A major purpose of the Techni-

cal Information Center is to provide

the broadest dissemination possi-
Me of information contained in
DOE’s Research and Development
Reports to business, industry, the
academic community, and federal,
state and local governments.
Although a small portion of this
report IS not reproducible, it is
being made available to expedite
the availability of information on the
research discussed herein.
-..

1 A
LA-cJn -90-1630

LOS Alamos Nal, onal Laboratory IS .Jperaled by Iha LIn@lSllY Of cFillfOffM fO~ Ihe United slale~ D@pallmanl of Energy under Conlracl W.7405-ENG.36

LA-uR--9O-163O

13E90 011974

TITLE GLOBALNUCLEAR-STRUCTURECALCULATIONS

AUTHOR(S)
Peter Moller and J. Rayford Nix

SUBMIITED TO
For presentation at the Conference on Nuclear Structure [n the
Nineties, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 23-27, 1990

DI.S(”I,AIMKR

“This rcpwl wa~ prcpnrcd IIS un tircounl d work qmmsorcd hy wr Hncnty ufthc IImtd stales
(kwcrnmenl Neither Ihc Ilrrilcd SIIIICS (hwcrnmcnt nor wsy :Ipcncy Ih<red, nor #rsy or Ihelr
crsII’IIIIyccs, nmkcs unv wmmviy, caprcm w Impl
Icd, or awumcs my ICMIII Iikhdny or rcspm!l.
hilily for lhc mxurtwy, (tmlplclcncm, ~w udulnc~g or uny mhmnu!iwv, tipparulu~, prmluci, III
proccw di.dtml, or rcprcscms ihwt ils uw w(wsld no! infrmnc prw:licly owned rlghls, Rcfcr-
cnct herein III Any qmdiv t,tmlmcrt.lnl ptnlutl, proccw, or scrvltc hy Irmlc rsnmc, !rudcrsmrk,
mmsufnclurcr, or o!hcrwmc dtws n~li ncucswmly tmsstilulc (Jr mIply IIS cmlorwmcnll rccorvl-
mcmldion, or fworirrR hy Ihc Ilnilcd SIIIIr! (ilwurnmcn! tlr uny pscrrcy !hcrcd Ihc VICWS
mrd opinions d nulhtws rmprcwcd hcrcm do not nctrssarlly aIIIr or rcflcd [ht!rnc d !hc
Ilnilml S!ntcs(i(jvcrnll~cltl ur unyugcncy Ihcrd

Los Alamos National Laboratory

lk)~~k)’~~~ LosAlamos,NewMexi.087545 ),1
{’
 Global Nuclear-Structure Calculations

Peter Mi.iller and ,J. Rayford Nix

April 20, 1990

For presentation at the

Conference m Nuclear Struct~m in the Nineti(!s
oak Ridge, Texmessec, April 23-27, l!YX)

I’rf’llrilll. 14t\ [Jl{! )() /~, .-i I“

 GLOBAL NUCLEAR-STRUCTURE CALCULATIONS

Peter MOLLER and J. Rayford NIX

Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamoq, NM 87545

AbE tract: The revival of interest in nuclear ground- etate oct upole deformations that occurred in the
1980’s was ntirnulated by observat ionu in 1980 of particularly large deviations between calcu-
lated and experimental masses in the Ra region, in a global calculation of nuclear ground-state
maasem By minimizing the total potential energy with respect to octupole l~hape degrees of free-
dom in addition to q and C4 used originally, a vastly improved agreement between calculated
and experimental masses was obtained. To etudy the global behaviour and interrelationships
between other nuclear properties, we calculate nuclear ground-state masses, spins, pairing gaps
and /3-decay half-lives and compare the results to experimental quantities. The calculations arc
baaed on the macroscopic-microscopic approach, with the microscopic contribut ions calculated
in a foIded-Yukawa single-particle potential,

1. Introduction

Theoretical studies based on single-particle models and its various extensions, such as
the macroscopic-microscopic method and RPA treatments of additional residual interactions,
have over the la~t 40 years been enormoudy successful in providing a quantitative theoretical
interpretation of a large number of different low-energy nuclear-structure properties. In the
early 1950’s the nuclear magic numbers were explained in terms of a simple spherical singlc-
particle model with a epin-orbit interaction with an adjustable spin-orbit strength. In 1s55
Niluson 1, extended the model to a deformed single-particle well and this model was very
successful in interpreting a vast amount of experimental low-energy spectroscopic data.
The single-particle model serves as a starting point in the macroscopic-microscopic method
for calculating the nuclear potential energy aa a function of shape. To obtain the potcntinl
energy in this approach, a macroscopic energy is calculated in a model ouch an the liquid-drop
model for the shape of interest, single-particle levels are calculated for a WCIIof this shape mid
used to determine a microscopic oheU correction by use of Strutinsky ’s method 2), The totid
potential energy is then obtained as the sum of the macroscopic term plus microscopic shell
and pairing corrections. By calculating the potential energy for a large number of shapes one
may determine nuclear ground-state shapes and manes, fission barriers and fission isomer;:
st.ntcs, At this conferenc~ we will aloo hear about how the macroscopic-microscopic nppronch
has been extended to studies of i~igh-epin phenomena,
m single-particle model also serves as a starting point for cmlculmting vnriouo trnllsition-
rute nuclear matrix elements, onc example of cxttmsive studies of this type is the modr]ling
of Gamow-Teller /3-strength functions, Since the transition amplitude is sensitive to mmnll
pcrturbaticm from residual interaction it is nccemnry to add a residual pniring and n rmidun]
( ;nmow-’l’cllcr interaction to the hoic single-pmrticlc model to obtain reasonable ngrmvncnt
with dnta,
7’hc gonl of thcorcticd studies of the above type is to umicrntand experirnentnlly ohmrvd
properties of nuclei in tmmn of n simple underlying I)hysical picture, Usunlly a mode] rnn Im
chmnctcrizcd an providing such a ~imide underlying physicnl pic~ure only if it hns rdntivrly
%w pnramctcrs. Although few- pararnctcr models oft~n exhibit Inrgm rlcvimtionn brt wmn ml.
rulnted resultO IA dntn than multi -pnramdcr mm!rla do, them dcvifltions nfc often open tt)
 ~ 10
-a)

>
g-lo
5
00
“a
~ -lo
~
.-50
2
-10
0 20 40 60 100 120
80 140 160
Neutron Number IV

Figure 1: Difference between experimental and calculated ground-state maaBes (bottom part
of figure). The deviations at about N = 132 are mostly removed by considering octupole
~hape degrees of freedom when minimizing the potential energy.

interpretations thnt yield new physical insight. The deviations may, for example, be due t.o n
known approximation in the model or reveal a previously unsuspected phenomenon.
The model used here represents a unified macroscopic-microscopic approach with about 10
parameters in the macroscopic part and 10 in the single-particle model, not counting obvious
parnmetern such as the proton and neutron mama, Plww.k’o constant, the speed of light, etc.
r nim here is to show some remarkable strengths and some weaknesses of these singlc-
(III

pmrticle-bmed models by applying them globally to calculations of ouch diverge propertied aB

ground-otate mamee, deformations, spins and pairing effecto, /3-decay propertied, fimion-bnrrier
Btructure and spontancoun-fimion half- liveo,

2. Calculated rcsulte

2,1. GR()[JNI)-STATE MASSES

At thin Eeeoion ~nd at this conference it is pnrticulmrly appropriate for uu to IIhow the com-
pnrimn between c&ulat,*d nuclear ground.ztate masocn and cxperirnentnl rinta in fig. 1, ‘1’hin
figure rcprwmntn the rmultt of our first global calculation 3’4) of nuclear-structure properlim, in
whi.:h Illicroscopic cflcctn were tnken into account. Experimental and calculated ninglc-pmticlc
ci~rrcctionti nre shown in the top two portiuno of the figure, nnd their difference, which in nloo
the (Iiff’errnce between calculated and cxperimcnhd mamce, io ohown in the bottom pnrt,
‘1’hc Iigurc im nppmpridc for this ocsuion hccnllse we rcnlizcd thnt the unuuurdly Inrgc de-
vintionn ccntrmhl nround “’lla could poaoildy be rmnovcd hy minimizing the potentinl rnmgv
with rrmpect to IJmpc degrcm of freedom in nddition to the Cannd C4pnramcterm thnt wmc cml-
Ridcrrd in the mdculntion ohown ill fig, 1, It wan nnturr.] to conoider r)ctupolr nhr.pe degrmw (I(

2
 Model spin and parity compared to experiment
I n 1 I 1 I I
I
lr’’’ll’’’ llJ’’I’ll J 1“’’1’’”1 1’”4+

70 Rare earths % d-
60

50

40 A= 100
J
30
J!
20

10
k
Iiiil!L
Fll:lll,,l
I

1111,1,,1,1,1lJll,ll,,,l,,l,
1,1,111 bud
s Agreement
‘1
o Disagreement
-
q

0
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Neutron Number N
Fig’Jre 2: Comparison of calculated and experimental nuclear ground-state Bpins for odd-even
nuclei. Spherical spin assignments are used in the calculations when Ital <0,15. Many of the
discrepancies occur where several levels are grouped close together.

freedom because of the low-lying negative-parity states in this region, and our initial study 3,
clearly showed that the octupole degree of freedom almost entirely removed the discrepancy
Lctween the calculated and experimental masses in the vicinity of 22aRa, In the heavy -actinide
region the co shape degre of fr=dom lowers the ground-state mass by up to 1 MeV close tc
262Fm which dccreaacs the discrepancy beyond Pb to almost zero.
Th’e figure in dso ~ppropriate in the larger context of this conference, dedicated to the
memory of George Leander. When he learned of these reoults, very shortly after they ware
obtuined, he jumped on the bump in the Ra region, and with characteristic energy and en-
thusiasm he immediately suggested a large variety of calculations that should be undertaken.
When one of u~ (PM) cautioned that it would be a little difficult becaume the codes that were
initially required ran only on computern at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, hc very nim-
ply overcame thin obstacle by going to Los Alamos and performing the calculations there, If is
first vinit to this Laborniory led to one of him first papers ‘) in hio long otring of publicntio[,s
on this oubjcct.

2,2. G1lOIJN1l. STATE SPINS

The moot importmt parameters in the folded-Yukawa single-pnrticle model nre the dif-
fumcncsa und spin-orbit pmameters, which were rictcrmined 0, in 1974 in the rare-earth mnd
wtinide regions from comp~riscmo between calculated and experimental ainglc-pnrtir.]c Icvrl
ordering. The global nuchr-mam etudy 3, in 1981 introduced a parmmctcr net valid for the
entire nuclcnr chnrt in terms of an cxpres~,un for the spin-orbit pnrnmeter that is lincnr in
A N I Z, with the exprcuoion fully defined by the prcvimdy dcterminml pmrnmctcr vnl-

3
 Model spin and parity compared to experiment
LI 1 I I
I“JII1’’’I11111I11’”1’”I’ llll’l’’ll’’’l’’lld

120 :

44n
I Iv
- I -

100

90

80

70

60

50~17’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’”” ‘ 1111111Jj
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Neutron Number Al
Figure 3: Similar to fig. 2, but for the heavy region. The discrepanaes in the beginning of
the actinide region are mootly removed by minimizing the potential energy also with respect
to octupole ~hape degrem of fkcedom.

ues in the actinide and rare-earth regionn. The parameter-determination procedure is fairly
subjective, because it is not baaed on exact comparisons between all available data and calcu-
lations, Instead, it typica!ly proceedo by calculating mingle-particle level diagram~ ag functions
of deformation for neveral parameter sets, comparing their structure to a few selected nuclei
and forming an opinion on which of the parameter sets gives the best agreement.
13ccause wc now have available nuclear ground-state shapes from our ca.lculationo ofground-
state mos5es, we are in a pobition to compare calculated and experimental ground- otate epins
in a well-defined manner, an ohown in figs. 2 and 3. The only ambiguity IS how to compare the
spins for nuclei calculated to be weakly deformed. We have chosen to bale the comparison on
spherical Msignments if Ica[ < 0,15 in the calculations. With thi: rule we obtain agreement
in 428 caaea and dimgreement in 285 caoea, correcpanding to 6@% agreement. Thi~ result is
not very oen~itive to changes in the rule concerning when to ume ophericaJ amignmcnts, In
fnct, if we always choooe opherical assignment if this choice yiclda agreement with data wc
obtain agreement in about 450 cane and disagreement in 248 cama, 00 that the irnprovcrnent
in l:IC agreement io only 4Y0. The disagreements between the calculated and cxpcrimcntu]
apina uoua.Hy arise because eeveral deformed or spherical ICVCIElie very clone together, making
accurntc ca.lculutiono difficult. For magic numbers there ia an almoat otunning ngrccmcut,
which, tnkcn together with our annlynio of the diaagrmmen!e in other rrgiona, makeo it u]llikcly
thmt a aigniiicarttly better global p~rameter set can be found. The cxieting dimgrccmcntg
probably have to be cxplainml in terms of residual intcractionb outside the framew~~rk of the
single-pnrtic]c nlodel.

4
 2

0
\ Lipkin-Nogami

1
Calculated
2
AG= rB, /N1n
‘? r= 3.30 MeV
---A-
1 ~ L. I
0
2

.1 ~~

0 20 40 60 80 100120140 160
Neutron Number N
Figure 4: Neutron pairing gaps calculated in the Lipkin-Nogami approximation, with an
optimized effective-interaction pairing gap AC, compared to experimental odd-even mass dif-
ferences, Much of the discrepancy probably arisem because the odd-even mass differencco do
not yield precisely the pairing gap. The t~o large discrepancies at IV % 90 are probably due
to errors in experimental maasen.

2.3. PAIRING GAPS

The nuclear pairing residual interaction exertm n powerful influence on nuclear ground-
Btate properties. Recently, several investigations have suggested an isoapin dependence of
the average pairing gap, specifically a tiecre~e of the pairing gap with neutron CXCCHO.In m
more detailed analynis 7, we have found that for meaningful statements on the dependence
of nuclear pairing properties on neutron excess one must dimtinguinh between the pairing gap
thnt is oAsemed through odd-even mam differences, and the eflccfiuc-intemcf ion pairing gap
AC. From the latter quantity the pairing constant G used in micro~copic modclo CmI be
determined throughout the periodic syotem, We have calculated microscopic pairing gaps
for about 1400 ~luclcar ground states for sufficiently many parameter ncto of the efTective-
intcrnction pairing gap da to perform leaat-oquares minimizations of the deviations between
the calculated pairing gapm and experimental pairing gapm determined rrom ~dd-even mnsn
diffcrcnccn, In practice this mco M we have oolvcd the microscopic pniring equations for 1400
nuclei for nbout 200 different pnrameter vnluc~. We find no ezplicif tiospin dependence of the
c(fcctivc- interaction pairing pmumctero, In fact, the uimplc expreanion~

5
 tiamow- I eller p“ decay, CIRPA model (LN)
103
;''''● ''n''
+ ''''' '' T'''' ''''' ''''' ''''' ''''' ''''' ''''' m'''' ''''''T''''''':
o
+ :0 +
102 ●
+
+

+ o
●

10’ ~p

++
●6
+

,0-1 o
=
+ o
a

+
● even
+
10-2 5
0 odd 7
+ odd-odd
r
, (J-3 11111111111111111111111 !111 1111111 lllllllllllldlllll 111111111111111111111111

o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Neutron Number Al
Figure 5: Calculated half-lives for ~+ decay compared to expenmeutal data for all known cases
with Z’~~~ < 100 s, The symbols refer to the mother nucleus. As has been common practice,
we have multiplied the calculated half-lives by 2, to account for the “missing stren}~th, ” but
as discussed in the text these calculations show no evidence of missing strength.

AG = rB, /N’f3 for neutrons and A,G = rB,/Z’i3 for protons

where B, is the surface area of the deformed nucleus relative to spherical shape represent
our final result 7), The single parameter haa the value r = 3.30 MeV in the Lipkin-Nogami
approximation 819) and r = 480 MeV in the BCS approximation. An example of res.lts
obtained is showri in fig. 4. In contrast to the statement by Pradhan, Nogami end Law’) that
“Anyone who has a computer programrne for the usual BCS calculation can readily do the LN
calculation ., . “ we found that designing a fast computer program that would reliably converge
in millions of calculations with rvafkdic single-particle spectra, as contrasted to the two-level
model investigated in ref. ‘), WM a formidable task, In this effort we received frequent and
crucial advice from Leander and Nazarewicz, who had initially motivated us to investigate the
Lipkln-Nogami approxin ~tion as an altern~tive to the BCS approximation.

2.4. D-STRENGTH FUNCTIONS

Gamow-Teller nuclear J3-decay strength functions often depend characteristically on the
deformation of the decaying system 10’11)) with rLfew strong peaks present for Bphcrical nuclei,
but with a more spread-out appearance for deformed nuclei. We have based a calculation
of ~-decay half-lives for all experimentally known nuclei with T~;J < 100 ~ on a model ‘]l’Z)
that constructs the wave functions of the mother and daughter nuclei by considering cleformcd
single-particle wave functions M the starting point, adding pairing and Gamow-Teller residual
intcrnctions and treating the problem in the Quasi. particle RPA approximation (Q RPA). Wc
 Gamow-Teller ~- decay, QRPA model (LN)
103 I I 11 rl I I I
l“’’’’’’’ 1’’’’’’’’’ 1’’’’” “’l’’’’’’’”
o
0
0 ● 00 ●
102z ●
ma 00

s
++ +“@ \ o
● +0
●
●, Q

10’~ ‘% ●
o
~ ++ b
+

~loo ~
2
10-’ ~ ● + -
0 +
+
● even
,0-2 - O odd

10-3 Llt,,it:
0 20 40 60 80
+ odd-odd

100
Neutron Number N
Figure 6: !3imilar to fig. 5 but for /3- decay. Because leas than 10 nuclei with T~/~ < 100 s are
known for IV >100 the plot was terminated at N = 100 for greater cla~ty.

display the first global results we have obtained in this model in figs. 5 and 6 for d+ and
~- decay, respectively. The calculation is based on folded-Yukawa wave functions and the
Lipkin-Nogami pairing model, where the preliminary value AC = 9.0 MeV/A’la value was
used, Following conventional practice ‘lI’a) we have “renormahzed” the calculated Etrength
by dividing the model results by 2. We find, roughly, that the centroid of the distribution of
the ratio tCdC/t=V is about 4 for the even-even case, and about 2 for the two odd cases. The
number of even cases in each plot is about 50 and the number of the odd and odd-odd cases
is about 200. Thus, a renormalization of the strength seems unwarranted. The spread of the
distributions around the centroids range from about a factor of 4 to about a factor of 8, with
the smallest spread obtained for the even-even cases. We are still in the process of interpreting
these results, While we were generalizing the @strength programs to accept folded. Yukawa
wave functions aa input, we recaved, naturally, advice to shortcuts from George Leander:
“Why don’t you use the code I wrote for Woods-Saxon wave functions? I think you use the
same basis functions in the folded- Yukawa program, so you can probably uge it without much
tnodification, ” This helpful ad~ice saved us considerable time.

2,5, ASTROPHYSICAL APPLICATIONS

Fimdly, we illustrate the importance of global nuclear-structure calculations for astrophys-
ical applications, In fig. 7 wc show the difference between calculated ~-decay energies and
fission-barrier heights for actinide nuclei. In the gray regions t~,e Q value of the /l decay
cxcced.s the fimion-barrier height, and $delaycd fission is possible in the decay from the r-
process iine to the line of ~ stability. However, detailed calculaticme 13) show that this decay
mode is of minor importance.

7
 aB-fission-barrier height (MeV)
I I I I I
1 [ I I I I I 1 ( 1

100

:1-6
90

‘-5 I
80 “L~~A
I / \l ‘/7 :-A ko
I
o \
-4 -3 -2 :1 0 11
I [ I I 1 I I I 1 1
I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1

140 150 160 170 180

Neutron Number A/
Figure 7: Difference between maximum energy release in ~- decay and calculated fission-
barrier heights. When the energy release in P decay is larger than the fission-barrier height
~-delayed fission is possible, indicated by the shaded areas.

References

1) S. G. Nilsson, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab. Mat. -Fys. Mcdd. 29:N0. 16 (1955)
2) V. M, Strutlnsky, Nucl, Phys, A95 (1967) 420; A122 (1968) 1.
3) P. Mollcr and J. R. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A361 (1981) 117.
4) P. MWer and J. R. PJix, Atomic Data Nucl. Data Tables 26 (1981) 165.
5) G. A. Leander, R, K. Sheline, P, Moller, P. Olanders, I. Ragnarsson, and A. J. Uierk,
Nucl. Phys. A429 (1982) 269.
6) P. Moller, S. G. Nilsson, and J, R. Nix, Nucl, Phys. A229 (1974) 292.
7) P. Moller and J. Nix, Nucl. Phys. A, to be published.
8) Y. Nogami, Phys, Rev. 134 (1964) B313.
9) F. C, Pradhan, Y. Nogami, and J, Law, Nucl, Phys. A201 (1973) 357.
10) A.-L. Kratz, Nucl, Phys. A417 (1984) 447.
11) J. Krurnlinde and P. Mtilier, Nucl. Phys. A417 (1984) 419,
12) P. Moller and J. Wndrup, Nucl. Phys. A (1990), to be published.
13) B. S. Ikfeyer, W, M. Howard, G. J. Mathews. K. Takahashi, P. Mbiler, and G, A.
Leander, Ph:~s. Rev. C39, (1989) 1876.