 Research article
 Open Access
 Published:
Alignment & stability challenges for FCCee
EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation volume 10, Article number: 8 (2023)
Abstract
In order to achieve its ultralow vertical emittance (1 pm) and high luminosity (of up to \(230 \times 10^{34}\text{ cm}^{2}\text{ s}^{1}\) per collision point), the e^{+}e^{−} Future Circular Collider (FCCee) requires a wellinformed alignment strategy, powerful correction methods, and good understanding of the impact of vibrations. The large ring size, high natural chromaticity, small \(\beta ^{*}\), and the low coupling ratio make the FCCee design susceptible to misalignment and field errors, which if not properly addressed, threaten to increase the horizontal and vertical emittances and adversely affect the luminosity. Tight alignment tolerances around the 100 km ring would be a major cost driver and therefore alignment and stability need to be carefully studied. In this paper we present a status update, in which we apply analytical estimate methods, verified with simulation data, to determine the influence of the alignment of specific magnet types with the result informing the relative alignment tolerances. This is followed by simulations of a correction strategy that includes a large set of magnet misalignments and field errors. Finally, we also consider the tolerances on vibrations of quadrupoles through evaluating three cases: coherent vibration due to external seismic motion, vibrations resonant with the betatron frequency, and nonresonant, incoherent vibration.
1 FCCee lattice
The Future Circular e^{+}e^{−} Collider (FCCee) is designed to operate at four beam energies—45.6, 80, 120, and 182.5 GeV—with luminosities varying from more than 10^{36} cm^{−2}s^{−1} at the lowest energy to about 10^{34} cm^{−2}s^{−1} at the highest [1]. In order to reach such a performance, a tight vertical focusing of the beam is required in the interaction regions along with smallest possible vertical beam emittance. Specifically, low vertical beta functions of 0.8–1.6 mm at the interaction point and vertical emittance values as small as 1–4 pm are foreseen.
The large bending radius of the FCC together with strong focusing will lead to a naturally small horizontal emittance, that would also provide the possibility to achieve the desired small vertical emittance of order 1 pm. However, with this low a target vertical emittance, smaller than in any previous e^{+}e^{−} collider, the tolerance requirements for magnet field errors, beamoptics, and alignment accuracies need to be well understood. The FCCee has essentially the characteristics of a state–of–the–art light source as an ultralow emittance storage ring, but includes the special features of a collider. Most notably, given the relatively small design value of the verticaltohorizontal emittance ratio of \(2\times 10^{3}\) in collision, a powerful correction algorithm is required to reduce the vertical dispersion and the betatron coupling introduced by magnet field errors, misalignments and roll angles. The vertical beam emittance without collision is strongly dominated by these imperfections, calling for a careful optimization. Similar to modern storagering light sources, damping rings and storage rings of future colliders, like the FCCee, require comprehensive simulations to ensure that their low design emittance values can be achieved through optics corrections and emittance tuning [2–4]. The optics tuning is equally challenging in future linear and hadron colliders [5–8] requiring large simulation campaigns to demonstrate their performance. In storagering colliders, the vertical emittance attainable with colliding beams will strongly depend on the vertical emittance of noncolliding beams and, in addition, on residual optics errors at the collision point. In this article, we study the vertical emittance without beambeam effects.
In an ideal storage ring there is no vertical bending and therefore no vertical dispersion is introduced. Whilst alignment teams can achieve magnettomagnet alignments with impressive precision, and magnet designers achieve high field quality, even small misalignments and field errors can introduce vertical dispersion and coupling of motion between the horizontal and vertical planes.
As for all highenergy e^{+}e^{−} collider designs, in which the design value for the horizontal beam size at the collision point is determined by beambeam effects including beamstrahlung, minimising the vertical emittance is desired in order to achieve a high luminosity. Consequently, we are seeking to understand the influence of various misalignments, field errors and vibrations, and devise strategies to counteract their effect. In this paper we present a status report of this ongoing endeavour, along with preliminary alignment tolerances.
There are a couple of sources of emittance growth in addition to coupling, residual vertical dispersion and βbeating introduced by magnet misalignments and field errors. Fringe fields of the compensating solenoid are predicted to increase the vertical emittance by 0.4 pm rad [9], and beam beam effects are also expected to increase the emittance [10, 11]. With these additional sources of emittance growth, it is especially important to minimise the emittance growth due to dispersion, coupling, and beta beating as much as possible.
The article is structured as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe analytical methods applied to estimate the expected contribution to the vertical emittance growth for different types of misalignments and magnets, through considering the average (or rms) changes in vertical dispersion and closed orbit caused by a given random distribution of errors. In Sect. 3 we then summarise the emittances achieved in MADX simulations for many random error seeds, after performing a series of correction techniques. In Sect. 4, we finally turn our attention to the impact of quadrupole vibrations through evaluating three cases: coherent vibration due to external seismic motion, vibrations resonant with the betatron frequency, and nonresonant, incoherent vibration. Finally we draw some conclusions.
However, before presenting the methods and results of our investigations, in the following subsection we start by introducing the misalignment types and related notations. The FCCee lattice used for our studies is the “version 301” lattice for tt̄ operation with lowbeta insertions at up to four interaction points (IPs), without the inclusion of compensating solenoids [12]. The main IP optics and beam parameters are summarized in Table 1, assuming collisions in two of the interaction points. The design optical functions around the interaction region (IR) are shown in Fig. 1.
1.1 Misalignment definitions
In the following sections, magnets and girders are assigned misalignments in the horizontal (x), the vertical (y), and the longitudinal planes (s), as well as rotations around each of these axes (see Fig. 2). Straying from the convention used in the optics code MADX [13], the angles ΔPHI, ΔTHETA, and ΔPSI represent rotations about the x, y, and s axis, respectively, holding the centre of the magnet fixed. Increasing values indicate a clockwise rotation for ΔTHETA, and ΔPSI, but a counterclockwise rotation for ΔPHI.
2 Analytical estimates
In this section we perform some analytical estimates of the emittance due to the misalignments of particular magnet types, in order to compare the relative contribution of various misalignment types to the overall allowed emittance budget, and the sensitivity for different magnets. Here, we follow the recipes and formulae of references [14, 15]. Evaluations of the analytical expressions can be compared to MADX simulations, in which errors are applied randomly via a 2.5 σ truncated Gaussian. Later, in Sect. 3, we present the results of a full emittance tuning simulation for various misalignments and field errors. In the present section we use a statistical approach to gauge the sensitivity of the machine to various types of errors.
2.1 Quadrupole roll errors
A quadrupole rotated about the z axis by an angle ΔPSI, will introduce a skew quadrupole field of strength \(k_{s} = k_{1}\sin (2\Delta{\mathrm{PSI}})\approx 2 k_{1}\Delta{\mathrm{PSI}}\), which will introduce coupling between the vertical and horizontal motion.
The expected vertical emittance \(\epsilon _{y}\), introduced due to quadrupole roll errors randomly distributed via a Gaussian with a variance of \(\langle{\mathrm{PSI}}_{\mathrm{quad}}^{2} \rangle \), is calculated as [14],
where \(J_{x}, J_{y}\) and \(J_{z}\) denote the horizontal, vertical and longitudinal partition numbers respectively; \(Q_{x}\) and \(Q_{y}\) are the horizontal and vertical tunes; \(\epsilon _{x}\) is the horizontal emittance, \(\sigma _{\delta}\) is the normalised momentum spread at equilibrium, \(\beta _{x}\), \(\beta _{y}\) and \(\eta _{x}\) are the horizontal and vertical beta functions and the horizontal dispersion at the position of the misaligned quadrupole with a normalised integrated strength of \(k_{1}L\).
The first term in Eq. (1) is the emittance increase due to vertical dispersion that comes from coupling to horizontal dispersion in the misaligned quadrupoles. The second term captures the coupling between the horizontal and vertical transverse motion and the extent to which effects that would only generate horizontal emittance in an uncoupled machine, produce vertical emittance.
Figure 3 shows Eq. (1) applied to arc quadrupoles, IR quadrupoles, and finally all quadrupoles, over roll angles ranging from an rms value of 10 μrad through to 50 μrad in steps of 5 μrad. Included in Fig. 3 are MADX simulation results. 100 random seeds were used for each quadrupole roll angle, with the data points showing the average emittance of the 100 seeds. To illustrate a typical distribution, Fig. 3 also shows the emittance distribution for the 100 seeds used in the simulation of all quadrupoles rolled with an RMS of \(30\ \mathrm{{\mu rad}}\).
Figure 3 demonstrates not only that the analytical expression well predicts the vertical emittance growth, but also that the quadrupoles in the IR have a far greater influence on the emittance than arc quadrupoles, with the contribution of the arc quadrupoles being about 10 % of the total vertical emittance growth.
A closer look at the influence of individual quadrupoles is taken in Fig. 4, where onebyone, going from one IP to the next, each quadrupole is rotated by \(10~\mathrm{{\mu rad}}\) whilst leaving all other quadrupoles perfectly aligned. The left plot in Fig. 4 shows the ratio between the Eq. (1) prediction for the vertical emittance and the MADX calculation of the vertical emittance. The analytical expression predicts the emittance to within \(\pm 10\%\) for the majority of the quadrupoles, with a few exceptions noted near the IPs.
The right picture of Fig. 4 presents the vertical emittance introduced by the rotation of individual quadrupoles. This plot highlights that for roll errors of similar magnitude, a small group of quadrupoles located in the IR can introduce a vertical emittance increase of several orders of magnitude greater than all other quadrupoles. This is due to the large beta function in these sections. Figure 4 allows us to pinpoint which magnets are most susceptible to increasing the vertical emittance through an uncorrected roll angle.
By looking at Eq. (1), we can see that apart from the quadrupole strength, one of the drivers for a large impact on emittance is the optics at the location of the rolled quadrupole. This is one of the key reasons why the emittance contribution from the insertion region is larger than that from the arcs. To visualise this we can zoom into the interaction region and plot the optics as well as the contribution to the emittance growth from a \(10\ \mathrm{{\mu rad}}\) roll. This is shown in Fig. 5.
2.2 Sextupole misalignments
Similar to a rolled quadrupole producing a skew quadrupole field, a vertically offset sextupole will also produce a skew quadrupole field with a strength \(k_{s} = k_{2} \Delta {\mathrm{Y}} \), where \(k_{2}\) is the normalised sextupole strength. Therefore Eq. (1) can be easily adapted for sextupole misalignments by replacing \(k_{1}\) with \(k_{2}/2\) and \(\langle{\mathrm{PSI}}_{\mathrm{quad}}^{2}\rangle \) with the standard deviation of the vertical sextupole misalignment, \(\langle{\mathrm{Y}}_{\mathrm{sext}}^{2} \rangle \) [16].
In a similar manner to before, the sextupoles were randomly misaligned in the vertical plane in MADX simulations using 100 random seeds and the calculated vertical emittance was compared to the analytical expression for the expected vertical emittance. Figure 6 displays the result. The results are shown for the arc sextupoles, the strong IR sextupoles used for local chromaticity correction, and all of the sextupoles together. Similar to what was observed for the case of the roll quadrupoles, the contribution from the relatively few IR sextupoles is noticeably larger than that of the arc magnets due to the fact that these magnets are stronger and the β functions are significantly larger in this area, although the difference is not as pronounced as in the case of the rolled quadrupoles.
When misaligning individual sextupoles by \(10\ \mu \mathrm{{m}}\), one at a time, as illustrated in Fig. 7, we can examine how well the analytical equation predicts the emittance due to individual sextupoles, and also compare how big the impact of individual sextupoles is. The left plot in Fig. 7, shows that there is an even better agreement between the formulas and simulations than for the case of quadrupoles. From the right plot in Fig. 7, we again infer that a small number of sextupoles in the IR are capable of increasing the vertical emittance by two orders of magnitude more than the majority of sextupoles. Unlike the case of the rolled quadrupoles, there is a larger spread of the sensitivities inside the arcs. The qualitative difference in sensitivity between the quadrupole roll and sextupole misalignments can be attributed to the relative difference in strengths between the arc magnets and IR magnets for these two magnet types.
The arc quadrupoles—all of about the same strength—are much weaker than the finalfocus quadrupoles, while strong arc sextupoles come relatively closer to the strength of the few sextupoles situated in the final focus. The strength of each sextupole pairs located in the arcs, is individually powered and optimised for maximum dynamic aperture. As a result, there is a spread in arc sextupole strengths, leading to the spread in sensitivity seen in Fig. 7.
3 Emittance tuning simulations
A series of correction techniques have been applied in MADX and Python. A complete description of the correction strategy is planned for an future fulllength paper. In this section we outline the main correction steps undertaken and summarise the main results for a collection of misalignments and field errors. All errors were assigned randomly via a Gaussian distribution truncated at 2.5 sigma, for 100 random seeds. Tables 2 and 3 show the rms values of the misalignments and field errors applied. Please note BPM misalignments are not yet included and this is currently being investigated.
To assign the misalignments (according to the rms values in Tables 2 and following the definitions in Fig. 2), each magnet was misaligned in x, y, and s, and then the rotations applied about the center of the magnet. Girders are used in the arcs, in between dipoles, carrying a quadrupole and two sextupoles and have an average length of 3.9 m. To introduce the girder misalignments two independent misalignments in both x and y were assigned to each end of the girder and the girder itself assumed rigid. As a result, the misalignments in x and y at each end of the girder are specified, rather than rotation angles, ΔTHETA and ΔPHI. The misalignments of the magnets on the girder are then added to the misalignment of the girder at the position along the girder where the magnet is located. Figure 8 illustrates the accumulation of multiple misalignments. Note that values presented in Tables 2 and 3 are the values used in the simulations being presented. They are not tolerance specifications, as there is an ongoing iterative process to determine the alignment level achievable and the acceptable machine performance.
3.1 Correction algorithm
The correction strategy is based on macros written in Python. See references [17, 18] for detail of the various correction techniques. The corrections were performed using 3276 dipole corrector magnets and 3276 singleplane BPMs (one installed at every quadrupole), 1264 skew quadrupoles and 1264 trim quadrupoles (installed at every sextupole). Several steps were performed and optimised, those steps are as follows:
(1). Monoenergetic beam: Initially the beam energy was set to a virtual value of 1 GeV where synchrotron light effects can be neglected. The RF voltage set to zero, and energy loss from synchrotron radiation was not included in the simulations. The 1 GeV beam without synchrotron radiation is considered a valid representation of a fullenergy fully tapered machine. Note, by ‘tapering’, we refer to the gradual reduction in magnet field strength around the ring, between RF sections, to account for the reduced beam energy due to synchrotron radiation [1, 19]. At the final stage of the correction strategy (see below), synchrotron radiation is turned on for the emittance calculation, which is based upon the Chao formalism for equilibrium emittance [20].
(2). Starting with a linear machine: The next step of this strategy was to set all of the sextupole strengths to zero, to avoid strong nonlinear effects from the sextupole fields. In a loop throughout the correction strategy, the sextupole strengths were increased by steps of 10% at a time. Once at 100% of the sextupole design value, additional coupling and vertical dispersion correction ensure that low vertical emittance can be achieved.
(3). For each value of the sextupole strength, the gradient errors and misalignment tolerances were introduced in separate steps. Firstly, the quadrupole normalised gradient errors were introduced to all quadrupoles following a random Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of \(\sigma = 1\times 10^{4}\). Then this was immediately followed by a weighted βbeat correction whereby all BPMs within 690 meters of the IP were given a weighting factor of 10, while a weighting factor of 1 was applied to every other BPM. The gradient errors of the arc quadrupoles and all sextupoles were then increased to \(\sigma = 2\times 10^{4}\). The random seed chosen for these two error assignments was the same, to ensure that the gradient errors were not redistributed, but increased in magnitude when this second error step was applied. Following additional weighted βbeating correction, field errors were applied to the sextupoles and dipoles with standard deviations of \(\sigma = 2\times 10^{4}\) and \(\sigma = 1 \times 10^{4}\), respectively. At this stage, finally, all misalignment errors were introduced and the correction scheme could continue.
In more detail the correction strategy went through the following logic:

1.
Sextupoles strengths were set to zero.

2.
Gradient errors applied

(a)
Quadrupole field errors introduced at half of the target field error value.

(b)
Weighted βbeat correction was performed and tune rematched.

(c)
Quadrupole field errors increased to target field error value.

(d)
Weighted βbeat correction was performed and tune rematched.

(e)
Sextupole and dipole field errors introduced.

(f)
Weighted βbeat correction was performed and tune rematched.

(a)

3.
Misalignments applied to all magnets and girders.

4.
Tune rematched to the nominal tune, and SVD orbit correction performed.

5.
βbeat correction (which includes horizontal dispersion correction) applied, and if needed SVD orbit corrected and tune rematched.

6.
Coupling correction, followed by βbeat correction (including horizontal dispersion correction) and combined coupling and vertical dispersion correction.

7.
Sextupole field errors introduced and sextupoles set to 10% of their design strength.

(a)
Coupling correction, combined coupling and dispersion correction and βbeating and horizontal dispersion correction applied.

(b)
Sextupole strengths increased by 10% and Step 7 repeated until the design sextupole strength is reached.

(c)
Throughout correction, the tune is rematched and additional orbit correction applied when necessary.

(a)

8.
Once at 100% of the design sextupole strength, additional coupling, dispersion and βbeating and horizontal dispersion correction, and chromaticity correction are applied (more details provided below).
Due to the strong influence of the nonlinear fields on the beam optics, Step 7 makes up the bulk of the computation. Throughout this step a possible vertical orbit fluctuation will lead to an increasing source of coupling, that exacerbates any further correction scheme. To mitigate this unavoidable effect, we iterate for each increase in sextupole strength through a careful coupling correction, a combined coupling and dispersion correction, and βbeat correction which includes horizontal dispersion correction. During each step of the iteration, the orbit and tune were monitored and if the rms orbit became too large an orbit correction was applied to keep feed down effects from the strong sextupole fields limited. In very much the same way, an additional tune rematch was introduced, in case the tune shifted to far away from its nominal value.
In the final step, after a successful correction of coupling, dispersion and βbeating to a suitable level, additional corrections were applied to balance the vertical emittance and βbeating. At this finescale level of correction, we face the issue of a tradeoff between βbeat correction and the simultaneous coupling and dispersion correction. A decision can be made in the correction algorithms as to whether more importance is given to βbeating or the vertical emittance. The final values of both, the βbeating and vertical emittance, will be small, but in order to push one of the two to even lower values, the other inevitably increases slightly. This is due to the small residual orbit distortion and accordingly to the fact that beam optics (i.e. beta function), orbit fluctuations (betatron oscillations), dispersion and finally coupling cannot be considered as independent parameters anymore. When the orbit passes slightly offcentre through the trim quadrupoles, and their strength changes in the context of the βbeat correction, a small vertical kick is introduced due to the feed down effect in these quadrupole lenses. Again, to reiterate, this effect is small and is most visible once the orbit, dispersion, coupling and βbeat have already reached a high level of correction.
Chromaticity correction is applied through the arc sextupoles, leaving the local chromaticity correction sextupoles in the IR untouched. Despite the sextupole strength needing to vary by only a small amount (by on average 1.9%) this was enough to increase the vertical emittance and make the coupling and dispersion correction less effective. Therefore, at this stage in the correction strategy the couplingdispersion response matrix is remeasured, and then additional couplingdispersion correction applied.
At this final correction stage, an acceptable limit can be placed on either the vertical emittance or the rms βbeating. For the results presented in this report, the acceptable limit for vertical rms βbeating was placed at 3% (note many of the seeds will still achieve an rms beat beating of less than 3%).
Based on the experience made during these simulations, another special feature has been introduced to gain best correction efficiency: In step 8 of the above listed correction scheme, the singular value cutoff level is incrementally lowered to include more singular values until the required βbeating limit was achieved. By stepping through various SVD cut off values, we can ensure that the pseudoinverse calculation takes enough details into account to reach the desired level of correction. Still, caution is advised: Lowering the cutoff level of the SVD values too much will include too much detail and the pseudoinverse calculation starts incorporating artificial noise. This stepping through SVD cutoff values is done twice, once for βbeat correction and once for the correction of coupling and dispersion. Then a final check will reveal if the βbeating and vertical emittance are sufficient.
3.2 Simulations results
The correction algorithm was applied to 100 different random error distributions. For these results presented, no BPM errors were included. Figure 9 shows the distributions of the vertical and horizontal emittances of the 100 random seeds after correction. The left most plot in Fig. 9 shows 84% of the seeds achieve a vertical emittance of less than 2.3 pm, with the distribution showing a median emittance of 0.90 pm. Note that these emittance values are resulting from the misalignments and field errors after corrections and does not include the emittance growth expected from solenoid fringe fields, or the effect of BPM errors.
The βbeating after correction for the same 100 seeds can be seen in Fig. 10, with almost all seeds resulting in a final rms vertical βbeating of less than 5%.
3.3 Discussion of emittance tuning
3.3.1 Orbit
The projected vertical emittance due to dispersion varies noticeably when the orbit is corrected. The contribution to projected vertical dispersion from the corrected orbit is given by [14],
where \(Q_{y}\) denotes the vertical tune, \(y_{c}\) the closed orbit, \(n_{c}\) the position of a correction (and \(n_{c} + 1\) denotes the position of the next corrector), \(N_{\mathrm{corr}}\) the total number of correctors, and ψ the vertical phase advance. Finally, \(K_{1}\) and \(K_{2}\) are the normalised quadrupole and sextupole field gradients, and \(l_{q}\) and \(l_{s}\) are the lengths of the quadrupoles and sextupole magnets respectively.
Equation (2) is dependent upon the local chromaticity,
and local offenergy stopband,
These local values are often much larger in magnitude than the average values in the FCCee IR. Whilst the local chromaticity is usually positive in the dispersion regions to counteract the negative chromaticity of the dispersionfree regions, in the FCCee IR the local chromaticity swings between extremes of positive and negative values (Fig. 1). Despite this, the dispersion from the corrected orbit is usually smaller than for the uncorrected orbit (thanks to the \(\frac{\langle y_{c}^{2} \rangle}{\beta _{y}}\) term becoming smaller). Unlike the uncorrected orbit counterpart equation to Eq. (2) which is not included here, the magnitude of the \(\xi _{\mathrm{local}}\) and \(\Delta _{\mathrm{local}}\) are important, with no opportunity for negative and positive values to cancel out.
Within the FCCee IR, the sextupole positioning and strength is optimised for local chromaticity correction as well as crab optics in what is referred to as a virtual crabwaist scheme [21]. Therefore the vertical dispersion due to the closed orbit distortion cannot be reduced by reducing the local chromaticity, and attention should be placed on ensuring the orbit is well corrected where \(\xi _{\mathrm{local}}\) and \(\Delta _{\mathrm{local}}\) are large. Attention must also be given to ensure any changes in the sextupole strengths do not affect the nonlinear chromaticity correction and in turn the momentum acceptance.
Another aspect to consider is the fact that the impact of magnet misalignments on the closed orbit depends on the strength of the misaligned magnet and the β function within that magnet. To understand how the sensitivity of the closed orbit depends on the vertical misalignment of different quadrupoles, a study was performed in which individual quadrupoles were misaligned vertically by 10 nm and the rms closed orbit was recorded, the results are shown in Fig. 11. Figure 11 shows that misalignment of some IR quadrupoles causes the rms closed orbit to be an order of magnitude larger than from misalignments on arc quadrupoles. This is especially the case when the vertical β function, also plotted in Fig. 11, in the magnets is especially large. This indicates that these magnets should have tighter alignment tolerances than other magnets.
Finally, one of the subjects for a future study is the case with diffusive motion of the ground such as described by the ATLlaw [22, 23].
4 Tolerances for quadrupole vibration
The vertical displacement of a beam caused by a quadrupole vibrating with an amplitude \(\varDelta y_{q}\) and an angular frequency \(\omega _{q}\) at the vertical phase advance \(\phi _{q}\) from the IP is given as an infinitesimal sum over the contribution from the −nth tune:
where \(\mu _{y}\), \(T_{0}\) and \(\tau _{y}\), are the vertical betatron angular tune, the revolution and damping times respectively, \(k_{q}\equiv K_{1}l_{q}\),\(\alpha _{y}\equiv T_{0}/\tau _{y}\), \(\mu _{q}\equiv \omega _{q}T_{0}\), and \(\beta ^{*}\), \(\beta _{q}\), \(k_{q}\) are the beta functions at the IP, the quadrupole, and the focusing strength of the quadrupole respectively. The vibration amplitude \(\varDelta y_{q}\) can be random at each quad, or coherent due to external seismic motion.
In this section let us examine three types of vibrations: (i) group resonance to a seismic plane wave, (ii) temporal resonance of each quadrupole, (iii) nonresonant vibration of each quadrupole. We assume that each quadrupole simply follows the ground motion, and no amplification nor reduction by the supporting structure is taken into account.
4.1 Vibration due to seismic motion
First let us evaluate the coherent part by assuming that the quadrupoles are distributed over the ring uniformly with the betatron phase \(\phi _{q}=m\varDelta \phi _{q}\), and also physically located over a ring of the radius R with a constant separation azimuthal angle \(\theta _{q}\), i.e.,
where m is an integer from 1 through to \(N_{q}\), the number of quadrupoles around the ring (see Fig. 12).
Then if the quadrupoles follow the surface seismic wave on the ground, the displacement \(\varDelta y_{m}\) of the mth quadrupole is written as
where \(k_{X,Y}\) are the components of the seismic wave number vector, and u represents the amplitude. Here we just set \(k_{X}=k\) and \(k_{Y}=0\) for simplicity without losing generality if the ring is approximated by a circle. So we may sum up the term \(\sin (\phi _{q}+n\mu _{y})\varDelta y_{q}\) in Eq. (5) over quadrupoles as
where we have applied \(\exp (ix\cos z)=\sum_{\ell }i^{l}J_{\ell}(x)\exp i\ell z\). Although there may be a resonance in Eq. (8) at \(\ell \sim \pm \varDelta \phi _{q}/\theta _{q}\), the index ℓ becomes very large in the case of the FCCee Z lattice, where \(\varDelta \phi _{q}=83.5\) deg, \(\theta _{q}=360/924\sim 0.390\) deg, and \(\ell \sim 214\). As for \(N_{q}\), we have taken only vertical focusing quadrupoles (QDs) into account. Thus the coefficient \(J_{\ell}\) becomes infinitesimal for such a large ℓ, so the resonant effect is negligible. The expression Eq. (8) is similar to Ref. [24], but the suppression by the large ℓ is basically due to the large number of quadrupoles in the ring.
We may look at the term \(\ell =0\) in Eq. (8), which is written as
We know \(J_{0}(x)\le 1\), and the rest of the rhs of Eq. (9) is close to unity. Then the magnitude of the coherent component is smaller than the random component:
4.2 Resonance with betatron frequency
Then the expectation value of the vibration of the beam at the IP, \(\langle \varDelta y^{*}^{2}\rangle \) is obtained by averaging Eq. (5) over \(\phi _{q}\) as:
Thus the vibration at the IP has resonances at \(\mu _{q}=\pm \mu _{y}+2m\pi \) with an integer m.
By assuming the spectrum of \(\langle \varDelta y_{q}^{2}\rangle \) is uniform around each resonance, the vibration at the IP can be evaluated as:
where \(S(\omega )\) is the power spectrum density of \(\langle \varDelta y_{q}^{2}(\omega )\rangle \), and we have assumed \(\cos \mu _{q}\cos \mu _{y}\sim 1/2\) and \(\alpha \ll 1\).
A measurement of ground vibration done at CERN tells us
with a coefficient σ as shown in Fig. 13. Then among the resonances only the lowest one \(m\sim \mu _{y}/2\pi \) will matter. In the case of FCCee, this lowest resonance appears at the resonant frequency
corresponding to \([\mu _{y}/2\pi ]\sim (0.4,0.6)\), resulting in
Plugging in the following FCCee Z lattice parameter value:
into Eq. (12) and multiplying by the number of all quadrupoles \(N_{q}=1856\), we get
which is considerably smaller than the IP vertical beam size of ∼37 nm.
4.3 Nonresonant vibration
Next let us look at the offresonant contribution of Eq. (11), If we roughly approximate the tunedependent term by 1, the integrated power spectrum in a range \(\omega \ge \omega _{c}\) is given as
In the case for the previous measurement, we estimate \(\sigma \sim 1.6\times 10^{12}\) m^{2}/Hz, then
for \(\omega _{c}=2\pi \times 1 \)Hz. The assumption here is that below the critical frequency \(\omega _{c}\), an orbit feedback suppresses the beam oscillation perfectly. Thus the expected vibration reaches to the vertical beam size at the IP.
Among the vibration, the dominant contribution is from the defocusing final quadrupoles around the IP (named “QC[12]*”) which reaches
Thus suppressing the vibration of the final quadrupoles and a feedback system working beyond 1 Hz hopefully up to 10 Hz will be crucial. We note again that no amplification of the vibration due to the supporting structure is taken into account.
However, up to frequencies of about 100 Hz (∼3% of the revolution frequency), what mostly matters is the relative vertical quadrupole vibration for the two beams. Without such a relative motion the vertical closed orbits of electrons and positrons follow each other as long as the vibration frequencies are small compared with the revolution frequency. Since the final quadrupole is conceived as a “twin” magnet, with superconducting windings inside a common cryostat [1], it should be possible—in the frequency range of interest—to damp or suppress this harmful asymmetric vibration mode, where the magnetic field center moves vertically upwards for the electron beam while it descends for the adjacent positrons.
5 Conclusions
The optical lattice of the large ∼100 km FCCee collider presents unique challenges. Reaching a target luminosity above 10^{34} cm^{−2}s^{−1} in each of up to four collision points at the tt̄ energy (182.5 GeV/beam) sets stringent requirements both for the arc optics and for the optics around the interaction points, with \(\beta _{y}^{*}\) values of order 1 mm. Along with establishing the IP optics parameters, an adequate correction of the arc optics and control of the beam emittance are must, for all four operation modes of the collider.
Emittance tuning of such a large storage ring, therefore, is a condition sine qua non for successful operation, and the associated tolerances on magnet fields and position alignments have to be carefully determined. The large ring size, large natural chromaticity, small \(\beta _{y}^{*}\), the targeted low vertical emittance and the small coupling ratio renders the FCCee design sensitive to misalignments and field errors.
For the arcs, the assumed dipole rms alignment errors of 1 mm are extremely relaxed. The rms arc girder alignments of 150 μm and quadrupole/sextupole magnet alignment tolerances of 50 μm rms with respect to the girder, also appear within reach of conventional alignment methods. These tolerances are less strict than those contemplated for many next generation storagering light sources, though the large size of the FCCee ring and longer cell length may conceivably introduce new challenges. The field error tolerances are also similar to what is already achieved at many light source facilities.
In the analytical investigations and simulation presented here, we studied the impact of the assumed magnet alignments. The correction algorithms developed in this context represent a powerful correction tools and lead to successful convergence for the majority of the applied errors seeds, with a median vertical emittance 0.90 pm and a horizontal emittance of 1.50 nm. Whilst the emittance tuning studies are ongoing, the preliminary results presented provide a promising indication that realistic misalignment and field error tolerances, along with further developed correction methods, can lead to the desired low levels of coupling and beam emittance. Further work is need to investigate nonlinear terms that reduce the dynamic aperture.
The colliding beams at the FCCee can be vertically offset due to magnet vibrations. Most critical is the relative vertical motion of the final electron and positron quadrupoles, which are located inside a common cryostat. This relative vibration must be controlled and minimised.
Availability of data and materials
Data available upon request from the author.
References
Benedikt M et al.. Future circular collider study the lepton collider (FCCee). Eur Phys J C. 2019;79:474.
Kubo K. Simulation study of low emittance tuning of the accelerator test facility damping ring at KEK. Phys Rev Spec Top, Accel Beams. 2003;6(9):39–49. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.6.092801.
Hellert T, Amstutz P, Steier C, Venturini M. Toolkit for simulated commissioning of storagering light sources and application to the advanced light source upgrade accumulator. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2019;22(10):100702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.100702.
Sajaev V. Commissioning simulations for the argonne advanced photon source upgrade lattice. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2019;22(4):40102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.040102.
Dalena B, Barranco J, Latina A, Marin E, Pfingstner E, Schulte D, Snuverink J, Tomas R, Zamudio G. Beam delivery system tuning and luminosity monitoring in the compact linear collider. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2012;15:05006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.051006.
Ögren J, Latina A, Schulte D, Tomas R. Tuning the compact linear collider 380 gev finalfocus system using realistic beambeam signals. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2020;23:05102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.23.051002.
Carlier FS, et al. Optics Measurements and Correction Challenges for the HLLHC. 2017. https://doi.org/10.5170/CERNACC20170088.
Thrane P, Tomas R, Koval A, Ohmi K, Ohnishi Y, Wegscheider A. Measuring \(\beta ^{*}\) in superkekb with k modulation. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2019;23:012803. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.23.012803.
Koratzinos M. Update on IR compensation scheme. 118th FCCee Optics Design Meeting, 8 May 2020. https://indico.cern.ch/event/915196/.
Oide K, El Khechen D. Beam blowup due to synchrobeta resonance with/without beambeam effects. In: eeFACT 2018—proceedings of the 62nd ICFA advanced beam dynamics workshop on high luminosity circular e^{+}e^{−} colliders. 2019. p. 207–11. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoWeeFACT2018WEXBA03.
El Khechen D, Oide K, Zimmermann F. Beambeam blowup in the presence of XY coupling sources at FCCee. In: eeFACT 2018—proceedings of the 62nd ICFA advanced beam dynamics workshop on high luminosity circular e^{+}e^{−} colliders. 2019. p. 112–5. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoWeeFACT2018TUYBA03.
FCCeelattice gitlab repository (2021). https://gitlab.cern.ch/fccoptics/FCCeelattice
Deniau L. Methodical Accelerator Design. MADX User’s Reference Manual. http://madx.web.cern.ch.
Raubenheimer TO. Tolerances to limit the vertical emittance in future storage rings. Part Accel. 1991;36:75–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/1071441950170102.
Wolski A. Lowemittance storage rings. In: CERN accelerator school CAS 2013: advanced accelerator physics course. Trondheim, Norway. 18–29 August 2013. 2015. p. 245–94. https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN2014009.245.
Panagiotidis K, Wolski A. Alignment sensitivities in the ILC damping rings. In: Proceedings of the IEEE particle accelerator conference. 2007. p. 2877–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.2007.4440606.
Charles TK, Aumon S, Holzer B, Oide K, Zimmermann F. Low emittance tuning of FCCee. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1350(1):012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/17426596/1350/1/012006.
Charles TK, Holzer B, Oide K, Zimmermann F. Update on the low emittance tuning of the e^{+}e^{−} future circular collider. In: Proc. 12th int. particle acc. conf. (IPAC21) (WEPAB011). 2021. p. 2601–4. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoWIPAC2021WEPAB011.
Härer B, Doblhammer A, Holzer BJ. Tapering Options and Emittance Fine Tuning for the FCCee Collider. In: Proc. Of international particle accelerator conference (IPAC’16). International Particle Accelerator Conference. Busan, Korea. May 8–13, 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: JACoW; 2016. p. 3767–70. https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoWIPAC2016THPOR003.
Chao AW. Evaluation of beam distribution parameters in an electron storage ring. J Appl Phys. 1979;50(595):2143.
Oide K, Aiba M, Aumon S, Benedikt M, Blondel A, Bogomyagkov A, Boscolo M, Burkhardt H, Cai Y, Doblhammer A, Haerer B, Holzer B, Jowett JM, Koop I, Koratzinos M, Levichev E, Medina L, Ohmi K, Papaphilippou Y, Piminov P, Shatilov D, Sinyatkin S, Sullivan M, Wenninger J, Wienands U, Zhou D, Zimmermann F. Design of beam optics for the future circular collider \({e}^{+}{e}^{{}}\) collider rings. Phys Rev Accel Beams. 2016;19:111005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.19.111005.
Baklakhov A. Sov Phys J. 1993;TF63 10.
Wolski A, Walker NJ. A model OF ATL ground motion for storage rings. In: Proc. of the 2003 particle accelerator conference. 2003. p. 2396.
Rossbach J. Closed orbit distortions of periodic fodo lattices due to plane ground waves. Part Accel. 1988;50(23):121.
Serluca M et al. Vibration Analysis and Control in Particle Accelerator. Workshop on the mechanical optimisation of the FCCee (2018). https://indico.cern.ch/event/694811/contributions/2863859/attachments/1595533/2526938/2018_02_06_FCCee_MDI_workshop_Serluca.pdf
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the CERN FCCee optics group.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Union’s HORIZON 2020 project FCCIS—The Future Circular Collider Innovation Study, Grant agreement n.951754.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Charles, T.K., Holzer, B., Tomas, R. et al. Alignment & stability challenges for FCCee. EPJ Techn Instrum 10, 8 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjti/s40485023000963
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjti/s40485023000963