A Further Study on the High-Precision Optics for HIAF-BRing

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.14442
• Title: A further study on the high-precision optics for HIAF-BRing
• Authors: Ke Wang, Li-Na Sheng, Tao Li, Geng Wang, Wei-Ping Chai, You-Jin Yuan, Jian-Cheng Yang, Guo-Dong Shen, Liang Lu
• Classification: physics.acc-ph (Accelerator Physics)
• Institutions: Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Sino-French Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, et al.
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14442

Abstract

This paper presents an in-depth study of the high-precision optical system for the Booster Ring (BRing) of the High Intensity heavy-ion Accelerator Facility (HIAF) in China. Based on a sliced optical model established from measured magnetic field data, the study focuses on two aspects: (1) closed orbit distortion (COD) and optical parameter variations induced by errors; (2) dynamic aperture. The results demonstrate that the sliced optical model performs comparably to the original optical model in terms of error-induced COD and optical parameter variations. Without chromatic aberration correction, the sliced optical model exhibits superior dynamic aperture compared to the original model; after chromatic aberration correction, both models show comparable performance. This research provides important reference for accelerator beam tuning and optimization.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Significance of the HIAF Facility: HIAF is a large-scale heavy-ion accelerator facility constructed by the Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, which has completed construction and entered the beam commissioning phase. As the core component of the entire facility, BRing can accelerate ²³⁸U³⁵⁺ ions to 0.8 GeV/u with beam intensity reaching 1.0×10¹¹ ppp.
2. High-Precision Requirements: The anticipated beam energy and intensity of HIAF are expected to reach world-leading levels, imposing stringent requirements on accelerator beam tuning and necessitating more accurate optical models to guide actual operation.
3. Limitations of Traditional Optical Models: Conventional ideal optical models fail to adequately account for edge field effects of magnets and magnetic field overlap between adjacent magnets, resulting in discrepancies with actual operating conditions.

Research Motivation

1. Establishing High-Precision Models: Developing a sliced optical model based on measured magnetic field data to more accurately reflect actual operating conditions
2. Error Sensitivity Analysis: Systematically investigating the effects of magnet alignment errors and field errors on optical performance
3. Dynamic Aperture Optimization: Evaluating dynamic aperture performance of different optical models to provide basis for beam stability

Core Contributions

1. Established an AC-type sliced optical model based on measured magnetic field data, subdividing each magnet into hundreds of segments to account for edge field effects and magnetic field overlap
2. Systematically analyzed the effects of magnet alignment errors and dipole field errors on closed orbit distortion (COD) and optical parameters, obtaining statistical results through 1000 Monte Carlo calculations
3. Detailed calculation of BRing's dynamic aperture, comparing performance differences between sliced and original optical models before and after chromatic aberration correction
4. Provided practical theoretical guidance for HIAF-BRing beam tuning and optimization, with the adopted model already implemented in HIAF's control system LACCS

Methodology Details

BRing Structural Characteristics

• Overall Structure: FODO-type lattice structure containing 3 superperiods, each with arc and straight sections, total circumference 569 meters
• Magnet Configuration: Each arc section contains 16 dipole magnets and 16 quadrupole magnets; each straight section contains 10 quadrupole magnets
• Working Point Settings: Horizontal tune Qₓ = 9.470, vertical tune Qᵧ = 9.430

Sliced Optical Model

1. Model Type: AC-type sliced model with both dipole and quadrupole magnets subdivided
2. Slicing Method: Each magnet subdivided into hundreds of segments based on magnetic field measurement data
3. Integration Constraint: The integral of relative strength of all segments along the reference trajectory equals the design length
4. Edge Field Treatment: Accounting for magnet edge field effects and magnetic field overlap between adjacent magnets

Error Analysis Methodology

Alignment Error Settings

• Position Errors: ΔX, ΔY, ΔS of 0.2, 0.2, 0.5 mm (RMS) respectively
• Angular Errors: Δφ, Δθ, Δψ of 0.2, 0.2, 0.1 mrad (dipoles) and 0.2, 0.2, 0.2 mrad (quadrupoles)
• Field Errors: Relative field error of 3.0×10⁻⁴ (RMS) for dipole magnets
• Statistical Distribution: All errors follow Gaussian distribution with 3σ truncation

Calculation Method

• Using MAD-X program for COD and optical parameter variation calculations
• 1000 random error Monte Carlo calculations with random number range 0, 99999999
• Statistical analysis of maximum COD, maximum and RMS values of Twiss parameter variations

Dynamic Aperture Calculation

• Calculation Program: Tao program for particle tracking
• Tracking Turns: 1000 turns
• Momentum Spread: Five momentum spreads (0.00%, ±0.30%, ±1.00%)
• Chromatic Aberration Correction: Using 48 sextupole magnets in two groups to correct horizontal and vertical chromaticity to zero

Experimental Setup

Calculation Conditions

• Working Point: Qₓ = 9.470, Qᵧ = 9.430
• Reference Particle: ²³⁸U³⁵⁺ ions
• Injection Energy: According to HIAF design parameters
• Extraction Energy: 0.8 GeV/u

Comparison Schemes

1. Sliced vs. Original Optics: Comparing performance of both models under identical error conditions
2. Before and After Chromatic Aberration Correction: Analyzing the effect of sextupole magnets on dynamic aperture
3. Injection vs. Extraction Points: Calculating dynamic aperture at different locations

Evaluation Metrics

• Closed Orbit Distortion: Maximum and RMS values of COD
• Twiss Parameters: Variations in βₓ, βᵧ, Dₓ, Dᵧ
• Tune Shift: ΔQₓ, ΔQᵧ
• Transition Energy Variation: Δγₜ
• Dynamic Aperture: Transverse phase space range for stable particle operation

Experimental Results

Closed Orbit Distortion Analysis

Horizontal COD

• Sliced Optics: Average RMS of 4.95×10⁻⁴ m, standard deviation 1.22×10⁻⁴ m
• Original Optics: Average RMS of 5.72×10⁻³ m, standard deviation 1.34×10⁻⁴ m
• Conclusion: Horizontal COD RMS of sliced optics is one order of magnitude smaller than original optics

Vertical COD

• Sliced Optics: Average RMS of 5.29×10⁻⁴ m, standard deviation 7.74×10⁻⁵ m
• Original Optics: Average RMS of 6.02×10⁻⁴ m, standard deviation 1.71×10⁻⁴ m
• Conclusion: Sliced optics slightly outperforms original optics

Twiss Parameter Sensitivity

Beta Function Variations

• Horizontal β Function: Sliced optics RMS of 1.77×10⁻³ m, original optics 1.72×10⁻³ m
• Vertical β Function: Sliced optics RMS of 2.22×10⁻³ m, original optics 1.75×10⁻³ m
• Conclusion: Both models show comparable sensitivity to β function variations

Dispersion Function Variations

• Horizontal Dispersion: Sliced optics RMS of 7.56×10⁻³ m, original optics 4.66×10⁻³ m
• Vertical Dispersion: Sliced optics RMS of 9.08×10⁻³ m, original optics 1.08×10⁻² m

Tune and Transition Energy Variations

• Transition γ Standard Deviation: Sliced optics 8.41×10⁻⁴, original optics 8.11×10⁻⁴
• Horizontal Tune Standard Deviation: Sliced optics 1.40×10⁻³, original optics 1.85×10⁻³
• Vertical Tune Standard Deviation: Sliced optics 8.51×10⁻⁴, original optics 8.33×10⁻⁴

Dynamic Aperture Results

Without Chromatic Aberration Correction

• Injection Point: Dynamic aperture of sliced optics significantly larger than original optics
• Extraction Point: Dynamic aperture of sliced optics similarly significantly larger than original optics

After Chromatic Aberration Correction

• Sextupole Magnet Strength: Similar normalized gradients required for both models
  • Horizontal Sextupole: Sliced optics 0.525 m⁻³, original optics 0.528 m⁻³
  • Vertical Sextupole: Sliced optics -1.458 m⁻³, original optics -1.462 m⁻³
• Dynamic Aperture: Due to introduction of strong sextupole fields, dynamic apertures of both models significantly decrease but show comparable performance

Related Work

HIAF Project Background

HIAF is a large-scale heavy-ion accelerator facility constructed in China, comprising major components including superconducting ECR ion source (SECR), superconducting linear accelerator (iLinac), booster ring (BRing), high-energy fragment separator (HFRS), and spectrometer ring (SRing).

Optical Design Methods

Traditional accelerator optical design is based on ideal magnet models, while the sliced optical method proposed in this paper accounts for actual magnetic field distributions, representing an important improvement over conventional methods.

Error Analysis Research

Error analysis in accelerator physics is a critical component for ensuring facility performance. The systematic error analysis in this paper provides important reference for HIAF beam tuning.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. COD Performance: Sliced optics slightly outperforms original optics in closed orbit distortion, with particularly significant improvement in the horizontal direction
2. Twiss Parameter Sensitivity: Both models show comparable sensitivity to magnet alignment errors and field errors
3. Dynamic Aperture: Without chromatic aberration correction, sliced optics significantly outperforms original optics; after correction, both show comparable performance
4. Practical Value: The sliced optical model has been adopted in HIAF's control system, demonstrating significant practical value

Limitations

1. Computational Complexity: The sliced model requires significantly more computation than traditional models
2. Error Model: Only considers magnet alignment errors and dipole field errors, excluding other error sources such as quadrupole field errors
3. Tracking Turns: The 1000-turn tracking for dynamic aperture calculation may be insufficient to fully reflect long-term stability

Future Directions

1. More Comprehensive Error Analysis: Including additional types of error sources
2. Long-Term Tracking Studies: Increasing tracking turns to assess long-term stability
3. Experimental Verification: Comparison with actual beam commissioning results

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation: The sliced optical model based on measured magnetic field data represents an important improvement over traditional methods
2. Systematic Approach: Comprehensive analysis spanning COD, optical parameter sensitivity, and dynamic aperture
3. High Practical Value: Research results directly applied to actual HIAF operation
4. Statistical Rigor: 1000 Monte Carlo calculations ensure statistical reliability of results

Limitations

1. Theoretical Analysis Depth: Lacks deep theoretical explanation for sliced optics advantages
2. Error Source Limitations: Does not consider other important error sources such as quadrupole field errors
3. Experimental Verification: Lacks comparison with actual measurement results

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new high-precision optical modeling methodology for accelerator physics
2. Engineering Value: Directly serves HIAF, a major national scientific infrastructure facility
3. Promotion Potential: Methodology can be generalized and applied to other large-scale accelerator facilities

Applicable Scenarios

This methodology is particularly suitable for large-scale accelerator facilities with extremely high precision requirements, such as heavy-ion accelerators and synchrotron radiation sources, and holds significant value during facility design optimization and operational commissioning phases.

References

The paper cites 15 relevant references covering various subsystem designs of the HIAF project, important computational programs such as MAD-X and Tao, and related research on dynamic aperture theory, providing comprehensive and authoritative literature citations.