arxiv: v4 [nucl-ex] 23 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 OSU/Yanez-Grazing Predicting the production of neutron rich heavy nuclei in multi-nucleon transfer reactions using GRZING-F R. Yanez and W. Loveland Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97. (Dated: January 5, 08) arxiv: v [nucl-ex] Jan 08 bstract Background: Multi-nucleon transfer reactions have recently attracted attention as a possible path to the synthesis of new neutron-rich heavy nuclei. Purpose: We study transfer reactions involving massive nuclei with the intention of understanding if the semi-classical model GRZING coupled to an evaporation and fission competition model can satisfactory reproduce experimental data on transfer reactions in which fission plays a role. Methods: We have taken the computer code GRZING and have added fission competition to it (GRZING-F) using our current understanding of Γ n /Γ f, fission barriers and level densities. Results: The code GRZING-F seems to satisfactory reproduce experimental data for +p, +p and +p transfers, but has limitations in reproducing measurements of larger above-target and below-target transfers. Nonetheless, we use GRZING-F to estimate production rates of neutron-rich N = 6 nuclei, actinides and transactinides. Conclusions: The GRZING code, with appropriate modifications to account for fission decay as well as neutron emission by excited primary fragments, does not predict large cross sections for multi-nucleon transfer reactions leading to neutron-rich transactinide nuclei, but predicts opportunities to produce new neutron-rich actinide isotopes. PCS numbers: 5.70.Hi,5.60.Je,5.85.-w,..Lx

2 I. INTRODUCTION Experimentalists have had a long-standing interest in multi-nucleon transfer reactions [, ] hoping to synthesize new neutron-rich isotopes not normally accessible by neutron capture and fusion reactions [ 9]. Cross sections of actinides produced in transfer reactions using light and heavy projectiles and actinide targets were measured by the chemical separation of the products in a series of experiments in the late 70 s and 80 s. The systematic trend that emerged after the series of experiments with U, Cm and Cf targets is that the use of transfer reactions to produce unknown neutron-rich actinides is favorable for below-target species and limited for above-target species. The production of neutron-rich trans-target nuclides up to Fm and Md with cross sections 0.µb were observed. The basic problem in making heavier nuclei was that the higher excitation energies that led to broader isotopic distributions caused the highly excited nuclei to fission. The interest in transfer reactions has been recently boosted by the prediction of larger than expected cross sections for the production of heavy nuclei, within the framework of a dynamical model based on Langevin equations, by taking advantage of shell effects which may favor a large flow of nucleons resulting in the formation of surviving heavy nuclei [, ]. In this picture, low-energy multi-nucleon transfer reactions of very heavy nuclei, such as U+Cm, may produce one primary reaction product in the vicinity of Z = 8, N = 6 closed shells, leaving the second primary product in the actinide or transactinide region with very low excitation energy and thus, with increased probability of surviving fission. This model was able to account for the previously measured radiochemical data []. The motivation and interest in multi-nucleon transfer reactions in Ref. [] and the present paper is two-fold: (a) the possibility of producing the most neutron-rich heavy nuclei for studies using nuclear spectroscopy, atomic physics and chemistry and (b) the difficulty in pursuing the study of nuclei with high atomic numbers using fusion reactions. Traditional cold fusion reactions have production cross sections of 0 fb beyond Z =, and hot fusion reactions have cross sections of the order of a few pb for elements Z 8. The upper limit cross sections for Z = 9 and Z = 0 have been established to be of the order of 0 fb []. This difficulty has spurred the renewed interest in low-energy multi-nucleon transfer reactions as a way of accessing new neutron-rich transactinide nuclei

3 that are closer to the island of stability near the neutron shell N = 8 not accessible by fusion reactions. Multi-nucleon transfer reactions in the quasi-elastic and deep-inelastic regimes have been extensively modeled with the semi-classical description of Winther [, 5], implemented in the computer code GRZING [6]. This code considers the multi-step exchange of nucleons between the colliding nuclei in classical trajectories calculated with a Coulomb plus nuclear interaction. GRZING is known to have shortcomings, i.e. the initial deformations of the nuclei is not taken into account and neutron evaporation from the primary products is the only de-excitation mode considered. s a result, the code has mainly been used to predict yields in light projectile reactions with medium to heavy targets in which the fissility of the reaction products studied is small [7 5]. The theoretical formalism of GRZING is described in depth by Winther [, 5]. n outline of the main ingredients and approximations of the model can be found in the topical review by Corradi, Pollarolo and Szilner [6]. Multi-nucleon transfer reactions have also been studied theoretically using the Fokker- Plank equation [7], the finite-range DWB model [8], the Di-nuclear System model [9], the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory [0], and the Langevin equations []. The GRZING code has recently been informally used to predict yields of products in reactions with planned radioactive beams (EURISOL) and isotope factories (CRIBU), in some cases with actinide targets. In this paper we present an extension to GRZING in which not only neutron evaporation from the excited primary products is considered, but also fission competition. With such additions to the code, reactions where fission effectively competes with neutron emission, e.g. the U+Cm reaction, can be studied and compared to experimental data and other models. II. NEUTRON EVPORTION ND FISSION COMPETITION The competition between neutron emission and fission is simulated with the classical formalism of Vandenbosch and Huizenga [], Γ n Γ f = ( / a f (E B n ) K 0 a n ( a f (E B f ) ) exp ) a n (E B n ) a f (E B f ) where a n and a f are the level density parameters at the equilibrium deformation and saddle point, respectively, B n is the neutron separation energy, B f is the fission barrier and K 0 = ()

4 h /mr 0. The fission barriers B f are taken to be the sum of the Thomas-Fermi barrier [] plus the shell correction term, B f = B LD f + U shell () U shell is taken to be the microscopic energy of the Finite Range Droplet Model (FRDM) []. ngular momentum J is treated by reducing the available energy in Eq. by the rotational energy E r of the fissioning nucleus and scaling the Thomas-Fermi fission barrier with the Sierk barrier []. The fade-out of the shell correction with increasing excitation energy is treated through the level density parameter following the method of Ignatyuk et al. [5], a(u) = ã ( + f(u)δw/u) () where U is the excitation energy, δw = M exp (Z, ) M LD (Z,, α) is the difference between the experimental mass and the theoretical mass within the FRDM (the shell correction to the mass formula), and, f(u) = exp( λu) () is a semi-empirical formula that drives the energy dependence of a. The asymptotic level density parameter ã is given by, ã = α + β / s (5) where s is the surface on the nucleus in units of the equivalent-size sphere. The nuclear surface area S is estimated using the standard expansion of the nuclear radius in spherical harmonics, which for symmetric deformations (as in a nucleus undergoing fission) and ignoring higher order terms, is given by, where S = πr 0 [ + 5 a ] 5 a +... (6) a = ( ) / 5 β (7) π

5 and β is the calculated quadrupole deformation of the nuclear ground state within the FRDM. We use the coefficients obtained with a realistic Wood-Saxon potential [5], α = 0.07, β = 0.095, γ = 0.06 MeV The present simulations take the output of GRZING in the form of the excitation energy E distributions of primary products (Z,) for each partial wave, which is converted into a discrete cumulative probability function, which in turn is used to numerically select an event with the generation of a single random number. Fig. shows the simulated excitation energy distribution in the 6 Xe+ 08 Pb reaction for the partial wave leading to the highest cross section for producing primary product 0 78 Pt (N = 6) at E c.m. =, 50, 56 and 67 MeV. The most probable E is 6.0, 8., 9. and 0.0 MeV, for partial waves L = 6, 56, 88 and 9 h, respectively. The average transferred angular momentum J at the most probable E is 0.0, 0.,. and.5 h, respectively. For each initial event (Z,,E,J), Γ n /Γ f is calculated using Eq. assuming a f = a n. The calculated Γ n /Γ f is tested with a random number to decide whether neutron evaporation or fission happens. If fission happens, the testing of the event is terminated. If neutron evaporation happens, is decreased by one mass number and E is reduced by (B n + E n ), where B n is the neutron binding energy and E n is the neutron kinetic energy sampled randomly with a Maxwellian probability function of nuclear temperature T = ae, E n = T [log(r ) + log(r )] (8) where r and r are two independent random numbers. If J > 0, it is assumed the evaporated neutron carries h of angular momentum. The procedure is iterated until E < B n. Each simulation is performed with the standard set of parameters of GRZING [6] and the de-excitation part is simulated with cascades in a High-Performance Computing Cluster using 0 nodes. This large number of cascades is necessary in order to simulate events with the lowest cross sections. The angular momentum transferred to the primary products is rather modest and it is therefore assumed that J = 0 h in all simulations except where otherwise indicated. In what follows we refer to the simulations described in this section as GRZING-F. 5

6 III. COMPRISON WITH EXPERIMENTL DT We have gathered an extensive set of experimental data to compare with simulations. The reactions we have studied can be divided into two categories; reactions in which the target is a Pb-like nucleus or is an actinide. In the former case, the fissility of the primary fragments is relatively low and fission may be relevant only in the case of very high excitation energy. Some of the experimental studies have been done with very thick targets, which pose a difficulty when comparing to simulation since the reported cross section represents an integrated quantity between the incident and exit projectile energies. If the projectile stops in the target material, the cross section represents an integrated quantity down to the interaction barrier of the reaction. For thin-target experiments (for which the projectile exits the target), the projectile energy used in the simulations was assumed to be the effective mid-target projectile energy, estimated with range tables [6]. For thick-target experiments (for which the projectile stops in the target), the simulations were done in suitable slices of the effective target thickness (the range up to the interaction barrier) and the cross section was calculated as the weighted mean of the slice cross section simulated at the mid-slice energy. We have studied only the yields of surviving target-like products. Table I lists the reactions simulated, the interaction barriers, the simulated transfer and transfer-fission cross sections. The last column of the table is the reference to the experimental data used in the comparisons.. The 8 U+ 8 U, 8 Cm reactions The 8 U+ 8 U and 8 U+ 8 Cm reactions were studied in the late 70s (Ref. []) and 98 (Ref. []), to determine the feasibility of using multi-nucleon transfer and deep-inelastic reactions to synthesize superheavy elements. 8 U beams bombarded thick 8 U and 8 Cm targets and radiochemical methods were employed to deduce cross sections of actinide isotopes. The experimental data was later reexamined by Kratz et al. [7]. The data reported in this latter paper form the basis of the present comparison with simulations. The two systems have also been modeled within the diffusion model [8] and the dynamical model 6

7 based on the multi-dimensional Langevin equations []. The 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction was experimentally studied at entering projectile energy of 760 MeV with a target thick enough to stop the projectiles. The mid-target energy is 650 MeV. For the purpose of the simulations, the effective target thickness (.8 mg/cm ) was divided in ten equal slices (equivalent to a stack of ten thin targets of 0.8 mg/cm each) and GRZING was run at the equivalent mid-slice energy. The upper panel of Fig. shows a comparison between the cross section obtained by weighting the ten yields of Z = 98 primary products (solid line) and the yield resulting from the effective mid-target energy alone (dashed line.) The weighted distribution is broader because it includes partial distributions at higher energies. The lower panel in Fig. shows the deviation. ssuming a single mid-target energy for this reaction may result in a systematical error of % around the most probable mass, and more than 50% at the extremes. This result justifies the use of the weighted procedure at the expense of considerable computing time. Fig. shows the direct comparison between experimental data and simulations with GRZING-F for actinides with Z=97- in the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction. The experimental data of Ref. [] is plotted as solid symbols, the simulated yield of surviving products as solid lines and the primary product yields as dotted lines. The experimental cross section for 5 Bk is a lower limit, which is denoted by upward arrow in the panel for Z = 97. The agreement for +p, +p and +p transfers is remarkable, whereas the simulation is less successful for larger p transfers. The reason for this discrepancy is that GRZING predicts insufficient primary neutron transfers for these nuclei, as can be seen by comparing the simulated primary and secondary yields. The larger excitation energy moves the surviving product distribution towards lower values. For the simulation to reproduce the yields of Fm and Md nuclei at least and additional neutrons would, on average, be required to be transferred to the primary products. The odd-even effects displayed by the simulations are a direct consequence of the odd-even effects introduced in the calculation of Γ n /Γ f in the de-excitation stage. The yields predicted by the Langevin model [] are shown as dashed lines in Fig. (see Fig. in Ref. [].) The 8 U+ 8 U reaction was experimentally studied at four energies for which independent yields are reported. The targets used were thick enough to stop the projectiles. The entering energies were 059 (.6), 785 (5.7), 68 (.) and 55 (0.65) MeV (mg/cm ), with midtarget energies of 787, 650, 57 and 50 MeV, respectively. Given in parenthesis is the 7

8 effective target thickness. For the purpose of simulations with GRZING-F, the effective target thicknesses were divided in 0,, 5 and slice(s), respectively. In the 059 MeV reaction, the transfer-fission cross section in the first slice is 90% of the transfer cross section and decreases to % in the last slice. Fig. shows the transfer and transfer-fission cross section as a function of mid-slice projectile energy. The dependency of the transferfission cross section on energy is determined by both the excitation energy distribution of the primary fragments and Γ n /Γ f. Fig. 5 shows the results for the 8 U+ 8 U reaction. The simulations do not reproduce the data. GRZING does not predict > +5p transfers at the lowest energy (not shown in Fig. 5 for that reason), and > +6p transfers in the 68 MeV reaction. s in the case of the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction, GRZING seems to underpredict the flow of neutrons in > +p transfers. In the 8 U+ 8 U reaction, at least 5 additional neutrons would on average be required to be transferred to the primary products in order for GRZING-F to reproduce the locations of the maximum yields. The yields predicted by the Langevin model [] for the E lab = 785 MeV reaction are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 5. Comparing both simulations in the two reactions, we may conclude that the Langevin model seem to reproduce fairly well the yields of massive transfers (> +5p), as in the 8 U+ 8 U reaction, whereas GRZING-F seems to better reproduce the yields of a few-nucleon transfers (< +p), as in the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction (see Fig..) If we assume GRZING-F is able to reproduce the yields of < +p transfers reasonably well, then GRZING-F predicts substantial yields of unknown actinides in the 8 U+ 8 U reaction at E lab = 059 MeV. Fig. 6 shows the predicted production cross sections of Z = 9 9 isotopes. Open circles represent unknown actinides. The predicted cross sections that are measurable (> 0 nb) are listed in Table II. B. The 9,,6 Xe+ 8 Cm reaction The 9, Xe+ 8 Cm reactions were measured in order to study the influence of the projectile N/Z ratio in the production of actinides [8]. This work used a thin Cm target and the simulations were therefore done at the mid-target energy of the projectile. The cross sections in the 6 Xe+ 8 Cm reaction were measured by chemical separation with the intent to determine the formation cross sections of unknown actinides [6]. In this case the 8

9 simulation was done at energy E lab = 769, which we have estimated to be the effective mid-target energy for the reaction with entering energy of 790 MeV. Fig. 7 shows the comparison between experiment (solid symbols), the simulation of secondary (solid lines) and primary product yields (dotted lines). The agreement between prediction and measurement is quite reasonable. GRZING-F seems to do a fair job in predicting the cross sections of +p transfer reactions but fails to reproduce the data for larger p transfers and some below-target yields. C. The 6 Xe+ 9 Cf reaction The 6 Xe+ 9 Cf reaction was measured with the intent to study the feasibility of using low-energy multi-nucleon transfer reactions to produce new actinide and transactinide isotopes [9]. Fig. 8 shows a comparison between experimental data and simulation with GRZING-F for the three mid-target energies studied, E lab = 79, 8, 877 MeV, respectively. In this case, the simulations seem to predict the location of the maximum of the mass yields, but fail to predict the absolute values, overestimating the cross sections by an order of magnitude. D. The 6 Xe+ Pu reaction The reaction 6 Xe+ Pu at E lab = 85 MeV was used to produce and study the decay properties of the neutron-rich isotopes Np and Np [7]. In Fig. 9 we show the measured production cross section of Np isotopes compared to the predictions of GRZING-F simulations. The simulations were done at energy E lab = 86 MeV, which we have estimated to be the mid-target energy. The predicted yield pattern is more neutron rich than the observed yield pattern but is similar in shape. E. The 86 Kr+ 8 Cm reaction The 86 Kr+ 8 Cm reaction was studied experimentally in the 980s [6]. Our simulations were done at E lab = 5 and 57 MeV, corresponding to the entrance projectile energy, and E lab = 50 MeV, which we have estimated to be the mid-target energy for the reaction with 9

10 entering energy of 56 MeV. The former two energies are either below or at the interaction barriers (see Table I.) Fig. shows the comparison between experiment and simulations of secondary (solid lines) and primary product yields (dotted lines.) The observed yields are generally well represented by the GRZING-F calculations. IV. PREDICTIONS. The 6 Xe+ 08 Pb reaction The study of the 6 Xe+ 08 Pb reaction was first proposed by Zagrebaev and Greiner [9] as a way of demonstrating how nuclear structure effects could be influencing the flow of nucleons in low-energy multi-nucleon transfer reactions towards both the Z = 8 and N = 6 closed shells. dynamical model based on the multi-dimensional Langevin equations was used and the reaction was studied at E c.m. = 50 MeV. Mass-energy distributions of the 6 Xe+ 08 Pb reaction have been measured recently with a double-arm time-of-flight spectrometer at E c.m. =, 56 and 67 MeV [0]. In Fig. we show the yields from the GRZING-F simulations at energies E c.m. =, 50, 56 and 67 MeV for transfers where unknown N = 6 products are produced. (Unknown isotopes are plotted as open circles, while unknown N = 6 isotopes are plotted as solid circles.) The transfer-fission cross section increases substantially in going from the lowest to the highest energy, from mb to 00 mb, as can be intuitively expected due to the larger excitation energy of the primary products. The simulated yields for 0 77 Ir and 0 78 Pt peak at E c.m. 750 MeV, with cross sections of.7 and µb, respectively. ssuming realistically a beam intensity of 0 pn and a target thickness of mg/cm, the production rates at this energy would be and 0 s, respectively. The range up to the interaction barrier is.75 mg/cm. Hence, the maximum production rate at this energy and beam intensity would be 8 and s, respectively, assuming the cross section between V int and E c.m. varies slowly with energy. The simulations suggest that the 6 Xe + 08 Pb reaction can be an important source of new neutron-rich nuclei near the N = 6 shell.

11 B. The 6 Xe+ 98 Pt reaction The 6 Xe+ 98 Pt reaction at E lab = 9 MeV/ has been proposed as a N = 6 factory based upon calculations using the GRZING code without de-excitation by fission []. If these predictions are correct, the properties of many unknown neutron-rich N = 6 nuclei could be studied with intense 6 Xe beams and thick 98 Pt targets. lthough this reaction has not been studied experimentally, we have performed simulations with GRZING-F in case fission plays a role in the de-excitation of primary reaction products. We find that GRZING-F (assuming J = 0 h) predicts a transfer-fission cross section of 0 mb. Compared to the transfer cross section of 5 b, fission does not seem to play a role if J is low. Even if the transferred angular momentum is large, say J = 0 h, the largest angular momentum transferred predicted by GRZING, the isotopic yields are essentially the same. Hence, fission competition nor angular momentum seem to play a role in this reaction. In Table III we show the maximum production rates for N = 6 isotopes by assuming a beam intensity of pµ and a target thickness equivalent to the range from the entrance energy to the interaction barrier. The simulations suggest that the use of 98 Pt as a N = 6 factory is justified [] and may have a significant advantage over 08 Pb, as the simulated transfer cross section in the former case may be a factor of two higher. C. The Xe+ 8 Cm reaction The Xe+ 8 Cm reaction at E lab = 800 MeV has been proposed as an example reaction to be studied at EURISOL in a series of meetings and workshops [, ]. The presentations suggest that GRZING predicts this reaction has production cross sections of the order of 0. mb for U, mb for Np and Pu, and mb for m neutron-rich isotopes. However, these calculations did not consider neutron decay and thus represent yields of primary fragments only []. Fig. shows the predictions of GRZING-F. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles. The present simulations predict cross sections of the order of µb to nb for the most neutron-rich unknown actinides. The transfer cross section is estimated to be 7 b, whereas the transfer-fission cross section is estimated to be 60 mb indicating that fission is not an important decay mode for the most n-rich products. GRZING does not predict the production of Z = 9 isotopes.

12 The trend as a function of projectile mass is shown in Fig., where we plot the cross section of surviving nuclei of p, p, 0p, +p and +p transfers for the 9,,6, Xe+ 8 Cm at E c.m. /V C =.05. Unknown isotopes are shown as open symbols. If we focus on cases that are well described by GRZING-F (+p transfers), these simulations seem to indicate that a more neutron-rich projectile does indeed produce more neutron-rich products, but the advantage of going from the most neutron-rich stable Xe to a neutron-rich radioactive Xe projectile may not be as pronounced as claimed or hoped. One notes furthermore that the projected intensities of Xe beams at modern radioactive beam facilities are a tiny fraction of the intensities of the stable Xe beams. D. The 9 Kr+ 8 Cm reaction The 9 Kr+ 8 Cm reaction has been simulated at E c.m. /V C =.5 and compared to the 86 Kr+ 8 Cm reaction in Fig.. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles. The 9 Kr simulations predict substantial cross sections for unknown neutron-rich actinide isotopes compared to 86 Kr. For example, the predicted production cross section for 8 Pu is 0.5 mb in the 9 Kr induced reaction, whereas the cross section is 0.0 mb in the 86 Kr induced reaction. Nonetheless, current 9 Kr intensities are far too low for this reaction to be feasible to produce actinides. For example, the maximum production rate of 8 Pu would be 5 per year assuming the current CRIBU beam intensity estimate of 5 s. The simulations also predict the absence of larger p transfers (> +5p) in the 9 Kr induced reaction. E. The 8 U+ 9 Bk reaction The 8 U+ 9 Bk reaction has been suggested to be studied with a mass separator like the Fragment Mass nalyzer (FM) at rgonne National Laboratory. The reason is that there is some evidence that large yields of transfer products could be observed close to 0 [5]. If this is the case, the yields of short-lived neutron-rich actinides could be measured and the theory of Zagrebaev and Greiner [] could be tested. The particular choice, 8 U+ 9 Bk, has been suggested because of convenience; 8 U is the heaviest projectile accelerated by TLS and a thin 9 Bk target has recently become available.

13 Fig. 5 shows the cross section of surviving nuclei predicted by GRZING-F when E c.m. /V C =.05 and.5, respectively. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles. The simulations predict substantial cross sections for unknown U and Pu isotopes at both energies, with the larger cross sections associated with the low-energy reaction due to fission competition. Table IV shows the yields of unknown U and Pu isotopes assuming a beam intensity of 0 pn, a target thickness of 0. mg/cm and one day of irradiation. In the high-energy reaction GRZING-F predicts the production of unknown neutron-rich Md, No and Lr isotopes with cross sections below nb. Under the above assumptions, 6 Md would have a yield of 0, 6 No and 6 Lr nuclei, respectively. V. CONCLUSIONS ND DISCUSSION From the comparison of available experimental data with simulations of GRZING-F we conclude that it is able to reproduce the yields of above-target products of +p, +p and +p transfers reasonably well. The yields of +p, +p and +p transfers in the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction, for example, are exceptionally well reproduced. The yields of products involving larger proton transfers (> +p) start to deviate substantially from experimental data primarily because GRZING seems to underestimate the flow of neutrons. The usefulness of very neutron-rich radioactive beams, however intense, is predicted to be doubtful compared to neutron-rich stable beams, e.g. 86 Kr and 6 Xe, which are far more intense than any predicted intensities of the radioactive beams at planned radioactive beam facilities. GRZING-F predicts substantial yields of unknown actinide isotopes under special conditions. For example, in the low energy U+Bk reaction, several unknown U and Pu isotopes could be produced with measurable yields. The production of unknown N = 6 isotopes is predicted to be better accomplished by the use of the Xe+Pt reaction. The low transfer cross section and the high transfer-fission cross section associated with the Xe+Pb reaction makes it a less attractive candidate. Of course, these are predictions that must be verified by experiment.

14 cknowledgments This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the US Department of Energy under Grant DE-FG06-97ER6. [] W. U. Schröder and J. R. Huizenga, Treatise on Heavy-Ion Science, vol. (Plenum Press, New York, 98). [] V. V. Volkov, Treatise on Heavy-Ion Science, vol. 8 (Plenum Press, New York, 989). [] M. Schädel, J. V. Kratz, H. hrens, W. Brüchle, G. Franz, H. Gäggeler, I. Warnecke, G. Wirth, G. Herrmann, N. Trautmann, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 69 (978), URL org/doi/./physrevlett..69. [] M. Schädel, W. Brüchle, H. Gäggeler, J. V. Kratz, K. Sümmerer, G. Wirth, G. Herrmann, R. Stakemann, G. Tittel, N. Trautmann, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 85 (98), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/./physrevlett [5] D. Lee, H. von Gunten, B. Jacak, M. Nurmia, Y.-f. Liu, C. Luo, G. T. Seaborg, and D. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. C 5, 86 (98), URL [6] K. J. Moody, D. Lee, R. B. Welch, K. E. Gregorich, G. T. Seaborg, R. W. Lougheed, and E. K. Hulet, Phys. Rev. C, 5 (986), URL [7] K. Moody, W. Brüchle, M. Brügger, H. Gäggeler, B. Haefner, M. Schädel, K. Sümmerer, H. Tetzlaff, G. Herrmann, N. Kaffrell, et al., Zeitschrift für Physik tomic Nuclei 8, 7 (987), ISSN , URL [8] R. B. Welch, K. J. Moody, K. E. Gregorich, D. Lee, and G. T. Seaborg, Phys. Rev. C 5, 0 (987), URL [9] K. E. Gregorich, K. J. Moody, D. Lee, W. K. Kot, R. B. Welch, P.. Wilmarth, and G. T. Seaborg, Phys. Rev. C 5, 7 (987), URL PhysRevC.5.7. [] V. I. Zagrebaev, Y. T. Oganessian, M. G. Itkis, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 7, 060

15 (006), URL [] V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 78, 06 (008), URL doi/./physrevc [] V. I. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 87, 0608 (0), URL org/doi/./physrevc [] C. H. Duellmann, private communication. []. Winther, Nuclear Physics 57, 9 (99), ISSN , URL sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ [5]. Winther, Nuclear Physics 59, 0 (995), ISSN , URL sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ [6]. Winther, GRZING version 9 ( nanni/grazing/). [7] C. H. Dasso, G. Pollarolo, and. Winther, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 907 (99), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/./physrevlett [8] L. Corradi, J. H. He, D. ckermann,. M. Stefanini,. Pisent, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. F. Segato, G. Pollarolo, et al., Phys. Rev. C 5, 0 (996), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/./physrevc.5.0. [9] L. Corradi,. M. Stefanini, J. H. He, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. F. Segato, G. Pollarolo, and C. H. Dasso, Phys. Rev. C 56, 98 (997), URL doi/./physrevc [0] L. Corradi,. M. Stefanini, C. J. Lin, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. Pollarolo, and. Winther, Phys. Rev. C 59, 6 (999), URL PhysRevC [] L. Corradi,. M. Vinodkumar,. M. Stefanini, D. ckermann, M. Trotta, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. Pollarolo, F. Cerutti, et al., Phys. Rev. C 6, 060 (00), URL [] G. Montagnoli, S. Beghini, F. Scarlassara,. Stefanini, L. Corradi, C. Lin, G. Pollarolo, and. Winther, The European Physical Journal - Hadrons and Nuclei 5, 5 (00), ISSN 00, URL [] L. Corradi,. M. Vinodkumar,. M. Stefanini, E. Fioretto, G. Prete, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, G. Pollarolo, F. Cerutti, et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 0606 (00), URL 5

16 [] L. Corradi,. Stefanini,. Vinodkumar, S. Beghini, G. Montagnoli, F. Scarlassara, and G. Pollarolo, Nuclear Physics 70, 9 (00), ISSN , 5th International Conference on Radioactive Nuclear Beams, URL article/pii/s [5] L. Corradi, S. Szilner, G. Pollarolo, D. Montanari, E. Fioretto,. Stefanini, J. Valiente-Dobn, E. Farnea, C. Michelagnoli, G. Montagnoli, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and toms 7, Part B, 7 (0), ISSN 0688X, {XVIth} International Conference on ElectroMagnetic Isotope Separators and Techniques Related to their pplications, December 7, 0 at Matsue, Japan, URL [6] L. Corradi, G. Pollarolo, and S. Szilner, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 6, (009), URL [7] R. Schmidt, V. Toneev, and G. Wolschin, Nuclear Physics, 7 (978), ISSN , URL [8].. Farra, Canadian Journal of Physics 7, 50 (996), URL [9] G. G. damian, N. V. ntonenko, and. S. Zubov, Phys. Rev. C 7, 060 (005), URL [0] D. J. Kedziora and C. Simenel, Phys. Rev. C 8, 06 (0), URL org/doi/./physrevc [] R. Vandenbosch and J. Huizenga, Nuclear Fission (cademic Press, New York, 97). [] W. D. Myers and W. J. Świaţecki, Phys. Rev. C 60, 0606 (999), URL org/doi/./physrevc [] P. Moller, J. Nix, W. Myers, and W. Swiatecki, tomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 59, 85 (995), ISSN 0090X, URL pii/s00960x []. J. Sierk, Phys. Rev. C, 09 (986), URL PhysRevC..09. [5]. Ignatyuk, M. Itkis, V. Okolovich, G. Smirenkin, and. Tishin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 6 (976). [6] L. Northcliffe and R. Schilling, tomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 7, 6

17 (970), ISSN 0090X, URL S00960X708006X. [7] J. V. Kratz, M. Schädel, and H. W. Gäggeler, Phys. Rev. C 88, 0565 (0), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/./physrevc [8] C. Riedel and W. Nörenberg, Zeitschrift für Physik toms and Nuclei 90, 85 (979), ISSN , URL [9] V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70 (008), URL org/doi/./physrevlett..70. [0] E. M. Kozulin, E. Vardaci, G. N. Knyazheva,.. Bogachev, S. N. Dmitriev, I. M. Itkis, M. G. Itkis,. G. Knyazev, T.. Loktev, K. V. Novikov, et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 06 (0), URL [] G. Savard, TLS Users Meeting, rgonne National Laboratory, May 5, 0. [] G. Pollarolo, EURISOL nd Town Meeting at bamo, 5 January, 00. [] M. Schädel, IRIS Workshop, GSI, Darmstadt, Germany, March, 0. [] G. Pollarolo, private communication. [5] W. Loveland, private communication. [6] R. Bass, Nuclear Physics, 5 (97), ISSN , URL sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

18 - E c.m. = MeV L=6 h E c.m. =50 MeV L=56 h 6 08 Xe+ Pb - E c.m. =56 MeV L=88 h E c.m. =67 MeV L=9 h E* (MeV) E* (MeV) FIG. : Excitation energy distributions predicted by GRZING in the reaction 6 Xe+ 08 Pb at E c.m. =, 50, 56 and 67 MeV for the partial wave leading to the highest cross section for producing primary product 0 78 Pt 6. The partial wave L is given in the panels. 8

19 TBLE I: List of reactions simulated with GRZING-F. The Coulomb and interaction barriers are calculated within the Bass model [6]. Cross sections are taken from simulations. The last column gives the reference to the experimental data if it exists. Reaction E lab (MeV) E c.m V C (MeV) V int (MeV) E c.m /V C σ transfer (mb) σ transfer fission (mb) Ref. 6 Xe+ 08 Pb [0] [0] [0] 6 Xe+ 98 Pt Kr+ 8 Cm [6] [6] [6] Kr+ 8 Cm Xe+ Pu [6] 9 Xe+ 8 Cm [8] Xe+ 8 Cm [8] 6 Xe+ 8 Cm [6] Xe+ 8 Cm Xe+ 9 Cf [9] [9] [9] 8 U+ 8 U [7] [7] [7] [7] 8 U+ 8 Cm [7] 8 U+ 9 Bk

20 TBLE II: Predicted cross sections of unknown U and Np isotopes in the 8 U+ 8 U reaction at E lab = 059 MeV. Only cross sections > 0 pb are listed. Isotope σ (µb) U.8 U U.7 6 U. 7 U Np.9 6 Np 0. 7 Np 0.5 TBLE III: Maximum production rates of N = 6 isotopes in the 6 Xe+ 98 Pt reaction at E lab = 9 MeV/ simulated with GRZING-F assuming a beam current of pµ and a target thickness equivalent to the range from the entrance energy to the interaction barrier. Isotope R max (s ) 0 78 Pt Ir Os Re.0 0

21 TBLE IV: Yields N of U and Pu isotopes in the 8 U+ 9 Bk reaction at E c.m. = 809 MeV simulated with GRZING-F assuming a beam current of 0 pn, a target thickness of 0. mg/cm and day irradiation. Isotope N Isotope N U Pu U Pu U Pu. 6 7 U Pu U Pu U Pu U.5 5 Pu.

22 a) Z=98 - -σ mid /σ w 0.8 b) FIG. : Panel a) shows a comparison between simulations of the primary yields of Z = 98 products in the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction with GRZING by constructing a weighted cross-section (solid line) and a single simulation at the mid-target energy (dashed line.) The effective target thickness is.8 mg/cm and the weighted simulation is made by assuming a stack of ten identical target slices. Panel b) shows the deviation.

23 Z=97 - Z=98 - Z=99 - Z= U+ Cm, E =760 MeV lab Z= FIG. : Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 8 U+ 8 Cm at entering projectile energy E lab = 760 MeV. Experimental data from Ref. [7] are shown as solid symbols and the predicted cross sections (GRZING-F) as solid lines. The measurement of 5 Bk is a lower limit which is indicated with an arrow. Dotted lines show the predicted yields of primary products. Dashed lines shows the Langevin simulations in Ref. []

24 σ transfer σ transfer-fission E lab (MeV) FIG. : Predicted transfer (GRZING) and transfer-fission cross sections (GRZING-F) as a function of mid-slice energy in the 8 U+ 8 U reaction at entering energy E lab = 059 MeV.

25 E lab =68 MeV Z= U+ U Z=99 Z= E lab =785 MeV - E lab =059 MeV FIG. 5: Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 8 U+ 8 U at E lab = 68, 785 and 059 MeV. Experimental data from Ref. [7] are shown as solid symbols and predicted cross sections (GRZING-F) as solid lines. Dotted lines show the predicted yield of primary products. Dashed lines shows the Langevin simulations in Ref. []. 5

26 - - Z=9 Z=9 - Z= FIG. 6: Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei with Z = 9 9 in the 8 U+ 8 U reaction at entering energy E lab = 059 MeV. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles. 6

27 - 9 Xe+ 8 Cm, E =780 MeV lab - Xe+ Cm, E 8 =805 MeV lab Z=95 6 Xe+ 8 Cm, E =769 MeV lab Z= Z= Z= Z= Z= FIG. 7: Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 9 Xe+ 8 Cm at E lab = 780 MeV, Xe+ 8 Cm at E lab = 805 MeV and 6 Xe+ 8 Cm at E lab = 769 MeV (solid lines) compared to experimental data [6, 8] (solid symbols). Predicted primary product yields are shown as dotted lines. 7

28 6 9 Xe+ Cf E lab =79 MeV - Z=97 Z=98 E lab =8 MeV Z=99 Z=0 - E lab =877 MeV FIG. 8: Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 6 Xe+ 9 Cf at E lab = 79, 8, 877 MeV (solid lines) compared to experimental data [9] (solid symbols). 8

29 6 Xe+ Pu, E =86 MeV lab Z = FIG. 9: Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 6 Xe+ Pu at E lab = 86 MeV (solid lines) compared to experimental data [7] (solid symbols). Predicted primary product yields are shown as dotted lines. 9

30 - Kr+ 86 Cm, E 8 =5 MeV lab Z=95 86 Kr+ 8 Cm, E =57 MeV lab - 86 Kr+ 8 Cm, E =50 MeV lab Z= Z=97 Z=98 Z=99 Z= FIG. : Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 86 Kr+ 8 Cm at E lab = 5, 57 and 50 MeV (solid lines) compared to experimental data [6] (solid symbols). Predicted primary product yields are shown as dotted lines. 0

31 6 08 Xe+ Pb E c.m. = MeV Z=75 Z=76 Z=77 Z=78 E c.m. =50 MeV E c.m. =56 MeV E c.m. =67 MeV FIG. : Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 6 Xe+ 08 Pb at E c.m. =, 50, 56 and 67 MeV. The simulations (GRZING-F) are shown as solid lines. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles and unknown isotopes with N = 6 are shown as solid circles.

32 Xe+ 8 Cm, E c.m. =800 MeV Z=9 Z= Z=9 Z= Z=95 Z=96 Z=97 Z= Z= Z= FIG. : Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction Xe+ 8 Cm at E lab = 800 MeV. The predictions (GRZING-F) are shown as solid lines. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles. Predicted primary product yields are shown as dotted lines.

33 9 Xe+ 8 Cm Z=9 Xe+ 8 Cm 6 Xe+ 8 Cm Xe+ 8 Cm Z= Z= Z= Z= Z= FIG. : Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 9,,6, Xe+ 8 Cm at E c.m. /V i nt =.05. The predictions (GRZING-F) are shown as solid lines. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles.

34 86 8 Kr+ Cm E c.m. /V C =.5 Z=9 Z=98 9 Kr+ 8 Cm Z=9 Z= Z=9 Z=99 Z=9 Z= Z=9 Z=0 Z=9 Z= Z=95 Z= Z=95 Z= Z=96 Z= Z=96 Z= Z=97 Z= Z=97 Z= FIG. : Predicted (GRZING-F) cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 86,9 Kr+ 8 Cm at E c.m. /V C =.5. The predictions (GRZING-F) are shown as solid lines. Unknown isotopes are shown as open circles.

35 8 9 U+ Bk E c.m. =809 MeV Z=9 Z= U+ Bk E c.m. =7 MeV Z=9 Z= Z=9 Z=99 Z=9 Z= Z=9 Z=0 Z=9 Z= Z=95 Z= Z=95 Z= Z=96 Z= Z=96 Z= Z=97 Z= Z=97 Z= FIG. 5: Cross sections of surviving nuclei in the reaction 8 U+ 9 Bk at E c.m. /V C =.05 and.5. The predictions (GRZING-F) are shown as solid lines. Unknown isotopes are shown as 5 open circles.

36 web interface to GRZING-F (grazingf.oregonstate.edu) R. Yanez and W. Loveland Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97. (Dated: January 5, 08) bstract Multi-nucleon transfer reactions have recently attracted attention as a possible path to the arxiv: v [nucl-ex] Jan 08 synthesis of new neutron-rich heavy nuclei. We have studied transfer reactions involving massive nuclei with the intention of understanding if the semi-classical model GRZING coupled to an evaporation and fission competition model can satisfactory reproduce experimental data on transfer reactions in which fission plays a role. We have taken the computer code GRZING and have added fission competition to it (GRZING-F) using our current understanding of Γ n /Γ f, fission barriers and level densities. In this short article we describe a web interface to GRZING-F hosted in PCS numbers: 5.70.Hi,5.60.Je,5.85.-w,..Lx Corresponding author: ricardo.yanez@calel.org

37 I. INTRODUCTION This article is a complement to the article by R. Yanez and W. Loveland, Predicting the production of neutron-rich heavy nuclei in multinucleon transfer reactions using a semiclassical model including evaporation and fission competition, GRZING-F []. References regarding the GRZING model and the details on the coupling to the evaporation and fission competition model can be found in this article. II. THE WEB INTERFCE GRZING-F is accessible to the scientific community via the web interface hosted in It starts with a GRZING calculation in which the Z and of the projectile and target, the projectile lab energy in MeV and the type of reaction remnants to follow; either the target-like fragments (recoils) or the projectile-like fragments (ejectiles) are given (see Fig. ). Low- and high-lying (giant resonances) collective modes are considered in all GRZING calculations. FIG. : The first stage of the GRZING-F calculation. The default case is the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction at E lab = 760 MeV in which the recoils are selected. typical GRZING calculation takes hours to complete. During this period, the interface is prevented from running the same case again (Z, and E), but up to (four) distinct cases can be calculated simultaneously. The run-time window (see Fig. ) shows the elapsed time of the calculation and is refreshed every 5 seconds.

38 FIG. : The run-time window of the GRZING calculation shows the elapsed time. Being a deterministic model, each GRZING calculation is saved in a special folder in case the same calculation is requested again, saving considerable computation time. The second stage of GRZING-F (see Fig. ) follows the de-excitation of the selected primary fragments using the Monte Carlo method. maximum of,000,000,000 de-excitations can be simulated in each run. Being a Monte Carlo simulation, the yield of each secondary fragments will depend on N. Therefore, this stage can be performed many times, each time with a different random number seed, until the desired statistical uncertainty in the results is achieved. FIG. : The second stage of the GRZING-F calculation. The simulations are implemented using Message-Passing Interface (MPI) with a maximum of (four) processors. Only one parallel computing calculation is allowed at a given time. The standard case (interface default), 8 U+ 8 Cm at 760 MeV, 0,000,000 recoil

39 de-excitations, takes about 0 seconds, whereas the maximum number of de-excitations takes about 5 minutes. It is possible to skip the second stage and consider only the GRZING results without neutron evaporation. The calculations presented in Ref. [] use the default set of parameters; Thomas-Fermi fission barriers [] and excitation energy dependent level densities with fade-out shell corrections []. If any other prescription for the level densities is desired, the shell corrections are turned off. We have added the option of selecting the classical Fermi-gas level densities used in low (/8) and high excitation energy (/) calculations, and temperature dependent level densities []. The Finite Range Droplet Model fission barriers of Sierk [5] is also selectable. The output of the calculations is the total and fission cross sections in mb. Other details of the calculation are displayed, like the seed number and the input parameters that were used (see see Fig. ). FIG. : Output of the GRZING-F calculation. plot of the yield σ() in PDF format can be downloaded (see Figs. 5 and 6) as well as a data file in SCII. The data file contains three columns; Z, and σ(z, ) of the primary fragments or the de-excited remnants, respectively.

40 U+ Cm, E =760 MeV lab primary yield Z=89 Z=90 Z=9 Z=9 Z=9 Z=9 Z=95 Z=96 Z=97 Z=98 Z=99 Z=0 Z= Z= Z= FIG. 5: Primary yield in the default GRZING-F calculation, the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction at 760 MeV U+ Cm, E =760 MeV lab Z=89 Z=90 Z=9 Z=9 Z=9 Z=9 Z=95 Z=96 Z=97 Z=98 Z=99 Z=0 Z= Z= Z= FIG. 6: Predicted yield of post neutron evaporation products in the 8 U+ 8 Cm reaction at 760 MeV. 5

41 [] R. Yanez and W. Loveland, Phys. Rev. C 9, 0608 (05), URL doi/./physrevc [] W. D. Myers and W. J. Świaţecki, Phys. Rev. C 60, 0606 (999), URL org/doi/./physrevc []. Ignatyuk, M. Itkis, V. Okolovich, G. Smirenkin, and. Tishin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 6 (976). [] J. P. Lestone, Phys. Rev. C 5, 8 (995), URL PhysRevC.5.8. [5]. J. Sierk, Phys. Rev. C, 09 (986), URL PhysRevC