ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Background studies Takashi Maruyama SLAC GDE Baseline Assessment Workshop SLAC, January 18-21, 2011.
Advertisements

EXTRACTION BEAM LOSS AT 1 TEV CM WITH TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov, G. White August 25, 2014.
The ILC low power option Andrei Seryi SLAC ILC08 and LCWS08 November 17, 2008 Photo: Dan Chusid, 2003.
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.
GUINEA-PIG: A tool for beam-beam effect study C. Rimbault, LAL Orsay Daresbury, April 2006.
1 ILC Bunch compressor Damping ring ILC Summer School August Eun-San Kim KNU.
Solenoid effects and compensation B. Dalena, D. Swoboda, R. Tomás.
Zero Degree Extraction using an Electrostatic Separator Take another look at using an electrostatic separator and a weak dipole to allow a zero degree.
Summary of wg2a (BDS and IR) Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Shigeru Kuroda, Andrei Seryi October 21, 2005.
Beam Loss in the Extraction Line for 2 mrad Crossing Angle A.Drozhdin, N.Mokhov, X.Yang.
NLC - The Next Linear Collider Project  IR background issues and plans for Snowmass Jeff Gronberg/LLNL Linear Collider Workshop October 25, 2000.
1 4 Oct 05 Optimization of anti-DID for SiD, GLD and LDC A.Seryi October 4, 2005.
27 June 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit ILC BDS 27 June 06.
Super-B Factory Workshop January 19-22, 2004 Super-B IR design M. Sullivan 1 Interaction Region Design for a Super-B Factory M. Sullivan for the Super-B.
K. Moffeit 6 Jan 2005 WORKSHOP Machine-Detector Interface at the International Linear Collider SLAC January 6-8, 2005 Polarimetry at the ILC Design issues.
1 27 Sep 05 Discussion of anti-DID ( “DIDNT” ? ) A.Seryi September 27, 2005.
Status of ongoing studies for comparing 2-mrad and 20-mrad IRs T. Maruyama SLAC.
Brain Gestorme: Status of the LHeC Ring-Ring / Linac- Ring Basic Parameters I appologise to talk about things you already know...
Photon Collider at CLIC Valery Telnov Budker INP, Novosibirsk LCWS 2001, Granada, Spain, September 25-30,2011.
Overview of Extraction Line Designs and Issues
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Ground Motion + Vibration Transfer Function for Final QD0/SD0 Cryomodule System at ILC Glen White, SLAC ALCPG11, Eugene March 21, 2011.
Karsten Büßer Beam Induced Backgrounds at TESLA for Different Mask Geometries with and w/o a 2*10 mrad Crossing Angle HH-Zeuthen-LC-Meeting Zeuthen September.
ATF2 Javier Resta Lopez (JAI, Oxford University) for the FONT project group 5th ATF2 project meeting, KEK December 19-21, 2007.
CLIC main detector solenoid and anti-solenoid impact B. Dalena, A. Bartalesi, R. Appleby, H. Gerwig, D. Swoboda, M. Modena, D. Schulte, R. Tomás.
The Overview of the ILC RTML Bunch Compressor Design Sergei Seletskiy LCWS 13 November, 2012.
S2E optics design and particles tracking for the ILC undulator based e+ source Feng Zhou SLAC ILC e+ source meeting, Beijing, Jan. 31 – Feb. 2, 2007.
LDC Meeting Vienna 17. November 2005 Karsten Büßer LDC Machine Detector Interface Update.
October 4-5, Electron Lens Beam Physics Overview Yun Luo for RHIC e-lens team October 4-5, 2010 Electron Lens.
LCWS2004 Paris 1 Beam background study for GLC Tsukasa Aso, Toyama College of Maritime Technology and GLC Vertex Group H.Aihara, K.Tanabe, Tokyo Univ.
Optimization of Field Error Tolerances for Triplet Quadrupoles of the HL-LHC Lattice V3.01 Option 4444 Yuri Nosochkov Y. Cai, M-H. Wang (SLAC) S. Fartoukh,
19 July 2006Ken Moffeit1 Comparison of 2mrad and 14/20 mrad extraction lines Ken Moffeit (via Eric Torrence) VLCW06 19 July 06.
1 Overview of Polarimetry Outline of Talk Polarized Physics Machine-Detector Interface Issues Upstream Polarimeter Downstream Polarimeter Ken Moffeit,
Global Design Effort ILC Crab Cavity Overview and requirements Andrei Seryi SLAC on behalf of ILC Beam Delivery and Crab-Cavity design teams Joint BNL/US-LARP/CARE-HHH.
A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Containing a.
Working Group D Backgrounds M Sullivan for everyone in WG D IRENG07 Sept 20, 2007.
1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.
ILC luminosity optimization in the presence of the detector solenoid and anti-DID Reine Versteegen PhD Student CEA Saclay, Irfu/SACM International Workshop.
Kiyoshi Kubo Electron beam in undulators of e+ source - Emittance and orbit angle with quad misalignment and corrections - Effect of beam pipe.
COMPENSATION OF DETECTOR SOLENOID FIELD WITH L*=4.1M Glen White, SLAC April 20, 2015 ALCW2015, KEK, Japan.
Interaction Region Design and Detector Integration V.S. Morozov for EIC Study Group at JLAB 2 nd Mini-Workshop on MEIC Interaction Region Design JLab,
Beam-beam Simulation at eRHIC Yue Hao Collider-Accelerator Department Brookhaven National Laboratory July 29, 2010 EIC Meeting at The Catholic University.
1 O. Napoly ECFA-DESY Amsterdam, April 2003 Machine – Detector Interface : what is new since the TDR ? O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.
Present MEIC IR Design Status Vasiliy Morozov, Yaroslav Derbenev MEIC Detector and IR Design Mini-Workshop, October 31, 2011.
Compensation of Detector Solenoid G.H. Wei, V.S. Morozov, Fanglei Lin JLEIC Collaboration Meeting Spring, 2016.
Wakefield effect in ATF2 Kiyoshi Kubo
MAIN DUMP LINE: BEAM LOSS SIMULATIONS WITH THE TDR PARAMETERS Y. Nosochkov E. Marin, G. White (SLAC) LCWS14 Workshop, Belgrade, October 7, 2014.
Baseline BDS Design Updates Glen White, SLAC Sept. 4, 2014 Ichinoseki, MDI/CFS Meeting.
Design challenges for head-on scheme Deepa Angal-Kalinin Orsay, 19 th October 2006.
1 April 1 st, 2003 O. Napoly, ECFA-DESY Amsterdam Design of a new Final Focus System with l* = 4,5 m J. Payet, O. Napoly CEA/Saclay.
JLEIC MDI Update Michael Sullivan Apr 4, 2017.
LHeC interaction region
The Interaction Region
Optimization of Triplet Field Quality in Collision
Large Booster and Collider Ring
Final Focus Synchrotron Radiation
Other beam-induced background at the IP
ILC Baseline BDS Collimation Depth Calculations
Luminosity Optimization at 250GeV
The PEP-II Interaction e+e- Factories Workshop
The 2mrad horizontal crossing angle IR layout for the ILC
Compensation of Detector Solenoid with Large Crossing Angle
CASA Collider Design Review Retreat Other Electron-Ion Colliders: eRHIC, ENC & LHeC Yuhong Zhang February 24, 2010.
CEPC main ring magnets’ error effect on DA and MDI issues
Interaction Region Design Options e+e- Factories Workshop
Beam-Beam Effects in High-Energy Colliders:
Yuri Nosochkov Yunhai Cai, Fanglei Lin, Vasiliy Morozov
ILC Beam Switchyard: Issues and Plans
Fanglei Lin JLEIC R&D Meeting, August 4, 2016
CLIC luminosity monitoring/re-tuning using beamstrahlung ?
Presentation transcript:

ILC EXTRACTION LINE TRACKING Y. Nosochkov, E. Marin September 10, 2013

Introduction The goal of the study is to evaluate the impact of the latest ILC beam parameters at IP (ILC TDR 2013) on beam loss in the extraction line, and compare the results to previously used parameter sets – the “nominal” and the so-called “low power” (low-P) options (ILC RDR 2007). These two sets are the closest to the TDR parameter set. The study was performed for the extraction line optics corresponding to L* = 4.5m. Beam collision at IP generates a disrupted beam with a very long low energy tail and large angular spread leading to beam loss in the extraction line. The disrupted beam particle data was generated using Guinea-Pig. The generated particles were tracked in the extraction line using DIMAD to determine the beam loss. A large number of particles needs to be generated (  several million) in order to obtain sufficient statistics in the low energy tail where most of the beam losses occur. Tracking this huge beam data not only would require a long cpu time, but would also pose a space problem on unix system. In practice, however, it is sufficient to track only the tail particles (~1% of the total beam) in order to determine the losses. Hence, the procedure was to generate the complete beam data on a PC, then extract the much smaller beam tail data for tracking. September 10, 2013

IP beam parameters in the TDR 2013 and the RDR 2007 nominal and low-P options September 10, 2013 E GeV NeNe NbNb f RF Hz P MW  x * mm  y * mm  z mm  x m∙rad  y m∙rad DxDx DyDy  BS % TDR ∙ ∙ Nominal2502∙ ∙ Low-P2502∙ ∙ Here, N e is the number of particles per bunch, N b – number of bunches per pulse, f RF – repetition rate, P – total beam power,  * – beta function at IP,  z – bunch length,  – normalized emittance, D x,y – the disruption parameter, and  BS – the fractional rms energy loss to beamstrahlung. The parameter  BS is an average fractional energy loss to beamstrahlung which correlates with the extent of the disrupted beam low energy tail. Based on the  BS values, it is expected that the extraction loss with the TDR 2013 parameters will be higher than in the RDR 2007 nominal option, but lower than in the low-P option.

TDR disrupted X-phase space at IP (4∙10 4 particles) at IP *x*x  * x’  x undisrupted474 nm 43  rad 1.0e-5 disrupted493 nm 284  rad 3.6e-5 A factor of 6.6 increase of X-angle spread September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted Y-phase space at IP (4∙10 4 particles) at IP *y*y  * y’  y undisrupted5.9 nm 12.2  rad 0.35e-7 disrupted9.9 nm 36.2  rad 1.64e-7 A factor of 3 increase of Y-angle spread September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted energy spread at IP 4∙10 4 particles Low energy tail and large X-angles at IP in the disrupted beam are the main sources for extraction line beam loss. September 10, 2013

TDR beamstrahlung photons at IP (3.6∙10 4 )  * x’  * y’ x’ max y’ max 184  rad47  rad559  rad308  rad Photon trajectories are not affected by the extraction magnets, hence the photon loss is strictly determined by the photon X/Y angles at IP and aperture in the extraction line. September 10, 2013

Extraction line optics for L* = 4.5 m (L* ext = 6.3 m) at IP *x*x *x*x *y*y *y*y undisrupted11 mm00.48 mm0 disrupted3.29 mm mm0.386 September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted beam loss in the extraction line without detector solenoid Extraction beam loss may occur when particles have both low energy and large X- angle at IP. To determine the complete loss it is sufficient to track only the beam tail where E 0.5 mrad (~1.3% particles of the total beam). A beam tail of particles (red area in the right-hand side figure) was extracted from the disrupted beam of 4∙10 6 particles and tracked using DIMAD. The resulting beam loss amounted to 5062 particles. Their initial IP distribution is shown in blue in the right-hand side figure and in red in the left-hand side figure. September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted beam power loss in the extraction line without detector solenoid The beam power loss is obtained by tracking the tail of the 4∙10 6 beam. Most losses occur in the last three collimators (shown in red) which constrain the beam spot to the size of the dump window. Power loss in the warm magnets is ≤0.5 W/m which should be acceptable. There is no loss in the SC quadrupoles. September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted beam loss in the extraction line with detector solenoid SiD detector solenoid field model and the correcting anti-DID field are used. Residual orbit from the IP and from the solenoid is corrected by 4 extraction dipole correctors. It is assumed that incoming orbit at IP has non-zero Y-angle due to the effect of the upstream part of the solenoid. The extraction beam loss increases with the larger Y- angle. A conservatively large value of = 100  rad is used for the tracking. Extraction loss was obtained by tracking the same beam tail at IP as in the case without solenoid. The solenoid increases the total loss a factor of 2. This is due to residual dispersion from the solenoid resulting in losses of low energy particles with small IP angles. Compensation of incoming at IP would reduce the losses. September 10, 2013

TDR disrupted beam power loss in the extraction line with detector solenoid Most losses occur in the collimators (shown in red). Power loss in the warm magnets is ≤12 W/m which should be acceptable. There is no loss in the SC quadrupoles. September 10, 2013

Extraction beam power loss in the RDR 2007 nominal option with detector solenoid September 10, 2013 Tracking was performed using a low energy tail from 35∙10 6 beam, and the same solenoid model and IP Y-angle = 100  rad as in the TDR tracking. Power loss in the warm magnets is ≤0.6 W/m which should be acceptable. There is no loss in the SC quadrupoles.

Extraction beam power loss in the RDR 2007 low-P option with detector solenoid September 10, 2013 Tracking was performed using a full beam with 69.8∙10 3 particles, and the same solenoid model and IP Y-angle = 100  rad as in the TDR tracking. Power loss in the warm magnets is ≤130 W/m. There is no loss in the SC quadrupoles.

TDR beamstrahlung photon power loss in the extraction line September 10, 2013 Photon loss is determined only by photon angles at IP and extraction aperture. Extraction acceptance for IP photons is ±0.75 mrad within the magnets and diagnostic (S = 0 to 200 m), and ±0.5 mrad in the dump collimators (S = 200 to 300 m). Tracking was performed for 36.5∙10 3 photons corresponding to 20∙10 3 electrons. Total photon loss is small (100 W) and occurs at two dump collimators.

Summary of extraction loss and conclusions September 10, 2013 MagnetsDetectorsCollimators SC Warm (max) Synch- rotron Cheren- kov Energy Cheren- kov Dump-1Dump-2Dump-3 TDR W/m30 W130 W22 W0.3 kW2.8 kW1.9 kW3.0 kW Nominal00.6 W/m4 W26 W2 W37 W0.3 kW0.2 kW Low-P0130 W/m0.5 kW0.6 kW0.4 kW2.2 kW14.8 kW9.0 kW10.3 kW Extraction losses with the TDR 2013 IP parameters are a factor of 10 higher than in the RDR 2007 nominal option, but a factor of 5 lower than in the low-P option. The TDR losses on magnets and collimators look acceptable. Losses on the Synchrotron and Cherenkov detectors may need an expert opinion to evaluate the impact of background. The TDR beamstrahlung photon losses are small. Note: The calculations were done assuming ideal collision conditions. Non-ideal conditions, such as large vertical beam-to-beam separation at IP, will increase the disruption and the extraction beam loss. Evaluation of this effect requires a special study.