1 / 15

Beam dynamics in LINAC4

Beam dynamics in LINAC4. Edgar Sargsyan , Jean-Baptiste Lallement Alessandra Lombardi. HIPPI yearly meeting, sep28-sep30 2005. contents. Changes to the layout and impact on the beam dynamics End-to-end simulations Open questions. Layout. Field ramp : 1.5 to 3.0 MV/m.

sivan
Download Presentation

Beam dynamics in LINAC4

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. Beam dynamics in LINAC4 Edgar Sargsyan , Jean-Baptiste Lallement Alessandra Lombardi HIPPI yearly meeting, sep28-sep30 2005

  2. contents • Changes to the layout and impact on the beam dynamics • End-to-end simulations • Open questions

  3. Layout

  4. Field ramp : 1.5 to 3.0 MV/m Phase law : -42 to -25 Change # 1 : DTL-RF field Constant field at 3.3 Mv/m in tank1 ; 3.5 MV/m in tank2,3 Phase law : -30 to -20

  5. Effects of change # 1 • Shorter DTL (13.4 vs 16.6m) • 27 drift tubes in tank1 (vs. 41) • Same beam dynamics • Increased sensitivity to RF errors but tolerable • same longitudinal acceptance

  6. Change#2-DTL focusing FD focusing instead of FFDD Smaller beam radius Less sensitive to errors Less halo development Higher integrated gradient (70% more gradient for 20% less radius)

  7. Effect of change # 2

  8. Today’s focusing law • FFDD in tank1 limited by the max quadrupole length (45mm) in a 3 MeV 352 MHz drift tube and the max gradient achievable by ITEP PMQ. • FDFD afterwards • Study ongoing to evaluate the effect of leaving a 3 meter section FFDD in a 70 m machine with FD everywhere…..

  9. Change # 3 –accel phase Phase at -20 degrees also for CCDTL and SCL 5 meters shorter CCDTL, same length SCL

  10. Sensitivity to errors Tracking the centre of the beam through the DTL-CCDTL-SCL with a field and phase errors of 0.5% and 0.5deg r.m.s. Results of 100 runs. No feedback correction Energy and phase jitter are limited to 5 degrees and 250 keV r.m.s. By Matteo Pasini

  11. End-to-end : 4D waterbag RFQ input beam: Nparticles=50000 I=70 mA Win=95 keV ΔW/W=0.5 % (rms) Distribution=4D WB εx=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms) εy=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms)

  12. End-to-end : gaussian RFQ input beam: Nparticles=50000 I=70 mA Win=95 keV ΔW/W=0.5 % (rms) Distribution=gaussian εx=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms) εy=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms)

  13. End-to-end : 40 mA RFQ input beam: Nparticles=50000 I=40 mA Win=95 keV ΔW/W=0.5 % (rms) Distribution=4D WB εx=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms) εy=0.25 π mm-mrad (norm. rms)

  14. Conclusion • Changes to the design of the DTL have a positive impact on the layout and little effect on the beam dynamics • A current of 70 mA, present baseline of the LINAC4, is at the limit of the acceptance of the chopper line and some re-matching is needed.

More Related