1 / 29

Ion instability at SuperKEKB

Ion instability at SuperKEKB. H. Fukuma (KEK) and L. F. Wang (SLAC). ECLOUD07, 12th Apr. 2007, Daegu, Korea. 1. Introduction. 2. Ion trapping. 3. Fast ion instability (FII). 4. Effect of the train length on the FII. Growth, noise and feedback, tune shift. 5. Summary. 1. Introduction.

danno
Download Presentation

Ion instability at SuperKEKB

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. Ion instability at SuperKEKB H. Fukuma (KEK) and L. F. Wang (SLAC) ECLOUD07, 12th Apr. 2007, Daegu, Korea 1. Introduction 2. Ion trapping 3. Fast ion instability (FII) 4. Effect of the train length on the FII Growth, noise and feedback, tune shift 5. Summary

  2. 1. Introduction SuperKEKB is an upgrade plan of KEKB. LER / HER Parameters 5 - 10 1035 cm-2 sec-1 Luminosity Beam energy 3.5 / 8.0 GeV Beam current 9.4 / 4.1 A Number of bunches 5018 Circumference 3016 m 0.6 m Bunch spacing 24 nm Emittance

  3. •In SuperKEKB, the electron beam may be stored in LER after LINAC upgrade in order to mitigate the electron cloud effect ("charge switch"). •Comparing with KEKB, 3.5 GeV ◊Beam energy : 8 9.4A ◊Beam current :1.1 ◊Larger vacuum pressure than KEKB : 5 nTorr (CO) Ion instability would be strong enough to degrade the luminosity. •Requirements for colliders ◊Number of bunches should be maximized. Small number of train gaps ◊Tune shift along the train by the ions should be small. ◊Residual centroid oscillation by the instability should be small.

  4. •Ion instability 1) Ion trapping ◊Ions are trapped for a long time in a beam potential. ◊A bunch interacts with an ion again and again during many turns. 2) Fast ion instability ◊The instability is transient. ◊A bunch interacts with an ion only once. ◊The instability can occur not only in rings but also in linacs or beam transport lines.

  5. 2. Ion trapping •Ion motion p bunches y : ion coordinate n : turn of a bunch train c ion h-p gaps kick by a bunch Nb : number of electrons / bunch, m, Mion : electron and ion mass, x,y : beam size of electron bunch, •Stability condition

  6. •|Trace |M|/2 in SuperKEKB is the same order of magnitude as that in KEKB. •According to the linear theory, ion trapping would be avoided with a train gap of 2 % empty RF buckets in SuperKEKB.

  7. bunch ion 3. Fast ion instability (FII) •The ions created by the head of the bunch train affect to the tail. •The FII is the single pass coupled-bunch instability (possibly seen at a ring but also a linac or a beam transport line). •The instability is transient. ◊If damping, such as radiation damping, exists, the oscillation is damped from the head to the tail in the train then the oscillation of all bunches is finally damped (A. W. Chao and G. V. Stupakov). ◊Actually an equilibrium amplitude is determined by the balance of the excitation of the instability by the noises and the damping.

  8. 3-1. Linear theory (G. V. Stupakov et al., P.R.E. 52, 5499) z •The offset of the centroid of the beam y(s,z) is given by s . 0 ion line density / bunch •Ion frequency ngas: gas density b: bunch population sb: bunch spacing : Atomic mass number of ions

  9. •Assuming a solution of , (Q : quality factor of ion oscillations) •A simple model •If z •A(s,z) has a slow variation in z, the growth is exponential,

  10. •Behavior of the amplitude growth ◊Linear regime without decoherence of the ions log (amplitude) nonlinear regime (linear growth) ◊Linear regime with decoherence of the ions 1 y ◊Nonlinear regime (S. Heifets) linear regime (exponential growth) turns

  11. •Numerical example in SuperKEKB (one long train) Energy 3.5 GeV Bunch spacing : 2ns (=0.6m) Number of bunch : 5120 Bunch current : 1.9 mA Pressure : 1 nTorr (CO) Emittance (H/V) : 24 nm/0.96 nm Beam size (H/V) : 0.6 mm/0.12 mm Beta function (H/V) : 15 m/15 m Tune(V) : 43.545 Q : 10 less than one turn (revolution time : 10 s)

  12. 3-2. Mitigating method A) Decrease the ion density 1) Better vacuum pressure 2) Clearing electrode ? This talk 3)Short train length (gaps between bunch trains) 4) Beam shaking B) Damp the bunch oscillation 1) Transverse bunch-by-bunch feedback system 2) Tune spread among bunches 3) Octupoles 4) Lower vertical emittance or beam size 5) Beam-beam detuning

  13. 4. Effect of the train length on the FII 4-1. Method of the estimation of the amplitude growth 1) The amplitude saturates at one sigmaof the beam size y due to the nonlinear effect of a beam-ion force. In the nonlinear regime the growth is slow and would be cured by the feedback. 2) Oscillation of y is not tolerable for SuperKEKB because the luminosity is lost. We should damp the oscillation in the linear regime where we may use the linear theory. 3) Thus our method to discuss the amplitude growth of the FII in SuperKEKB is, i) Use the analytic linear theory by G. V. Stupakov et al. to obtain acceptable fill patterns. ii) Perform a simulation to confirm the result of i) and get more realistic results than the analytic estimate. iii) Estimate the noise and the feedback effect to get the equilibrium amplitude of the oscillation.

  14. 4-2. Conditions to be taken into account 1) Train gap should be less than 200 ns to avoid the effect of the transient beam loading on the RF system (K. Akai). 2) The vacuum pressure is 5 nTorr for CO and 10 nTorr for H2 to get a lifetime of 10 hr (Y. Suetsugu). 3) Typical damping time of the bunch-by-bunch feedback system is 0.2 ms from the experience of KEKB. 4) Fluctuation of the vertical offset at IP should be less than about ± 0.01 *y which causes 5 % loss of the luminosity according to the Ohmi's beam-beam simulation.

  15. 4-3. Growth of the FII in the linear regime •According to G. V. Stupakov et al., •The above equation was numerically integrated. ◊Parameters •Energy 3.5 GeV •Bunch current 2 mA •Bunch space 0.6 m •Beta function(H,V) 15 m •Emittance(H/V) 2.4 10-8/9.6 10-10 m •Ion : CO, 1nTorr •Q : 10

  16. train length : 3016 m train length : 60.3 m (50 trains) e-fold growth time at 10 turns = 0.31 msec e-fold growth time at 10 turns = 3.6 sec The train length of 60 m (50 trains) would be a good starting value for the simulation.

  17. 4-4. Growth time by the Simulation •A code developed by L. F. Wang was used in simulations. ◊Features 1) 2D space charge 2) Tracking through elements 3) Realistic vacuum model (various pressure and multi-gas species) 4) Any beam fill pattern 5) Bunch-by-bunch feedback 6) Wake of ion-cloud …

  18. A) Growth time from the tracking 50 trains; train Gap=20 buckets Number of bunch per train=82 Total number of bunch=50*82= 4100 Pressure=1nTorr Growth time=35turns=0.35 ms

  19. B) Growth rate from the ion density number of train =50 number of bunch per train=82 gap=40ns (20 missing bunch) •Estimated growth rate emittancex=2.4E-8, emittancey=4.8E-10 pressure : 0.75 nTorr •This relation in our calculation is valid even if the gap is changed. •We estimated the growth rate@1nTorr from the ion density @0.75 Torr .

  20. gap 15 gap 10 gap 20 Train length vs. estimated growth rate damping rate of the feedback

  21. 4-5. Total number of bunches •Total number of bunches( luminosity) is calculated when the train length and the train gap are fixed. 10 % loss of the luminosity 20 % loss of the luminosity Gap : 20 Total number of bunch The number of bunches / train •The total number of the bunches saturates when the train length (i.e. the number of bunches /train) is larger than 150.

  22. 4-6. Train length vs. growth rate •From the growth rate vs. the number of bunches / train and the total number of bunches vs. the number of bunches / train, we can get the relation between the luminosity loss and the growth rate. •The results are, ◊If the pressure of CO is 5 nTorr and the growth rate should be less than 5 ms-1, which is the damping rate of the feedback, the bunches in a train should be less than 35, which leads to the luminosity loss of about 40%. ◊If the pressure of CO is 1 nTorr and the growth rate should be less than 5 ms-1, 150 bunches in a train would be possible, which leads to the luminosity loss of about 15%.

  23. 4-7. Noise and Feedback •The equation by A. W. Chao and G. V. Stupakov (MBI97, p. 110) was modified to include the ion decoherence function D(z) as, •The above equation was numerically integrated.

  24. •Parameters in calculation Energy 3.5 GeV Bunch current 1.9 mA Bunch space 0.6 m Number of bunches 82 Beta function(H,V) 15 m Emittance(H/V) 2.4 10-8/9.6 10-10 m Ion : CO, 1nTorr Q : 10 E-fold growth time e by the simulation : 0.35 msec

  25. Amplitude of the last bunch up to 1000 turns decoherence : on A d=0.96ms d=0.48ms red : instability on green : instability off Damping is always on. The same sequence of random numbers was used in each calculation. turns d=1.44ms d=2.15ms d ~ e, i.e. 0.35 ms, is enough to damp the instability to the noise level.

  26. 4-8. Tune shift •Beam-ion force changes the tune of the bunches. •As the ion density changes along the train, the tune also changes along the train. 50 trains; train Gap=20 Number of bunch per train=82 Total number of bunch=50*82= 4100 P=1nTorr Growth time=35turns; tune shift=0.0035 •The vertical tune shift of the last bunch in the train was estimated using the ion density from the simulation as,

  27. 5 nTorr (gap 20) 1 nTorr (gap 15) 1 nTorr (gap 10) 1 nTorr (gap 20) Tune shift of the last bunch •In case of bunches / train : 82 gap : 20 bunches pressure : 5 nTorr , tune shift at the last bunch ~ 0.009. •KEKB ◊Tune change of 0.001 affects to the luminosity. ◊Vertical tune in LER changes 0.0018 along the train due to the electron cloud. Tune change of 0.002 along the train would be a good reference which is acceptable in SuperKEKB. ◊Tune change of 0.009 would not be acceptable in SuperKEKB.

  28. ◊Actually the first bunch in the train has a tune shift. The tune shift from the head to the tail is about 70 % of the tune change of the last bunch. tune shift of the last bunch •The result tune shift from the head to the tail ◊If the pressure of CO is 5 nTorr and the tune shift along the train should be less than 0.002, the bunches in the train should be less than 25, which leads to the luminosity loss of 45 %. ◊If the pressure of CO is 1 nTorr and the tune shift along the train should be less than 0.002, 135 bunches in a train would be possible, which leads to the luminosity loss of 15 %.

  29. 5. Summary •The train length to mitigate the FII was discussed when electrons are stored in LER at SuperKEKB. •Assuming that the pressure of CO is 5 nTorr, if the growth rate of the FII should be less than the damping rate of the feedback system of 5 ms-1, length of the train would be limited to 35, which leads to the luminosity loss of about 40%. if the tune shift due to the ions should be less than 0.002, length of the train would be limited to 25, which leads to the luminosity loss of about 45%. •If the pressure of CO is 1 nTorr, the luminosity loss due to the growth rate and the tune shift will be 15 % and 15 %, respectively. •The CO pressure of 1 nTorr will be necessary for SuperKEKB if electrons are stored in LER. •The tune shift would be as much serious as the amplitude growth. We need a way to decrease it.

More Related