1 / 49

“emittance” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

“emittance”. Extended. Frank Zimmermann LTC – [email protected] Many thanks to:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' “emittance”' - celeste-marty

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript



Frank Zimmermann

LTC – [email protected]

Many thanks to:

Ilya Agapov, Gianluigi Arduini, Ralph Assmann, Elena Benedetto, Enrico Bravin, Oliver Bruning, Helmut Burkhardt, Fritz Caspers, Bernd Dehning, Massimo Giovannozzi, Steve Hutchins, Rhodri Jones, Verena Kain, Thibaut Lefevre, Alick MacPherson, Laurette Ponce, Rogelio Tomas, Jan Uythoven


  • transverse target emittance

  • measuring LHC beam emittances

  • transfer line to LHC matching

  • minimizing emittance blow up during injection, ramp, and squeeze

  • longitudinal emittance

LHC transverse emittance target: from SPS: ge=3.5 mmLHC at top energy: ge=3.75 mm→ total emittance growth allowed=7%possible sources of emittance growth:optical mismatch, dispersion mismatch, injection oscillations, p.c. decay & snapback, ramp, squeeze, beam-beam effects, wake fields, instabilities, damper noise, rf noise, damper noise, intrabeam scattering, residual-gas scattering, electron cloud,…

require individual contributions < 2% (smaller than typical measurement resolution)

can we relax the LHC emittance tolerances during commissioning?

No, LHC emittance targets cannot be relaxed, LHCCWG no.39 (M. Giovannozzi)

but smaller emittances are available from the SPS!!

SPS commissioning? emittance - dependence on #bunches & bunch intensity









data from G. Arduini, LHC MAC 20, Dec. 2006

proposed strategy: commissioning?

blow up every beam to the design emittance of 3.5 micron in the SPS with “pink noise” injection into the transverse damper before extracting to the LHC

if the additional LHC emittance increase is found to be too large, we can then reduce the TFB-noise blow up in the SPS until LHC target emittances are obtained

Transverse beam size diagnostics
transverse beam-size diagnostics commissioning?

  • 1-pass OTR screens for transfer lines & injection

  • OTR screen matching monitors

  • wire scanners

  • synchrotron light monitors

  • ionization profile monitor

  • collimator scans

  • Schottky monitors

Transverse beam diagnostics in ir4
transverse beam diagnostics in IR4 commissioning?

LHC Design Report & EDMS 599636

~ 90 m

~ 150 m

~ 25 m

OTR screen beam 1

gas monitor beam 1

SL monitor beam 2

wire scanner beam 2

OTR screen beam 2

gas monitor beam 2

SL monitor beam 1

wire scanner beam 1

calibration of SLM with wire scanner: short distance, no quadrupoles

OTR screens in LHC commissioning?

LHC Design Report

dispersion > 1 m

dispersion ~ 0 m

beam intensity limits from screen damage (at 450 GeV)1.5x1014 protons x turns for Ti screens

1.5x1013 protons x turns for Al2O3 screens

EDMS 821083

wire scanners commissioning?

(B. Dehning)

beam intensity limits 450 GeV : 25 % of nominal limit for wire damage,                  quench level limit much higher 7 TeV: limited by both quench and damage of wire                 5 % of nominal for quench                 7 % of nominal for wire damage

emittance increase due to single wire scan:

SPS at 26 GeV: ~0.05 mm (14%)

SPS at 450 GeV: negligible (a few 1e-5)

(F. Roncarolo and B. Dehning, CERN-AB-2005-042 )

synchrotron light monitor commissioning?

available at all beam intensities

switch from 5-T undulator radiation to D3

radiation at ~2 TeV

full beam turn by turn

fast camera for bunch-by-bunch measurements

averaged over 20 ms

(bunch-by-bunch turn-by-turn with

intensifier, probably not in year 1)

light optics slightly out of focus at injection

set up for optimized performance at 7 TeV

beam-size resolution < 10% at all conditions

expected SR image at 7 TeV: 5 pixels/ commissioning? s vertical , 8 pixels/s horizontal

→ emittance resolution from discretization <1% (Steve Hutchins)

ionization commissioning? profile monitor

requires pressure bump for proton pilot bunch

if nominal vacuum, not in year 1

could we not perhaps inject an inert gas to improve

signal while protecting the adjacent NEG chambers

(as for LHCb)?

main application for ion beams, s~Z2

beam size from scraping commissioning?

Tevatron example


X.L. Zhang,

V. Shiltsev,

F. Zimmermann

lost fraction of beam f vs.collimator position; fit gives the beam size at collimator and hence the emittance

we here assumed a Gaussian distribution

alternatively we can reconstruct the shape

Lhc collimator calibration
LHC “collimator calibration” commissioning?





 Get beam offset from measured jaw positions




half gap 

R. Assmann, LHCCWG no 5, May 2006

Local beta functions at collimators
Local beta functions at collimators commissioning?

More difficult for skew collimators!

Measure gap  beta beat

Measure gap, emittance & normalized edge  absolute beta

This feature is the result of:

Having two opposite jaws: not possible for TEVATRON or RHIC!

Direct measurement of gap with calibration during production!

R. Assmann, LHCCWG no 5, May 2006

Schottky commissioning? monitor


transverse emittance

measurement with 1.7 GHz

Schottky monitor at Tevatron; comparison with wire scans; at LHC 4.8 GHz Schottky pick-ups

available in “BI Phase-II”


A.Jansson, HHH-ABI Chamonix’07

  • beam size commissioning? → emittance?

  • 3 nearby monitors → b, a, e

  • 5 nearby monitors w.intermediate bends→ b, a, e, D, D’

  • 6 nearby monitors w.interm. bends→ b, a, e, D, D’, drms

  • [+ and x-y b ratio > 2 for coupling information;

  • e.g. fit 15 independent covariance matrix elements]

  • example: OTR screens in TLs and injection region

  • however, most monitors are single devices; then

  • - high-accuracyb function measurement (~1%)

  • at the profile monitors; 3 BPMs / monitor w/o quad

  • two nearby quadrupoles equipped with K modulation

  • “quadrupole” scan, i.e. measure beam sizes for

  • different quadrupole settings

  • beware: dynamic b beat tolerance ~8% for collimation

  • emittance growth commissioning?

  • - from injection oscillation

  • w. transverse damper

  • - from dispersion mismatch

  • from betatron mismatch

  • from geometric TL tilt & coupling


→ |Dx|<0.2 s

(equal to required trajectory stability)


→ |Dx|<1.5 s

(for DQtot~5x10-4, ndamp~50)


→ |DD|<20 cm

& |DD’|<4 mrad

(for Dp/prms~5x10-4)


→ Db/b<22%


transfer line matching – procedure commissioning?

use techniques from TT2/TT10, and TI2&TI8 commissioning

suggested steps (G. Arduini):

(1) dispersion matchingby changing the energy from SPS

(2) optical parameters & emittances in transfer line (screens);

screen measurements with single bunch (to avoid

interference from bunch-to-bunch offsets)

(3) if optics problem found, check orbit response(4) use LHC matching monitor(s)as final verification

(5) monitorblow-up TL-ring & mismatch during running

note: LHC optics must be known (and stable) ;

in TI2/8 commissioning no need to correct (one exception)

distribution and number of monitors in each transfer line commissioning?




J. Wenninger, EDMS 328136

3 emittance numbers along the line;

4-5% accuracy of beam-size measurement

→ expected emittance precision ~10%, relative precision ~5%

J. commissioning? Uythoven LTC, 5.12.07

TI2 dispersion match

J. commissioning? Uythoven LTC, 5.12.07

TI2 b off-line match

J. commissioning? Uythoven LTC, 5.12.07

MAD-X matching tools in

preparation (I. Agapov)

TI2 on-line b match

Ti2 twiss measurements
TI2 Twiss measurements commissioning?

From: 19:12:28 to 19:28:43 (during dispersion measurements)




Elena Benedetto

J. commissioning? Uythoven LTC, 5.12.07

TI2 corrector response measurements

(B. Goddard et al, PAC’05) commissioning?

we have ~5% right here, leaving ~2-3% for other effects

possible s commissioning? ources of injection errors

  • errors & changes can arise in SPS, LHC, or transfer line;

  • examples:

  • magnetic stray field at extraction

  • kicker ripple

  • transfer line optics errors (energy error,

    • misalignments, magnet calibration, )

  • optics errors in the LHC

  • tune changes in the SPS or LHC

  • b* changes in IP2 or 8 at injection

  • changes of crossing angle / separation bump

  • configuration & spectrometer polarity changes

(H. Burkhardt, Chamonix XIV)

A. Koschik et al, EPAC’06 commissioning?

  • LHC aperture at injection is tight

  • transfer line optics strongly constrained by phase advance relations between transfer line collimator

  • 20% change in bcan change phase advance between TCDIs by 15o & reduce protected aperture by 10% (H. Burkhardt, Chamonix XIV)

  • dispersion matching on “cm” level using orbit bumps in the LHC not practical (A. Koschik et al, EPAC’06)

Matching monitor commissioning?

Expected resolution De/e ~1%!! EDMS 328146

One fast camera is available, which has to be positioned at the chosen matching screen. The camera is radiation sensitive and needs to be taken out of the tunnel after the measurements.

From year 2, also SLM (& IPM) with fast camera & intensifier might detect mismatch

(B. Dehning)

matching monitor test @ SPS commissioning?

turn-by-turn beam size measured & and expected from the optics parameters (dispersion and Twiss) observed in TT2-TT10



expected beam size computed assuming:

  • r.m.s momentum spread: dp/p=0.94 10-3 (→ measured in PS )

  • r.m.s. normalized emittance (H&V) < 3mm (→ fitted from the first 3 turns measurements)

fast decay!?


dispersion at

this monitor



Elena Benedetto

matching monitor test @ SPS commissioning?

pixel offset


still to be


RAW data


Elena Benedetto

Records on lhc matching monitor
records on LHC matching monitor commissioning?

“For matching studies at injection a matching monitor is needed in each ring…”

C. Fischer, EDMS 328147 (2003).

LHC Design Report vol. 1, chapter 13.4.2 (2004).

“… it is currently not foreseen to install the acquisition system and develop the necessary software for this monitor before Stage II.” (75 ns operation)

R. Jones, Chamonix [email protected] (2006).

example emittance growth from Tevatron squeeze

emittance growth of 12

antiproton bunches in

first 10 minutes of store:

5-20% increase due to


asymmetry so-called

“scallops effect”;

after 0.5-1 h the blow up


V. Shiltsev, EPAC’04

Minimizing emittance blow up
minimizing emittance blow up squeeze

detecting such blow up needs cross-calibration of monitors (wire scanner – SR from undulator, wire scanner – SR from dipole, SR – collimator scans, SPS-LHC, etc.)

tools for minimizing emittance growth:

- transverse damper (on or off)

  • stabilization of orbit, tunes, coupling, chromaticity by feedbacks (tune kicker 1.6-0.4 s, excites ~1/12th of the ring → emittance growth 2% for 1-20 kicks)

  • standardized magnet cycles

  • optics studies & corrections, changes to tunes chromaticity etc.

Tevatron “calibration” example squeeze

we tried to resolve factor >2 discrepancy between

flying wires & SL monitor by scraping


X.L. Zhang,

V. Shiltsev,

F. Zimmermann

pbar horizontal and vertical 6s2 normalized emittances (in mm)

prior to scraping, measured by three different methods.

2002 to 08 ~50 papers in FNAL DocDB on Synclite & calibration!

Longitudinal requirements
longitudinal requirements squeeze

at injection emittance must be small, <1 eVs, to fit within 400-MHz RF bucket

at 7 TeV it should be increased to 2.5 eVs to reduce IBS effect, t~e/N, t||,nom~60 h

emittance should grow like energy1/2 to avoid decrease in beam stability

increase is accomplished by applying band-limited RF noise; procedure tested in SPS

SPS squeezeemittance - dependence on #bunches & bunch intensity


25-ns, &







data from G. Arduini, LHC MAC 20, Dec. 2006

longitudinal emittance diagnostics squeeze

  • wall-current monitor, 2.3 GHz

  • Schottky monitor

  • SL longitudinal-density monitor

    (year 2?)

Records on longitudinal density monitor
records on longitudinal density monitor squeeze

“The high sensitivity longitudinal profile monitor should provide as well the nominal bunch core parameters (bunch length and energy spread, density distribution and possibly longitudinal oscillations of the core). This information will be used for cross calibration of other devices like electro-magnetic detectors (faster but less accurate).”

“This instruments profits from the Transv. Profile Monitor Light Source with the aim of using synchrotron light to measure bunch profiles with a dynamic range of 105, enabling measurements and monitoring of bunch lengths, …. An alternative system is to use an array of fast Single Photon detectors (SPD) … A decision for the best system for LHC will be made in 2004.”

C. Fischer, EDMS 328145 (2003)

LHC Design Report, vol. 1, 13.5 (2004)

“The LDM collaboration with  Politecnico di Milan and Harriot-Watt

should be pursued with the second highest priority.”

35th LTC, 8.12.2004

Schottky squeeze monitor

momentum spread measurement with 1.7 GHz Schottky monitor at Tevatron; comparison with RW wide band pick up; at LHC 4.8 GHz Schottky pick-ups

A.Jansson, HHH-ABI Chamonix’07

conclusions squeeze

  • nominalemittance targetsaretight, but growth tolerances can be relaxed for the commissioning by injecting beams withsmaller initial emittance from SPSif needed

  • many diagnostics toolsare available for cross checks and cross-calibration

  • based on experience so fartransfer lines should be stablewith residual unavoidable blow up < 5%; however,expected changes in b, D, & orbitmust be accommodated

  • correction may not be easy– neither in LHC nor in the transfer line

  • main uncertainty aresize & stability of optics errorsin the LHC (dynamic beta beat, spurious dispersion, local coupling,…)

  • for commissioning beams,longitudinal emittance budget looks tighterthan the transverse one

references squeeze

  • Y. Alexahin, “On the Emittance Growth due to Noise in Hadron Colliders and Methods of its Suppression,” NIM A, V. 391, 1, 73-76 (1997).

  • G. Arduini, “Mismatch Measurements,” Chamonix IX, 1999.

  • G. Arduini, “Status and Performance of the LHC (Proton) Injector Complex,” LHC MAC no. 20, December 2006

  • G. Arduini et al., “Analysis and Measurement of Coupling Effects in the Transfer Line from PS to SPS for the LHC Proton Beam,” PAC 2001 Chicago.

  • E. Benedetto, “Optics Studies for the LHC Beam in the TT2-TT10 Line…”, APC 30.03.07

  • E. Benedetto, “Optics Changes for Protons and Ions in TT2/TT10,” APC 18.01.2008

  • A. Burns, “Beam Instrumentation,” Chamonix X, 2000.

  • H. Burkhardt, “Overview of the LHC Injection and Transfer Line Optics Configurations and Tolerances,” Chamonix XIV

  • H. Burkhardt et al, “Collimation in the Transfer Lines to the LHC,” PAC 2005 Knoxville.

  • A. Guerrero Ollacarizqueta,S. Hutchins, “SPS Matching Tests,” APC 09.02.2007

  • A. Jansson, “Schottky Observations in the Tevatron,” CARE-HHH-ABI workshop Chamonix’07

  • J. Uythoven, “TI2 Beam Test,” LTC 5 December 2007.

  • C. Fischer, “Functional Specification – High Sensitivity Measurement of the Longitudinal Distribution of the LHC Beams,” LHC-B-ES-0005.00 rev. 2.0 (2003).

  • C. Fischer et al., “Functional Specification – Measurement of the Transverse Distribution in the LHC Rings,” LHC-B-ES-0006 rev. 1.0 (2003).

  • B. Goddard et al., “Expected Emittance Growth and Beam Tail Repopulation from Errors at Injection into the LHC,” PAC2005 Knoxville (2005).

  • B. Goddard et al., “Functional Specification – Interlocking of LHC BTV Screens,” LHC-BTV-ES-0001 rev. 1.0 (2007).

  • K. Hanke, “Betatron Matching and Dispersion Matching,” Chamonix IX, 1999.

  • A. Koschik et al, “Optics Flexibility and Dispersion Matching at Injection into the LHC,” EPAC 2006.

  • O.R. Jones, “LHC Beam Instrumentation,” PAC07 Albuquerque 2007.

  • F. Roncarolo, B. Dehning, “Transverse Emittance Blow-Up due to the Operation of Wire Scanners…,” CERN-AB-2005-042 (2005).

  • E. Shaposhnikova, “Longitudinal Phenomena during the LHC Cycle,” Chamonix XI, 2001

  • E. Shaposhnikova, “Longitudinal Stability of the LHC Beam in the SPS,” CERN SL-Note-2001-035 HRF, 2001.

  • V. Shiltsev, X.L.Zhang, F. Zimmermann, “Tevatron Study Report: Pbar Tunes & Pbar Removal 11/17/02, “CERN-AB-Note-2003-007 (MD)

  • V. Shiltsev, “Status of Tevatron Collider Run II and Novel Technologies for Luminosity Upgrades,” EPAC’04 Lucerne.

  • J. Tuckmantel, “The SPS/LHC Longitudinal Interface,” Chamonix IX, 1999.

  • J. Wenninger, “Functional Specification – Instrumentation for the Ti2 and Ti8 Transfer Lines,” LHC-B-ES-0004 rev.. 2.0 (2002).

  • “Engineering Change Order – Class 1: Layout of the Beam Instrumentation in LSS4 Left and Right,” LHC-L3-EC-0009 ver. 1.0 (2005).

  • LHC Design Report, Chapter 13