IPAC2014 - List of Authors (List, I.)

Paper	Title	Page
TUPRO061	Benchmarking Beam Envelope Models for the European Spallation Source	1174
	I. List Cosylab, Ljubljana, Slovenia E. Laface ESS, Lund, Sweden
	TraceWin is used at the European Spallation Source (ESS) as the design tool, while fast and accurate on-line models will be needed during the operations. Three models are compared: the ESS Linac Simulator (ELS), TraceWin and the OpenXAL. In all of the benchmarked models, dynamics of each beam-line element is, to the first order, represented by a transfer matrix. Differences in the matrices occur, since different reference frames are used and as well different assumptions about the energy of the particles are made. General transformations of the reference frames will be presented. Using those, the comparison of transfer maps among TraceWin and OpenXAL are given. When the differences between TraceWin and OpenXAL were unclear, the benchmark versus other code, like MAD-X and Dynac was done. The best implementations were combined into a new on-line model implementation Java ELS (or JELS) and at last the comparison of the latter with TraceWin is given.
DOI •	reference for this paper ※ https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2014-TUPRO061
Export •	reference for this paper using ※ BibTeX, ※ LaTeX, ※ Text/Word, ※ RIS, ※ EndNote (xml)

Paper

Title

Page

Benchmarking Beam Envelope Models for the European Spallation Source

1174

I. List
Cosylab, Ljubljana, Slovenia
E. Laface
ESS, Lund, Sweden

TraceWin is used at the European Spallation Source (ESS) as the design tool, while fast and accurate on-line models will be needed during the operations. Three models are compared: the ESS Linac Simulator (ELS), TraceWin and the OpenXAL. In all of the benchmarked models, dynamics of each beam-line element is, to the first order, represented by a transfer matrix. Differences in the matrices occur, since different reference frames are used and as well different assumptions about the energy of the particles are made. General transformations of the reference frames will be presented. Using those, the comparison of transfer maps among TraceWin and OpenXAL are given. When the differences between TraceWin and OpenXAL were unclear, the benchmark versus other code, like MAD-X and Dynac was done. The best implementations were combined into a new on-line model implementation Java ELS (or JELS) and at last the comparison of the latter with TraceWin is given.

DOI •

reference for this paper ※ https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2014-TUPRO061

Export •

reference for this paper using ※ BibTeX, ※ LaTeX, ※ Text/Word, ※ RIS, ※ EndNote (xml)