dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Moderators: cyao, michael_borland

Post Reply
Samira.kasaei
Posts: 17
Joined: 15 Jun 2021, 13:38

dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by Samira.kasaei » 16 Sep 2021, 05:14

Dear Michael,

I inserted a wiggler in my ring and after optimization the beam optics, I checked dynamic aperture.
Dynamic aperture before insertion a wiggler was 0.2 horizontally and 0.04 vertically while it was decreased to 0.04 horizontally and 0.008 vertically.
Do you think if I had a mistake to find dynamic aperture?

Many thanks and best regards,
Samira
Attachments
DA.tar.gz
(11.73 KiB) Downloaded 32 times

Samira.kasaei
Posts: 17
Joined: 15 Jun 2021, 13:38

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by Samira.kasaei » 28 Sep 2021, 04:41

Dear Michael,

Concerning my previous post, first I wanted to be sure that I didn't have a mistake.
Then If my run was correct , what can I do to increase dynamic aperture?

Many thanks and best regards,
Samira

michael_borland
Posts: 1718
Joined: 19 May 2008, 09:33
Location: Argonne National Laboratory
Contact:

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by michael_borland » 15 Oct 2021, 10:49

Samira,

If I turn off the wiggler by setting FIELD_FACTOR=1e-10 on the UKICKMAP element, I don't see much difference in the DA. Perhaps there is some other change between your two results.

I noticed a few things about your simulations that might warrant attention:
  • The chromaticities are both negative (about -4.6).
  • You are dividing the elements, but using few slices for the CSBEND elements. This will make the simulation slower. I recommend against dividing elements unless you need the resolution for loss recording.
  • You are using the default fourth-order integrator. You can save time with the sixth-order integrator and fewer slices. See attached.
--Michael
Attachments
optimize.new
(3.44 KiB) Downloaded 27 times

Samira.kasaei
Posts: 17
Joined: 15 Jun 2021, 13:38

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by Samira.kasaei » 22 Nov 2021, 07:59

Dear Michael,

I checked with accelerator toolbox and chromaticity must be +6 and+7. but as you mentioned chromaticity values given by elegant is -4.6.
Do you know the reason?

Many thanks for your answer,
Samira

Samira.kasaei
Posts: 17
Joined: 15 Jun 2021, 13:38

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by Samira.kasaei » 25 Nov 2021, 07:21

Dear Michael,

Here is my lattice with the affect of fringe field.
I do appreciate if you can take a look to my files.

Best regards,
Samira
Attachments
twiss.ele
(582 Bytes) Downloaded 10 times
STORAGE.lte
(3.29 KiB) Downloaded 19 times

michael_borland
Posts: 1718
Joined: 19 May 2008, 09:33
Location: Argonne National Laboratory
Contact:

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by michael_borland » 08 Dec 2021, 16:55

Samira,

I don't have an explanation for why the chromaticity is not what you expect. The lattice definition seems fine. (I would recommend EDGE1_EFFECTS=EDGE2_EFFECTS=4 and FSE_CORRECTION=1 on the CSBEND elements, to get the best dipole fringe model.)

I tried computing the chromaticity using tracking and it agrees very well with the values reported by &twiss_output.

Elegant and AT agree quite well on the chromatic of the APS-U lattice, which has many strong gradient dipoles. However, the bending radius is about 5x larger than yours.

I did notice that if I double the strength of both sextupole families, the chromaticities are both positive, with x=6.4 and y=5.8. Is it possible the strengths were translated incorrectly?

--Michael

Samira.kasaei
Posts: 17
Joined: 15 Jun 2021, 13:38

Re: dynamic aperture after insert a wiggler

Post by Samira.kasaei » 21 Dec 2021, 04:41

Dear Michael,

I tried with twice values with Elegant and I got the same chromaticity as yours. but our storage ring is operating at the chromaticity of 6 and 7 with sextupole gradients of 10.98 and -16.57.

I do appreciate all of your answers in this issue,
samira

Post Reply