Deuteroninduced reactions at low and medium energies: Consistent direct and statistical model analyses
C. Project description
C3. Method and approach.
The complexity of the deuteron interaction with nuclei has triggered the need to consider carefully several distinct reaction types, for which various approximations have been still widelyused so far. They are briefly reviewed hereafter, to provide a sound motivation of the concluding work plan.
C3.1 Improved Optical Model Potentials for low energy deuterons
Since no global OMP describes reasonably well the elastic scattering data in the energy range up to 20 MeV4,5,6,9,10, so that particular analysis of differential elastic scattering cross sections and reaction cross sections should provide the appropriate OMP. First, in order to reduce the phenomenological character of such analyses the semimicroscopic optical potential based on a doublefolding model (DF) real part10,11,12 and phenomenological imaginary and spinorbits terms will be involved. The parameters of phenomenological imaginary and spinorbits terms will be determined by a fit of experimental13 elasticscattering differential and reaction cross sections of deuterons on, e.g., 54,56,58,natFe and 58,60,61,62,natNi nuclei, using a local modified version of the computer code SCAT214. It should be emphasized that no adjustable parameter or normalization constant are involved for the real (DF) potential, in order to couple the imaginary and spinorbit part so that the predictive power of the semimicroscopic potential is preserved.
Next, the imaginary and spinorbit potential parameters obtained by the semimicroscopic data analysis are kept fixed within a second step of the present analysis, while the microscopic real potential is changed with a phenomenological WoodsSaxon one in order to obtain a full phenomenological OMP requested by the codes devoted to the reactions cross section calculations. The real OMP parameters are obtained from the fit of the same data base used in the first step of analysis. The advantage of having well settled already at least half of the usual OMP parameters increases obviously the effectiveness of fitting the data, similarly to the αparticle case15.
C3.2 Deuteron breakup effects on activation cross sections
The deuteron breakup (BU) mechanism is responsible for the enhancement of many reactions along the whole incidentenergy range, so that its contribution to the deuteron interaction overview has to be taken explicitly into account48. The physical picture of the deuteronbreakup in the Coulomb and nuclear fields of the target nucleus considers two distinct chains, namely the elasticbreakup (EB) in which the target nucleus remains in its ground state and none of the deuteron constituents interacts with it, and the inelasticbreakup or breakup fusion (BF), where one of these deuteron constituents interacts with the target nucleus while the remaining one is detected.
Concerning the energy dependence of the inelastic and elasticbreakup components, the interest of the deuteron activation for incident energies up to 30 MeV has motivated an additional check of the elasticbreakup parameterization47 extension beyond the energies formerly considered for the derivation of its actual form. Actually, our parameterization has been obtained from the analysis of the protonemission spectra and angular distributions from deuteroninduced reactions on nuclei from Al to Pb at incident energies from 15 to 80 MeV, while an energy range of only 1530 MeV was available for the empirical elasticbreakup systematics. Thus, in the absence of available experimental deuteron elasticbreakup data at incident energies above 30 MeV, the correctness of an eventual extrapolation should be checked by comparison of the related predictions with results of an advanced theory as, e.g., the ContinuumDiscretized CoupledChannels (CDCC) method16.
The elasticbreakup component is treated within the CDCC formalism as an inelastic excitation of the projectile due to the nuclear and Coulomb interactions with the target nucleus. Consideration of this excitation is performed through the coupling of the projectile unbound excited states in the solution of the scattering problem by means of the coupled channels approach. The deuteron scattering is analyzed within a threebody model, comprising the twobody excited projectile and the inert target nucleus. We performed a CDCC analysis for elasticbreakup of deuterons on 63Cu and 93Nb nuclei17 and concluded that the extrapolation of the empirical parameterization beyond 30 MeV should be done with caution. The CDCC model provides an useful guidance for the assessment of these extrapolations accuracy, so that an extended CDCC analysis on more nuclei and various incident energies is highly requested within this project in order to improve the existing phenomenological approach of elasticbreakup component.
C3.3 Stripping and pickup processes
An increased attention should be devoted to the direct interactions very poorly accounted so far in deuteron activation cross sections analysis. For deuteron energies below and around the Coulomb barrier the interaction of deuterons with target nuclei proceeds largely through direct reaction (DR) processes, while increasing the incident energy, processes like preequilibrium emission (PE) or evaporation from fully equilibrated compound nucleus (CN) become also important.
Apart from the breakup contributions to deuteron interactions, the DR mechanisms like stripping and pickup have to be properly considered in order to describe the low energy side of the (d,p), (d,n) and (d,t) excitation functions48. The DR contribution to the (d,p), (d,n) and (d,t) reaction cross sections, through population of the lowlying discrete levels of residual nuclei, will be calculated using the code FRESCO18, based on the CoupledReaction Channels (CRC) method, and post form distortedwave transition amplitude with finiterange interaction. The n–p interaction in deuteron is described with a Gaussian potential interaction while the neutron respectively proton bound states are generated in a WoodsSaxon real potential. However, qualitative improvements can be possible in the description of dn interaction in triton involving so far a WoodsSaxon potential19.
Actually, the (d,p) reaction has been of critical importance for the nuclear structure studies, with reference to the weaker (d,n) stripping or (d,t) pickup reactions. Thus, the spectroscopic factors extracted from the analysis of experimental angular distributions of the corresponding emitted protons/neutrons did contribute to the validation of the nuclear shell model, taking into account that the nucleon from the deuteron is transferred to a singleparticle state of the residual nucleus. Consequently, the rich systematics of the achieved experimental spectroscopic factors makes possible the calculation of almost total stripping and pickup crosssection contribution to the deuteron activation.
A particular note should concern the (d,t) pickup mechanism contribution to the total (d,t) activation cross section, usually neglected in spite of its unique contribution at low energies, between its threshold and the (d,dn) and (d,p2n) thresholds leading to the same residual nucleus.
C3.4 Statistical particle emission
The PE+CN reaction mechanisms less fast, completing the deuteron interaction analysis, will be considered using the related computer code STAPREH20. A consistent set of statistical model parameters21 should and will be validated using independent experimental data for, e.g., neutron total cross sections, proton reaction cross sections, level densities and resonance data, and gamma ray strength functions based on neutroncapture data22. On the other hand, no free parameter is involved for the PE description within the corresponding generalized Geometry Dependent Hybrid model. However a particular comment concerns the initial configuration of excited particles (p) and holes (h) for deuteroninduced reactions. Our previous analysis5 pointed out 2p1h initial configuration instead of the more usual 3p1h. This point should be completely settled by further analysis of the measured and calculated cross sections obtained using various (p,h) configurations23. The comparison of various calculations, including their sensitivity to model approaches and parameters, should and will concern all activation channels for which there are measured data. Finally, the proper description of all reaction channels of deuteron incident on a specific target nucleus will be looked for in order to validate the consistent account of all reaction mechanisms involved in the deuteron interaction with nuclei.
C3.5 Particular innovative approach
Beyond other various novel items, the complexity of deuteronbreakup process and its effects on the various deuteron reaction cross sections will be additionally concerned within this project since there are so far notable deuteroninduced reaction studies24 that took into account only the statistical emission and eventually a 'reduction factor' of the compound nucleus cross section due to 'direct processes'. However, this reduction factor does not allow the distinction between processes such as the breakup and stripping mechanisms that lead to quite different energy ranges of the consequently emitted particles. On the other hand, considering only the 'reduction factor', the inelastic BU enhancement of the activation cross section is totally ignored by these studies. Thus it results the importance of detailed theoretical treatment of the breakup contribution in order to obtain a reliable understanding of the interaction process as well as accurate deuteron activation cross sections.
C3.5 Work plan and milestones/year [senior researcher (SR) / postdoctoral (PD) time commitments]

Consistent analysis of deuteron interaction with mediummass nuclei at low energies, triggered by the direct reaction consideration.

Breakup cross sections components calculations corresponding to deuteron interactions with mediummass nuclei at incident energy E<60 MeV.

Consistent analysis of deuteron interaction with the 54,56,58,natFe nuclei at low energies.

Consistent analysis of deuteron interaction with the 58,60,61,62,natNi nuclei at low energies.
[3 manmonths SR, on stripping and pickup reaction microscopic description and outlook]
[12 manmonths SR, on improved BU and model parameter sets; 12 manmonths PD, on systematic analysis of BU data in broad mass and energy ranges, using the CDCC method]
[12 manmonths SR, on DR, PE, and CN consistent account; 12 manmonths PD, on inclusive neutron/proton emissionspectra analysis for settling the contributing mechanisms]
[12 manmonths SR, on DR, PE, and CN consistent account and model parameter sets; 12 manmonths PD, on BU improved description and systematic BU component studies]
References
 [9] M. Avrigeanu, W. von Oertzen, U. Fischer, and V. Avrigeanu, Nucl. Phys. A 759, 327 (2005).
 [10] M. Avrigeanu et al., in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Nuclear Reaction Mechanisms, 1216 June 2006, Varenna, Italy (Ricerca Sci. Edu. Perm., Milano, 2006), p. 193.
 [11] M. Avrigeanu et al., Nucl. Phys. A 693, 616 (2001); I.V. Krouglov, M. Avrigeanu, W. von Oertzen, Eur. Phys. J. A 12, 399 (2001); M. Avrigeanu et al., Phys. Rev. C 62, 017001 (2000).
 [12] M. Avrigeanu, W. von Oertzen, A.J.M. Plompen, and V. Avrigeanu, Nucl. Phys. A 723, 104 (2003); M. Avrigeanu, W. von Oertzen, and V. Avrigeanu, Nucl. Phys. A 764, 246 (2006).
 [13] Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data (EXFOR), http://wwwnds.iaea.org/exfor/exfor.htm.
 [14] O. Bersillon, Code SCAT2, Note CEAN2227, 1992.
 [15] M. Avrigeanu, A. C. Obreja, F. L. Roman, V. Avrigeanu, and W. von Oertzen, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 95, 501 (2009); M. Avrigeanu, V. Avrigeanu, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014606 (2010).
 [16] M. Kamimura et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 89, S1 (1986); A.M. Moro et al.,Phys. Rev. C 80, 064606 (2009).
 [17] M. Avrigeanu and A. M. Moro, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054605 (2010).
 [18] I.J. Thompson, Comput. Phys. Rep. 7, 167 (1988); computer code v. FRES 2.3 (2007).
 [19] Y. Iseri, M. Yahiro and M. Kamimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 89, 84 (1986).
 [20] M. Avrigeanu et al., Report NP861995, IPNE, Bucharest; News NEA Data Bank 17, 22 (1995).
 [21] V. Avrigeanu, P.E. Hodgson, and M. Avrigeanu, Phys. Rev. C 49, 2137 (1994).
 [22] M. Avrigeanu et al., Nucl. Phys. A 806, 15 (2008); V. Semkova et al., Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 255; V. Avrigeanu et al., J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. Suppl 2, 746 (2002).
 [23] M. Avrigeanu et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. 112, 191 (1998); A.Harangozo, I.Stetcu, M.Avrigeanu, and V.Avrigeanu, Phys. Rev. C 58, 295 (1998).
 [24] S. Sudar et al., Phys. Rev C 50, 2408 (1994); 53, 2885 (1996); I. AlQuraishi et al., Phys. Rev. C 62, 044616 (2000); A.V. Voinov et al., Phys. Rev. C 74, 014314 (2006); A.V. Voinov et al., Phys. Rev. C 76, 044602 (2007); A.V. Voinov et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 031301(R) (2009).