You are on page 1of 3

© 1991 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.

However, permission to reprint/republish this material

for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers
or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.

Envelope Instability in the Fermilab Booster

P. Zhou, J.B. Rosenzweig’and S. Stahl

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory!
P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510

Abstract many synchrotrons are designed with bare phase advance

per cell near 90 degrees to minimize the necessary aperture
The transverse emittance in the FNAL Booster grows at in the machine, it is reasonable to ask whether this effect
high beam intensity, in a time less than 100 turns. We is important for weaker intensity beams found in circular
examine the possible contributions to the fast emittance machines. In particular, this question was raised with re-
growth from coherent instability of the beam envelope. gards to the Fermilab Booster, both in its present state
Theoretical analysis, through the use of envelope equa- and after the upgrade in injected energy from the linac[5].
tions, is employed to predict the dependence of envelope We review below the standard derivation of rms trans-
instability on the peak current the Booster beam. These verse beam envelope equation, and extend it to include
predictions are compared to the results of multi-particle the effects of design orbit curvature, momentum spread
tracking calculations. and dispersion. The envelope equation obtained is then
analyzed for its stability properties under perturbation.
This technique is used to examine the Fermilab Booster to
Introduction determine possible problems with envelope instability.
The intensity limit for operation of low energy proton
synchrotrons is often determined by the space charge tune
shift[l], which can drive individual particle tunes from the
The Envelope Equation and
operating point onto a significant machine resonance. In Instability
this way a relatively small tune shift (usually a few percent)
can cause the emittance of a synchrotron beam to grow The first envelope equations for describing beam propa-
significantly. Experimentally, this effect manifests itself gation including the effects of space charge self-forces were
by a linear asymptotic growth of the emittance with peak derived by Kapchinskij and Vladimirskij[6] using K-V dis-
beam current. This type of behavior has been observed in tribution function.
experimental studies of the Fermilab Booster[2]. Sacherer generalized the treatment by concentrating on
In contrast to scenario described above, linear transport the evolution of the rms envelopes[7]. This approach is
allows much higher intensity beams to propagate without equivalent to following the second moments of the Vlasov
degradation of the beam emittance, as the beam travels equation for the four-dimensional transverse phase space of
much shorter distances in general, and does not encounter the beam. Assuming no z-y coupling, the second moments
the periodic resonance-driving defects found in a circular in the (z,p=) plane, where p, f z’, satisfy the following
machine. The limits of stable beam propagation in a lin- equations:
ear focusing channel have been demonstrated experimen-
tally by Tiefenback, et al. [3] at LBL. It was found that as ;T = 2w (1)
long as the bare phase advance per cell uc did not exceed Zg= -x(%)22 + tFz + z (2)
approximately 90 degrees, the beam emittance was sta-
P -2K(z)zp, + 2pz3.z
ble up to very high intensities. At phase advances above (3)
90 degrees, however, it was verified that instability of the
beam envelope caused emittance growth in the transmit- where rz is the beam’s space charge self force divided by
ted beam. This result is in agreement with the theoretical P2ymc2. The term p,Fz is related to rms emittance by
predictions of Boffman, Laslett, Smith and Haber[4]. As
Zrm* = &qqg$ (4)
‘Present address: UCLA Dept. of Physics, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los
Angeles, CA 90024
tOpmated by the Universities Research Association under con- In addition, if the beam spatial density has elliptical sym-
tract with the U. S. Department of Energy metry, the term zF, depends only on the rms beam di-
0-7803-0135-8/!?1$01.00@IEEE 1779

PAC 1991
mensions X E &? and &’ z J- 3, where the vertical emittance is of course unchanged.
The perturbed envelope equations that are used to test
XQ for envelope instability are:
xF’,= x+y (5)
= (X-QSY
1 q 0; 3E2
where Q = 1/(1ep3r3) with 10 N 31 MA for protons. and ax”+[K(Z)+--p+;p+~+(x +&y)216*
+ Y)2
the rms envelope equations are (12)
X” + K(%)X = $ + y&y (6) SY"+ [-K(z) -I-3f;
y* : (X +Qy),lbY =
+ YJ2

2 Note that, in the spirit of Sacherer’s treatment, we do not

Y” - K(%)Y = 5 + A-- (7) perturb the terms inside the emittance expression.
x+Y We now apply the analysis on Fermilab Booster[lO]
The K-V envelope equations in rms form are contained in
(cry0 = 102” and ~~0 = 100.5’) and check the predictions
Eqs. 6 - 7 as a special case. with the results of multiparticle tracking using computer
The eigenvalues obtained by perturbation analysis on code teapot[ll]. Results from the envelope instability cal-
Eqs. 6 - 7 tell the stability of envelope mismatches. When- culation are shown in Fig. 2 for cases with and without
ever eigenvalues move off of the unit circle on the complex momentum spread. The rms emittance is taken to be
plane, envelope instability occurs. The instabilities start
when two eigenvalues collide on the unit circle. Necessary 20 I’ ” I ’ ” ! ’ ” ! ’ ”
condition for envelope instability is that at least one of the
bare phase advances per cell 00 > 90 degrees.

Circular Machines
The major changes to beam behavior in circular ma-
chines which have relevance to deriving envelope equations
are due to curvature focusing, and to the presence of mo-
E 4
mentum dispersion[8].
Following Sacherer’s analysis and ignoring the chromatic
nature of the focusing we arrive at the equation fo:r the rms 0

horizontal beam size X in a circular machine 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
-- Peak Beam Current (mA)

X” + [I<(%) + fix - -9.- = A- + ‘,!!2. (8)

x+y x3 PX P
Figure 1: Emittance Growth vs. Beam Current
The self-force term takes the same form as before, imply-
ing the assumption that the overall beam density still has 2.5~ mm-mrad in both dimensions. The maximum op-
elliptical symmetry. We then follow the standard way of erating peak current is 570 mA, assuming bunching factor
describing off-momentum orbits in accelerators, splitting B = 0.35 at 200 MeV injection energy. Instability onset
the motion into a betatron component xp (the quantity occurs at approximately twice this current, assuming con-
we have simply termed x to this point) and a disper- stant emittance. With momentum spread bP = 1.5 x 10m3
sion component r~(Ap/p), i.e. x = x:p + q(Ap/l?). This it is down to less than 600 mA, which is right on the as-
approach is approximate in the presence of space charge sumed maximum operating current. This parametric res-
forces, which introduce coupling that prevents the simple onance has a large growth rate (- 15 percent/cell), which
decomposition. In this approximation the rms beam size is peaks at 1.2 A.
X = X2 + 72~2 where ui = (A~/P)~, and the horizontal The tracking was done with 4000 macro particles with
F - Gaussian density distribution and chromaticity of the ring
emittance takes the functional form
was set to zero by tuning the sextupoles. DC beam was
x2 [ 2 + u,(Xq’ - X’7jq2] (9)
assumed and the number of space charge kicks used was
E: = x2 _ 772g; fz
12. In Fig. 1, the rms emittance growth after about one
The other term on the right hand side of Eq. 8 is also easily turn is plotted as a function of beam current for both the
obtained with the approximation. A new set of envelope cases of with and without momentum spread. We notice
equations then follow: that first of all the emittance growth starts at much lower
beam intensity (- 500mA) compared to the predicted rms
X” + [K(z) + -j - j($)2,x = g+ envelope instability threshold and increases gradually with
beam current. Secondly, in both cases, emittance growth
Ey2 starts at much lower beam intensity than the envelope in-
y”- K(%)Y = y3+ stability threshold. The amount of emittance growth pre-


PAC 1991
negligible even at the maximum operating beam intensity
and could not have been responsible for the fast emittance
growth observed. The treatment to include momentum
spread failed to give reasonable description and simulation
results suggest minimal effect of momentum spread.

PI L.J. Laslett, “On Intensity Limitations Imposed by
Transverse Space-Charge Effects in Circular Particle
Accelerators”, in Proceedings of the 1963 Summer
Study on Storage Rings, Accelerators, and Experi-
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
mentation at Super-High Energies, 324, Brookhaven
Beam Current (mA) National Laboratory, 1963 (BNL 7534).

Figure 2: Instability Growth Rate vs Peak Beam Current PI Y. Chao, J. Crisp, S. Holmes, J. Lackey, W. Merz,
“Improving the Fermilab Booster Emittance” , Pro-
ceedings of the 1988 European Particle Accelerator
dieted by the non-linear field energy theory[9] is negligi- Conference, 663 (World Scientific, London, 1989).
ble compared to the growth observed in the simulation,
thus not countable. However, the current at which emit- [31 M.G. Tiefenback and D. Keefe, “Measurement of Sta-
tance growth occurs corresponds to when the maximum bility Limits of a Space-Charge-Dominated Ion Beam
tune shift pushes the individual particles’ phase advance in a Long A.G. Transport Channel,” IEEE Tkans.
to below 90’. This seems to suggest that it is the fourth Nucl. Sci. NS-32,2483 (1985). Also M.G. Tiefenback,
order resonance driven by the space charge force, which is Space-Charge Limits on the Transport of Ions Beam
exactly what drives the envelope instability. The fact that in a Long Alternating Gradient System,” LBL-22465,
the emittance can change a noticeable amount in just one PhD. Thesis, UC-Berkeley (1986).
cell makes us believe that the simple perturbation method PI I. Hoffman, L.J. Laslett, L. Smith, and I. Haber, ‘Sta-
used in the calculation of envelope instability is not ap- bility of the Kapchinskij-Vladimirskij (K-V) Distribu-
propriate. Nonetheless, it does predict the point where a tion in a Long Periodic Transport Channel”, Particle
significant emittance growth occurs. The contribution of Accelerators 13, 145 (1983).
the above to the emittance growth is however very small
for the Fermilab booster even at maximum operating cur- 151F. Mills and J. MacLachlan, private communication,
rent, thus cannot be the cause of the observed explosive and C. Celata and L.J. Laslett, “Envelope Instability
emittance growth. Status Report”, unpublished.
In the case including momentum spread, nothing signif-
Fl I.M. Kapchinskij and V.V. Vladimirskij, “Limitations
icantly different was observed. Chromaticity was seen to of Proton Beam Current in a Strong Focusing Linear
play little role. We have to point out however that the sim- Accelerator Associated with the Beam Space Charge”,
ulation does not include any external impedance or field in Proc. of the Second int. Conf. on High Energy Act.
errors. The failure in this case again points to the fault and Inst.“, 274, CERN (1959).
of the way perturbation was done, i.e. keeping the emit-
tance as a known function while perturbing the envelope L71F.J. Sacherer, “ RMS Envelope Equation With Space
equation. The effect of momentum spread, if any, is to in- Charge”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-18, 1105 (1971).
troduce more incoherence and seen to reduce the emittance
growth slightly. PI P. Zhou and J.B. Rosenzweig, “Envelope instability in
low-energy proton synchrotrons”, Nucl. Znstr. Meth.
A297, 24 (1990).

Conclusions PI M. Reiser, “Theory and Design of Particle Beams”,

1989 U.S. Particle Accelerator Summer School notes
The treatment of the envelope instability in circular ma- (unpublished book draft).
chines is a limited success. While it does not predict the
exact onset of emittance growth, it does point to the in- PI E.L. Hubbard, Ed. “Booster Synchrotron”, Fermilab
Publication FN-405 (Fermilab, 1973).
tensity of significant emittance growth. The former seems,
as suggested by simulation, to be determined by when the Pll L. Schachinger and R. Talman, “TEAPOT: A Thin-
particles with maximum tune shift, instead of the coherent Element Accelerator Program for Optics and Track-
moment, hit the fourth order resonance. In the case of Fer- ing”, Particle Accelerators, 22, 35 (1987)
milab booster, the emittance growth due to this process is

PAC 1991