1 / 27

BE-ABP-LAT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

BE-ABP-LAT. BE-ABP-LAT. Infos & statistics. 306 participants (31 countries), about one third from CERN 187 talks, 156 speakers 32 talks by LAT members. BE-ABP-LAT. Monday afternoon: Plenary session in the Globe. BE-ABP-LAT.

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 ' BE-ABP-LAT' - fai

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


  • Infos & statistics

  • 306 participants (31 countries), about one third from CERN

  • 187 talks, 156 speakers

  • 32 talks by LAT members


Monday afternoon: Plenary session in the Globe


Tuesday: Parallel Working Groups sessions (accelerator + physics & detectors)

Main flows: Design& System tests, X-band

Special: Power & Energy studies, PACMAN


Wednesday: Parallel Working Groups sessions (accelerator + physics & detectors)

Accelerator plenary: CTF3/CERN based future facilities

Parallel & joint sessions Design, System Tests and Xband

Special: EuCARD2 (RF)


Wednesday: High Gradient Day

X-FELs, Medical & Industrial applications of Xband

Parallel: Low Emittance Ring collaboration


Friday:Accelerator Plenary + CLIC Collaboration Board


P. Skowronski – CTF3 Report and Plans

P. Skowronski – CTF3 Report and Plans


R. Corsini – Beyond CTF3

  • CTF3 went well beyond its initial task of demonstrating CLIC two-beam scheme feasibility

  • Has a well established scientific program until end 2016

  • Definitely want to stop CTF3 after that (limited resources)

    need to develop a plan

  • Additional considerations:

    • Initial plan was to evolve gradually towards DB front-end, shifting resources from CTF3 to the front-end, however this is now delayed

    • No local (CERN) real testing capability with beam (diagnostics and components) beyond 2016

    • In present plan, no way to test new generation modules with beam

List of potential options non exhaustive
List of potential options (non exhaustive…)

  • Shut-down CTF3 completely and re-use for other scopes the buildings and whatever hardware may be requested (3 GHz power stations, magnets, power supplies…)

  • Refurbish CTF3 as part of new lepton injection chain at CERN (potential interest for SPS damping ring tests, plasma wake-field experiments in AWAKE, future lepton accelerators…)

  • Keep CALIFES probe beam injector running as a generic test facility for testing diagnostics and other components. May include additional X-band powering.

  • House the DB Front-End in CTF3 (CLEX or Linac?). Possible option: plug Front-End before the CTF3 linac.

  • Extend CTF3 running limited to first part of the linac,for X-band beam loading tests. Option: use dog-leg for X-band RF production - testing?

F. Tecker

W. Farabolini

S. Doebert

R. Corsini – Beyond CTF3


R. Corsini – Beyond CTF3

Lepton Injector Chain




DB Front End

  • Y. Papaphilippou– Damping ring performance and experimental tests, including potential at CERN (SPS)

  • Y. Papaphilippou– Damping ring performance and experimental tests, including potential at CERN (SPS)

  • Y. Papaphilippou– Damping ring performance and experimental tests, including potential at CERN (SPS)

Experiments at facet
Experiments at FACET

  • A. Latina -

  • Main beam performance tests in FACET and existing or future FELs (FELs based on Xband technology)

  • FACET (Facility for Advanced Accelerator Experimental Tests) is a User Facility at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

  • The first User Run started in spring 2012 with 20 GeV, 3 nC electron beams.

  • The facility is designed to provide short 20 μmbunches and small (20 μm wide) spot sizes

  • Experiments at FACET:

  • Plasma wake field acceleration, dielectric structure acceleration, Smith-Purcell radiation, magnetic switching, terahertz generation …

  • E-211: Beam-Based Alignment

Emittance growth and dispersion free steering

  • A. Latina - Main beam…

Emittance Growth andDispersion-Free Steering

Incoming oscillation/dispersion is taken out and flattened; emittance in LI11 and emittance growth significantly reduced.

Emittance at LI11 (iteraton 1)

X: 43.2 x 10-5 m

Y: 27.82 x 10-5 m

Emittance at LI11 (iteration 4)

X: 3.71 x 10-5 m

Y: 0.87 x 10-5 m

S19 phos, PR185 :

After 3 iterations

Before correction

After 1 iteration

Slc emittance sectors 02 03
SLC emittance Sectors 02-03

  • A. Latina - Main beam…

Golden orbit: εy=4.4 μm

εy[10-5 m]

εy=2.0 μm

1. We spoiled the emittance

2. We applied WFS

Lower emittance achieved in S04!

Emittance growth (before  after)

  • Δεy=2.4 ± 0.1 μmΔεy=0.0 ± 0.1 μm

(before WFS)

(after WFS)

Beam physics challenges at x band xfel
Beam Physics challenges at X-band XFEL

  • Emittance preservation (longitudinal and transverse)

    • Misalignments, dynamic effects, ISR, CSR

    • Beam-based alignment: DFS, WFS, …, tuning bumps

    • Bunch-to-bunch effects

    • Stray fields

  • Diagnostics

    • Fast transverse and longitudinal bunch measurements

  • Feed-back and feed-forward loops

    • Fast orbit, dispersion, wake-fields correction

    • Phase-energy stabilization: LL-RF but not only

    • Ground-motion counteraction

  • Performance tests of accelerator components and technologies

    • X-band RF, industrialization, test stands, …

  • A. Latina - Main beam…

Simplified parameter diagram
Simplified Parameter Diagram

Parameter Routine

Luminosity, RF+beam constraints

Lstructure, f, a1, a2, d1, d2, G












Ecms, G, Lstructure

Two-Beam Acceleration Complex

Lmodule, Δstructure, …

Main Beam Generation Complex

Pklystron, …

Drive Beam Generation Complex

Pklystron, Nklystron, LDBA, …

D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress,

Summary on the high power rf constraints
Summary on the high-power RF constraints

RF breakdown and pulsed surface heating constraints used for CLIC_G design (2007):

  • Esmax < 250 MV/m

  • Pin/Cin·(tpP)1/3 = 18 MW·ns1/3/mm

  • ΔTmax(Hsmax, tp) < 56 K

Optimistic RF breakdown and pulsed surface heating constraints for BDR=10-6bpp/m:

  • Esmax·(tpP)1/6< 250 MV/m · (200ns)1/6

  • Pin/Cin·(tpP)1/3 < 2.8 MW/mm · (200ns)1/3 = 17 [Wu]

  • Scmax·(tpP)1/3 < 5 MW/mm2 · (200ns)1/3

  • and

  • ΔTmax(Hsmax, tp) < 50 K

Since new year in database

  • Depending on degree of our optimism a safety margin has to be applied.

  • Varying RF constraints in the optimization how much money one can save by being optimistic.

D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress, February 2014

A. Grudiev

Cost and power
Cost and Power

  • Not all cost is in cost model

    • Only the varying part for which we established the cost

  • Cost model

    • Drive beam (Robert Corsini, Igor Syratchev,DavideAguglia)

    • Main linac (AlexejGrudiev)

    • Civil engineering and infrastructure (Philippe Lebrun)

    • Cost for 500Gev based on CLIC_G is consistent with CDR (4.5 a.u.)

  • Some cost savings identified in rebaselining

    • Conventional facilities for second drive beam accelerator (Philippe Lebrun)

    • Higher power klystrons for drive beam accelerator (Igor Syratchev)

    • Revised modulator cost (DavideAguglia)

    • No electron pre-damping ring required (YannisPapaphilippou, Steffen Doebert)

  • Power model (Bernard Jeanneret)

    • Made some update

D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress, February 2014

Cost vs bunch charge
Cost vs. Bunch Charge

CLIC_G parameters are no solution

Train can only have 245 bunches not 312

Cannot reach 1034cm-2s-1 at 350GeV with 50Hz repetition rate






Cost [a.u.]

Luminosity goal significantly impact minimum cost

For L=1x1034cm-2s-1 to L=2x1034cm-2s-1 costs 0.5 a.u.





N [109]

D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress, February 2014

Impact of rf constraints
Impact of RF Constraints





Safety factor S:

Structure can tolerate S-times the nominal gradient for the full pulse length


Cost [a.u.]

10% safety in gradient cost about 0.1 a.u.





D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress, February 2014


  • We have a cost model for main linac and drive beam complex including civil engineering and infrastructure

    • Injectors are being worked on

  • Adjusted RF limitations to experimental results

    • CLIC_G cannot sustain the pulse length from the CDR

  • Minimum cost for gradient margin is 0.1 a.u./10%

  • Minimum cost of doubling luminosity from 1034cm-2s-1 is 0.5 a.u.

  • If we pick one structure the gradient is still aa free parameter

    • Can change the safety margin by adjusting the beam and RF pulse parameters

    • Can adjust to RF testing results

    • But all other systems will have to redo work

    • And still some additional cost will occur

  • No safety margin at 3TeV appears possible with G=100MV/m

  • Do klystrons in more detail

  • Need to define the staging strategy

D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining Progress, February 2014