Slac pep ii and infn lnf ad collaboration for very high luminosity factories studies
Download
1 / 41

SLAC/PEP-II and INFN/LNF-AD Collaboration for Very High Luminosity Factories studies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

SLAC/PEP-II and INFN/LNF-AD Collaboration for Very High Luminosity Factories studies. M. Biagini, LNF Commissione Nazionale Gruppo I, LNF 12/11/03. OUTLINE. PEP-II mid and long term plans The Task Force PEP-II Luminosity upgrade Super B-Factory SLAC-LNF Collaboration on:

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' SLAC/PEP-II and INFN/LNF-AD Collaboration for Very High Luminosity Factories studies' - lamont


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
Slac pep ii and infn lnf ad collaboration for very high luminosity factories studies

SLAC/PEP-II and INFN/LNF-AD Collaboration for Very High Luminosity Factories studies

M. Biagini, LNF

Commissione Nazionale Gruppo I, LNF 12/11/03


Outline
OUTLINE

  • PEP-II mid and long term plans

  • The Task Force

  • PEP-II Luminosity upgrade

  • Super B-Factory

  • SLAC-LNF Collaboration on:

    • IR upgrade & Backgrounds

    • RF & Feedbacks


  • The PEP-II B-Factory reached the design luminosity (3x1033 cm-2 s-1 in October 2000) and a peak luminosity of 6.6x1033 cm-2 s-1 (June 2003), delivering a total of 146 fb-1 for the BaBar experiment (June 2003).

  • The “twin” collider KEK-B in Japan has obtained analogous performances. Their success has shown that complex accelerators can be designed and operated. However the particle physics items studied at these colliders demand still higher peak luminosities, and to collect, in a reasonable amount of time, a huge amount of data of good quality.


  • In this frame, both SLAC and KEK laboratories are studying upgrades and improvements to their machines, with the aim to reach, in 10 years, peak luminosities of the order of 1035 to 1036 cm-2 s-1.

  • At present the PEP-II Staff is studying the possibility to reach 3.x1034 cm-2 s-1 peak luminosity with a minor, not invasive, modification of the present machine layout. This design, having a small impact on the accelerator, could be operating in 2006-2007 already.


Why a task force
Why a Task Force?

  • PEP-II is at present still a factor 1.6 lower in peak luminosity with respect to KEK-B.

  • A Task Force called “PEP-II Mid-Project Evaluation” has been established in 2003 by the SLAC Director in order to focus on the main problems PEP-II is facing at present and find suitable solutions.

  • The Task Force is divided in subgroups, each of them addressing a specific item.

  • Help from other high energy laboratories experts have been asked. Two LNF physicists have been asked to be part of the Task Force, for the IR design and Feedback subgroups.


from web page

Serio

Drago

Marcellini

Biagini

Gallo

Biagini

Boscolo

Task Force Structure

LNF/DA

LNF/DA

LNF/DA

LNF/DA


PEP-II Mid-Project EvaluationFeedback Systems SubgroupPrimary ContactsEric R. Colby SLAC Dmitry Teytelman SLAC  

From web page

Contact List

At LBNL:Walt BarryJohn CorlettJohn ByrdLarry Doolittle

At INFN/Frascati:Mario Serio

At KEK:Makoto Tobiyama

At SLAC:John FoxSam HeifetsRon AkreRay LarsenNavid HassanpourLiane BeckmanAndy YoungUli WienandsJohn Seeman




Pep ii upgrade parameters the road to 3x10 34
PEP-II Upgrade ParametersThe road to 3x1034…

Units

Luminosity 6.6x1033 1.2x1034 1.8x1034 2.3x1034 3.3x1034cm-2 s-1

I+1550 2700 3600 3600 4500 mA

I-1175 1600 1800 2000 2200 mA

y* 12.9 8.5 6.5 6.mm

x* (+/-) 40/28 28 28 28 28 cm

l(+/-)10.5/129/11 8.5/9 7.5/8 6.5/7.5mm

Nb1034 1450 1500 1700 1700

Emitt. x (+/-)30/49 40/40 44/40 40/40 40/44 nm

Emitt. y (+/-) 1.8/1.8 1./1.5 1.4/1.5 0.9/1.1 0.9/1.1 nm

Cross. angle 0 0 0 0 ±4/7mrad

xx (+/-).10/.04 .09/.05 .10/.06 .10/.06 .10/.076

xy (+/-).08/.04 .08/.06 .09/.06 .09/.06 .09/.07

Date Jul 03 Jul 04 Jul 05 Jul 06 Jul 07


Modified ir for the pep ii upgrade
Modified IR for the PEP-II upgrade

  • The main design issues for the PEP-II upgrade are:

    • lower by* (from 12 mm to 6 mm)

    • shorter bunches (from 11 mm to 7 mm)

    • small crossing angle to increase the number of colliding bunches and to decrease the parasitic crossing tune-shift

    • higher collision frequency (from 1100 to 1700 bunches)


M.Sullivan, IR Upgrade,

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003

Crossing angle and parasitic crossings

See Y. Cai’s and K. Ohmi’s talks on beam-beam simulations

  • Crossing angle

    • Recently Yunhai Cai has simulated a crossing angle in his beam-beam code and confirms Ohmi’s beam-beam result that an x crossing angle results in a significant luminosity reduction for very high tune shifts when one is near the ½ integer

  • Parasitic crossings

    • The introduction of a crossing angle increases the beam separation at the parasitic crossings and thereby decreases the beam-beam tune shifts from these near collisions. The effects we have already seen in by2 bunch patterns from parasitic crossings would be greatly reduced.

    • For PEP-II, the parasitic crossings occur at:

    • 0.63, 1.26, 1.89 and 2.52 m in the by2 bunch pattern and

    • 0.945, 1.89 m in the by3 bunch pattern

See M. Biagini’s talk on parasitic crossings



New techniques of the next generation b factory
New techniques of the Next Generation B-Factory

  • Beam lifetimes will be low  continuous injection.

  • Very low by* (6 to 12 mm1.5 to 3 mm).

  • Higher tune shift (trade beam-beam lifetimes for tune shifts).

  • Higher beam currents (x 10 or so) (Watch total power!).

  • Higher frequency RF (more bunches).

  • Bunch-by-bunch feedbacks at the 1 nsec scale. (StartedFox)

  • Very short bunch lengths (2-3 mm).

  • High power vacuum chambers with antechambers and improved or no bellows. (Started)

  • Reduce energy asymmetry to save wall power.

J.Seeman, Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Advanced b factory with 476 mhz rf frequency
Advanced B Factory with 476 MHz RF Frequency

  • E- = 8 GeV

  • E+ = 3.5 GeV

  • I- = 4.8 A

  • I+ = 11 A

  • by* = 2.2 mm

  • bx* = 15 cm

  • Bunch length = 2.5 mm

  • Crossing angle = ~15. mrad

  • Beam-beam parameters = 0.15

    • (Needs some testing but 0.12 now!)

  • N = 3450 bunches

  • L = 5 x 1035 cm-2s-1

  • Site power with linac and campus = ~120 MW.

J.Seeman, Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Advanced b factory with 952 mhz rf frequency
Advanced B Factory with 952 MHz RF Frequency

  • E+ = 8 GeV

  • E- = 3.5 GeV

  • I+ = 6.8 A

  • I- = 15.5 A

  • by* = 1.5 mm

  • bx* = 15 cm

  • Bunch length = 1.8 mm

  • Crossing angle = ~15. mrad

  • Beam-beam parameters = 0.15

  • N = 6900 bunches

  • L = 1.0 x 1036 cm-2s-1

  • Site power with linac and campus = ~120 MW.

J.Seeman, Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • The parameters of a Super-PEP-II were studied with RF frequencies of 476 MHz and 952 MHz.

  • At the present, for about 120 MW of total power, linac and campus included:

  • 476 MHz provides a luminosity of about 5x1035 and

  • 952 MHz provides a luminosity of about 1x1036 with beam-beam parameters of 0.15.

  • Coupled-bunch beam-dynamics effects, IR design, and vacuum systems will be studied next.

J.Seeman, Future Very High Luminosity Options for PEP-II

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Slac lnf collaboration
SLAC-LNF Collaboration

  • Design of a modified Interaction Region with crossing angle (similar to DAFNE and KEK-B design) to increase the number of colliding bunches, while keeping small the parasitic crossing tune-shift, and then increase luminosity. This work has started already.

  • Study of RF and feedbacks upgrades for high currents operation

  • Design of a brand new IR for the Super B-Factory, with SC quadrupoles (HERA or CESR type), ultra-low by* and study of the crossing angle option.


Slac lnf collaboration detail
SLAC-LNF Collaboration (detail)

  • Design of a new IR for by* = 6 mm, using pm quadrupoles and lattice studies for chromaticity correction (2002);

  • Backgrounds studies, in particular study of the Touschek effect for the LER ring (2003);

  • Design of a longitudinal feedback kicker for high beam currents (original design developed at LNF and applied to LER) (2001);

  • Bunch shortening options for lower by* design (2004);

  • Study of the RF issues at high currents (2003);

  • Assessment of the longitudinal feedback (LFB) and low-level RF (LLRF) able to cope with a higher number of bunches (1700) and higher currents (2003).


Ir upgrade
IR upgrade

  • Evaluate if the introduction of a small crossing angle, together with a lower by*, could be done with the smallest perturbation of the present design.

  • Replacement of 4 B1 slices with defocusing quadrupole slices, to increase Q1 quadrupole gradient to decrease by*. Present orbit correctors are be able to cope with a small crossing angle (±3.5 mrad).

  • Effect of the crossing angle on the luminosity needs to be studied. Two different phenomena: long range beam-beam interactions at the Parasitic Crossings (PC) become as important as the main one and luminosity, as well as main IP tune shifts, are degraded.

  • Choice to collide with or without a crossing angle is a trade-off between these two effects. It is important to determine the minimum beam separation required in order to have acceptable beam-beam tune shifts at the PC: this sets the choice on the angle value.


Ir upgrade cont d
IR upgrade (cont’d)

  • A study of the new IR issues has been presented at the PEP-II Machine Advisory Committee held at SLAC in October this year. An evaluation of the PC effect for both the present PEP-II and the upgraded version has been presented to the ICFA Workshop on e+e- High Luminosity Factories also held in October.

  • The choice of the more suitable IR geometry and by* value is the most urgent item, and this study will continue next year to finalize the IR geometry. Once the IR has been designed the lattice of the two rings has to be also modified in order to correct for the increased chromaticity arising from the lower by*. This study will start next year, and it is a preliminary step towards the design of a new IR for by* = 1.5 mm using superconducting quadrupoles (HERA type) for the Super B-Factory project.


Luminosity upgrade ir issues
Luminosity Upgrade & IR issues

  • To increase Luminosity in PEP-II there are few key points(brute force):

    • Decreaseby*

    • Decreasesz

    • Increasenumber of colliding bunches

    • Increasecurrents

    • Increasebeams separationto decrease the effect of parasitic crossings

  • All these... leaving the present IR as much unchanged as possible !

M.Biagini, PEP-II Machine Advisory Committee, Break-out Session, SLAC, Oct. 10th 2003


Luminosity upgrade ir issues cont d
Luminosity Upgrade & IR issues (cont’d)

  • These goals are problematic with the present IR:

    • Q1 is not strong enough to lower by*

    • Need to push Q1 closer to IP (gradient increases, balance between peak by in Q1 and chromaticity increase)

    • Parasitic crossings can be an issue (as now in by_2 pattern), degrading luminosity and tune shifts (separation is not enough)

    • At higher currents beam backgrounds can be a big problem (Sullivan)

M.Biagini, PEP-II Machine Advisory Committee, Break-out Session, SLAC, Oct. 10th 2003


Luminosity upgrade ir issues cont d1
Luminosity Upgrade & IR issues (cont’d)

  • At higher currents and shorter bunches HOM heating, beam pipe temperature and instabilities all grow

  • Decreasing sz thepeak current increases and also increases the probability of trapping modes (bunch spectrum is larger)

  • Chromaticity correction can be a problem: with present optics the b functions at the nearby sextupoles have been already increased in order to operate with present sextupoles

  • Vacuum pipe apertures can also be an issue when decreasing b* (peaks increase) and can limit beam lifetimes AND produce backgrounds

  • A smaller bunch length could affect the Touschek lifetime in LER (not an issue now) if there is not a corresponding increase in dynamic aperture

M.Biagini, PEP-II Machine Advisory Committee, Break-out Session, SLAC, Oct. 10th 2003


Her pc tune shifts in by 2 pattern vs b y and f
HER PC tune shifts in by_2 patternvs. by* and f

Comparison of PC tune shifts for different by* and crossing angles.

The head-on solution is the red curve

M.Biagini, Long range beam-beam interactions in PEP-II,

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Ler pc tune shifts in by 2 pattern vs b y and f
LER PC tune shifts in by_2 patternvs. by* and f

Comparison of PC tune shifts for different by* and crossing angles.

The head-on solution is the red curve

M.Biagini, Long range beam-beam interactions in PEP-II,

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Summary

  • The initial upgrade proposal replaced the last 4 slices of the B1 magnets with quadrupole field. However, this replacement introduces a ± 3.3 mrad crossing angle at the IP. Recent beam-beam simulations indicate a luminosity reduction for beams with even a small crossing angle.

  • An alternative proposal is to strengthen the IP end of QD1 and remove some the outboard slices. This moves the center of the magnet closer to the IP while maintaining the head-on collision and hence the peak luminosity. However, this design has parasitic crossing effects that become quite large at the low by* values.

  • There are several alternatives between these two proposals and a compromise solution may be the better design

  • We might try to test the crossing angle lumi loss prediction if there is a measurable loss at small enough angles (+/- 0.5 mrad)

M.Sullivan, IR Upgrade,

ICFA e+e- Factories, Oct. 2003


Touschek backgrounds
Touschek backgrounds

  • Backgrounds studies have started this summer to evaluate the impact of the Touschek lifetime on LER.

  • The Touschek lifetime, which was measured in LER but is not limiting the beam lifetime at the present beam current, could be strongly affected by the change in beam parameters foreseen by the luminosity upgrade.

  • Moreover the Touschek scattered particles could represent a further source of background in the detector.

  • It is foreseen to use the same simulation tools already successfully applied to DAFNE to evaluate the Touschek lifetime and to produce energy spectra of the Touschek scattered particles to be given as an input to GEANT.


Longitudinal kicker cavity
Longitudinalkicker cavity

  • One of the problems of the high currents option is the beam induced heating of structures as the kickers used in the longitudinal feedback. In particular, this problem has already arisen for the LER.

  • An over damped cavity longitudinal kicker has been first conceived at LNF for DAFNE and it has been adopted by KEK-B and Bessy II. The same design has been applied to LER and the kicker is presently being built and it will be installed next December.

  • This kind of device is easily cooled from the outside and it is expected to more than double the current capability of LER kickers.


Beam induced power

Existing drift-tube kicker

New cavity kicker

Impedance

Beam spectrum

x1.5

Beam induced

voltage

Deposited power


Feedbacks
Feedbacks

  • The PEP-II longitudinal feedback has been originally designed by a joint collaboration SLAC-LBNL-LNF, and it has proved to work very well to suppress multibunch instability at PEP-II, ALS and DAFNE.

  • An evolutionary board (G-board) is presently under development, its capability to cope with the higher currents involved in the upgrade has however to be checked.

  • Moreover the interconnection between the LFB and the RF system performances is very tight, so the LFB and LLRF sub-group of the Task Force will collaborate with the RF sub-group and concentrate on a reliable modeling of PEP-II longitudinal dynamics (both beam and RF), a key to evaluating the upgrade proposals, as well as on the analysis and redesign of the LLRF feedback.


J.Fox, SLAC, Alghero Workshop

(was 500 MHz)

(just one board instead of 22)


Rf issues
RF Issues

  • The RF cavities are the most critical component of the rings at present. Their performances are a limit the achievable integrated luminosity at the moment. The upgrade in number of cavities will require high reliability and the study of suitable feedbacks.

  • PEP-II is now operating routinely with about 2 A in the LER and 1.1 A in the HER. The longitudinal coupled bunch motionis stable with a reasonable margin at the present current rates. However grow/damp measurements made through the LFB system showed that the coupled bunch modes closest to instability are those excited by the fundamental mode of the RF cavities that are detuned toward lower frequencies by the beam loading effect.

  • The klystrons saturation reduces the effective gain of the loops used to reduce the interaction between the beam and the cavity accelerating modes. As a consequence, the loop performances are less effective than expected, and the beams will become unstable at the current values required by the short and medium term machine upgrade.


Rf issues cont d
RF Issues (cont’d)

  • Different ideas are under study to overcome this limitation. The most direct cures (klystron and cavity rebuilding) are probably too invasive and expensive.

  • A less expensive solution consists in installing a second, more linear power amplifier feeding the cavities in parallel to the klystron and only devoted to excite the loop correction signals. The evaluation of the RF power required and the study of the high power combiner are presently in progress. However, at the moment the most promising idea is the implementation of a new loop around the klystron to linearize and stabilize its small signal amplitude response (LNF idea).

  • From preliminary analysis the loop seems feasible, with a sufficiently broad frequency response. A “simulink” Matlab model of this system is under elaboration; a hardware prototype will be probably built and tested during year 2004.


Bunch shortening studies
Bunch shortening studies

  • The bunch shortening is one of the major issues of the luminosity upgrade, since the hourglass effect limits the luminosity for by* < sl, a lower by* means that the bunch length has to be decreased too. However this cannot be done easily. Increasing the RF voltage is an expensive option. Other options foreseen are the addition of higher harmonic cavities, and/or to change the machine lattice to lower the momentum compaction (HER only).

  • A brand new idea for bunch shortening (RF focusing) is presently being studied at LNF (Gallo,Raimondi,Zobov) for DAFNE2. The same design could be modified to suit the LER ring needs.


A. Gallo, The Strong RF Focusing: a possible approach to get short bunches at the IP

Hourglass effect

by*

Squeezing the vertical beam size by reducing the vertical b-function is effective only if the bunch length is also reduced to about the b* value.

Bunch length


Strong rf focusing srff
Strong RF Focusing (SRFF)*

Modulation of bunch length

along the ring with a minimum at the IP

sRF

sIP

* A. Gallo, P. Raimondi and M. Zobov :”Strong RF Focusing for Luminosity Increase”

DAFNE Technical Note G-60, 18/8/2003


Longitudinal phase space
Longitudinal phase space

High RF voltage

+

Magnetic lattice which correlates longitudinal position with energy deviation (high momentum compaction)

IP

From RF to IP

RF input

RF center

RF output

Energy

spread

Bunch length


Personnel and funding requests
Personnel and funding requests

  • For the 2004 the request is to have 6 month/person to participate to Machine Developments shifts, meetings and design studies :

    • 3 month/person on IR design and backgrounds studies

    • 1 month/person on bunch shortening studies

    • 2 month/person on longitudinal feedback e RF issues

  • The following LNF/AD physicists are at present part of this collaboration :

    • M. E. Biagini(coordinator) for the IR design, beam-beam and lattice studies

    • M. Boscolo (½ time) for the backgrounds studies

    • A. Dragofor the longitudinal feedback (RF and broadband)

    • A. Gallofor the bunch shortening and RF studies

    • F. Marcellinifor the longitudinal kicker operation

    • M. Seriofor the longitudinal feedback (RF and broadband)


ad