1 / 23

ERL RF Systems

ERL RF Systems . A. Nassiri November 15, 2006. Presented to the Machine Advisory Committee for the Technical Review of APS Accelerator Upgrade Options – November 15-16, 2006. Outline. Goals Cavity design criterion Cavity parameters Frequency Cell Shape Number of cells Q vs. Gradient

cala
Download Presentation

ERL RF Systems

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ERL RF Systems A. Nassiri November 15, 2006 Presented to the Machine Advisory Committee for the Technical Review of APS Accelerator Upgrade Options – November 15-16, 2006

  2. Outline • Goals • Cavity design criterion • Cavity parameters • Frequency • Cell Shape • Number of cells • Q vs. Gradient • Cavity and wall-plug Power • Fundamental RF Coupler • HOM Coupler • Cooling Requirement • RF power sources and rf distribution • LLRF system • A summary of cavity design parameters • Cavity R&D • Conclusion

  3. Goals • To accelerate beam with up to 100 mA and 2-4 ps bunch length to 7 GeV • CW operation • Achieve and maintain rf amplitude and phase required for stability • Preserve nm-type beam emittance in the linac • Acceptable machine reliability and beam availability

  4. Criteria for Cavity Design • Cavity parameters

  5. Cavity Frequency • Frequency scaling • The losses in a microwave cavity are proportional to • For a given length of a multi-cell structure • It becomes independent of • At , the BCS term dominates above 3 GHz and the losses grow linearly with frequency • Below 300 MHz, the residual resistance dominates and the losses are proportional to

  6. Cavity Frequency • Choice of frequency • 1300 MHz ( Single-pass) • Pros • Design exists ( TESLA Cavity, DESY)1 • Has been benchmarked • Significant working experiences • Cons • Will need some modifications to be suitable for High power CW operation • BBU threshold and HOM effects • Smaller cavity aperture. Beam loss and scraping issues • Wakefields issues • 1408 MHz (Single-pass) • Pros • 4th harmonic of the APS storage ring frequency • Makes it possible to “synchronize” ERL and SR ( hybrid mode operation) • Cons • Cavity has to be designed • Requires R&D for development, optimization, and rf characterizations for CW operation • BBU threshold and HOM effects • Smaller cavity aperture. Beam loss and scraping issues • Wakefields issues 1 J. Sekutowicz, DESY

  7. Cavity Frequency • Choice of frequency (Two-pass) • 704 MHz • Pros • 2nd harmonic of the APS storage ring frequency • Makes it possible to “synchronize” ERL and SR ( hybrid mode operation) • Higher BBU threshold limit • Injector design is simplified. Input power couplers will have higher power handling capability • High peak current effects are reduced • In principle can accelerate higher than 100 mA • Cons • Requires higher bunch charge ( ~150 pc for 100 mA average current), compared to ~77 pc at 1300 MHz • This potentially affects emittance and source brightness • Cavity fabrication and processing due to larger surface area • Lower field gradient

  8. Number of Cells • Effective beam loading in ERL cavities is minimal, close to zero • The required RF power per cell is small • Large number of cells could be excited via one input coupler (TESLA SS ) • Multi-cell cavities with a larger number of cells would also improve linac packing factor, i.e., ratio of active length to total length • This will reduce the cost of the ERL linac, BUT • Strong HOM damping with higher beam current favors smaller number of cells • Extensive SCRF cavity cells optimizations have been done at TESLA and JLab • TESLA – 9-cell cavity • JLab- 7-cell cavity ( CEBAF 12 GeV Energy Upgrade, Renascence) • BNL 703 MHz for eRHIC TESLA 9-cell cavity, 1300 MHz3 1 Courtesy R. Rimmer, JLab 2 Courtesy R. Calaga, BNL 3 Courtesy J. Sekutowicz, DESY BNL 5-cell cavity, 703 MHz2 CEBAF 7-cell cavity, 1497 MHz1

  9. Q vs. Gradient • CEBAF 7-cell cavity • We expect cavity gradient for CW operation to improve in the next five years 1 1 Courtesy C. Reece, JLab

  10. Cavity and Wall-Plug Power • Provide reasonable cavity coupling factor • Provide a cavity bandwidth sufficiently large to allow cavity frequency tuning • We use TESLA structure as a baseline for the following • The strongly over-coupled cavities reflect most of the incident drive power • This results in a large requirement for rf power to produce the specified accelerating voltage

  11. Cavity and Wall-Plug Power • The power dissipated in the cavity wall, Pcav , is given by • Total losses in 350 m of cavities are ~16 kW • Since the beam loading of the accelerated and decelerated beam cancel, ideally there is no effective beam loading for the accelerating mode • The required RF power to maintain a given accelerating voltage under cavity detuning due to microphonics is given by • Allow 20% overhead for control margin and waveguide loss and phase shift ~16 kW klystron is needed.

  12. Cavity and Wall-Plug Power • The required rf power will increase to ~17 kW if one operate the TESLA cavity at the design gradient of 23 MV/m • APS-ERL requires ~350 cavities ( ~350m effective accelerating length) • Assuming an IOT efficiency of 65% • The wall-plug power for the 7 GeV ERL is 7.0 MW • Injector beam power ( 100 mA @10 MeV) is 1MW. 1MW of CW RF power is required • Assuming a klystron efficiency of 50% • Injector wall-plug power is 2 MW • Losses due to synchrotron radiation ( ~15 MeV) ~1.5 MW • Total wall-plug power is 11.5 MW • Multi-pass recirculation reduces wall-plug power

  13. Fundamental Power Couplers • Waveguide • Pros • Simpler in design • Easier to cool • Better power handling • Large size • Bigger heat leak • More difficult to make it variable • Coaxial • Pros • More compact • Easier to make it variable • Smaller heat leak • Cons • More complicated design • Require active cooling • Not so good power handling CEBAF 12GeV Upgrade Renascence cryomodule1 1 Courtesy R. Rimmer, JLab 2 Courtesy M. Liepe, Cornell Cornell 50 kW CW Coupler Design2

  14. HOM Losses • Large HOM power contributes to large loss factor • High Q HOMs contributes to MBI • MBI give rise to beam breakup • High Q dipole modes • Feedback loop between beam and cavities • It is worse for high current, high bunch charge • HOM losses are • This is not an acceptable loss at liquid helium temperature • It has to be properly extracted ( with a carefully chosen Qext) to outside so only a small fraction of the power is dissipated in the cavity walls (per cavity for two beams)

  15. HOM Damping • HOM power must be dumped out of the liquid helium • HOM couplers must be able to handle large average power • Higher order modes must be well coupled to the beam pipe • TESLA HOM coupler is not suitable for CW operation Loop couplers Resonant circuit (@2 K) Ferrite absorbers Broadband (@300 K) (Cornell type) (TESLA type)

  16. Cooling Requirements for 7 GeV • APS-ERL will require a cryogenic plant equivalent to 3.5 x CEBAF • Electrical power utilities requirement: 16.0 MW ( operating at 2.08 ºK) • Multi-pass recirculation reduces power requirement

  17. RF Power Sources • We plan to adapt one-source-per-cavity concept • Because high loaded QL of the cavities prohibits vector sum control of many cavities • In addition, microphonics would cause unacceptable fluctuations of the individual fields in case of vector sum control • RF power source requirements: • Reasonably high efficiency • Reliability and long life time • Availability • Reasonable price • Technical support and good customer service • Types of RF sources: • Klystrons • High gain – requires low drive power • High efficiency when operated close to saturation • A good choice for ERL injector linac ( constant beam loading) • CW sources below 1 GHz are available from industry • CW sources above 1 GHz under development

  18. RF Power Sources • Types of RF sources: • Inductive Output Tubes (IOTs) • High efficiency • High linearity and smaller pushing factors • No saturation. Can operate up to their maximum output power • Less expensive than klystrons BUT • It has lower gain than klystron and needs higher power drive amplifier • Grid geometry does not allow operation at high frequencies like klystrons 1 CPI 1.3 GHz IOT Prototype 1 Courtesy S. Lenci, CPI MPP, Palo, Alto, CA

  19. RF Power Sources

  20. RF Distribution • 7- or 9-cell structure • One cryomodule will consist of 4 or 8 structures • 20 MV/m accelerating field gradient with 60% filling factor • 350 cavities ( 3150 or 2450 cells) • Each structure is powered by its own rf source • 350 power sources with feedback control HOM Damper (4) One cryomodule Water load Circulator HOM Damper (4) RF Amplifier ~600 m

  21. LLRF Control Requirements • Maintain constant phase and amplitude of the cavity fields within given tolerances • RF phase: 0.050 RMS • RF amplitude: 1x10-4 RMS • Minimize power needed for control by actively controlling cavity tuners to ensure operation on resonance • Build-in diagnostics for calibration of gradient and phase, cavity detuning • Fast interlock system for faults during a cavity trip • Feedback loops and control to deal with: • Beam current fluctuations • Microphonics • Lorentz force detuning • Possible types of control systems: • Self-excited loop • Generator driven system and monitor separate amplitude and phase • Use I/Q detector and controller • FPGA/DSP • Use JLab, SNS, CORNELL LLRF systems as baseline design

  22. Cavity R&D • Active R&D is needed to address critical SCRF cavity design for CW operation • Investigate the need for the development of a new cavity that meets APS ERL requirements • Higher fill factor • Strong HOM damping • Low microphonics • TESLA, JLab, Cornell, and BNL experiences are essential • Optimize the shape of the Cornell 7-Cell cavity to further increase HOM damping and to lower cryogenic losses • Collaborate with Cornell SCRF group • Design and build a prototype multi-cell copper cavity • Measure fundamental rf parameters • Q’s of fundamental and HOM modes • Bead-pull measurements to check field flatness • Identify the HOM modes from bead pull field profile • Analysis and simulation of HOM and damping • Design of a high power input coupler (FPC) • Use JLab WG coupler and TESLA Coaxial coupler as baseline • Design and build a multi-cell Nb first prototype cavity • Design and build a prototype cryomodule • Perform vertical dewar test

  23. Conclusion • SCRF technology for ERLs and CW machines is advancing at a fast pace • We expect cavities development to make possible to operate at energy gains in excess of 20 MV/m • A wide range of expertise and experience already exists • Our challenge is to: • How to deal with a 16 kW cryogenic plant ( big footprint, capital+operation) • Note: CEBAF CHL system is 4.6 kW @ 2.1 K • Design a CW-specific cavity to meet ERL design parameters • Tesla 9-cell and JLab 7-cell structures are good candidates • Develop a robust HOM damping system • Better understand and reduce field emission for higher gradient in CW mode • Improve cavity quality factor ( 11011 !) • For CW operation highest fields are not important. Highest possible Q values at about 20 MV/m are very critical. This is in contrast with pulsed ILC requirement. • Develop a robust LLRF control system for CW operation • We intend to actively seek collaboration with other laboratories and institutions on the development of SCRF for ERL ( JLab, Cornell, BNL, Daresbury,….)

More Related