Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A .

“” “““r’ “’ -’
NUCLEAR
INSTRUMENTS
8 METHODS
IN PHYSICS
RESEARCH
secmnA
ELSEVIER

Performance simulation and parameter optimization for high gain

short wavelength FEL amplifiers
G. Travish *
UCLA Departtnent of Physics, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA

Abstract
The designers of short wavelength FELs must rely on theoretical and numerical predictions since no experimental data
are available for this region. The numerical codes which have been developed, and are being used to design systems at
SLAC, BNL, Duke, LBL, CEBAF, LANL and UCLA among others, contain our best theoretical understanding of these
systems. This paper analyses the present simulation capabilities for short wavelength designs. We discuss how codes are
used to design these new systems, which aspects of our models are well implemented and which are not, methods of
verifying the models, comparison with experiment, and finally comments on extrapolating to short wavelengths.

1. Overview
Recently, a number of FEL proposals have been put
forth in an attempt to provide users with high brilliance
radiation at short wavelength (UV and beyond) [l-3].
These new systems propose to operate in wavelength and
gain regimes far away from past or present FELs (see Fig.
1). While these new designs offer great promise by using
state of the art beam and undulator quality, the perfor-
mance claims must be carefully examined. Computer simu-
lation being the most powerful tool used to predict the
performance of new FELs leads one to investigate our
present simulation capabilities.
We discuss in this paper the present computation capa-
bilities for high gain, short wavelength FEL amplifiers.
High gain implies many exponential gain lengths of growth
of spontaneous emission or an injected signal, while short
wavelength is used to indicate “wavelengths shorter than
presently achieved” - deep UV and beyond. FEL perfor-
mance can be modeled with various scaled parameters
[4-61; however, to determine the predictability of simula-
tions we use wavelength as a fundamental parameter.
2. How FEL codes are presently used
The complexity and cost (in CPU time) associated with
running three dimensional FEL codes along with the large
parameter space available to explore, requires the use of
simpler and quicker means for initial design work. Often
one begins with one dimensional analytic formulas in
order to chose an operating regime. More elaborate models
which include diffraction, energy spread, etc. and are
easily implemented in spread sheets or mathematics solvers
can then be used to perform an initial exploration of a
design’s sensitivity to parameters (an example is given in
Fig. 2) [7]. A promising design can then be studied using
three dimensional or multifrequency numerical codes.
An interesting question is whether the above process
would be necessary if sufficient computing power were
available. An incomplete answer is yes, since changes to
the model (code) would still be more easily implemented
in the analytic or spread sheet calculations. At present. it is
time and CPU intensive to perform an exhaustive set of
fully three dimensional, multifrequency simulations of a
given design. As an example, for a given version of the
SLAC LCLS, hours of NERSC Cray C-90 CPU time are
required to perform three dimensional sensitivity studies.
A more relevant question is whether it is the numerical
models or the measurement accuracy of beam and undula-
tor parameters that limit present FEL performance pre-
dictability. With virtually no experimental data in the high
gain short wavelength regime, this question will go unan-
swered here, save for a few comments in subsequent
sections.
3. Strengths and weaknesses of the models

The question of what features of an FEL are modeled

_ Corresponding author. Tel. + 1 310 206 5584. fax + 1 310 well by simulations would perhaps be answered differently
206 1091, e-mail travish@uclaph.physics.ucla.edu. by experimentalists and theorists: one experimentalist’s

016%9002/9.5/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDl 0168-9002(94)01413-2
 G. Tracish / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Rex A 358 (1995) 48-51
10’
Wavelength
Fig. 1. Gain versus wavelength for a number of past FELs is plotted on a log-log
various recently proposed high gain, short wavelength FELs.
answer will be given here. The statements below hold in
general for available codes; some comments may not apply
to a particular code or set of parameters.
Let us begin with the good news. Simulations can
include virtually any theoretically predicted or experimen-
tally measured effect. New phenomena such as optical
guiding was first “observed” through the use of numerical
codes [s]. Parameters which are experimentally robust or
accurately measurable have reliable numerical models.
Simulations of high gain amplifiers can include startup
from noise, optical guiding, slippage, harmonic generation,
Fig. 2. An example of a multivariable optimization using a three
dimensional semi-analytic model [26]. The parameters used here
are similar to recent LCLS studies. The saturation length is plotted
as a surface of the focusing beta function of the undulator period
(assuming a fixed wavelength).
49
100 lo” 1o.a lo” IO”
wm]
scale. The shaded area represents the regime of the
multi-undulator systems, and undulator and alignment er-
rors. However, in order to reduce the complexity and run
time of the programs, different codes have been written to
incorporate some, but not all of these effects (see Table 1).
Beam current and energy spread are considered well
measured experimentally, and hence are well modeled
numerically. Some codes can implement current distribu-
tions directly from field solvers or experimental data [9].
Another parameter which is in hand is beam steering errors
due to mismatch and undulator field errors that are well
modeled in three dimensional codes. Furthermore, straight
forward BPM and steering magnet corrector schemes are
implemented and understood both experimentally and
within codes. The saturation regime also is well modeled
in numerical codes, while useful analytic theories are still
lacking [IO]. A significant issue for short wavelength FELs
which has received little experimental attention, but ap-
pears to be well modeled, is external focusing through
quadrupoles, sextupoles, plasmas or other means [ 111.
Complex simulations including multiple undulators and
dispersion sections are also implemented in some codes
[121.
The “less good” news is that there are a number of
effects which may not be well modeled, but without
experimental verification it is difficult to emphatically
state if our models are accurate. Emittance is both difficult
to measure and model, as mathematical models for, e.g.,
rms emittance do not contain information about distribu-
tion function correlations. As a result, few analytic models
make claims about slice emittance versus cooperation
length emittance or beam core emittance versus the emit-
tance within an optical mode. The lack of theoretical
guidance makes a study of emittance effects incomplete
II. SINGLE PASS UV/X-RAY FELs
50

Table 1
A sample of FEL codes and some of their features [19-241. Some codes have features not listed, others have limited capability in unmarked
categories. For example, most codes have external focusing implements. but only ones with discrete focusing channels (not smooth
approximations) were indicated.
Code name

FELEX FRED3D GINGER NUTMEG SARAH TDA3D

lD/2D/3D 3 3 2 2 1 3
Time dependent yes yes yes
Multiundulator yes yes yes YCS yes
Dispersion section yes
Startup model yes yes yes
Steering errors yes yes
Undulator errors yes yes yes
Focusing yes yes yes
Harmonics yes yes
Optical modes yes Yes yes

and time consuming. Multifrequency codes can model 4. Model verification

various emittance distributions, but only with azimuthal
symmetry or with extensive run times. Issues such as
Assuring the validity of a simulation requires both
fluctuations, startup from noise and superradiance are also
programming skills and physical insight. Codes often dif-
nor well tested nor sufficiently sophisticated [13]. As an
fer in the numerical methods used to solve a model and in
example, startup from noise is often simulated by assum-
the assumptions made in the model [14]. Agreement be-
ing an input signal equal to the spontaneous emission
tween two codes often lends credence to both programs:
within one power gain length. Multifrequency codes also
discrepancies often lead to improvements. Simulation re-
generate particle distributions with the correct Poisson
sults can also be checked against simplified models. Using
statistics to emulate spontaneous emission levels which
parameter sets within one dimensional limits (no energy
agree with analytic models. However, neither of these
spread, smooth focusing, no diffraction or other assump-
models may be sufficient to account for experimental
tions) allows rapid comparison with analytic results. Addi-
conditions where a beam distribution may not be com-
tionally, numerical diagnostics (phase space plots, energy
pletely uncorrelated. As is discussed in Section 5, startup
conservation checks, bunching parameters, etc.) can be
levels have yet to be well modeled.
generated within a program allowing for further verifica-
The disparity between the - lo4 particles used in
tion of model performance. Nevertheless, numerical com-
simulations and the - 10” particles in a beam may
parisons and verifications do not substitute for experimen-
present a formidable problem. At issue is the number of
tal authentication.
particles, Nh, within a cubic (resonant) wavelength. For
particle distributions with Nh > 1 higher spontaneous emis-
sion levels are expected due to coherent emission. Codes
can model such distributions by simulating only a slice of
5. Comparison with experiment
the beam, and hence reduce the effective beam volume.
Whether such approximations underestimate the actual
startup level, or even contain the appropriate effects, is A pessimist’s version of this section would be very
unclear without experimental measurements of SASE. short: there are no short wavelength. high gain experi-

Table 2
Comparison of the predicted and experimentally measured effective startup power for some of microwave FELs [25].
FEL name h,(f) 1, px102 F Predicted Measured
(kA) noise (mW) noise (mW)

ELF 8 mm (35 GHz) 1 5.0 1.0 0.4 1.5

ELF 3 mm (94 GHz) 1 3.5 1.4 0.5 30
ELF 2 mm (140 GHz) 1 2.8 2.5 0.4 175
PALADIN 10.6 km (30 THz) 1 0.8 1.5 40 ?
IMP 1.2 mm (250 Ghz) 3 4.0 0.8 5.3 ?
 G. Tracish /Nucl. Itzstr. and Meth. in Phys. Rex A 358 (1995) 48-51
ments. Still, a number of other FEL experiments can be
used to evaluate the predictive powers of our codes.
Oscillator experiments have operated from microwave
to UV wavelengths with a variety of beam energies and
currents. Good agreement has been reported between ex-
periments and simulations [15]. “After the fact” simula-
tions have the best agreement since deviations from design
are included. The previous statement is not trite; the errors
and practical problems involved in an experiment often
dominate over the errors caused by simplifications made in
a model. This fact implies that simulations must include all
known sources of error such as undulator field errors,
beam parameter variations, misalignments and steering
errors.
High gain experiments have been performed at mi-
crowave frequencies and in the IR at the LLNL ATA
Paladin [16]. The microwave results lend credence to the
simulations ability to predict growth rates, saturation, per-
formance variation with current and undulator specifica-
tions. Little consistent agreement is available for self-
amplified spontaneous emission (SASE) (see Table 2). The
Livermore IR FEL also showed good agreement with
simulations on growth, optical guiding and saturation, but
no SASE results were measured. While few measurements
have been made, those that have indicate that theoretical
predictions underestimate the startup power level. Relevant
experimental work is clearly lacking especially in two
major areas: SASE and short wavelengths (beyond visible).
6. Conclusions on extrapolating to short wavelengths
Extrapolating results is at best a questionable practice.
Extrapolating FEL results is particularly difficult due to
the limited knowledge of electron beam characteristics in
even the most carefully controlled experiments. The added
complexity of simulating the various tolerance and errors
further reduces the reliability of projections. And there is
always the possibility of new physics unaccounted for in
present simulations.
The need for staged experiments to address the issues
relevant to short wavelength, high gain systems has been
stressed throughout this paper. In response to this need,
initial experiments are being prepared at BNL [17] and
UCLA [lg]. Both Brookhaven and UCLA are developing
and improving the codes needed to simulate their respec-
tive systems. The results from these experiments, and
hopefully others to follow, should allow for the verifica-
tion and improvement of our codes to a level sufficient to
design the next generation of FELs.
At present, simulations are not sufficiently well tested
to rely on their predictive power for the short wavelength,
high gain regime.
51
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Department of Energy
Grants DE-FG03-90ER40796 and DE-FG03-92ER40693
and by the UCLA Department of Physics. The author
gratefully thanks Kwang-Je Kim and the other members of
the FEL ‘94 organizing committee. Bill Fawley, John
Goldstein, Mark Hogan, Heinz-Deiter Nuhn, Claudio Pel-
legrini, James Rosenzweig, Ted Scharlemann and Ming
Xie provided many useful comments and discussions.
References
[I] C. Pellegrini et al., Proc. 14th Int. FEL Conf., Kobe, Japan,
Aug. 24-28. 1992. Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A 331 (1993) 223.
[‘.?I DUV Conceptual Design Report, BNL (1994).
[3] I. Ben-Zvi and H. Winick teds.), BNL Report 49651 (1993).
[4] R. Bonifacio, C. Pellegrini and L. Narducci. Opt. Commun.
50 (1984) 373.
[5] L.H. Yu, S. Krinsky and R.L. Gluckstern. Phys. Rev. Lett.
64 (1990) 3011.
[6] W.A. Barletta, A.M. Sessler and L.H. Yu. Proc. 14th Int.
FEL Conf., Kobe, Japan. Aug. 24-28, 1992, Nucl. Instr. and
Meth. A 331 (1993) 491.
[7] Y.H. Chin, K.-J. Kim and M. Xie, Phys. Rev. A 46 (1992)
6662;
M. Xie, to be published.
[8] E.T. Scharlemann, A.M. Sessler and J.S. Wurtele, Nucl.
Instr. and Meth. A 239 (1985) 29.
[9] J.C. Goldstein, B.E. Carlsten and B.D. McVey, Nucl. In&.
and Meth. A 296 (1990) 273.
[lo] R.L. Gluckstern. S. Krinsky and H. Okamoto, Proc. 1993
IEEE Particle Accelerator Conf., p. 1545.
[ll] G. Travish and J. Rosenzweig, Proc. 1993 IEEE Particle
Accelerator Conf., p. 1548.
[12] See studies in Ref. [2].
[13] R. Bonifacio et al.. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 341 (1994) 181.
[14] T.M. Tran and J.S. Wurtele, Phys. Rep. 195 (1990) 1.
[15] L. Thode et al., Proc. Conf. Computer Codes and Linear
Accelerators, LANL report LA-11857-C (1990).
[16] J.T. Weir et al., Proc. SPIE 1133 (1989) 97.
1171 I. Ben-Zvi et al., Nucl. lnstr. and Meth. A 318 (1992) 208.
[I81 See G. Travish et al., these Proceedings (16th Int. Free
Electron Laser Conf.. Stanford, CA, USA. 1994) Nucl. Instr.
and Meth. A 358 (1995) ABS 75.
[19] FELEX: B.D. McVey, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 250 (1986)
449.
1201 FRED: E.T. Scharlemann et al.. J. Appl. Phys. 58 (1985).
[21] GINGER: W.M. Fawley, private communication.
1221 NUTMEG: W.M. Sharp, E.T. Scharlemann and W.M. Faw-
Icy, NucI. Instr. and Meth. A 296 (1989) 335.
[23] SARAH: P. Pierini, private communication
1241 TDA3D: T.M. Tran and J.S. Wurtele. Comput. Phys. Com-
mun. 54 (1989) 263.
[25] This table was provided by W.M. Fawley.
[26] The data for this graph was produced by M. Xie.
II. SINGLE PASS UV/X-RAY FELs