beam-beam simulations
DESCRIPTION
Beam-beam simulations. M.E. Biagini, K. Ohmi, E. Paoloni, P. Raimondi, D. Shatilov, M. Zobov INFN Frascati, KEK, INFN Pisa, SLAC, BINP April 26th, 2006 UK SuperB Meeting, Daresbury. Outline. GuineaPig simulations & Automatization 2 beams scheme with asymmetric energies - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Beam-beam simulations
M.E. Biagini, K. Ohmi, E. Paoloni, P. Raimondi, D. Shatilov, M. Zobov
INFN Frascati, KEK, INFN Pisa, SLAC, BINP
April 26th, 2006UK SuperB Meeting, Daresbury
Outline
• GuineaPig simulations & Automatization
• 2 beams scheme with asymmetric energies
• Crab waist simulations:– DANE– SuperB
BB simulations
• Evolution of the SuperB layout is a consequence of the beam-beam studies
• Both luminosity and beam blow-up are the parameters to “watch”: figure of merit is now L/log(blowup/)
• Optimization of beam parameters must include Damping Ring optimization and Final Focus design
First simulations• An extensive campaign of beam-beam
simulations has been carried out to find the best beam parameters set
• GuineaPig code by D. Schulte (CERN) has been used (same as ILC studies) in this first phase
• Optimization of beam parameters for round beams case was performed interfacing GuineaPig with Mathematica
• Round and flat, 2 and 4 beams studied
GuineaPig to Mathematica
E. Paoloni, 2nd SuperB LNF Workshop
Round case test• Tested first with round beams• Search of maximum L with a scan of
parameters space
Scan of the x,x plane
Optimum region
L/log(blowup/)
Scan of the x,z plane
L/crossing
E. Paoloni, 2nd SuperB LNF Workshop
4 Beams tests
• 4 beams are more unstable than 2 beams, highly disrupted, with larger emittance blow ups and give lower luminosity
• Not exhaustive analysis not excluded we can find better working parameter set in the future
• Shorter beams seem to work better• Larger horizontal beam size is better• Higher energy definitely works better
Possible choice for ILC !!!!
2 beams
4 beams
Flat Casecomparison with
4 beamsPhase space after collision
(x,x’), (y,y’), (z,E/E)
x,x’ z,E/Ey,y’
x,x’ x,x’z,E/E z,E/Ey,y’ y,y’
2 beams asymmetric energies
• Studied the 2-beams scheme with asymmetric energies for 4x7 GeV case:– Npart = 2.x1010
– I = 1.6 A (for a 3Km ring, 6000 bunches)
– x = 2.670 m
– y = 12.6 nm
– z = 4. mm
– x = 2.5 mm
– y = 80. m
– = 2x25 mrad
Symmetric E
Y emittance blow-up: 3x10-3
Asymmetric E (4x7 GeV)
Y emittance blow-up: 4 GeV 5x10-3
7 GeV 3x10-3
Study of emittance blow-up
Asymmetric energies (4x7 GeV)
with transparency condition (I)
Y emittance blow-up: 4 GeV 3.5x10-3
7 GeV 3.6x10-3
Np(4 GeV) = 2.65x1010
Np(7 GeV) = 1.51x1010
I(4 GeV) = 2.1 AI(7 GeV) = 1.2 A
Asymmetric energies (4x7 GeV)
with asymmetric bunch lengths
Np(4 GeV) = 2x1010
Np(7 GeV) = 2x1010
I(4 GeV) = 1.6 AI(7 GeV) = 1.6 A
z(4 GeV) = 3.02 mm z(7 GeV) = 5.29 mmY emittance blow-up: 4 GeV 4x10-3
7 GeV 4x10-3
Crab-waist simulations
• The new idea by Pantaleo is being checked by several beam-beam codes:– Guinea-Pig: strong-strong , ILC centered– BBC (Hirata): weak-strong – Lifetrack (Shatilov): weak-strong with tails
growths calculation– Ohmi: weak-strong (strong-strong to be
modified for long bunches and large angles)
Sto
rag
e
rings
Vertical waist has to be a function of x:
Z=0 for particles at –x (- x/2 at low current)
Z= x/2 for particles at + x (x/2 at low current)
x
2Sz
2Sx
z
2Sx/
2Sz*
e-e+
GuineaPig
Collisions with uncompressed beamsCrossing angle = 2*25 mrad
Relative Emittance growth per collision about 1.5*10-
3
yout/y
in=1.0015
DANE case (M.Zobov, LNF)• Hirata’s BBC code simulation
(weak-strong, strong beam stays gaussian, weak beam has double crossing angle)
• Np = 2.65x1010, 110 bunches
• Ib = 13 mA (present working current)
• x = 300 m, y = 3 m
• x = 0.3 m, y = 6.5 mm
• z = 25 mm (present electron bunch length)
• = 2x25 mrad• YIP = y+0.4/(x y’) crabbed waist shift• Lo=2.33x1024 (geometrical)• L(110 bunches,1.43A) = 7.7x1032
• Lequil=6x1032
(Geometric) Luminosity
Takes into account both bb interactions and geometric factor due to crab waist
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
L/Lo
n x [1/angle]
n/
Peak around 0.3/
M.Zobov, LNF
Scan vs crab waist n/
Vertical Tails(max amplitude
after 10 damping times)
Vertical Size Blow-up
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Ay/y0
n x [1/angle]
n/
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
y/y0
n x [1/angle]
n/
M.Zobov, LNF
Present WP:x = 0.11y = 0.19
Possible WP:x = 0.057 y = 0.097
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
0 5 10 15 20 25
(0.11,0.19)(0.057,0.097)Theory
I [mA]
L [10^33]
Luminosity vs bunch currentfor 2 different working points
M.Zobov, LNF
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50
200um,20mm200um,15mm100um,15mm
I [mA]
L [10^33]
110 bunchesM.Zobov, LNF
Luminosity with shorter bunch and smaller x (preliminary)
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16
Qx
L/L0 at Qy = 0.09
Some resonances
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16
no crab focus0.25/teta0.40/teta
Qx
L/L0 at Qy = 0.05
M.Zobov, LNF
2Qx = 2Qy1Qx = 2Qy
(present with crossing angle only)
No crab waist
Crab waist
Beam-Beam Tails (D.Shatilov, BINP)
Without Crab Waist
With Crab Waist
Bunch core blowup
also reduced
Ay = 90
Ay = 45
Vertical tails growth Greatly reduced
(A is the amplitude in number of beamsize )
SuperB Luminosity Ohmi’s weak-strong code
K2 is the strength of the sextupolar nonlinearity introduced to have crab waist
SuperB vertical blow-up Ohmi’s weak-strong code
Conclusions
• For the asymmetric energies “equal blow up” can be obtained with transparency condition (asymmetric I, or z)
• The “crab waist” scheme has shown big potentiality and exciting results LNF, BINP and KEKB physicists are working on the bb simulation with different codes to explore its properties and find the best set of parameters
• This scheme is promising also for increasing luminosity at existing factories, as DANE, KEKB and possibly PEPII