1 / 31

Beam beam simulations with disruption (work in progress...)

Beam beam simulations with disruption (work in progress...). M.E.Biagini SuperB-Factory Workshop Frascati, Nov. 11 th , 2005. Beam-beam. Beam-beam interaction in a linear collider is basically the same Coulomb interaction as in a storage ring collider. But:

dolph
Télécharger la présentation

Beam beam simulations with disruption (work in progress...)

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 beam simulations with disruption(work in progress...) M.E.Biagini SuperB-Factory Workshop Frascati, Nov. 11th, 2005

  2. Beam-beam • Beam-beam interaction in a linear collider is basically the same Coulomb interaction as in a storage ring collider. But: • Interaction occurs only once for each bunch (single pass); hence very large bunch deformations permissible not for SBF ! • Extremely high charge densities at IP lead to very intense fields; hence quantum behaviour becomes important bb code

  3. Disruption • Beam-beam disruption parameter  equivalent to linear bb tune shift in storage ring • Proportional to 1/g large numberfor low energy beams • Typical values forILC < 30, 100 > SBF >1000 • The bb interaction in such a regime can be highly non linear and unstable

  4. Contraddicting requests! Scaling laws • Disruption: • Luminosity • Energy spread: Decrease sz + decrease N Increase spotsize Increase N Decrease spotsize Increase sz + decrease N Increase spotsize

  5. Kink instability • For high Disruption values the beams start to oscillate during collision  luminosity enhancement • Number of oscillations proportional to D • bb sensitive even to very small beam y-offsets Simulation !

  6. Pinch effect • Self-focusing leads to higher luminosity for a head-on collision • The “enhancement” parameter HD depends only on the Disruption parameter • HD formula is “empirical fit” to beam-beam simulation result  good for small Dx,y only

  7. Disruption angle • Disruption angle after collision also depend on Disruption: • Important in designing IR • For SBF: spent-beam has to be recovered ! • Emittances after collision have to be kept as small as possible  smaller damping times in DR

  8. Beamsstrahlung • Large number of high-energy photons interact with electron (positron) beam and generatee+e- pairs • e+e- pairsare a potential major source of background • Beamsstrahlung degrades Luminosity Spectrum

  9. SBF energy spread • U(4S) FWHM = 20 MeV beam energy spread has to be smaller • PEP-II cm energy spread is ~5 MeV, depends on HER and LER energy spreads, which in turn depend on dipole bending radius and energy • For “linear colliding” beams a large contribution to the energy spread comes from the bb interaction • Due to the high fields at interaction the beams lose more energy and the cm energy spread increases

  10. GUINEAPIG • Strong-strong regime requires simulation. Analytical treatments limited • Code by D. Schulte (CERN) • Includes backgrounds calculations, pinch effect, kink instability, quantum effects, energy loss, luminosity spectrum • Built initially for TESLA  500 GeV collisions, low rep rate, low currents, low disruption • Results affected by errors if grid sizes and n. of macro-particles are insufficient

  11. Parameters optimization • Choice of sufficiently good “simulation parameters” (compared to CPU time)…took time • Luminosity  scan of emittances, betas, bunch length, number of particles/bunch • Outgoing beam divergences and emittances • Average beam losses • Luminosity spectrum • cm energy spread • Backgrounds

  12. D Energy spread Luminosity & sE vs N. of bunches at fixed total current = 7.2 A (6.2 Km ring) Working point

  13. Working point parameter listfor following plots… • ELER = 3.94 GeV, EHER = 7.1 GeV (bg = 0.3) • Collision frequency = 120 Hz • bx = 1 mm • by = 1 mm • exLER = 0.8 nm, exHER = 0.4 nm DR • ey/ex =1/100 • szLER = 0.8 mm, szHER = 0.6 mm Bunch comp • Npart/bunch = 4x1010 • Nbunch = 24000 DR kickers • Incoming sE = 10-3 Bunch comp LD = 1.2x1036 cm-2 s-1

  14. Luminosity spectrum (beamsstrahlung contribution only, incoming beams energy spread 10-4) 64% of Luminosity is in 10 MeV Ecm

  15. X - collision x (nm) z (micron) red  LER HER  green

  16. Y - collision y (nm) z (micron) red  LER HER  green

  17. Outgoing beam emittances • LER: • exout = 4.2 nm = 5 * exin • eyout = 2.9 nm = 360 * eyin • HER: • exout = 1.5 nm = 4 * exin • eyout = 1. nm = 245 * eyin Damping time required:6 t For a rep rate120 Hzt=1.5 msec needed in damping ring

  18.  X LER y   X HER y  Outgoing beam phase space plots

  19. L vs energy asymmetry (bg) Asymmetry helps L Chosen bg = 0.3

  20. Hourglass effect • Hourglass effect limits attainable Luminosity bunch must be shorter than b* • Short bunches smaller Disruption • Long bunches smaller energy spread • Solution: “travelling focus” (Balakin)  • Arrange for finite chromaticity at IP (how?) • Create z-correlated energy spread along the bunch (how?)

  21. D Energy spread Luminosity vssz Geometric L does not include hourglass For shorter bunches LD increase but energy spread also!

  22. Energy spread L vs x-emittance

  23. L vs y-emittance (coupling) 1% coupling is OK (smaller L has a fall off)

  24. Comments • Energy asymmetry can be compensated by asymmetric currents and/or emittances and bunch lengths • Current can be higher or lower for HER wrt LER, with proper choice of emittance and bunch length ratios • Increasing x-emittance the Disruption is smaller  less time needed to damp recovered beams  loss in luminosity could be recovered by collision frequency increase • Increasing beam aspect ratio (very flat beams) also helps to overcome kink instability

  25. Outgoing beams, exLER = 1.2 nm  X LER y   X HER y 

  26. X – collision, baspect ratio = 100 x (nm) z (micron) red  LER HER  green

  27. Y – collision, baspect ratio = 100 y (nm) z (micron) red  LER HER  green

  28. Luminosity spectrumbaspect ratio = 100 Luminosity is 60% lower Dy is smaller sE is not affected by the interaction

  29. Outgoing beams, baspect ratio = 100  X LER y   X HER y 

  30. Outgoing beam emittancesbaspect ratio = 100 • LER: • exout = 8 nm = 10 * exin • eyout = 0.05 nm = 6 * eyin • HER: • exout = 1. nm = 2.5 * exin • eyout = 0.02 nm = 5 * eyin Damping time required :2 t With rep rate360 Hzt=1.4 msec

  31. To do list… • Decrease cm energy spread • Increase luminosity • Increase X spot sizes aspect ratio  “very flat” beams (R=100) and bunch charge • New parameter scan • Increase precision  n. of micro-particles • Travelling focus • ….

More Related