NON-EQUILIBRIUM TRANSVERSE MOTION AND EMITTANCE

GROWTH IN SPACE-CHARGE DOMINATED BEAMS

S.G. Anderson and J.B. Rosenzweig

UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles CA
90095

The transverse dynamics of space-charge dominated beams are investigated

both analyitically and computationally, in order to understand the mechanisms for
emittance oscillations and growth due to nonlinear space-charge fields. This
work explores the role of space-charge dominated equilibrium and its
relationship to phase space wave-breaking, which is responsible for the
irreversible emittance growth in these systems. The physics of both coasting and
accelerating beams are examined, in order to illuminate the most effective
approaches to beam handling during the emittance compensation process, as well
as during subsequent beam transport.

1 Introduction

In recent years, a concerted attempt has been made to understand the space charge
dominated beam dynamics of intense electron beams, mainly in the context of
radio-frequency (rf) photoinjectors. The ultra-short beams in these devices undergo
transverse expansion from the photocathode in the initial cell of the rf gun, an
expansion accompanied by rapid rms emittance growth[1]. This growth has been
found to be due in large part to correlations in between the transverse phase space
angle described by the rms beam size σ and divergence σ ′ , and the longitudinal
position in the beam[2]. A transverse cross-section of the beam at a given
longitudinal position, is referred to as a beam slice, and removal of the correlation
between slice position and rms phase space angle σ ′ / σ is a process known as
emittance compensation[2,3]. As is discussed in the following section, this process
is explainable in terms of linear plasma oscillations (the beam is considered to be a
nearly laminar, cold relativistic plasma) about equilibria dictated by the value of the
current at a given slice, and the applied external forces. This analysis, originally
performed by Serafini and Rosenzweig (SR)[4], lead to the identification of a new
type of space-charge dominated beam equilibrium which is found in accelerating
systems, termed the invariant envelope. It was proposed in this analysis that the
invariant envelope is the preferred mode of beam propagation for providing
optimized emittance compensation. In fact, this point of view is not completely
consistent, as we shall see, with the original proposed mechanism of emittance
compensation. Part of the motivation for this work is to clarify the role of the
invariant envelope in the emittance compensation process.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 1/40

 Further, because the invariant envelope is a generalized equilibrium, a beam
slice matched to it undergoes wave-breaking in the transverse phase space, which
causes an irreversible emittance growth process. This emittance growth mechanism
has been studied extensively in the field of heavy-ion fusion in the context of
Brillioun flow (the rigid rotor equilibrium corresponding to maximum beam
density[5]) in coasting, solenoid-focused beams. It is well understood from the
view point of microscopic phase space dynamics of coasting beams[6], and
alternatively as the conversion of so-called nonlinear field energy to thermal energy,
and thus emittance[7,8]. This irreversible emittance growth has been associated in
O’Shea’s analysis with the increase in the beam entropy[9]. These facts concerning
wave-breaking due to nonlinear space-charge fields are also, at first glance,
apparently at odds with the assertion that the invariant envelope is a preferred mode
of transport in pulsed, space-charge dominated beams. This work is also intended to
address and clarify this apparent disagreement.
This paper is concerned with the self-consistent phase space dynamics of a
beam slice as it evolves under of the influence of space-charge and external forces.
We analytically study the dynamics to determine the conditions under which wave-
breaking occurs, for both coasting beams, and in slab-symmetric and cylindrically
symmetric geometries. The slab-symmetric case is included mainly to allow use of
exact and physically transparent results, which illustrate the mechanisms involved
in phase space wave-breaking. In practice, one is always concerned with
cylindrically symmetric beams, and so we extend our discussion of this case to
include acceleration in an rf structure. Because the dynamics of this system are not
tractable after wave-breaking has occurred, we then also employ computational
simulations to further our understanding of the cylindrically symmetric beam
physics in both the coasting and accelerating cases. The results of this analysis
show that in order to preserve (compensate) the beam emittance within a slice, in
the presence of significant nonlinearities in the space-charge field, one must avoid
matching of the beam to the generalized equilibria, and that the optimal transport of
a space-charge dominated beam is typically not close to such equilibria.

2 ENVELOPE DYNAMICS AND LINEAR EMITTANCE

COMPENSATION

The purpose of this section is to provide a review of the analytical theory

of emittance compensation as formulated by SR in Ref. 4. This background is
needed in order to understand the detailed nature of the problems addressed in this
paper. The invariant envelope theory begins with the writing of the cylindrically

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 2/40

symmetric rms envelope equation of each beam slice in the long-beam (two-
dimensional) limit. This limit is reached when the beam is highly relativistic
vb → c (γ >> 1) , and even a short pulse of particles appears elongated in the
longitudinal dimension in its rest frame. In this limit, which is assumed for the
remainder of this section, the transverse defocusing due to space-charge forces is
dependent only on the local value of the current I (ζ ) = qλ (ζ )vb ≅ qλ (ζ )c and the
rms beam size at the particular slice in question σ r (ζ , z ) , and the envelope equation
including acceleration is

re λ (ζ )
2
 γ′  η γ′ 
σ r′′(ζ , z ) +   σ r′ (ζ , z ) +   σ r (ζ , z ) = . (1)
 γ (z)  8  γ (z)  γ ( z )3 σ r (ζ , z )

Here ζ = z − ct is the internal longitudinal coordinate of a fixed position

within the beam (and thus labels a slice), z is the distance along the beam
propagation direction, and we have suppressed the thermal emittance term, which
means we are assuming a space-charge dominated beam. Also, the parameter η is
a measure of the second-order focusing, e.g. nonsynchronous rf wave[10,11] and/or
solenoid focusing[4], applied to the beam as it accelerates with normalized, average
(over an rf period) spatial rate γ ′ = q Ez / m0 c 2 . For a standing wave accelerator
η ≅ 1, while for a disk-loaded travelling wave accelerator it is an order of
magnitude smaller[11]. If solenoid focusing is also applied, η → η + 2 b 2 , where
b = Bz / Ez .
When the beam is focused by a solenoid, but not accelerating, γ ′ = 0, we
recover the familiar rms envelope equation
r λ (ζ )
σ r′′(ζ , z ) + kβ2σ r (ζ , z ) = 3 e , (2)
γ σ r (ζ , z )

where kβ = qBz / βγm0 c 2 ≅ qBz / γm0 c 2 is the spatial betatron frequency[12], which
in this case is identical to the Larmor frequency of the particle. Eq. ? is a nonlinear
differential equation with no general analytical solution, but does have a particular,
equilibrium solution
1 re λ (ζ )
σ eq (ζ ) = . (3)
kβ γ3

This steady state envelope corresponds to a rigid rotor equilibrium known as

Brillouin flow, in which the beam’s canonical angular momentum is zero. The

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 3/40

typical way of dealing with Eq. 3 is to expand it to first order about its
equilibrium, in the parameter δσ r = σ r − σ eq << σ eq ,
r λ (ζ )
δσ r′′(ζ , z ) + kβ2δσ r (ζ , z ) = − 3e 2 δσ r (ζ , z ) , or (4)
γ σ eq (ζ )

δσ r′′(ζ , z ) + 2 kβ2δσ r (ζ , z ) = 0 . (5)

The general solution for small amplitude motion about the equilibrium associated
with each beam slice is thus, assuming for simplicity that all slices are initially at
the same rms size σ r (ζ , 0) = σ r 0 , and no rms angular motion σ r′ (ζ , 0) = 0,

[ ] ( )
σ r (ζ , z ) = σ r 0 + σ r 0 − σ eq (ζ ) cos 2 kβ z , with derivative (6)

[
σ r′ (ζ , z ) = − 2 kβ σ r 0 − σ eq (ζ ) sin] ( )
2 kβ z . (7)

In this case the (σ r , σ r′ ) trace space trajectory of the envelope is simply an ellipse
( )
whose origin is offset to σ eq , 0 . The mismatched envelopes rotate about this
offset position with spatial frequency (wave-number) 2kβ , which is equal to the
plasma frequency k p = 4πrc nb / β γ 2 3
of the equivalent uniform density
( nb (ζ ) = λ (ζ )
/ 2πσ r2 )
matched beam[6]. In the small amplitude limit, the
oscillation frequency is independent of λ (ζ ) . Thus every trajectory of this form
aligns in trace space twice per plasma period, points at which the projected rms
emittance of the obtained by summing ( ) over the ensemble of beam slices in
this trace space

2
εr = σ r2 σ r′ 2 − σ rσ r′ (8)

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 4/40

vanishes. This definition of emittance is identical to that of the standard radial rms
emittance ε rms = r 2 r ′ 2 − rr ′
2
if each slice of the beam is a line in ( r, r ′ )
trace space, which connects the origin to the edge of the slice distribution through
the value (σ r , σ r′ ) . This case, which is physically realized when the beam’s
density distribution is uniform inside of the radius r = 2σ r and vanishing outside
of this radius, was the subject of the envelope dynamics analyzed in Ref. 4.
σr'

λ1 λ2 λ3
σr
σeq1
σeq2
σeq3

λ 1<λ2 <λ 3

Figure 1. Trace space trajectories for (σ r , σ r′ ) in system launched with size below the equilibrium
for three representative slices, with line charge λ1 < λ 2 < λ3 . Oscillations proceed at the same
frequency ( k p = 2 kβ ) about different equilibrium values of σ r .

In the case most relevant to the emittance compensation process, the beam
is launched with a size smaller than equilibrium for all portions of the beam, and
the trace space trajectories for various slices are nested ellipses. This is shown in
Fig. 1, which displays three elliptical trajectories corresponding to three different
slices with λ1 < λ 2 < λ3 . These ellipses are traversed in the linear analysis with the
same frequency. Thus the area in trace space that the points on the three ellipses
describe when connected to the trace space origin (at a given time), which is
proportional to the emittance defined by Eq. 8, oscillates with twice the mismatch
oscillation frequency. This phenomenon is illustrated in Fig. 2, which displays the

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 5/40

trace space area described by the three slices at k p z = 0, π / 2, 3π / 2, 2π . It can be
seen that the trajectories fan out to produce a large summed (or projected) emittance
at k p z = π / 2, 3π / 2 , while to lowest order the emittance vanishes at k p z = 0, 2π
and also at k p z = π (not shown). These emittance oscillations repeat twice every
plasma oscillation, but eventually decohere due to small, higher order differences in
the nonlinear plasma frequency in each slice[13]. The proper execution of such an
emittance oscillation due to differential slice motion is termed emittance
compensation in the context of high current, space-charge dominated beams in rf
photoinjectors. This simple picture is complicated somewhat by acceleration, as
discussed below, but essentially illustrates the relevant physics of compensation
process.

σ r'

kpz=π/2

λ1 λ2 λ3
σr
kp z=0,2π

kpz=3π /2 λ1<λ 2 <λ3

Figure 2. Projected trace space areas described by the three slices of Fig. 1, at
k p z = 0, π / 2, 3π / 2, 2π . Note the area (emittance) is maximized at k p z = π / 2, 3π / 2 , and
vanishes at k p z = 0, 2π and also at k p z = π (not shown).

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 6/40

 σr'

kpz=π/2

λ1 λ2
σr
σeq1
σeq3 λ σeq2
3

λ 3 < λ 1<λ 2

Figure 3. Projected trace space area described by three slice envelopes with line charge
λ3 < λ1 < λ 2 with the line charge of slice 3 so low that σ r 0 > σ eq , shown at k p z = π / 2 . The
emittance evolution behavior is qualitatively the same as in Figs. 1 and 2, but with larger amplitude of
oscillation.

The picture of the slice dynamics displayed in the trace space diagrams of Figs.
1 and 2 assumed, as is true of motion off of a cathode in an rf photoinjector, that
the beam expands from its initial size, exceeds an equilibrium value, and finally
returns to its initial state. As this in not the most general case, a more complicated,
but relevant picture is displayed in Fig. 3, where only two of the slices are launched
with sizes below equilibrium, but the third has low enough line charge density that,
at the same initial size of the other two slices, it is above equilibrium. This picture
displays what happens if a beam is launched with size matched in an rms,
integrated beam sense, so that some slices are above, and others below equilibrium.
It can be seen that, while the slice dynamics and associated emittance evolution is
in some ways different (the maximum emittance is larger in this case), the overall
periodicity of the emittance oscillation is the same. The most important way in
which the two situations differ is that in Fig. 1, the rms beam angle σ r′ is the same

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 7/40

sign for all slices, while in Fig. 3, the angle of the low current slice is of opposite
sign from the other two. We will return to this important point below.
The extension of this type of motion about an equilibrium to a system with
longitudinal acceleration has been considered by SR, who have analyzed the motion
of such a system with Eq. 1. This equation is again nonlinear, but also has a useful
particular solution (no longer an equilibrium, however) with which one can begin
an analysis, termed the invariant envelope[4],

re λ (ζ )
σ inv (ζ , z ) =
2
. (8)
γ′ (1 + η / 2)γ ( z)

It can be seen that the existence of this particular solution is not dependent on
external focusing, as even with η = 0 (pure travelling wave, no solenoid), the state
corresponding to this solution exists due to the effects of adiabatic damping.
The invariant envelope has the unique property that the trace space angle
σ r′ / σ r = −γ ′ / 2γ is independent of λ (ζ ) . Thus if one places all slices on their
invariant envelope, they will be aligned in trace space angle and the emittance
vanishes. It is not possible in practice to do this, and so one must consider what
happens when the all slices in the beam ensemble are placed close to their invariant
envelopes. First we examine the motion of a slice perturbed slightly off of its
invariant envelope, by using a linear expansion of Eq. 1 about this particular
solution,
2
 γ ′ 1 + η  γ ′
δσ r′′ +   δσ r′ +   δσ r = 0 (9)
γ  4 γ 

where δσ r = σ r − σ inv . This equation has a general form of solution, for the type of
initial conditions we have been describing,

 1 + η  γ 0 
δσ r = [σ r 0 − σ inv ] cos ln  , (10)
 2  γ ( z )  

so that we can write

 1 + η  γ 0 
σ r ( z ) = σ inv + [σ r 0 − σ inv ] cos ln  , and
 2  γ ( z )  
(11)

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 8/40

 1+η γ ′  1 + η  γ 0 
σ r′ ( z ) =
2 γ (z)
[σ r 0 − σ inv ] cos ln 
 γ ( z )  
(12)
 2

with γ 0 = γ (0) . Thus the mismatch envelope dynamics are not conceptually much
different than in the coasting beam case, with oscillations about the particular
solution (no longer an equilibrium, but a secularly diminishing envelope)
proceeding at approximately the plasma frequency (which is also no longer a
constant, but also is secularly diminishing). This is illustrated by the normalized
trace space (phase space) picture given in Fig. 4, which shows the dynamics of three
slices corresponding to the hierarchy of currents introduced in Fig. 3.

γσ r'

Phase space area after 1/4 plasma oscillation

σr

λ3 λ1 λ2

γσ r′ / σ r = − γ ′ / 2

Figure 4. Normalized, projected trace space areas described by three slices with line
charge λ3 < λ1 < λ 2 as the envelopes oscillate about the individual invariant
envelopes, with the line charge of slice 3 so low that σ r 0 > σ inv .

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 9/40

 While the picture in Fig. 4 gives a similar schematic view of emittance
oscillations as Fig. 3, it has two notable differences with the non-accelerating case.
The first is simply that the emittance one needs to be concerned with when the
2
beam accelerates is the normalized emittance ε r , n = βγ σ r2 σ r′ 2 − σ rσ r′
2
≅γ σ r2 σ r′ 2 − σ rσ r′ , which is a measure of the transverse phase space area,
and is thus conserved under linear transport and acceleration. The “adiabatic
damping” of the trace space area is emphasized in Fig. 4 by rescaling of the vertical
axis by γ (we have set β = 1 in this analysis) to account for this effect. The second
difference is that all mismatch oscillations have end-points attached to the the line
γσ r′ / σ r = −γ ′ / 2 instead of σ r′ = 0. As the invariant envelope associated with the
slices becomes smaller with increasing energy as γ −1 / 2 (the ensemble of ellipses
shown slides up the line γσ r′ / σ r = −γ ′ / 2 towards the origin), the area associated
with the emittance not only oscillates, but secularly damps as γ −1 / 2 . Note that the
offset phase space area described by the mismatch oscillations (the ellipses in Fig.
4.) is actually conserved, as can be seen by Eqs. 11 and 12. This means that an
ensemble of slices initially placed all at the same initial condition, but with
different λ (ζ ) , the set of points which make up the section of the phase space
boundary not attached to the origin form a line with varying length, but no area.
This ensemble line stretches and rotates about the invariant envelope of the matched
slice. If the invariant envelope slice is actually present in the beam, the ensemble
line passes through the invariant envelope line γσ r′ / σ r = −γ ′ / 2 , rotates about the
intersection point of these two lines. Thus the matched invariant envelope is a
generalized fixed-point in the envelope phase space. This is an important
observation having implications for particle motion within a slice.

3 LAMINAR AND NONLAMINAR MOTION IN COASTING SLAB

BEAMS

As can be seen by the analysis above, the self-consistent collective motion of

particle beam in cylindrical symmetry is complicated somewhat by the need to
approximate the solutions to the differential equations which are encountered.
Because of this it is most instructive to begin our analysis using a Cartesian, or
slab-symmetric (sheet) beam, following the general methods introduced by O.
Anderson in Ref. 6.
We start this discussion by examining a freely expanding (unfocused) laminar
beam, with initial (z=0) density profile, infinite in the infinite in the y and z
dimensions, and propagating in the +z direction

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 10/40

 Σb
nb ( x 0 ) = f ( x 0 ) = nb 0 f ( x 0 ), with f (0) = 1, (13)
a0

where Σ b is the beam charge per unit (slab) area, and a0 = Σ b / nb 0 is the effective
initial beam width. The case of free-expansion can be considered to represent the
most non-equilibrium situation it is possible to encounter. It can also be thought of
as forming one portion of propagation under periodic application of thin lenses
separated by drifts, or free-expansion regions.
The equations of motion for the electron position for the free-expansion
scenario are, under laminar flow conditions,

x0
x ′′( z ) = k p20 F( x 0 ), F( x 0 ) = ∫ f ( x )dx = constant, (14)
0

where the local value of the initial (spatial) plasma frequency in the plane of
symmetry has been defined as
4πr n
k p20 = 2c 3b 0 . (15)
β γ

If laminarity is obeyed, the integral F( x 0 ) is constant and these equations of have

solutions dependent only on initial conditions,

(k p z ) F( x ) .
2

x( x0 , z) = x0 + 0 (16)
2

The density distribution is also a simple function of its initial state, as conservation
( )
of probability gives f x ( x 0 ), z dx = f ( x 0 )dx 0 or

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 11/40

 f ( x0 ) f ( x0 )
( )
f x ( x 0 ), z =
dx ( x 0 )
= . (17)
(k p z) f ( x )
2

dx 0 1+ 0
2

In the freely expanding case, the density distribution becomes more uniform as it
expands over many plasma radians ( k p z >> 1),
f ( x0 )
(
f x( x0 ) =) ⇒
2
. (18)
(k p z ) f ( x ) (k p z )
2 2

1+ 0
2

This observation is critical, as it implies that the transport is “more linear”, since
the space-charge defocusing for a uniform beam becomes approximately linearly
dependent on offset,

x ′′( z ) = k p0
2
F( x 0 ) ≈ x / 2 z 2 (19)

This will in turn imply that the phase space wave-breaking effects which lead to
irreversible emittance growth are mitigated, as the angle a particle makes in phase
space becomes more linearly correlated with position,
x′ k p20 zF( x 0 ) 2
= → . (20)
x x 0 + 2 k p 0 z F( x 0 )
1 2 2
z

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 12/40

 1.2

1.0

0.80
f/f(0)

0.60

0.40 initial
final
0.20

0.0
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0 1.2
x/x
max

Figure 5. Initially parabolic slab beam distribution (solid line), mapped to more
uniform (normalized) distribution (dashed line) after a drift length k p z = 4.
Distribution shown as a function of relative offset position, x / xmax .

As an example of this increased distribution uniformity is shown in Fig.

5, where a beam with initial parabolic profile
x 2
f ( x0 ) = 1 −   (21)
 a

has freely expanded for a distance k p z = 4. The profile has become noticeably
flattened during this expansion.
It is instructive at this point to calculate the emittance evolution associated
with this freely expanding beam. In order to do so, we consider a number of
possible forms of the distribution, gaussian, parabolic, and uniform (“flat-top”). ”).
The single particle equations of motion and the condition of laminar flow allow the
calculation of the second moments of the distribution and consequently the RMS
emittance. Laminar flow implies

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 13/40

 nb ( x, z )dx = nb ( x 0 )dx o (22)

Thus, the second moments of the distribution in trace space can be simply
calculated by integrating with respect to the initial particle positions. For example
σ2 is:

∞
x2 = ∫ x ( x0 , z )nb ( x0 )dx0
2
(23)
−∞

Through this method the second moments are calculated and the emittance is found.
The emittance evolution of the drifting laminar beam can be written in the
following general form,

ε = αk p0
2
σ 0z , (24)

where σ 0 is the initial rms spread in the distribution, and α is a form factor
dependent on the initial beam distribution type. The values of α are summarized in
Table 1; for a uniform initial distribution, there are no nonlinear forces, and thus no
emittance growth. Note that in the case of free-expansion that the emittance grows
linearly with distance from the launching point, but has no dependence on initial
beam size, as k p20σ 0 ∝ Σ b . While this linear growth is a worrisome phenomenon,
it turns out not to be valid for cylindrically symmetric beams — in this case the
growth is reversed after a time during expansion, and after application of a thin
lens, nearly a perfect oscillation of this nonlinear space-charge force-induced
emittance can be made to occur. This compensation of the nonlinearity-derived
emittance, which is the central phenomenon under study in this paper, will be
discussed in following sections.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 14/40

 PROFILE α

Gaussian π −3
3π

Parabolic 2
3675

Flat-top 0

Table 1. Values of the form factor α for various initial slab-symmetric distribution types.

Wave-breaking occurs in phase space when the value of x ( z ) somewhere in the

distribution becomes independent of x 0 , and the transverse momentum distribution
becomes a multiple valued function of transverse offset. According to Eq. 14, this
condition ( dx / dx 0 =0) also implies that the density would become singular at
these points. Note that there is no wave-breaking for the free-expansion slab-
symmetric case, as
( ) f (x ) > 1 > 0 .
2
dx kpz
= 1+ 0 (25)
dx 0 2

This will change when we introduce focusing, but one conclusion remains from this
analysis: one must allow the beam to stay far from equilibrium in order to avoid
the most serious consequences of wave-breaking.
There are two ways to proceed from this point. One is to introduce thin
lenses to produce a periodic transport system with an rms matched (in the sense that
the envelope has the same periodicity and symmetry as the applied focusing forces)
beam. The other is to introduce a uniform-gradient focusing channel (akin to the
solenoid commonly used in cylindrically symmetric systems), but to allow a
mismatch between the beam and the channel. In the interest of simplicity, we will
first follow the latter course first.
In a system with uniform gradient focusing, Eq. 14 becomes

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 15/40

 x ′′( z ) + kβ2 x ( z ) = k p20 F( x 0 ), , (26)

where we have introduced the betatron wave-number kβ associated with free

oscillations under the influence of the focusing gradient The equilibrium solution
for a given initial particle position is simply

k p20
xeq ( x 0 ) = F( x 0 ),. (27)
kβ2

It can be seen that this equilibrium can be made self-consistent, in the sense that no
particles will move after the distribution is launched, if F( x 0 ) = 1, and k p0
2
= kβ2 . If
any other distribution other than a uniform one is employed, there will be
subsequent motion, and associated rearrangement of the distribution. In this more
general case, we may write the solution to Eq. 22 as

[ ] ( )
x ( x 0 , z ) = xeq ( x 0 ) + x 0 − xeq ( x 0 ) cos kβ z . (28)

The wave-breaking condition associated with this motion is

k p20  k p20 
∂x
∂x 0
= 2 f ( x 0 ) + 1 − 2 f ( x 0 ) cos kβ z = 0, or
kβ  kβ 
( ) (29)

f ( x0 ) = −
kβ2 cos kβ z ( )
( )
. (30)
2 k p20 2
sin kβ z / 2

It can be seen that wave-breaking always occurs for a sufficiently small value of
f ( x 0 ) , i.e. portions of the beam found in a long continuous tail, assuming a

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 16/40

monotonically decreasing function f ( x 0 ) . Quantitatively, Eq. 30 states that wave-
breaking eventually occurs for all f ( x0 ) < kβ2 2 k p20 , with the most interior value of
x0 undergoing wave-breaking at kβ z = π (for distributions which smoothly
approach zero, wave-breaking begins in these tails at kβ z = π / 2). It is also apparent
that wave-breaking can be avoided by a combination of removal of the distribution
tails, so that f ( x 0 ) discontinuously goes to zero at a hard-edge beam boundary, and
by making the ratio kβ2 k p20 become small. When this ratio is near unity, the beam
is closely “matched” to the external focusing, and when the ratio is much smaller
than unity the beam is mismatched, with the focusing being too weak to control the
beam distribution at its launch size. Another way of understanding wave-breaking is
that the equilibrium beam size xeq associated with the initial wave-breaking in trace
space is in fact a fixed point of the oscillation. On the other hand, we know that
the origin in trace space is also a fixed point, with an opposing sense of rotation.
The existence of two such fixed points guarantees that the trace space will filament
after wave-breaking, and the emittance will grow irreversibly. The trace space
picture of this system is shown in Fig. 6.

0.20

0.15
Distribution
0.10

0.050 Trace space

rotation
0.0
x'

-0.050 Fixed point

-0.10

-0.15

-0.20
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0 1.2
x

Figure 6. Trace space picture of slab symmetric beam at wave-breaking onset ( kβ z = π /2), for case
2
of kβ k p20 =2/3, showing two fixed points with opposing direction of rotation.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 17/40

Thus we deduce that a mismatched beam is more likely to preserve its laminar
flow, under mismatched conditions, which is an extension and deepening of what
we have learned from the case of free expansion. To emphasize this point, in Fig. 7,
we show a plot of normalized beam density at the maximal wave-breaking point
kβ z = π for a cut-off (at the 25% intensity level) parabolic distribution in nearly
matched ( kβ2 / k p20 = 4 / 3 ) and highly mismatched ( kβ2 / k p20 = 1 / 3 ) cases. The nearly
matched case barely evades wave-breaking, and displays a very large density spike
at the beam edge, while the highly mismatched beam easily maintains laminarity,
giving a smaller density spike.

5.0

4.0
mismatched
matched
3.0
f/f(0)

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0 1.2
x / xm a x

Figure 7. Normalized beam density f / f (0) for a beam with initially parabolic slab beam distribution
(cut-off at 0.25 normalized density) at kβ z = π , for distribution in nearly matched ( kβ / k p 0 = 4 / 3 )
2 2

and highly mismatched ( kβ

2
/ k p20 = 1 / 3 ) cases. Offset x is normalized to its maximum value in the
distribution.

In order to calculate the emittance evolution in the case of the slab beam in a
focusing channel, we follow the same procedure as in the drifting beam case to up
to the point of wave-breaking, where strictly laminar flow ends and this analysis
breaks down. Assuming a cold beam initially at a waist ( x 0′ = 0 ) the emittance is
found to be

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 18/40

 k p2
ε =α
kβ
( )
σ 0 sin kβ z ,

(31)

where again α is a constant depending of the form of the initial distribution. We

note from this that the predicted maximum emittance occurs at kβ z = π /2, as with
the correlated inter-slice emittance studied in Ref. 4. It should also be emphasized
that this is the same longitudinal position as that the initial wave-breaking occurs
in for a distribution with a continuous tail.

4 LAMINAR AND NONLAMINAR MOTION IN COASTING

CYLINDRICAL BEAMS

The density of a continuous beam in an axisymmetric system can be described by

the expression

nb (r, z ) = λ b f (r, z ) , (32)

where λ b = I / qv is the beam’s axial charge density. The electromagnetic force on a

particle in such a distribution is

2 q r0 2 qλ (r0 )
Fr (r, z ) = ∫ 2πnb (rƒ, z )rdr
ƒ ƒ≡ .
γ 2r 0 γ 2r
(33)

The force has been written in terms of the enclosed current at an initial point r0 ( z0 ) ,

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 19/40

 r0
λ (r0 ) = ∫ 2πnb (rƒ, z0 )rdr
ƒ ƒ, (34)
0

which for laminar flow is a constant of the motion.

The equation of motion for a particle with no canonical angular momentum
experiencing both a solenoidal restoring force and the repulsive space charge force
corresponding to Eq. 33 is

2 re λ (r0 )
r ′′( z ) + kβ2 r ( z ) = , (35)
β 2γ 3 r

which is a nonlinear equation not amenable to exact solution in general. We can

begin an approximate analysis, however, by defining an equilibrium radius
corresponding to each value of r0 ,

2re λ (r0 ) k p (r0 )

req (r0 ) = ≡ r0 . (36)
kβ2 β 2γ 3 2 kβ

Here we have introduced an average beam plasma frequency

4πrc nb (r0 ) 2rc λ (r0 )

k p2 (r0 ) = = . (37)
β γ
2 3
r02 β 2γ 3

which corresponds to the mean enclosed initial density at r0 .

We now proceed to linearize Eq. 35 about the equilibria given in Eq. ? to
obtain

δr ′′ + 2 kβ2δr = 0, (38)

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 20/40

where δr = r − req . This equation yields a familiar form of solution, for a
distribution beginning with no radial momentum (or angular momentum in the
beam’s Larmor frame)

[ ] (
r(r0 , z ) = req (r0 ) + r0 − req (r0 ) cos 2 kβ z ) (39)

The wave-breaking condition is again given by

∂r ∂req  ∂req 
= + 1 − (
∂req
)
cos 2 kβ z ( )
 cos 2 kβ z = 0 , or =−
( )
. (40)
∂r0 ∂r0  ∂r0  ∂r0 2 sin 2 kβ z / 2

The quantity on the left-hand side of Eq. 40 can be written as

∂req rp ∂λ k p2 (r0 )
= = , (41)
∂r0 2λ (r0 ) ∂r0 2 k p (r0 )

where we have employed the local measure of the initial beam plasma frequency,

4πrc nb (r0 ) 2rc λ (r0 )

k p2 (r0 ) = = . (42)
β 2γ 3 β 2γ 3r02

As an illustrative example, let us examine the wave-breaking condition for the

case of an initially Gaussian beam, where

(
nb (r0 ) = nb 0 exp − r02 / 2σ r2 . ) (43)

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 21/40

In this case

( )
r0
λ (r0 ) = 2πnb 0 ∫ r exp − r 2 / 2σ r2 dr
0

[
= 2πnb 0σ r2 1 − exp − r02 / 2σ r2( )] (44)

[
= 2πσ r2 nb 0 − nb (r0 ) , ]

and the wave-breaking condition can be written as

(
k p 0 r0 exp − r0 / 2σ r
2 2
)=− 2
cos 2 kβ z ( ) 4πr n
, with k p20 = k p2 (0) = 2c 3b 0 .(45)
(
kβ σ r 1 − exp − r 2 / 2σ 2
0 r )
sin kβ z / 2 ( ) β γ

For wave-breaking to be avoided, we have that the left-hand side of Eq. 45

must be greater than unity,

(
k p 0 r0 exp − r0 / 2σ r
2 2
≡
k p0 )
g(r0 ) > 1. (46)
0(
kβ σ r 1 − exp − r 2 / 2σ 2
r
kβ
)

The function g(r0 ) is shown in Fig. 8 with f (r0 ) also displayed for comparison. It
can be seen that g(r0 ) approximately follows the density, and thus the threshold for
wave-breaking is estimated as

k p0
f (r0 ) ≅ 1. (47)
kβ

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 22/40

This is in contrast to the equivalent condition found in the slab beam case,

2
k p0
f ( y0 ) ≅ 1, (48)
2 kβ2

which has a much stronger dependence on the mismatch parameter k p0 / kβ .

1.2

1.0
f g

0.80
f/f(0), g/g(0)

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.0
0.0 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
r/σr

Figure 8. A comparison of the function g(r0 ) with Gaussian f (r0 ) .

As the linear dynamics of the axisymmetirc beam have been seen to be

formally quite similar to those of the slab beam, it is not surprising that the
emittance evolution is similar as well. Given the same initial conditions as
assumed in the slab case, we find the emittance to be of the same form as well.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 23/40

 ε = ασ 02 k p 0 sin ( )
2 kβ z . (49)

Here α is again a form factor, defined as in the previous section. The numerical
values of α found for the cylindrically symmetric case are shown in Table 2. We
will see that Eq. 49 provides a very accurate description of the emittance evolution
up until wave-breaking. Note that the emittance in Eq. 49 in fact linearly dependent
on σ 0 , as k p0 ∝ σ 0−1.

PROFILE α

Gaussian 0.141

Parabolic 0.065

Flat-top 0

Table 2. Values of the form factor α for various initial cylindrical beam slice distribution types.

5 SIMULATION OF COASTING CYLINDRICAL BEAMS

The analytical treatments of intra-slice transverse space charge detailed above are
limited to the laminar flow regime, and in the case of cylindrical beams are only
approximate. They do however, predict where wave-breaking will occur and that it
can be minimized or avoided by mismatching the beam. In order to test these
predictions and examine the behavior of a beam slice after wave-breaking, we use
self-consistent simulations that follow the evolution of the beam using the space
charge force of Eq. 33.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 24/40

 We found in the case of the slab beam expanding under its space charge force
that there was no wave-breaking for any type of distribution. Equation 33 tells us
that this is not the case for a freely expanding cylindrical beam if the initial
distribution function falls off, so that the integral of the charge density does not
increase proportionally with r. In this case we expect wave breaking, and look to
simulations for understanding the beam behavior after wave-breaking.
The emittance evolution of the freely expanding beam shows the effects of
wave-breaking. As in the focusing channel, the emittance increases to a maximum
at λp0/4 where wave-breaking occurs. As the beam continues to expand the particles
in the vicinity of the initial wave-breaking point (where the maximum outward force
is found) effectively rotate, as the entire distribution expands around this point.
This rotation causes the tail particles to “tuck under” in phase space in a distance a
bit longer than the initial plasma half-wavelength (the plasma frequency is not
constant, but decreases as the beam expands), as would be expected, and the
emittance decreases during this initial rotation. The emittance growth is not
perfectly compensated by this nonlinear effect however and the emittance reaches a
local minimum. After that ε is becomes simply proportional to σ as the beam
continues to expand. Examination of the beam phase space evolution, shown in
Figs. 10, illustrates this process.

20 1 0

Emittance [Arbitrary Units]

15 7.5
0
σ/σ

1 0 5

5.0 2.5

0.0 0
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
k p z/2π

Figure 9. Results of a simulation of an the free-expansion of an initially Gaussian beam. The beam size
(solid line) increases monotonically while the emittance (dashed line) has a local maximum and
minimum.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 25/40

We note from Fig. 10(b) that this “tuck under “ effect on the emittance occurs only
after the RMS beam size has grown substantially (recall that k p0 z > π , and the
beam has had a large distance in which to expand), as the emittance minimum
occurs when σ/σ0 ≈ 8.5.

While the drifting beam is instructive, we are interested in beam transport

involving focusing elements. We proceed therefore, by examining two cases:
periodic thin lenses separated by drifts, and a focusing channel. In the case of thin
lens focusing we can directly apply the result of the drifting beam. We find that for
a given transport length fewer lenses and larger beam size oscillations will produce
a better emittance at the end of the transport line provided that the beam makes an
integer number of oscillations. Figures 11 and 12 below show two simulations of
a beam with the same initial conditions and transported through the same length of
drift. In the first there is one thin lens applied when σ/σ0 = 8.5. In the second, in
order to approximate a beam which is more closely matched to a uniform focusing
channel, a lens is applied each time the beam size doubles its initial value. It is
clear from the graphs that when the beam is allowed to expand enough to take
advantage of the “tuck under” effect observed in the drifting beam above, much of
the emittance growth can be reversed when the beam is focused back down. In the
case where the beam size oscillations are kept smaller we see that the emittance
oscillates around its peak value but never drops to as low a level as in the first case.

0.10

0.080
r' [radians]

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
(a) r [mm]

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 26/40

 0.15

0.12
r' [radians]

0.090

0.060

0.030

0.0
0.0 5.0 1 0 15
(b) r [mm]

Figure 10. Trace space plots of a freely expanding, initially Gaussian beam at the initial emittance (a)
maximum and (b) minimum.

The striking performance of the scheme shown in Fig. 11 for minimizing

the emittance at the envelope minimum — in other words, compensation of the
nonlinear field-derived emittance, is understandable in a number of different ways.
If the dynamics being described were only the linear slice dynamics, Figs. 2 and 3
illustrate that the emittance performance would be qualitatively the same in Figs.
11 and 12. They are not, however, and this is because of the strong wave-breaking
induced in the intra-slice dynamics by the beam being too close to equilibrium. In
other words, the existence of the off-origin “fixed point” in trace space gives rise to
wave-breaking, trace space filamentation, and associated irreversible emittance
growth. O’Shea has identified irreversible emittance growth of this type with an
increase in the entropy which, we note, is also equivalent to loss of order or
information in the system. In the case of Fig. 11, the emittance increase due to field
nonlinearities is reversed (compensated) and the information about the beam’s
initial state is preserved. An excellent illustration of this phenomenon is shown in
Figs. 13, which illustrate the beam distribution in r at three points in the
propagation shown in Fig. 11 — the initial and final states, as well as the thin lens
position. It can be seen that by this judicious choice of focusing that the final
beam distribution reproduces the initial distribution remarkably well, considering
how distorted it becomes in intermediate points in the propagation.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 27/40

 1 0 6

Emittance [Arbitrary Units]

7.5 4.5
0
σ/σ

5.0 3

2.5 1.5

0.0 0
0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 1.16 1.45
Ζ/λ

Figure 11. Evolution of beam size and emittance in simulation, with thin focusing lens applied at the
point of initial emittance minimum. Lens strength chosen to reverse the envelope angle.

2.0 6
Emittance [Arbitrary Units]

1.5 4.5
0
σ/σ

1.0 3

0.50 1.5

0.0 0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Ζ/λ

Figure 12. Evolution of beam size and emittance in simulation, with thin focusing lens applied at the
points of beam envelope doubling, and lens strength chosen to reverse the envelope angle. The
simulation is followed for the same number of plasma periods as in Fig. 10.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 28/40

 700

Density [Macroparticles/mm ]
600

2
500

400

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0 1.2
(a) r [mm]

16

14
Density [Macroparticles/mm ]
2

12

10

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
(b) r [mm]

700
Density [Macroparticles/mm ]

600
2

500

400

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0 1.2
(c) r [mm]

Figure 13. Evolution of beam distribution during simulation shown in Fig. 10, at the (a) beginning, (b)
focusing lens (midpoint) and (c) the endpoint (emittance minimum).

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 29/40

 It is natural to consider the limit suggested by the second case above, in which
the beam size does not vary — the case of a beam matched in the rms sense to a
uniform solenoidal focusing channel. We can also compare these simulations with
the prediction of Eq. 49, at least until the onset of wave-breaking. The emittance
evolution found by simulation of an initially parabolic beam RMS matched to a
focusing channel along with the emittance predicted by Eq. 49 is shown in Fig. 14.
Note that the emittance again follows the same pattern shown above in that it
increases rapidly in a quarter of a plasma oscillation to a maximum[6]. Since wave-
breaking does not occur until this maximum is reached, the excellent agreement
between theory and to match the simulation up to that is not surprising. We will
encounter a similar type of emittance behavior in accelerating systems in the
following sections.

1.2

1.0
Norm. Emit. [mm mrad]

0.80

0.60

0.40
Simulation
Theory
0.20

0.0
2 3 3 3 3
0.0 5.0 10 1.0 10 1.5 10 2.0 10 2.5 10
Z [mm]

Figure 14. Evolution of emittance for beam rms matched to a uniform focusing channel, from
simulation and analytical prediction (Eq. 49).

6 LAMINAR AND NONLAMINAR MOTION IN ACCELERATING

CYLINDRICAL BEAMS

In the case of a beam accelerating under the influence of radio-frequency fields, the
paraxial equation of motion for a particle in a laminar flow conditions now contains
terms arising from adiabatic damping and ponderomotive (alternating transverse
gradient) forces,

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 30/40

 2 r λ (r )
2
 γ′  η γ′ 
r ′′( z ) +   r ′( z ) +   r( z ) = e 3 0 ,
 γ (z)  8  γ (z)  γ (z) r
(50)

which is again a nonlinear equation without an analytical solution. In this system,

there is also an equilibrium-like particular solution to Eq. 50, which is analogous
to the invariant envelope discussed above, corresponding to each value of r0 ,
As in previous sections we proceed by finding an analytical formula for the
emittance of a “matched” beam. In the case of acceleration by matched we mean
that the RMS size of the beam follows the invariant envelope. This situation is
slightly different to that of coasting beams because we are required to reference σ ′
to the non-stationary particular solution

re λ (r0 )
rp (r0 , z ) =
4
γ′ (2 + η)γ ( z)
. (51)
k p (r0 ) 1 γ0
≡ r0 .
kβ 2 + η γ (z)

In Eq. 51 we have identified kβ = γ ′ 8γ , and can see that the particular solution is
again proportional to the initial ratio of k p (r0 ) / kβ . We can again proceed to
linearize Eq. 51 about these particular solutions, to obtain

2
 γ ′ 1 + η  γ ′
δr ′′ +   δr ′ +   δr = 0 . (52)
γ  4 γ 

where δr = r − rp . This equation has a general form of solution Therefore, we solve

Eq. 50 to find the single particle motion as

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 31/40

  1+ η γ 0   1+ η γ 0 
[ ]
r(r0 , z ) = rp (r0 , z ) + r0 − rp 0 (r0 ) cos 
 2
ln   +
γ
   1
1
+ η
[ ]
r0 − rp 0 (r0 ) sin 
 2
ln  
 γ  
(53)

where the integration constants are chosen so that

1γ′
r0′ = r0 . (54)
2 γ

The wave-breaking condition is now given by

 1 + η  γ 0 
cos ln  
∂rp  2  γ 
=− . (55)
∂r0 2  1 + η  γ 0 
2 sin  ln  
 8  γ 

The quantity on the right-hand-side of Eq. 55 can be recast to give

 1 + η  γ 0 
cos ln  
∂rp
=
4πr0 nb rc
=
( )
k p2 r0 η
=−
 2  γ 
(56)
∂r0 γ′ (2 + η)λ (r0 )γ ( z) 2kβ γ ′ 2 + η 2  1 + η  γ 0 
2 sin  ln  
 8  γ 

and we see that wave-breaking is again averted by cutting the tails off of the
distribution
To proceed in the analysis, we again use the laminarity condition to integrate
over the initial beam distribution and determine the second moments of the

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 32/40

distribution and the emittance. We find the (geometric) emittance evolution for a
beam rms-matched to the invariant envelope is

4αre λ b  1+ η γ 0 
ε geom = sin  ln   . (57)
γ ′ π (1 + η)γ 0γ 3  2  γ  

Here again α is a unitless constant depending on the initial beam distribution, with
values listed in Table 3

Distribution α
Type
Gaussian 0.1704
Parabolic 0.0561
Flat top 0

Table 3. Values of the form factor α for various initial cylindrical beam slice distribution types,
accelerating case.

The expression for the emittance evolution given in Eq. 54 is valid (in the linear
approximation δr << rp ) up to the point of wave-breaking. The details of wave-
breaking in the accelerating beam system are discussed in the following section.
Note that the emittance for this case is inversely dependent on the acceleration
gradient γ ′ and proportional to the beam current. These dependences are due
primarily to the setting of the beam size with the invariant envelope.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 33/40

 1.4

1.2

1
Emittance [mm mrad]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Theory
Simulation

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Z [mm]

Figure 15. Emittance evolution of an initially parabolic beam matched to the invariant envelope with a
60 MV/m peak accelerating field gradient (These beam and accelerator parameters are the same as
those in the booster linac at the Neptune Advanced Accelerator Laboratory). The dashed line is the
simulation result and the solid is produced by Eq. 54.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 34/40

 0

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
r' [radians]

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03

-0.035

-0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

r [mm]

Figure 16. Trace space of an initially parabolic beam slice at the maximum emittance point in
accelerating beam simulation. Wave breaking has just occurred.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 35/40

7 SIMULATION OF ACCELERATING CYLINDRICAL BEAMS

In this section we study the behavior of an initially parabolic profile accelerating

beam matched to in the rms sense the invariant envelope, and compare simulation
to analytical results. Figure 15 shows the normalized emittance evolution in a
simulation of such a case along with emittance predicted by Eq. 54. Again we see
that the emittance ( ε n = βγε geom ≅ γε geom ) rapidly increases to a local maximum.
We also see from the figure that the analytical formula for the emittance agrees well
with the simulation up to the emittance maximum. However because Eq. 52 is the
linearized equation of motion, and δr has constant amplitude while
rp ∝ γ −1 / 2 ∝ z −1 / 2 decreases, the agreement between theory and simulation is not as
striking as with the coasting beam. Also we see that theory and simulation do not
agree after the emittance maximum. This is in keeping with the coasting beam as
the beam undergoes wave breaking near the emittance maximum and the
assumption of laminarity used in Eqs. 50-54 is no longer true. This wave breaking
is easily seen in the beam trace space at the peak emittance shown in Fig. 16.
We see from the simulation that the emittance does not change significantly
shortly after the emittance maximum. Since the transverse plasma frequency of the
beam decreases as −γ 3 / 2 , the acceleration process essentialy stops the plasma
oscillations and the beam becomes emttance dominated. The initial emittance
growth caused by space-chagre field non-uniformities then is “frozen in” and the
beam has a finite irreversible emittance. We can use Eq. 57 to estimate the final
emittance of the beam and therefore it’s size in the emittance dominated limit. To
do this we start by finding the position of the emittance maximum by

2
∂ε n2 16α 2  re λ b   1 + η  γ 0    1 + η  γ 0    1 + η  γ 0  
=0=−   sin  ln   sin  ln   + 1 + η cos  ln   
∂z (1 + η)πγ 0γ ′  γ 2
 2  γ     2  γ    2  γ   
(58)

or

 1+ η γ 0 
tan  ln   = − 1 + η . (59)
 2  γ  

Therefore, the position of the emittance maximum is

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 36/40

  
 
γ 1
zε max = 0 − 1 (60)
γ′  2 tan −1
(− 1+ η ) 
 
e 2 

and the maximum emittance is simply

ε n,max =
4αre λ b 1
[ ( )]
sin tan −1 − 1 + η .
[ (
γ ′γ 0 π (1 + η) exp
( ))]
1/ 2
−1
2 tan − 1+η
(61)

The final beam size in the simulations is estimated by ignoring the space
charge term in the envelope equation and assuming a steady state solution based on
a constant normalized emittance equal to the maximum as predicted by Eq. 61,

1
 8  4 ε n,max
σ min =  . (62)
 η γ′

A comparison between the final rms beam size achieved in simulation and the
prediction of Eq. 62 for the simulation case of Fig. 16 is shown in Fig. 17. The
agreement is quite good in the asymptotic region, where the simulated beam size
approaches a constant value very close to that predicted from the above analysis.
Thus one can determine, simply by knowing the degree of nonuniformity of the
distribution (which is parameterized by α ) at the beginning of acceleration with
transverse matching to the invariant envelope.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 37/40

 0.9

0.8

0.7
RMS Beam Size [mm]

0.6

0.5
Simulation
0.4 Invariant Envelope
Emittance Limit

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Z [mm]

Figure 17. The beam envelope evolution for the same simulation as Fig. 16. Here the beam size
follows the invariant envelope initially, but levels off as it approches the limit predicted by Eq. 62.

As an example of the potential final emittance, we take the nominal LCLS

photoinjector design parameters, in which a 100 A beam is emitted in a high
gradient rf gun, accelerated to γ 0 ≈ 12 , and then focused into a matched invariant
envelope at the beginning of a high gradient linac. For a standard SLAC S-band
travelling wave ( η ≅ .3) linac (average accelerating gradient of 17 MeV/m), one
obtains an asymptotic emittance of ε n,max = 6.5α mm-mrad. Even though a
roughly uniform beam is planned to be launched at the cathode, it will be
nonuniform at the injection to the linac due to nonlinearities in the space-charge
forces at very low velocities, as well as imperfections in the drive laser spatio-
temporal profile. To see the potential effects of such nonlinearities, if we assume
α ≅ 0.1 (between a gaussian and a parabolic profile), then the emittance due to
nonlinearites alone is ε n,max = 0.65 mm-mrad, which is nearly equal to the full
allowed design emittance in the LCLS. An alternative design, which is discussed
below, uses the high gradient (30 MeV/m) standing wave ( η ≅ 1) PWT linac
developed at UCLA for the acceleration after the gun. In this case, we have
ε n,max = 2.75α , which produces a more tolerable margin for emittance due to
nonlinearities and wave-breaking.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 38/40

8 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have explored the consequences — wave-breaking and assoctiate

emittance growth — of the choice of beam envelope trajectory, i.e. the degree to
which a beam is matched to a generalized equilibrium. In cases where the
nonlinearity of the field is tolerable, running the beam essentially on the invariant
envelope in a booster linac works well, as predicted by the analysis of SR.
On the other hand, when a moderately non-uniform beam is propagated through
a transport section, it was found that mismatching the general equilibrium
minimizes the initial wave breaking and allows the emittance oscillation to come to
a smaller minimum. The minimum emittance associated with matching the
invariant envelope is given by Eq. 61, which serves a useful guide to estimation of
the best performance possible for a given injector configuration.
In conclusion, we have in this work attempted to unify the microscopic
concepts of linear emittance compensation and nonlinear wave-breaking, showing
their relationship to one another in the context of high brightness photoinjectors.
This understanding aids in the classification of global characteristics of beam
distributions, such as nonlinear field energy and entropy, which have been
originally introduced in the field of intense ion beams. It is hoped practioners from
both fields will make use of these results.

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 39/40

 References

[1] . K.J. Kim, Nucl. Instruments and Methods A 275, 201 (1989).

[2] B. E. Carlsten, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 285, 313 (1989)

[3] X. Qiu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3723 (1996).

[4] Luca Serafini and J.B. Rosenzweig Physical Review E 55,

7565 (1997).

[5] L. Brillouin, Phys. Rev., 67, 260 (1945)

[6] O. A. Anderson, Part. Accel. 21, 197 (1987)

[7] T.P. Wangler et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 32, 2196 (1985).

[8] I. Hoffman and J. Struckmeier, Part. Accel., 21, 69 (1987).

[9] Patrick G. O'Shea, Physical Review E 57, 1081 (1998).

[10] S.C. Hartman and J.B. Rosenzweig, Phys. Rev. E 47, 2031 (1993).

[11] J.B. Rosenzweig and L. Serafini, Physical Review E 49, 1499 (1994).

[12] P. Lapostolle, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-18, 1101 (1971).

[13] Bruce E. Carlsten, Physical Review E 60, 2280 (1999)

Anderson_ICFA submitted to World Scientific : 3/13/2000 : 1:51 PM 40/40