Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS FAC...
-
date post
15-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS FAC...
1Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Undulator Physics UpdateHeinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS
October 27, 2005
Undulator Physics UpdateHeinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLS
October 27, 2005
Response to Recommendations Tolerance Budget based on Genesis Simulations Electron Beam Parameter ‘Tolerances’ Wakefield Budget
Response to Recommendations Tolerance Budget based on Genesis Simulations Electron Beam Parameter ‘Tolerances’ Wakefield Budget
2Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Response to FAC Recommendations
Response:With regards to the undulator, Radiation Physics simulations have shown that OTR foils are not likely to cause a problem if designed and used properly. A foil of 10 microns thickness or less used for a few shots at a time will not cause a problem. The use of the foil will be interlocked to the MPS system. Also, bunches will not be allowed to enter the undulator area while the OTR foil is performing an insert or remove motion (indeterminate position).
Presently, the plan for the undulator OTR foils is being reduced down to an R&D project. We are removing the funds for actually building and installing OTR foils in the undulator area from the base line. We will still have the ability to measure the x and y beam sizes at every undulator break by using the secondary function of the Beam Finder Wire (BFW).
Response:With regards to the undulator, Radiation Physics simulations have shown that OTR foils are not likely to cause a problem if designed and used properly. A foil of 10 microns thickness or less used for a few shots at a time will not cause a problem. The use of the foil will be interlocked to the MPS system. Also, bunches will not be allowed to enter the undulator area while the OTR foil is performing an insert or remove motion (indeterminate position).
Presently, the plan for the undulator OTR foils is being reduced down to an R&D project. We are removing the funds for actually building and installing OTR foils in the undulator area from the base line. We will still have the ability to measure the x and y beam sizes at every undulator break by using the secondary function of the Beam Finder Wire (BFW).
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The radiation produced by scattering from OTR foils in the undulator is a concern. The Committee recommends that a plan be developed to minimize risk of damage to undulators from OTR screen use.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The radiation produced by scattering from OTR foils in the undulator is a concern. The Committee recommends that a plan be developed to minimize risk of damage to undulators from OTR screen use.
3Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Response to FAC Recommendations
Response:The need for the upstream beam monitor, i.e. the Beam Finder Wire (BFW), comes from the tight tolerances for positioning the electron beam on the undulator axis as defined during the tuning procedure. While this alignment can be achieved using a portable wire position monitor system, using such a system requires extended tunnel access during the commissioning process after a straight electron beam trajectory has been established with the beam-based alignment procedure. The BFW will provide a beam-based measurement, and allow this alignment task to be accomplished from the control room without the need for tunnel access. The portable wire position monitor system will serve as a backup.
Response:The need for the upstream beam monitor, i.e. the Beam Finder Wire (BFW), comes from the tight tolerances for positioning the electron beam on the undulator axis as defined during the tuning procedure. While this alignment can be achieved using a portable wire position monitor system, using such a system requires extended tunnel access during the commissioning process after a straight electron beam trajectory has been established with the beam-based alignment procedure. The BFW will provide a beam-based measurement, and allow this alignment task to be accomplished from the control room without the need for tunnel access. The portable wire position monitor system will serve as a backup.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The procedure to align the undulator appears to be feasible and offers additional redundancy; however, the justification for an upstream beam monitor was not made clear.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The procedure to align the undulator appears to be feasible and offers additional redundancy; however, the justification for an upstream beam monitor was not made clear.
4Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Response to FAC Recommendations
Response:We have studied more carefully the tolerances for alignment variations over both short and long term time-scales, and have devised an escalating series of beam-based correction levels, each with an associated time-scale and tolerable FEL power loss, as was suggested by the FAC in April 2005. The ‘bulls-eye’ diagram proposed by the FAC has been tagged “Kem’s Zones” and has been described in some detail in Paul Emma’s presentation. Briefly, the correction levels extend from shot-to-shot trajectory feedback systems, to hourly ‘micado’ steering algorithms, to daily weighted steering or ‘BBA-light’, to weekly BBA, and finally to semi-annual conventional alignment. The outcome of these studies has also served to define the tolerable trajectory drift errors over short term (BBA execution duration: 1 hr) and longer term (diurnal variations: 1 day). These tolerances are incorporated into the undulator Physics Requirements Document (PRD) 1.4-001 and serve as a guideline for the design of supports, temperature regulation, and BPM systems.
Response:We have studied more carefully the tolerances for alignment variations over both short and long term time-scales, and have devised an escalating series of beam-based correction levels, each with an associated time-scale and tolerable FEL power loss, as was suggested by the FAC in April 2005. The ‘bulls-eye’ diagram proposed by the FAC has been tagged “Kem’s Zones” and has been described in some detail in Paul Emma’s presentation. Briefly, the correction levels extend from shot-to-shot trajectory feedback systems, to hourly ‘micado’ steering algorithms, to daily weighted steering or ‘BBA-light’, to weekly BBA, and finally to semi-annual conventional alignment. The outcome of these studies has also served to define the tolerable trajectory drift errors over short term (BBA execution duration: 1 hr) and longer term (diurnal variations: 1 day). These tolerances are incorporated into the undulator Physics Requirements Document (PRD) 1.4-001 and serve as a guideline for the design of supports, temperature regulation, and BPM systems.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:Concern remains about the ground settlement and stability of the undulator hall floor. The Committee recommends that LCLS project physicists quantify the allowable ground motion given the range of instrumentation available, and provide specifications on ground motion based on realistic day-to-day alignment and periodic beam-based alignment. The physics analysis should include study of the extent to which the systems can accommodate movements beyond the survey tolerances.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:Concern remains about the ground settlement and stability of the undulator hall floor. The Committee recommends that LCLS project physicists quantify the allowable ground motion given the range of instrumentation available, and provide specifications on ground motion based on realistic day-to-day alignment and periodic beam-based alignment. The physics analysis should include study of the extent to which the systems can accommodate movements beyond the survey tolerances.
5Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Response to FAC Recommendations
Response:The temperature stability tolerances for the undulator tunnel have been re-examined both with respect to their influences on the undulator magnetic field as well as to the positional stability of the quadrupoles and BPMs. GENESIS simulations of the effects of errors of the average K values for each undulator segment, both random and systematic, show that temperature errors from a uniform distribution with a width of ±1 degree F (±0.56 degrees C) are consistent with a total overall error budget for a 25% reduction in FEL power (but not taking credit for simple undulator x-position adjustments to compensate temperature variations). In parallel, a thermal expansion study was carried out at the APS with the result that for temperature changes of ±0.5 degree C the critical components will stay with in the position tolerances (±5 microns over 24 hours). Based on these analyses, which will be presented during the next FAC meeting, the temperature tolerances for the undulator tunnel have been relaxed. The requirement specification says now: “The absolute temperature along the Undulator will stay within a range of 20±0.6 °C at all times.”
Response:The temperature stability tolerances for the undulator tunnel have been re-examined both with respect to their influences on the undulator magnetic field as well as to the positional stability of the quadrupoles and BPMs. GENESIS simulations of the effects of errors of the average K values for each undulator segment, both random and systematic, show that temperature errors from a uniform distribution with a width of ±1 degree F (±0.56 degrees C) are consistent with a total overall error budget for a 25% reduction in FEL power (but not taking credit for simple undulator x-position adjustments to compensate temperature variations). In parallel, a thermal expansion study was carried out at the APS with the result that for temperature changes of ±0.5 degree C the critical components will stay with in the position tolerances (±5 microns over 24 hours). Based on these analyses, which will be presented during the next FAC meeting, the temperature tolerances for the undulator tunnel have been relaxed. The requirement specification says now: “The absolute temperature along the Undulator will stay within a range of 20±0.6 °C at all times.”
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The very tight temperature tolerances in the undulator tunnel (+/- 0.2 C) have severe implications on controls. There are plans to put electronics in the ceiling air return duct where it will be difficult to maintain and concerns that the stepping motors will give off more heat than allowed. The air conditioning system necessary to maintain that temperature stability is also very expensive. The accelerator physicists should have a hard look to see if there is a way to increase this tolerance.
FAC April 2005 Recommendation:The very tight temperature tolerances in the undulator tunnel (+/- 0.2 C) have severe implications on controls. There are plans to put electronics in the ceiling air return duct where it will be difficult to maintain and concerns that the stepping motors will give off more heat than allowed. The air conditioning system necessary to maintain that temperature stability is also very expensive. The accelerator physicists should have a hard look to see if there is a way to increase this tolerance.
6Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
LCLS Undulator Tolerance Budget Analysis
Based On Time Dependent SASE Simulations in 2 Phases
Simulation Code: Genesis 1.3
Simulate Individual Error Sources
Combine Results into Error Budget
Based On Time Dependent SASE Simulations in 2 Phases
Simulation Code: Genesis 1.3
Simulate Individual Error Sources
Combine Results into Error Budget
7Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Parameters for Tolerance Study
The following 8 errors are considered:Beta-Function Mismatch,
Launch Position Error,
Module Detuning,
Module Offset in x,
Module Offset in y,
Quadrupole Gradient Error,
Transverse Quadrupole Offset,
Break Length Error.
The ‘observed’ parameter is the average of the FEL power at 90 m (around saturation) and 130 m (undulator exit)
The following 8 errors are considered:Beta-Function Mismatch,
Launch Position Error,
Module Detuning,
Module Offset in x,
Module Offset in y,
Quadrupole Gradient Error,
Transverse Quadrupole Offset,
Break Length Error.
The ‘observed’ parameter is the average of the FEL power at 90 m (around saturation) and 130 m (undulator exit)
8Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I - Individual Study
Time-dependent runs with increasing error source (uniform distribution) and different error seeds. Gauss fit to obtain rms-dependence.
Detailed Analysis Description
2
220
i
i
x
iP P e
0i
iP P e
2i x
2
1
2
9Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 1b: Optics MismatchSimulation and fit results of Optics Mismatch analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 114-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 80-m-point.
Optics Mismatch (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
080 m 0.58
114 m 0.71
Average 0.64
0 0 0
12
2ix
21 x 2
2 2m 2 / 2m
Transformation from negative exponential to Gaussian:
< 1.41< 1.41Y. Ding SimulationsY. Ding Simulations
10Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Comparison of vs. /0
1- value
0 0 0
12
2
Simplifies at waist location:
0 0 0
0
1
2
+
2
0
1
-or, resolved for
11Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 2: Transverse Beam Offset
Transverse Beam Offset (Gauss Fit) /
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 25.1 µm
130 m 21.1 µm
Average 23.1 µm
Simulation and fit results of Transverse Beam Offset (Launch Error) analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
Horiz. Launch Positionix
2
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
12Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 3: Module Detuning
Module Detuning (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 0.042 %
130 m 0.060 %
Average 0.051 %
Simulation and fit results of Module Detuning analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
/ix K K
Z. Huang SimulationsZ. Huang Simulations
13Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 4: Horizontal Module Offset
Horizontal Model Offset (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 0782 µm
130 m 1121 µm
Average 0952 µm
Simulation and fit results of Horizontal Module Offset analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
14Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 5: Vertical Module Offset
Vertical Model Offset (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 268 µm
130 m 268 µm
Average 268 µm
Simulation and fit results of Vertical Module Offset analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
15Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 6: Quad Field Variation
Quad Field Variation (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 8.7 %
130 m 8.8 %
Average 8.7 %
Simulation and fit results of Quad Field Variation analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
16Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 7: Transverse Quad Offset Error
Transverse Quad Offset Error (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 4.1 µm
130 m 4.7 µm
Average 4.4 µm
Simulation and fit results of Transverse Quad Offset Error analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
17Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step I – Error 8: Break Length Error
Break Length Error (Gauss Fit)
Location Fit rms Unit
090 m 13.9 mm
130 m 20.3 mm
Average 17.1 mm
Simulation and fit results of Break Length Error analysis. The larger amplitude data occur at the 130-m-point, the smaller amplitude data at the 90-m-point.
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
18Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step II - Tolerance Budget
Assuming that each error is independent on each other (validity of this assumption is limited)
Each should yield the same degradation
Tolerance is defined for a given power degradation
2
2 2 22
1 12 2 2 2
0
i
i ii
x nf f fP
e e e eP
f 2
nlnP0
P
1 - P/P0 f
20 % 0.236
25 % 0.268
n = 8n = 8
tolerancetolerance
fitted rmsfitted rms
fi=xi/ifi=xi/i unit weightsunit weights
19Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step III - Correlated Error Sources
For the simplest approach, the tolerance budget assumes uncorrelated errors of 8 different sources.
Some tolerances (e.g. the break length error) are very relaxed and can be reduced to relax other tolerances, i.e. use individual tolerances.
Next step is to combine all error sources in the simulation.
Include BBA and other correction scheme in the runs
For the simplest approach, the tolerance budget assumes uncorrelated errors of 8 different sources.
Some tolerances (e.g. the break length error) are very relaxed and can be reduced to relax other tolerances, i.e. use individual tolerances.
Next step is to combine all error sources in the simulation.
Include BBA and other correction scheme in the runs
21
2
0
ifPe
P
20Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Step II - Tolerance Budget (cont’)
Error Source i i f fi i fi Units
f=0.268(25% red.) (24.2% red.)
Hor/Ver Optics Mismatch (-1)0.5 0.64 0.19 0.453 0.32
Hor/Ver Transverse Beam Offset 23 5.7 0.177 3.7 µm
Module Detuning K/K 0.051 0.016 0.402 0.024 %
Module Offset in x 952 301 0.125 140 µm
Module Offset in y 268 72 0.298 80 µm
Quadrupole Gradient Error 8.7 2.3 0.028 0.25 %
Transverse Quadrupole Offset 4.4 1.3 0.215 1.0 µm
Break Length Error 17.1 5.4 0.048 1.0 mm
Can be mitigated through steering.Can be mitigated through steering.
< 1.1< 1.1
21Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Model Detuning Sub-Budget
MMF K KK K T x
2
2
ii i
KK p
p
Parameter pi Typical Value rms dev. pi Note
KMMF 3.5 0.0003 ±0.015 % uniform
K -0.0019 °C-1 0.0001 °C-1 Thermal Coefficient
T 0 °C 0.32 °C ±0.56 °C uniform without compensation
K 0.0023 mm-1 0.00004 mm-1 Canting Coefficient
x 1.5 mm 0.05 mm Horizontal Positioning
2 2 2 2 2
MMF K K K KK K T T x x
/ 0.020%K K
22Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
e- beam Tolerances
Parameter Fits
Parameter Param (rms ) Unit
n 0.72 µm½
Ipk 0.91 kA½
p/p 0.025 %
ˆ ˆ
0oI I
P Pe
ˆ ˆ
0oI I
P Pe
2
1
2
2
1
2
2ˆoI I x 2ˆoI I x
2,n n o x 2,n n o x
Saturation after Undulator End
Saturation after Undulator End
21
20
dpp
P Pe
21
20
dpp
P Pe
,
0n n oP P e
,
0n n oP P e
Saturation after Undulator End
Saturation after Undulator End
1/ 2 1/ 2 1.72 µm1.72 µm
2.57 kA2.57 kA
0.025 %0.025 %
23Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
e--Beam Quality ‘Tolerance Budget’
Beam Parameter i fi i fi UnitsParameter
Limit
(50.2% red.)
n 0.72 0.757 0.55 µm½ <1.5 µm
Ipk 0.91 0.780 0.70 kA½ >2.9 kA
p/p 0.025 0.480 0.012 % <0.012 %
Will keep saturation before undulator endWill keep saturation before undulator end
Beam Parameter i fi i fi UnitsParameter
Limit
(35.7% red.)
n 0.72 0.543 0.39 µm½ <1.35 µm
Ipk 0.91 0.599 0.50 kA½ >3.1 kA
p/p 0.025 0.480 0.012 % <0.012 %
Uses only half the saturation length budgetUses only half the saturation length budget
24Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Wakefield Budget
Undulator Wakefield Sources:Resistive Wall Wakefields (ac conductivity) => Main Contributor
Mitigation: Aluminum Surface, Rectangular Cross Section
Surface Roughness WakefieldsMitigation: Limit roughness aspect ration to larger than 300.Total contribution small compared to resistive wall wakefields
Geometric WakefieldsSources:
Rectangular to Round TransitionBFW Replacement Chamber Mis-Alignment RF Cavity BPMsBellows Shielding SlotsFlangesPump Slots
Total contribution small compared to resistive wall wakefields
Undulator Wakefield Sources:Resistive Wall Wakefields (ac conductivity) => Main Contributor
Mitigation: Aluminum Surface, Rectangular Cross Section
Surface Roughness WakefieldsMitigation: Limit roughness aspect ration to larger than 300.Total contribution small compared to resistive wall wakefields
Geometric WakefieldsSources:
Rectangular to Round TransitionBFW Replacement Chamber Mis-Alignment RF Cavity BPMsBellows Shielding SlotsFlangesPump Slots
Total contribution small compared to resistive wall wakefields
25Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Short Break Section Chamber Profile
Chamber Diameter 8 mm
Chamber Diameter 8 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Chamber Diameter 10 mmChamber Diameter 10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Flange Gaps .5 mmFlange Gaps .5 mm
RF Cavity Length 10 mmRF Cavity Length 10 mm
Bellows Shielding Slots Gaps 20 mm / 10%
Bellows Shielding Slots Gaps 20 mm / 10%
BFW Replacement ChamberBFW Replacement Chamber
Pump SlotPump Slot
There are now 5 flanges per short break sectionThere are now 5 flanges per short break section
26Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Long Break Section Chamber Profile
Courtesy of Dean WaltersCourtesy of Dean Walters
Chamber Diameter 8 mm
Chamber Diameter 8 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Chamber Diameter 10 mmChamber Diameter 10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Undulator Chamber 5x10 mm
Flange Gaps .5 mmFlange Gaps .5 mm
RF Cavity Length 10 mmRF Cavity Length 10 mm Bellows Shielding Slots
Gaps 20 mm / 10%
Bellows Shielding Slots Gaps 20 mm / 10%
BFW Replacement ChamberBFW Replacement Chamber
Pump SlotPump Slot
27Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Geometric Wakefield Budget Summary
total core
Component Characterization Count <> <>
[%] [%] [%] [%]
Transitions 5mm x 10mm <=> 8 mm dia 33 -0.043 0.027 -0.022 0.002
BFW Replacement 0.5 mm @ 8 mm dia 33 -0.036 0.022 -0.019 0.002
Total Transition -0.080 0.049 -0.041 0.004
Shielded Bellows 20 mm gap @ 10 mm dia 48 -0.004 0.002 -0.004 0.000
RF Cavity BPM 10 mm length @ 8 mm dia. 33 -0.009 0.003 -0.008 0.001
Flanges 0.5 mm gap @ 8 mm dia 170 -0.010 0.003 -0.008 0.001
Pump Slots 10 mm dia 33 -0.004 0.002 -0.003 0.000
Total Diffraction -0.027 0.010 -0.022 0.003
Beam Energy = 13.64 GeV
Undulator Length = 132 m
Charge = 1 nC
Core Charge = 0.45 nC
28Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Transition Model Wake Field Summary
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -82.2 keV/m (-0.080 %)
Wt,rms = 50.7 keV/m ( 0.049 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -42.5 keV/m (-0.041 %) Wc,rms = 4.4 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -82.2 keV/m (-0.080 %)
Wt,rms = 50.7 keV/m ( 0.049 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -42.5 keV/m (-0.041 %) Wc,rms = 4.4 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
-> 52.0 keV/m -> 52.0 keV/m
29Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Diffraction Model Wake Field Summary
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -26.6 keV/m (-0.026 %)
Wt,rms = 9.9 keV/m ( 0.009 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -23.2 keV/m (-0.041 %) Wc,rms = 2.7 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -26.6 keV/m (-0.026 %)
Wt,rms = 9.9 keV/m ( 0.009 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -23.2 keV/m (-0.041 %) Wc,rms = 2.7 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
30Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Surface Roughness Wake Field Summary
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -13.0 keV/m (-0.013 %) Wt,rms = 26.9 keV/m ( 0.026 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = 2.9 keV/m ( 0.003 %) Wc,rms = 4.6 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -13.0 keV/m (-0.013 %) Wt,rms = 26.9 keV/m ( 0.026 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = 2.9 keV/m ( 0.003 %) Wc,rms = 4.6 keV/m ( 0.004 %)
Aspect Ratio 300Aspect Ratio 300
31Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Resistive Wall Wake Field Summary
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -82.6 keV/m (-0.080 %)
Wt,rms = 88.1 keV/m ( 0.085 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -36.1 keV/m (-0.035 %)
Wc,rms = 79.8 keV/m ( 0.077 %)
Total Bunch:
<Wt> = -82.6 keV/m (-0.080 %)
Wt,rms = 88.1 keV/m ( 0.085 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -36.1 keV/m (-0.035 %)
Wc,rms = 79.8 keV/m ( 0.077 %)
AC Conductivity
Al, parallel plates
AC Conductivity
Al, parallel plates
32Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Total Wake Field Summary
Total Bunch:
<Wt> =-204.3 keV/m (-0.198 %) Wt,rms = 127.2 keV/m ( 0.123 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -98.8 keV/m (-0.096 %)
Wc,rms = 78.3 keV/m ( 0.076 %)
Total Bunch:
<Wt> =-204.3 keV/m (-0.198 %) Wt,rms = 127.2 keV/m ( 0.123 %)
Bunch Core:
<Wc> = -98.8 keV/m (-0.096 %)
Wc,rms = 78.3 keV/m ( 0.076 %)
-> 52.0 keV/m -> 52.0 keV/m
33Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Total Wake Budget Summary
total core
Wakefield Component Parameters <> <>
[%] [%] [%] [%]
Transition Model -0.080 0.049 -0.041 0.004
Diffraction Model -0.026 0.009 -0.022 0.004
Surface Roughness -0.013 0.026 0.003 0.004
Resistive Wall -0.080 0.085 -0.035 0.077
Total -0.198 0.123 -0.096 0.076
Beam Energy = 13.64 GeV
Undulator Length = 132 m
Charge = 1 nCCharge = 1 nC
Core Charge = 0.45 nC
34Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
GENESIS Simulated
35Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
Al
Al + 200 kV/m
no wake
36Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
Al
Al + 200 kV/m
no wake
37Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
38Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
39Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
S. Reiche SimulationsS. Reiche Simulations
40Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
Summary
An undulator tolerance budget analysis based on GENESIS simulations was presented.
Several critical tolerances have been relaxed:Temperature Stability is now 0.56oC (was 0.1oC)
Vertical Segment Alignment is now 80 µm (was 70 µm) rms
Short Term (1hr ) Quadrupole Stability 2 µm (was 1 µm in 10 hrs)
Long Term (24hrs ) Quadrupole Stability 5 µm
An undulator wakefield budget analysis is used to keep track of the various wakefield sources during the component design phase.
An undulator tolerance budget analysis based on GENESIS simulations was presented.
Several critical tolerances have been relaxed:Temperature Stability is now 0.56oC (was 0.1oC)
Vertical Segment Alignment is now 80 µm (was 70 µm) rms
Short Term (1hr ) Quadrupole Stability 2 µm (was 1 µm in 10 hrs)
Long Term (24hrs ) Quadrupole Stability 5 µm
An undulator wakefield budget analysis is used to keep track of the various wakefield sources during the component design phase.
41Undulator Physics Update – October 27, 2005 Heinz-Dieter Nuhn, SLAC / LCLSFAC [email protected]@slac.stanford.edu
End of Presentation