EDR Lattice Evaluation Page

GDE Sendai Meeting Lattice Evaluation

Responses to Lattice Evaluation

Response from Jie Gao 

Dear All,

After reading the evaluation tables, I recommend FODO5 to be the baseine since FODO5
get the highest point in the performance among the four choices " Lattice design and 
dynamical properties" which is the most important for ILC damping design at this stage 
after cost saving compared with OCS8, and I hope our colleagueus make a good choice 
for ILC DR which has the best performance, and focused on the EDR design.

Best regards

Jie GAO

Response from Susanna Guiducci 

Hi Mark, Andy and Junji

I mainly agree with ranking reported in the lattice evaluation document; below just a few comments:

*1) * Lattice design and dynamical problems

I think that the optimal value of the momentum compaction for RF and bunch length is around 
2 e-4 and therefore the choice is between *FODO5* and *DCO*, which are centered on this value.

*FODO4* has a satisfactory dynamic aperture at ac=2e-4. This is the result of an accurate 
optimization work  and  shows that FODO lattice  has a large flexibility  ( 4-fold   
and 8-fold symmetry, ac=6 e-4 -  1.7 e-4) and  it can achieve a satisfactory  dynamic aperture.

*DCO* has a dynamic aperture satisfying the minimum design requirements for ac=2.8e-4 and 1.7e-4. 
I'm confident that it can be improved with dedicated work.

*2) *Conventional facilities and services

For the EDR phase the choice of the layout is crucial since it is strictly connected to the 
choices of the CFS.  The racetrak layout of the *DCO *lattice with 2 long straights, where 
the major components are clustered in alcoves within a few hundred meters from the access 
shafts, seems to me the optimal solution for costs reduction and operational efficiency.

Therefore I agree with the choice of the *DCO* lattice for the EDR.

I think that the choice of the arc cell is less critical than the layout choice; more or 
less all the lattices can achieve the design parameters but it is important to fix one and  
to concentrate all the efforts on dynamic aperture optimization, evaluation of low emittance 
tuning and  collective effects and on cost/benefits optimization.

Thank you for the exhaustive work done for the comparison,

Susanna

Response from Craig Burkhart 

Mark,
 
Unfortunately, I had to leave yesterday's discussion just as you started into the evaluation 
table.  My interpretation of the Table and the comments that have been subsequently exchanged 
is that all four approaches are technically sound, the DCO is marginally superior to either 
FODO and the OSC8 is marginally inferior.
 
That said, cost should then become a primary concern.  There are clearly cost components in 
the evaluation, but since the technically merits of the competing systems are similar shouldn't 
a greater weighting be placed on cost?
 
If you conclude that the present evaluation places sufficient weight on cost, I certainly 
support your conclusions.
 
Craig

Response from Mike Zisman 

Folks:

  I do think there is merit in Craig's comments. In practice, I think it means that you should 
try to keep the FODO5 lattice "alive" until there is an opportunity to do a cost comparison. 
Insofar as we suspect that the DCO lattice will be less expensive, there should be no objection 
to using it as the baseline, with the FODO5 lattice serving as backup. From an engineering 
perspective, that probably means doing a bottom-up cost estimate for the DCO version with 
subsequent "deltas" to assess the relative costs of FODO5. This could even be a management 
milestone at some point, say one year from now.

 ...something to consider.

Cheers,
Mike

Response from Louis Emery 

To all,

I agree with the relative scores in the tables.
I would weight the first table more. But I think
it would not change the order of the results.
I'm leaning towards the DCO cell structure because
of the reduced number of magnets, and I think the
DA problem is not insurmountable.

I missed the webex session on Tuesday, so I have some
comments and questions:

I'm not sure how the DCO lattice at 100 degrees/cell 
ended up with a (much?) smaller
dynamic aperture than the FODO5 lattice with 108 degree
per cell. I see that the cell length for DCO is shorter (making the
dispersion smaller) than the FODO5 FODO
cell, perhaps to partially compensate the larger I5 created by the
shorter and stronger dipole. I think the dynamic acceptance of FODO
cells with constant circumference should scale roughly as the cell
length squared. So a shorter dipole magnet resulted in a smaller dynamic
aperture.

Andy, was using a 2x field in the dipole for reducing the total dipole
magnet cost? Could the magnet be longer without disrupting
the mechanical layout much?

To rephrase a point by Aimin, if maintaining a 90 degree phase advance
is important for dynamic aperture, then an "upgrade" of momentum
compaction from 1.7e-4 to a value 25% lower can be done with the
conversion of the DCO cell to a TME-cell (keeping 90 degree
cell) by the insertion of one quad. This is, of course, at a cost of
192 magnets.

How does the lower symmetry of the DCO lattice affect the
dynamic aperture? Could we have the superconducting
stuff together in two groups at a 90 degree azimuth relative to 
the injection and extraction (like FODO4 but with doglegs added to
reduce heat load)? 

Thanks.
Louis Emery

Response from Andy Wolski 

Dear Louis,

Thanks for your comments.  You raise some good questions: the dynamic aperture in particular 
is something that we should look at carefully, to make sure that we understand the issues, 
and arrive at an optimum solution.

Regarding the dipole field, this (or, equivalently, the dipole length) was used as a variable 
in the cell design of the DCO lattice to control the momentum compaction factor.  But the 
dependencies are not strong, and there is plenty of space in the lattice if it is found that 
a longer magnet would be preferable.  I'm not sure that cost is a real issue.  My guess is 
that to first order, the dipole cost depends on the beam energy and total bend angle.  Since 
all the lattices we considered for the baseline have a total bend of 2pi and all operate at 
5 GeV, I would expect any differences in dipole cost to be small.  The installation costs may 
depend more on the number of dipoles (so, a smaller number of dipoles may be cheaper to install, 
even if each individual dipole is heavier), but I'm not sure about this.

I thought the comparison between the OCS-style and DCO-style arc cells presented by Aimin was 
extremely interesting.  I had not viewed a TME cell in that way before.  It does raise some 
interesting upgrade possibilities, as you point out.

The layout is also an issue that we need to pursue.  While it is necessary at this stage to have 
a single lattice identified as the baseline, it is very important to maintain at least one 
alternate, so that we can understand the influence of things like the layout on cost, dynamics, 
etc.

Best regards,

Andy.

Response from Mark Palmer 

Hi All,

I would like to say thank you to everyone who sent a response to the lattice evaluation 
exercise.  An updated version of the lattice evaluation document has just been placed on 
the lattice evaluation page (%SCRIPTURLPATH%/view/ILC/DampingRings/LatEvalPage) 
along with copies of the responses.  The direct document link is:  
%PUBURLPATH%/ILC/DampingRings/LatEvalPage/DRLatticeEvaluation_2008_0306.pdf

At this point, both of the lattices which can accommodate 6 mm bunch lengths (FODO5 and DCO) 
appear promising.  The growing consensus is that both should be maintained while further 
investigations of the beam dynamics, technical issues, and costing are explored further.  The 
cost, reliability and availability  issues that appeared both directly and indirectly in the 
evaluations favor DCO because of the clustering of many technically challenging components in 
the rings as close as possible to the two access shafts.  It is also the case that most feel 
that any dynamics issues remaining in the designs can likely be successfully dealt with. 
Thus the recommendation that has been passed to the project managers is that the DCO be 
specified as the baseline lattice and FODO5 as the alternative lattice for the ILC Technical Design Phase.

If there are further comments/concerns, please continue to send them to the full mailing list.

Cheers,
Mark

Lattice Evaluation and Comparison Information

OCS8 Lattice (Developed from RDR baseline)

Lattice Documentation

MAD Deck

Comments and Results

FODO4/5 Lattices (Variable momentum compaction factor, two dipoles per arc cell)

Lattice Documentation

MAD Deck: FODO4

MAD Deck: FODO5

Comments and Results

DCO Lattice (Variable momentum compaction factor, one dipole per arc cell)

Lattice Documentation

MAD Deck: DCO

Comments and Results

Lattice Evaluation Submissions

I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
DCO.mad8mad8 DCO.mad8 manage 19 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:30 UnknownUser MAD job file for DCO lattice
DCO.xsifxsif DCO.xsif manage 16 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:28 UnknownUser Lattice file for DCO lattice
DRLatticeEvaluation_2008_0306.pdfpdf DRLatticeEvaluation_2008_0306.pdf manage 33 K 05 Mar 2008 - 22:48 MarkPalmer GDE Sendai Meeting Lattice Evaluation
EDRLatticeSpecifications.pdfpdf EDRLatticeSpecifications.pdf manage 114 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:41 UnknownUser Specifications for EDR lattice
Emery.pdfpdf Emery.pdf manage 553 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:36 UnknownUser OCS8 lattice presentation at ILCDR07-KEK
FODO4.xsifxsif FODO4.xsif manage 14 K 11 Feb 2008 - 09:23 UnknownUser FODO Lattice File
FODO_DR_Lattice_Gao.pdfpdf FODO_DR_Lattice_Gao.pdf manage 689 K 11 Feb 2008 - 09:25 UnknownUser Alternate FODO Lattice Presentation at ALCPG07
ILC_DR_FODO5.mad8mad8 ILC_DR_FODO5.mad8 manage 14 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:49 UnknownUser Lattice and MAD job file for FODO5
ILC_DR_FODO_lattice-sunyp.pdfpdf ILC_DR_FODO_lattice-sunyp.pdf manage 689 K 11 Feb 2008 - 09:27 UnknownUser FODO lattice presentation at ILCDR07-KEK (update)
Introduction_to_FODO4.pdfpdf Introduction_to_FODO4.pdf manage 42 K 11 Feb 2008 - 09:29 UnknownUser Introduction to FODO4 lattice
LatticeOptionsParameters.pdfpdf LatticeOptionsParameters.pdf manage 102 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:42 UnknownUser Comparison of parameters for lattice options
OCS8.Run.mad8mad8 OCS8.Run.mad8 manage 3 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:27 UnknownUser MAD job file for OCS8 lattice
OCS8_DR_Lattice_Xiao.pdfpdf OCS8_DR_Lattice_Xiao.pdf manage 828 K 07 Nov 2007 - 18:46 MarkPalmer OCS8 Presentation at ALCPG07
Response_1_Gao.emleml Response_1_Gao.eml manage 17 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:51 MarkPalmer Response from Jie Gao
Response_2_Guiducci.emleml Response_2_Guiducci.eml manage 9 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:52 MarkPalmer Response from Susanna Guiducci
Response_3_Burkhart.emleml Response_3_Burkhart.eml manage 18 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:53 MarkPalmer Response form Craig Burkhart
Response_4_Zisman.emleml Response_4_Zisman.eml manage 20 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:53 MarkPalmer Response from Mike Zisman
Response_5_Emery.emleml Response_5_Emery.eml manage 4 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:54 MarkPalmer Response from Louis Emery
Response_6_Wolski.emleml Response_6_Wolski.eml manage 5 K 05 Mar 2008 - 21:54 MarkPalmer Response from Andy Wolski
RunDR.madmad RunDR.mad manage 2 K 07 Nov 2007 - 11:29 MarkPalmer MAD job file for FODO lattice
Sun.pdfpdf Sun.pdf manage 689 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:36 UnknownUser FODO lattice presentation at ILCDR07-KEK
Wolski.pdfpdf Wolski.pdf manage 4 MB 27 Feb 2008 - 08:48 UnknownUser DCO lattice presentation
k1FODO4-60degree.txttxt k1FODO4-60degree.txt manage 756 bytes 07 Nov 2007 - 11:30 MarkPalmer 60 degree phase advance lattice information (alpha = 6x10-4)
k1FODO4-72degree.txttxt k1FODO4-72degree.txt manage 771 bytes 07 Nov 2007 - 11:53 MarkPalmer 72 degree phase advance lattice information (alpha = 4x10-4)
k1FODO4-90degree.txttxt k1FODO4-90degree.txt manage 743 bytes 07 Nov 2007 - 11:54 MarkPalmer 90 degree phase advance lattice information (alpha = 2x10-4)
kvals.108deg.xsifxsif kvals.108deg.xsif manage 2 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:29 UnknownUser Magnet strengths for DCO 100 deg lattice
kvals.72deg.xsifxsif kvals.72deg.xsif manage 2 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:28 UnknownUser Magnet strengths for DCO 72 deg lattice
kvals.90deg.xsifxsif kvals.90deg.xsif manage 2 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:28 UnknownUser Magnet strengths for DCO 90 deg lattice
ocs8.latlat ocs8.lat manage 11 K 07 Nov 2007 - 11:25 MarkPalmer OCS8 Lattice File
ocs8.xsifxsif ocs8.xsif manage 11 K 08 Feb 2008 - 12:25 UnknownUser Updated OCS8 lattice file
This topic: ILC/DampingRings > WebHome > LatEvalPage
Topic revision: 05 Mar 2008, MarkPalmer
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding CLASSE Wiki? Send feedback