1 / 35

PyECLOUD development: accurate space charge module +

PyECLOUD development: accurate space charge module + Preliminary results on buildup in SPS quadrupoles. G. Iadarola , G. Rumolo. Many thanks to: H. Bartosik , K.Li , G. Miano , A. Romano. Electron cloud meeting – 27/06/2014. Introduction.

nansen
Download Presentation

PyECLOUD development: accurate space charge module +

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PyECLOUD development: accurate space charge module + Preliminary results on buildup in SPS quadrupoles G. Iadarola, G. Rumolo Many thanks to: H. Bartosik, K.Li, G. Miano, A. Romano Electron cloud meeting – 27/06/2014

  2. Introduction • Before launching extensive convergence scans (especially for quadrupole simulations), we addressed possible accuracy issues coming from boundary conditions in the electrons space evaluation • Example: two different models of the SPS MBB dipole Nominal 25 ns - 26 GeV - SEY = 1.6 e-cloud 52 mm 128 mm • E- distribution significantly different even if geometry is very similar in the multipacting region •  Can it be an artifact coming from the grid of the space charge solver?

  3. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs Internal nodes External nodes Uniform square grid

  4. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs

  5. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs Internal nodes: External nodes:

  6. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs Internal nodes: External nodes: Can be written in matrix form: A is sparse and depends only on chamber geometry and grid size  It can be computed and LU factorized in the initialization stage to speed up calculation

  7. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs

  8. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • Standard Particle In Cell (PIC)  4 stages: • Charge scatter from macroparticles (MPs) to grid • Calculation of the electrostatic potential at the nodes with Finite Difference (FD) method • Calculation of the electric field at the nodes (gradient evaluation) • Field gather from grid to MPs

  9. Electron space charge evaluation in PyECLOUD • With this approach a curved boundary is approximated with a staircase • Can we do better?

  10. The Shortley - Weller method • Sorry for the change of notation… • Refined approximation of Laplace operator at boundary nodes: • Usual 5-points formula at internal nodes: • O(h2) truncation error is preserved • (see: N. Matsunaga and T. Yamamoto, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 116 – 2000, pp. 263–273)

  11. The Shortley - Weller method • Sorry for the change of notation… • Refined gradient evaluation at boundary nodes: • Usual central difference for gradient evaluation at internal nodes:

  12. The Shortley - Weller method • Tricky implementation: • Boundary nodes need to be identified, distances from the curved boundary need to be evaluated • PyECLOUD impact routines have been employed (some refinement was required since they are optimized for robustness while here we need accuracy) • Nodes too close to the boundary can lead to ill conditioned A matrix we identify them and impose U=0 • Special treatment for gradient evaluation is needed at these nodes • Since chamber geometry and grid size stay constant along the simulation most of the boundary treatment can be handled in the initialization stage

  13. The Shortley - Weller method • Tricky implementation: • Boundary nodes need to be identified, distances from the curved boundary need to be evaluated • PyECLOUD impact routines have been employed (some refinement was required since they are optimized for robustness while here we need accuracy) • Nodes too close to the boundary can lead to ill conditioned A matrix we identify them and impose U=0 • Special treatment for gradient evaluation is needed at these nodes • Since chamber geometry and grid size stay constant along the simulation most of the boundary treatment can be handled in the initialization stage • Field map extrapolated outside the chamber to simplify field gather for particle close to the chamber’s wall

  14. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Electrostatic potential [a.u] • Electrostatic potential [a.u]

  15. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ex [a.u] • Ex [a.u]

  16. Tests: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ey [a.u] • Ey [a.u]

  17. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 1 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  18. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 1 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  19. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 1 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  20. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 1 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  21. Test: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 0.5 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  22. Tests: uniform charge distribution in a circular chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 0.2 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  23. Test: Gaussian beam in an elliptic chamber • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ey [a.u] • Ey [a.u]

  24. Test: Gaussian beam in an elliptic chamber • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ey [a.u] • Ey [a.u]

  25. Test: Gaussian beam in an elliptic chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 1 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  26. Test: Gaussian beam in an elliptic chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 0.5 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  27. Test: Gaussian beam in an elliptic chamber • Field close to the boundary significantly more accurate • Old space charge module Dh = 0.2 mm • Analytic • Numerical • New space charge module

  28. Test: LHC beam screen – uniform e- distribution • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Electrostatic potential [a.u] • Electrostatic potential [a.u]

  29. Test: LHC beam screen – uniform e- distribution • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ex [a.u] • Ex [a.u]

  30. Test: LHC beam screen – uniform e- distribution • Old space charge module • New space charge module • Ey [a.u] • Ey [a.u]

  31. First test within buildup simulations e-cloud • Two different models of the SPS MBB dipole 52 mm 128 mm • Old space charge module • New space charge module Nominal 25 ns - 26 GeV - SEY = 1.6 Nominal 25 ns - 26 GeV - SEY = 1.6 • 

  32. SPS quadrupoles - simulated scenarios 72 8 72 8 72 8 72 • 25 ns beam Intensity 1.25 x 1011ppb • Two energy values • 26GeV: • σz=0.22 m • 0.82 T/m • 450GeV: • σz=0.12 m • 14 T/m • Beam transverse size is calculated assuming εn=2.5μm

  33. SPS quadrupoles - QF • Quite low thresholds • Distribution shrinks at higher energy

  34. SPS quadrupoles - QD • Even lower thresholds than QF • Distribution shrinks at higher energy

  35. Thanks for your attention!

More Related