Search

The design of CSNS MEBT has two objectives: (1) to match the beam both in the transversal direction and the longitudinal direction from RFQ into DTL; (2) to further chop the beam into the required time structure asked by RCS. It is very difficult and critical to control well the emittance growth and in the meantime to match and chop the beam. Firstly, the optical design is done and optimized, and the multi-particle simulations show that the maximum emittance growth is successfully controlled within 14%. Secondly, based on the different beam envelopes obtained by TRACE-3D and PARMELA, the least deflecting angle of the chopper is determined by TRACE-3D. At last, the field of steering magnet is determined through simulations.

At least two bunchers are needed in the 3 MeV H- Medium Energy Beam Transport (MEBT) line located between RFQ and DTL for the CSNS (China Spallation Neutron Source). A nose-cone geometry has been adopted as the type of buncher cavity for its simplicity, higher impedance and lower risk of multipacting. By making use of the results got from the simulations on the buncher with two-dimension code SUPERFISH, the thermal and structural analyses have been carried out, the process and results to determine the resulting frequency shift due to thermal and structural distortion of the cavity are presented, the water-cooling channel position and the optimum cooling water temperature as well as the tuning method by adjusting the cooling water temperature when the cavity is out of resonance are also determined through the analyses.

A beam line is built after the IHEP RFQ for halo study. To determine transverse emittance and ellipse parameters of the RFQ output beam, beam size data obtained from the first two of 14 wire scanners are employed. By using the transfer matrix method and the least square method, a set of linear equations were set up and solved. The solutions were then applied as initial beam parameters in multi-particle simulations to check the method of calculation. It is shown that difference between the simulated RMS beam size and the measured one at the measurement location is less than 7%, which is acceptable in our experiments., Comment: 6pages,4figures