1 / 21

Self-Consistent Simulations of the Interaction of Electron-Clouds and Beams with WARP-POSINST

Self-Consistent Simulations of the Interaction of Electron-Clouds and Beams with WARP-POSINST. Jean-Luc Vay Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Heavy Ion Fusion Science Virtual National Laboratory E-cloud 07, 9-12 April 2007, Daegu, Korea. Collaborators.

finley
Download Presentation

Self-Consistent Simulations of the Interaction of Electron-Clouds and Beams with WARP-POSINST

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. Self-Consistent Simulations of the Interaction of Electron-Clouds and Beams with WARP-POSINST Jean-Luc Vay Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Heavy Ion Fusion Science Virtual National Laboratory E-cloud 07, 9-12 April 2007, Daegu, Korea

  2. Collaborators • M. A. Furman, C. M. Celata, P. A. Seidl, K. Sonnad • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • R. H. Cohen, A. Friedman, D. P. Grote, • M. Kireeff Covo, A. W. Molvik • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory • P. H. Stoltz, S. Veitzer • Tech-X Corporation • J. P. Verboncoeur • University of California - Berkeley

  3. Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion (HIF) goal is to develop an accelerator that can deliver beams to ignite an inertial fusion target Artist view of a Heavy Ion Fusion driver DT Target requirements: 3-7 MJ x ~ 10 ns  ~ 500 Terawatts Ion Range: 0.02 - 0.2 g/cm2 1-10 GeV dictate accelerator requirements: A~200  ~1016 ions, 100 beams, 1-4 kA/beam Our near term goal is High-Energy Density Physics (HEDP)...

  4. We have a strong economic incentive to fill the pipe. Which elevates the probability of halo ions hitting structures. (from a WARP movie; see http://hif.lbl.gov/theory/simulation_movies.html)

  5. e- g e- e- i+ halo i+ g e- e- e- e- Sources of electron clouds e- • i+ = ion • e-= electron • g = gas • = photon = instability  Positive Ion Beam Pipe • Ionization of • background gas • desorbed gas Primary: Secondary: • ion induced emission from • expelled ions hitting vacuum wall • beam halo scraping • photo-emission from synchrotron radiation (HEP) • secondary emission from electron-wall collisions

  6. Simulation goal - predictive capability End-to-End 3-Dself-consistent time-dependent simulations of beam, electrons and gas with self-field + external field (dipole, quadrupole, …). Note: for Heavy Ion Fusion accelerators studies, self-consistent is a necessity! HCX Electrons 200mA K+ From source… WARP-3D T = 4.65s …to target.

  7. WARP is our main tool • 3-D accelerator PIC code • Geometry: 3D, (x,y), or (r,z) • Field solvers:FFT, capacity matrix, multigrid • Boundaries:“cut-cell” --- no restriction to “Legos” • Bends: “warped” coordinates; no “reference orbit” • Lattice: general; takes MAD input • solenoids, dipoles, quads, sextupoles, … • arbitrary fields, acceleration • Diagnostics: Extensive snapshots and histories • Parallel:MPI • Python and Fortran: “steerable,” input decks are programs

  8. + new e-/gas modules quad beam 1 2 Key: operational; partially implemented (4/28/06) + Novel e- mover + Adaptive Mesh Refinement Allows large time step greater than cyclotron period with smooth transition from magnetized to non-magnetized regions concentrates resolution only where it is needed R Speed-up x10-104 e- motion in a quad Speed-up x10-100 3 4 Z WARP-POSINST unique features merge of WARP & POSINST

  9. POSINST provides advanced SEY model. Monte-Carlo generation of electrons with energy and angular dependence. Three components of emitted electrons: backscattered: rediffused: true secondaries: I0 Ie Ir Its re-diffused true sec. Phenomenological model: • based as much as possible on data for  and d/dE • not unique (use simplest assumptions whenever data is not available) • many adjustable parameters, fixed by fitting  and d/dE to data back-scattered elastic

  10. We use third-party modules. • ion-induced electron emission and cross-sections from the TxPhysics* module from Tech-X corporation (http://www.txcorp.com/technologies/TxPhysics), • ion-induced neutral emission developed by J. Verboncoeur (UC-Berkeley).

  11. Benchmarked against dedicated experiment on HCX (b) (c) (a) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Location of Current Gas/Electron Experiments MATCHING SECTION ELECTROSTATIC QUADRUPOLES INJECTOR MAGNETIC QUADRUPOLES 1 MeV, 0.18 A, t ≈ 5 s, 6x1012 K+/pulse, 2 kV space charge, tune depression ≈ 0.1 Retarding Field Analyser (RFA) Clearing electrodes Capacitive Probe (qf4) Suppressor GESD e- K+ End plate Short experiment => need to deliberately amplify electron effects: let beam hit end-plate to generate copious electrons which propagate upstream.

  12. Suppressor on Suppressor off experiment Comparison sim/exp: clearing electrodes and e- supp. on/off 200mA K+ e- (a) (b) (c) 0V 0V 0V V=-10kV, 0V • Time-dependent beam loading in WARP from moments history from HCX data: • current • energy • reconstructed distributionfrom XY, XX', YY' slit-plate measurements simulation measurement reconstruction Good semi quantitative agreement.

  13. (a) (b) (c) Simulation Experiment Simulation Experiment Detailed exploration of dynamics of electrons in quadrupole 0V 0V 0V/+9kV 0V Potential contours WARP-3D T = 4.65s e- 200mA K+ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 WARP-3D T = 4.65s Electrons 200mA K+ Electrons bunching Importance of secondaries - if secondary electron emission turned off: run time ~3 days - without new electron mover and MR, run time would be ~1-2 months! Beam ions hit end plate 0. -20. -40. Oscillations I (mA) (c) I (mA) 0. -20. -40. ~6 MHz signal in (C) in simulation AND experiment 0. 2. time (s) 6. (c) 0. 2. time (s) 6.

  14. AMR essential X103-104 speed-up! WARP/POSINST applied to High-Energy Physics • LARP funding: simulation of e-cloud in LHC Proof of principle simulation: • Fermilab: study of e-cloud in MI upgrade (K. Sonnad) • ILC: study of e-cloud in positron damping ring wigglers (C. Celata) Quadrupoles Drifts Bends 1 LHC FODO cell (~107m) - 5 bunches - periodic BC (04/06) WARP/POSINST-3D - t = 300.5ns

  15. quad drift bend drift “Quasi-static” mode added for codes comparisons. 2-D slab of electrons s 3-D beam s0 lattice A 2-D slab of electrons (macroparticles) is stepped backward (with small time steps) through the beam field and 2-D electron fields are stacked in a 3-D array, that is used to push the 3-D beam ions (with large time steps) using maps (as in HEADTAIL-CERN) or Leap-Frog (as in QUICKPIC-UCLA), allowing direct comparison.

  16. WARP-QSM X,Y HEADTAIL X,Y WARP-QSM X,Y HEADTAIL X,Y Comparison WARP-QSM/HEADTAIL on CERN benchmark 1 station/turn Emittances X/Y (-mm-mrad) Time (ms) 2 stations/turn Emittances X/Y (-mm-mrad) Time (ms) Note: WARP-QSM now parallel

  17. y y x x How can FSC compete with QS? Recent key observation:range of space and time scales is not a Lorentz invariant* • same event (two objects crossing) in two frames Consequences • there exists an optimum frame which minimizes ranges, • for first-principle simulations (PIC), costT/t ~2 (L/l*T/t ~ 4 w/o moving window), = (L/l, T/t) F0-center of mass frame FB-rest frame of “B” 0 space 0 0 0 space+time 0 Range of space/time scales =(L/l,T/t) vary continuously as 2 for large, potential savings are HUGE! *J.-L. Vay, PRL 98, 130405 (2007)

  18. A few systems of interest which might benefit Laser-plasma acceleration In laboratory frame. longitudinal scale x1000/x1000000… Free electron lasers x1000 3cm 1m … so-called“multiscale”problems = very challenging to model! Use of approximations (quasi-static, eikonal, …). 3cm/1m=30,000. HEP accelerators (e-cloud) x1000000 x1000 10km 10m 1nm 10cm 10km/10cm=100,000. 10m/1nm=10,000,000,000.

  19. frame  ≈19 3cm 1.6mm 1m 30m Hendrik Lorentz compaction x560 3cm/1m=30,000. 1.6mm/30m=53. frame  ≈22 frame  ≈4000 2.5mm 450m 10km 10m 1nm 1nm 4m 10cm 4.5m compaction x103 compaction x3.107 450m/4.5m=100. 10km/10cm=100,000. 10m/1nm=10,000,000,000. 2.5mm/4m=625. Lorentz transformation => large level of compaction of scales Laser-plasma acceleration Free electron lasers HEP accelerators (e-cloud) Note: of interest only if modeling beam and e-cloud, i.e. for self-consistent calculations.

  20. Boosted frame calculation sampleproton bunch through a given e– cloud electron streamlines beam • This is a proof-of-principle computation: • hose instability of a proton bunch • Proton energy: g=500 in Lab • L= 5 km, continuous focusing proton bunch radius vs. z CPU time: • lab frame: >2 weeks • frame with 2=512: <30 min Speedup x1000

  21. Summary • WARP/POSINST code suite developed for HIF e-cloud studies • Parallel 3-D AMR-PlC code with accelerator lattice follows beam self-consistently with gas/electrons generation and evolution, • Benchmarked against HCX • highly instrumented section dedicated to e-cloud studies, • Being applied outside HIF/HEDP, to HEP accelerators • Implemented “quasi-static” mode for direct comparison to HEADTAIL/QUICKPIC, • fund that cost of self-consistent calculation is greatly reduced in Lorentz boosted frame (with >>1), thanks to relativistic contraction/dilatation bridging space/time scales disparities, • 1000x speedup demonstrated on proof-of-principle case, • will apply to LHC, Fermilab MI, ILC, • assess 3-D effects, gain/complications of calculation in boosted frame.

More Related