Processing math: 100%
Advanced Search
Yiheng WU, Jingbin LU, Zhen REN. Structural Investigation in A ≈ 90 Mass Region and Comparison in Its Vicinity[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2023, 40(4): 519-526. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.40.2022110
Citation: Yiheng WU, Jingbin LU, Zhen REN. Structural Investigation in A ≈ 90 Mass Region and Comparison in Its Vicinity[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2023, 40(4): 519-526. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.40.2022110

Structural Investigation in A ≈ 90 Mass Region and Comparison in Its Vicinity

Funds: National Natural Science Foundation of China (11075064, 11775098, 12075169, U1867210, 2018YFA0404403); Key Program of Education Department of Anhui Province (2023AH050481, 2023AH050514)
More Information
  • Author Bio:

    Yiheng WU: (1983−), male, Suzhou, Anhui Province, Associate Professor, working on nuclear structure; E-mail: wuyiheng@aqun.edu.cn

  • Corresponding author:

    Jingbin LU, E-mail: ljb@jlu.edu.cn

  • Received Date: January 13, 2023
  • Revised Date: March 27, 2023
  • In the investigations of the level structure of A90 nuclei, whose numbers of protons and neutrons are close to the Z=40 semimagic number and N=50 magic number, have become a hot spot in nuclear physics. The aim of this work is to further probe the characteristics of single-particle excitation, core breaking, high-j intruder states and isomeric states in the A90 mass region based on the existing experimental results. Investigations show that the low energy levels of the odd-A nuclei originate from their neighboring even-even nuclei coupled to a valence nucleon. The systematics of the 2+1 excitation energies and the values of E4+1/E2+1 indicate that the N=56 subshell closure may appear at Z=40 (41) and disappear for Z>42 nuclei. Furthermore, in this mass region, the strong E2 transitions at low or medium spins are interpreted as the recoupling of the pure protons in (f5/2, p3/2, p1/2, g9/2) orbits, and the strong M1 transitions are explicated by moving proton from the (f5/2, p3/2, p1/2) orbits to the g9/2 orbit, coupling to a neutron excitation from the g9/2 orbit across N=50 closed shell into the d5/2 orbit. The isomeric states in odd-A nuclei with N=50 (51) can be interpreted as a spin-aligned configuration in which a single neutron or proton couples with a fully aligned proton pair in the πg9/2 orbit.
  • Atomic nuclei near the A=90 mass region with few protons above the Z=38 subshell and few neutrons (holes) above the N=50 closure shell have become a great interesting topics in nuclear physics[1-40]. More and more interesting phenomena, e.g., single-particle excitation[2-21], isomeric states[8-16], core breaking[2-36], and seniority symmetry breaking[27] have been found in this mass region. Investigations of the level structures in these nuclei may provide information on the particle-hole exciting mechanism. For these nuclei with several valence protons (neutrons) above the closed shell, the low-lying levels generate from aligning the spins of the valence protons (neutrons) and the high spin levels stem from promoting protons (neutrons) across (sub)shell closure to the higher shells.

    In recent studies of N>50 nuclei[34-45], some of the nuclei were investigated by the shell model with the truncation spaces, i.e., the h11/2 neutron orbital was neglected[19, 22, 34-35]. Nevertheless, the h11/2 neutron orbit plays a major role in N>50 nuclei, where the low and intermediate spins are interpreted as proton excitation (f5/2, p3/2, p1/2)g9/2 and neutron excitation d5/2 (g7/2, h11/2), and the high spins involve the core excitation νg9/2ν(d5/2, g7/2). An interesting phenomenon was observed that the sudden deviations from the systematic characteristics emerge as the numbers of protons and neutrons change. For instance, the discontinuous separation energy of two protons (neutrons) and the abrupt increase of energy of the 2+1 state at certain proton (neutron) numbers may be attributed to the appearance of magic numbers. In addition, the evolution of shell with proton and neutron numbers can be such evident that one observes the fragmentation and vanishment of the conventional magic number or the appearance of new magic number in those exotic systems.

    We studied the 9193Nb nuclei by the 82Se+14N reaction[9, 17, 34-35] as well as 89Zr and 91Mo by 89Y+6Li reactions[46]. The level structures of these nuclei were explicated by the shell model calculations with π(f5/2, p3/2, p1/2, g9/2)ν(p1/2, g9/2, g7/2, d5/2) model space. The results of calculations manifest that the proton core-excited across the Z=38 subshell and neutron core-excited across the N=50 closed shell are indispensable to explicate the high-spin levels. However, neutron core-excited states of the N=50 nuclei were reported in lower-spin states. In order to understand neutron core-excitation of the low spin states, the systematic surveys of the N=50 even-even isotones 86Kr[47], 88Sr[32-33], 90Zr[6], 92Mo[20-23], 94Ru[26-28], and odd-A isotones 85Br[48], 87Rb[48], 89Y[1-3], 91Nb[17-19], 93Tc[24-25], are displayed in Fig. 1. As indicated in Fig. 1(a), the first 23/2+ levels in 87Rb and 89Y nuclei with Z<40 are interpreted as the N=50 neutron core breaking. The first 23/2+ states of the 91Nb and 93Tc nuclei with Z>40 are interpreted by moving protons across the Z=40 subshell, rather than neutron core breaking.

    Figure  1.  Partial energy levels in N=50 nuclei. (a) odd-A isotones 85Br, 87Rb, 89Y, 91Nb, 93Tc, 95Rh, and (b) even-even isotones 86Kr, 88Sr, 90Zr, 92Mo, 94Ru, 96Pd. The neutron core-excited states from the N=50 core are denoted by quadrilaterals, and the proton excited across the Z=40 subshell are denoted by circles.

    As shown in Fig. 1(b), in 86Kr and 88Sr nuclei, the N=50 neutron core breaking is also observed at the first 6+ and 7+ levels, However in 90Zr, 92Mo, 94Ru and 96Pd nuclei, the first 6+ states originate from the proton configurations. This phenomenon may be associated with the shifts of the proton Fermi surface. As the number of proton increases, the proton Fermi surface gradually closes to the g9/2 orbit, which facilitates the proton core excitations ((fp)g9/2). And note that, the N=50 neutron core breaking is easier than promoting proton across Z=40 subshell in the 6+1 and 7+1 states as the proton number decreases, as displayed in Fig. 1(b). Notably, the excitation energies of the first 8+ state in 90Zr are much higher than those of the 92Mo, 94Ru and 96Pd nuclei. It is generally known that 90Zr is a quasimagic nucleus with the N=50 neutron shell closure and Z=40 subshell closure which, in spherical nuclei, represents the filling of the fp shell with the g9/2 shell empty above. The first 8+ state in the 90Zr nucleus is generated by promoting protons from the p1/2 orbital across the Z=40 subshell to the g9/2 orbit, which has seniority ν = 2. The first 8+ states in 92Mo, 94Ru and 96Pd are suggested as the π(g9/2)n (n = 2, 4, 6) configurations, which are not referring to proton excitation.

    Recently, we studied the 89Sr[49] and 93Mo[50] nuclei by the shell-model calculations, which were carried out with π(f5/2, p3/2, p1/2, g9/2)ν(g9/2, g7/2, d5/2, d3/2, s1/2, h11/2) model space. It is worth emphasizing that promoting the neutron from νd5/2 orbit across N=56 subshell into the νh11/2 orbit is necessary to explicate the level structure of 89Sr and 93Mo nuclei. In addition, the h11/2 neutron orbit plays a vital role in shaping the level structures in N>50 nuclei. For example, the abrupt deformation near Z=40 (N=60) was explicated as the filled with πg9/2 orbit protons cooperated with the occupation of the neutron in h11/2 orbit and diminution of neutrons in the νg9/2 orbits[51-53].

    To further illustrate the characteristics of the neutron core excitations across the N=56 subshell, the low spin structures of the N=51 nuclei from the 85Se to 97Pd are surveyed[24-30]. The energies of the 11/21 levels are not markedly changed, that result from the excitation of a single neutron from the νd5/2 orbit across N=56 subshell into the νh11/2 orbit. The similar features is found in the N=51 odd-odd nuclei[7, 17, 30]. In these nuclei, the excitation energies of 10- states are known to be around 2 MeV. These may be due to the depletion radial overlap between the πg9/2 orbit and the νh11/2 orbit which diminishes the interplay between the two orbits and results in a similar variation of binding energy between them. One would expect that promoting the neutron from νd5/2 orbit across the N=56 subshell into the νh11/2 orbit may be validated by the future experiments and play an important role in the level structures of nuclei with N=51 in the A=90 mass region.

    The lifetimes are considerably longer for isomers than for common excited states. The characteristics of isomers play a significant role in comprehending the nuclear structure because they provide rigorous tests for nuclear models. To our knowledge, high-spin isomers in the nuclei around the shell closure appear when the neutron number and/or the proton number outside the closed shell is an odd number[54].

    In N=51 isotones, the neutron number is around the magic number 50 and proton number is near semimagic number 40. In Ref. [15], the characteristics of the isomeric states in 90Y[13], 91Zr[14], 92Nb[15], 93Mo[15], 94Tc[17], 95Ru[18], 96Rh[19], and 97Pd[19], originated from the same excitation mechanism, were investigated. As an example, the 21/2+ isomer in 93Mo has the predominant configuration πg29/2νd5/2, and the neutron–proton interaction may be the physical origin of its long lifetime. On the other hand, the isomers in 144Pm, 145Sm, 146Eu and 147Gd nuclei with N=83 were investigated systematically[55]. Their lifetimes range from 10 ns to μs, such as the halflife of 49/2+ isomer (8.6 MeV level) in 147Gd is 510 ns. These isomers are dominated by the configuration of πh21/2νf7/2h9/2i13/2[15]. According to analogous analysis of configurations of isomers between N=83 and N=51 isotones, specifically high-spin isomers in N=51 isotones are predicted to be dominated by [πg29/2νd5/2g7/2h11/2]39/2 for odd-A nuclei, and [πp11/2g29/2νd5/2g7/2h11/2]20+ for odd-odd nuclei.

    As shown in Fig. 2, the experimental lifetimes of the isomers in N=50 nuclei with odd number of protons (no valence neutron), 89Y, 91Nb, 93Tc, 95Rh and 97Ag are investigated. The 91Nb, 93Tc, 95Rh and 97Ag nuclei also show a 21/2+ isomer. For example, the 21/2+ isomer in 93Tc is associated with the configuration πg39/2. In addition, the isomeric states 17/2 in 91Nb, 93Tc and 95Rh nuclei are interpreted by configuration πp1/2g29/2. The results may indicate that the isomeric states in odd-mass nuclei are interpreted as a spin-aligned configuration in which a single neutron or proton couples with a fully aligned proton pair in the g9/2 orbit.

    Figure  2.  Experimental systematics of isomers in N=50 isotones.

    Figure 3(a) exhibits the systematics of the 0+1, 2+1, 4+1, 6+1 and 8+1 in 90Zr, 92Mo, 94Ru and 96Pd even-even nuclei[6, 21, 26, 35, 37] as well as the 9/2+1, 13/2+1, 17/2+1, 21/2+1 and 25/2+1 states in 91Nb, 93Tc, 95Rh and 97Ag odd-A nuclei[17, 24, 56- 57]. The level structures between the N=50 even-even nuclei and the neighboring odd-A nuclei, shown for comparison in Fig. 3(a), are similar up to the 4+1 state. For example, the level energies of 13/2+1 and 17/2+1 levels in 93Tc are close to the energies of 2+1 and 4+1 levels in the 92Mo(94Ru) core. The systematic of the energy levels in the N=48 odd-A and the even-even isotones is presented in Fig. 3(b). The 13/2+1 and 17/2+1 states in 89Nb[4], 91Tc[6], 93Rh[58] and 95Ag[59] are close in energies with the 2+1 and 4+1 states in 88Zr[5], 90Mo[60], 92Ru and 94Pd[61], respectively. The above features could be explicated by the weak coupling model. Based on the weak coupling simplification of expressions, the low spins of an odd-A nucleus can be interpreted as a nucleon in a single-j orbit coupled to an even-even core. The ψI|0 denotes the wave function of the low level I+1 (EI) of the even-even core. The ψI|0 coupled to the single nucleon aj can generate the multiplet states with spin J for the odd-mass nucleus:

    Figure  3.  (a) The low-energy levels in the N=50 isotones; (b) the same as (a) but for N=48 isotones.
    (ψI×aj)J|0,
    (1)

    where J=|Ij|,|Ij|+1,,I+jI+j, represents the angular momentum, We employ EJ(I,j) to represent the excitation energies of the multiplet states. The relation between EI and EJ(I,j) is expressed by

    EI=J(2J+1)EJ(I,j)J2J+1.
    (2)

    The configuration πg9/2(2+1, 92Ru) could generate multiplet states with 5/2+1 (621-keV), 7/2+1 (240-keV), 9/2+2 (1630-keV), 11/2+1 (894-keV) and 13/2+1 (852-keV) in 93Rh. Using Eq. (2), the calculated energy of 2+1 level in 92Ru is 892-keV, which is consistent with the experimental one (865-keV). It is noteworthy that high spins are not in compliance with the results of the weak coupling framework, for example the energy of the 8+1 state in 88Zr is much higher than the 25+1 state in 89Nb. This might be due to the fact that the core excitations in high-spins of the even-even core may not be negligible, and configuration admixtures become increasingly significant.

    Figure 4(a) displays the evolutions of the 2+1 levels in Zr[60-58], Mo[61-68], Ru[61-69], Pd[62-70] isotopes from N=44 to N=60. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the Zr, Mo, and Sr isotopes with neutron N58 show near-spherical features, whereas, nuclei with N>58 nuclei show deformation characteristics. This may be attributed to the fact that the Z=40 subshell weakens abruptly in the Sr, Zr, and Mo at N=60. Figure 4(b) displays the evolutions of the 13/2+1 states in Nb[71-77], Tc[72-78], and Rh[73-80] isotopes from N=50 to N=60. We also note that, the level energies of first 2+ (13/2+) states in 90Zr (91Nb) and 96Zr (97Nb) nuclei are significantly higher than that in other Zr (Nb) isotopes, which reveals that N=56 is a good subshell closure, whereas the 2+1 energy peaks are only found at N=50 in Mo, Ru and Cd isotopes chains. It is observed that the energy of 2+1 in the 96Zr nucleus is 1 750-keV, whereas the 2+ energies in 98Mo, 100Ru, and 102Pd nuclei are only 787-, 540-, 556-keV, respectively. The low energies in 2+1 levels for the N=56 isotones are incompatible with that in the spherical nuclei. Such disparate behavior with proton number of Z42 may be attributed to the vanishing of the N=56 subshell.

    Figure  4.  The evolution of the first 2+ states in the N=44 to N=60. Zr (circles), Mo (squares), Mo (solid circles) and Ru (pentagons) isotopes; (b) The evolution of the first 13/2+ states in the N=44 to N=60, Nb (squares), Tc (solid circles), Rh (circles).

    As compared to Zr and Mo, the Nb (Z = 41) nucleus may be in the intermediate regime where the N=56 shell effect is prominent (Z=40) and evanescent (Z42). Figure 5 indicates that the values of R4+1/2+1 in 9098Zr are less than 2, showing the steadiness of the Z=40 subshell. The E4+1/E2+1 value increases dramatically in 100Zr, and the low lying level structure shows the deformation onset in Zr isotopes with N60. The 92Mo, 94Ru, 96Pd, and 98Cd as well as 90Zr, 92Zr, 94Zr, 96Zr, and 98Zr nuclei have R4+1/2+1 ratios around 1.5, which indicates the representative features of spherical nuclei. As shown in Fig. 5, the R4+1/2+1 in the Mo and Ru isotopic chains show a similar tendency, but notable differences from the Zr isotopic chain. The decrease of R4+1/2+1 from N=60 to N=50, followed by a drop toward N=50, is observed. In general, nuclear deformation can be reflected by 2+1 energies (R4+1/2+1) towards the rotational limits. Figure 6(a) shows the excitation energies of 2+1 to 10+1 states in N=56 isotones, Zr[67], Mo[68], Ru[69], Pd[70], and Cd[80]. As displayed in Fig. 6(a), the excited energies of the 2+1 to 10+1 states in 96Zr nucleus are noticeably higher than that in other N=56 isotones. This may be because the 96Zr nucleus is near spherical character, originating from the double-subshell closure at Z=40 and N=56. The double subshell closure is testified by the high excitation energy and low collectivity of the first 2+ state. The level energies of the 2+1 to 10+1 states in 98Mo, 100Ru, 102Pd and 104Cd nuclei are very close. The 2+1, 4+1, 6+1 and 8+1 levels originate from the seniority ν = 2 states in the seniority scheme[81]. The angular momenta stem from the coupling of the two unpaired protons in the g9/2 orbit.

    Figure  5.  The evolutionary trends of the ratios of 4+1 to 2+1 with neutron number.

    Figure 6(b) shows the 9/2+1 to 25/2+1 states in the N=56 isotones Nb[75], Tc[76], Rh[77], Ag[78], and In[79]. The low-energy spectra for 96Zr[65] and 98Mo[66], shown in Fig. 6(a), are similar to the ones for 97Nb[75] and 99Tc[76], respectively. These similarities can also be explicated using the weak coupling theory. When moving to the 101Rh and 103Ag nuclei[77-78], the ground states display a sudden transition from 9/2+ to 1/2- and 7/2+, respectively, which may indicate the onset of deformation in 101Rh and 103Ag nuclei because of the sudden weakening (vanishing) of the Z=40 subshell in N=56 nuclei.

    Figure  6.  The evolution of positive parity states in even-even N = 56 isotones 96Zr, 98Mo, 100Ru, 102Pd, and 104Cd; The evolution of positive parity states in odd-A N = 50 isotones 97Nb, 99Tc, 101Rh, 103Ag, and 105In.

    Additionally, it has been reported that the nuclei with N = 48 and 49, specifically 83Br, 85Rb, and 87Y nuclei with N=48, exhibit the strong E2 and M1 transitions[32]. These nuclei show the electric quadrupole transitions strengths of B(E2) are about 15 Weisskopf units (W.u.) up to 17/2+, while the higher-spin states display the ΔI = 1 sequences, in which the B(M1) values are up to 1 W.u. Similar characteristics are reported in N=49 isotones 85Kr and 86Rb. In these nuclei, the strong E2 transitions are ascribed to the proton excitations coupled to the unpaired g9/2 neutron, and the M1 transitions are construed as the neutron core excitations across the N=50 closed shell[82].

    To survey systematically the N=50 nuclei and probe the mechanisms for generating the strong E2 and M1 transitions, the shell-model calculations for the 90Zr, 91Nb, 92Mo, 93Tc, 94Ru and 96Pd nuclei are performed with proton and neutron core excitations across the 88Sr core. The shell-model calculations were carried out with the NUSHELLX code[83]. We employed the π(p3/2, f5/2, p1/2, g9/2)ν(p1/2, g9/2, g7/2, d5/2, d3/2, s1/2) configuration space and GWBXG effective interaction. The calculated results are generally coincident with experimental ones. The N=50 nuclei 89Y, 90Zr, 93Tc, and 94Ru display the large B(E2) values at low and moderate spins, which are believed to be a result of proton recoupling in the pfg orbits (1p3/2, 0f5/2, 1p1/2, 0g9/2). The high spin states display strong M1 transitions, which are explicated as proton excitation from the pf shells (1p3/2, 0f5/2, 1p1/2) to the 0g9/2 orbit, coupling to a neutron excitation from the g9/2 orbit to the d5/2 orbit. For example, in the 91Nb nucleus, the E2 transitions 21/2+117/2+1, 17/2+113/2+1, and 13/2+19/2+1 are is ascribed to the excitation of protons from f5/2p orbits to g9/2 orbit. The calculations B(E2) values are 100.7, 287.8 and 152.9 e2fm4, respectively. However, for the transitions 23/2+419/2+2 and 25/2+321/2+2, the calculations predict B(E2) values decrease abruptly. The difference could be related to the forbidden 23/2+419/2+2 and 25/2+321/2+2 transitions from neutron core-excited to pure proton states. Whereas rather strong M1 transitions 31/2+129/2+1, 33/2+131/2+1, whose B(M1) values are in the range of 1.1 - 2.6 μ2N, are ascribed to the recouplings of the two unpaired neutrons, i.e, the g9/2 neutron hole and the d5/2 neutron. Figure. 7 displays the comparisons between the calculated B(E2) values and experimental ones in 90Zr, 92Mo, 94Ru and 96Pd as well as 91Nb and 93Tc. As shown in Fig. 7, the B(E2) values of calculation are generally consistent with that of the experiments (except B(E2; 2+0+) of 94Ru and 96Pd, and B(E2; 13/2+ 9/2+)). The overestimation of the B(E2; 2+0+) for 94Ru (96Pd) and B(E2; 13/2+ 9/2+) for 93Tc with the GWBXG effective interaction is conspicuous. It is worth mentioning that some pure-proton space models fail to reproduce the B(E2) values well because they cannot provide the amount of seniority mixing[84-85].

    Figure  7.  Experimental B(E2) strengths(circle) and the shell model predictions(solid circle) in the proton(f5/2, p, g9/2) model space.

    We survey the systematics of the lower energy levels in the A90 mass region. The results indicate that the lower energy levels of the odd-A nucleus can be interpreted by its neighboring even-even core coupled to a valence nucleon, whereas the weak-coupling model is not applicable for the description of the high spin states. The excitation energies of the 2+1 levels in even-even isotopes are investigated systematically, which shows the competition between particle and collective excitation at high-spin states in the nuclei with N=46 (47). For N=48 (49) nuclei, there are still some evidences of collective motion, even at low-spin states. For N=50 nuclei, level structures show the property of single particle excitations at high-spin states. To better understand the level structures of N>50 nuclei, it is necessary to consider the neutron core excitations from d5/2 neutron orbit across the N=56 subshell into h11/2 orbit. In addition, the evolution of the first 2+ states and the energy ratios of 4+1 to 2+1 in the N=50 to N=60 nuclei indicate that the N=56 subshell closure appears at Z=40 (41) and disappears for the Z>42 nuclei.

  • [1]
    WISE J E, HERSMAN F W, HEISENBERG J H, et al. Phys Rev C, 1990, 42: 1077. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.42.1077
    [2]
    LI Z Q, WANG S Y, NIU C Y, et al. Phys Rev C, 2016, 94: 014315. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.014315
    [3]
    GUTTORMSEN M, LARSEN A C, BELLO GARROTE F L, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 90: 044309. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.044309
    [4]
    SINGH P, PALIT R, SAHA S, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 90: 014306. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014306
    [5]
    SPYROU A, QUINN S J, SIMON A, et al. Phys Rev C, 2013, 88: 045802. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.045802
    [6]
    RUDOLPH D, GROSS C J, HARDER A, et al. Phys Rev C, 1994, 49: 66. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.66
    [7]
    WANG H, MA K Y, LIU S Y, et al. Chin Phys C, 2021, 45: 094106. DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac0fd2
    [8]
    WANG Z G, LIU M L, ZHANG Y H, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 89: 044308. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044308
    [9]
    ZHENG Y, WU Y H, WU X G, et al. Phys Rev C, 2019, 100: 014325. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.014325
    [10]
    BROWN B A, FOSSAN D B. Phys Rev C, 1977, 15: 2044. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.15.2044
    [11]
    LI G S, FANG Y D, ZHOU X H, et al. Phys Rev C, 2020, 102: 054607. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.05460
    [12]
    LEE I Y, JOHNSON N R, MCGOWAN F K, et al. Phys Rev C, 1981, 24: 293. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.24.293
    [13]
    XENOULIS A C, SARANTITES D G. Phys Rev C, 1973, 7: 1193. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.7.1193
    [14]
    PIEL W F, J R, FOSSAN D B, MA R, et al. Phys Rev C, 1990, 41: 1223. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.41.1223
    [15]
    FUKCHI T, GONO Y, ODAHARA A, et al. Eur Phys J A, 2005, 24: 249. DOI: 10.1140/epja/i2004-10145-2
    [16]
    DIDIERJEAN F, VERNEY D, DUCHENE G, et al. Phys Rev C, 2017, 96: 044320. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044320
    [17]
    LUO P W, WU X G, SUN H B, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 89: 034318. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.034318
    [18]
    BROWN B A, LESSER P M S, FOSSAN D B. Phys Rev Lett, 1975, 34: 161. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.161
    [19]
    RAINOVSKI G, SCHWENGNER R, SCHILLING K D, et al. Phys Rev C, 2002, 65: 044327. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.044327
    [20]
    SINGH P, PILLAY R G, SHEIKH J A, et al. Phys Rev C, 1992, 45: 2161. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.45.2161
    [21]
    PATTABIRAMAN N S, CHINTALAPUDI S N, GHUGRE S S, et al. Phys Rev C, 2002, 65: 044324. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.044324
    [22]
    GHUGRE S S, DATTA S K. Phys Rev C, 1995, 52: 1881. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.1881
    [23]
    FRANSEN C, PIETRALLA N, TONCHEV A P, et al. Phys Rev C, 2004, 70: 044317. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.044317
    [24]
    HAUSMANN M, JUNGCLAUS A, GALINDO E, et al. Phys Rev C, 2003, 68: 024309. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.024309
    [25]
    ROTH H A, ARNELL S E, FOLTESCU D, et al. Phys Rev C, 1994, 50: 1330. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.50.1330
    [26]
    JUNGCLAUS A, KAST D, LIEB K P, et al. Phys Rev C, 1999, 60: 014309. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.60.014309
    [27]
    DAS B, CEDERWALL B, QI C, et al. Phys Rev C, 2020, 105: L031304. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031304
    [28]
    MACH H, KORGUL A, GÓRSKA M, et al. Phys Rev C, 2017, 95: 014313. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014313
    [29]
    MATTHEWS D L, LINDSEY T P, KOIKE M , et al. Phys Rev C, 1971, 4: 1876. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.4.1876
    [30]
    ZISMAN M S, HARVEY B G. Phys Rev C, 1971, 4: 1809. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.4.1809
    [31]
    BROWN B A, LESSER P M S, FOSSAN D B. Phys Rev C, 1976, 13: 1900. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.13.1900
    [32]
    STEFANOVA E A, SCHWENGNER R, REIF J, et al. Phys Rev C, 2000, 62: 054314. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054314
    [33]
    KUMBARTZKI G J, SPEIDEL K H, BENCZERKOLLER N, et al. Phys Rev C, 2012, 85: 044322. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044322
    [34]
    WU Y H, LU J B, REN Z, et al. Phys Rev C, 2022, 105: 034344. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034344
    [35]
    PALACZ M, NYBERG J, GRAWE H, et al. Phys Rev C, 2012, 86: 014318. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014318
    [36]
    WU Y H, LU J B, REN Z, et al. Phys Rev C, 2022, 106: 054326. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.05432
    [37]
    FOTIADES N, CIZEWSKI J A, BECKER J A. Phys Rev C, 2002, 65: 044303. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.044303
    [38]
    BLAZHEV A, GÓRSKA M, GRAWE H, et al. Phys Rev C, 2004, 69: 064304. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.064304
    [39]
    PIEL W F, SCHARFF-GOLDHABER G. Phys Rev C, 1984, 30: 902. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.30.902
    [40]
    GHUGRE S S, KHARRAJA B, GARG U, et al. Phys Rev C, 1999, 61: 024302. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024302
    [41]
    PANTELICA D, STEFAN I G H, NICA N, et al. Phys Rev C, 2005, 72: 024304. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.024304
    [42]
    CZERWINSKI M, RZACA-URBAN T, SIEJA K, et al. Phys Rev C, 2013, 88: 044314. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044314
    [43]
    HENNIG A, SPIEKER M, WERNER V, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 90: 051302(R). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.051302
    [44]
    MARGINEAN N, BUCURESCU D, CTA-DANIL G H E, et al. Phys Rev C, 2000, 60: 034309. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.034309
    [45]
    ZHANG Y. H, HASEGAWA M, GUO W. T, et al. Phys Rev C, 2009, 79: 044316. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.044316
    [46]
    REN Zhen, LU Jingbin, ZHANG Gaolong, et al. Phys Rev C, 2022, 106: 024323. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024323
    [47]
    ALEXANDRU N, BALRAJ S. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2015, 124: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2014.12.045
    [48]
    FOTIADES N, CIZEWSKI J A, KRURÜCKEN R, et al. Phys Rev C, 2005, 71: 064312. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.064312
    [49]
    WU Yiheng, MA Keyan, CHENG Fei, et al. Pramana J Phys, 2020, 93: 53. DOI: 10.1007/s12043-020-1917-x
    [50]
    WANG Hao, MA Keyan, WU Yiheng, et al. Chin Phys C, 2021, 45: 014001. DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/abc0cb
    [51]
    BINGHAM C R, FABIAN G T. Phys Rev C, 1973, 7: 1507. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.7.1509
    [52]
    BHATTACHARYA C S, KRISHAN K. Phys Rev C, 1979, 20: 400(R). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.20.400
    [53]
    OTSUKA T, SUZUKI T, FUJIMOTO R, et al. Phys Rev Lett, 2005, 95: 232502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.232502
    [54]
    HASEGAWA M, SUN Y, TAZAKI S, KANEKO K, et al. Phys Lett B, 2011, 696: 197. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.065
    [55]
    GONO Y, ODAHARA A, FUKUCHI T, et al. Eur Phys J A, 2002, 13: 5. DOI: 10.1140/epja1339-02
    [56]
    GHAZI M F, CEDERWALL B, QI C, et al. Phys Rev C, 2014, 89: 044310. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044310
    [57]
    LIPOGLAVŠEK M, VENCELJ M, BAKTASH C, et al. Phys Rev C, 2005, 72: 061304(R). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.061304
    [58]
    ROTH H A, ARNELL S E, BLOMQVIST J. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 1995, 21: L1.
    [59]
    BASU S K, MUKHERJEE G, SONZOGNI A A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2010, 111: 2555. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2010.10.001
    [60]
    DANIEL A, MELIH B, SEFA E. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2009, 110: 2815. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2009.10.002
    [61]
    MCCUTCHAN E A, SONZOGNI A A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2014, 115: 135. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2013.12.002
    [62]
    BASUEE S K, MCCUTCHAN A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2020, 165: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2020.04.001
    [63]
    BAGLIN C M. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2012, 113: 2187. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2012.10.001
    [64]
    ABRIOLA D, SONZOGNI A A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2006, 107: 2423. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2006.08.001
    [65]
    ABEIOLA D, SONZOGNI A A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2008, 109: 2501. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2008.10.002
    [66]
    CHEN J, BALRAJ S. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2020, 164: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2020.01.001
    [67]
    BALRAJ S, CHEN Jun. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2021, 172: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2021.02.001
    [68]
    DE FRENNE D . Nuclear Data Sheets, 2009, 110: 1745. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2009.06.002
    [69]
    BLACHOT J. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2007, 108: 2035. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2007.09.001
    [70]
    FRENNE D D, NEGRET A. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2008, 109: 943. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2008.03.002
    [71]
    JOHNSON T D, KULP W D. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2015, 129: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2015.09.001
    [72]
    SINGH B. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2013, 114: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2013.01.001
    [73]
    BAGLIN C M. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2013, 112: 1293. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2013.10.002
    [74]
    BAGLIN C M. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2011, 112: 1163. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2011.04.001
    [75]
    NICA N. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2010, 111: 525. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2010.03.001
    [76]
    BROWNE E, TULI J K. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2017, 145: 25. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2017.09.002
    [77]
    JEAN B. Nuclear Data Sheets, 1991, 63: 305. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-3752(05)80006-7
    [78]
    FRENNE D D. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2009, 110: 2081. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2009.08.002
    [79]
    LALKOVSKI S, TIMAR J, ELEKES Z. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2019, 161: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2019.11.001
    [80]
    BLACHOT J. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2000, 91: 135. DOI: 10.1006/ndsh.2000.0017
    [81]
    RACAH G. Phys Rev C, 1942, 62: 438. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.62.438
    [82]
    WINTER G, SCHWENGNER R, REIF J. Phys Rev C, 1994, 49: 2427. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2427
    [83]
    BROWN B A, RAE W. Nuclear Data Sheets, 2014, 120: 115. DOI: 10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022
    [84]
    BLOMQVIST J, RYDSTRM L. Phys Scr, 1985, 31: 31. DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/31/1/006
    [85]
    SERDUKE F J D, LAWSON R D, GLOECKNER D H. Nucl Phys A, 1976, 256: 45. DOI: 10.1016/0375-9474(76)90094-4
  • Related Articles

    [1]Mengran XIE, Honghui LI, Jianguo LI, N. Michel, Chunwang MA, Wei ZUO. Ab initio no-core Shell Model for Nuclear Spectroscopic Factor[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2022, 39(3): 286-295. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.39.2022042
    [2]Michel Nicolas. Calculations of the 17O and 17F Spectra and 16O(p,p) Reaction Cross Sections in the Coupled-channel Gamow Shell Model[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2020, 37(3): 586-594. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.37.2019CNPC68
    [3]Yeqiu HE, Guanjian FU. Shell Model Study of Even-even sd and pf Shell Nuclei With the Pairing Plus Quadrupole-quadrupole Interaction[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2020, 37(3): 509-515. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.37.2019CNPC10
    [4]YUAN Cenxi, DU Tianxue. Preliminary Study on Uncertainty of Central Force and Effect of Cross-Shell Excitation in Shell Model[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2018, 35(4): 537-542. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.35.04.537
    [5]J. P. Draayer, K. D. Launey, A. C. Dreyfuss, T. Dytrych, G. H. Sargsyan, R. B. Baker, D. Kekejian. Symmetry-adapted No-core Shell-model Calculations for Probing the Structure of Atomic Nuclei[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2018, 35(4): 350-355. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.35.04.350
    [6]TIAN Yongwei, LIU Yanxin, TU Ya. Projected Shell Model Studies for Neutron-rich Sr Isotopes[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2018, 35(1): 10-17. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.35.01.010
    [7]YUAN Cenxi, ZHANG Min, LAN Nianwu, FANG Youjun. Two-nucleon Excitation from p to sd Shell in 12,14C[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2016, 33(2): 246-249. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.33.02.246
    [8]WANG Hankui, JIN Hua, SUN Yang, HE Yiqi, QIN Wei, WANG Gaoliang. Large-Scale Shell Model for Nuclear Structure and Nuclear Astrophysics Studies[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2016, 33(2): 242-245. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.33.02.242
    [9]JIAO Longfei, XU Furong. Shell-model Truncated Calculation in Correlated Basis[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2014, 31(4): 438-443. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.31.04.438
    [10]LUO Yan-an, LI Lei, ZHANG Xiao-bing, TAN Yu-hong, NING Ping-zhi. Contemporary Nuclear Shell Models[J]. Nuclear Physics Review, 2002, 19(4): 365-372. DOI: 10.11804/NuclPhysRev.19.04.365
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(1)

    1. 贾晨旭,丁兵,滑伟,郭松,强赟华,陈红星,韦锐,周小红. 利用离子阻停对电子俘获致核激发的研究. 物理学报. 2024(13): 107-116 .

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Figures(7)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (281) PDF downloads (39) Cited by(1)
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return