Microwave-Based High-Gradient Structures and Linacs Sami Tantawi SLAC 7/10/2009 1
Acknowledgment The work being presented is due to the efforts of V. Dolgashev, L. Laurent, F. Wang, J. Wang, C. Adolphsen, D. Yeremian, J. Lewandowski, C. Nantista, J. Eichner, C. Yoneda, C. Pearson, A. Hayes, D. Martin, R. Ruth, S. Pei, Z. Li SLAC T. Higo and Y. Higashi, et. al., KEK W. Wuensch et. al., CERN R. Temkin, et. al., MIT W. Gai, et. al, ANL J. Norem, ANL G. Nusinovich et. al., University of Maryland S. Gold, NRL Bruno Spataro, INFN Frscati 7/10/2009 2
Overview Review of experimental data on high gradient structure Efficiency and standing wave accelerator structure designs A 1 TeV collider Improved efficiency Possible parameter set 7/10/2009 3
7/10/2009 Research and Development Plan
Experimental Studies Basic Physics Experimental Studies Single and Multiple Cell Accelerator Structures (with major KEK and CERN contributions) single cell traveling-wave accelerator structures (Needs ASTA) single-cell standing-wave accelerator structures (Performed at Klystron Test Lab) Waveguide structures (Needs ASTA) Pulsed heating experiments (Performed at the Klystron Test Lab, also with major KEK and CERN contributions) Full Accelerator Structure Testing (Performed at NLCTA, with CERN contributions) Can only be done at NLCTA at SLAC 7/10/2009 5
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with a/ =0.22 Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 0.1 0.001 10 5 10 7 Flat Top Pulse width 600ns 150ns Pulsed Temp Rise Typical gradient (loaded) as a function of time. 60 80 100 120 140 Accelerating Gradient MV m 7/10/2009 6
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with a/ =0.14 Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 Flat Top Pulse width 300ns 200ns 150ns 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Accelerating Gradient MV m 7/10/2009 7
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with a/ =0.1 BreakdownProbability 1 pulse m 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 10 6 Flat Top Pulse width 600ns 400ns 200ns 100 120 140 160 180 200 Accelerating Gradient MV m 7/10/2009 8
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with different a/ =0.21 Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Accelerating Gradient MV m 7/10/2009 9
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with different a/ Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 40 50 60 70 80 90 Peak Temprature Rise C 7/10/2009 10
7/10/2009 Page 11
7/10/2009 Page 12
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with a/ =0.22 Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 Flat Top Pulse width 600ns 400ns 200ns 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Gradient MV m 7/10/2009 13
Breakdown Probability for a Standing Wave Accelerator Structure with a/ =0.22, Pulse length=200ns Breakdown Probability 1 pulse m 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 Cu CuCr CuZr Hard Cu 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Gradient MV m We have not tested yet structure with small apertures and different material Stay Tuned This is coming very soon 7/10/2009 14
Field Profile over the Iris 2.0 Es/Ea Those two peaks are correlated for structures with different t and a/ Distance 1.5 (Zo Es Hs) 1/2 /Es 1.0 0.5 Hs/Es 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Distance cm 7/10/2009 15
Peak H and Peak ExH 1.6 Zo Hs Es Ea Peak 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Peak Hs Ea 7/10/2009 16
Research Full Accelerator and structure Development testing ( the Plan T18 structure) Frequency. Cells Filling Time a_in/a_out vg_in/vg_out 11.424GHz 18+input+output 36ns S11 0.035 S21 0.8 Phase Average Unloaded Gradient over the full structure 4.06/2.66 mm 2.61/1.02 (%c) 120Deg 55.5MW 100MV/m E acc E _ out acc _ in Structure designed by CERN based on all empirical laws developed experimentally through our previous work Cells Built at KEK Structure was bonded and processed at SLAC Structure was also tested at SLAC ~ 1.5 Field Amplitude Cumulated Phase Change 7/10/2009 Page 17 120
RF Processing of the T18 Structure RF BKD Rate Gradient Dependence for 230ns Pulse at Different Conditioning Time 10-4 After 250hrs RF Condition RF BKD Rate Pulse Width Dependence at Different Conditioning Time 10-4 G=108MV/m BKD Rate: 1/pulse/m 10-5 10-6 10-7 95 100 105 110 115 Unloaded Gradient: MV/m After 500hrs RF Condition After 900hrs RF Condition After 1200hrs RF Condition BKD Rate: 1/pulse/m 10-5 10-6 10-7 G=108MV/m G=110MV/m 100 150 200 RF Flat Top Pulse Width: ns This performance may be good enough for 100MV/m structure for a warm collider, however, it does not yet contain all necessary features such as wakefield damping. Future traveling wave structure designs will also have better efficiency 7/10/2009 Page 18
2007-09 CERN/CLIC Design Structures Tested at NLCTA (Yellow = Quad Cell Geometry, Green = Disk Cell Geometry) In Beamline Structure Note Performance 11/06 2/07 C11vg5Q16 First X-band Quad - Irises Slotted Poor: 57 MV/m, 150 ns, 2e-5 BDR grew whiskers on cell walls 2/08-4/08 C11vg5Q16 Redux Refurbished Initially good (105 MV/m, 50 ns,1e-5 BDR) but one cell degraded 4/07 10/07 C11vg5Q16-Mo Molybdenum Version of Above Poor: 60 MV/m, 70 ns, 1e-6 BDR 10/08 12/08 TD18vg2.6_Quad No Iris Slots but WG Damping Very Poor: would not process above 50 MV/m, 90ns gas spike after BD 4/08 7/08 T18vg2.6-Disk Cells by KEK, Assembled at SLAC Good: 105 MV/m, 230 ns at LC BDR spec of 5e- 7/pulse/m but hot cell developed 7/08 10/08 T18vg2.6-Disk Powered from Downstream End Good: 163 MV/m, 80 ns, 2e-5 BDR in last cell, consistent with forward operation 12/08 2/09 T18vg2.6-Disk CERN CERN Built, Operate in Vac Can Very Poor: very gassy with soft breakdowns at 60 MV/m, 70 ns 7/10/2009 Page 19
SQRT(E max H max Z 0 )/E a E max /E a H max Z 0 /E a 7/10/2009 20
T18 Surface Field Parameters in Comparison with SW Structures E max /E a SW SW a/ =0.22 SW a/ =0.14 SW a/ =0.1 SQRT(E max H max Z 0 )/E a H max Z 0 /E a 7/10/2009 21
So, What does all this imply for a 1 TeV collider parameters? High gradient requires high power density/unit length, quadratic with gradient. Hence the two beam choice for the CLIC design However, since one also accelerates in shorter length the total required RF power increases linearly with gradient. High gradient also implies reduced efficiency; x RI ~ ; x s 1 x 0 E a However, one can compensate by increasing the efficiency the accelerator structure and RF sources. Increasing the efficiency of the accelerator structure would reduce the power/unit length, and it might allow for the use of a conventional RF unit At the moment the best ( published ) design that respects high gradient constraints imply an RF to beam efficiency of about 28% Higher efficiency RF source and accelerator efficiency imply lower RF system cost 7/10/2009 22
Yet another Finite Element Code Motivated by the desire to design codes to perform Large Signal Analysis for microwave tubes (realistic analysis with short computational time for optimization) study surface fields for accelerators the need of a simple interface so that one could play A finite element code written completely in Mathematica was realized. To my surprise, it is running much faster than SuperFish or Superlance The code was used with a Genetic Global Optimization routine to optimize the cavity shape under surface field constraints Surface field penalty function 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 7/10/2009 23 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 2 3 4
Iris shaping for a structure with a/ =0.14 Shunt Impedance 83 M /m Quality Factor 8561 Peak E s /E a 2.33 Peak Z 0 H s /E a 1.23 Shunt Impedance 104 M /m Quality Factor 9778 Peak E s /E a 2.41 Peak Z 0 H s /E a 1.12 With 1 nc/bunch and bunch separation of 6 rf cycles the RF to beam efficiency~70% 7/10/2009 The power required/m~287 MW 24
Iris shaping for a structure with a/ =0.1 Shunt Impedance 102 M /m Quality Factor 8645 Peak E s /E a 2.3 Peak Z 0 H s /E a 1.09 Shunt Impedance 128 M /m Quality Factor 9655 Peak E s /E a 2.5 Peak Z 0 H s /E a 1.04 With 0.5 nc/bunch, bunch separation of 6 rf cycles, and loaded gradient of 100 MV/m the RF to beam efficiency~53% 7/10/2009 The power required/m~173 MW 25
Feeding and Wakefield damping of a set of -mode structures Each cell is fed through a directional coupler. The feeding port serve as the damping port The system has a four-fold symmetry, only one section is shown 7/10/2009 26
Parameter Options for a 1 TeV machine, 2 10 34 cm -2 s -1 Option-1 Option-2 Option-3 Frequency (GHz) 11.424 Gradient (MV/m) 100 100 80 Power/meter (MW) 287 173 126 Charge/bunch (nc) 1 0.5 0.5 Bunch separation ( RF cycles) Number of bunches 300 600 600 <a/ > 0.14 0.1 0.1 RF source Two beam Two Beam/Conventional Unit 6 Conventional Unit RF/Beam Efficiency(%) 73 53 60 Beam duration Pulse length (ns) 158 315 315 Repetition Rate (Hz) 60 60 60 7/10/2009 27
Conclusion With recent advances on high gradient accelerator structures, it is possible to think of an efficient room temperature collider Reduced power levels/unit length may permit designs based on conventional RF unit. 7/10/2009 28