Beam-Beam Effects in High-Energy Colliders:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Crab crossing and crab waist at super KEKB K. Ohmi (KEK) Super B workshop at SLAC 15-17, June 2006 Thanks, M. Biagini, Y. Funakoshi, Y. Ohnishi, K.Oide,
Advertisements

Beam-Beam Effects for FCC-ee at Different Energies: at Different Energies: Crab Waist vs. Head-on Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk FCC-ee/TLEP physics.
1 Crossing Angle I.Koop UK SuperB meeting April 26-27, 2006 I.A.Koop, E.A.Perevedentsev, D.N.Shatilov, D.B.Shwartz for the UK SuperB meeting, April 26-27,
Beam-Beam Collision Studies for DA  NE with Crabbed Waist Crabbed Waist Advantages Results for SIDDHARTA IR P.Raimondi, D.Shatilov (BINP), M.Zobov INFN.
Towards an extremely-flat beam optics with large crossing angle for the LHC José L. Abelleira, PhD candidate EPFL, CERN Beams dep. Supervised by F. Zimmermann,
Study of the Luminosity of LHeC, a Lepton Proton Collider in the LHC Tunnel CERN June F. Willeke, DESY.
1 Super-B Factory Scenarios John Seeman Assistant Director PPA Directorate SLAC SLUO Meeting September 11, 2006.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 Accelerator Backgrounds M. Sullivan 1 Accelerator Generated Backgrounds for e  e  B-Factories M. Sullivan.
Luminosity Prospects of LHeC, a Lepton Proton Collider in the LHC Tunnel DESY Colloquium May F. Willeke, DESY.
Beam-beam studies for Super KEKB K. Ohmi & M Tawada (KEK) Super B factories workshop in Hawaii Apr
Beam-beam simulations M.E. Biagini, K. Ohmi, E. Paoloni, P. Raimondi, D. Shatilov, M. Zobov INFN Frascati, KEK, INFN Pisa, SLAC, BINP April 26th, 2006.
Beam-Beam Optimization for Fcc-ee at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) at High Energies (120, 175 GeV) Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk 11 December 2014, CERN.
Beamstrahlung and energy acceptance K. Ohmi (KEK) HF2014, Beijing Oct 9-12, 2014 Thanks to Y. Zhang and D. Shatilov.
Simulation of direct space charge in Booster by using MAD program Y.Alexahin, N.Kazarinov.
Scaling of High-Energy e+e- Ring Colliders K. Yokoya Accelerator Seminar, KEK 2012/3/15 Accelerator Seminar Yokoya 1.
Flat-beam IR optics José L. Abelleira, PhD candidate EPFL, CERN BE-ABP Supervised by F. Zimmermann, CERN Beams dep. Thanks to: O.Domínguez. S Russenchuck,
Luminosity of the Super-Tau-Charm Factory with Crab Waist D. Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk TAU’08 Workshop, Satellite Meeting “On the Need for a Super-Tau-Charm.
Study of alternative ILC final focus optical configurations Dou Wang (IHEP), Yiwei Wang (IHEP), Philip Bambade (LAL), Jie Gao (IHEP) International Workshop.
E Levichev -- Dynamic Aperture of the SRFF Storage Ring Frontiers of Short Bunches in Storage Rings INFN-LNF, Frascati, 7-8 Nov 2005 DYNAMIC APERTURE OF.
1 Dynamic aperture studies in e+e- factories with crab waist IR’07, November 9, 2007 E.Levichev Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk.
ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013.
Inputs from GG6 to decisions 2,7,8,15,21,27,34 V.Telnov Aug.24, 2005, Snowmass.
Problems of charge compensation in a ring e+e- higgs factory Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk 5 rd TLEP3 workshop, FNAL, July 25, 2013.
Optics with Large Momentum Acceptance for Higgs Factory Yunhai Cai SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Future Circular Collider Kick-off Meeting, February.
Please check out: K. Ohmi et al., IPAC2014, THPRI003 & THPRI004 A. Bogomyagkov, E. Levichev, P. Piminov, IPAC2014, THPRI008 Work in progress FCC-ee accelerator.
Note presentation: Performance limitations of circular colliders: head-on collisions M. Koratzinos TLEP ACC meeting no. 8, 25/8/2014.
Collision with a crossing angle Large Piwinski angle
News from the interaction region study Bernhard Holzer, Anton Bogomyagkov, Bastian Harer, Rogelio Tomas Garcia, Roman Martin, Luis Eduardo Medina Presented.
JLEIC MDI Update Michael Sullivan Apr 4, 2017.
CEPC parameter choice and partial double ring design
Round beams experience at BINP … and other ideas
Overview of Beam-Beam Effects at FCC-ee
Crab Waist at DAFNE: Numerical Simulations versus Experimental Results
100km CEPC parameter and lattice design
CEPC parameter optimization and lattice design
Primary estimation of CEPC beam dilution and beam halo
Beam-beam effects in eRHIC and MeRHIC
Crab Waist Collision Studies for e+e- Factories
Large Booster and Collider Ring
The 13th Symposium on Accelerator Physics
Luminosity Optimization for FCC-ee: recent results
The Strong RF Focusing:
Laboratoire de L’Accélérateur Linéaire
Beam-beam R&D for eRHIC Linac-Ring Option
Status of CEPC lattice design
BINP Tau-Charm Project
Compensation of Detector Solenoid with Large Crossing Angle
The design of interaction region
DA Study for the CEPC Partial Double Ring Scheme
Hongbo Zhu (IHEP, Beijing) On behalf of the CEPC Study Group
Some CEPC SRF considerations
CEPC partial double ring scheme and crab-waist parameters
Comparison of the final focus design
LHC (SSC) Byung Yunn CASA.
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Beam-Beam Interaction in Linac-Ring Colliders
SuperB CDR Machine P. Raimondi for the SuperB Team Paris, May 9, 2007.
Beam-beam simulations with crossing anlge + crab-waist
Beam-Beam Effects in the CEPC
Parameter Optimization in Higgs Factories Beam intensity, beam-beam parameters, by*, bunch length, number of bunches, bunch charge and emittance.
Overall Considerations, Main Challenges and Goals
SuperB IRC Meeting Frascati, Nov. 13th 2007
Simulation check of main parameters (wd )
Some Issues on Beam-Beam Interaction & DA at CEPC
Yuri Nosochkov Yunhai Cai, Fanglei Lin, Vasiliy Morozov
MEIC New Baseline: Performance and Accelerator R&D
IR/MDI requirements for the EIC
Fanglei Lin JLEIC R&D Meeting, August 4, 2016
MEIC Alternative Design Part III
100th FCC-ee Optics Design Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Beam-Beam Effects in High-Energy Colliders: Crab Waist vs. Head-on Dmitry Shatilov BINP, Novosibirsk HF2014 ICFA Workshop 9-12 October 2014, Beijing

Contents Beamstrahlung at different energies: lifetime and energy spread Limitations at “low” energies (Z, W) for head-on collision Crab Waist scheme Achievable luminosity at different energies Conclusions

The main impact of beamstrahlung: “Luminosity of high energy e+e- colliders is limited by beamstrahlung (radiation in the field of the opposing beam), because emission of single high energy photons in the tail of the beamstrahlung spectra determines the beam lifetime.” V.Telnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,114801 (2013) The lifetime (due to beamstrahlung) is proportional to: where L is the interaction length,  - energy acceptance,  - [average] bending radius of particle’s trajectory at IP.  must be increased as much as possible (the goal: 2%) At “high” energies we should increase  in order to keep acceptable lifetime. At “low” energies we can make  smaller, that is beneficial for luminosity. As a result, the relative contribution of beamstrahlung to the total energy spread (and bunch length) is larger at low energies. The main impact of beamstrahlung: “Low” energies (Z, W): energy spread & bunch lengthening “High” energies (H, tt): beam lifetime Location of the border between “low” and “high” energies depends on .

Luminosity For flat beams (both head-on and crossing angle collision): I – total beam current (defined by SR power of 50 MW) y – vertical betatron tune shift, its limit depends on the collision scheme H – hour-glass factor: H ≈ [0.86, 0.7, 0.6] for z / = [1, 2, 3] should be minimized as much as possible, but there are some restrictions: – beta-function at the final quads raises as 1 / that limits dynamic aperture . and can create problems with chromaticity corrections – bunch length should be squeezed too, preferably to z  We will assume y = 1 mm, as it was chosen for the current FCC-ee design (see FCC-ACC-SPS-0004). The SR bunch length for TLEP Z is 1.64 mm, with account of beamstrahlung it becomes z ≈ 3 mm, so we have z / ≈ 3. The main consequences of z / y >> 1: Hour-glass factor H decreases The actual vertical tune shift increases Enhancement of synchro-betatron resonances (depends on damping!)

Impact of Bunch Lengthening z = y z = 2y z = 3y FMA footprints in the plane of betatron tunes, synchrotron amplitude: As = 1 sigma. Parameters as for TLEP Z from FCC-ACC-SPS-0004, x ≈ y ≈ 0.03 (nominal).

Impact of Bunch Lengthening vs. Damping Damping as for TLEP Z Damping as for TLEP H (20 times stronger) z = y, H ≈ 0.86 z = 2y, H ≈ 0.7 z = 3y, H ≈ 0.6 Contour plots of equilibrium distribution in the space of normalized betatron amplitudes. Density between successive contour lines decreases by a factor of e.

Head-on Collision for TLEP Z Beamstrahlung results in significant bunch lengthening. Actual tune shift increases, synchro-betatron resonances are excited. In respect that damping is weak, this leads to beam blowup. It sets a limit on y (cannot be too small) and / or y (cannot be too large). Thus we have a limit on achievable luminosity, which seems to be impossible to overcome in head-on collision. There is a very good solution to solve the problem: Crab Waist

Crab Waist Scheme Advantages: P. Raimondi, 2006 – Piwinski angle x βy e+ e-  – Piwinski angle z Large Piwinski angle:  >> 1 y approx. equals to overlapping area: y  z /  Crab Waist: minimum of y along the axis of the opposite beam Advantages: Impact of hour-glass is small and does not depend on bunch lengthening Suppression of betatron coupling resonances allows to achieve y  0.2 As a result, luminosity can be significantly increased

Luminosity at Low Energies (Z, W) Energy TLEP Z TLEP W Collision scheme Head-on Crab Waist Np [1011] 1.8 1.0 0.7 4.0  [mrad] 0 ? 30 z (SR / total) [mm] 1.64 / 3.0 2.77 / 7.63 1.01 / 1.76 4.13 / 11.6 x [nm] 29.2 0.14 3.3 0.44 y [pm] 60.0 7.0 x / y [nominal] 0.03 / 0.03 0.02 / 0.14 0.06 / 0.06 0.02 / 0.20 L [1034 cm-2s-1] 17 180 13 45 Head-on: parameters taken from FCC-ACC-SPS-0004 Crab Waist scheme requires low emittances. This can be achieved by keeping the same lattice as for high energies (i.e. x ~ 2). The numbers obtained in simulations (by Lifetrac code) are shown in blue. For TLEP Z y can be raised up to 0.2. If we try to achieve this by 50% increase of Np, additional bunch lengthening will occur due to beamstrahlung, so y increases by 15% only. Decrease of y would be more efficient, since for flat bunches beamstrahlung does not depend on the vertical beam size. One of the main limitations: very small vertical emittance is required. Is it possible to achieve y < 1 pm? The energy acceptance can be decreased from 2% to 1% (for Z) and 1.7% (for W).

Luminosity at High Energies (H, tt) Energy TLEP H TLEP tt Collision scheme Head-on Crab Waist Np [1011] 0.46 4.7 1.4 4.0  [mrad] 0 ? 30 z (SR / total) [mm] 0.81 / 1.29 4.82 / 9.33 1.16 / 1.60 5.25 / 6.78 x [nm] 0.94 1.0 2.0 2.13 y [pm] 1.9 4.25 x / y [nominal] 0.093 / 0.093 0.02 / 0.13 0.092 / 0.092 0.03 / 0.07 bs [min] > 500 70 2 20 L [1034 cm-2s-1] 7.4 8.4 2.1 ? 1.3 Bending radius at IP: L – interaction length (for crab waist – overlapping area) To keep acceptable bs, we need to make L larger than y (for tt – by a factor of ~2) Again, very small vertical emittance is of crucial importance. y can be raised by decreasing y, but it requires the betatron coupling of ~0.1%. Is it possible? In general, head-on and crab waist provide similar luminosity at high energies. Since L > y and y is below the limit, we can increase y and luminosity will drop slowly than 1 / . E.g. increase of y to 1.5 (2) mm lowers the luminosity by 2.5% (7.5%) for TLEP H, and by 1.5% (5%) for TLEP tt.

Conclusions At low energies (Z, W) crab waist scheme can provide much higher luminosity than head-on collision. At high energies (H, tt) the efficiency of both schemes are approximately equal. Very small vertical emittance is required at all energies. At low energies the energy acceptance can be decreased, at high energies y can be increased.