Transcript Document

WG3b - Damping ring size and layout
S. Guiducci
DR configuration recommendation
Circumference and layout
~ 17 km dogbone
3 km or 6 km ring
Single rings
Stacked rings
(all task forces involved, at least 1 lattice for each length)
Task forces have been charged to study the key issues
The task forces (and co-ordinators) are:
1.Acceptance (Y. Cai, Y. Ohnishi)
2.Emittance (J. Jones, K. Kubo)
3.Classical Instabilities (A. Wolski)
4.Space-Charge (K. Oide, M. Venturini)
5.Kickers and Instrumentation (T. Naito, M. Ross)\
6.Electron Cloud (K. Ohmi, M. Pivi, F. Zimmermann)
7.Ion Effects (E.-S. Kim, D. Schulte, F. Zimmermann)
8.Cost Estimates (S. Guiducci, J. Urakawa, A. Wolski)
9.Polarization (D. Barber)
The various configuration options are being studied, using the seven
“reference” lattices as a basis, and applying a consistent set of analysis
techniques and tools.
The goals of the task forces are to produce information that can be used
to inform the configuration selection.
Work is in progress. There are roughly 30 active participants altogether,
and 36 talks have been given. All three regions are strongly represented.
The Next Steps
From WG3b Summary
The Task Forces will complete their studies by mid November 2005.
The results of the studies will be documented in a report that will:
–
–
–
–
describe the seven “reference” lattices
describe the analysis tools and methods
present the analysis results
provide an “executive summary”:
• configuration recommendations
• remaining R&D that is required
We shall hold a mini-workshop in mid November 2005 to reach
consensus on the configuration recommendations, and prepare (at
least) the executive summary.
– It has been proposed to hold the workshop at either CERN or
TRIUMF.
– A systematic process for reaching consensus on the configuration
options will be drafted by the WG3b conveners, and agreed by the
community in advance.
Layout and circumference - Discussion
Why don’t we recommend the TESLA dogbone?
–We want to recommend the shortest ring that fulfills all the requirements and allows
some flexibility (increase charge, number of bunches, gaps in the filling pattern)
–Choice of dogbone was dictated by the anavailability of kickers: now we are confident
that kickers for a 6 Km ring are feasible (low risk).
•Pros
–Larger ring has more potential for luminosity, you can increase charge and number of
bunches
–More safe for e-cloud instability
•Cons
–3 different dogbone lattices have marginal DA while 6 Km rings, at present status of
the study, show much better acceptance.
–Dogbone ring needs to rely on coupling bumps to get rid of space charge? Does
coupling bump perform well? Answer can be based only on simulations. Alternative is
to increase energy (7 GeV)
–Installation in the linac tunnel: stray fields sensitivity, difficulties for commissioning
and operability
Layout and circumference - Discussion
3 Km rings
• High technical risk for kickers
• Short bunch distance is bad for e-cloud instability
6 Km rings
•Low risk for kickers
•Risk due to short bunch distance for e-cloud instability still to be well understood
•Reasonably safe for space charge but needs further studies
•Large flexibility in lattice design and filling pattern
Single ring / 2 rings in the same tunnel
E-cloud claims for large bunch spacing: a second ring could be added if it is needed to
double bunch spacing (or bunch number)
Space charge claims for short ring or higher energy
Two 6 Km rings: same bunch spacing as one 12 Km but half the space charge tune shift
Layout and circumference - Discussion
Further studies are needed to make a firm decision
on the circumference.
However, a very promising option appears to be a 6 km
circumference ring, possibly using rings in pairs to provide
adequate bunch spacing (for electron cloud, bunch number
increasing…)
Task force 5 - Kickers & Instrumentation
Kicker requirements
Kick angle q~0.6mrad or
Stability
7x10-4
Rep. Rate
(for 1 ms)
 Bdl ~ 0.01Tm
@5GeV, b~50m
3MHz  2800 bunches

DR length
Rise time of pulse
3 ns 
6 ns 
20 ns 
3 km
6 km
17 km
ATF Kicker tests
3 Fast pulsers tested with beam
FID FPG5-3MHz
Rise time~3.2ns
Kick angle ~85mrad
(calc. 94.7mrad)
–FID pulser
–DESY pulser(HTS-50-08-UF)
–LLNL/SLAC solid state switch bank
•rise time 3 ÷ 4 ns
Pulse timing v.s. kick angle(FID FPG-3000M)
100
•Strip line length ~ 30 cm
KickAngle(urad)
•~ 10 strip lines to get required kick
80
60
40
20
0
10
12
14
16
Delay(ns)
18
20
Time
Expanded horizontal scale
Task force 5 - Kickers & Instrumentation
TF5 Schedule
- fall 2005
Proposed Tests:
Droop (KEK), FID durability(?), stability (SLAC/LBL), complementary pulse (KEK), high rate (DESY)
Proposed Design: Optics constraints for ~10 kickers, optimized stripline electrode
Evaluation and analysis:
Baseline document to include – demonstrated – and/or projected:
6 ns performance (8 buckets of 1.3 GHz)  6.15ns bunch spacing
3 ns performance (4 buckets of 1.3 GHz)  3.08ns)
Risk assessment  what RD is needed in 06.
Write-up
6MHz for 5600 pulses operation not yet considered
Task force 5 - Kickers & Instrumentation
•Other possibilities:
–Adopt an inj/ectr scheme wich allows longer fall time (an
indipendent positron source, conventional or Compton, allows more
flexibility)
–RF deflectors could be used, in conjunction with strip line kickers,
to get half the bunch distance.
•Longer pulse length allows:
– Lower voltage (easier pulser) or
– Larger kick angle (less strip lines electrodes)
At present 6 ns rise time kicker seems feasible
3 ns rise time kicker has a higher risk
Task Force on Space Charge
Good progress has been made. A number of lattice designs have
already been analyzed, tune scans performed.
Tentative current assessment for ideal lattices:
Can a 2pm vertical emittance be maintained at design working point?
SAD
Tesla
w/o b.
Tesla
w/ b.
NO
YES
MLI
Goals for the next 2 months
MCH
w/o b
YES
MCH
w/ b.
OCS
BRU
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
6 Km
Understand/resolve some differences in results between the two codes (in
particular for non-design working points)
Extend study to include lattice errors, realistic model of wigglers
Provide final assessment of lattices
People:
Oide & collaborators, MV; P. Spentzouris (FNAL) has volunteered much
appreciated help to provide further bench-mark with his code, possibly using
a strong-strong model.
Task force 6 - Summary
Task force 6 work is proceeding at good speed with good coordination
between SLAC/CERN/KEK/DESY.
Results have small dependence on SEY models (1 and 2).
17 km ring TESLA has moderate electron cloud build-up in
BENDS, while in ARC DRIFTs is dominated by photoelectrons.
3 km ring OTW has faster build-up and much larger electron
cloud densities. SEY<1 in BENDs and large build-up in arc DRIFTs.
Still quadrupoles and wigglers simulations are needed to compile
electron cloud density along each ring.
LARGER beam pipe dimensions are beneficial in all configurations!
Simulations benchmarking between different codes are ongoing.
Single-bunch instability and build-up will determine SEY limits.
Single-bunch instability simulations (see Ohmi-san presentation):
In particular, lower threshold in TESLA and slightly higher
threshold in OTW. Higher thresholds are expected for BRU, MCH.
It is too early to come to conclusions
13
Discussion of Recommendation From Task Force 1
Acceptance
Based on what we have learned so far
Pick 6 km ring with “circular” shape
more symmetric
better chromatic property, large moment aperture
large dynamic aperture with multipole errors and wigglers
More space in arcs, potentially leads more flexible lattice,
emittance, momentum compaction factor, bunch length
Not yet to recommend any particular type of cell because
we would like to have a lattice that achieve the
maximum flexibility.
Try to optimize dogbone lattice until November meeting
DR configuration recommendation
Energy
5 GeV (TF4 Space Charge)
Is it needed 7 GeV to get rid of space charge in dogbone?
Injected beam parameters (agreed with WG3a, TF1Acceptance)
Max DR acceptance gAx + gAy = 0.09 m-rad (Ax = 2Jx)
Max energy spread DE/E = ±0.5%
Extracted beam parameters (TF2- emittance,TF3 Instabilities, TF4 Space Charge)
Extracted emittances (vertical gey = 2pm most challenging)
Extracted energy spread
Extracted bunch length