1. Comparison between Simulation and Experiment on Injection Beam Loss and Other Beam Behaviours in the SPring-8 Storage Ring Presented by Hitoshi TANAKA, Contributors: Jun SCHIMIZU, Kouichi SOUTOME, Masaru TAKAO JASRI/SPring-8 1

2. Contents 1. Motivation 2. Simulation Model 3. Comparison between Simulation and Experiments 4. Summary 5. Tentative FMA Results 2

3. 1. Motivation In ideal top-up operation, reduction of injection beam loss and suppression of stored beam oscillation by frequent beam injections are critically important. 3 Aiming at understanding of mechanism of injection beam loss and its suppression, a precise simulation model has been developed. Key: Precise simulation of particle motion with a large amplitude (x=~  10mm)

4. 2. Simulation Model 4 2.1. Hamiltonian Refs.[1] D.P. Barber, G. Ripken, F. Schmidt; DESY 87-036 [2] G. Ripken; DESY 87-036 (1)

5. 5 2.2. Components and their Simplectic Integration (a) Bending Magnet Equation (1) is integrated without expanding the square root part. Analytical solutions derived by E. Forest are used for “rectangular” and “sector” magnet integration. Ref. [3] E. Forest, M.F. Reusch, D.L. Bruhwiler, A. Amiry; Particle Accel.45(1994)65.

6. 6 2.2. Component Model and Simplectic Integration (2) (b) Quadrupole and Sextupole Magnets In this case, Eq. (1) has a separating form of A(p) +V(x). 4th order explicit integration method is adopted. Sextupoles are treated as thick elements. Refs. [4] E. Forest and R.D. Ruth; Pysica D 43 (1990)105. [5] H. Yoshida; Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 56 (1993) 27.

7. 7 2.2. Component Model and Simplectic Integration (3) (c) Other Magnets (except for IDs) All other magnetic components are treated as thin kicks. Multi-pole up to 20 poles available. (d) RF Cavities Cavities are treated as thin elements. (Ref. [1])

8. 8 2.2. Component Model and Simplectic Integration (4) (e) Radiation Effects Normalized photon energy spectrum + random number ranging from 0 to 1 Radiation from BMs, QMs, SMs and IDs are considered. (f) Fringe Fields Lowest order effect is only considered for BMs, QMs and SMs. BM fringe -> (Ref. [3]) Ref. [6] M. Sands; Report SLAC-121 (1970).

9. 9 2.3. Magnetic Errors (a) Normal and Skew Quadrupole Errors 236 Q-error kicks and 132 SQ-error kicks are considered. These strengths are estimated by fitting measured beam response with 4x4 formalism. Systematic errors lower than 20 poles are considered. 10pole for BM and 12pole for QM. (b) Multipole errors Ref. [7] J. Safranek; NIMA 388 (1997)27. [7]

10. 10 2.4. ID Model For ID integration, the square root of Eq.(1) is expanded and the lowest order parts are only integrated by means of a generating function. Refs. [8] K. Halbach; NIM 187(1981)109. [9] E. Forest and K. Ohmi; KEK Report 92-14 (1992).

11. 11 3.1. Amplitude Dependent Tune Shift 3. Comparison between Simulation and Experiments

12. 12 3.2. Smear of Coherent Oscillation Refs. [10] K. Ohmi et.al.; PRE 59 (1999)1167. [11] J. Schimizu et.al.; Proc. of EPAC02 (2002) p.1287.

13. 13 3.3. Nonlinear Momentum Compaction Ref. [12] H. Tanaka et.al.; NIMA 431(1999)396.

14. 14 3.4. Nonlinear Dispersion  (  )=  1 +  2  +  3  2 +  4  3 +  5  4 …. Ref. [12]

15. 15 3.5. 3D Closed Orbit

16. 16 3.6. Injection Beam Loss 3.6.1. Parameters of Injection Beam and Injection scheme  x =220 nmrad, (  y /  x )=0.002   =0.0013,   =63 psec Optical Functions at IP  x =~13.5m,  x =-0.11  y =~13.7m,  y =-0.20 Septum Inner wall: -19.5mm Chamber Aperture 70(H) / 40(V) mm In-vacuum ID Vert. Lim.: min.7mm Injection Beam Parameters Injection Point:  x=-24.5mm Bump height=~14.5mm Bump Pulse Width=~8usec (Revolution=~4.7usec) Injection Bump System Aperture Limit  x =2.8~6.6 nmrad, Coupling(  y /  x )=0.002   =0.0011,   =13 psec x =40.15, y =18.35 Optical Functions at IP  x =~23m,  x = -0.2  y =~7.5m,  y =-0.45 Ring Parameters

17. 17 3.6.2. ID Parameters(1) # Min.Gap KxKyPowerType [mm] [kW] 19121.835In-Vacuum Long 2072.114In-Vacuum Hybrid 99.62.18.8In-Vacuum Standard 109.62.29.6In-Vacuum Standard 119.62.29.9In-Vacuum Standard 129.62.29.6In-Vacuum Standard 139.62.29.8In-Vacuum Standard 1612.92.47.4In-Vacuum 229.982.912.3In-Vacuum 249.61.31.44In-Vacuum Figure-8 298.82.411.2In-Vacuum Standard 3592.310.8In-Vacuum Standard 3782.613.3In-Vacuum Standard 398.62.310.9In-Vacuum Standard 408.31.11.03.5In-Vacuum Helical 419.62.08.1 In-Vacuum Standard 4492.310.9In-Vacuum Standard 4581.71.4In-Vacuum Vertical tandem 4681.58.1 In-Vacuum Hybrid 479.62.19.1In-Vacuum Standard

18. 18 3.6.2. ID Parameters(2) 825.51.111.218.04Out-Vacuum Elliptical Wiggler 1520.02.25.4Out-Vacuum Revolver (Linear) 20.03.43.45.6Out-Vacuum Revolver (Helical) 2530.04.84.62Out-Vacuum Helical tandem 2737.03.95.46.6Out-Vacuum Figure-8 2336.03.43.4Out-Vacuum APPLE-II (Circular) 36.05.8Out-Vacuum APPLE-II (Linear) 36.04.2Out-Vacuum APPLE-II (Vertical) 17*20.0Installed but under commissioning * ID 17 was recently installed in the ring. Gap of ID 17 is usually closed. The phase is shifted so that the magnetic field is cancelled out at the center. The field is no zero and nonlinear at the off-center. # Min.Gap KxKyPowerType [mm] [kW]

19. 19 3.6.3. Behaviour of Injection Beam (1-Calc) In simulation, particles are mainly lost : Septum wall (Hori.) LSS beta-peak (Vert.) IDs (Vert.)

20. 20 3.6.3. Behaviour of Injection Beam (2-Calc) Observation Point: Entrance of ID19

21. 21 3.6.4. Beam Loss v.s. Gap of ID47(1)

22. 22 3.6.4. Beam Loss v.s. Gap of ID47(2)

23. 23 3.6.5. Beam Loss v.s. Symmetry restoration of Optics

24. 24 3.6.6. Beam Loss v.s.Initial Condition (Calc) Lost particles have clear correlation with horizontal emittance.

25. 25 3.6.7. Beam Loss v.s. Beam Collimation (1) Planner type IDs are only considered in the simulation.

26. 26 3.6.7. Beam Loss v.s. Beam Collimation (2) Planner type IDs are only considered in the simulation. Injection orbit is shifted to septum wall by 2mm

27. 27 4. Summary(1) Developed simulator well describes nonlinear particle motion in a storage ring. However, the simulator can not explain injection beam loss quantitatively. Possible causes are: Ambiguity in injection beam distribution Incorrect ID Modeling at especially large amplitude Nonlinearity not included in the model Some mistake in calculation, etc

28. 28 4. Summary(2) Frequency Map Analysis (FMA) could be a powerful tool to investigate mechanism of injection beam loss. To use FMA effectively, we need “ a precise ring model”.

29. 29 5. Tentative FMA Results Tune modulation in damping of injection beam

30. 30 FMA of Normal Optics w/o Errors Chromaticity (+8, +8) 3nx-2ny=84=4*21 4nx-2ny=124=4*31

31. Stability Map of Normal Optics w/o Errors Chromaticity (+8, +8) 31

32. FMA of Normal Optics with Errors Chromaticity (+8, +8) 32

33. Stability Map of Normal Optics with Errors Chromaticity (+8, +8) 33