Linac4 to PSB transfer line (slides by M. Garcia-Tudela & A. Lombardi slightly adapted)

Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questionsChristian Carli 25th May 2011On behalf of many people contributing Linac4 to PSB transfer line (slides by M. Garcia-Tudela & A. Lombardi slightly adapted) Strong space charge regime and simulations Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 Some (not that) recent Results Status and Outlook Losses, activation, collimation … A few words on 2 GeV upgrade and RCS study Status and Plans and open Questions

L4 to PSB line: Motivation(slides by M.Garcia & A.Lombardi slightly adapted) • L4T new layout in order to make power converters suitable for quadrupoles to be constructed. • Possible solutions • Quads: • Longer quadrupoles • Aperture reduction  Keep 50 mm radius • Beam dynamics: • Reduce the integrated gradient • Highest gradients in the vertical offset  Increased distance between the magnets Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Modified Vertical offset 14.47 deg 10 m 2.5 m 14.47 deg • Before : Steep slope required, 28 deg, 5.35 m • Increased distance between the magnets (equal spacing between vertical bends and quads) • Factor of 2.5 gained in integrated gradient. Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Proposal to modify first horizontal deflection • Idea: to Reduce the distance between MBH.150 and MBH.350 to 8m. • Not required to reduce maximum gradient, but motivated by beam dynamics, for: • First horizontal bending further from Linac output where the beam is still bunched. ~3.6m • Reduce the space charge effects. • Make easier the matching downstream. Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Comparison between layouts Previous Layout BHZ.20 13.82m 5.35 m Proposed Layout BHZ.20 ~ 8m 10 m Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Top View proposed layout • Nb: Final positions to be discuss with the design office. Not corresponding to the MADX file. Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Quad settings Previous : 17 Quads (1 PIMS type) Proposed : 16 quads (1 or 2 PIMS type) L = 250 mm ALL QUADS BELOW 1.8 T Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Beam dynamics (New Part) Previous Layout Proposed Layout Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Up to PSB Injection Dx=0 Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

L4 to PSB line: Status and next steps • Feasible? • Bend and quad positions o.k. for integration (discussion last Wednesday) • Ordered converters now suitable with weaker magnets • Next steps: • Review diagnostics and correctors (new positions … what about numbers) • 14 correctors foreseen for steering, magnet experts plan for 5 correctors • Restrictions for SE monitors due to losses? • Sensitivity studies (expected to be o.k. … similar beam sizes & weaker quads) • (Rematch of the line with new quads (if necessary)) • Re-discuss integration and make sure that plans are consistent Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations -Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 • Rationale for Linac4: • PS Booster limited by direct space charge effects, quantified by direct space charge tune shift ∆Q, at injection energy • Increase injection energy such that the brightness can doubled (double intensity within unchanged normalized emittances) without changing ∆Q • Raise injection energy from 50 MeV with Linac2 to 160 MeV with Linac4 • Convert to H- charge exchange injection • Reach the Phase Space Density expected in the PSB • Allows - with a Linac4 Beam chopper - for longitudinal Painting • New injection hardware for increased injection energy and charge exchange injection • Next bottleneck around the corner: PS and SPS at low energy Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations -Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 Longitudinal Painting • Principle: • Triangular energy modulation (slow, ~20 turns for LHC) • Beam on/off if mean energy inside a contur ~80% of acceptance • Nominal LHC: intensity with 41mA (!!!) after 20 turns • High intensity: several and/or longer modulation periods • Potential limitations: Linac4 jitter, debunching of Linac4 structure in Booster • Note that D ~ 1.4 m at the PSB injection Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations -Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 Reference trajectory without bumps Bending magnet BS3 BS4 BS1 BS2 Closed orbit with chicane and painting bump Incoming H- Stripping foil Injection straight at the beginning of the injection (trajectory of incoming H- coincides with closed orbit) H- charge exchange injection and transverse painting • Injection chicane required to merge incoming H- beam with circulating protons • No use of main bend field (as done e.g. at BNL) • Little space available in injection section (existing machine) to install chicane “BS” magnets • Perturbation of lattice due to BS magnets adding focusing • Strong beta-beating in vertical plane due to tune close to (and even above) half-integer(mandatory for good performance with high intensity/brightness beams) • Make BS magnets as long as possible to reduce additional focusing • Compensate lattice perturbations (as much as possible) by additional quadrupolar fields Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations -Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 QDE03 and QDE14 appropriate for Compensating 2QV = 9 Injection straight section • “Active” compensation of injection chicane • Look for appropriate locations to add (time-varying) quadrupolar fields • Trims on QDE magnets (on additional windings …) in period 03 and 14 with appropriate phases • Effective compensation with large vertical b-functions (small horizontal perturbation small hor. b‘s) • Slow chicane fall (say 5 ms) to make sure that quad trim PSs can follow programmed currents • “Passive” compensation • Do not use R-Bends, but add pole-face rotations to bring part of perturbation in (less sensitive) horizontal plane • No perfect compensation during chicane fall • Fast chicane fall possible without compensation currents (if Eddy currents are nor a problem) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations -Recap on plans for the PSB with Linac4 β-beating with (dashed) and without (solid) compensation Blue: vertical; red: horizontal • “Active” compensation with trims on appropriate QDE quads: • Proposal (M. Aiba, B. Goddard ..) for additional quads ruled out initially:complicated scheme with similar b-function in both planes for quads in straights • Trims on QDE quadrupoles are appropriate (chicane made of rectangular bends): • Large (b-function and) compensation in vertical plane with little (b-function and) perturbation in the horizontal plane • In practice: trims on appropriate “Q-strips” (additional windings of PSB quads) • Appropriate quads for “lower vertical tune: QDE03 and QDE14 • Compensation during (no compromise) whole chicane fall • Preliminary discussion on Power Converters: feasible provided chicane fall time is not too short (at least a few ms) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations –Some (not that) recent Results • Time dependent lattice implemented following a procedure proposed by M. Aiba (found by looking into the code!!) • Chicane magnets modeled as bends with time-varying properties during chicane fall • For “active” compensation, variation of quadrupole components as well. • Lattice regularly (every turn during chicane fall) read from file, properties of some magnets redefined • Emittance evaluations: • Dispersion (from file) used for emittance evaluations not any more the one of the lattice in the simulation (magnet properties redefined) • Emittances and lattice functions from analysis of dumped macro-particle distributions • Simulations: both “active” and “passive” compensation work (formar with slighty less losses) • “active” compensation will be used (simpler for hardware) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations –Some (not that) recent Results Plots from Michel’s presentation on 2nd december 2010 eV (mm) Comparison of compensation schemes (M. Scholz, M. Martini …) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations –Some (not that) recent Results Plots from Chiara’s presentation on 2nd december 2010 • Study on painting with slower energy modulation (M.Martini, J.-B. Lallement) • Injection painting bumpoptimization (C.Bracco et al.) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Strong space charge regime and simulations –Status and Outlook • Simulations with original ORBIT version concentrated on Injection Studies • Shorter duration, blow-up due to injection hardware “easier” to assess • Choice of “active” compensation of chicane • More recently (still with original ORBIT version) • First studies on longer energy modulation period (J.-B. Lallement and M. Martini) • Studies on transverse painting (C. Bracco) • Imperfections (multipoles) of chicane magnets to be modeled (urgent!!) • Lattice imperfections, slow blow-up, working point studies … • Feasibility, resources … can only be a long-term aim (dream) in present situation • PTC ORBIT version installed at present at CERN • Very recently still discussions on basics for time-dependent lattice • Advantage: easier for ORBIT simulations with lattice imperfections and time-dependence Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Losses, activation, collimation … • Impact of less losses at higher energy on activation and operation • Study on hold due to lack of resources … • … potential showstopper for connection in LS1?? • Very first study on collimation by a doctoral student (P.Jackson) • First approach: multistage system as in LHC … however without possibility to place many secondary collimators • Very very thin primary collimator needed at these low energies • Excessive heating for full beam loss • May-be a single stage system feasible?? .. Better understanding of what happens with lost particle Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

A few words on 2 GeV upg. and RCS study • Study in 2010 on 2 GeV upgrade with little involvement from our side • Our initiative to start some studies • Study on transfer of 2 GeV LHC beams with present kickers • Is it really necessary to exchange the MPS (upgrade required in any case)? • Discussions (recent) on transfer of high intensity hPSB=2 beams to PS • ABP contributions to present RCS studies mainly by M.Fitterer • Very quickly decision for longer version (4/21) times the PS and construction outside the PS (justifications??) • Several interesting lattices proposed (triplet versus doublet, triangular, square, racetrack, different number of cells … kind of dispersion suppression scheme with contrib. by B.Holzer) • Decision to stick to lattice used for CE estimates • Unclear situation on contributions expected from us • E.g.: design of the transfer line? Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Status and Plans and open Questions • Linac4 to PSB transfer line (new task) • Geometry and optics (Alessandra & Margarita) hopefully frozen • Next steps: instrumentation, imperfections/steering, discussions to make sure everything is consistent • … measurement line to be looked into (LBS) urgently • Longitudinal painting • Basic principles for implementation discussed and documented • Adaptation of PSB injection timing and application to generate data for chopping • Instrumentation: Agreement on basic description of measurements and “knobs” required to commission and operate H- injection • High intensity, instabilities … • Studies by Giovanni et al. • Impedance of new injection hardware and impact (instabilities) .. urgent • Losses, activation … • On hold due to lack of resources • Clarification on expectations and available resources • Expectations MUST fit to available resources!! Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Introduction – CERN PS Booster (PSB) Overview • Recapitulation of the present Booster with Linac2: • Constructed in the 70ies to improve the performance (intensity) of the PS • Four superimposed rings (chosen instead of fast cycling synchrotron or 200 MeV Linac) • 16 cells with triplet focusing, phase advance >90o per period • Large acceptances: 180  m and 120  m in the horizontal and vertical plane, respectively • Multiturn injection with betatron stacking and septum at 50 MeV • Acceleration to 1400 MeV (was 800 MeV at the beginning) Sketch of the PS Booster with: - Distribution of Linac beam into 4 rings - Recombination prior to transfer Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Introduction – CERN PS Booster (PSB) Overview • Mandatory for high Intensity and Brightness • Double harmonic RF (now: h=1 and h=2), • Resonance compensation, • Dynamic working point … • Maximum direct space charge tune shifts larger than 0.5 in the vertical plane • Intensities above 1013 protons per ring (more then four times design) obtained • Versatile machine - many different beams with different characteristics • PSB to PS Transfer Energy: • Increased (in two steps) from 800 MeV to 1400 MeV to reduce direct space charge effects in the PS • Direct Space Charge at PSB Injection a Bottleneck Dynamic Working point with lower vertical tune – no syst. 3rd order resonance (taken from a presentation by M. Chanel) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Status and Plans and open Questions • Plans and open questions (optimistic wish-list? … resources needed) • Feasibility to study “long term” (~100 ms) blow-up? • Comparison (Benchmark) with exp’s • Machine imperfections (misalignements, multipoles from mech. tolerances ..) • Working point optimizations ?? • Injection of 50 MeV protons from Linac2 and Linac4 with conventional multiturn injection • Recent question: to which extent Linac4 can “replace” Linac2 in case of failure (>2014 when Linac4 may be ready but not yet connected to the Booster) • Injection with a magnetic septum (PTC ORBIT suitable?) to be studied • Imperfections of the chicane magnets (multipoles …. with time dependence) • Completion studies on injection with constraints on (slower) energy modulation • Completion of injection painting optimizations • RCS studies (proposed/studied as new PS injector): • Asses performance to be expected (Laslett tune shifts > 0.5 to be expected) • Space charge limit with low periodicity and, possibly,£ large variations of beta functions • Losses … and activation • Any • Emittance and lattice function estimates only based on analysis of macro-particle distributions Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Issues Related to the new H- Injection – Conceptual Aspects for the Injection • Dynamic working point and vertical tune at injection: • At present: highest intensity with vertical tune at injection above half-integer resonance (but below for LHC type beams) • With Linac4 always below half-integer resonance: • Double brightness for LHC, • Less than twice the intensity for high intensity (less losses, limited by machines further downstream as well) • Dispersion matching: • Large energy modulation for longitudinal painting and dispersion of PSB • If beam arrives from Linac4 with D=0 m (dispersion mismatch): correlation of transverse emittance and position in longitudinal phase space • Should beam arrive with D matched to the PSB lattice (see chapter on simulations) • Acceptance with Linac4 • At present: Large beams close to limit of ejection channel acceptance (losses) • With Linac4: aim for same maximum emittances at ejection • Smaller physical emittances at injection -> reduce machine acceptance • For acceptances: AH=130 mm, AV=60 mm and ADp/p=±2.2 10-3: • Half-apertures in long straights: horizontal ±33 mm and vertical ±18 mm • Can one take profit of a localized aperture to concentrate losses? Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Issues Related to the new H- Injection – Conceptual Aspects for the Injection • Layout of the injection region (mainly by TE/BT team working on hardware) • Superposition of two closed orbit bumps: • Chicane to merge incoming H- beam with circulating protons • Injection painting bump: horizontal painting and removes beam from foil • Options (with different conceptual approaches) • Small injection bump and “high” chicane (baseline): • No problems with apertures • Chicane is used as well to remove circulating beam from foil • Large injection bump and small height of chicane (ABP proposal): • Foil outside of machine acceptance after fall of chicane • Aperture in bends within injection painting bump critical • Plans for the near future: • Evaluation of the two options by simulation with failures (e.g. painting triggered bump too early and injection with large betatron amplitudes) • Fix layout (and specify maximum chicane fall time) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Issues Related to the new H- Injection – Scenario proposed (foil outside acceptance without painting bump) • Limiting aperture (“BeamScope” like) in straight ~2p from foil (5L1) • Aperture displaced towards inside of PSB -23 mm to +43 mm to save aperture for the injected beam -> “average” momentum (for large beams) Dpav/p = -10mm/D • Height of painting bump: • Distance chicane to inner edge of foil: 33 mm + 7mm = 40 mm • Distance edge of foil to incoming beam (Dpav/p) : 3*(2b erms)1/2 + D Dppaint/p ~ 15 mm • Height of the injection painting bump: 55 mm (instead of 35 mm proposed by BT) • Problem: tight for aperture (taken by painting bump) • Make use of acceptance reduction to implement rough collimation • Thin aperture defining acceptance (at beginning) in straight section • Thicker absorber behind in same straight section and/or in straights further downstream • First step: look into feasibility Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Simulations of Beam Dynamics with strong direct Space Charge Forces nH=20.4m nH=19.2m ACCSIM nV=7.3m nV=7.1m ORBIT • Assessment of slow blow-up by Simulations feasible?: • Benchmark comparing measurements (by M. Chanel) with simulations (by M. Aiba and M. Martini) and between ACCSIM and ORBIT (M. Aiba and M. Martini) • For the moment, no satisfactory agreement (yet?) • Example: • 2nd harmonic RF toshorten bunches toincrease tune shift • ACCSIM largelyoverestimates blow-up • ORBIT overestimatesblow-up as well • Dependance on numberof macro-part’s • Numerical artefacts? • Successful benchmark is prerequisite to apply simulations for blow-up and loss estimates Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Simulations of Beam Dynamics with strong direct Space Charge Forces Evolution of rms emittances after injection - blow-up (extrapolation ?) may be too large(slightly larger relative blow-up for 99% and 100% emittances) • Impact of injection matching and painting on PSB performance • Filamentation of structure due to injection dispersion mismatch? • Investigated by M. Aiba with input from B. Goddard – longitudinal and transverse painting of an LHC type injected over 20 turns • No significant difference with and without dispersion mismatch • To do: Impact (minor ?) of transverse matching and painting on performance? • Simulation on impact on and of the injection foil by BT team and M. Aiba Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Simulations of Beam Dynamics with strong direct Space Charge Forces • Evolution of beam parameters during fall of chicane with lattice perturbations and passive compensations and different fall times (simulations by M. Aiba) • “Passive” compensation (see above) by pole-face rotation of chicane magnets yield • Simulations with ORBIT and additional routine for time dependant focusing of chicane, but no synchrotron oscillations • Simulations indicate significant reduction of blow-up Chicane: LBS = 0.25 m and sector bends Chicane: LBS = 0.25 m and “tapered” bends • Lattice perturbation and “active” (by trims on QDE’s) compensation • Injection painting, “static chicane and compensation” and with synchrotron motion • Similar results (compensation reduces blow-up) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Activities and Plans for the working Group on “PSB Beam Dynamics with Linac4” • Proposed longitudinal painting proposed and follow-up (implementation, see talk on “RF aspects and possible limitations”) • Beam dynamics with strong direct space charge forces • Benchmark to which extent simulation are appropriate tools • Apply simulations: filamentation of structure from injection, losses slow blow-up … ?) • Beam dynamics issues related to the new H- charge exchange injection (with BT team) • Integration into the CERN Complex (see talk on “Operational Scenarios …”): • Generation of all (also low intensity without painting) beams to be provided, minimization of losses and activation • Transfer of LHC type beams between PSB and PS • Check limitations of present Booster hardware: • Instabilities (existing damper with higher intensities) • (Beam loading problems of h=2 cavities for h=1 beams … limitations ISOLDE beams ?) • Beam Losses, Activation (“normal” losses, failure scenarios …): • Losses at Injection (Line and Ring) in collaboration with or by injection hardware team ? • Feasibility of rough Collimation System (if feasible, resources need to be requested and allocated) Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Summary, Status and Questions • Linac4 aims at increasing the brilliance out of the PSB by about a factor 2. • Beam dynamics studies aim: • Thorough understanding of implications of Linac4 on PSB • Anticipating problems to implement measures ensuring fast and efficient (i) restart of the PSB with Linac4 (ii) performance increase to expected levels • Status • Progress on many topics during the last year, but work on some topics still in starting phase • Present priority on studies with possible impact on hardware (e.g. finalization of injection) • Questions to the review board: • Validation of proposed longitudinal painting • Advice on finalization of injection layout • Validation of proposed reduction of the machine acceptance • Advice on simulations with strong direct space charge effects Status of the LINAC4 to PSB beam dynamics studies and open questions

Linac4 to PSB transfer line (slides by M. Garcia-Tudela & A. Lombardi slightly adapted)