Electron beam profile imaging in the presence of coherent optical radiation effects

(N

o

<N

Electron beam profile imaging in the presence of coherent optical radiation effects

Christopher Behrens^, Christopher Gerth^, Gero Kube^, Bernhard Schmidt^, Stephan Wesch^, and Minjie Yan^'^

"^ Deutsches Elektronen- Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany

^ Universitat Hamburg, Institut fur Experimentalphysik, Lumper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany

(Dated: February 25, 2013)

High-brightness electron beams with low energy spread at existing and future x-ray free-electron
lasers are affected by various collective beam self-interactions and microbunching instabilities. The
corresponding coherent optical radiation effects, e.g., coherent optical transition radiation, impede
electron beam profile imaging and become a serious issue for all kinds of electron beam diagnostics
using imaging screens. Furthermore, coherent optical radiation effects can also be related to intrinsi-
cally ultrashort electron bunches or the existence of ultrashort spikes inside the electron bunches. In
this paper, we discuss methods to suppress coherent optical radiation effects both by electron beam
profile imaging in dispersive beamlines and by using scintillation imaging screens in combination
with separation techniques. The suppression of coherent optical emission in dispersive beamlines is
shown by analytical calculations, numerical simulations, and measurements. Transverse and longi-
tudinal electron beam profile measurements in the presence of coherent optical radiation effects in
non-dispersive beamlines are demonstrated by applying a temporal separation technique.

PACS numbers: 29.27.-a, 41.60.Cr, 41.60.Dk

43
Oh

6

o
o

Oh

<N
>

o

(N

X

I. INTRODUCTION

X-ray free-electron lasers (FELs) offer a brilliant tool
for science at atomic length and ultrafast time scales [1],
and they have been realized with the operation of the
Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg (FLASH) [2 , the Linac
Coherent Light Source (LCLS) 0, and the SPring-8
Angstrom Compact Free Electron Laser (SACLA) [4].
The x-ray FEL driving electron bunches are subject to
several collective effects, e.g., microbunching instabili-
ties or coherent synchrotron radiation (CSR), which de-
grade the required high transverse and longitudinal beam
brightness [IHS]. These instabilities may not only result
in significant deteriorations of the FEL performance ^
but also in coherent radiation effects [10-16 such as co-
herent optical transition radiation (COTR) or CSR in
the optical wavelength range [17 (abbreviated as COSR).
Beam profile imaging dominated by coherent optical ra-
diation leads to an incorrect representation of the trans-
verse charge distribution [11 and renders electron beam
diagnostics with standard imaging screens, e.g., OTR
screens, and all the related diagnostics such as emittance
or bunch length diagnostics impossible. However, beam
diagnostics with imaging screens are essential for single-
shot measurements or in cases where two transverse di-
mensions are required, e.g., in slice-emittance or longitu-
dinal phase space measurements [18H2Q] .

Microbunching instabilities associated with longitudi-
nal electron bunch compression can be mitigated by in-
troducing additional uncorrelated energy spread [2TH23]
as successfully demonstrated by the operation of the
laser heater system at the LCLS [9 . However, the mi-
crobunching gain suppression is not necessarily perfect,
and the corresponding remaining small but existing level
of COTR still hampers electron beam profile diagnos-
tics using standard imaging screens (e.g., Ref. |9j). The
origin of coherent optical radiation effects is not only re-

stricted to microbunching instabilities but can also be
related to ultrashort spikes inside electron bunches or
generated by intrinsically ultrashort electron bunches like
at laser-plasma accelerators (e.g., Ref. [24]) or at x-ray
FELs with ultra- low charge operation [25H27].

Transition radiation is emitted when a charged par-
ticle beam crosses the boundary between two media
with different dielectric properties ^28tt32j , hence tran-
sition radiation is emitted using any kind of imaging
screen and thus precludes the stand-alone use of scin-
tillation screens in the presence of coherent optical radi-
ation effects (e.g., COTR). However, by using (scintilla-
tion) imaging screens in dedicated measurement config-
urations, COTR can be mitigated (see, e.g., Ref. [15 ).

In this paper, we discuss methods to suppress coher-
ent optical radiation effects both by electron beam profile
imaging in dispersive beamlines and by utilizing scintil-
lation imaging screens in combination with several sepa-
ration techniques. The experimental setup and observa-
tions of coherent optical radiation effects at FLASH are

described in Sec.[TT[ In Sec. HI we discuss the suppression
of coherent optical emission in dispersive beamlines and
present experimental results for COTR generated by a
local ultrashort charge concentration. Section [IV| covers
the suppression of coherent optical radiation effects by
using scintillation screens in combination with separation
techniques. The experimental results obtained with the
temporal separation technique are presented in Sec. |V|

and a summary and conclusions are given in Sec. VI

II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND
OBSERVATION OF COHERENT EFFECTS

The measurements presented in this paper have been
carried out at FLASH, which is a self- amplified sponta-
neous emission (SASE) FEL ^33j for extreme-ultraviolet

Injector

CM

IstBC

2ndBC

ACCl

L3

ACC2-3

ACC4-7

Collimator
I ^

SC Accelerating Structures
5MeV 150 MeV 500 MeV

Energy Spectrometer
O ES-CCD

■ i

< 1200 MeV

TDS[v^^

Kicker

•.Q K-CCD
K-ICCD

FIG. 1: Schematic layout of the Free-Electron Laser in Hamburg (FLASH) with its superconducting (SC) accelerating structures
(ACC), the two magnetic bunch compressor (BC) chicanes, and the third-harmonic rf linearizer system (L3). The positions of
the experimental setups and diagnostics used for the measurements presented in this paper are indicated by green dots.

(EUV) and soft x-ray radiation, driven by a supercon-
ducting radio- frequency (rf) linear accelerator [ 2 . The
schematic layout of FLASH is depicted in Fig. [l] show-
ing the injector, which is based on a laser-driven nor-
mal conducting rf gun, the superconducting accelerating
structures, two magnetic bunch compressor chicanes, and
the undulator magnet system. The positions of the ex-
perimental setups used for the measurements presented
in this paper are indicated by green dots and arrows.

The third-harmonic rf system (denoted by L3 in Fig.fTl)
is dedicated to the linearization of the longitudinal phase
space upstream of the first bunch compressor [20, 34 .
In order to properly set up FEL operation with applied
third-harmonic rf linearizer, a LOLA- type [35^ transverse
deflecting rf structure (TDS) has been integrated in a
dedicated setup for diagnosis of the longitudinal phase
space [36[ [37] close to the FEL undulators. As depicted
in Fig.[l] the TDS can either be operated in combination
with imaging screens in the dispersive magnetic energy
spectrometer or by using off-axis imaging screens oper-
ated with a fast kicker magnet in the non-dispersive main
beamline during FEL operation. Technical details and
performance measurements on the setup for longitudinal
beam diagnostics can be found in Refs. [2011361 137].

A. Time-domain longitudinal beam diagnostics

Transverse deflecting rf structures are widely used
for electron bunch length and longitudinal profile mea-
surements at present FELs and provide high-resolution
single-shot diagnostics pISHSO] [38] . Detailed descriptions
of time-domain electron bunch diagnostics using a TDS
can be found in Refs. [18l[38]. Here we describe only the
basic principles of longitudinal electron beam diagnostics
that are required throughout this paper.

The vertical betatron motion of an electron passing
a vertical deflecting TDS around the zero-crossing rf
phase, neglecting intrinsic longitudinal-to- vertical corre-
lations [20] which are not relevant for the experiments
presented throughout this paper, can be given by [18] [20]

y{s) =yo{s)^Sy{s,so)c ^z{so)
with the vertical shear (streak) function

(1)

etoV,,

Sy{s,so) = RsiKy = ^J /3y{s)/3y{so)sm{AcPy)^^=^^ , (2)

pc

where Rs4 = ^/ Py{s) Py{so)sm{A(j)y) is the angular-to-
spatial element of the vertical beam transfer matrix from
the TDS at sq to any position 5, /3y is the vertical beta
function, A(py is the vertical phase advance between sq
and 5, and yo describes an intrinsic offset. The expres-
sion Ky = eujVy/{pc) is the vertical kick strength with
the peak deflection voltage Vy in the TDS, c is the speed
of light in vacuum, e is the elementary charge, p is the
electron momentum, z{so) is the longitudinal position of
the electron relative to the zero-crossing rf phase, and
uj/{27r) is the operating rf frequency. The expression in
Eq. Q shows a linear mapping from the longitudinal to
the vertical coordinate and allows longitudinal electron
beam profile measurements by means of transverse beam
diagnostics using imaging screens. The shear function
Sy determines the slope of this mapping and can be cal-
ibrated by measuring the vertical centroid offset of the
bunch as a function of the TDS rf phase. The electron
bunch current is given by the normalized longitudinal
bunch profile multiplied by the electron bunch charge.
The bunch length (duration) is given by the root mean
square (r.m.s.) value at^e = S~^{ay — CTy^y^'^^ where ay
is the vertical r.m.s. beam size during TDS operation,
and ay^o is the intrinsic vertical r.m.s. beam size when
the TDS is switched off. Both ay and ay^o can be deter-
mined by measurements, and the latter limits the achiev-
able r.m.s. time resolution to 7lt,e = <^y,o/Sy p!8] l2Q].

B. Imaging screen stations and camera systems

The screen stations in both the magnetic energy spec-
trometer and non-dispersive main beamline (see Fig. [l])
are each equipped with different imaging screens and a
charge-coupled device (CCD) camera ^9, (1360x1024
pixels with 12 bit dynamic range and 6.45 x 6.45 /im^ pixel
size) with motorized optics (motorized macro lens with
teleconverter mounted on a linear translation stage). The
translation stage allows variable demagnification M~^ in
the range between ~ 1.5 - 3 with spatial resolutions of
better than 16 /im. The imaging screen station in the en-
ergy spectrometer (ES-CCD in Fig. [l]) is equipped with
an OTR screen (aluminum coated silicon) and two scintil-
lation screens made of cerium-doped yttrium aluminum
garnet (YAG:Ce) and bismuth germanate (BGO), respec-
tively. In the non-dispersive beamline, the screen station

is operated with a fast kicker magnet (K-CCD in Fig.jT]),
which is able to deflect one bunch out of the bunch
train at the bunch train repetition rate of FLASH [40]
of 10 Hz, and provides an OTR screen and a cerium-
doped lutetium aluminum garnet (LuAG:Ce) scintilla-
tion screen. All screens are mounted at a 45° angle (the
cameras at a 90° angle) with respect to the incoming
electron beam. The scintillation screens have a thickness
of 100 /im. The experimental setup in the non-dispersive
beamline is additionally equipped with a fast gated inten-
sified CCD camera gf] (K-ICCD in Fig. [ij 1280x1024
pixels with 12 bit and 6.7 x 6.7 jam^ pixel size), which
has been used for the temporal separation technique (see
Sec. [V|). Further technical details on the screen stations
and camera systems can be found in Refs. J37||42J.

bJO

^

H

FIG. 3: Longitudinal phase space measurements upstream
of the undulators at ES-CCD for two different compression
settings and mean energies: (a) 796 MeV and (b) 661 MeV.
The density modulations indicate microbunching in the time-
domain with periods of ~ 25 fs and 30 fs, respectively.

C. Observation of coherent optical transition
radiation and microbunching in the time-domain

Microbunching instabilities at x-ray FELs can lead to
significant generation and amplification of density mod-
ulations in the optical wavelength range [SHi] which
may result in coherent optical radiation effects such as
COTR. This has been observed by spectral measure-
ments and characteristic ring-shaped light patterns at
the LCLS \TT, 12 and FLASH [16 , and renders accurate
electron beam profile diagnostics using standard imaging
screens impossible. First observations of COTR [16] and
microbunching in the frequency-domain (coherent transi-
tion radiation around 10 /im [43 ) at FLASH were made
directly upstream of the collimator (see Fig.fTl). Electron
beam profile imaging performed downstream of the col-
limator section [37 , an achromatic bending system, re-
sulted in considerably more prominent observation of co-
herent optical radiation effects and microbunching.

The measurements presented in Fig. [2] show single-
shot light patterns, generated by moderately compressed
electron bunches, at the imaging screens in the non-
dispersive main beamline at K-CCD directly upstream
of the undulators. Ring-shaped structures in the profiles.

characteristi c for C O TR [11 , are clearly visible in the im-
ages of Figs. |2(a)] and |2(b')| which have been recorded by
using an OTR and LuAG imaging screen, respectively.
For both images a long-pass filter, blocking wavelengths
below 780 nm, was used. The luminescence emission of
the LuAG scintillation screen occurs below 700 nm [44]
and is thus well blocked by the 780 -nm long-pass filter
used during the measurements. Hence, the light pattern
in Fig. |2(b)| is due to COTR without contribution from
scintillation light. Complementary to the observation of
COTR, the images in Fig. [3| show single-shot longitudi-
nal phase space measurements in the magnetic energy
spectrometer (ES-CCD). The measurements were done
for accelerator settings typical for FEL operation with
applied third- harmonic rf linearizer system upstream of
the bunch compressor chicanes, and they clearly indicate
microbunching in the time-domain with modulation pe-
riods of about 25 fs and 30 fs, respectively. We note that
a maximum modulation wavelength of 10 /im (33 fs) was
predicted theoretically in Ref. [7 and measured by spec-
troscopy of coherent transition radiation in Ref. [43] .

III. SUPPRESSION OF COHERENT OPTICAL
EMISSION IN DISPERSIVE BEAMLINES

Horizontal (mm)
(a) OTR screen.

8.5 9 9.5

Horizontal (mm)
(b) LuAG screen.

FIG. 2: Single-shot images of light patterns at the imaging
screens (K-CCD) generated by compressed electron bunches:
(a) OTR screen and (b) LuAG screen. For both images a long-
pass filter, blocking wavelengths below 780 nm, was used.

The energy-dependent beam trajectories in dispersive
beamlines can be utilized as a magnetic energy spectrom-
eter for charged particle beams. By combining such an
energy spectrometer with the operation of a TDS and
using imaging screens to get two-dimensional transverse
beam profiles, longitudinal phase space measurements
(see, e.g., Fig. Isl) with single-shot capability can be ac-
complished. The corresponding horizontal betatron mo-
tion, which should be perpendicular to the vertical shear-
ing plane of the TDS ^18n20], can be written as

x{s) = xo{s) + Dx{s, so)S{so)

(3)

with the intrinsic offset Xq, the horizontal momentum dis-
persion Dx{s^so) and the relative momentum deviation

5 = Ap/p. For relativistic electron beams with Lorentz
factors of 7 ^ 1, the electron beam energy is given by
E ^ pc, and 5 represents the relative energy deviation.

The dispersion D^ can be determined by measuring
the horizontal centroid offset of the bunch as a function
of the relative energy deviation. The dispersion in the
magnetic energy spectrometer at ES-CCD (see Fig. fl]),
which is generated by two subsequent dipole magnets
with 5° deflection each (equivalent to a single dipole
magnet with 10° deflection), amounts to 750mm (nomi-
nal) [20 , whereas D^ at K-(I)CCD due to the kicker mag-
net operation is negligible. In addition to the momentum
dispersion introduced in the horizontal betatron motion,
the longitudinal particle motion can be described by

Z{s) = z{so) + R5lx{so) + R52x\so) + i^56^(5o) (4)

with the initial bunch length coordinate z and the initial
horizontal offset x and slope x' = dx/ds. The transfer
matrix elements Rij describe the mapping from position
So to 5, i.e., Rij = Rij{s^so) throughout the rest of this
paper. The expression in Eq. Q does not affect the prin-
ciple of longitudinal phase space diagnostics described by
Eqs. (IT]) and ([s]), but results in the suppression of coher-
ent optical emission as is shown in the following.

A. Analytical calculations and numerical particle
tracking simulations

The spectral and angular intensity distribution, de-
noted as T{k) = dI{k)/dQ with the three-dimensional
wave vector k = {kr, kz)^ of transition (synchrotron) radi-
ation emitted by an electron bunch with N ^ 1 electrons
and charge Q = Ne is given by (e.g., Refs. [451 1461)

I{kr. h) = NXi{kr. kz) + N^\F{kr, fe.)|'Xi(^„ k^) , (5)

where Ii{kr,kz) describes the intensity distribution of
a single electron as a function of the transverse and
longitudinal wavenumber kr and /c^, respectively, and
F{kr^kz) is the three-dimensional form factor of the elec-
tron bunch. The latter can be expressed by the Fourier
transform of the normalized charge density p(r , z) as

F{krjkz) = / dfdzp{f^z)e

(6)

where p{r^z) = p{x^y,z). Normalized charge distribu-
tions without longitudinal-transverse correlations can be
factorized as p{r^z) = p{f)p{z)^ and by taking into ac-
count Jdfp{f) = J dz p{z) = 1, which is assumed in

the following, we get F{kr^kz) = Ft{kr) Fi{kz) with the
transverse and longitudinal form factor Ft and F/, re-
spectively. For small observation angles (small covered
solid angles Q) with respect to the central axis (z-axis)
of the emitted radiation we have kz = k cos ^ k with
the wavenumber /c, and the expression in Eq. ([5| reads

i{k,n) ^ Nii{k,n)^N^\Fi{k)\^\Ft{k,n)fXi{k,n) (?)

The first term on the right-hand side is linear
in N and describes the contribution of incoher-
ent radiation, whereas the second term scales with
N'^\Fi{k)\'^\Ft{k,ft)\'^, which describes the coherent ra-
diation part. In order to perform electron beam diagnos-
tics with incoherent radiation, we demand that the total
spectral radiation intensity in Eq. Q is dominated by
the incoherent term, i.e., N > N^\F^k)\'^\Ft{k,n)\'^.

In following, we derive an analytical expression de-
scribing a general strong suppression of the longitudi-
nal form factor at optical wavelengths in a magnetic en-
ergy spectrometer. A transverse form factor of \Ft\ = 1,
i.e., full transverse coherence, at the imaging screens is
assumed, which is the worst case scenario. The actual
transverse form factor in the experiment will be reduced
due to the finite beam size and observation angle [ 45j .
However, the suppression of the longitudinal form fac-
tor Fl presented below is much stronger in the general
case. A cutoff wavelength Ac = 27r//cc can be defined
via \Fi{kc)\ = A^~^/^, and beam diagnostics at wave-
lengths below Ac becomes dominated by incoherent ra-
diation. The cutoff wavelength initially depends on the
charge distribution [via Eq. (Ig])], and significant values
of |F/| in the optical wavelength range can occur due to
the existence of density modulations or charge concen-
trations at ultrashort length scales. However, following
the analytical treatment of microbunching degradation
in Ref. [47 , we show that the cutoff wavelength in mag-
netic energy spectrometers is entirely determined by the
terms in Eq. Q with a corresponding strong suppression
of coherent emission at optical wavelengths for common
magnetic energy spectrometers used at present FELs.

The amount of density modulations in a normalized
electron beam distribution p(X, s) with the phase space
vector X = (x,x',z,5) and JdX p{X^s) = 1 can be
quantified by a complex bunching factor 6(/c, s) as [47]

b{k,s)

dXe-'^'p{X,s)

(8)

where k is the wavenumber of the modulation. According
to Refs. [471 SS], the evolution of the bunching factor
h[k{s)^ s] along dispersive beamlines can be expressed by

h[k{s),s]=ho[k{s)

,s\^ I ds'K{s',s)h[k{s'),s'], (9)

J So

where hQ[k{s)^s\ is the bunching factor in the absence
of collective beam interactions due to CSR. The second
term on the right-hand side of the integral equation with
the kernel K{s'^s) [47 (a complicated expression that
is not relevant here) describes the induced bunching due
to CSR interactions. As discussed in Refs. [471 US] and
verified by numerical particle tracking simulations below,
the bunching induced in a dipole magnet from the energy
modulation generated in the same dipole magnet can be
neglected with the kernel i^ ^ 0, and the bunching factor
in Eq. ([9| becomes h[k{s)^s\ ~ hQ[k{s)^s\. This is also
the case in a magnetic energy spectrometer consisting

of a single dipole magnet, and the resulting evolution
of the total bunching factor for a given initial bunching
bo[k{so)^so] can be expressed by [47^

b[k{s),s] ^bo[k{so),so]ex.p

:: ^1

X exp

X exp

k'^{s)eo(3o

2/3o '^^^.

56

ao

Rbl — ^5~^52

Po

(10)

where the motion in Eq. Q is taken into account, and
an initial beam distribution p{X{sq)^sq) that is uniform
in z and Gaussian in x, x' ^ and 5 is assumed. The initial
uncorrelated energy spread and geometrical horizontal
emittance are denoted by cj^q and Sq, respectively, and ao
and Pq are the initial horizontal lattice functions (Twiss
parameters). The compression of the wavenumber by
k{s) = k{so)[l + hR^Q{s^so)]~^ with the initial energy
chirp h can be neglected, i.e., k{s) ^ k{so)^ since the R^q
generated by a single dipole magnet is rather small.

In addition to the evolution of an initial bunching, en-
ergy modulations generated upstream of a magnetic en-
ergy spectrometer can initiate bunching and, according
to Ref. [47] and by using Eq. (10), the induced bunching
bE{k^ s) due to an initial energy modulation is given by

bE{k,s) ^ -ikR^GAE{k,so]

b{k,s)
bo{k,so) '

(11)

where AE{k^so) is the Fourier amplitude of the initial
energy modulation AE{z, sq). Fortunately, the bunching
bE can be neglected due to the small R^q (see above) and
the additional suppression discussed in the following.

Equation (IIo| implies a suppression of initial bunching
due to the coupling with the transverse phase space given
in Eq. Q, and a suppression factor S can be defined as

S{k)

\Hk,s)\^
Mk,soW

-k^A-'

(12)

where

A=\ eo(3o(Ri

^51

By comparing Eqs. (pi) and (pi), and taking into account
p[{x^x\z^6)] = p(z)p[(x,x',T)], the suppression factor
can be expressed as 5(A:) = |F/(A:, s)p/|F/(/c, so)P (cf. the
analytical treatment in Refs. [TTl |50]), which describes
the general suppression of coherent emission in a com-
mon magnetic energy spectrometer. Assuming a maxi-
mum initial density modulation or an ultrashort electron
bunch, both with \Fi{k^so)\ = 1, the cutoff wavelength
(defined via \Fi{kc)\ = TV"^/^) is given by [cf. Eq. (fl2)]

A.

27rA

TABLE I: Parameters given in the magnetic energy spectrom-
eter at FLASH and used for the particle tracking simulations.

Parameter

Symbol Value Unit

Beam energy
Lorentz factor
Electron bunch charge
Horizontal emittance (normalized)
Relative slice energy spread
Horizontal beta function
Horizontal alpha function
Spatial-to-longitudinal coupling
Angular-to-longitudinal coupling
Momentum compaction factor

E

1000

Me\

7

1957

Q

150

pC

7^0

1.0

/im

C^(50

10-^

/3o

13.55

m

ao

5.33

R51

-0.174

R52

-0.089

R56

0.006

m

We note that the suppression for ultrashort electron
bunches is simply given by the lengthening due to the
transverse phase space parameters and longitudinal mo-
tion given in Eq. (pi), which act like a low-pass filter.

The analytical treatment has been verified by numeri-
cal simulations using the tracking code elegant [51 J with
Gaussian and uniform beam distributions (10^ particles)
including GSR effects, and by using the parameters of the
magnetic energy spectrometer at FLASH, summarized in
Table |Tj Figure [4] shows the suppression factor for both
numerical simulations with initial density modulations
(10% peak amplitude) and analytical calculations using
Eqs. ^ and ([l3| for the parameters of FLASH. The
analytical calculations are in perfect agreement with the
numerical simulations. The shown approximation is cal-
culated by using A ^ ^/e^P^Rbii which is a good practi-

0.8

^ 0.6

^ 0.4

Oh

0.2

1 1
# Simulation

Theory

Approximation ^^

1 • 10-12

/''* 10-24

1 1

1 1

1 ^

10 20 30 40 50

1 1

50 100 150 200 250 300

Wavelength (/xm)

FIG. 4: Analytical calculations and numerical simulations
(blue dots) of the suppression S for initial density modula-
tions. The theor y cu rve (solid red line) is calculated for the
full term in Eq. (Il3|, and the approximation (dashed green
line) is calculated for A '^ y/so/SoRsi. The inset shows the
wavelength range below 52 /xm on a logarithmic scale includ-
(14) ing the cutoff wavelength Ac calculated for N ^ 10^ electrons.

cal estimate {R^i = sin 6 for a single dipole magnet with
bending angle 6). According to the full term in Eq. (13),
the cutoff wavelength in the magnetic energy spectrom-
eter at FLASH amounts to Ac ~ 16 /im, which manifests
a strong suppression of coherent optical emission.

B. Suppression of COTR generated by a local
ultrashort charge concentration

Coherent emission does not only lead to intense radia-
tion, which is described by means of the form factor |F^|
in the intensity distribution given in Eq. (JTl, but also
to an incorrect representation of the transverse charge
distribution in beam profile imaging [11 . The imaging
of transverse beam distributions with optical systems,
e.g., by using an imaging screen, a lens, and a camera,
is generally described by means of the intensity distribu-
tion of a point source in the image plane (e.g., Ref. [32 ),
which is the so-called point spread function. According
to Ref. ^Hj, the image formation with optical transition
radiation of a normalized three-dimensional charge dis-
tribution p(r, z) with N electrons can be expressed by

£{r,k) ^ =N I dr'dzp(r',z) Ei{

(r — r', k)

■N^

/*"''

dze-'"' p{r',z)£i{f-r',k)

(15)

where |f(r,/c)p describes the measured intensity distri-
bution proportional to the absolute square of the total
electric field S evolved from the charge distribution, and
El corresponds to the imaged electric field of a single
electron, which can be expressed by means of the Fresnel-
Kirchhoff diffraction integral (e.g., Ref. [32 ). The second
integral in Eq. ( 15 ) describes the coherent radiation part
(~ A^^), and by taking into account p(r, z) = p{f)p{z)
with J dfp{f) = f dz p{z) = 1, the expression for image
formation in Eq. (15) can be rewritten as [cf. Eq. ([7])]

S{r,k) =N dr' p{r') £i{f-r\k)

■N'mk)\'

df' p{f')£i{f— f\ k)

(16)

The first integral in Eq. (16) simply describes the inco-
herent imaging as a convolution of the transverse charge
distribution p{f') with the point spread function related
term \£i\^ . In the case of a nonvanishing longitudinal
form factor \Fi{k)\ ^ 0, the second integral in Eq. (16)
contributes to the image formation and describes no
longer a simple convolution with a point spread function,
but rather takes into account the actual field distribution.
Thus, significant deviations in the measured transverse
charge distribution can occur even with a small longitu-
dinal form factor due to the second term ~ A/"^ \Fi(k)\

o

>

H

-1

Time (ps)

(a) K-CCD, Q?^0.45nC.

-1 1

Time (ps)

(b) ES-CCD, Q?^0.45nC.

1

w

^ ^

W^

c

\ I

a

1 i

^

4 1

ol

f w

I T

^

/^\

o

i£k \

N

mW

o

-1

f m

K

o

r \

10

-

>

i

a;

t

%

w

w

rl

"^•^"---ill* -^^^i-^

O

u

'luHHp

m^

<ri

^tl^^^M

>

(D

X3

^.-

-10

-

Cl)

^

W

1

-1

Time (ps)

(c) K-CCD, Q?^0.55nC.

-1 1

Time (ps)

(d) ES-CCD, Q?^0.55nC.

K-CCD (a) 4
■ ES-CCD (b) !

■ES-CCD (d): YAG
ES-CCD (d): OTR

-1 -0.5 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0.5 1

Time (ps) Time (ps)

(e) Comparison, Q ^ 0.45 nC. (f) Comparison, Q ^ 0.55 nC.

FIG. 5: Single-shot measurements of the t-x plane in (a)
and (c) using a LuAG screen at K-CCD with time t = —z/c
(bunch head at t < 0), and of the longitudinal phase space
(tAE) in (b) and (d) using a YAG screen at ES-CCD
with A^ = ^^0 and Eq ^ 1165 MeV for bunch charges of
Q ^ 0.45 nC and 0.55 nC, respectively. The comparison of
the electron bunch currents between K-CCD and ES-CCD for
Q ^ 0.45 nC is shown in (e), and for Q ^ 0.55 nC at ES-CCD
with different imaging screens it is presented in (f).

in Eq. (16), where N ~ 10^. An example with initially

inconspicuous COTR, impeding the electron beam diag-
nostics finally, is demonstrated in the following.

Figures 5 (a) | and |5 (b) | show single-shot images of longi-
tudinal bunch profile measurements using the TDS that
were recorded in the non-dispersive main beamline at
K-CCD and in the energy spectrometer at ES-CCD, re-
spectively. The images were measured under the same
electron beam conditions with a bunch charge of 0.45 nC
and do not display any conspicuous features of COTR.
However, as can be seen in Fig. 5(e)[ the corresponding
longitudinal bunch profile taken at K-CCD comprises a

much narrower spike with higher peak current. When
increasing the bunch charge to 0.55 nC, COTR emission
became apparent at K-CCD [Fig. 5(c)|, whereas the im-

age in the energy spectrometer at ES-CCD [see Fig. 5(d)

did not show any coherent radiation effects. The COTR
emission in Fig. 5(c) (we chose a single-shot image with
low saturation of the CCD) is clearly localized in the lon-
gitudinal electron bunch profile at a time coordinate of
about 0.5 ps. At the sa me tim e coordinate, the longitu-
dinal phase space in Fig. 5(d) [ exhibits a huge but narrow
increase in energy spread (the width in the time is limited
by the TDS resolution). From this we conclude that the
single-shot image in Fig. |5(a)| already partially contains
COTR as a consequence of a small but nonvanishing form
factor |F^| [cf. Eqs. j ?]) and ([l6|] and that the COTR
emission in Fig. |5(c)| seems most probably to be gener-
ated by a local ultrashort charge concentration such as a
sharp spike inside the electron bunch. We note that the
measurements presented in Fig. |5(e)| should give the same
longitudinal electron bunch profiles, and the existing de-
viations cannot be explained due to a worse resolution
as is the case in Sec. IV CI In order to demonstrate the
local energy spread increase in Figs. 5(b) and |5(d)] with a
reasonable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the longitudinal
phase space measurements are presented with the YAG
imaging screen. The measurement performed with the
OTR imaging screen, presented in Fig. |5(f)[ shows the
same strong COTR suppression (but worse SNR).

IV. TECHNIQUES FOR SEPARATION OF
COHERENT OPTICAL RADIATION

As demonstrated in Sec. |III[ electron beam profile mea-
surements can be accomplished in dispersive beamlines,
such as magnetic energy spectrometers, with standard
optical imaging systems as the emission of coherent op-
tical radiation is strongly suppressed. However, linear
accelerators consist mainly of beamlines which are in gen-
eral designed to be dispersion- free, and imaging in energy
spectrometers precludes measuring pure transverse beam
profiles due to the dispersion. In this section, we discuss
methods that suppress the impact of coherent radiation
by separation from an incoherent radiation part.

A. Spectral separation

The spectral intensity of transition (synchrotron) ra-
diation emitted by an electron bunch consists of two
terms that describe the incoherent (~ N) and coherent
(- N^\Fi\^\Ft\^) radiation part [cf. Eq. ^ or Eq. ^].
A spectral separation of these terms in electron beam pro-
file imaging can be accomplished by restricting the imag-
ing with wavelengths below the cutoff wavelength Ac, i.e.,
where the emission is dominated by incoherent radiation.
Spectral separation has been considered in Ref. [15] by
using a scintillation screen in combination with a band-

it 10^ =

0.4

0.6 0.8 1

Wavelength (/im)

1.2

1.4

FIG. 6: Spectral intensity measurements of transition radia-
tion in the visible and near-infrared wavelength range for four
different compression settings: (A) FEL operation and (B) -
(D) marginal compression, i.e., on-crest rf operation with de-
creasing i?56 in the bunch compressors (see Ref. [16] for ex-
perimental details) . The spectral intensity of the incoherent
part of transition radiation is indicated as dashed black line.

pass filter. However, this method requires a good knowl-
edge and control of the expected spectra, and a vanishing
form factor (|F^||F^| <C A^~^/^) in the detectable wave-
length range, which is not the general case as the spectra
can vary strongly with the operation modes of a linear ac-
celerator. This is demonstrated in Fig. [6J in which spec-
tral measurements of transition radiation in the visible
and near-infrared wavelength range are presented for dif-
ferent compression settings at FLASH. The dashed black
line represents the incoherent radiation part convoluted
with the transmission of the optical setup. In contrast
to the measurements presented in Sec. |IIC[ the measure-
ments shown in Fig. [6] were performed upstream of the
collimator section. We note that similar, reproducible
measurements for uncompressed electron bunches, show-
ing coherent radiation prominently at the micrometer
scale, have been presented in Ref. [43 , and COTR for
uncompressed bunches has been reported in Ref. [TT] .

In general, the probability of coherent emission de-
creases at shorter wavelengths, which is often not suf-
ficiently reduced for optical wavelengths, and imaging
with transition radiation in the EUV region might be
an option [52H54] . In addition to the knowledge and con-
trol of the spectra, the imaging with EUV radiation also
requires dedicated detectors and optics, and a complete
set-up in vacuum to prevent strong absorption in air.

B. Spatial separation

The luminescence of scintillation screens [55 , which is
a stochastic process, is inherently linear in the number
of interacting electrons (neglecting quenching and satu-
ration effects), hence coherent radiation effects are not

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(a) OTR screen, no time delay.

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(b) LuAG screen, no time delay.

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(c) LuAG screen, time delay.

FIG. 7: Proof-of-principle for the temporal separation technique in transverse beam profile imaging, demonstrated for com-
pressed electron bunches at K-ICCD with the three screen/readout configurations: (a) OTR screen, (b) LuAG screen, and (c)
LuAG screen with delayed readout. The images in (a) and (b) show a composite of optical transition and synchrotron radiation
with a contribution of scintillation light in (b). The image in (c) is expected to show delayed but pure scintillation light.

expected in pure scintillation light. However, transition
radiation is also emitted at the boundary of vacuum and
scintillator, and coherent optical radiation can still ap-
pear [see, e.g.. Fig. |3(b)] . Then, the total spectral and
angular intensity distribution can be written as (omitting
the arguments (/c, Q) in the intensity distributions X)

Xt = NI,+ [N + N^\Fi{k)\^\Ft{k,n)\^]lo, (17)

where Xs and Xq are related to scintillation light and tran-
sition radiation, respectively. As discussed in Sec. |IV A
for OTR imaging screens and with the same requirements
and restrictions, spectral separation can also be applied
when using scintillation screens {Xf ~ NXs + NXq). An-
other method, particularly suited for scintillation screens,
which have nearly isotropic emission, is to make use of the
strong angular dependence of optical transition radiation
(e.g., Refs. [ST.'S?) and to perform electron beam profile
imaging with radiation that is dominated by scintillation
\ig\ii, I.e., Xo{k,^) ^Xs{k,^)/[l^ N\Fi{k)\^\Ft{k,^)\']
in Eq. (17). Spatial separation can be achieved with

imaging geometries having large angular or spatial off-
sets, e.g., by using tilted imaging screens [42 or cen-
tral masks [56], where Xo{0)\Ft(Q)\^ is suppressed suf-
ficiently. However, just as for spectral separation, this
method also requires good knowledge and control of the
form factor, and dedicated imaging geometries. In addi-
tion, the resolution depends on the observation angle of
the scintillation screen (e.g., Ref. [42j), which has to be
taken into account in the layout of the imaging system.
We note that an experiment on the spatial separation
technique is currently being commissioned at FLASH.

C. Temporal separation

The fundamentally different light generation processes
of scintillators and optical transition radiators result in

clearly distinct temporal responses. The emission of tran-
sition radiation from relativistic electrons is instanta-
neous (~ fs) and prompt [5T, 58 compared to the de-
cay times (~ ns) of common scintillators (e.g., Ref. [55^).
Accordingly, the temporal profiles of the OTR pulses re-
semble the longitudinal electron beam profiles, whereas
the temporal scintillation light pulses are fully dominated
by the decay of the excited states in the scintillator.
Temporal separation makes use of the distinct tempo-
ral responses and allows to entirely eliminate OTR, i.e.,
the term Xq in Eq. (17) which is time-dependent with

Xo = Xo{k,Q,t), and, therewith, coherent optical radia-
tion effects in electron beam profile imaging with scin-
tillation screens when reading out a gated camera with
a certain time delay after the prompt emission of OTR.
Image recording with delayed readout (e.g., Ref. [58]) can
be accomplished with intensified CCD (ICCD) cameras,
where a control voltage in the intensifier between photo-
cathode and micro-channel plate allows fast gating and
exposure times of a few nanoseconds (e.g., Refs. f57H59] ).
The experiments on the temporal separation technique at
FLASH have been performed by using the ICCD camera
"PCO: Dicam Pro (S20)" [41^ in combination with the
off-axis LuAG scintillation imaging screen in the non-
dispersive main beamline at K-ICCD, which has a decay
time of ~ 50 ns [44 . The cameras used for the presented
measurements are able to readout images at the bunch
train repetition rate of FLASH of 10 Hz, hence one bunch
per bunch train can be measured with single-shot capa-
bility. Further technical details on the equipment used
for the measurements presented in the following can be
found in Sec. [HB] and in Refs. [HEO].

The series of single-shot images in Fig. [Tj present first
proof-of-principle measurements on the temporal sepa-
ration technique. The image shown in Fig. 7(a)

was

recor ded a t K -ICC D with an OTR screen, whereas for
Figs. 1 7(b)] and [7(c)] a LuAG scintillation screen was used.

The image shown in Fig. 7(c) has been recorded with

a time delay of 100 ns, which is rather long compared
to the emission time of OTR but takes into account the
large camera trigger-jitter that existed during the mea-
surements. The image recorded with the OTR screen
and time delay simply showed background noise and is
not presented here. The intensity distributions in Fig. [7|
have been generated by moderately compressed electron
bunches with a charge of 0. 5 nC and a beam energy of
700 MeV. Figures |7(a)| and |7(b)| show a composite of
COTR and COSR with a contribution of scintillation
light in Fig. |7(b)| The ro und-s hap ed lig ht pattern on
the right-hand side of Figs. |7(a)] and |7(b")] is most proba-
bly due to synchrotron radiation generated upstream of
the off-axis screens (a polarizer was not available durin g
the measurements) , where the appearance in Fig. |7(b)| is
reduced by t he tra nsparency of the LuAG screen. The
image in Fig. 7(c)[ recorded with a time delay of 100 ns,
can be attributed purely to scintillation light allowing for
a quantitative analysis of the transverse beam profiles.

In contrast to spectral and spatial separation, the tem-
poral separation technique provides a definite method
to suppress coherent optical transition radiation without
further relying on the wavelength-dependent longitudi-
nal form factor. In addition, this technique inherently
includes the suppression of secondary incoherent radi-
ation sources such as synchrotron radiation generated
from magnets directly upstream of the imaging screen or
backward OTR emitted from the second imaging screen
boundary, whereas spectral components in the UV region
or at shorter wavelengths may excite the scintillator, af-
fecting the temporal separation. As is shown in Ref. [17],
however, potential synchrotron radiation sources can be
identified and thus separated by adjusting the upstream
magnets. Furthermore, the coherent emission of OTR at
the second scintillator screen boundary is mitigated due
to multiple scattering in the scintillator material as is de-
scribed and demonstrated in Refs. [11, 61 . We note that
the current implementation of the temporal separation
technique presented throughout this paper utilizes fast
ICCD cameras, which are currently an order of magni-
tude more expensive than conventional CCD cameras.

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WITH
TEMPORAL SEPARATION

The proof-of-principle measurements on the temporal
separation technique presented in Fig. [T] were carried out
at K-ICCD. However, a reference measurement to quanti-
tatively prove this technique in terms of transverse beam
profiles, as would be provided by a wire-scanner, which is
insensitive to coherent effects, is not available at this po-
sition. In this section, we verify the method of temporal
separation by investigations on the charge-dependent im-
age intensities and comparisons with longitudinal bunch
profiles recorded in the energy spectrometer at ES-CCD.

12

10

K-ICCD (OTR): no time delay
K-ICCD (LuAG): no time delay
K-ICCD (LuAG): time delay
■ Linear curve

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Bunch charge (nC)

0.9

FIG. 8: Measurements on the bunch charge dependence of the
integrated intensity at K-ICCD generated by compressed elec-
tron bunches using different screen/readout configurations,
where the inset shows the range from 0.55 nC to 0.9 nC. The
linear curve shows the dependence of incoherent radiation.

A. Charge dependence of integrated intensity

Incoherent radiation is linear in the number of elec-

trons contributing to the emission process (cf. Sec. Ill A),
i.e., linear in the electron bunch charge (~ Q), and de-
viations caused by the nonlinear charge dependence of
coherent radiation (~ \Fi\'^Q'^) are ideally suited to ver-
ify the temporal separation technique. The integrated
image intensities presented in Fig. |8] were measured for
bunch charges between 0.13 nC and 0.87 nC at K-ICCD
for different imaging screen and readout configurations.
Each data point represents the average intensity of 20
background-corrected single-shot images and the error
bars indicate the statistical r.m.s. image intensity fluc-
tuations. Up to an electron bunch charge of Q '^ 0.5 nC,
the integrated intensity is linear (solid black line) in Q for
all presented configurations. For higher bunch charges,
deviations from the linear dependence appear in the con-
figurations without delayed readout, i.e., the form factor
|F/| becomes significant in the visible wavelength range,
which are caused by contributions from coherent opti-
cal radiation. The inset in Fig. [8] shows the bunch charge
range from 0.55 nC to 0.9 nC more detailed. We note that
the integrated intensity of the OTR (blue dots) has actu-
ally been higher than presented for Q > 0.7 nC, because
of camera saturation due to the strong optical emission
and the corresponding underestimated integrated inten-
sity. The large error bars, representing the r.m.s. jitter,
indicate strong fluctuations due to the COTR. In the
case of the LuAG imaging screen recorded with a time
delay (green diamonds), the dependence of the integrated
intensity is entirely linear in the bunch charge, which ver-
ifies the power of the temporal separation technique.

10

450

400

350

300

250

200

150 -

1 1 1 1 1 1

-J

ft

II

T T -r -L -r

• .. -i.. f

n

1 " 1

s J

• ES-CCD (YAG) ♦
- BK-ICCD (LuAG): no time delay * ^ -

♦ K-ICCD (LuAG): time delay •

1 1 1 1 1 1

3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6 3.7
ACCl rf phase

3.9

4.1

FIG. 9: Electron bunch length measurements for varying
ACCl rf phase at ES-CCD and K-ICCD using different read-
out configurations. According to Sec. |III| the measurements
in the magnetic energy spectrometer ("ES-CCD (YAG)") are
intended to provide an absolute reference measurement.

B. Longitudinal electron bunch compression

As the emission of COTR is strongly suppressed in the
magnetic energy spectrometer at FLASH (see Sec. Ill),
electron bunch profiles measured at the screen station
ES-CCD can serve as a reference for comparison with
the temporal separation technique applied in the non-
dispersive beamline at K-ICCD. While the transverse
bunch profiles can differ at both locations due to different
Twiss parameters and dispersion at ES-CCD, longitudi-
nal bunch compression does not take place in between,
and longitudinal bunch profile measurements using the
TDS can be used for a direct comparison. The measure-
ments presented in Fig. [9] show the mean r.m.s. electron
bunch length of 20 single-shot images, including the sta-
tistical r.m.s. jitter indicated via error bars, for various
ACCl rf phases measured at ES-CCD and K-ICCD by
using the TDS. The electron bunches were set up with
an energy of 700 Me V and a bunch charge of 0.5 nC.
The rf phase of ACCl affects the energy chirp of the
electron bunches upstream of the first bunch compressor
and, accordingly, the final electron bunch lengths. The
r.m.s. electron bunch lengths measured in the magnetic
energy spectrometer at ES-CCD (black dots) decrease
almost linearly and do not possess large fluctuations.

In contrast to the magnetic energy spectrometer at ES-
CCD, coherent optical emission is not suppressed in the
non-dispersive beamline at K-ICCD, leading to a sudden
increase of the r.m.s. electron bunch lengths in combi-
nation with large fluctuations, represented by the large
error bars (statistical r.m.s. jitter), for ACCl rf phases
^ 3.75 deg measured with a LuAG screen without a cer-
tain time delay (red squares), i.e., without applied tem-
poral separation. The electron bunch length measure-

ments using an OTR screen are omitted in Fig. [9] due to
even larger deviations and fluctuations compared to the
reference at ES-CCD for ACCl rf phases ^ 3.75 deg. In-
stead, the OTR images (single-shots) for ACCl rf phases
of 3.25 deg and 3.75 deg are presented in Figs. |10(a)|
and |10(b)| respectively, with obvious coherent optical ra-
diation effects in Fig. |10(b)[ Due to the fact that the
electron beam images shown in Fig. 10 are sheared ver-
tically by means of the TDS, the vertical coordinate im-
plies time information (see Eq. fl]) and the faint bunching
visible in Fig. 10(a) may be assigned to microbunching.
Figure 10(c)| shows a single-shot image taken at K-
ICCD using a LuAG screen without time delay for an
ACCl rf phase of 3.75 deg. The image clearly shows con-
tributions o f coher ent optical radiation similar to the im-
age in Fig. |10(b)[ By imaging the LuAG screen with
a time delay of 100 ns, the obtained distribution shown
in Fig. |10((i)] is acceptable without obvious contributions
from coherent optical radiation. In addition, the corre-
sponding electron bunch length measurements with ap-
plied temporal separation (green diamonds) in Fig. |9] are
in perfect agreement with the reference measurements in
the energy spectrometer at ES-CCD (black dots). The
electron bunch durations for EEL operation at FLASH
are typically shorter than 150 fs (e.g., Ref. [20]), and typ-
ical electron beam parameters are given in Table [ij

C. Longitudinal electron beam profiles

The temporal separation technique, which has demon-
strated accurate r.m.s. electron bunch length measure-
ments in the presence of coherent optical radiation ef-
fects, gives confidence that single-shot measurements of
longitudinal bunch profiles and, accordingly, electron
bunch currents using temporal separation result in re-
liable results. The single-shot measurements presented
in Fig. [IT] (cf. measurements shown in Figs. [9] and 10
for the same ACCl rf phase settings) have been r ecorded
for an ACCl r f phase s of 3.75 deg in Fig. |ll(a)| and for
4.05 deg in Fig. 11(b) , i.e., in the presence of coherent op-

tical radiation effects. The longitudinal electron bunch
profiles taken in the non-dispersive beamline at K-ICCD
(blue line) with temporal separation show good agree-
ment with the reference measurements at ES-CCD (red
line) , and the observed deviations are most probably due
to slightly nonlinear amplification in the intensifier (pho-
tocathode and micro-channel plate) of the ICCD camera.
The reduced peak current with broadening in time in the
case of "K-ICCD: time delay", which is app arent on the
right-hand side (Time > 0) of Fig. |ll(b)[ can be ex-
plained by the different time resolutions of 7^t,e = 13 fs
and 43 fs achieved with the TDS during the measure-
ments for ES-CCD and K-ICCD, respectively. In order
to compare the longitudinal bunch profiles with compa-
rable resolution, a convolution has bee n applied for the
measurement at ES-CCD in Fig. ll(b)| by taking into ac-
count the actual time resolution. The longitudinal bunch

11

4

1

4

■ —

4

1

4

1 1 .

? 2

fi

^ 2

^ 2

t/^

^ 2

a
1

> -2

<v

Vertical (m

to o

Vertical (m

to o

C-

Vertical (m

to o

-4

1 1

-4

>^^

-4

1

-4

1

-2 2

Horizontal (ram)

(a) 3.25 deg, OTR.

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(b) 3.75 deg, OTR.

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(c) 3.75 deg, LuAG.

-2 2

Horizontal (mm)

(d) 3.75 deg, LuAG, time delay.

FIG. 10: Single-shot electron beam profile images at K-ICCD for two ACCl rf pfiases used in tfie measurements sfiown in Fig.|9]
witfi different screen/readout configurations: (a) OTR screen for 3.25 deg, (b) OTR screen for 3.75 deg, and (c) LuAG screen
for 3.75 deg without and (d) with delayed readout. The presented single-shot beam profile images are background-corrected.

<:
^

2

■ K-ICCD: time delay

■ ES-CCD

oL^i \ \ ^

<

2

■ K-ICCD: time delay

■ ES-CCD
ES-CCD:
convolution

-600

300

-300
Time (fs)
(a) ACCl rf phase of 3.75 deg.

-600 -300 300

Time (fs)
(b) ACCl rf phase of 4.05 deg

FIG. 11: Single-shot longitudinal electron bunch profiles mea-
sured in the non-dispersive beamline at K-ICCD by using the
LuAG screen recorded with a certain time delay (blue line)
and in the magnetic energy spectrometer at ES-CCD by using
the YAG screen (red line) for ACCl rf phases of (a) 3.75 deg
and (b) 4.05 deg, respectively. A convolution has been applied
in (b) for the measurement at ES-CCD (green dashed line) to
compare the longitudinal profiles with similar resolution.

profile after carrying out the convolution (green dashed
line) is in good agreement with the bunch profile taken
at K-ICCD with applied temporal separation (blue line).

strongly suppressed by performing beam profile imag-
ing in a magnetic energy spectrometer due to sufficient
spatial-to- longitudinal coupling. However, energy spec-
trometers preclude measuring pure transverse beam pro-
files due to dispersion in the bending plane. For incoher-
ent beam profile imaging in non-dispersive beamlines, we
discussed methods to separate the incoherent radiation
from scintillation screens and to simultaneously exclude
coherent optical radiation from detection. In contrast to
spectral and spatial separation, the temporal separation
technique, utilizing an ICCD camera, provides a definite
method to suppress coherent optical transition radiation
without knowledge of the longitudinal form factor. In
terms of readout times and rates, ICCD cameras have
the same applicability as standard CCD cameras. By
applying the temporal separation technique in the pres-
ence of coherent optical radiation, we demonstrated re-
liable measurements of longitudinal electron beam pro-
files, and measurements of r.m.s. electron bunch lengths
in excellent agreement with reference measurements in
a magnetic energy spectrometer. Limitations may ap-
pear due to scintillator excitation by secondary coherent
radiation sources. However, the presented experimen-
tal results prove the temporal separation technique as a
promising method for future applications in beam profile
diagnostics for high-brightness electron beams.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Electron beam profile imaging is crucial for many ap-
plications in electron beam diagnostics at FELs, and
particularly required to perform single-shot diagnostics.
However, the frequent appearance of coherent optical ra-
diation effects, e.g., COTR, in high-brightness electron
beams impedes incoherent beam profile imaging with
standard techniques. The theoretical considerations, nu-
merical simulations, and experimental data presented in
this paper show that coherent optical emission can be

AcknoAvledgments

We would like to thank the whole FLASH-team, and
the engineers and technicians of the DESY groups FLA,
MCS, and MVS for their great support. We also thank
B. Faatz, K. Honkavaara, and S. Schreiber for providing
beam time, and Y. Ding and H. Loos for fruitful dis-
cussions. In particular, we are deeply grateful to E.A.
Schneidmiller for careful reading of the manuscript and
to Z. Huang for providing many helpful explanations.

12

[1] S. Jamison, Nature Photonics 4, 589 - 591 (2010). [21

[2] W. Ackermann et a/., Nature Photonics 1, 336 - 342

(2007). [22

[3] P. Emma et a/., Nature Photonics 4, 641 - 647 (2010).

[4] D. Pile, Nature Photonics 5, 456 - 457 (2011).

[5] E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, and M.V. Yurkov, Nucl. [23
lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 398, 373 (1997).

[6] M. Borland, Y.C. Chae, P. Emma, J.W. Lewellen, V. [24
Bharadwaj, W.M. Fawley, P. Krejcik, C. Limborg, S.V.
Milton, H.-D. Nuhn, R. Soliday, and M. Woodley, Nucl.
lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 483, 268 (2002).

[7] E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, and M.V. Yurkov, Nucl. [25
lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 528, 355 (2004).

[8] M. Venturini and A. Zholents, Nucl. lustrum. Methods
Phys. Res., Sect. A 593, 53 (2008).

[9] Z. Huang, A. Brachmann, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding, D. Dow-
ell, P. Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, G. Hays, Ph. Hering, [26
R. Iverson, H. Loos, A. Miahnahri, H.-D. Nuhn, D. Rat-
ner, G. Stupakov, J. Turner, J. Welch, W. White, J. Wu,
and D. Xiang, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 13, 020703
(2010).
[10] Y. Glinec, J. Faure, A. Norhn, A. Pukhov, and V. Malka, [27

Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 194801 (2007).
[11] H. Loos, R. Akre, A. Brachmann, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding,

D. Dowell, P. Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, G. Hays, Ph. [28
Hering, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, C. Limborg-Deprey, A.
Miahnahri, S. Molloy, H.-D. Nuhn, D. Ratner, J. Turner, [29
J. Welch, W. White, and J. Wu, Proceedings of the 30th
International Free Electron Laser Conference, Gyeongju, [30
Korea, 2008, THBAUOl.
[12] R. Akre, D. Dowell, P. Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, [31
G. Hays, Ph. Hering, R. Iverson, C. Limborg-Deprey, H.
Loos, A. Miahnahri, J. Schmerge, J. Turner, J. Welch,
W. White, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 11, [32

030703 (2008).
[13] C.M.S. Sears, E. Colby, R. Ischebeck, C. McGuinness, J. [33

Nelson, R. Noble, R.H. Siemann, J. Spencer, D. Walz,

T. Plettner, and R.L. Byer, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams [34

11, 061301 (2008).
[14] A.H. Lumpkin, R.J. Dejus, and N.S. Sereno, Phys. Rev.

ST Accel. Beams 12, 040704 (2009). [35

[15] A.H. Lumpkin, N.S. Sereno, W.J. Berg, M. Borland, Y.

Li, and S.J. Pasky, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12, [36

080702 (2009).
[16] S. Wesch, C. Behrens, B. Schmidt, and P. Schmiiser,

Proceedings of the 31st International Free Electron [37

Laser Conference, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2009,

WEPC50.
[17] K.L.F. Bane, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding, D. Doweh, P. Emma, [38

J. Frisch, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, C. Limborg-Deprey, H.

Loos, H.-D. Nuhn, D. Ratner, G. Stupakov, J. Turner, [39

J. Welch, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12,

030704 (2009). [40
[18] M. Rohrs, Ch. Gerth, H. Schlarb, B. Schmidt, and

P. Schmiiser, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12, 050704

(2009).
[19] D. Filippetto et a/., Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, [41

092804 (2011). [42

[20] C. Behrens, N. Gerasimova, Ch. Gerth, B. Schmidt, E.A.

Schneidmiller, S. Serkez, S. Wesch, and M.V. Yurkov,

Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 15, 030707 (2012).

M. Cornacchia and P. Emma, Phys. Rev. ST Accel.
Beams 5, 084001 (2002).

Z. Huang, M. Borland, P. Emma, J. Wu, C. Limborg, G.
Stupakov, and J. Welch, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 7,
074401 (2004).

C. Behrens, Z. Huang, and D. Xiang, Phys. Rev. ST
Accel. Beams 15, 022802 (2012).

0. Lundh, J. Lim, C. Rechatin, L. Ammoura, A. Ben-
Ismail, X. Davoine, G. Gallot, J-P. Goddet, E. Lefebvre,
V. Malka, and J. Faure, Nature Physics 7, 219 - 222
(2011).

Y. Ding, A. Brachmann, F.-J. Decker, D. Dowell, P.
Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, G. Hays, Ph. Hering, Z.
Huang, R. Iverson, H. Loos, A. Miahnahri, H.-D. Nuhn,

D. Ratner, J. Turner, J. Welch, W. White, and J. Wu,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 254801 (2009).

Z. Huang, A. Baker, C. Behrens, M. Boyes, J. Craft, F.-
J. Decker, Y. Ding, P. Emma, J. Frisch, R. Iverson, J.
Lipari, H. Loos, and D. Walz,, Proceedings of the 24th
Particle Accelerator Conference, New York, USA, 2011,
THP183.

1. Zagorodnov, Proceedings of the 32nd International
Free Electron Laser Conference, Malmo, Sweden, 2010,
WE0BI2.

L. Wartski, J. Marcou, and S. Roland, IEEE Trans. Nucl.
Sci. 20, 544 - 548 (1973).

D.W. Rule, Nucl. lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B
24/25, 901 - 904 (1987).

D.W. Rule, R.B. Fiorito, AIP Conf. Proc. 229, 315
(1991).

X. Artru, R. Chehab, K. Honkavaara, and A. Variola,
Nucl. lustrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 145, 160 -
168 (1998).

D. Xiang, W.-H. Huang, and Y.-Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. ST
Accel. Beams 10, 062801 (2007).

A.M. Kondratenko and E.L. Saldin, Part. Accel. 10, 207
(1980).

H. Edwards, C. Behrens, and E. Harms, Proceedings
of the 25th International Linear Accelerator Conference,
Tsukuba, Japan, 2010, MO304.

O. Altenmueller, R. Larsen, and G. Loew, Rev. Sci. lu-
strum. 35, 438 (1964).

C. Behrens, Ch. Gerth, and I. Zagorodnov, Proceedings
of the 31st International Free Electron Laser Conference,
Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2009, WEPC45.
C. Behrens and Ch. Gerth, Proceedings of the 32nd In-
ternational Free Electron Laser Conference, Malmo, Swe-
den, 2010, MOPC08.

P. Emma, J. Frisch, and P. Krejcik, Technical Report No.
LCLS-TN-00-12, 2000.

CCD: Prosilica GC1380, A lhed V ision Technologies
(|littp : //www . alliedvisiontec . coin|.
S. Schreiber, B. Faatz, J. Feldhaus, K. Honkavaara,
R. Treusch, M. Vogt, and J. Rossbach, Proceedings of
the 32nd International Free Electron Laser Conference,
Malmo, Sweden, 2010, TU0BI2.

ICCD: Dicam Pro (S20), PCO ( |littp : //www.p co.de|).
M. Yan, C. Behrens, Ch. Gerth, G. KuberBT^Schmidt,
and S. Wesch, Proceedings of the 10th European Work-
shop on Beam Diagnostics and Instrumentation for Par-
ticle Accelerators, Hamburg, Germany, 2011, TUPD59.

13

[43] B. Schmidt, C. Behrens, H. Delsim-Hashemi, P.
Schmiiser, and S. Wesch, Proceedings of the 24th Euro-
pean Particle Accelerator Conference, Genoa, Italy, 2008,
MOPC029.

[44] J.A. Mares, A. Beitlerova, M. Nikl, N. Solovieva, C.
D'Ambrosio, K. Blazek, P. Maly, K. Nejezchleb, and F.
de Notaristefani, Radiat. Meas. 38, 353 - 357 (2004).

[45] O. Grimm and P. Schmiiser, Report TESLA-FEL-2006-
03, 2006.

[46] S. Wesch, B. Schmidt, C. Behrens, H. Delsim-Hashemi,
and P. Schmiiser, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.,
Sect. A 665, 40- 47 (2011).

[47] Z. Huang and K.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 5,
074401 (2002).

[48] S. Heifets, S. Krinsky, and G. Stupakov, Phys. Rev. ST
Accel. Beams 5, 064401 (2002).

[49] E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, and M.V. Yurkov, Nucl.
Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 490, 1 (2002).

[50] D. Ratner, A. Chao, and Z. Huang, Proceedings of
the 30th International Free Electron Laser Conference,
Gyeongju, Korea, 2008, TUPPH041.

[51] M. Borland, ANL/APS Report No. LS-287, 2000.

[52] L.G. Sukhikh, S.Yu. Gogolev, and A.P. Potylitsyn, Nucl.
Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 625, 567 - 569
(2010).

[53] L.G. Sukhikh, G. Kube, Yu.A. Popov, A.P. Potylitsyn,
D. Krambrich, and W. Lauth, Proceedings of the 10th
European Workshop on Beam Diagnostics and Instru-
mentation for Particle Accelerators, Hamburg, Germany,

2011, WEOA02.
[54] L.G. Sukhikh, S. Bajt, G. Kube, W. Lauth, Yu.A. Popov,

and A.P. Potylitsyn, Proceedings of the 3rd Interna-
tional Particle Accelerator Conference, New Orleans,

USA, 2012, MOPPR019.
[55] P. Lecoq, A. Annenkov, A. Gektin, M. Korzhik, and

C. Pedrini, Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems,

Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
[56] H. Tanaka, Proceedings of the 2nd International Parti-
cle Accelerator Conference, San Sebastian, Spain, 2011,

MOYCAOl.
[57] A.H. Lumpkin, B.X. Yang, W.J. Berg, M. White, J.W.

Lewellen, and S.V. Milton, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.

Res., Sect. A 429, 336 - 340 (1999).
[58] K. Tian, R. A. Kishek, P.G. OShea, R.B. Fiorito, D.W.

Feldman, and M. Reiser, Phys. Plasmas 15, 056707

(2008).
[59] S.O. Choa, S.K. Kim, Y.U. Jeong, B.C. Lee, B.H. Cha, J.

Lee, G. Kazakevitch, and I. Spassovsky, Nucl. Instrum.

Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 407, 359 - 363 (1998).
[60] M. Yan, C. Behrens, Ch. Gerth, G. Kube, B. Schmidt,

and S. Wesch, Proceedings of the 33rd International

Free Electron Laser Conference, Shanghai, China, 2011,

THPB16.
[61] A. Murokh, E. Hemsing, and J. Rosenzweig, Proceedings

of the 23rd Particle Accelerator Conference, Vancouver,

Canada, 2009, TH6REP021.