in x and y. –These are okay for machining tolerances but not for alignment tolerances: need to be able to shift single vane tip in both x and y. Rewrite Comsol/Matlab code to build 4-quadrant models… 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London2

3. CAD Models: Matching Sections 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London3

4. CAD Models: Lead Out/End Flanges 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London4

5. Comsol 1-Quadrant Meshing Import CAD model and select single quadrant: take advantage of RFQ symmetry. Optimum meshes different for different regions: –Vane tips: triangular (extremely fine auto). –“Inner Beam Box”: 2mm x 2mm, swept rectangular (0.25mm x 0.25mm x 32 slices). –“Outer Beam Box”: 10mm x 10mm, tetrahedral (extremely fine auto). –“Air Bag”: 15mm x 15mm, tetrahedral (normal auto). Model vanes as “terminals”: only interested in surface fields. If end flange is present, model as ground plane. 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London5 Vane tips Air Bag Inner Beam Box Outer Beam Box

6. Comsol 4-Quadrant Meshing Import CAD model but select all 4 quadrants. Adjust meshes accordingly: –Vane tips: triangular (extremely fine auto). –“Inner Beam Box”: 4mm x 4mm, swept rectangular (0.25mm x 0.25mm x 32 slices). –“Outer Beam Box”: 20mm x 20mm, tetrahedral (extremely fine auto). –“Air Bag”: 30mm x 30mm, tetrahedral (normal auto). Adjust Selections code to find domains properly. Add auto-adjustment of mesh density: –Sometimes model won’t mesh: normally outer beam box. –Decreasing mesh density of inner beam box solves problems: match mesh to vane tip surfaces. 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London6

7. Comsol 4-Quad: Last Cell Geometry 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London7 Matching out cell End Flange Last cell

8. Vane/End Flange MeshInner Beam Box Mesh Comsol 4-Quad: Last Cell Meshes (1) 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London8

9. Outer Beam Box MeshAir Bag Mesh Comsol 4-Quad: Last Cell Meshes (2) 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London9

10. Comsol 4-Quad: Potential 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London10

11. Comsol 4-Quad: Transverse Potential 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London11

12. Comsol 4-Quad: Longitudinal Potential 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London12

13. Comsol 4-Quad: Longitudinal Field 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London13

14. Transmission & Alignment Tests Rebuilt CAD model to allow offsetting of all components: all vanes can move in X and Y by arbitrary amounts. Generate 4-quadrant field maps for 7 different models: –“Standard” FETS model ie. should be identical to previous simulations. –Alignment tolerance tests: move top vane across in steps of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 microns. –Only standard and 10 micron models finished in time for this meeting… Simulation parameters the same as before: –Still starting 10.9 mm long bunch at start of matching section. –0.25 pi mm mrad waterbag emittance. –Finely grained loss map takes care of losses. Run beam through GPT and measure transmission as a function of current; also check losses. 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London14

15. 500 micron Top Vane Offset: Geometry 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London15

16. 500 micron Top Vane Offset: Potential 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London16

17. 500 micron Top Vane Offset: E-field 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London17

18. Scott Matcher, End Flanges, LossMap 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London18

19. Scott Matcher, End Flanges, 4- quadrant 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London19

20. Scott Matcher, 10 micron Top Offset 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London20

21. Scott Matcher, End Flanges, LossMap 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London21

22. Scott Matcher, End Flanges, 4- quadrant 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London22

23. Scott Matcher, 10 micron Top Offset 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London23

24. Results 4-quadrant model in Comsol very successful: –Very similar results for 1-quadrant and 4-quadrant models using otherwise identical conditions: this is good!. –Some difficulties building 4-quadrant models: sometimes have to reduce inner beam box mesh density a lot to match vane tip mesh. –Comsol/Matlab code will now build 4-quadrant model alongside 1-quadrant model: just specify at the start. –Field map file is the same time but takes 9 hours rather than 6 to generate. Beam transmission gives interesting results: –No problems as yet using 10 micron offset: other results still generating… –Power losses are LOWER for 10 micron offset than standard 4-quadrant model: I suspect this is a statistical fluctuation in the field map or GPT simulation, not reality… Probably gives some idea of the error on the simulations: power loss looks particularly sensitive. 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London24

25. Conclusions Nice to be able to make 4-quadrant simulations with as much ease as 1-quadrant: –Gives many more options for testing errors. –Full simulation requires only creating CAD model and writing a Matlab script: the rest is automated. –Last big simulation step required for paper writing… Looks like 10 micron offset doesn’t affect transmission: a good thing! Still waiting on larger offsets. Not yet sure what other “errors” would be meaningful: –Pulling X-vanes in and out? –Single vane okay or multiple vanes? –Can produce CAD models relatively quickly, but the rest takes time: 9 hours for field mapping, 20 hours for simulations. –If we want to try “random” errors on a/ma, assume it will take 36 hours per model: is it worth it to generate stacks of models? Is there anything else that needs testing before RFQ installation? Otherwise I will keep writing papers… 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London25

26. For Next Time… Jürgen’s results show that the field leaks out into the end flange: need to start beam 1-2cm back from matching section to include these effects (should be small). Run beam backwards from matching section using 2D space charge and 60mA current, calculate trajectories and produce 3D bunch with correct longitudinal distribution that can be started at any point (use Matlab interpolation). Check acceptance for all models using zero beam current: not perfect but gives upper limit. Check “map3D_remove” GPT element and particle removal map using CAD model. 14/12/11Simon Jolly, University College London26