Electromagnetic field simulations for accelerator optimization
description
Transcript of Electromagnetic field simulations for accelerator optimization
Electromagnetic field simulations for accelerator optimization
Alexej Grudiev CERN, BE-RF
1st oPAC Workshop: Grand Challenges in Accelerator Optimization, 26-27 June 2013, CERN
Outline
• A review of tools for electromagnetic field simulations used at CERN will be given. • A number of examples of its usage will be presented covering several areas of
accelerator component design and optimization both RF and non-RF equipment: • accelerating cavities, • collimation devices, • etc.
• A brief review of CLIC main linac RF frequency and accelerating gradient optimization will be given as an example of incorporating electromagnetic field simulation into a global optimization process including both
• constraints coming from the beam dynamics simulations and • the empirical RF constraints related to the high gradient linac operation.
CST
HFSS
ACE3P
GdfidL
Packages for computer simulations of electromagnetic EM fields and more
CST Studio SuiteCST STUDIO SUITE:- CST MWS- CST DS- CST EMS- CST PS- CST MPS- CST PCBS- CST CS- CST MICROSTRIPES- Antenna Magus
CST: All you need in one package•Powerful and user-friendly Input:•Probably the best time domain (TD) solver for wakefields or beam coupling impedance calculations (MAFIA)
• Beta < 1• Finite Conductivity walls
•Once geometry input is done it can be used both for TD and FD simulations •Moreover using Design Studio (DS) it can be combined with the other studios for multiphysics and integrated electronics simulation, but this is relatively fresh fields of expertise for CST •Accelerator physics oriented post processor, especially in MWS and PS•Enormous progress over the last few years compared to the competitors.
Courtesy of Igor Syratchev
An example of what can be solved easily on a standard PC
CST (examples)Two examples of what can be solved on bigger PC: 128 GB of RAM and 24 CPUs
CLIC accelerating structure from Cu with HOM damping loads from SiC(frequency dependent lossy material)
Giovanni De Michele
CST (examples)Transverse wake at offset of 0.5 mm
Transverse beam couping impedance at offset of 0.5 mm
Zx [Ω]
f [GHz]
s [mm]
Wx [V/pC]
CST (examples)LHC TDI 5m long with ferrite
Benoit Salvant
CST MWS: Example. S-parameters in CLIC Crab cavity
Mesh view
Praveen Ambattu
CST: Shortcomings1. Cartesian mesh: Especially in FD can results to less
accurate calculations of frequency, Q-factor, surface fields compared to tetrahedral mesh (HFSS, ACE3P). => if possible use tetrahedral mesh which became available recently and essentially gives the same results as FEM codes (HFSS, ACE3P).
2. Boundary conditions can be set only in Cartesian planes3. No Field Calculator (HFSS)4. ...
HFSS: Still an excellent tool for FDHigh-Performance Electronic Design
Ansoft DesignerANSYS HFSSANSYS Q3D ExtractorANSYS SIwaveANSYS TPA
Electromechanical DesignANSYS MultiphysicsANSYS MaxwellANSYS SimplorerANSYS PExprtANSYS RMxprt
Product optionsAnsoftLinks for ECADAnsoftLinks for MCADANSYS Distributed SolveANSYS Full-Wave SPICEANSYS OptimetricsANSYS ParICs
•HFSS was and I think still is superior tool for FD simulations both S-pars and eigenmode, though CST shows significant progress in the recent years•Automatic generation and refinement of tetrahedral mesh•Most complete list of boundary conditions which can be applied on any surface•Ansoft Designer allows to co-simulate the pick-up (antenna), cables plus electronics and together with versatile Optimetrics optimise the design of the whole device •Recently HFSS became an integral part of ANSYS – reference tool for thermo-mechanical simulations -> multiphysics•REcently time-dependent solver has been released
HFSS (examples, eigenmode)
LHC TDI 5m long beam dump: One of the most dangerous eigenmodes at 1.227 GHz, Q = 873, Tetrahedral mesh with mixed order (0th , 1st , 2nd) elements: Ntetr = 1404891 Solution obtained on a workstation with 128 GB of RAM,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time [ns]
Tim
e R
espo
nse
[V W
-1/2 /s
]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
20
40
60
80
Wak
e Po
tent
ial [
V / p
C]
11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.50
1
2
3
4
Frequency [GHz]
Freq
uenc
y R
espo
nse
[kV
W -1
/2 ]
11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.50
1
2
3
4B
eam
Impe
danc
e [V
/ A
]
HFSS (example, S-parameters)Port excitation Incident plane wave
excitation
Inverse FFT
O. KononenkoO. Kononenko
HFSS example
HFSS: shortcomings
1. No possibility to simulate particles2. Automatic mesh is not always perfect, but it
has improved after adoption by ANSYS3. TD and multiphysics are only recently
implemented, but thermo-mechanics from ANSYS is a reference by itself
4. ...
GdfidL: Parallel and easy to use [email protected] The GdfidL Electromagnetic Field simulator GdfidL computes electromagnetic fields in 3D-structures using parallel or scalar computers. GdfidL computes •Time dependent fields in lossfree or lossy structures. The fields may be excited by
• port modes, • relativistic line charges.
•Resonant fields in lossfree or lossy structures. •The postprocessor computes from these results eg. Scattering parameters, wake potentials, Q-values and shunt impedances. Features •GdfidL computes only in the field carrying parts of the computational volume. •GdfidL uses generalised diagonal fillings to approximate the material distribution. This reduces eg. the frequency error by about a factor of ten. •For eigenvalue computations, GdfidL allows periodic boundary conditions in all three cartesian directions simultaneously. •GdfidL runs on parallel and serial computers. GdfidL also runs on clusters of workstations. Availability •GdfidL only runs on UNIX-like operating systems.
GdfidL (example)
CLIC accelerating structure from Cu with HOM damping loads from SiC(frequency dependent properties)
GdfidL: shortcomings
1. Available only under UNIX-like systems2. Geometry input is limited. Often other 3D
input tools have to be used.3. ...
ACE3P
ACE3P: example
Arno Candel et. al., SLAC-PUB-14439
CLIC two-beam module rf circuit
PETS
AS
AS
waveguide
ACE3P: shortcomings
• Very complex package to use. It is not user-friendly at all and requires a lots of time to invest before it can be used efficiently
• It is not a commercial product -> no manual reference, limited tech support. No it is an open source.
• ...
Summary for the EM simulation toolsCST1.
2.
3.
GdfidL ANSYS HFSS
ACE3P
Larger objects in TD Better FD calculations,3D EM + circuit co-simulation,
RF + thermal + structural
Accurate solution for very larger objects in TD and FD
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
CLIC main linac accelerating structure optimization.
Brief Review of what was done back in 2007
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
General layout of CLIC at 3 TeV
More on CLIC : http://clic-study.org/
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Optimization procedure
Bunch population
Structureparameters
Cell parameters
Bunch separation
BD
<Ea>, f, ∆φ, <a>, da, d1, d2
N
Ns
Q, R/Q, vg, Es/Ea, Hs/Ea Q1, A1, f1
BD
η, Pin, Esmax, ∆Tmax
Ls, Nb
rfconstraints
Cost function minimization
YES
NO
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Optimization parameter space
All structure parameters are variable:
<Eacc> = 90 – 150 MV/m, f = 10 – 30 GHz, Δφ = 120o, 150o, <a>/λ= 0.09 - 0.21, Δa/<a> = 0.01 – 0.6, d1/λ= 0.025 - 0.1, d2 > d1 Ls = 100 – 1000 mm.
N structures:71422460614--------------68.866.560
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Structure parameter calculation
Fundamental mode:
21' PI
QR
vP
QvdzdP
gg
Dipole mode:
cells
i
iN
ii
Qt
it teAW1
12
1 )sin(' 1
1
Ns
η, Pin, Esmax, ∆Tmax
P(z)
NI
From 3D simulation (few hours) to an adequate model (few seconds)
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Cell parameter calculation
11,da
22 ,da
a/λ0.7 1.5
2.30.1
0.25
0.4
Single cell parameter interpolation
d/λ
WDS 2 cells
Q, R/Q, vg, Es/Ea, Hs/Ea
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Optimization constraints
Beam dynamics (BD) constraints based on the simulation of the main linac, BDS and beam-beam collision at the IP:
• N – bunch population depends on <a>/λ, Δa/<a>, f and <Ea> because of short-range wakes
• Ns – bunch separation depends on the long-range dipole wake and is determined by the condition:
Wt,2 · N / Ea < 10 V/pC/mm/m · 4x109 / 150 MV/m D.
SchulteRF breakdown and pulsed surface heating (rf) constraints:• ΔTmax(Hsurf
max, tp) < 56 K • Esurf
max < 380 MV/m • Pintp
1/3/Cin = 18 MW·ns1/3/mm @ X-band
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Optimizing Figure of Merit
Luminosity per linac input power:
NL
EefNNEefNL
PL b
cmrepbc
repbb
l
1
Collision energy is constant
Figure of Merit (FoM = ηLbx/N)
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
Parametric Cost Model
Total cost = Investment cost + Electricity cost for 10 years
Ct = Ci + CeCi = Excel{fr; Ep; tp; Ea ; Ls ; f ; Δφ} Repetition frequency; Pulse energy; Pulse length; Accelerating gradient; Structure length (couplers included); Operating frequency; rf phase advance per cell
Ce = (0.1011+7.1484/FoM)/12 [a.u.]
Figure of Merit (ηL/N) in a.u. (the same as before) [a.u.]=[1e34/bx/m2•%/1e9]
Hans Braun, 2006
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
CLIC performance and cost versus gradient
• Performance increases with lower accelerating gradient (mainly due to higher efficiency)• Flat cost variation in 100 to 130 MV/m with a minimum around 120 MV/m
Ecms = 3 TeV L(1%) = 2.0 1034 cm-2s-1
Previous PreviousNew New Optimum
Performance Cost
C L I CC L I C
Alexej Grudiev, CLIC main linac structure optimization.
CLIC performance and cost versus frequency
Ecms = 3 TeV L(1%) = 2.0 1034 cm-2s-1
• Maximum Performance around 14 GHz • Flat cost variation in 12 to 16 GHz frequency range with a minimum around 14 GHz
New NewPrevious PreviousOptimumOptimum
Performance Cost