90 ° - cavities with improved inner-cell hom properties
DESCRIPTION
90 ° - Cavities With Improved Inner-Cell HOM Properties. Shannon Hughes Advisor: Valery Shemelin. Introduction. Ideal cavities have geometry for working π -mode frequency Real cavities have many minor defects… F requency can be different than intended - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
90°-Cavities With Improved Inner-Cell HOM Properties
Shannon HughesAdvisor: Valery Shemelin
Introduction• Ideal cavities have geometry for
working π-mode frequency• Real cavities have many minor
defects…– Frequency can be different than
intended• Non-propagating frequency →
trapped higher-order modes– Trapped HOMs can’t get to
damping couplers, so their energy can’t be removed – has negative effect on beam quality
Goal: Stop trapped modes from occurring.
Introduction
How do we avoid trapped modes?• All frequencies within each dipole-mode
bandwidth propagate.– Broader bandwidths → fewer non-propagating
modes, so less likelihood of trapping• Bandwidths can be broadened by modifying
elliptic arc parameters (i.e. geometry)– Need to find geometry that yields widest
bandwidths
Programs Used• SLANS/SLANS2
– creates meshes– calculates frequencies– plots electric fields– SLANS → monopole mode– SLANS2 → dipole modes
• TunedCell– wrapper program for SLANS/SLANS2– calculates figures of merit (e, h, etc)– writes half-cell geometries for each
set of elliptic arc parameters• MathCAD
– fits curves to data using splines– generates random numbers (for
Monte Carlo technique)– plots data, and a lot more
Geometry• A cell is made up of two
elliptic arcs (AB and ab) connected by a line l, as shown in the half-cell figure
• Many figures of merit determined by elliptic arc parameters (A, B, a and b)
• α = cell wall slope angle• Three types of cells – non-
reentrant, 90°, and reentrant • Non-reentrant: α > 90• Reentrant: α < 90
Geometry
Half-Cell Mesh Single-Cell Mesh
GeometrySix-Cell Mesh
Why 90°-Cavities?Frequency vs Phase Shift for
Fundamental Mode• Red → α ≤ 90°• Blue → α > 90°• ERL: - - - - - - - -• TESLA: • Greater difference between
0- and π-mode → larger bandwidth (B0 = f π - f0)
Geometries with α ≤ 90° dominate the lower part of both graphs, tending to have the broadest bandwidths for a given e.
e = Epk/2Eacc
Why 90°-Cavities?Cell-to-Cell Coupling vs Cell Wall
Slope Angle for Fundamental Mode• Multiple cells per cavity
– cells must work well together• Higher k → better coupling
Geometries with α ≤ 90° tend to have the highest k values for a given e.
Why 90°-Cavities?h vs α for e = 1• Best acceleration gradient
comes from– minimizing peak magnetic field
(Hpk) – maximizing accelerating field
(Eacc)
• So minimizing h = Hpk/42Eacc
yields best acceleration gradient
• 95% of overall decrease in h occurs from α = 105° to α = 90°Geometries with α ≤ 90° tend to have the lowest h
values for a given e.
Why 90°-Cavities? • Geometries with α ≤ 90° tend to have the best
h, k and B0 values for a given e.• Reentrant cavities (α < 90°) have some practical
problems– Difficult to remove water/chemicals during cleaning– Difficult to fabricate properly
• 90°-cavities do not share these problems90°-cavities can be used for small-angle benefits without reentrant drawbacks.
Why 90°-Cavities? • Other groups interested in
90°-cavities– Examples: LL, Ichiro, LSF, NLSF
• Our minimized h vs e values just as good or better than these others
h vs e
Ichiro 51: the goal gradient (MV/m) for the 9-cell low-loss “Ichiro” cavity
Higher-Order ModesFrequency vs Phase Shift for 7 Dipole
Modes • Graph shows frequencies of first seven dipole modes in initial 90°-cavity– Focus on these because we limit
maximum frequency to 4 GHz• Some bands very broad, some
very narrow• Is it possible to broaden these
bands?– How much can these bands be
broadened?• e and h are limited to 5% increase• α must remain at 90°→ a = L - A
Broadening One Mode
Frequency vs Phase Shift for 3rd Dipole Mode
• For 3rd dipole mode, 90°-cavity bandwidth is narrow– Especially compared with TESLA and
ERL!• How much can this particular
bandwidth be broadened?• Several broadening methods
using geometry– Changing A incrementally– Changing A, B, and b in the direction
of the gradient of increasing B3 – Changing only B and b in the
direction of the gradient of increasing B3
Changing A Incrementally
• Of all the elliptic arc parameters, changing A has the biggest impact on B3
• A changed incrementally– B and b held at initial values– a held at a = L – A– Stopped when h increased
by 5%
• B3 increased from 12.025 MHz to 68.181 MHz
B3 vs ΔA
Changing A, B and b
• Derivatives of B3 with respect to A, B and b were calculated– Used to create a 3-D
gradient vector with length k in direction of increasing B3
• k increased until h increased 5%
• B3 increased from 12.025 MHz to 75.747 MHz
B3 vs k
Changing B and b
• Idea: changing A affects h too much – Changes stopping too soon because of
h– B and b have less effect on h → change
just these two
• B and b derivatives used to create 2-D gradient vector with length k in direction of increasing B3
• k increased until e increased 5%– h increased less but e increased more!
• B3 increased from 12.025 MHz to 49.237 MHz
B3 vs k
Broadening One Mode
• All three methods successfully broadened the 3rd Dipole mode
• Changing A, B and b as a 3-D gradient → most successful method– B3 grew 6 times wider!
It is possible to significantly increase the bandwidth of one dipole mode of a 90°-cavity with limits on e and h by modifying only the elliptic arc parameters.
Broadening All ModesNext step: increase net bandwidth of all seven modes• Need to maximize goal function:
• Monte Carlo Method1. Derivatives taken for each Bn with respect
to each elliptic arc parameter (EAP)2. Equations created predicting change in Bn
for change in EAPs (assuming linear dependence of Bn on EAP)
3. 10,000 random numbers generated from a set range for each EAP → 10,000 values for each Bn prediction
4. EAPs maximizing predicted G without exceeding e or h limit recorded
5. Prediction testedMonte Carlo Casino
Broadening All Modes• Predictions become much
less accurate after range amplitude exceeds 1.0– So different by range
amplitude of 5.0 that calculations were stopped
– Maybe derivatives continue to change with range → must be recalculated for every increase of 1.0?
• G was increased by 20.881 MHz when the range amplitude was 5.0
ΔG vs Range of Random Numbers
Broadening All Modes• In this case, derivatives
were recalculated for each step of 1.0 in range
• Predicted and actual values are closer but differences more erratic
• G was increased by 20.100 MHz when the range amplitude was 5.0– Slightly less than when
derivatives were kept the same!
ΔG vs Range of Random Numbers
Broadening All Modes• Both Monte Carlo approaches
successfully increased the net bandwidth of all seven modes– Leaving derivatives the same → better
results than recalculating at each step• Small increase compared with initial G,
but final value still better than ERL or TESLA
It is possible to increase the net bandwidth of a 90°-cavity with limits on e and h by using a Monte Carlo technique to modify elliptic arc parameters.
90°, initial 90°, final ERL TESLA
G 1102.673 1123.554 1120.941 1111.875
Frequency vs Phase Shift for 7 Dipole Modes
Final: dashedInitial: solid lineBrillouin light lines : dotted
Sixth Dipole Mode• A special case: B6 = f π – fπ/4, not
|f π - f0| as with all other modes– When general calculation is
applied to this mode → B6 is half what it should be
– If half- or single-cell geometries are used for calculation, correct bandwidth is overlooked• Multicell cavity must be used!
• More accurate bandwidth formula necessary for future broadening of bands– B = fmax – fmin ?
Frequency vs Phase Shift for 6th Dipole Mode
Conclusion
• Several successful ways to reduce trapped modes by broadening bandwidth were determined– A single mode was broadened significantly using a
3-D gradient vector to modify elliptic arc parameters
– Net bandwidth was broadened using a Monte Carlo random number technique
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor Valery Shemelin for his help and guidance throughout this project. Thanks also to everyone who made the CLASSE REU program possible. This work was supported by the NSF REU grant PHY-0849885.