1 / 19

Observations on ILC LET and Ground Motion

Observations on ILC LET and Ground Motion. Paul Lebrun Fermilab CD/AMR. Overview. Brief description of Low Emittance Transport (LET) work… First look at Ground Motion, Data vs ATL model In CHEF, for a 5 to ~50 GeV, ILC-style LINAC Future work: More realistic alignment Ground Motion

ginger-simmons
Download Presentation

Observations on ILC LET and Ground Motion

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. Observations on ILC LET and Ground Motion Paul Lebrun Fermilab CD/AMR Global Design Effort

  2. Overview • Brief description of Low Emittance Transport (LET) work… • First look at Ground Motion, • Data vs ATL model • In CHEF, for a 5 to ~50 GeV, ILC-style LINAC • Future work: • More realistic alignment • Ground Motion • Modify, improve ATL ass need be • More data ! Longer distances, higher frequency..

  3. LET: Far from final… Overview of progress of LET at Fermilab. • Simulation work: Done in TD, CD, AD • AD/CD : • CHEF Accelerator Simulation code, maintained by Francois Ostiguy (AD) and Leo Michellotti (CD) • Alex Valishev : Main Linac Lattice and LET studies. • TD: Working with LIAR and Lucretia (Kirti Ranjan), • CD: Valentin Ivanov, P.Lebrun, : LET, static and dynamic, using private code and CHEF. • Dynamical LET: • High on priority list.. With CHEF, just started a few weeks ago. • Somewhat software intensive (GM code, vibrations, beam jitter..) • CPU intensive!!

  4. LET: The basics Something we already do for RunII, in the TeV! • Re-adjusting orbits to preserve emittance. • 2D Vertical phase space for ILC is ~ 50 times smaller then our “few pi” numbers.. • ILC is pulsed machine, not a relatively stable ring • No “orbit”, just a trajectory. • Linacs • Dispersion (D) Free Steering( DFS) method. • Given large uncertainties on BPM offsets, tune the dipole correctors to a given Dispersion function instead of a prescribed path. If so, the BPM offsets cancel out. • If D is small or, preferably, set to zero, BPM scale error also don’t matter.

  5. LET Benchmarks And Algorithms • While the DFS method is in principle straightforward, there are numerous tricks to play to make it more realistic, and to optimize it in case of multiple sources of Dispersion. • Implementation often messy. • LET performance may depend on the quality of tracking code  Benchmark. • An agreed upon lattice (Tesla Main Linac) • BPM resolution • Wakefield • Misalignments and BPM offsets. • …. (That was the hard part!)

  6. Benchmark, Fixed dipole setting Non trivial emit emittance growth! Ups and down because D taken out.. and coming back.. Agreement not perfect, sensitivity to small local difference in tracking.. Improves if Dispersion if corrected.

  7. Determining Dipole Settings.. O.K. Performance agreement is o.k., but solutions are different…

  8. What does it has to do with GM ? • If multiple solutions to a given misalignment pattern give roughly the same performance, are these solution robust and stable. • Preliminary results on the dynamical problem (initial set of misalignment, with beam jitter and ground motion) show that we are not able to converge towards a solution that has good performance, over time. • So more work is needed!

  9. Ground Motion Model and reality. • Valentin Ivanov translated in C++ the “ATL” model from A Seryi. • Integrated in CHEF • First order, naïve comparison with Jim Volk et al data. • For October only.. No long time duration studies! • From the MINOS hall.. Not the “good” Galena Platteville dolomite.

  10. From Jim’s web site.. Big long term motion! 20 microns swing is very, very likely to demand a complete retuning (i..e,DFS) re-adjusting of the LINAC. ~ 500 microns is also likely to justify a physical re-alignment. Lots of frequencies.. L2 (microns)

  11. Yes, we see the moon tides… Data taken starting Oct 12, 20:08 The ~ 12 hours periods seems to be there, visible for about 2 days. ~ 0.25 to 0.5 microns/hour. Then the tide amplitude rises and long term (~week) motion also increases.. L2 (microns)

  12. Data conversion: taking out the global tilt Delta 2/3_1 = L2 – (L3 + L1)/2. Large fluctuations remains.. 40 microns, over a few days, over 60 meters..

  13. Comparison with ATL, for 2 hours. Oct 8, 10:04 A.M. Oct 3 4:00 A.M.

  14. Why two hours ? • At best, a complete DFS re-steering will take: • ~20 pulses per setting, to average over beam jitter and finite BPM resolution. • x2, need off/On momentum to measure Dispersion. • 20 iterations per local DFS section. • x 30 to 60 : the number of DFS section for the entire LINAC. • ~80% uptime • > ~ 1 to 3 hours…

  15. LET Perf. with Beam Jitter + GM Very preliminary.. Vertical Emittance, not corrected for Dispersion, for Emittance, corrected for Dispersion.

  16. Will it “work” ? • With only magnetic steering ? • At first try, DFS steering did “converged”, albeit with looser a convergence criteria then in the static case. Yet, the emittance growth is large: 40 % of the budget in 2 km ! • And I ran for ~10 minutes.. (one day of CPU time!) • Need to run for longer periods… • More realistic misalignements!!!! • Things to try (Software): • Concurrent DFS steering across sections ? • Better DFS steering algorithms and parameters • Further check of Ground Motions.. • Better Control software (??)

  17. Further investigations... • Movers on quadrupoles and/or cavity ? • Cavity tilts at ~ 10 GeV have really bad effects on LET !! • Much smaller (<~ 1 nm. Rad) are predicted if the cavities can be placed “laser straight”, one only has to correct for quadrupole displacements. • Feed forward Steering..Laser-track the motion of the machine, and use Beam steering to “check”.. • Need a lot more instrumentation ! • HOM BPM • Synch. Rad. detectors ?

  18. Better ground Motion Modeling ? • Conversion of exiting data to formal ATL parameters • Beyond minimal ATL • Understanding why drives these motions? • Tide related frequencies/phases well known! • Needed if feed-forward will be considered. • However, evidently, earth quakes are notoriously hard to predict!

  19. Better Ground Motion Data? • Goal: improve ATL model, make it reliable. • Systematic error analysis on existing HLS data. • Frequency: Need ~ 5 Hz • 10 Hz probably.. • Not KHz (intra-train effect: something entirely different. Probably not ground motion!) • Means Laser-tracker technology. • Longer distance.. • MINOS or Aurora mine ? Or other site ?

More Related