Abstract
The elastic scattering data of \(^{12}\)C + \(^{90, 91, 92, 94, 96}\)Zr at 66 MeV and \(^{13}\)C + \(^{90, 91, 92, 94, 96}\)Zr at 64 MeV are reanalyzed within the framework of the optical model (OM) using phenomenological Woods–Saxon (WS) potential and microscopic double folding potentials. The microscopic potentials employed in the study are the velocity-dependent S\({\tilde{a}}\)o Paulo Potential version 2 (SPP2), the Brazilian nuclear potential (BNP), and the density-dependent Michigan-3-Yukawa (CDM3Y6) potential. Both the real and imaginary parts of the microscopic potentials are constructed from the folding model. Comparative studies are performed for the real and imaginary potentials using the phenomenological and microscopic forms. The sensitivity of the elastic scattering cross sections to the three different folding potentials is tested and compared with the results obtained using the phenomenological WS potential. The analysis revealed that the results obtained with the SPP2 and BNP potentials fit the data well with renormalization factors \(N_\text {R}\) = 1 and \(N_\text {I}\) = 0.78 to 0.9 for the real and imaginary parts, respectively. Additionally, the CDM3Y6 potential required renormalization factors \(N_\text {R}\) = 0.6 to 0.8 and \(N_\text {I}\) = 0.4 to 0.8 to fit the \(^{12}\)C elastic scattering data, and renormalization factors \(N_\text {R}\) = 0.7 to 1 and \(N_\text {I}\) = 0.4 to 0.8 to fit the \(^{13}\)C elastic scattering data. A notable finding from the present study is that the SPP2 potential successfully describes the \(^{12,13}\)C + \(^{90,91,92,94,96}\)Zr system better than the previous calculations using the first version of SPP. Overall, all the calculated results agree reasonably well with the experimental data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cui-Hua Rong, Gao-Long Zhang, Lin Gan, Zhi-Hong Li, L. C. Brandão, E. N. Cardozo et. al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 104003 (2020).
L C Chamon, B V Carlson, L R Gasques, D Pereira, C De Conti, M A G Alvarez et al Phys. Rev. C 66 014610 (2002).
Mesut Karakoc Compt. Phys. Comm. 284 108613 (2023).
D Y Pang, P Roussel-Chomaz, H Savajols, R L Varner and R Wolski Phys. Rev. C 79 024615 (2009).
A J Koning and J P Delaroche Nucl. Phys. A 713 231 (2003).
R L Varner, W J Thompson, T L McAbee, E J Ludwig and T B Clegg Phys. Rep. 201 57 (1991).
F G Perey Phys. Rev. 131 745 (1963).
C M Perey and F G Perey At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 17 1 (1976).
F D Becchetti Jr and G W Greenlees Phys. Rev. 182 1209 (1969).
C M Perey and F G Perey Phys. Rev. 132 755 (1963).
W W Daehnick, J D Childs and Z Vrcelj Phys. Rev. C 21 2253 (1980).
X Li, C Liang and C Cai Nucl. Phys. A 789 103 (2007).
L C Chamon, B V Carlson and L R Gasques Comp. Phys. Com. 267 108061 (2021).
L C Chamon, L R Gasques and B V Carlson Phys. Rev. C 101 034603 (2020).
L C Chamon, L R Gasques and B V Carlson Phys. Rev. C 184 044607 (2011).
L R Gasques, L C Chamon, A Lépine-Szily, V Scarduelli, V A B Zagatto, D Abriola et al Phys. Rev. C 101 044604 (2020).
Sunday D Olorunfunmi and Armand Bahini Bra. J. Phys. 52 11 (2022).
K Wang, Y Y Yang, V Guimarães, D Y Pang, F F Duan, Z Y Sun et al Phys. Rev. C. 105 054616 (2022).
S Hamada and A A Ibraheem Int. J. Mod. Phy. E. 31 2250019 (2022).
A H Amer, Z A Mahmoud and Y E Penionzhkevich Nucl. Phys. A. 1020 122398 (2022).
V Durant and P Capel Phys Rev. C. 106 044608 (2022).
U Umbelino, R Lichtenthäler, O C Santos, K C Pires, A S Serra, V Scarduelli et al Phys. Rev. C. 106 054602 (2022).
L R Gasques, L C Chamon and G P Cessel Eur. Phys. J. A. 58 102 (2022).
S Hamada, A H Al-Ghamdi, A A Alholaisi, A A Ibraheem, N Amangeldi and Y Abdou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E. 2350015 (2023).
L C Chamon, L R Gasques and J C Zamora J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 49 035101 (2022).
M N El-Hammamy J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 17 2175577 (2023).
M N El-Hammamy, A Ibraheem, M E Farid, E F Elshamy and S Hamada Revista Mexicana de Física 69 031201–1 (2023).
D T Khoa, W von Oertzen, H G Bohlen and S Ohkubo J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 34 R111 (2007).
D T Khoa, G R Satchler and W von Oertzen Phys. Rev. C 56 954 (1997).
M E Brandan and G R Satchler Phys. Rep. 285 142 (1997).
G R Satchler and W G Love Phys. Rep. 55 183 (1979).
L C Chamon, L R Gasques and B V Carlson Phys. Rev. C 101 034603 (2020).
M Rhoades-Brown, M H Macfarlane and S C Pieper Phys. Rev. C 21 2417 (1980).
M H Macfarlane and S C Pieper, Argonne National Laboratory Report No. ANL-76-11 (1978) (unpublished).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Olorunfunmi, S.D., Adeojo, S.A. & Bahini, A. Investigation of elastic scattering angular distributions of \(^{12,13}\)C + \(^{90, 91, 92, 94, 96}\)Zr: a comparative analysis of different optical model potentials. Indian J Phys (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-023-03025-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-023-03025-y