We report macroparticle simulations for comparison with measured results from a proton beam halo experiment in a 52-quadrupole periodic-focusing channel. An important issue is that the input phasespace distribution is not experimentally known. Three different initial distributions with different shapes predict different beam profiles in the transport system. Simulations have been fairly successful in reproducing the core of the measured matched-beam profiles and the trend of emittance growth as a function of the mismatch factor, but underestimate the growth rate of halo and emittance for mismatched beams. In this study, we find that knowledge of the Courant-Snyder parameters and emittances of the input beam is not sufficient for reliable prediction of the halo. Input distributions with greater population in the tails produce larger rates of emittance growth, a result that is qualitatively consistent with the particle-core model of halo formation in mismatched beams.
Progress was made during the past decade towards a better understanding of halo formation caused by beam mismatch in high-intensity beams. To test these ideas an experiment was carried out at Los Alamos with proton beams in a 52-quadrupole focusing channel. Rms emittances and beam widths were obtained from measured beam profiles for comparison with the maximum emittance growth predictions of a free-energy model and the maximum haloamplitude predictions of a particle-core model. The experimental results are also compared with multiparticle simulations. In this paper we will present the experimental results and discuss the implications with respect to the validity of both the models and the simulations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.