Speaker
Description
Deficiencies in describing the elastic and especially inelastic components of the deuteron breakup (BU) motivate the actual full parametrization of the available deuteron data [1] better than TENDL-2021 deuteron sub-library [2] based on the widely-used TALYS nuclear model code system [3]. Various merely phenomenological descriptions of the available direct-reaction $(d,p)$ stripping data are also yet adopted [4] while microscopic calculation of inclusive BU and DR cross sections ({\it e.g.}, [5]) are still numerically tested. On the other hand, due consideration of all elastic-breakup (EB), breakup-fusion (BF), direct-reaction (DR), pre-equilibrium emission (PE), and evaporation from fully equilibrated compound nucleus (CN) processes ({\it e.g.}, [6]), has been found crucial [7] for a consistent analysis of the deuteron-reaction data and even high production of proton-rich nuclei [8], while insufficient treatment and separation between different reaction mechanisms such as DR and BU components [9] may be related to deviations between measurements and advanced surrogate reaction studies [10].
Nevertheless, suitable account of all available excitation-function of deuterons on $A\sim$90 nuclei up to 60 MeV has been proved by consistent analysis of elastic scattering and consequent optical-potential validation, EB and BU parametrization [11] checked by microscopical Continuum-Discretized Coupled-Channels (CDCC) formalism calculations, BF enhancement of various $(d,x)$ reaction cross sections, DR results using DWBA spectroscopic factors from data analysis of available particle-emission angular distributions, as well as PE+CN statistical decay. This approach involved for the target nuclei $^{27}$Al, $^{51,nat}$V, $^{50,52,53,54,nat}$Cr, $^{55}$Mn, $^{54,56,57,58,nat}$Fe, $^{59}$Co, $^{58,60,61,62,64,nat}$Ni, $^{63,65,nat}$Cu, $^{90,91,92,94,96,nat}$Zr, and $^{93}$Nb ([12] and Refs. therein), pointed out the BU enhanced role with the target-nucleus mass/charge increase as well as the BU dominance around the Coulomb barrier for heavy nuclei as, {\it e.g.}, $^{231}$Pa [13].
The overall agreement between the measured and calculated data validates this model approach while the comparison with the global predictions underlines the effects of overlooking the BF enhancement as well as the stripping and pick-up processes. This is particularly important for the $(d,p)$, $(d,2p)$, and $(d,xn)$ excitaton functions on target nuclei from $^{27}$Al to $^{100}$Mo where the role of the stripping and breakup mechanism is evidenced as the reason of the apparent discrepancies. Thus, the essential role of the stripping mechanism in $(d,p)$ and $(d,n)$ reactions is played by the BF processes for the $(d,2p)$, $(d,2n)$, and $(d,3n)$ reactions, all of them being of interest for the evaluation of the H and neutron production({\it e.g.}, [14]).
Actually, the key advantage of the consistent theoretical approach of the deuteron interactions, supported by advanced codes associated to the nuclear reaction mechanisms, is especially its predictive power. Therefore, update of the theoretical framework of deuteron-nucleus interaction will improve the evaluation predictions for target nuclei and incident energies where data are still missing but strongly requested by the current engineering design projects.
[1] J. Engle {\it et al.}, Nuclear Data Sheets {\bf 155}, 56 (2019).
[2] A.J. Koning {\it et al.}, Nuclear Data Sheets {\bf 155}, 1 (2019).
[3] A.J. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, https://www-nds.iaea.org/talys/tutorials/talys_v1.96.pdf.
[4] F. T\' ark\' anyi {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 57}, 21 (2021); {\it ibid.} {\bf 57}, 223 (2021).
[5] Y.S. Neoh {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 94}, 044619 (2016); K. Ogata and K. Yoshida, {\it ibid.} {\bf 94}, 051603(R) (2016).
[6] M. Avrigeanu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 89}, 044613 (2014); {\it ibid.} {\bf 94}, 014606 (2016).
[7] V. Jha, V. Parkar, and S. Kailas, Physics Reports {\bf 845}, 1 (2020).
[8] H. Wang {\it et al.}, Communications Physics {\bf 2}, 78 (2019).
[9] M. Avrigeanu and V. Avrigeanu, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. {\bf 724}, 012003 (2016).
[10] J.J. Cowan {\it et al.}, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 93}, 015002 (2021).
[11] M. Avrigeanu {\it et al.}, Fus. Eng. Design {\bf 84}, 418 (2009); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 95}, 024607 (2017);
Eur. Phys. J. A {\bf 58}:3 (2022).
[12] E.~\v Sime\v ckov\'a {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 104}, 044615 (2021).
[13} M. Avrigeanu, V. Avrigeanu, and A. J. Koning, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 85}, 034603 (2012).
[14] N. Zimber {\it et al.}, J. Nucl. Mat. {\bf 535}, 152160 (2020).
