Upload
gavin-long
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RFQ CAD Model Beam Dynamics
StudiesSimon Jolly
3rd August 2011
The State Of Play…
• Comsol/Matlab code to create field maps from Inventor SAT-files is complete:– Inventor model now models arbitrary number of
cells (up to 1000) and changes dynamically based on spreadsheet.
– Code dynamically identifies end flanges and grounds them if they’re present.
– For some reason, native Inventor files won’t import properly: end flanges are missing…
• Inventor models have been built for 6 models, featuring combinations of:– Standard and final FETS matching section.– With/without lead out section.– Full model with lead out and end flanges.
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
2
CAD Models: Matching Sections
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
3
CAD Models: Lead Out/End Flanges
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
4
Comsol Meshing• Import CAD model and
select single quadrant: take advantage of RFQ symmetry.
• Optimum meshes different for different regions:– Vane tips: triangular
(extremely fine auto).– “Inner Beam Box”: 2mm x
2mm, swept rectangular (0.25mm x 0.25mm x 32 slices).
– “Outer Beam Box”: 10mm x 10mm, tetrahedral (extremely fine auto).
– “Air Bag”: 15mm x 15mm, tetrahedral (normal auto).
• Model vanes as “terminals”: only interested in surface fields.
• If end flange is present, model as ground plane.
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
5
Vane tips
Air Bag
Inner Beam Box
Outer Beam Box
Nov’10 UKNF Results
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
6
Scott’s Matching Section, No Lead-Out
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
7
Scott’s Matching Section, Lead-Out
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
8
Standard Matching Section, Lead-Out
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
9
Scott’s Matching Section, End Flanges
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
10
Standard Matching Section, End Flanges
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
11
Preliminary Conclusions
• Well, some good, some very bad…• Good:
– No significant difference between beam transmission with/without lead-out section.
– Scott’s matching section shows slightly better transmission than the standard! Not yet sure why…
• Bad:– Significant beam losses when end flanges are
included!– This is not as bad as is seems: turns out I
started the beam in the wrong place…• Reran simulations using Alan’s setWBemittance
function and correctly aligned field map.03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College
London12
Scott’s Matching Section, Lead-Out
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
13
Scott’s Matching Section, Lead-Out (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
14
Scott’s Matching Section, End Flanges
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
15
Scott’s Matching Section, End Flanges (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
16
Standard Matching Section, Lead-Out
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
17
Standard Matching Section, Lead-Out (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
18
Standard Matching Section, End Flanges
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
19
Standard Matching Section, End Flanges (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
20
Scott’s Matching Section, End Flanges (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
21
Results• Hurrah! Proper transmission for full field map using
final matching section, lead out section and end flanges.
• Virtually no difference between with/without end flanges.
• Current seems to be lower for “Lead-Out” models:– > 92% for previous, 91.7% for newer.– Turns out using “setWBemittance” gives slightly
bigger beam than 10,000 particle input file I was using before.
– Obviously sensitive to input conditions!• Also measured effect of 10 micron and 100 micron
tolerance on “Lead-Out” model:– Fixes transverse parameters to nearest 10/100
microns in spreadsheet.– Can we set the machining tolerance?
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
22
Standard Matching Section, Lead-Out (New)
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
23
Lead-Out Section, 10 micron Tolerance
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
24
Lead-Out Section, 100 micron Tolerance
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
25
Conclusions• Possible to generate “arbitrary” models in Inventor: takes a
few minutes to update model (but need to test in 2012…).• Nice to be able to generate models in Comsol very easily
without any “coaxing”: full run takes 6 hours, but can model individual cells if only a few change.
• Lots of interesting results from simulations:– Virtually no difference in transmission or energy spread when
we change model.– Slight increase in emittance:
• Input: eps_x = 0.257 pi mm mrad; eps_y = 0.255 pi mm mrad.• Without end flanges or lead out section: eps_x = 0.305 pi mm
mrad; eps_y = 0.301 pi mm mrad.• With half cell but no lead out section: eps_x = 0.302 pi mm mrad;
eps_y = 0.309 pi mm mrad.• With lead out but no end flanges: eps_x = 0.300 pi mm mrad;
eps_y = 0.321 pi mm mrad.• With lead out but no end flanges: eps_x = 0.309 pi mm mrad;
eps_y = 0.317 pi mm mrad.• Looks like tolerance is less than 100 microns, but 10 microns
is okay. Not yet sure how realistic the model is…
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
26
For Next Time…
• Jürgen’s results show that the field leaks out into the end flange: need to start beam 1-2cm back from matching section to include these effects (should be small).
• Run beam backwards from matching section using 2D space charge and 60mA current, calculate trajectories and produce 3D bunch with correct londitudinal distribution that can be started at any point (use Matlab interpolation).
• Check acceptance for all models using zero beam current: not perfect but gives upper limit.
• Include “map3D_remove” GPT element and particle removal map using CAD model.
• No need for Stephen Brooks to repeat RFQ transmission simulations…
03/08/11 Simon Jolly, Imperial College London
27