beam%beam’simula,ons and …...2016/04/04 · 9970 9980 9990 10000 10010 10020 10030 0 500 1000...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Beam-‐beam simula,ons and
analysis of la2ce nonlinearity using PTC
Demin Zhou
Acknowledgements: F. Zimmermann, K. Ohmi, K. Oide, E. Forest,
D. Sagan (Cornell)
FCC-‐ee OpBcs meeBng, Apr. 04, 2016
-
Outline
2
➤ Introduc,on ● FCC-‐ee design la2ces provided by K. Oide ➤ Beam-‐beam simula,ons ● BBWS: beam-‐beam + simple linear map ● SAD: beam-‐beam + design la2ce ● At present, only consider average turn-‐by-‐turn radia,on damping/excita,on lumped at one point, no quadrupole radia,on and no “saw-‐tooth” effects in orbit ➤ Analysis of la2ce nonlinearity (LN) ● La2ce transla,on: SAD => Bmad => PTC [StraighYorward] ● Resonance driving terms (RDTs) calcula,ons using PTC ➤ Summary
-
3
➤ The idea ● Method demonstrated in D. Zhou et al, TUPE016, IPAC13 ● One-‐turn map:
● M0 can be simple matrix or IP-‐to-‐IP realis,c map from a design la2ce ● Interplay of BB, la2ce and other issues reflected in luminosity, DA, beam tail, par,cle loss, etc. ● Separated simula,on/analysis of BB and LN help understand the mechanisms of their interplay
1. Interplay of BB and latt. nonlin.
M = MRAD �MBB �M0
-
1. Parameters for simulations (half ring)
4
Z tC (km) 49990.9 49990.9E (GeV) 45.6 175
Number of IPs 1 1Nb 90300 78
Np(1011) 0.33 1.7Full crossing angle(rad) 0.03 0.03
εx (nm) 0.09 1.3εy (pm) 1 2.5
βx* (m) [optional] 1 [0.5] 1 [0.5]βy* (mm) [optional] 2 [1] 2 [1]
σz (mm)SR 2.7 2.1σδ(10-3)SR 0.37 1.4
Betatron tune νx/νy .55/.57 .54/.57Synch. tune νs 0.0075 0.0375
Damping rate/turn (10-2) [x/y/z] 0.019/0.019/0.038 1.1/1.1/2.2Lum./IP(1034cm-2s-1) 68 1.3
Ref. F. Zimmermann, FCC-‐ee design mee,ng, Dec. 9, 2015
-
5
➤ βx*=1m, βy*=2mm ● La2ce ver. FCCee_t_65_26_1_2
2. BB simulations: Lum.: t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Spec
ific
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 mA-
2 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
SAD w/o CW w/ BS
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
SAD w/o CW w/ BS
-
6
➤ βx*=0.5m, βy*=1mm ● La2ce ver. FCCee_t_65_26
2. BB simulations: Lum.: t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Spec
ific
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 mA-
2 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
-
7
➤ βx*=1m, βy*=2mm [Ver. FCCee_z_65_36] ● La2ce ver. FCCee_z_65_36
2. BB simulations: Lum.: Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Spec
ific
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 mA-
2 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Lum
./IP
[103
4 cm
-2s-
1 ]
Ibunch(e+)×Ibunch(e
-) [mA2]
Design Lum. BBWS w/o CW w/ BS
BBWS w/ CW w/ BSSAD w/ CW w/ BS
-
9970
9980
9990
10000
10010
10020
10030
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Num
ber o
f sur
vivi
ng p
artic
les
Turn
Np=1.1E11Np=1.3E11Np=1.5E11Np=1.7E11Np=1.9E11
8
➤ Par,cle losses in tracking ● Threshold observed ● Nominal Np=1.7E11 ● Loss rate depend on β*x,y, ● Slipping out of RF bucket? ● Improper se2ng of simula,ons? Mismatch in transverse beam sizes, No crab waist for the strong beam
2. BB simulations: Particle loss: t
FCCee_t_65_26_1_2 βx*=1m, βy*=2mm
FCCee_t_65_26 βx*=0.5m, βy*=1mm
FCCee_t_65_26_1_2_nocw βx*=1m, βy*=2mm 9970
9980
9990
10000
10010
10020
10030
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Num
ber o
f sur
vivi
ng p
artic
les
Turn
Np=0.8E11Np=1.1E11Np=1.4E11Np=1.7E11Np=2.0E11
9970
9980
9990
10000
10010
10020
10030
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Num
ber o
f sur
vivi
ng p
artic
les
Turn
Np=0.8E11Np=1.1E11Np=1.4E11Np=1.7E11Np=2.0E11
-
9
➤ Resonance driving terms (RDTs) indicate la2ce nonlinearity
3. RDTs
-
10
➤ RDTs indicate la2ce nonlinearity 3. RDTs
-
11
➤ RDTs indicate la2ce nonlinearity 3. RDTs
-
12
➤ PTC applied to SuperKEKB: an example ● 2νx-‐νy [(Jx)(Jy)1/2] resonance ● 3D fields near IP [Solenoid and FF quad fringe fields] generate lots of low-‐order nonlineari,es, hard to be compensated using arc mul,poles [global correc,on] ● Simplified la2ces show less nonlinearity
3. RDTs: PTC calculation
-
13
➤ PTC applied to FCC-‐ee t la2ce: an example ● 2νx-‐νy [(Jx)(Jy)1/2] resonance for lar. ver. FCCee_t_65_26 ● In general, no significant 3rd resonances in FCC-‐ee la2ces
3. RDTs: PTC calculation
Whole ring Near IP
-
14
➤ PTC applied to FCC-‐ee t la2ce: an example ● 4th order RDTs for lar. ver. FCCee_t_65_26 ● Residual 4th order RDTs exist, and depend on la2ce design/op,miza,on
3. RDTs: PTC calculation
dνx,y/dJy,x 4νx
-
4. Summary
15
➤ Beam-‐beam simula,ons ● Small loss [order of a few percent] of luminosity due to BB+La2ce [No limit in luminosity performance, and should be controllable via op,cs op,miza,on] ● Par,cle loss in SAD simula,ons [to be understood] ➤ La2ce analysis using PTC ● PTC is ready for RDTs calcula,ons ● Iden,fy sources of nonlinearity ● Iden,fy dominant nonlinear terms in one-‐turn-‐map ● Evaluate la2ce designs and op,miza,ons ➤ To do list ● Understand macro-‐par,cle losses in beam-‐beam simula,ons with la2ces ● Simula,ons for FCC-‐ee Z la2ces with βx*=0.5m, βy*=1mm ● Simula,ons with quadrupole/distributed radia,on and “saw-‐tooth” effects