1 / 11

s2e simulation of FLASH with 3 rd harm. section + coupler kicks

This study by Igor Z. explores the simulation of FLASH with 3rd harmonic section including coupler kicks. The CPU time models and ASTRA loop simulations provide insights on trajectory adjustments and particle behavior after specific components. Detailed comparisons and conclusions shed light on the impact of coupler kicks and the system's sensitivity to tuning. Findings point towards the need for further optimizations and potential considerations for system stability. For more information, visit the link provided.

bdiaz
Download Presentation

s2e simulation of FLASH with 3 rd harm. section + coupler kicks

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. s2e simulation of FLASH with 3rd harm. section + coupler kicks Igor Z.: s2e simulation of FLASH with 3rd harm. section without coupler kicks simulation on the way: cpu time model for rf coupler kicks extra ASTRA loop simulation: trajectory after BC3 after DOGLEG (with 20000 particles) preliminary conclusion

  2. Igor Zagorodnov, 19. January 2009

  3. 8. March 2009 CPU time (mafia-2) L/m 2.6 t/h 0.75 8.52 6.27 L/m 11.2 t/h 3.33 10.13 31.25 L/m 7.3 t/h 1.97 6.13 18.55 L/m 6 t/h 0.02 0.10 0.10 L/m 42.3 t/h 12.32 37.58 118.28 L/m 16 t/h 0.04 0.35 0.35 L/m 70.5 t/h 22.47 65.36 189.9 (B - 61.5m) L/m 9 t/h 0.12 L/m 44.1 t/h 13.25 39.00 39.00 (A) (C) A = 22. Feb 14:30 B= 8. Mrz 8:00 C= 11. Mrz 2:45 total ASTRA cpu time 54.09 h = 2 d 6.09 h 166.72 h = 6 d 22.72 h = 0.99 w 392.02 h = 16 d 8.02 h = 2.33 w 20000 particles with couplers 200000 particles without couplers 200000 particles with couplers Igor’s run most of CPU time required for coupler kicks ?!!?

  4. upstream downstream rf coupler kicks (3.9 GHz = estimated) side view TESLA cavity 3rd-harm. cavity it is an estimation !!! generate artificial coupler fields + geometry transformations + … http://www.desy.de/xfel-beam/data/talks/talks/dohlus_-_kick_of_3rd_harm_20080317.pdf

  5. extra ASTRA loop (autophasing & phasing) pre processing: distribution = offset + slice-offset + input-distribution match to design optics ASTRA processing: prepare ASTRA template extract particle # 1 auto phasing (run ASTRA with 1 particle without space charge) auto phasing = off; add “auto-phases”+”set-phases” run ASTRA with distribution post processing: mange offset and slice-offset add wakes

  6. trajectory without corrections (without couplers) with corrections <x>=0, <x’>=0, <y>=0, <y’>=0

  7. after BC3 not quite the same plane!

  8. after BC3 … either modified auto-phasing (ASTRA) or sensitivity to kick

  9. after BC3

  10. after DOGLEG 200000 particles 20000 particles  numerical µ-bunch instability !

  11. preliminary conclusion weak differences (slice emittance & long. phase space) after BC2 time dependent part of rf-kick should be negligible after BC2! differences even in longitudinal phase space after BC3 possible reasons: ASTRA auto phasing; slightly different reference planes (more additional length after BCs for CSRtrack runs); real effect tuning required rf coupler kick is not quite trivial; system is sensitive ! numerical µ-bunch instability  more particles / other smoothing methods CPU time wait / parallel computing / no coupler kicks after BC2 / other model (f.i. space charge impedance instead of ASTRA)

More Related