Download - Accelerator Summary
Accelerator Summary
1/22/2004K. Oide (KEK)
Accelerator Session:PEP-II IR Upgrade M. Sullivan (SLAC)Super KEKB Optics & IR Y. Ohnishi(KEK)Super-PEP-II IR Upgrade M. Sullivan (SLAC)HOM calculations of new RF cavities A. Novokhatski (SLAC)RF system for Super-KEKB K. Akai (KEK)RF and longitudinal stability in Super-PEPII D. Teytelman (SLAC)
Accelerator Discussion and Contingency:Coherent Synch. Rad. Y. Ohnishi(KEK)Luminosity of Super KEKB J. Flanagan(KEK)
L 2ere
Iy
y*
z y*
Head-on collision:◆Parasitic crossing for large number of bunches◆Background due to separation bends
Crossing angle: ◆degrades y, < 0.06
◆restored by crab crossing
Smaller y*:◆Smaller physical/dynamic aperture◆Shorter lifetime, more background, …
Shorter z:◆More HOM heating◆ Coherent synch. rad.◆Shorter lifetime, more background
Higher Current:◆More rf power, cooling, injector, …◆More HOM heating (more bunches)◆Beam Instabilities◆Electron clouds, fast ions, …
Upgrade Scenario
L
2ere
Iy
y*RLRy
L (/nb/s) ILER (A)y*
(mm)y
P (MW)
Present Performance
PEP-II 7 1.8 12 0.05 ~50 Head-onKEKB 11 1.6 6 0.05 ~50 ±11 mrad
Upgrade before 2007 (without major funding issues)
PEP-II 33 4.56
z?0.05 ~60?
Head-on or small
crossing angle?
KEKB 30 1.6 6 0.14 ~50 crab crossingMajor Upgrade
PEP-II 1000 231.5
HOM? CSR?
0.10 ~150High freq rf,New tunnel?
KEKB 250 9.4 3 0.14 ~90 New beam pipe, more rf
PEP-II Proposed Upgrade Plans
Now Projected UpgradeLER energy 3.1 3.1 3.1 GeVHER energy 9.0 9.0 9.0 GeVLER current 1.8 3.6 4.5 AHER current 1.0 1.8 2.0 A
y* 12.5 8.5 6 mm
x* 28 28 28 cm
X emittance 50 40 40 nm-radEstimated y
* 4.9 3.6 2.7 m
Bunch spacing 1.89 1.26 1.26 mNumber of bunches 1034 1500 1700Collision angle head-on head-on head-on mradsBeam pipe radius 2.5 2.5 2.5 cm
Luminosity 6.61033 1.81034 3.31034 cm sec
M. Sullivan-1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
LER First PC y,
l = 9 mm
by*=0.9 cmby*=0.8 cmby*=0.7 cmby*=0.6 cmby*=0.5 cm
2PC/I P
/2 (mrad)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
LER First PC y,
l = 7 mm
by*=0.9 cmby*=0.8 cmby*=0.7 cmby*=0.6 cmby*=0.5 cm
2PC/I P
/2 (mrad)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HER First PC y,
l = 9 mm
by*=0.9 cmby*=0.8 cmby*=0.7 cmby*=0.6 cmby*=0.5 cm
2PC/I P
/2 (mrad)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HER First PC y,
l = 7 mm
by*=0.9 cmby*=0.8 cmby*=0.7 cmby*=0.6 cmby*=0.5 cm
2PC/I P
/2 (mrad)
LER PC tune shifts vs /2 for different y* normalized to
the IP tune shift for l (bunch length) = 9 and 7 mm
HER PC tune shifts vs /2 for different y* normalized to the
IP tune shift for l = 9 and 7 mm
The tune shift from the first parasitic crossing normalized to the main collision tune shift as a function of crossing angle and plotted for various y
* values for PEP-II (courtesy of Marica Biagini)
M. Sullivan-1
M. Sullivan-1
The initial upgrade proposal replaced the last 4 slices of the B1 magnets with quadrupole field. This allows for lower beta y* values with a smaller increase in the maximum beta y.
The replacement of the B1 slices with quad field introduces a ± 3.3 mrad crossing angle at the IP which reduces the beam-beam effect at the 1st parasitic crossing. However, recent beam-beam simulations indicate a luminosity reduction for beams with a crossing angle.
An alternative proposal currently under study is to strengthen the IP end of QD1 effectively moving the center of the magnet closer to the IP. At the same time, increase the beam separation at the 1st parasitic crossing by increasing the strength of the initial B1 slices. This maintains the PEP-II head-on collision.
The high beam currents of the upgrade plans generate significant SR power in the IR that must be handled
SR backgrounds look like they can be controlled but have not yet been thoroughly studied
Summary M. Sullivan-1
QC2LP
QC2RPQCSL QCSRQC1LE
QC2LE
QC1RE
QC2RE
← LER
HER →
IP s (m)
x (m)Super KEKB IR magnet layout
Y. Ohnishi
QCS for SuperKEKB and KEKB
Move QCS closer to IP and compensation solenoid isdivided into two parts, one is overlaid with QCS.
SuperKEKB
KEKB
=17°=150°
EFC
Y. Ohnishi
QC1(superconducting magnet)
G=42.86 T/mLeff=0.232 mIop=1319A, Bmax=1.62 TIop/Ic=59%
QC1LE
Leakage field<1.5 Gauss
QC1RE
Leakage field<20 Gauss
G=34 T/mLeff=0.266 mIop=1319 A, Bmax=3.28 TIop/Ic=73%
Y. Ohnishi
Injector linac for SuperKEKB
1. Positron dumping ring (1 GeV)2. Positron energy upgrade with C-band
for energy exchange (e- LER / e+ HER)
Y. Ohnishi
Dynamic aperture
Injectionbeam
Coupling Lifetime
1% 51 min
2% 72 min
4% 102 min
6% 145 min
Dynamic aperture in LER Machine errors are not included. Transverse aperture is acceptable.
Y. Ohnishi
• Strategy of IR design• Positron DR prior to IR upgrade• Design of IR magnets• Two options for QC1 :
– superconducting / normal • IR magnets is designed so that SR from QCS does not hit QC1 and QC
2 as possible.• Vacuum chamber in IR is under study.• Optics for SuperKEKB is designed.
– Dynamic aperture in LER ( p/p0 ~ 1.5 %)– Injection aperture can be kept.
Y. OhnishiSummary
PEP-III Super B
Now Projected Upgrade Super BLER energy 3.1 3.1 3.1? 3.5 GeVHER energy 9.0 9.0 9.0? 8.0 GeVLER current 1.8 3.6 4.5 22.2 AHER current 1.0 1.8 2.0 9.7 A
y* 12.5 8.5 6.5 1.5 mm
x* 28 28 28 15 cm
X emittance 50 40 40 70 nm-radEstimated y
* 4.9 3.6 2.7 1.7 m
Bunch spacing 1.89 ~1.5 1.26 0.63 mNumber of bunches 1034 1500 1700 3400Collision angle head-on head-on 03.25 12-14 mradsBeam pipe radius 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5-2.0? cm
Luminosity 6.61033 1.81034 3.31034 11036 cm sec
M. Sullivan-2
0
10
20
30
-10
-20
-300-5 5m
cm
Super B-factory IR
E36_2_5M_8_RL
M. Sullivan, Jan. 16, 2004
QD1QD1
QF2
QF2
QD4
QF5
QD4
QF5
HER
LER
83 kW
11 kW
40 kW
200 kW
M. Sullivan-2
0 0.5 1-0.5-1
0
2
4
-2
-4
cm
m
Super B-factory +/- 14 mrad crossing angle
HER
LER
from: B3$E36_2_5M_8_R,L.OUT
M. Sullivan, Jan. 16, 2004
A 1 cm radius beam pipe might be possible now
M. Sullivan-2
A super B-factory IR is quite challenging
The very high beam currents rule out designs in which SR fans are intercepted locally
The IR design in the areas of detector backgrounds, HOM power and SR quadrupole radiation are all very difficult and need to be thoroughly studied.
The trick is to find a solution that satisfies all of these requirements without compromising the physics
Summary M. Sullivan-2
Electric force lines of wake field excited by a short bunch in PEP-II cavity
A. Novokhatski
Spectrum of 952 MHz cavity
Loss impedance of this cavity is 3.4 times smaller than impedance of PEP-II cavity for a bunch of 1.8mm length. R/Q of the cavity is 66 Ohms
A. Novokhatski
Optimization of the cavity shape
Gives better R/Q =78 Ohm and less loss impedance by 8%
A. Novokhatski
Minimum loss impedance and loss impedances of different cavities
A. Novokhatski
HOM Power Loss in the Super B-factory Cavity f=136kHz h=3492
Cavity Frequency Pipe R/Q Bunch Total Above Beam Bunch Wake HOM type radius length Loss cut-off current charge Voltage Power
[MHz] [mm] [Ohm] [mm] [V/pC] [V/pC] [A] [nC] [kV] [kw]
PEP-II 476 47.6 114 13 0.4699 0.0849 2 11.14 0.95 1.89CESR-III 500 120 46.2 10 0.175 0.1014 2 11.14 1.13 2.26
PEP-II 476 47.6 116 4 0.805 0.389 11 23.44 9.12 100.32CESR-III 500 120 46.2 4 0.291 0.2174 11 23.44 5.10 56.06
KEKB-SC 508 110 44.9 4 1.326 1.192 11 23.44 27.95 307.40with tapers 75KEKB-SC-NT 508 110 47.7 4 0.318 0.2373 11 23.44 5.56 61.20no tapersPEP-II-Large 476 95.25 74.9 4 0.35 0.209 11 23.44 4.90 53.90
PEP-II 476 47.6 116 1.8 1.217 0.794 15.5 33.03 26.23 406.56CESR-III 500 120 46.2 1.8 0.448 0.3744 15.5 33.03 12.37 191.71KEKB-SC-NT 508 110 47.7 1.8 0.498 0.4173 15.5 33.03 13.79 213.68
PEP-II-Large 476 95.25 74.3 1.8 0.538 0.397 15.5 33.03 13.11 203.28PEP-II-Large 476 95.25 74.3 1.8 0.538 0.397 23 49.02 19.46 447.60
New PEP-II 952 47.6 66.4 1.8 0.748 0.472 15.5 16.52 7.80 120.84New PEP-II 952 47.6 66.4 1.8 0.748 0.472 23 24.51 11.57 266.08
PEP-Ellips 952 47.6 75.8 1.8 0.719 0.434 23 24.51 10.64 244.66
PEP-SC 952 77.62 31.6 1.8 0.303 0.208 23 24.51 5.10 117.25
A. Novokhatski
Summary
• To be continued!
A. Novokhatski
RF parameters for SuperKEKBRing LER HERBeam current (A) 9.4 4.1Wiggler magnets yes (half) noEnergy loss/turn (MeV) 1.2 3.5Loss factor, estimated (V/pC) 40 50Radiation loss power (MW) 11.3 14.3Parasitic loss power (MW) 7.1 1.7Total beam power (MW) 18.4 16.0Total RF voltage (MV) 14 23
(Total)Cavity type ARES ARES SCC ARES / SCCNo. of cavities 28 16 12 44 / 12Voltage /cav. (MV) 0.5 0.5 1.3Loaded-Q value (x10E4) 2.4 2.4 4.0Beam power /cav. (kW) 650 650 460Wall loss /cav. (kW) 233 233 -Detuning frequency (kHz) 45 20 74
Klystron power (kW) 930 930 480No. of klystrons 28 16 12 56Total AC plug power (MW) 42 24 10 76
K. Akai
Modification of LER-ARES• The ARES in LER will be remode
led to increase the stored energy further.
• By enlarging the coupling hole between the A-C cavities, Us/Ua will be increased from 9 to 15.
• Storage cavity is reused.
exsisting
modified
Energy ratio 1:9 1:15
Detuning (kHz) 65 45
Growth time (ms) 0.3 1.6
C-damper (kW) 41 26
100
101
102
103
104
9 12 15 18
Us/Ua
=−
=−
=−3
Coupling impedance for the p/2 mode
Growth rate as a function of Us/Ua
T. Kageyama, et. al.
K. Akai
Improve the ARES-HOM dampers• The waveguide dampers
– High power tested up to 3.3 kW/bullet (26 kW/cavity).
– Upgrade needed to 80 kW/cavity.– Will be tested at higher power with a new high power
source.– The number of bullets/waveguide will be increased.
• The grooved beam pipe dampers– High power tested up to 0.5 kW/groove (2 kW/cavit
y).– Upgrade needed to 20 kW/cavity.– A new type of damper? Such as a winged chamber wi
th SiC bullets?
Y. Suetsugu, et. al.
K. Akai
Beam pipe diameter 150 mm (present) 220 mm (enlarged)
Loss factor for 3mm bunch
2.46 V/pC 1.69 V/pC
HOM power for 4.1A, 5000 bunches
83 kW/cavity 57 kW/cavity
Influence to other groups
No change Replace chambers
Large bore magnets
Develop gate valves
SCC HOM power and beam pipe• Present HOM dampers in KEKB have been operated up to
12 kW/cavity.K. Akai
Schematic drawing of new crab cavity
• (Left) The cross-shaped waveguide dampers and coaxial dampers are attached at the squashed-cell.
• (Right) Cross section of the coaxial damper at the cut plane of Y-Y’.
coaxial damper
cross-shapedwaveguide dampers
Y
Y'
absorber
(cross section at Y-Y')K. Akai
Summary of SuperKEKB RF system
• Base plan:– The existing RF system will be used as much as possible, with improvements as ne
cessary. – The ARES (LER, HER) and SCC (HER) will be used.
• CBI due to the accelerating mode– LER-ARES will be modified, that eases the growth time from 0.3ms to 1.6ms.– The -1 mode damper will suppress the CBI with a growth time of 1 ms.
• HOM dampers– Performance limit of the present HOM dampers will be tested.– A new HOM damper may by necessary, particularly for the GBP damper.
• Large RF power– Improvement of the couplers will continue to double the operating power.– The number of RF unit will be doubled.
• Crab cavity– A new crab cavity is proposed, which can be used at 10 A. – The design is completed. It has sufficient property for SuperKEKB.
K. Akai
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
D. Teytelman
Coherent Synchrotron RadiationEnergy change / particle v.s z/z
KEKB LER/ 2.6A (5120)
Numerical simulation with mesh (Ago and Yokoya, to be published or details found in LoI)
Y.Ohnishi
Acceleration
Deceleration
E ≈ 100 kV/turn (5 V/pC) for 9.4 A, LER
Stubility must be checked