1 / 25

Tune, Chromaticity, Coupling and Online b Measurements

Tune, Chromaticity, Coupling and Online b Measurements. LHC BI Review, Nov. 2001 A.J.Burns, SL-BI Thanks to: O.Berrig, P.Cameron (BNL), R.Jones, H.Schmickler & E. Vossenberg Ref: LHC Project Report 370, Feb. 2000. Requirements for Q, Q’ & |c|.

pvirginia
Download Presentation

Tune, Chromaticity, Coupling and Online b Measurements

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. Tune, Chromaticity, Coupling and Online b Measurements LHC BI Review, Nov. 2001A.J.Burns, SL-BI Thanks to: O.Berrig, P.Cameron (BNL), R.Jones, H.Schmickler & E. Vossenberg Ref: LHC Project Report 370, Feb. 2000

  2. Requirements for Q, Q’ & |c| • The “acceptable” tolerances for key beam parameters during accumulation and ramping [ref. O. Brüning, Chamonix 2000] : • dQ < 0.003 • dx < 1-2 [x = Q’ = DQ/(dp/p)] • |c| < 0.01 • The QH/QV tune separation at injection is 0.01. The tune split due to coupling must be less. • The requirement for x is very demanding and will need feedback for ultimate performance -- still some way to go. LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  3. Tune measurement overview LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  4. Emittance blowup from kicks 1999 simulation of series of single-kick (0.4 mm) Q meas. assuming : 50-turn damping time 128-turn FFTserrordQ= 3.10-4 20 mm PU noise level using 4 of 12 batches Measure every 5 sec duringsnap-back (but only every 4 min during injection) Conclusion: should aim for higher performance system compatible with low emittance blowup and strong transverse damping. LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  5. Beam excitation devices • Kicker magnets • AC-dipole • RF beam “tickler” • Transverse feedback kicker • Primarily, part of transverse feedback system, but should also be available to receive signal (e.g. noise, frequency sweep, resonant excitation, . . .) for oscillation measurements. • Operational scenario uncertain, e.g. will full gain (td ~ 50 turns) be maintained after damping of injection oscillations ? LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  6. Kicker magnets (1/2) • 1998 design -- 4 Q & 4 Aperture kickers • 9 ms base ½ sine pulse (+3rd harm. for MKQ) to kick essentially 1 LHC batch (was 243 bunches) • ‘MKA’ (rep. rate ~ 0.2 Hz) : • up to 8s @ 7 TeV {2.5 mm at b = 180m BPM} • ‘MKQ’ (rep. rate 2 Hz) : • 0.04-2.5s @ 450 GeV and 0.01-0.6s @ 7 TeV{50 mm - 3 mm} {3 mm - 0.2 mm} • To be constructed by SL/BT group LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  7. Kicker magnets (2/3) • 2001 (½ price) design -- 4 MKQA’s • for Ap. (86 ms base ½ sine) : • up to 8s @ 7 TeV  i.e. no change • all 12 batches kicked important change • for Q (16 ms base ½ sine +3rd harmonic) : • up to 3s @ 450 GeV & up to 0.85s @ 7 TeV • ~ 5 x 72 bunches kicked with 80-100% of peak value • 20-50 pulses at 2Hz possible every 10s • single magnet with dual pulse generators • certain aspects of design need 6-10 months prototyping work LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  8. 80-100% peak Kicker magnets (2/3)  • Can still consider variants of the Q-kick pulse (within max. 2.3 kV boundary) • 16 ms ½ sine pulse  80% more kick strength at centre, i.e. 1.55 s at 7 TeV. • 16 ms ½ sine + 3rd harm. • 1/3 shorter than 2/3 kick strength, i.e.  0.55 s at 7 TeV (~160 mm at BPM) • To remain on “official” schedule, choice should be fixed for Jan. 2002 =72 b  80-100% peak  80-100% peak LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  9. AC dipole • Technique (from BNL) for exciting large (several sT) transverse oscillations without emittance blowup • sine wave frequency outside tune spread; and amplitude ramped over 10’s of msec. • potential applications : • dynamical aperture & resonance driving terms • phase advances and bfunctions •  source of sextupolar fieldsand impedance measurements • tune measurement (see JPK talk) • To reach high sT at 7 TeV, speciallydesigned magnet needed (details inJPK talk) LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  10. Turn n 5.079 MHz excitation withSPS damper (Head-Tail PU) {117.17 x frev(43.35 kHz)}  Turn n+3 RF beam “tickler” • Beam exciter for Resonant BPM tune measurement • Objective: maintenance of betatron oscillations at a sufficiently low amplitude to minimise emittance blow-up on beams for physics ( few mm) • Associated with notch filter in transverse feedback to avoid damping oscillations •  2m long stripline couplerdriven by 0.5-1 kW RFcommercial amplifier withBW 0-20 + (n x 40) MHz. LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  11. Tune measurement devices • BPM system • Dedicated tune couplers • Resonant BPM • Schottky monitor LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  12. BPM system • 500 button monitors in each ring measuring in both transverse planes • Summing FFTs from all BPMs after a kick should give a good tune accuracy. • A more complete analysis retaining the phase information  integer part of Q also. • BUT, at best, BPM digitisation  1 bit ~ 20 mm. So will need ~ mm amplitude kicks (e blowup) LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  13. Tune couplers • Combined 15 mm stripline coupler + 4-button assemblies • Planned (1996) as the dedicated Q-meas. devices (4 installed for Q-meas, 8 for transverse feedback) • Higher (~ x 5) transfer impedance than button  larger output signal • Equipped with special electronics, should be more sensitive than 500 BPMs for sub-mm oscillations. • e.g. 16-bit ADCs, possibly limited aperture with C.O. removal, full turn integration, . . . • Question: does this device need to provide bunch-by-bunch or batch-by-batch Q-measurement ? LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  14. Resonant BPM (1/4) • Stripline coupler with external cabling that resonates the D signal at a sideband of a bunch freq. harmonic • (to simplify, let bunch freq.= 40.0 MHz, not 40.08 MHz) • e.g. choose excitation freq. fex = 17 + (N x 40) MHz • N.B. the beam “sees” only 17 MHz • to excite within the tune resonance: • fex = K x frev + ft , where K = integer,frev = revolution freq. (~11 kHz), ft = fractional tune frequency (~3 kHz) • each bunch then “sees” only ft resonant excitation • BPM should resonate at sidebands fC = (M x 40) ± 17 MHz • e.g. 97, 103, 137 MHz LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  15. Resonant BPM (2/4) • Choice of resonant frequency : • For optimum response, fC should be ~ freq. corresponding to stripline length, L = l/4 (e.g. 200 MHz for L = 37.5 cm) • Mechanical constraints  L  75 cm (i.e. fC 100 MHz) • Lower frequencies also correspond to lower cable losses. • Performance with other bunch spacings : • Any bunch spacings = N x 25 ns are compatible (since 40 MHz harmonics will still be present; but N should be small). • The resonance effect depends on the accumulation of signals from consecutive bunches. Individual (or a few) pilot bunches will not produce a resonant response. LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  16. Resonant BPM (3/4) • Q-values for such a resonator are ~ few 100 • depending on feedthrough and cable quality and frequency • The Q-value of a resonant circuit determines the resonant width, transient behaviour and steady state stored energy. • For Q=200 at 100 MHz: • The full width at 70% of the voltage peak is 500 kHz • the 1/e rise/decay time is 640 ns  • signal decays 30% between each set of 72 bunches, 80% in 1ms between batches and 99% in 3ms dump gap at end of turn • The choice of Q is thus a trade-off between steady state signal magnitude and rise/decay time. LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  17. Resonant BPM (4/4) • R&D started this year with investigations of different resonant circuits using a spare 200 MHz SPS coupler. • Some measurements with beam were made at the end of the run with an identicaldevice in the SPS. • A more completesetup will be testedin the 2002 run. • The final aim is a PLL tune measurement system such as developed at RHIC using a similar resonant BPM (right). LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  18. Schottky monitor • Used with success at CERN in SPS p-pbar collider • Measurements on LHC bunched beam may be problematical ( F.Caspers’ talk) • Budget line included in LHC BI budget • Manpower should be committed to this topic soon (collaboration with PS division ?) LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  19. Chromaticity measurement • Classical method: • Measure tune for different beam momenta (by changing fRF within limit dp/p < 10-3). • In LEP, PLL tune measurement with 0.3 Hz fRF modulation. • Available in LHC, but has drawbacks (esp. with nominal beams) • limited speed, incompatibility with Q-loop, orbit changes • R&D on new method (Rhodri Jones et al.): • Head-tail phase shift measurement (see following slides) • Other methods used (but not promising for LHC): • Amplitude of synchrotron sidebands (low QS, lattice resons.) • Width of tune resonance (Q’ not only contribution) • Further methods to be investigated (e.g. O. Brüning) LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  20. Time Head-tail phase-shift method Tail Head 1 Synchrotron Period LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  21. Head-tail simulation LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  22. Head-tail measurement (SPS) • Measurements on test setup in the SPS since 1997. • 2001: new 60cm coupler now allows measurement of “head” and “tail” (previously “head” and “centre”) • Amongst questions still be answered :What is kick amplitude (e blowup) required to obtain a reasonable (~ 0.5 unit) precision in Q’ ? 2001 2000 LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  23. qH |c| qV Time Coupling measurements • Linear coupling of H and V betatron motion needs to be controlled (i.e. minimised) • “Closest Tune Approach” • H and V tunes tracked (via PLL)during linear ramp of quadrupolefamily |qH-qV|min = |c| • “Feed-forward” correction • Alternative methods : • Beam is kicked in one plane coupling obtained from timeevolution of H & V oscillations. • Measurement of full BeamTransfer Function in one plane with excitation in other plane LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  24. k Dk time DQ=0.005 Online b measurement • Objective : Provide real b value at profile monitor to convert beam-size to emittance : e = s2/b • Measure change in tune, DQ, resulting from change Dk in quadrupole strength b at quad.  4pDQ/(Dk L) • Measurement at LEP : • k modulated at 0.25 HzDQ = 0.005 (< for LHC) • < 5.10-5 noise on 0.25 HzFourier component of PLLtune measurement rms error onb < 1% • measured colliding beams LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

  25. Final remarks • A comprehensive “Transverse Diagnostics Toolkit” will be available for running the LHC. • We’ve being saying this for years, but it’s still true • All Q & Q’ measurements (kicks, noise, chirps, BTF..) can be used on setup beams to give “feed forward” corrections (even though they increase emittance). • Presently emphasis is on developing low e blowup methods for use on physics beams (resonant BPM based PLL, “AC-dipole” technique, . .) In 2002, the TD part of the Beam Instrumentation should be reviewed by the BI Specification team LHC BI Review, Nov.2001, A.J. Burns SL-BI

More Related